Increased political privileges for veterans

[sephodwyrm]

So what do you guys think of this?
I personally believe that people who risked life and limb for their country should be given bonuses in political rights (perhaps privileged voting, additional votes or the right to vote for higher offices). And then again, this should only operate in a volunteer army.

[hellheaven1987]

No, why??

Nobody ask them to join army.

[Mikelus Trento]

So a person who had some little physical infirmity that kept him from the military would never have the same voting rights as a vet?

What about if you went in and were gay and got kicked out? Are they SOL too?

Or how about a vet who was in during a time of no conflict?

Are you for McCain perchance?

[Pontifex Maximus]

Moved to the academy.

[sephodwyrm]

So a person who had some little physical infirmity that kept him from the military would never have the same voting rights as a vet?

Vast majority of the voting college do not have physical infirmities that will keep them from the military. Privileges a.k.a. bonuses are NOT meant to be rights from the start. I am not saying disabled people should have less rights. I am saying that veterans should have MORE rights.

What about if you went in and were gay and got kicked out? Are they SOL too?

This is not an argument about the topic. Treatment of homosexuals in the military is another subject on military culture etc.

Or how about a vet who was in during a time of no conflict?

If the tour of duty or length of service was met then they're still technically veterans. Signing up for the military is already taking a big risk for personal safety and sacrifice of individual rights during that period of service.

Are you for McCain perchance?

No.
I simply believe that people who risked their lives "defending us and our sorry liberal arses" should be given the respect they deserve irregardless of the reasons they went to war. Its natural psychology - you'd care for things that sacrificed dearly and endured hardships for.

Nobody ask them to join army.

Which makes their choice even more respectable, I suppose.

I am only surprised that no one said that this would be biased for the male gender.

[Plebeian]

This is a terrible idea. The whole foundation for voting in America is that one person equals one vote. No special privileges for anyone. If soldiers get extra privileges than why not police officers and firemen? What about people with college educations? Where does it stop when you say one block of voters gets special priority over another?

[hellheaven1987]

Which makes their choice even more respectable, I suppose.

Na, alot of people join army because various reasons; but seldom people join it for "protecting my country". (not none, but very few)

[sephodwyrm]

The whole foundation for voting in America is that one person equals one vote.

Felons don't have a vote. Neither do minors. So that foundation is already shaken in the US of A. And I'm not focusing on the US of A in general. I'm talking about the general world. And plus, I personally do not believe 1 person 1 vote. Men are not born equal nor are they made equal. They should enjoy the same fundamental rights to life, property and fulfillment of their potential. But the choice of political candidacy should not be considered a right, but a degree of IMPOSITION. You are imposing your will over the will of other people with the vote.

And again, I don't think that many people (myself included) have a good grasp of statehood until we sacrificed something for it.

No special privileges for anyone.

If you have disqualification for people based on criminal history and age why not give privileges for people that actually sweated it out and risked something for a vague figment of common identity?

Where does it stop when you say one block of voters gets special priority over another?

When we can actually discuss the nature and makeup of the electoral college instead of using "fear of everyone getting privileges". Everyone will be getting privileges when everyone serves in the army and thereby becoming veterans of some military service.

To sum it up:
I personally believe that a Central American that signed up for the US Army to get that Green card deserves it. But that's another topic. If you risk life and security, sacrifice individual rights and freedoms for a nation state, then I think the nation state should also provide some degree of recompense.

[Thanatos]

No, because that creates elitism, and that's exactly what we tried to get away from, at least in America.

[sephodwyrm]

because that creates elitism

that's exactly what we tried to get away from, at least in America.

Looks at present day America.

Hmmm....

Elitism is when you have an established clique of elites that safeguards their social strata and prevents other people from entering. Just look at it: to be there on the top (in the US at least) you probably should have graduated from an Ivy League college, have a law or political science degree, smooth talk, grovel, beg and swindle for votes. All these are cost and social inhibitory and is precisely the barrier established by the present Elites. The Military is the opposite. The Army recruits irregardless of social backing. If anything, giving veterans additional bonuses should actually allow a greater degree of social fluidity.

The aim is not to create social elites, but to create a more responsible electorate college. Political privileges that I have outlined deal with the vote and not their opportunities to become politically established. Its probably harder to cheat and swindle an individual that stared down the barrel of guns both ways.

[Thanatos]

Political elitism is a given with any society over time. We don't need more of it, man.

[sephodwyrm]

We don't need more of it, man.

Which is why I proposed a means of improving the electorate college that's continuously feeding this elitism.

Sinecures and political parasites should be gotten rid of. And I wouldn't mind Elitism if it works for the benefit of the nation state. In the US, however, I see that Elitism (or at least the persistence and difficulties posed by the established bureaucracy) is working against the benefits of the US. And I can say almost the same thing in Taiwan.

If you look carefully at Elitism, its biggest enemy is Egalitarianism. And the military is Egalitarian.

[Каие]

I don;t understand...a veteran gets two votes?

[sephodwyrm]

a veteran gets two votes?

Depends on the situation. A veteran could also vote directly for the president or higher level of offices normally not allowed by the ordinary voter. For example, in China villagers could only vote for their village head in certain countries. But with my proposal in mind, veterans could vote for provincial governors directly.

Multiple votes is only one of the means of implementing the political privilege that is under discussion here.

[Каие]

No way that's completely undemocratic.

[sephodwyrm]

No way that's completely undemocratic.

How so?
It would be undemocratic if the military establishment deposes the egalitarian recruitment and imposes crazy restrictions.

Then again, I would like to hear about your criteria for democracy and how veterans being given privileges is undemocratic. The pretext of this happening is the public voting for it, and then it would regarded as a democratic extension. I personally believe that elitism is already established in many parts of the developed and democratic nation states, and the way to combat this is probably to allow the average bloke (with no social or economic opportunity to get onto the political stage) but has the gift of good health to be given the abilities to counter the growing elitism.

[Каие]

Everyone only gets one vote. What do we start giving extra votes to the Foreign service, and secret service? where does it end?

One man, One vote.

[sephodwyrm]

Everyone only gets one vote. What do we start giving extra votes to the Foreign service, and secret service? where does it end?

One man, One vote.

Obviously didn't read the whole thread.
So when would other men such as felons, really smart minors in PhD programs and non resident aliens get theirs?

[Samuel Adams]

Everything starts as a 'way to help vets.' look at welfare- that was started as a WWI vet relief program. Social Security numbers came from soldiers serial numbers (or the general system, and now we only use SS numbers in the Armed Forces).

No one is going to say no on these topics to the poor veterans...

Well, some will. Look, I'm a vet, but I don't go looking for handouts. And I can say there's some vets that are more stupid (literally) than boxes... I mean, I've met some very intelligent people in the service, and some that were just dumb as bricks.

Bottom line is, Veterans of the US Armed forces were fighting for the United States. They swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. They are not supermen, they are not special, or set apart in any way from the clerk at the grocery store, or the manager at the mall, or the doctor in the ER. They are special in that they fight to defend our liberty... A liberty that promotes equality.

I would be insulted if anyone insinuated my vote counted for more than a non-armed services vet. You have undermined everything I worked for, and lost friends for. And that is not something I take lightly, and neither should any other proud US Citizen.

Felons don't have a vote. Neither do minors. So that foundation is already shaken in the US of A. And I'm not focusing on the US of A in general. I'm talking about the general world. And plus, I personally do not believe 1 person 1 vote. Men are not born equal nor are they made equal. They should enjoy the same fundamental rights to life, property and fulfillment of their potential. But the choice of political candidacy should not be considered a right, but a degree of IMPOSITION. You are imposing your will over the will of other people with the vote.

Disgusting. We are all born, created, if you will, equal. There is chance that a baby born in a top notch hospital will die, just as one born on a kitchen table (and I have numerous family members born on tables). Our family's position affects our status; how pampered we are, how hard we have to work for what we get, etc.

The entire idea behind our 1 person 1 vote system is one that our founders put down as a way to put down the aristocracy of old Europe and to promote the idea that when it comes to the polls, the man who owns a merchant fleet has the same rights that a man fixing fishing nets does. That is a premier reason for the system.

And where do you think the old Aristocracy came from? Warlords and warriors of post-Roman times! It evolved, using some Roman aristocratic systems and some new that created the Feudal system. Are you insinuating that you'd like to see the US dive to the depths of Feudalism, where the warrior controls our day to day, because he's considered to be worth more than the man growing the corn?

And again, I don't think that many people (myself included) have a good grasp of statehood until we sacrificed something for it.

What are you referring to here?

If you have disqualification for people based on criminal history and age why not give privileges for people that actually sweated it out and risked something for a vague figment of common identity?

The age is a maturity factor. If you had 3, 4, 8, 10, 14, even 16 year olds voting you'd get the most chaotic and corrupt election process ever. Parents pressing their kids to vote for one person, teachers acting as the demagogues of candidates, using a child's easily manipulated brain to sway elections their way (oh yes, this would be good for any teachers' lobbies...). That is common sense. Not even comparable, in any world, to a Volunteer soldier, who goes to defend the liberty that his fathers fought so hard to preserve, that man can be equal, and man can be free.

The Felons, well, the felons lost that right and I don't agree with it, but that's the way it is. Just because a guy got drunk and kicked somebody's butt, and had a firearm on him isn't a reason to take his vote.

When we can actually discuss the nature and makeup of the electoral college instead of using "fear of everyone getting privileges". Everyone will be getting privileges when everyone serves in the army and thereby becoming veterans of some military service.

NO. The reason for the fact that the US Army in 1790 being two infantry regiments and one artillery regiment (all dispersed among the frontier (infantry) and the coast (artillery) was that the founders did NOT WANT a large standing army. They did not WANT everyone to be a soldier. I like to think I was a soldier so that ten of you didn't have to be. Or a hundred. And soldiers know that.

We now have a new breed of young soldier that thinks we owe them something because they wore a uniform. We owe combat vets rehabilitation, all the pay they were promised, and a mighty "thank you!" from all of us. They are a volunteer army; they volunteered to do what they do, knowing what they were getting in to.

To sum it up:
I personally believe that a Central American that signed up for the US Army to get that Green card deserves it. But that's another topic. If you risk life and security, sacrifice individual rights and freedoms for a nation state, then I think the nation state should also provide some degree of recompense.

Yes. They should. A mighty thank you, a promise to not have to see war again for a large period of time (instead of recycling troops into continual front line duty), insuring they are set financially, mentally, and scholarly to have a successful post-military life with their wives and children.

For your average American Armed Forces vet, the peace and tranquility, coupled with the knowledge you helped preserve the US's Liberty for your kids, grandkids, and neighbors, is all the 'recompense' needed.

[sephodwyrm]

Everything starts as a 'way to help vets.' look at welfare- that was started as a WWI vet relief program. Social Security numbers came from soldiers serial numbers (or the general system, and now we only use SS numbers in the Armed Forces).

No one is going to say no on these topics to the poor veterans...

Well, some will. Look, I'm a vet, but I don't go looking for handouts. And I can say there's some vets that are more stupid (literally) than boxes... I mean, I've met some very intelligent people in the service, and some that were just dumb as bricks.

Bottom line is, Veterans of the US Armed forces were fighting for the United States. They swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. They are not supermen, they are not special, or set apart in any way from the clerk at the grocery store, or the manager at the mall, or the doctor in the ER. They are special in that they fight to defend our liberty... A liberty that promotes equality.

I would be insulted if anyone insinuated my vote counted for more than a non-armed services vet. You have undermined everything I worked for, and lost friends for. And that is not something I take lightly, and neither should any other proud US Citizen.

Well, obviously you care more about the nation and that's precisely the reason why your vote "technically" should count more than those that vote to get freebies. Not being insinuatingly insulting, but I feel that the myth of one man one vote is not really helping the US at all. I don't have any fantasies about this measure being implemented by the US, but it could work in other nations who has a much lower starting "freedom level" if you might want to call it that way.

I, for one, don't think that my vote (if I ever get one) should count equal than the person that knowingly risked their greatest property (life) to safeguard our rights. And if I feel that I should earn that privilege, I can always sign up for service. A granted privilege is a right. What I'm talking about is an earned privilege that you obtain after service (not during, hence the word veterans instead of soldiers). In the context of things, the objective is to:

1. do away with national service and get into a volunteer army
- by providing additional benefits
2. increase number of willing recruits (esp required in the US) in the volunteer army
3. counter the established corporate elites and bureaucracy by providing an egalitarian organization with a degree of power

If there's a liberty that promotes equality, I don't think I am enjoying that simply as a result of my birthplace. As I have said before, an earned citizenship is much more respected, IMO, than one granted as a right.

Disgusting. We are all born, created, if you will, equal. There is chance that a baby born in a top notch hospital will die, just as one born on a kitchen table

I disagree with that.
Some are born with disabilities and some are born dead. Some are born male and some are born female. Physical and mental differences already show that we're not made equal. Ever know why infant mortality rates went down? Because more babies are born in the hospital. That defeats your analogy. Men are not born equal. What we can give them is equal rights. Statement: Men are not born equal, but they can be made equal in their opportunities to attain fulfillment of their potentials.

Are you insinuating that you'd like to see the US dive to the depths of Feudalism

Feudalism requires a feudal population. History is progressive, not cyclic. What I'm proposing is one of the few means I see capable of countering the new corporate elite establishment. Maybe you'd think that I'm asking more of the armed forces veterans, and that is probably just the case. We've asked them to fight for us. Now we're asking them to continue the fight politically. And probably with each other since the body of veterans is NOT a monolithic bloc.

And I don't think the public is going to allow the establishment of a new Aristocracy. Military aristocracy was achieved since the veterans obtained land, wealth or power with their prowess (obtained via armor, horse and lance) or had that from the start. They were already economic and social elites. In the modern era, the state now pays for the equipment of the soldier, and therefore that reset to feudalism argument is defeated by the fact that the public pays for the guns and decides when and where the soldier could be armed. This has never existed during the Middle Ages.

The age is a maturity factor.

It is also a senility factor. It works both ways. We might as well say that we make mental maturity as the criteria and do away with age following this line of reasoning. Fact is that one man does not have one vote. I just want to make sure that those who care can make the most out of it.

insuring they are set financially, mentally, and scholarly to have a successful post-military life

So if you are ok with granting them large amounts of financial support, health care and University admissions, why are you against giving them a louder political mouthpiece?

As I said, maybe the US wouldn't need that. But a country like China might be on the right track by granting political privileges to people in national service, armed or otherwise. Don't be so US-centric. There are other parts of the world that has zit freedom compared.