Everyone does. Perfect age for a war, brain is practically non-developed, but body pretty much is. Closest thing to a mindless drone that we can get without lobotomy, just with some propaganda.
Edit: This was more controversial than I had imagined, so I’ll summarise my point like this: If your country is invaded, and you and your family are in danger of being bombed or shot, do you believe that you have some special right that says someone else should put their life on the line to protect you, while you sit back and do nothing? Do you think that you, your family, and your society have a better chance of survival if you all work together to defend yourself? Do you think it’s fair that someone who has no impact on the decision to resist or capitulate is bound by that decision? My answers are: No, Yes, No. My right to protection hinges on my obligation to contribute to the protection of others. If we are not willing to collaborate to defend ourselves, we cannot consider ourselves citizens of the same state. A child (or other person without voting rights) cannot be bound by the political decision to resist an invasion, since they have no real way of impacting that decision.
Original post
The shitshow that is the IDF aside, 19 year olds are perfectly capable of being soldiers. Call me old-fashioned, but I honestly believe that being an adult with rights (e.g. to vote) in a democratic society also implies obligations to that society, and that the two (rights and obligations) should follow each other.
To be clear, what I mean is this: I live in a society that provides me with a solid social safety net, as well as a right to protection if shit hits the fan. I then think it’s reasonable that I’m obliged to contribute to that safety net for others (in the form of taxes or community service), and protection (in the form of military service if shit hits the fan). Basically, it’s an “all for one, one for all” mentality. We’re all better off standing together, which means that we all take care of each other (via taxes etc.) in peacetime, and protect each other (in the form of military service) if necessary.
Since I believe that these rights and obligations should be balanced, I think it’s reasonable that an 18 year old (which has all the rights of any other adult in my country) carries the same obligation as everyone else. It would be unfair if, say, 18-26 year olds got all the rights but none (or fewer of) the obligations. That immediately also opens the door to the question of which groups should bear the burden of the obligations, and which groups get only the rights.
Full disclaimer: I think the IDF deserves to be burnt to the ground. I also think (in general) that invading another country is, almost1 without exception, abhorrent.
1The exception being when you invade a country in defence of another country that has already been attacked, like when the UK attacked Germany in WWII, in defence of Poland, France, etc. without having been attacked themselves first.
How so? Do you not think that the right of social benefits should be coupled with the obligation to pay taxes if you’re capable? Do you actually believe that, if a neighbouring country invaded, you have some kind of right to hide in the basement while someone else mans the AA protecting your house?
If the answer to either is “no”, then you probably agree with me.
In the context of Modern US the majority of people pay the taxes and the minority of people who have the majority of wealth do not. Do you think the Social contract is already broken?
Do you actually believe any modern war was actually for its stated purpose. Do you think it is wrong sending young men to die in the Middle East for oil profits?
If you answer no to either of these then perhaps you are just simping for an abusive government.
In the context of Modern US the majority of people pay the taxes and the minority of people who have the majority of wealth do not. Do you think the Social contract is already broken?
Oh, absolutely YES. The social contract in the US is broken to the point where I don’t know if it can be repaired.
Do you actually believe any modern war was actually for its stated purpose?
That depends: I think Ukraine defending itself from a russian invasion is legitimate. I also think there are other wars where there is some party legitimately defending themselves against aggression. This question seems loaded in the sense that it appears to me like you’re asking if I think a war of aggression is defensible. On general grounds, I would immediately say no.
Do you think it is wrong sending young men to die in the Middle East for oil profits?
Obviously, YES (it’s pretty obvious that you’re writing this question in the context of US invasions/wars of aggression in the Middle East, so I understand the context of the question). I honestly have no idea what would make you think that I would answer otherwise.
It seems, based on your questions, like you think I’m some US imperialist/capitalist. I couldn’t be much further from it.
Having answered your questions, I would very much like to see your answers to mine.
I am glad to hear you can recognize that the US is broken. Of course it is much more than just the US at this point, but I digress
I am not really concerned about Ukraine defending itself, but I am concerned about Russia attacking what is equivalent of their own brothers and sisters. Yes, I was totally seeing where you land on wars of opportunity/agression and I am pleasantly surprised. Thanks for your candor.
I am not sure I agree with the concept of taxes, but obviously a government needs to operate with some monetary injections. I think if you have a strong social contract and everyone pays an amount that is equitable it could work out fine. I also believe there are other ways for the government to fund itself.
I am not sure I am ready to take up arms to kill my fellow man. Why are they invading. Would you expect me to fight a European army if I was in the US and they were invading to stop US war crimes? I do not owe allegiance to a concept. I would be much more likely to try and defend a person as opposed to a government.
I also believe there are other ways for the government to fund itself.
The government doesn’t just need to fund itself, it needs the resources to provide collective goods like a social safety net (unemployment, health care, legal assistance, and other fundamental rights). No matter how you twist it, those resources have to eventually come from the population. We can call that resource acquisition “taxing the population”, disregarding the details of how it’s done. In that case, taxes are an absolutely fundamental part of implementing a social contract that involves the collective helping each other provide collective goods. If you remove taxation (in this expanded sense) completely, you are no longer capable of sustaining a government of any kind: You’re left with a collection of individuals with no common programs. Note: I’m saying here that any common program implies that people are providing resources to the collective, which is a de facto form of taxation in the expanded sense.
Would you expect me to fight a European army if I was in the US and they were invading to stop US war crimes?
Disclaimer: The following retort is conceptual, not tied to your concrete example. If russia, or israel, or china, etc… invaded your country to displace your people, steal your homes and resources, and kill those in the way, do you believe that your government has any obligation to protect you? If so, who should risk their life to enact that protection? Who should decide whether to resist or not in the first place?
The point of these questions is that if we believe that we have a right to protection, we are implying that someone has an obligation to protect. Furthermore, that someone’s obligation to protect is tied to your right to protection, not their personal opinion on who they want to protect you from. Basically, stating that you would only conditionally fight to protect your country against an invading force is incompatible with believing you have the right to protection from any invading force. If it comes down to opinion, there’s nothing in the way of everyone else stepping aside when your house is the one being bombed, because they personally feel that particular bombing is justified. If that can happen, you have no right to protection.
Furthermore, unless someone is obliged to protect, nobody can have a right to protection. These are two sides of the same coin. What I advocate for is that everyone in a society should have equal rights to protection, and that we should collectively share the attached obligation to protect.
Someone coming from Norway is familiar with other ways a government can fund itself having one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world.
Some of the more obvious ones are relying on natural resource revenues, consumption and value-added taxes (VAT), corporate taxes, fees for services, taxing land, fines, or heavy customs duties.
Some of the more non-traditional are state owned companies, taxing pollution, lotteries, etc.
The whole philosophy that governments needs to tax citizens is honestly questionable.
As far as your conceptual example, no. The government does not have a duty to defend you at least in the US.
“DeShaney v. Winnebago County and Castle Rock v. Gonzales established that the government has a general duty to protect the public at large, but no legal mandate to protect any specific, individual citizen from violence.”
I would generally agree with you premise around everyone having an equal right to protection and in turn a obligation to defend but only in a perfect world where wars are not fought to enrich the military industrial complex.
Modern warfare is unnecessary and driven by profit and propaganda. In this respect our rights have been usurped by corporations and politicians who make money from killing people.
Thanks! I’m honestly surprised by how controversial it was to state that we should all have the same rights, and the same obligation to defend/uphold those rights for each other.
This is an implicit part of my point: If the state doesn’t provide a social safety net, or protection from violence, then you’re also (in the moral framework I’m advocating for) absolved of your obligation to support said state through taxes and military service.
I’m lucky enough to live in a state that provides both, so I think it’s completely fair that I’m obligated to support that system as long as I also get the benefits of it. At its core, a state is a social contract regarding what you can expect of others (via the state), and what others can expect of you. If you’re seeing only obligations and no benefits, then the state (social contract) is dysfunctional and/or unfair.
Unless you are wealthy and connected the system will run you over and never look back. I know so many adults just like you that have caught charges for doing absolutely nothing wrong.
You argument is a weak version of I got mine pretending a system that only cares about capital actually gives a fuck about you.
I quite honestly don’t see what you mean. I’m advocating for how I think a society should work, while acknowledging that I live in a society that’s fairly close to that ideal. Sure, we have a lot of stuff to improve, but I have yet to see the kind of situation in my country that you’re talking about.
“I got mine” would imply that I’m somehow ignoring the problems that exist elsewhere: I’m not, I’m simply acknowledging that I’m lucky enough to live in a system that I feel is worth supporting.
'I’m lucky enough to live in a state that provides both, so I think it’s completely fair that I’m obligated to support that system as long as I also get the benefits of it"
This is some serious I got mine vibes. It is okay that you can’t recognize your imaginary privilege.
I’m trying to be very explicit on two things: 1) My country also has plenty of issues that need work, but I think the overall system/philosophy behind how it currently works is worth defending. 2) I acknowledge that many countries don’t provide the social safety and protection for its citizens that warrants the contributions I’m talking about.
I thought “I got mine” would mean that I was content with my own situation and therefore neglected the plight of others. That’s not at all what I’m doing or attempting to convey.
In the text you quoted, I was using myself to represent the generic citizen. I could rephrase it as: “I’m lucky enough to live in a state that provides both for everyone living within the borders, so I think it’s fair that all the citizens with the right to influence that state also contribute to carrying the burden of supporting those rights as long as they get the benefits of them.”
Thank you, I was thinking you were from the US or the UK which are both god awful countries.
Norway has a significant wealth gap that is driving far right policies like immigration. Keep up the good fight and vote for policies to address this wealth gap before it is too late. Cheers!
I would honestly like to hear a better alternative. Is it fair, reasonable, or just, that some subset of society is tasked with putting their life on the line to defend everyone else? That very quickly devolves into something like the US system where people with less resources and options end up signing up out of economic necessity. Then they end up fighting and dying for a richer elite that doesn’t have a skin in the game.
It’s a pretty simple concept really: I’ll protect my neighbours if necessary, and they’ll protect me. We’re in this together. The only incentive anyone should have to be in the military is to defend themselves and their (extended) neighbours.
You can make the exact same argument for taxes: Should some subset of society be taxed, while everyone gets the same social safety net and general rights? I think not: I think everyone should contribute, and that everyone should get the benefits.
As for the starship troopers comment: That society is fundamentally segregated into people with rights, and people without them. It also happens to be a heavily militaristic society. Starship Troopers shows exactly the kind of society I think looks terrible, because most soldiers there effectively sign up out of necessity, while those with resources can live peacefully. I’m advocating for equality, not segregation. I’m also trying to be explicit about saying that the only use of a military should be defensive. You could summarise this by saying that, in peacetime, we should have an absolutely minimal military, and everyone has equal rights. If the need arises, everyone has the same obligation to defend each other.
Why is Israel sending children to fight?
Everyone does. Perfect age for a war, brain is practically non-developed, but body pretty much is. Closest thing to a mindless drone that we can get without lobotomy, just with some propaganda.
In medieval times 16 was considered an adult. Can get married, sent to war, still listens to authority and doesn’t know better. Just perfect.
And I guess pedo-states think of anything above 16 as adult
It cancels out the bad karma of killing kids if you send kids to do it.
Edit: This was more controversial than I had imagined, so I’ll summarise my point like this: If your country is invaded, and you and your family are in danger of being bombed or shot, do you believe that you have some special right that says someone else should put their life on the line to protect you, while you sit back and do nothing? Do you think that you, your family, and your society have a better chance of survival if you all work together to defend yourself? Do you think it’s fair that someone who has no impact on the decision to resist or capitulate is bound by that decision? My answers are: No, Yes, No. My right to protection hinges on my obligation to contribute to the protection of others. If we are not willing to collaborate to defend ourselves, we cannot consider ourselves citizens of the same state. A child (or other person without voting rights) cannot be bound by the political decision to resist an invasion, since they have no real way of impacting that decision.
Original post
The shitshow that is the IDF aside, 19 year olds are perfectly capable of being soldiers. Call me old-fashioned, but I honestly believe that being an adult with rights (e.g. to vote) in a democratic society also implies obligations to that society, and that the two (rights and obligations) should follow each other.
To be clear, what I mean is this: I live in a society that provides me with a solid social safety net, as well as a right to protection if shit hits the fan. I then think it’s reasonable that I’m obliged to contribute to that safety net for others (in the form of taxes or community service), and protection (in the form of military service if shit hits the fan). Basically, it’s an “all for one, one for all” mentality. We’re all better off standing together, which means that we all take care of each other (via taxes etc.) in peacetime, and protect each other (in the form of military service) if necessary.
Since I believe that these rights and obligations should be balanced, I think it’s reasonable that an 18 year old (which has all the rights of any other adult in my country) carries the same obligation as everyone else. It would be unfair if, say, 18-26 year olds got all the rights but none (or fewer of) the obligations. That immediately also opens the door to the question of which groups should bear the burden of the obligations, and which groups get only the rights.
Full disclaimer: I think the IDF deserves to be burnt to the ground. I also think (in general) that invading another country is, almost1 without exception, abhorrent.
1The exception being when you invade a country in defence of another country that has already been attacked, like when the UK attacked Germany in WWII, in defence of Poland, France, etc. without having been attacked themselves first.
None of what you say makes any sense in modern society.
How so? Do you not think that the right of social benefits should be coupled with the obligation to pay taxes if you’re capable? Do you actually believe that, if a neighbouring country invaded, you have some kind of right to hide in the basement while someone else mans the AA protecting your house?
If the answer to either is “no”, then you probably agree with me.
In the context of Modern US the majority of people pay the taxes and the minority of people who have the majority of wealth do not. Do you think the Social contract is already broken?
Do you actually believe any modern war was actually for its stated purpose. Do you think it is wrong sending young men to die in the Middle East for oil profits?
If you answer no to either of these then perhaps you are just simping for an abusive government.
Oh, absolutely YES. The social contract in the US is broken to the point where I don’t know if it can be repaired.
That depends: I think Ukraine defending itself from a russian invasion is legitimate. I also think there are other wars where there is some party legitimately defending themselves against aggression. This question seems loaded in the sense that it appears to me like you’re asking if I think a war of aggression is defensible. On general grounds, I would immediately say no.
Obviously, YES (it’s pretty obvious that you’re writing this question in the context of US invasions/wars of aggression in the Middle East, so I understand the context of the question). I honestly have no idea what would make you think that I would answer otherwise.
It seems, based on your questions, like you think I’m some US imperialist/capitalist. I couldn’t be much further from it.
Having answered your questions, I would very much like to see your answers to mine.
I am glad to hear you can recognize that the US is broken. Of course it is much more than just the US at this point, but I digress
I am not really concerned about Ukraine defending itself, but I am concerned about Russia attacking what is equivalent of their own brothers and sisters. Yes, I was totally seeing where you land on wars of opportunity/agression and I am pleasantly surprised. Thanks for your candor.
I am not sure I agree with the concept of taxes, but obviously a government needs to operate with some monetary injections. I think if you have a strong social contract and everyone pays an amount that is equitable it could work out fine. I also believe there are other ways for the government to fund itself.
I am not sure I am ready to take up arms to kill my fellow man. Why are they invading. Would you expect me to fight a European army if I was in the US and they were invading to stop US war crimes? I do not owe allegiance to a concept. I would be much more likely to try and defend a person as opposed to a government.
The government doesn’t just need to fund itself, it needs the resources to provide collective goods like a social safety net (unemployment, health care, legal assistance, and other fundamental rights). No matter how you twist it, those resources have to eventually come from the population. We can call that resource acquisition “taxing the population”, disregarding the details of how it’s done. In that case, taxes are an absolutely fundamental part of implementing a social contract that involves the collective helping each other provide collective goods. If you remove taxation (in this expanded sense) completely, you are no longer capable of sustaining a government of any kind: You’re left with a collection of individuals with no common programs. Note: I’m saying here that any common program implies that people are providing resources to the collective, which is a de facto form of taxation in the expanded sense.
Disclaimer: The following retort is conceptual, not tied to your concrete example. If russia, or israel, or china, etc… invaded your country to displace your people, steal your homes and resources, and kill those in the way, do you believe that your government has any obligation to protect you? If so, who should risk their life to enact that protection? Who should decide whether to resist or not in the first place?
The point of these questions is that if we believe that we have a right to protection, we are implying that someone has an obligation to protect. Furthermore, that someone’s obligation to protect is tied to your right to protection, not their personal opinion on who they want to protect you from. Basically, stating that you would only conditionally fight to protect your country against an invading force is incompatible with believing you have the right to protection from any invading force. If it comes down to opinion, there’s nothing in the way of everyone else stepping aside when your house is the one being bombed, because they personally feel that particular bombing is justified. If that can happen, you have no right to protection.
Furthermore, unless someone is obliged to protect, nobody can have a right to protection. These are two sides of the same coin. What I advocate for is that everyone in a society should have equal rights to protection, and that we should collectively share the attached obligation to protect.
Someone coming from Norway is familiar with other ways a government can fund itself having one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world.
Some of the more obvious ones are relying on natural resource revenues, consumption and value-added taxes (VAT), corporate taxes, fees for services, taxing land, fines, or heavy customs duties.
Some of the more non-traditional are state owned companies, taxing pollution, lotteries, etc.
The whole philosophy that governments needs to tax citizens is honestly questionable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory
As far as your conceptual example, no. The government does not have a duty to defend you at least in the US.
“DeShaney v. Winnebago County and Castle Rock v. Gonzales established that the government has a general duty to protect the public at large, but no legal mandate to protect any specific, individual citizen from violence.”
I would generally agree with you premise around everyone having an equal right to protection and in turn a obligation to defend but only in a perfect world where wars are not fought to enrich the military industrial complex.
Modern warfare is unnecessary and driven by profit and propaganda. In this respect our rights have been usurped by corporations and politicians who make money from killing people.
Tried to balance out some of the downvotes! Obligatory fuck the IDF, but I otherwise agree.
Thanks! I’m honestly surprised by how controversial it was to state that we should all have the same rights, and the same obligation to defend/uphold those rights for each other.
What rights? What protections?
This is an implicit part of my point: If the state doesn’t provide a social safety net, or protection from violence, then you’re also (in the moral framework I’m advocating for) absolved of your obligation to support said state through taxes and military service.
I’m lucky enough to live in a state that provides both, so I think it’s completely fair that I’m obligated to support that system as long as I also get the benefits of it. At its core, a state is a social contract regarding what you can expect of others (via the state), and what others can expect of you. If you’re seeing only obligations and no benefits, then the state (social contract) is dysfunctional and/or unfair.
Unless you are wealthy and connected the system will run you over and never look back. I know so many adults just like you that have caught charges for doing absolutely nothing wrong.
You argument is a weak version of I got mine pretending a system that only cares about capital actually gives a fuck about you.
I quite honestly don’t see what you mean. I’m advocating for how I think a society should work, while acknowledging that I live in a society that’s fairly close to that ideal. Sure, we have a lot of stuff to improve, but I have yet to see the kind of situation in my country that you’re talking about.
“I got mine” would imply that I’m somehow ignoring the problems that exist elsewhere: I’m not, I’m simply acknowledging that I’m lucky enough to live in a system that I feel is worth supporting.
'I’m lucky enough to live in a state that provides both, so I think it’s completely fair that I’m obligated to support that system as long as I also get the benefits of it"
This is some serious I got mine vibes. It is okay that you can’t recognize your imaginary privilege.
What country are you carrying water for.
I’m trying to be very explicit on two things: 1) My country also has plenty of issues that need work, but I think the overall system/philosophy behind how it currently works is worth defending. 2) I acknowledge that many countries don’t provide the social safety and protection for its citizens that warrants the contributions I’m talking about.
I thought “I got mine” would mean that I was content with my own situation and therefore neglected the plight of others. That’s not at all what I’m doing or attempting to convey.
In the text you quoted, I was using myself to represent the generic citizen. I could rephrase it as: “I’m lucky enough to live in a state that provides both for everyone living within the borders, so I think it’s fair that all the citizens with the right to influence that state also contribute to carrying the burden of supporting those rights as long as they get the benefits of them.”
Since you ask, I’m from Norway.
Thank you, I was thinking you were from the US or the UK which are both god awful countries.
Norway has a significant wealth gap that is driving far right policies like immigration. Keep up the good fight and vote for policies to address this wealth gap before it is too late. Cheers!
Damn, are you a citizen in Starship Troopers?
I would honestly like to hear a better alternative. Is it fair, reasonable, or just, that some subset of society is tasked with putting their life on the line to defend everyone else? That very quickly devolves into something like the US system where people with less resources and options end up signing up out of economic necessity. Then they end up fighting and dying for a richer elite that doesn’t have a skin in the game.
It’s a pretty simple concept really: I’ll protect my neighbours if necessary, and they’ll protect me. We’re in this together. The only incentive anyone should have to be in the military is to defend themselves and their (extended) neighbours.
You can make the exact same argument for taxes: Should some subset of society be taxed, while everyone gets the same social safety net and general rights? I think not: I think everyone should contribute, and that everyone should get the benefits.
As for the starship troopers comment: That society is fundamentally segregated into people with rights, and people without them. It also happens to be a heavily militaristic society. Starship Troopers shows exactly the kind of society I think looks terrible, because most soldiers there effectively sign up out of necessity, while those with resources can live peacefully. I’m advocating for equality, not segregation. I’m also trying to be explicit about saying that the only use of a military should be defensive. You could summarise this by saying that, in peacetime, we should have an absolutely minimal military, and everyone has equal rights. If the need arises, everyone has the same obligation to defend each other.