I saw this circulating around and thought it was an interesting read.

Some of these are horrendous, some are funny, and a few made me think “Hmm, maybe not a bad idea”

  • @Ryudos@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    341 month ago

    As a layperson who hasn’t given it too much thought, the 1916 sounds interesting. I assume they’d only use a small percentage of volunteers since having 200 million new soldiers would be a bit unmanageable. The pessimist in me thinks they’d just do “military exercises” and never actually go to war and a vote though 😔

    • snooggums
      link
      fedilink
      English
      251 month ago

      Registering to volunteer would basically be the same as the current requirement to register for selective service (the draft). It doesn’t mean they need to immediately start serving, just that they need to volunteer and serve when needed.

    • @corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 month ago

      “Don’t cast the vote unless you’re on the boat”.

      As former infantry, I complete approve.

      But as someone involved in a large group that does a lot of peacekeeping, I think our obligation to the UN is important and needs to be stepped-up to give the UN some teeth.

    • @Draghetta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      -431 month ago

      Interesting yes, but also idiotic.

      I propose the following law: whether or not the country should have sewage should be put to vote, and all those who vote yes shall be employed as sewage workers.

      Or even the opposite: whether or not the country should treat the sick should be put to vote, and all those who vote yes will be signed up for medical school.

      Now do you want to have no hospitals, do you want to be a doctor, or are you open to the idea that there may be people professionally in the service of the public and the public may have an opinion and possibly a say on how and when those professionals should be used?

      • @BossDj@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        411 month ago

        I think this thought experiment is only around voting on things that would cause harm to citizens. If you’re willing to vote to send people to their death, you’d better be willing to join the list.

        Like people frequently say representatives who vote against health care coverage for all should have their coverage taken away and they solely rely on private as well

        • @Draghetta@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          -151 month ago

          Plenty of things cause harm to citizens. Somebody has to weld, somebody has to produce paints and batteries, the list goes on. All these things - including a standing army - are useful for the public, and it’s important to have professionals who handle it without forcing anybody who likes these things to volunteer to do them.

          In the west we generally have professional armies, made of volunteer soldiers who chose to be sent wherever the country’s administration deems appropriate - and in working democracies the administration makes their decisions according to the popular will. If a foreign entity is posing a material threat I am very much free to think and express my opinion that we should let our professionals handle it, this is how things work in the present. To suggest that I should be enlisting because of this opinion is moronic.

          Not that it’s any less moronic to suggest that military endeavours should be decided by popular vote: in representative democracy we vote people who we deem competent to form governments to run our countries, I certainly don’t think I can handle military affairs better than the ministry of defence. Direct democracy in general is a horrible idea, it’s not implemented anywhere relevant for good reason. But I digress.

          The point is: the idea of “if you want the country to do it you should do it” is stupid and reeks of demagoguery.

          • @corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 month ago

            anybody who likes these things to volunteer to do them.

            If you like guns, then you need to be on the boat. This wasn’t only true of people when I served, but culling our violent people by sending them where they’ve romanticized their involvement and (tell everyone) they dream of going satisfies that money/mouth issue and reminds them this isn’t homeroom any more.

            Voting to provide beneficial things like sewage and medicine aren’t warhawk problems, so much as they are a hallmark to basic society. Don’t conflate "killing in the name of " with fucking “do no harm”.

      • @philthi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        51 month ago

        This was an interesting comment that’s opened my mind a little, so thanks for that.

        How about: “conscripts can only be sourced from those who voted yes”?

        • @Jeanschyso@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          11 month ago

          Voting should always be anonymous. Otherwise it doesn’t take much for strength of arms to influence a vote. The second a vote isn’t anonymous, the data will be put on some computer, which means it can be hacked and stolen, then distributed.

          Imagine living in a place that had a 90% vote on one side and you voted on the other side. The next vote could mean your life.

        • @Draghetta@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          -61 month ago

          Why are we talking about conscripts? Modern (western) militaries have largely phased out conscription, and in case of war it’s extremely unlikely that you or I would be given a rifle and sent anywhere.

          This is not to say we are (or should feel) extraneous from our armies, they are our means of protection and should be used wisely - just that arguments that involve regular people getting “picked up” don’t have any place in places like USA or Western Europe.

          I don’t know where you are from, naturally things change in different situations - but the context here was a proposition for the American constitution.

          • @candybrie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            81 month ago

            America still has the draft and requires every male citizen 18 years or older to sign up for it. This amendment would change the requirement from every male citizen 18 years or older to every citizen who voted to go to war.

      • OBJECTION!
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        There’s a word for people who want other people to be sent out to fight on their behalf but aren’t willing to put their own lives on the line: chickenhawk.

      • @JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Difference being that the military, and particularly infantry, is legit the only job where it’s acceptable for you to return home in a body bag.

        In 1916, maybe it would’ve been a different story, but these days, I don’t understand it. I honestly don’t see how any millennial, gen X, or boomer veteran can be proud of their service or what they offered to the country. They should be pissed the fuck off. They didn’t serve to defend our country. They served as a human shield to corporate profits.

        They put their lives on the line for a paltry salary, and more recently an education. Which itself is fucking bullshit. I mean, nothing against those who served for the GI bill. Good for you. But it’s fucked up that it came to that, given how much a college education costs the rest of the western world.