Floridaman
Well-known member
I mean that was the whole purpose of why the elite were once expected to actually be in the military in their youth.... they would either learn discipline or die, either at the hands of their enemies or their comrades.
United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread
- Thread starter Tyzuris
- Start date
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Why just elites? There is considerable merit to the notion of a universal citizen's militia, and there is likewise evident good sense to the notion of having your militiamen well-trained. The obvious solution is to require a period of military training and service as a prerequisite to full legal adulthood/citizenship.
And I favour the Heinleinian model here, i.e. "you want to vote, you do your tour of duty first".
This would involve all would-be citizens undergoing extensive training (not just combat training, but essentially a sturdy civic curriculum that produces dilligent, skilled, educated patriots). Following this training, a period of service that can be carried out in various ways, with some requiring shorter periods than others. For instance, active military duty for one year, or peace-time domestic militia duty for several years. (Because the latter would be much less arduous, much less risky, and also inherently part-time).
After you've completed this, you are awarded the right to vote and to hold office.
(Elsewhere, I've talked about the merits of having immigrants meet other, far more extensive criteria before they can join the citizenry, of course. What I propose here would apply to all natural-born denizens. It would essentially turn "citizenship" into a category for which you have to qualify. But do note that, like Heinlein, I believe everyone must be able to attain that status! Even if you're blind and born without legs... we'll find something for you to do, so you can prove your willingness and dedication. If you do that, you deserve citizenship.)
It may be important to note that I am not adovocating for the misguided Spartan "agoge" model, which may appear superficially similar, but which is fundamentally different in both execution and intent. The Spartan model was based on physical fitness, whereas my idea is based on civic responsibility and duty. The Spartan model was centred on actively oppressing (and killing) members of the servile helot class, and thus was designed to train oppressors. My model is aimed at creating responsible citizens who are instilled with a sense of duty to protect their countrymen.
Last edited:
It's a nice idea, but one glaring flaw that have been pointed out to me is this: What's stopping the rich from simply bribing the law-makers to grant them and their children automatically citizenship? For that matter, what would stop them from paying for that citizenship? Corruption is always going to be a problem.
Another issue is, how likely is it that these things nurture the values we actually want? For all we know, these tours could turn out like Full Metal Jacket where one idiot gets singled out and marked as the millstone of the group.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Corruption is always a problem. That's no reason to say "well, let's just try nothing, then, since it'll go wrong anyway".
We should consider that a hard requirement like the natural born citizen clause or the consitututional age minumum does effectively restrict access to the Presidency. No matter how rich some oligarch is, no matter how much he puts in the coffers of the establishment UniParty, he can't just "buy" the Presidency if he's young and/or foreign-born. He'd really have to get the Constitution changed, first.
If you put things in there, and phrase them with the diligence and care they deserve, it becomes very difficult to just outright side-step the requirements. You'd have to be very careful, though, and ensure that things are written down very clearly. (For instance, you have to make sure that someone can't just come up with a short-and-easy form of "service" that basically grants citizenship for no effort. And you have to specify that everybody doing their stint of service has to start at the bottom, and rich people can't just get a cushy "officers' track" alternative.)
And eventually, it'll still be abused and perverted, yes. Because that's just human nature and the relentless march of entropy at work. But you can get a pretty good thing going, and you can have it last for as much as a few centuries. That's nothing to spit at!
That's why I stress the typically Heinleinian (Starship Troopers) element that there can be many different forms of service. The point is that it has to be hard work, it has to demand real effort. Someone who's just totally unfit as a soldier doesn't have to be a soldier. We'll find something that you can do. But you have to do it.
We're not training mindless killing machines here, against their will. That's the opposite of the point.
Last edited:
mrttao
Well-known member
We already have that without military.
School and colleges are very focused on created "educated patriots". Heck they go a step further and try to create "educated zealots", who avidly worship at the alter of wokeism, communism, environmentalism, and a few other isms.
The issue is not a lack of "education", the issue is who controls what is being educated into young gullible minds.
Also the military is not the idea place for "education"
Skallagrim
Well-known member
That's not "a step further", that's "the complete opposite".
The fact that the radical left eagerly indoctrinates people only offers additional reasons to thoroughly and decently educate people into civically-minded patriots with critical thinking skills.
If that's the issue, then you should logically support my proposal. Because taking charge of that issue is precisely what I advocate. If you oppose doing that, then you implicitly say that educating (or "educating") the populace should exclusively be left to your ideological enemies. How is that a sensible proposition?
Last edited:
mrttao
Well-known member
all "education" is brainwashing's. the only difference is what you teach
Can't be taught. and is a euphemism for brainwashing
I would however support making the attempt anyways.
Perhaps renaming schools into child indoctrination centers and specifically explicitly teaching classes whose entire focus is "everyone is trying to mind control you" would help. but I somehow doubt it, probably will create dunning-kruger people who are sure that everyone EXCEPT them is brainwashed
I don't oppose seizing control from the left.
I am pointing out your suggestion is based on the flawed grasp of the world and what is happening right now.
Also, I am pointing out that your suggestion forgot to address the fact that woke cult indoctrinate people from birth. So your suggestion of bolting on some right wing counter indoc at age 18 is rather weak compared to going after the real indoc centers of the K12 education system
Skallagrim
Well-known member
I think we're just not going to agree on this topic.
mrttao
Well-known member
Shrug.
But can we at least agree that before trying to implement your idea of "teach critical thinking at age 18 in the military" you should first deprive the woke cult of their control of the K12 education? As the latter should really be a prerequisite for the former
Blasterbot
Well-known member
there is a difference in teaching how to think and what to think. but i agree that i don't trust schools to teach anything other than indoctrination.
Check out Breaking Points for another good news source. Saggar is a moderate right winger and Krystal is a typical lefty, but actually kinda smart and really hot.
They run a good YouTube show.
f1onagher
Well-known member
Saagar is a very moderate right winger and Krystal is Kyle Kelensky with less knowledge and more social skills, but yes, its actually a good show and I love when they and Ben Shapiro are covering the same subject as its a good way to cover the bias of both parties.
Yeah, I like that they try to give you actual facts, and will cover stuff that isn't just the mainstream news cycle of the day crap.
Did I mention Krystal is really hot?
Saggar seems to be going a little more left over time, but he's not too bad.
Typhonis
Well-known member
How's this for a wake up call? - The Funny Conservative
Inflation isn't at 8.5%.... Apparently, it's closer to 17% if we calculated it the way they did in Carter's presidency.
Inflation isn't at 8.5%.... Apparently, it's closer to 17% if we calculated it the way they did in Carter's presidency.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Government? Fudging the numbers? Say it ain't so!
mrttao
Well-known member
17% is still understated.
Remember, that's just year over year, it doesn't show you how much it's really gone up in the past 2 years, 5 years or decade.
mrttao
Well-known member
I know. Here is real inflation:
The Most Important Money Statistic…. Ever.
So, you don’t have to be an economist to interpret this. I’ll explain it in layman’s terms without any fancy jargon.
medium.datadriveninvestor.com
2020-01-06 dollars in circulation*: 3.984 trillion
2020-04-27 dollars in circulation*: 4.899 trillion
2020-05-04 dollars in circulation*: 15.982 trillion
2021-01-01 dollars in circulation*: 18.185 trillion
*according to the federal reserve:
that was 226% inflation in less than a month during 2020.
real actual inflation not the lies printed by media.
Total actual real 2020 inflation is 356% according to the feds own numbers.
Critically important is that on 2021-01-01 the federal reserve stopped sharing this information with the public! So any further real inflation is now a secret while they lie and claim it is "really only 8.5%" and controlled opposition outlets like fox news claim it is really 17%. It isn't. It was 356% in 2020 and a secret amount in 2021
Last edited:
It must be so terrible for the Fed to have to work in an environment where people actually watch and judge their performance.