[Axel]

	Originally Posted by Ytterbium To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So? Why is that so holy? :D You've no arguments. You've opinions, it's a completely different thing.

I'd hate to burst your bubble, but this discussion was pretty much "just opinions". You will have to excuse me for not withdrawing like I said I would. But I really hope for a better reply than "So what?" to my closing argument.

-----

Since you are so fond of analogies I will make one last appeal to you to prove your point:

The police force is an institution that has a purpose that is very similar to that of the military, maintaining order in society and protecting it from people who could destroy it. Like the military it needs personnel, it needs active people who care for the law. We pay them market value salary for this service (Unlike conscripted soldiers, which could be free for the state if it so wished). The police force is comprised of individuals who care a great deal about society and plays an indispensable role in a democracy. In their professional careers they need perform a wide range of tasks skilfully to be effective. These skills involve: operating radio equipment, learning how to use firearms, vehicle control beyond what is needed for everyday traffic, handling of animals, an ability to resolve disputes between different parties. Apart from that they often know basic first aid and they can even take the role of rescue service personnel among other things. It is without doubt a group of people with broad practical competence. Being a police officer could work wonders for personal maturity and all over the world police officers feel a kinship and a sort of "connection that builds bridges", and that allows them to be firm in their inner convictions and visions of a just and lawful society that they strive to uphold and protect in the name of the lord. Everyone except the lost cases would benefit tremendously from being a police officer.

Explain to me why everyone should be police officers before they are qualified to have a say in the political process. (Bonus points if you can justify conscription of police officers and forcing them to work for sub par salaries)

And then if you need something to do in your spare time, repeat the same exercise with the following requirements:

- P.H.D in political Science.
- Nobel prize in economics.
- Successful corporate executive.
- Astronaut.
- Doctor.
- Any other arbitrary reason for denying people the right to vote in the land they were born in.

And make sure to keep your "opinions" out of it. I hope you've been a police officer too otherwise you don't know what you are talking about.

[Ytterbium]

	Originally Posted by Axel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'd hate to burst your bubble, but this discussion was pretty much "just opinions". You will have to excuse me for not withdrawing like I said I would. But I really hope for a better reply than "So what?" to my closing argument.

I know you've high expectations on my answers based on what you've previously seen. However I can't possibly be held responsible for just once asking "so what". Because I've never had an argument, a reason anything supporting your position. So I naturally ask why it's so important to you. It's a statement from you and nothing else. Especailly since you've not answered any of my arguments, but stare at this single one.

Originally Posted by Axel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Since you are so fond of analogies I will make one last appeal to you to prove your point: The police force is an institution that has a purpose that is very similar to that of the military, maintaining order in society and protecting it from people who could destroy it. Like the military it needs personnel, it needs active people who care for the law. We pay them market value salary for this service (Unlike conscripted soldiers, which could be free for the state if it so wished). The police force is comprised of individuals who care a great deal about society and plays an indispensable role in a democracy. In their professional careers they need perform a wide range of tasks skilfully to be effective. These skills involve: operating radio equipment, learning how to use firearms, vehicle control beyond what is needed for everyday traffic, handling of animals, an ability to resolve disputes between different parties. Apart from that they often know basic first aid and they can even take the role of rescue service personnel among other things. It is without doubt a group of people with broad practical competence. Being a police officer could work wonders for personal maturity and all over the world police officers feel a kinship and a sort of "connection that builds bridges", and that allows them to be firm in their inner convictions and visions of a just and lawful society that they strive to uphold and protect in the name of the lord. Everyone except the lost cases would benefit tremendously from being a police officer.

Exactly you catch my drift, even though you're constantly trying to mock or ridicule my opinions. Police is a good example but also a poor one since conscription and have been applied there aswell.
Police are employed just like officers in the armed forces, mind you there're officers which aren't though. However there's however types of 'non-market wage' police aswell (in Sweden, beredskapspolisen). Who can be called in when needed in war, crisis, natural disasters etc. This is by no means anything odd. Personally I would've nothing against if people were conscripted as policemen. As I mentioned other alternatives aswell such as nurse, firefighter and so forth. As you say there's this similar bond among policemen too. My uncle has been competing in
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
a couple of times, for instance. A former classmate did his military service as MP, military police. Not civilian but close enough.

	Originally Posted by Axel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Explain to me why everyone should be police officers before they are qualified to have a say in the political process. (Bonus points if you can justify conscription of police officers and forcing them to work for sub par salaries)

It doesn't have to be police officer, just anything that makes people to pull their weight to the rest of the society and to defend democracy. Besides policemen, officers, firefighters, nurses and what not do have sub par wages already. Everyone who works for the state or local government does. The conscription thing is for the case of war or crisis. So people drop their ordinary jobs and do their thing which they were trained to do. Everyone can't be a soldier or policeman full time. It's when things go wrong they've their thing to do. Thus everyone have a fall back option.

Originally Posted by Axel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And then if you need something to do in your spare time, repeat the same exercise with the following requirements: - P.H.D in political Science. - Nobel prize in economics. - Successful corporate executive. - Astronaut. - Doctor. - Any other arbitrary reason for denying people the right to vote in the land they were born in. And make sure to keep your "opinions" out of it. I hope you've been a police officer too otherwise you don't know what you are talking about.

What ties these things to society and defending democracy? The closest is a naturalisation, where someone may be granted citizenship based on education, investment etc. However this has nothing to do with defending democracy except the doctor who will be a doctor 'in the system'.

I never been a police officer and I've no opinions on how they should do their work.

[Axel]

I believe I should apologize. Ridiculing your opinions was uncalled for. I believe we would agree very much about the purpose of the military institution, and the necessity in the event of a crisis. I don't mind the structure of the military, I think it's necessary for it to be very strict, but I have great difficulties when it comes to accepting the practice of conscription, because it goes against my principles.

My reasoning is trying to allow for as much freedom of choices as possible. That means that I don't allow for people or institutions to force their will on others. Before you mention stealing in stores and the like I have to point out that stealing from others or committing crimes is also a form of forcing your will upon others. Interacting with others will require a kind of contract. Since we have to share the space we live in, that makes trading necessary. I can choose to give up my time temporarily while looking after the interests of someone else in exchange for currency. One can make a choice when it comes to following the established laws, following the rules is done primarily to not fuck things up for other people who, one has to assume, also value their freedoms. In short, one does what he wants as long as he doesn't interfere with other peoples choices. This obviously makes conscription a hard pill to swallow. It's almost the complete opposite of what I'm trying to do (you get the instructions and you follow them... or else!!) Not much choice there. There is of course an entirely different matter if one wants to be part of the institution. It's much like choosing to take a job, you ought to do what you've committed yourself to do otherwise you shouldn't have agreed to it.

As far as democracy goes I believe that for it to be meaningful the citizens must be able to have their say one way or another, otherwise it wouldn't fulfil it's purpose (or we might even have to deal with attempts to take over when people don't get to have their say, how small it may be). From my perspective there are only two restrictions needed on who gets to vote:

- The voter must be a citizen of the state.
- The voter must be an adult. (I realize that it's completely arbitrary to set an age limit, but I see no other way to do it that couldn't be fiddled with)

I don't see the need to add any other requirements. It looks like we'll have to part ways on this issue.

This discussion has had me take a closer look on my opinions and I've realized that I'm a bit blurry on some points, I will have to concede that the military may have a bigger impact than I wanted to give it credit for. But I will have to stick with the notion that it shouldn't be mandatory in order to vote.

It's time for me to bow out like I said I would and should have done previously. You've ignited an interest in Swedish military history in me now so I will have to spend my energy on that for a few days.

[Ytterbium]

The problem is that you can't have 'much freedom as possible'. It's not that easy as someone's freedom begins where someone elses' ends. Whatever action is taken it will have an impact on someone else restricting their freedom. You wont be able to get away from that fact. It's just that you cast the light on the subject from an other direction, it's still the same.
The only thing is to include everyone, that makes it more fair for all and not just a few.

Tie it to age isn't enough in my opinion. Think every citizen should've been through and experienced a few things before they should be able to vote. Sort of maturing, a more balanced or sound mind. If it's done by de jure or de facto with either age or compulsory service doesn't really matter.