Right, wrong, or just playing the game?

[Steve Bullman]

20 minutes ago, AHPP said:

 

As much as army life might be good for a lot of people and might offset some social disharmony (ie taking tearaways away from British council estates and putting them in Iraqi council estates), it produces people who only know how to function with top-down power structures and who will vehemently reject individualism as adults. Weighting democracy in favour of that system is like when something with water in tips over. It starts going, the water runs to the side, weights it more and makes sure it goes.

Plus, fighting mindset combined with the standard attributes of the public sector (corruption, mob mentality, lack of accountability etc) is doubly dangerous. Look at Stanford Prison. Imagine if those kids, instead of being told to stop at the end of the week, had been given medals and promotions. Those are the Guantanamo guards of the future, pissing on a caged arab with broken hands and feet. 

 

On army raising, I watched The Hunger Games yesterday. It's set in a 'dystopian future' where the rich live in the capital city and the poor live in 12 outside districts and are only allowed food if they work. Every year, the rich pick a couple of poor kids from each district and make them fight to the death so they can make money from televising it. There is of course a buoyant support industry in arming them, training them etc. It would have been a less depressing watch if it wasn't exactly how countries currently constitute armies.

I'd argue the opposite. The forces do a pretty good job of picking out the born leaders and improving on them. The ones who are less inclined/suited to lead will be more like as you describe, and that will likely be their heirarchical position through life whether in the forces or civvy street. 

[trigger_andy]

9 minutes ago, AHPP said:

 

Don't you work for Halliburton?

In Norway yes. In Norway where I have personal observations of young lads leaving their apprenticeships for their two year service and coming back more mature and responsible adults. 
 

But having lived in Norway my empirical views of the youths there is significantly better than in the U.K. I put this heavily down to the discipline, focus, and skills they learn during their two years of conscription.

 

Having spoken with a number of colleagues who have been conscripted they tend to only have positive things to say.

 

May I ask the background of how you personally formed your view point? 

Edited May 18, 2023 by trigger_andy

[trigger_andy]

5 minutes ago, doobin said:

Would you not say that the Norwegian mindset is very different from the a British one?

 

Basically, none of what I believe in seems like it would work here in the UK as we have such a sick society. 

The instilling of discipline, giving disillusioned youths stuck in a cycle of sink council estates, Country Lines and other gangs life skills and showing them a life they could not previously comprehend whilst showing them other parts of the country and potentially the world is just what our sick youths in society desperately need. 
 

It works in Norway and I believe it would significantly more so in the U.K. 

[AHPP]

18 minutes ago, Steve Bullman said:

I'd argue the opposite. The forces do a pretty good job of picking out the born leaders and improving on them. The ones who are less inclined/suited to lead will be more like as you describe, and that will likely be their heirarchal position through life whether in the forces or civvy street. 

 

And the vote of an arsehole lance corporal would count the same as anyone else's, except there would be an artificial prevalence of them (in the doobinocratic system we're discussing).

Edited May 18, 2023 by AHPP

[Steve Bullman]

1 minute ago, AHPP said:

 

And the vote of an arsehole lance corporal would count the same as anyone else's, except there would be an artificial prevalence of them voting (in the doobinocratic system we're discussing).

You're too clever for me...don't quite understand where you're going with that or the relevance?

[GarethM]

I don't think he wants anyone to have a vote, which actually scares me thinking someone actively wants to scrap that hard earned right.

 

As the saying goes if you don't vote you don't have a right to criticise.

[AHPP]

6 hours ago, AHPP said:

 

And the vote of an arsehole lance corporal would count the same as anyone else's, except there would be an artificial prevalence of them voting (in the doobinocratic system we're discussing).

 

6 hours ago, Steve Bullman said:

You're too clever for me...don't quite understand where you're going with that or the relevance?

 

Supreme Chancellor doobin is in power. Voting age is 21 for civilians and 18 for soldiers. Ten 18-year-olds join the army. Two years pass. One was a good kid and becomes a good man. The remaining nine were pricks and stay pricks. The ten of them are 20-years-old and have ten votes that civilian 20-year-olds don't have. This cadre of 90% pricks exert power over everyone else in the country. There are no 20-year-old civilians to vote against them because they can't vote.

Democracy gives bad people the same power as good people. Starship Troopers doobinocracy gives them more.

Edited May 18, 2023 by AHPP

[trigger_andy]

21 minutes ago, AHPP said:

 

And the vote of an arsehole lance corporal would count the same as anyone else's, except there would be an artificial prevalence of them (in the doobinocratic system we're discussing).

Id take the vote of an 'arsehole lance corporal' over the vote of a feral street rat any day of the week. With Conscription, over time, the number of  'arsehole lance corporal's' would increase and potentially the number of feral street rats would decline. 

[trigger_andy]

22 minutes ago, Steve Bullman said:

You're too clever for me...don't quite understand where you're going with that or the relevance?

I think he's intently obfuscating. When pressed he'll claim to be playing the devils advocate whilst I can only assume nodding sagely to himself.  

[Mark J]

7 hours ago, doobin said:

Interesting question. I see where you are going with this, and I would counter you by pointing out the existing rights that you currently gain when you turn 21. They all involve a very large amount of responsibility- adopting a child, supervising a learner driver and gaining your commercial pilots license. 
 

You could argue that voting is not as important as the above, and given our current shitshow of a system I’d be inclined to agree with you. What I would like, however, is a society where people take their civic responsibilities seriously, and as such I’d support PR with a voting age of 21 so that people would have some actual life experience rather than being swayed by parties (admittedly usually left wing, there’s my bias) promising freebies. 
 

I’d keep the age of enlistment at 16 with parents consent and 18 otherwise. The army is a great force for good in many otherwise troubled young lives. In recognition of their service to this country, I’d also have an exemption from the voting age for service members. You could of course then argue that public sector workers should be given earlier votes also, but I would limit to to those who sign up to risk their lives for this country. 
 

 

I agree that proportional representation is the only fair way to run a vote.
 

Do you think we should raise the age threshold for National Insurance to 21 too? My point is that you have to draw a line somewhere, and if it's to do with the perceived maturity to make important decisions which will affect society in general then that line should, I think, be a consistent one.

 

Many sources reckon that brain development only completes in the mid-twenties - which is too late for many things but an interesting thought nonetheless.