|
LadyEllen -> RE: Guns, the border, Iraq, and Starship Troopers (4/30/2007 2:30:59 AM)
|
Firstly PG, welcome home - at least I'm assuming youre back home in that youre writing here.
Your idea (or Heinlein's idea) seems a reasonable one, and its one I've long considered to be worthwhile. However, there are problems with it which stick out like a sore thumb to me.
The first problem is that if one is to propose universal service of some sort, then one runs into the issue that, however un-PC it might be, a significant part of any society is simply too damned lazy or too damned stupid to be of any use whatsoever in public service. In fact, they are a liability. Whilst such people were of "use" in the days when cannon fodder was required (Britain made heavy use of such social elements for this purpose), public service activities nowadays require a certain degree of education and motivation which is lacking in much of the population.
The second problem, running on from that first, is that the services into which hundreds of thousands would be drafted annually, cannot use them for anything worthwhile - even those who are not too lazy or stupid. We found this in the UK during the 50s and 60s when we still had conscription, that young men would go away for a year or two and come back considering it wasted time, which it was. Aside from a stint painting coal white in Malaysia, my uncle spent his time as a conscript doing equally worthless tasks to complete the time in the UK, and I suspect the troopship to Malaysia was a way of the high command getting rid of people for a few months, rather than their presence as conscripts in that country being of any military value. I base that latter comment on the fact that a guerilla war to overthrow the Brits was going on in Malaysia at the time, yet neither he nor his mates ever saw action or were issued weapons/ammunition.
The third problem is the tying in of service to the acquisition of a vote. If the US is anything alike with the UK, then a significant portion of the population do not use their vote as things stand - not abstaining through protest, but simply because they see no value to voting and the entire democratic process we have in the west. A vote is not seen as an important or relevant part of life for this part of the population, and it is therefore unlikely they would be willing to serve in order to acquire one.
The only way I could see such a scheme working, would be to start from a position of total disenfranchisement of the population as things are now - which of course is unlikely to pass as an act of law, given that those who are now presently permitted to vote and do use their vote would never support their own disenfranchisement. Indeed, even those who do not presently vote might by way of such a proposition finally find the value of their capacity and increase the level of defeat for such a bill.
Supposing total disenfranchisement were to pass into law, then one could start again with the service for the vote scheme. This however would be ridiculously unfair to those of us who are now well past service age, have never served and could never reacquire a vote.
As I mentioned though, I do support the notion overall, which is how I came to the conclusion that the way such a proposal could be made to work, would be by way of weighted votes. We start from the position that at majority, one receives a single weight vote. As one gets older, as one contributes to society, as one acquires education, one's vote becomes more weighty. One can still only cast a single vote, but whereas at 21 one's vote is worth a value of one, at 45 with 20 years' service one's would would be worth four times (for instance) as much, given one's experience, contribution and educational achievement. This makes votes of unequal value, which some will rail against, but is it not the case that the 60 year old professor should know a little more about life than the 21 year old undergraduate, and that it is therefore ridiculous to say that their opinions are of equal value?
E
|
|
|
|
