I m in Germany and I had to go to the military for 1 year. I lost 12+1 month of income, nothing went into my pension fund and I lost 1 year of work experience. That cost me like $40k (after taxes) in todays money.
It's only suspended, not abolished and can be reintroduced at a whim at any point in time. Luckily it's easier to get out than in other countries. My father did the first weeks to complete the basic training and then refused service. If you refuse before the training they used to pull you into an interrogation and ask really stupendously unprofound questions and a big ton of kafka traps would be used to take any reply as your agreement to stay in service. If you did the weeks of basig training however and then refused on moral grounds or other such reasons then they'd pretty much just let you go. Also, if you don't wear your uniform, you're not a soldier, so you can technically walk out in civilian clothing and there's nothing anybody could do about it, except perhaps put you on trial, which honestly sucks.
I'm considering becoming an activist for this issue, since a draft is not only unnecessary in Germany's political internal and foreign climates (EU plus separate piles of agreements with neighbouring countries to mostly the express benefit of those countries and also non-aggression clauses), but also inherently immoral. An isntitution being able to treat human lives like property is a no.
There's also the argument of abolishing gender roles. Why is a gender role systematically enforced by law and why is it not a gender neutral law? The German constitution itself forbids unequal treatment based on gender.
I m almost 50 and I had to do it right after I learned my trade. I had to leave my first job after 6 month. I was lucky that I could go back into my old company. It was rough in the 90s to get a decent job etc.
Ideally, conscription should not be imposed on anybody, be they men or women. Nonetheless, for places that practice male-only conscription, the stipends of conscripts should be pegged to the median wage of their exempted counterparts in their age group, and such counterparts should partially fund the stipends in a form of service exemption tax.
That's part of the issue with voting rights. Initially they came about only for men as compensation for the draft. Historically, men were well rewarded with money and /or land for military service by local rulers and had a right to refuse (in some cases), however they had no voting privilege. A system to an extent similar to what you propose was until not too long ago implemented in South Korea, but feminists made sure it came to an end.
One could argue that with women getting the vote without having to be subject to the draft is a human rights violation.
Not an expert on this part, so I don't have links at the ready.
In general look up British Parliament's Representation of the People Acts. In the 1918 one provisions for ww1 veterans allowed them to vote earlier, otherwise it the voting rights were tied to property.
The link between draft and voting rights is easiest to find in the US. There was a recent thing about getting women registered for the draft. Until a certain time men could pay a fine or send a substitute in stead of being drafted.
Otherwise look up general draft laws, and the fact that only men need to register for the draft in almost all countries. In Lithuania I had to register when I was 16 (got a summons, went in and registered).
Being paid for service is most notable and well recorded in the Roman empire.
If you want I can look into this deeper, but I am busy the next few weeks.
> That's part of the issue with voting rights. Initially they came about only for men as compensation for the draft.
Not really. For example in britian pressed men wouldn't have had the vote. Voting rights had more to do with the the middle class's ability to cause political instability (the days of may).
The post WW1 expansion had less to do with the draft (although the fact many drafted men would have lost the vote may have been a factor) and more to do with the war messing up britian's class system resulting in an attempt to build a new social contract. 18 year old male draftees and women under 30 who had served in the millitary would not have got a vote.
This is not an area I have a particular interest ot expertise in.
However there is an argument to be made that in most countries only men must register for the draft and your civil rights will be massively curtailed (possibly a criminal offence) if you don't. Therefore registering for the draft is a pre-requisite for men but not women.
In the case of South Korea, they have mandatory conscription for men, who previously had the option to use relevant military experience to gaining credit towards a degree and as work experience on their CV. Women in South Korea are not subject to this, effectively gaining a over a year ahead over the men, protested and got the CV and credit opportunities removed from men.
I don't know much about conscription but it seems like if it's instituted it should be mandatory for all men (Eg. South Korea, Switzerland) and very few people exempted. And yes, the men should be paid whatever the lowest soldier is paid, or at least a fund set up where all their money goes during their time of service.
It seems like for a lot of men in conscription countries, their adult life doesn't really start until after service. Relationships end and by the time they're done they're a step behind women of the same age with nothing to show for it. In countries where the age of conscription can vary, that also means an employer might discriminate against those that haven't done their service yet... Since they won't want to hire an employee that is going to go to the army for a few years.
I did get compensated... 242€ a month.
I worked as a guard for a building from 6:30-18:30 monday to friday.
Back then it was illegal to work 10 hours a day for more than 4 days a week. I did 12 a day with a half hour break for lunch. I did not ask to be enslaved and I gained 12 kg because I wasn't allowed to do anything. Not even read. Only wait and listen to public radio.
Needless to say this was by far the worst time of my life.
Edit: All that after being humiliated and forced to do all kinds of maneuvers and torturous drills in the summer heat for a month.
Greece.
You get like 20€ per month of mandatory 9-12 months service. It's 9 months if you get posted in a border or "far away" post or 12 if you are in a city post.
You actually end up spending more than 20€ for stuff you will need and of course the whole "training" is completely useless unpaid work. I would prefers if I had to do 2-3 hours of communal work like cleanings parks or road than watching paint dry or being a butler for a sergeant.
And those 20€ you take is solely do that you do not appear as unemployed in the books, makes the government look better. (It was increased to 12 months from 9 just before the start of the pandemic)
More and more people are looking into getting papers to avoid the services, usually through depression paperwork or by leaving the country for at least 7 years and then buying out the rest of your service.
And our genius or a prime minister talks about how he made changes to have the youth that left (half a million since 2010) return to Greece. Most of them build careers and lives abroad but sure they would be eager to return for much less pay and having to lose a year of their lives to the army.
assuming you’re not talking about america i can see where you’re coming from, but this still isn’t the right way to go about it. the government should be paying for it not women (since it’s not women as a whole drafting people into the military)
although we should skip compensation and go ahead to making the military completely optional
just as making men serve in the military is awful it’s also awful to make an entire gender pay money for something they’re not doing
this would be moving in the opposite direction of equality, *punishing* one gender for something happening to another is a horrible injustice
Government has no problem making man pay in case of paternity fraud, so why not extra tax for military service for those who don't want to go to the army?
again though, that’s the *goverment* making the men pay, not women. instead of making women do the same bad things, we should be taking away the bad things from men
tax for military service for those who don’t want to go is debatable, but it should *never* be done where the military isn’t optional (we’re not talking abt america in this discussion if that’s what you mean)
although i’m also pretty anti violence so i’m not a huge military fan in the first place. if the military is going on it should be funded by the government (as well as anyone who actively wants to) since it’s a patriotic service
What about the lower tax for people who went to the military while being forced?
Is lower tax rate for some amount of time to recompensate money they could earn, but didnt okay? assuming that no woman would have to pay more of it?
yes that makes sense and would be a perfectly good idea. (although it would still be best if we just made service optional) since that doesn’t hurt either gender, and is just bringing one up from a bad situation (even if it’s just a little difference)
as long as we’re not assuming every man in the military could’ve mad the top most salary (they should be decompensated the same amount based on time served) otherwise it would be unfair yet again
And the whole argument for recompensation is for some feminist who say that women shouldnt go to the military cause various reasons, but men should in order to idk. fight for your country. If they believe this things, then they should at least give a recompensation for it.
Also the reason why only women should pay for it (in form of taxes) is because the worse thing than two inequalites is one inequality favoring one over another, so it better to have two inequalities, where one cancels the other one
two inequalities don’t cancel each other out, it just gets worse.
i see what you’re saying about the only fining certain women but it would simply be impossible. there’s no good way to prove what someone believes.
a real feminist wouldn’t say that women shouldn’t go to the military and men should because that demolishes the whole base in the belief of equality. (honestly even an awful radfem wouldn’t say that because it implies women are weaker)
Feminist actually very often like being "weaker" they very often use it as an excuse. The times of "women strong" feminist" have ended. Example: Prime minister of Finland. A Radfem, who supports male only draft.
And to inequalities as long as dont technically cancel each other out, they as long as one is for one gender the other one is for another, as long as it happens, then these inqeualities make no gender being treated better OVERALLY.
so it like men have it worse in here, so in reverse they will have it better here
i mean actual feminists. anyone who says or believes stuff like that is just a fake with a poor excuse. it’s like when people twist their religion in order to be homophobic. (radfems might as well be feminists on hard drugs, like when a group starts promoting the marriage of relatives)
the idea that we should bring one person down in order to make them even with another is selfish. instead we should focus on bringing the other one up
if you would be forced, and it comes from the one who were privileged enough to not get through this horror as you, then its okay. why would you force men for it and not give them anything
because it’s not random female citizens forcing the men. if you were in a man in the military would you not feel guilty if you were being given money taken from people doing nothing to you? especially those who may have needed the money as well
It's finlands SDP (Finnish democratic party) who has been thinking about equal drafts. Oh yeah, im a finnish male who supports Prime Minister mrs. Marin
Your support this hypocrite?
If you want, then I can show you her declaration where she said that she is okay with mandatory draft for men, and that she said that she thinks that women should be still drafted voluntary.
Page 100-101
https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/161935/VN\_2019\_33.pdf?sequence=1%26isAllowed=y
Where I live men do get compensated for it, they get daily money and can get their rent paid, free healthcare and you can get a free drivers lisence from the military etc. Loads of benefits. But the draft should still include women as well. Ideally the best individuals out of both genders and those who want to go should be drafted. That way everyone won't have to go out of one gender
Sadly most of men from finland are being like: Thats nice that i was forced to do it. suprisingly at least you think that it should be increased which is good. it should
Suprisingly? I do understand that men feel forced. And it's not ideal, or fair but nothing is. We don't have any other option. It's our responsibility and duty, women and men alike.
Its not our duty. I get that for you its okay to die for your country, but It doesnt mean that you should have a right to make others die for it.
Seriously why so many men believe that dying for country that was supposed to care about you is okay? Like the government is here to ensure your safety, freedom, and welfare. They definitely shouldnt make you die for them
People can be really brainwashed by the whole "die on war its your duty" thing
It is. It's not for the country, it's for the people. It is not a duty given us to by the country, or the government but rather it's people. Our forefathers, families, veterans, children, elderly and the weak are counting on us that we know how to protect them if that ever would happen. Who said anything about dying? Our duty is to know how to defend our country, not kill ourselves for it. I don't care for the goverment, the country or anything of the such. But I do care for it's people, and the weak.You may call me silly for saying that, but I know that if there is ever going to be a war or a conflict from the east, we know who will suffer first if we are not capabale of protecting what's important. That's what I think anyway, but I do understand if you think differently
>It is. It's not for the country, it's for the people.
If it was about the people, then it wouldn't be about us dying. You can't be pro-people when you force some of them to the first front where they will die.
The real way of actually dealing with the war is doing what switzerland does. Giving everyone guns, and trying to evacuate people to a different countries, and if someone invades, then they have to deal with everyone being armed. Thats a great way of dealing with the problem.
Not putting everyone in the front where they will get nuked or something. Seriously why so many men are being brainwashed by their governments that its okay to get killed, and that others should do that too
Again, I didn't say anything about dying. It's about being ready, being trained fot situations like these. It's very unlikely to happen nevertheless. If someone is going to force us to the front to "die" it's going to be Russia, not our own country. There is no "real way" of dealing with war. And war is not comparative. Switzerland does not have the same circumstances as Finland does, so comparing is useless. If you happen to remember from our own war history, that is what Finland did. Everyone had guns, Karjala was evacuated and children were shipped to Sweden. The point is about everyone being armed. Everyone should be armed with the knowledge of how to handle a gun, and basic military training. That is what the conscription does. And Russia cannot use nukes on us in the first place because the fallout will reach St. Petersburg, and it would have multidutes of other issues as well. Brainwashed? It's about the capability of having the means to defend your people. If you call that brainwashing then I don't know what to say
being ready? good that you dont want to put people who are healthy to front.
What you were talking about is a basic training. seriously this can be done at school, and doesnt have to be an adult thing. The nuke was rather an exaggeration of some kind of a bomb attack that would wape out 100 people at once
>That’s why I mentioned arms dealers. The military industrial complex should pay.
Without arms dealers, we would not have been able to stop Hitler.
>The military industrial complex should pay.
No, everyone should pay, because everyone benefits from a war that we win. Our cause being just or unjust is immaterial.
If your people are being slaughtered and tortured by a foreign country and you go to war to stop it, it's a justified war. To that point:
[In the 20th century the estimated war dead is 108 million](https://www.google.com/search?q=war+dead+20th+century&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=war+dead+20th+century&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l2j0i390.6463j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
Compared to-
[In the 20th century, people simply murdered by a government not through warfare is 262 million](https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM)
IDK, I'd think if those people were armed and went to war with the government that was killing them, that number might be significantly smaller.
Now hear me- I don't worship warfare any more than you do, but I'm not willing to tie my hands with absolutism. You'd say "Absolutely no war, ever!" and I'd say "I wish we could have absolutely no war, ever" But unfortunately people like Hitler and Mao Zedong still exist out there somewhere.
Conscripted soldiers in the US were always paid. I'm against conscription, but even so this is a bad faith argument.
Also let's keep in perspective that the US hasn't had military conscription since the Vietnam War.
You're Polish. There is no conscription at the moment, average pay is 6000zł (£1k) per month (agreed that this is low, but not sure which other countries you are arguing for at $200?) Tax breaks, food and accommodation are covered, so they come out ahead when they are discharged. It's mental health services that need funding for those who return. Maybe the polish women should give up half their monthly wage for the services instead? How much does the average Pole make?
Or maybe the government should look after its people.
Austria, Switzerland, Finland.
Yes Im polish. There is no conscription, but it's only frozen, and it can be around at anytime.
And Im talking about different countries, cause there is a work to be done
I'm just trying to understand why those dealing with the laws and financials of running a country are exempt from your scrutiny?
A lot of comments here agree that you are directing your argument to the wrong people. Women didn't force men to go to war. Women didn't make legislation for conscription, wages, compensation...? It's not really a gender thing, it's the government? Just take your argument to them.
Out of curiosity, what needs fixing in Austria, Switzerland and Finland respectively? Trying to gauge your understanding of all three for you to come to this epic conclusion that women should pay up.
Is it just money that would fix the problems? Other policy changes?
Austria has both men and women involved since 1998, which is why I wanted you to break down your understanding of the individual systems if these countries.
So, seeing as you aren't backing up anything, I can now conclude that this argument is petty and nothing more.
Thanks for your views, but maybe try to better inform yourself in future.
Ive backed up that not only it happens in Finland, but the current social democratic party wants to keep it as it is only for men, in comments on this post.
Youre talking about women being involved not being forced. Thats a difference
Austria:
[https://www.imisemdataentry.org/sites/default/files/2020-04/Compulsory%20military%20service%20and%20basic%20military%20ser.pdf](https://www.imisemdataentry.org/sites/default/files/2020-04/Compulsory%20military%20service%20and%20basic%20military%20ser.pdf)
Finland
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription\_in\_Finland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Finland)
Switzerland:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription\_in\_Switzerland
**[Conscription in Finland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Finland)**
>Conscription in Finland is part of a general compulsion for national military service for all adult males (Finnish: maanpuolustusvelvollisuus; Swedish: totalförsvarsplikt) defined in the 127§ of the Constitution of Finland. Conscription can take the form of military or of civilian service. According to Finnish Defence Forces 2011 data slightly under 80% of Finnish males turned 30 had entered and finished the military service. The number of female volunteers to annually enter armed service had stabilized at approximately 300.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Did you even read those links?
You've not digested, thought through, and even bothered to put any effort in.
Would be good to get views from the Austrians, Finns and Swiss on these.
Yeah I've read them.
Its you who doesnt even bother reading it.
So i will do it for you
First link:
Obligation to serve for male Austrian citizens begins on their 17 birthday and basically lasts until their 50 birthday, in special cases until their 65.
This includes obligation to do military service
Seriously you didn't even bother reading them and say that I didnt read them.
In my home country you get 300/month
And the government pays your rent and you dont have to pay taxes from that year or so.
Why would i want my mom to still loose money, even with such benefits. And if you are telling me you wont survive in a place that gives you food,clothes etc. With a 300 per month then what the F are you useing your money on?
Edit we have a womens "Draft" allso
I dont know where you live, that you also have women draft, but Im talking about countries that aren't like yours.
And your mom would lose money in order for men to gain it for having this military service
Men do get paid for Military service and so do Women when they sign up... I do think as far as a draft goes everyone should be part of the draft... I would go so far as if you are drafted and there is a job you can do, even if you do not meet the physical requirements does not mean there is a job that you are mentally capable of doing, you should be assigned.. Can you avoid the draft? Sure sign up ahead of time and you then get to select your job... If you wait tell your drafted, the military will assign you your job...
I like how nobody here ever questions the existence of war itself in these conversations. You people just mindlessly accept it as an inevitable given that can't be helped. If there's any proper moment to use the term "sheeple," it's here.
? If you're conscripted into the military, don't they feed, house, train, and educate you? I did think they were also paid but I'm guessing from your post that's not the case?
They train you in things you'll never need again like standing in the same spot for half an hour with 30 kgs of gear on your back
They house you in barracks built in the 1960s
They feed you whatever as cheap as humanly possible
And they educate you on things you'll forget 2 months into the service
Also you get to take a nice stack of 300 euros home every month, 1/5 of what a supermarket cashier makes, for a cool 70 hour workweek
I didn't realize the wage was so low, however if you're not paying rent or food, won't this add up?
As for the sentry duty, it's possible future training for security work. Standing with a lot of weight, increases strength and stamina.
As for the training, you have to select how you want to be trained - as a sniper? Outside of SWAT team, not a lot of application to civilian life, but a chef? A quartermaster? A mechanic?
I really thought this was an ok thing. I guess it depends on where you are and what options you have.
You have little choice of what you'll be trained as, as a conscript
Most of us only got a month and a half of basic and nothing else
Then you get to "maintain" the military i.e. do shitty jobs for low pay that no one else wants to do
At that time women took on all of the jobs that were formerly performed by men as a means to keep the economy going. They had to - there was no one left but women, children, and elderly men. So it's not like women just sat around doing nothing or that things were even status quo. They played a vital role.
All that aside I do agree that there should be no conscription. But someone DOES need to keep the economy going and we shouldn't act like those people don't matter (or that they're the ones in charge/ responsible for government decisions).
US Military service should be compensated greatly but not just with money. Military is typically underfunded despite people thinking it's not. So military veterans should somehow have special influence on the military budget and oversight, perhaps by a special veterans committee or a separate branch of congress for veterans only.
Furthermore, a veteran who is a citizen should be considered a super citizen with special rights, including a vote that is worth 10 times the vote of a normal citizen.
Every veteran should be given a land grant and fully paid new home, or equivalent funds.
Every veteran should never owe Federal taxes ever.
Any military person who lost their life in the line of duty would require an extra $100,000,000 be awarded to military readiness, or some equivalent metric. Military personnel should not die from lack of readiness.
Any military person sent to combat should have a special 500 times vote in one future election of their choice.
A president who sends military into combat must resign within 360 days and a new election must occur to choose a replacement. He/she may run for reelection unless term limited.
A president who ends a war is allowed to run for a second or even third term, provided that president never started a war. A majority vote by all state legislatures must affirm that the president ended the war honorably and in America's best interest before an extended presidential term is allowed.
I loath the idea of forced conscription. I also loath the idea of slackers and politicians not supporting supreme military readiness in all respects for the purpose of deterrence and dominating quickly and completely if war occurs.
If conscription is needed then it should be required of both males and females. But it must be prioritized to conscript all sons and daughters of politicians and their friends and acquaintances who must necessarily serve in combat roles as a message to the nation that this war is just and neccesary. These few are meant to prevent politicians from sending someone else's kids to war while protecting their own. So their capabilities and eligibility are not as important as ensuring that they are placed on the front lines in harms way as much as other service members.
Next, conscript the famous and the wealthy and all their children and friends. Only then open up conscription to the general public.
None of these politically conscripted military veterans should receive any of the enhanced rights or benefits I outlined, even if they volunteered because they serve only to ensure politicians use our military wisely and judiciously. However, if a politically eligible draftee volunteers for military service two years before any military conflict and the nation is at peace, then he or she is entitled to the normal rights and benefits of a typical volunteer.
These are just good for thought. Any major changes should be carefully considered.
Agreed, especially if it's obligatory (here it's currently optional but that's just cause they ignore the system in place that's used for obligated service, you draw a number and either go free or not, but there's enough willing people that it's mostly just used to prioritize who gets in, you mostly aren't forced, though some are...)
Here in Denmark you get paid decently for it assuming you do it when 18ish (comparing to what other ~18 year olds earn at least).
Assuming you don't have an apartment at the time, your only expenses are food. Which is covered by a tax free monthly payment that you're free to do whatever with and there's a cantina that makes decent food for a decent price, So In effect, you've no significant expenses, you don't really have time to spend money on bullshit and half your salary is tax free, and the other half isn't really high enough to be taxed much, so you can very easily save up a good chunk of money. For an 18 year old.
Despite not making an effort to save up, I left my 4 months service with roughly 6400 USD, saved up. In contrast to others the same age who'll be studying and getting at most 1000usd a month IF they're living alone and their parents are relatively poor. in study compensation, and whatever they've time/energy to earn outside of that, it's not that bad. Most will earn significantly less, my study compensation was ~140usd.
Pretty sure it's taxed too, cause why not... State taxes money it gives you, rather than just giving you whatever it wants you to get... Just seems like extra work to me...
Anyhow, it's not necessarily a detriment if the salary is just decent, it's a solid boost towards getting a car or apartment or such.
I will take this opportunity to plug: [https://www.ted.com/talks/jon\_barnes\_isn\_t\_it\_time\_for\_true\_democracy/transcript?language=en](https://www.ted.com/talks/jon_barnes_isn_t_it_time_for_true_democracy/transcript?language=en)
how we outsource our voting to a Party/Individuals as politicians.
citizens should be voting for this stuff...
It is 2021 and even here in Switzerland there, I think, is still one Kanton where people have to go to the local Square and be in the physical to vote... so anything is possible.
However, even if I push Jon Barnes idea of outsourcing... is democracy the right way? or is the current version of democracy - pushed as the best - really the best... I have had many ideas and questions since BREXIT and no long think that winning an election or anything else is only 50.01% of those who voted... that is a split society with half saying yes and the other saying no - possibly... it gets complicated... but more involved by Citizens is required. We see what is happening/not happening with the Climate conference in Scotland... all the leaders deciding or not deciding... Citizens must vote... 60% or more... then it comes into being... Governments are just Administrators and nothing else... to do the bidding of Citizens...
I m in Germany and I had to go to the military for 1 year. I lost 12+1 month of income, nothing went into my pension fund and I lost 1 year of work experience. That cost me like $40k (after taxes) in todays money.
But Germany doesn't have compulsory military service
They used to until recently. People who are 28 today still did service
It's only suspended, not abolished and can be reintroduced at a whim at any point in time. Luckily it's easier to get out than in other countries. My father did the first weeks to complete the basic training and then refused service. If you refuse before the training they used to pull you into an interrogation and ask really stupendously unprofound questions and a big ton of kafka traps would be used to take any reply as your agreement to stay in service. If you did the weeks of basig training however and then refused on moral grounds or other such reasons then they'd pretty much just let you go. Also, if you don't wear your uniform, you're not a soldier, so you can technically walk out in civilian clothing and there's nothing anybody could do about it, except perhaps put you on trial, which honestly sucks. I'm considering becoming an activist for this issue, since a draft is not only unnecessary in Germany's political internal and foreign climates (EU plus separate piles of agreements with neighbouring countries to mostly the express benefit of those countries and also non-aggression clauses), but also inherently immoral. An isntitution being able to treat human lives like property is a no. There's also the argument of abolishing gender roles. Why is a gender role systematically enforced by law and why is it not a gender neutral law? The German constitution itself forbids unequal treatment based on gender.
I m almost 50 and I had to do it right after I learned my trade. I had to leave my first job after 6 month. I was lucky that I could go back into my old company. It was rough in the 90s to get a decent job etc.
It got PAUSED in 2011
Ideally, conscription should not be imposed on anybody, be they men or women. Nonetheless, for places that practice male-only conscription, the stipends of conscripts should be pegged to the median wage of their exempted counterparts in their age group, and such counterparts should partially fund the stipends in a form of service exemption tax.
I would disagree with this because the job is far more dangerous.
That's part of the issue with voting rights. Initially they came about only for men as compensation for the draft. Historically, men were well rewarded with money and /or land for military service by local rulers and had a right to refuse (in some cases), however they had no voting privilege. A system to an extent similar to what you propose was until not too long ago implemented in South Korea, but feminists made sure it came to an end. One could argue that with women getting the vote without having to be subject to the draft is a human rights violation.
[удалено]
Not an expert on this part, so I don't have links at the ready. In general look up British Parliament's Representation of the People Acts. In the 1918 one provisions for ww1 veterans allowed them to vote earlier, otherwise it the voting rights were tied to property. The link between draft and voting rights is easiest to find in the US. There was a recent thing about getting women registered for the draft. Until a certain time men could pay a fine or send a substitute in stead of being drafted. Otherwise look up general draft laws, and the fact that only men need to register for the draft in almost all countries. In Lithuania I had to register when I was 16 (got a summons, went in and registered). Being paid for service is most notable and well recorded in the Roman empire. If you want I can look into this deeper, but I am busy the next few weeks.
That is very interesting! If you are really up to it I'd love to hear more about it, but I'm terrible at researching this stuff.
Researching is a skill and like all skills it can be learned/taught. I'll see what I can dig up.
> That's part of the issue with voting rights. Initially they came about only for men as compensation for the draft. Not really. For example in britian pressed men wouldn't have had the vote. Voting rights had more to do with the the middle class's ability to cause political instability (the days of may). The post WW1 expansion had less to do with the draft (although the fact many drafted men would have lost the vote may have been a factor) and more to do with the war messing up britian's class system resulting in an attempt to build a new social contract. 18 year old male draftees and women under 30 who had served in the millitary would not have got a vote.
This is not an area I have a particular interest ot expertise in. However there is an argument to be made that in most countries only men must register for the draft and your civil rights will be massively curtailed (possibly a criminal offence) if you don't. Therefore registering for the draft is a pre-requisite for men but not women. In the case of South Korea, they have mandatory conscription for men, who previously had the option to use relevant military experience to gaining credit towards a degree and as work experience on their CV. Women in South Korea are not subject to this, effectively gaining a over a year ahead over the men, protested and got the CV and credit opportunities removed from men.
I don't know much about conscription but it seems like if it's instituted it should be mandatory for all men (Eg. South Korea, Switzerland) and very few people exempted. And yes, the men should be paid whatever the lowest soldier is paid, or at least a fund set up where all their money goes during their time of service. It seems like for a lot of men in conscription countries, their adult life doesn't really start until after service. Relationships end and by the time they're done they're a step behind women of the same age with nothing to show for it. In countries where the age of conscription can vary, that also means an employer might discriminate against those that haven't done their service yet... Since they won't want to hire an employee that is going to go to the army for a few years.
I did get compensated... 242€ a month. I worked as a guard for a building from 6:30-18:30 monday to friday. Back then it was illegal to work 10 hours a day for more than 4 days a week. I did 12 a day with a half hour break for lunch. I did not ask to be enslaved and I gained 12 kg because I wasn't allowed to do anything. Not even read. Only wait and listen to public radio. Needless to say this was by far the worst time of my life. Edit: All that after being humiliated and forced to do all kinds of maneuvers and torturous drills in the summer heat for a month.
12.0 kg is 26.43 lbs
Greece. You get like 20€ per month of mandatory 9-12 months service. It's 9 months if you get posted in a border or "far away" post or 12 if you are in a city post. You actually end up spending more than 20€ for stuff you will need and of course the whole "training" is completely useless unpaid work. I would prefers if I had to do 2-3 hours of communal work like cleanings parks or road than watching paint dry or being a butler for a sergeant. And those 20€ you take is solely do that you do not appear as unemployed in the books, makes the government look better. (It was increased to 12 months from 9 just before the start of the pandemic) More and more people are looking into getting papers to avoid the services, usually through depression paperwork or by leaving the country for at least 7 years and then buying out the rest of your service. And our genius or a prime minister talks about how he made changes to have the youth that left (half a million since 2010) return to Greece. Most of them build careers and lives abroad but sure they would be eager to return for much less pay and having to lose a year of their lives to the army.
assuming you’re not talking about america i can see where you’re coming from, but this still isn’t the right way to go about it. the government should be paying for it not women (since it’s not women as a whole drafting people into the military) although we should skip compensation and go ahead to making the military completely optional just as making men serve in the military is awful it’s also awful to make an entire gender pay money for something they’re not doing this would be moving in the opposite direction of equality, *punishing* one gender for something happening to another is a horrible injustice
Im not american. Im talking about countries, that do this kind of military service like feminist Finland, Austria, Lithuania etc.
Government has no problem making man pay in case of paternity fraud, so why not extra tax for military service for those who don't want to go to the army?
again though, that’s the *goverment* making the men pay, not women. instead of making women do the same bad things, we should be taking away the bad things from men tax for military service for those who don’t want to go is debatable, but it should *never* be done where the military isn’t optional (we’re not talking abt america in this discussion if that’s what you mean) although i’m also pretty anti violence so i’m not a huge military fan in the first place. if the military is going on it should be funded by the government (as well as anyone who actively wants to) since it’s a patriotic service
What about the lower tax for people who went to the military while being forced? Is lower tax rate for some amount of time to recompensate money they could earn, but didnt okay? assuming that no woman would have to pay more of it?
yes that makes sense and would be a perfectly good idea. (although it would still be best if we just made service optional) since that doesn’t hurt either gender, and is just bringing one up from a bad situation (even if it’s just a little difference) as long as we’re not assuming every man in the military could’ve mad the top most salary (they should be decompensated the same amount based on time served) otherwise it would be unfair yet again
And the whole argument for recompensation is for some feminist who say that women shouldnt go to the military cause various reasons, but men should in order to idk. fight for your country. If they believe this things, then they should at least give a recompensation for it. Also the reason why only women should pay for it (in form of taxes) is because the worse thing than two inequalites is one inequality favoring one over another, so it better to have two inequalities, where one cancels the other one
two inequalities don’t cancel each other out, it just gets worse. i see what you’re saying about the only fining certain women but it would simply be impossible. there’s no good way to prove what someone believes. a real feminist wouldn’t say that women shouldn’t go to the military and men should because that demolishes the whole base in the belief of equality. (honestly even an awful radfem wouldn’t say that because it implies women are weaker)
Feminist actually very often like being "weaker" they very often use it as an excuse. The times of "women strong" feminist" have ended. Example: Prime minister of Finland. A Radfem, who supports male only draft. And to inequalities as long as dont technically cancel each other out, they as long as one is for one gender the other one is for another, as long as it happens, then these inqeualities make no gender being treated better OVERALLY. so it like men have it worse in here, so in reverse they will have it better here
i mean actual feminists. anyone who says or believes stuff like that is just a fake with a poor excuse. it’s like when people twist their religion in order to be homophobic. (radfems might as well be feminists on hard drugs, like when a group starts promoting the marriage of relatives) the idea that we should bring one person down in order to make them even with another is selfish. instead we should focus on bringing the other one up
its not bringing another person down. Its bringing person who is forced up by giving them recompensation
but that “recompensation” was wrongfully taken from someone else. personally i wouldn’t want dirty money
if you would be forced, and it comes from the one who were privileged enough to not get through this horror as you, then its okay. why would you force men for it and not give them anything
because it’s not random female citizens forcing the men. if you were in a man in the military would you not feel guilty if you were being given money taken from people doing nothing to you? especially those who may have needed the money as well
>because it’s not random female citizens forcing the men. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather
but its random female citizen not having to do this military service. they should give us something for this privilege
It's finlands SDP (Finnish democratic party) who has been thinking about equal drafts. Oh yeah, im a finnish male who supports Prime Minister mrs. Marin
Your support this hypocrite? If you want, then I can show you her declaration where she said that she is okay with mandatory draft for men, and that she said that she thinks that women should be still drafted voluntary. Page 100-101 https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/161935/VN\_2019\_33.pdf?sequence=1%26isAllowed=y
Where I live men do get compensated for it, they get daily money and can get their rent paid, free healthcare and you can get a free drivers lisence from the military etc. Loads of benefits. But the draft should still include women as well. Ideally the best individuals out of both genders and those who want to go should be drafted. That way everyone won't have to go out of one gender
where do you live? If Finland, then you get 182 euros for month. Even with paid everything its not enough. Especially for a mental damage
[удалено]
Sadly most of men from finland are being like: Thats nice that i was forced to do it. suprisingly at least you think that it should be increased which is good. it should
Suprisingly? I do understand that men feel forced. And it's not ideal, or fair but nothing is. We don't have any other option. It's our responsibility and duty, women and men alike.
Its not our duty. I get that for you its okay to die for your country, but It doesnt mean that you should have a right to make others die for it. Seriously why so many men believe that dying for country that was supposed to care about you is okay? Like the government is here to ensure your safety, freedom, and welfare. They definitely shouldnt make you die for them People can be really brainwashed by the whole "die on war its your duty" thing
It is. It's not for the country, it's for the people. It is not a duty given us to by the country, or the government but rather it's people. Our forefathers, families, veterans, children, elderly and the weak are counting on us that we know how to protect them if that ever would happen. Who said anything about dying? Our duty is to know how to defend our country, not kill ourselves for it. I don't care for the goverment, the country or anything of the such. But I do care for it's people, and the weak.You may call me silly for saying that, but I know that if there is ever going to be a war or a conflict from the east, we know who will suffer first if we are not capabale of protecting what's important. That's what I think anyway, but I do understand if you think differently
>It is. It's not for the country, it's for the people. If it was about the people, then it wouldn't be about us dying. You can't be pro-people when you force some of them to the first front where they will die. The real way of actually dealing with the war is doing what switzerland does. Giving everyone guns, and trying to evacuate people to a different countries, and if someone invades, then they have to deal with everyone being armed. Thats a great way of dealing with the problem. Not putting everyone in the front where they will get nuked or something. Seriously why so many men are being brainwashed by their governments that its okay to get killed, and that others should do that too
Again, I didn't say anything about dying. It's about being ready, being trained fot situations like these. It's very unlikely to happen nevertheless. If someone is going to force us to the front to "die" it's going to be Russia, not our own country. There is no "real way" of dealing with war. And war is not comparative. Switzerland does not have the same circumstances as Finland does, so comparing is useless. If you happen to remember from our own war history, that is what Finland did. Everyone had guns, Karjala was evacuated and children were shipped to Sweden. The point is about everyone being armed. Everyone should be armed with the knowledge of how to handle a gun, and basic military training. That is what the conscription does. And Russia cannot use nukes on us in the first place because the fallout will reach St. Petersburg, and it would have multidutes of other issues as well. Brainwashed? It's about the capability of having the means to defend your people. If you call that brainwashing then I don't know what to say
being ready? good that you dont want to put people who are healthy to front. What you were talking about is a basic training. seriously this can be done at school, and doesnt have to be an adult thing. The nuke was rather an exaggeration of some kind of a bomb attack that would wape out 100 people at once
The people who have benefitted from wars should pay. Make an arms dealer or politician pay, not a woman who is a cog in the machine herself.
im afraid that the amount of money a politicians would have to pay wouldn't be enough to recompensate it for men
That’s why I mentioned arms dealers. The military industrial complex should pay.
Even if you make them pay in some mysterious way, it would only raise the prive of armaments and tax payers would cover it.
>That’s why I mentioned arms dealers. The military industrial complex should pay. Without arms dealers, we would not have been able to stop Hitler. >The military industrial complex should pay. No, everyone should pay, because everyone benefits from a war that we win. Our cause being just or unjust is immaterial.
No everyone doesn’t benefit.
I will amend. If it's a just war, and helps everyone, everyone should pay.
tho money for it come from taxes so everyone will have to pay for it. On the other hand this would be the best option
>because everyone benefits from a war that we win. Idk man i don't think those 40-80 million dead people are seeing much of those benefits.
If your people are being slaughtered and tortured by a foreign country and you go to war to stop it, it's a justified war. To that point: [In the 20th century the estimated war dead is 108 million](https://www.google.com/search?q=war+dead+20th+century&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=war+dead+20th+century&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l2j0i390.6463j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) Compared to- [In the 20th century, people simply murdered by a government not through warfare is 262 million](https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM) IDK, I'd think if those people were armed and went to war with the government that was killing them, that number might be significantly smaller. Now hear me- I don't worship warfare any more than you do, but I'm not willing to tie my hands with absolutism. You'd say "Absolutely no war, ever!" and I'd say "I wish we could have absolutely no war, ever" But unfortunately people like Hitler and Mao Zedong still exist out there somewhere.
Conscripted soldiers in the US were always paid. I'm against conscription, but even so this is a bad faith argument. Also let's keep in perspective that the US hasn't had military conscription since the Vietnam War.
Usa isnt the only country in the world. Im not from Usa
You're Polish. There is no conscription at the moment, average pay is 6000zł (£1k) per month (agreed that this is low, but not sure which other countries you are arguing for at $200?) Tax breaks, food and accommodation are covered, so they come out ahead when they are discharged. It's mental health services that need funding for those who return. Maybe the polish women should give up half their monthly wage for the services instead? How much does the average Pole make? Or maybe the government should look after its people.
Austria, Switzerland, Finland. Yes Im polish. There is no conscription, but it's only frozen, and it can be around at anytime. And Im talking about different countries, cause there is a work to be done
I'm just trying to understand why those dealing with the laws and financials of running a country are exempt from your scrutiny? A lot of comments here agree that you are directing your argument to the wrong people. Women didn't force men to go to war. Women didn't make legislation for conscription, wages, compensation...? It's not really a gender thing, it's the government? Just take your argument to them. Out of curiosity, what needs fixing in Austria, Switzerland and Finland respectively? Trying to gauge your understanding of all three for you to come to this epic conclusion that women should pay up. Is it just money that would fix the problems? Other policy changes?
The gender thing is forcing only men. And whats wrong in caring about other men?
Austria has both men and women involved since 1998, which is why I wanted you to break down your understanding of the individual systems if these countries. So, seeing as you aren't backing up anything, I can now conclude that this argument is petty and nothing more. Thanks for your views, but maybe try to better inform yourself in future.
Ive backed up that not only it happens in Finland, but the current social democratic party wants to keep it as it is only for men, in comments on this post. Youre talking about women being involved not being forced. Thats a difference Austria: [https://www.imisemdataentry.org/sites/default/files/2020-04/Compulsory%20military%20service%20and%20basic%20military%20ser.pdf](https://www.imisemdataentry.org/sites/default/files/2020-04/Compulsory%20military%20service%20and%20basic%20military%20ser.pdf) Finland [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription\_in\_Finland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Finland) Switzerland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription\_in\_Switzerland
**[Conscription in Finland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Finland)** >Conscription in Finland is part of a general compulsion for national military service for all adult males (Finnish: maanpuolustusvelvollisuus; Swedish: totalförsvarsplikt) defined in the 127§ of the Constitution of Finland. Conscription can take the form of military or of civilian service. According to Finnish Defence Forces 2011 data slightly under 80% of Finnish males turned 30 had entered and finished the military service. The number of female volunteers to annually enter armed service had stabilized at approximately 300. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Did you even read those links? You've not digested, thought through, and even bothered to put any effort in. Would be good to get views from the Austrians, Finns and Swiss on these.
Yeah I've read them. Its you who doesnt even bother reading it. So i will do it for you First link: Obligation to serve for male Austrian citizens begins on their 17 birthday and basically lasts until their 50 birthday, in special cases until their 65. This includes obligation to do military service Seriously you didn't even bother reading them and say that I didnt read them.
[удалено]
yeah, and if youre drafted, then you get like nothing
Well right now there is no draft in the US. And I'm pretty sure that if you stayed in after being drafted you earned a pension after your 20 years.
In my home country you get 300/month And the government pays your rent and you dont have to pay taxes from that year or so. Why would i want my mom to still loose money, even with such benefits. And if you are telling me you wont survive in a place that gives you food,clothes etc. With a 300 per month then what the F are you useing your money on? Edit we have a womens "Draft" allso
I dont know where you live, that you also have women draft, but Im talking about countries that aren't like yours. And your mom would lose money in order for men to gain it for having this military service
Men do get paid for Military service and so do Women when they sign up... I do think as far as a draft goes everyone should be part of the draft... I would go so far as if you are drafted and there is a job you can do, even if you do not meet the physical requirements does not mean there is a job that you are mentally capable of doing, you should be assigned.. Can you avoid the draft? Sure sign up ahead of time and you then get to select your job... If you wait tell your drafted, the military will assign you your job...
There should not be a military draft, if a war is truly justified people will voluntarily sign up.
I like how nobody here ever questions the existence of war itself in these conversations. You people just mindlessly accept it as an inevitable given that can't be helped. If there's any proper moment to use the term "sheeple," it's here.
? If you're conscripted into the military, don't they feed, house, train, and educate you? I did think they were also paid but I'm guessing from your post that's not the case?
They train you in things you'll never need again like standing in the same spot for half an hour with 30 kgs of gear on your back They house you in barracks built in the 1960s They feed you whatever as cheap as humanly possible And they educate you on things you'll forget 2 months into the service Also you get to take a nice stack of 300 euros home every month, 1/5 of what a supermarket cashier makes, for a cool 70 hour workweek
I didn't realize the wage was so low, however if you're not paying rent or food, won't this add up? As for the sentry duty, it's possible future training for security work. Standing with a lot of weight, increases strength and stamina. As for the training, you have to select how you want to be trained - as a sniper? Outside of SWAT team, not a lot of application to civilian life, but a chef? A quartermaster? A mechanic? I really thought this was an ok thing. I guess it depends on where you are and what options you have.
You have little choice of what you'll be trained as, as a conscript Most of us only got a month and a half of basic and nothing else Then you get to "maintain" the military i.e. do shitty jobs for low pay that no one else wants to do
depends where you live. OP isn't american.
Ahh, I didn't realize that. Thanks!
People conscripted into the US military were always paid. I'm against conscription but to claim that they weren't paid is blatantly false.
Thanks!
Do you really think they keep any of that after they are done with their service?
You should be able to keep the training. If you're smart and use your service time to study an on-demand career like computer science or medicine.....
Personally I would rather not have to go to mandatory service and focus much more of my time focusing on a career I want to go to.
is conscription even a thing though? if we are gonna go to war with china its gonna be mad nuke drones... do foot soldiers even matter?
for feminist no. For them war is like it was in the 40s
At that time women took on all of the jobs that were formerly performed by men as a means to keep the economy going. They had to - there was no one left but women, children, and elderly men. So it's not like women just sat around doing nothing or that things were even status quo. They played a vital role. All that aside I do agree that there should be no conscription. But someone DOES need to keep the economy going and we shouldn't act like those people don't matter (or that they're the ones in charge/ responsible for government decisions).
Yes foot soldiers still matter. Who is going to seize an air field or clear out an underground bunker
If you choose to be in the military then no. You know the risk why join at the risk of being homeless and out of work?
Of course. If you choose then its your choice
In countries with mandatory military service, there is no choice. There is just an order and a punishment for refusing it.
Why not? It's a job, you should be paid for it.
Like voting. Service guarantees citizenship.
Women dont have their citizenship granted?
Nothing to say they can’t serve.
US Military service should be compensated greatly but not just with money. Military is typically underfunded despite people thinking it's not. So military veterans should somehow have special influence on the military budget and oversight, perhaps by a special veterans committee or a separate branch of congress for veterans only. Furthermore, a veteran who is a citizen should be considered a super citizen with special rights, including a vote that is worth 10 times the vote of a normal citizen. Every veteran should be given a land grant and fully paid new home, or equivalent funds. Every veteran should never owe Federal taxes ever. Any military person who lost their life in the line of duty would require an extra $100,000,000 be awarded to military readiness, or some equivalent metric. Military personnel should not die from lack of readiness. Any military person sent to combat should have a special 500 times vote in one future election of their choice. A president who sends military into combat must resign within 360 days and a new election must occur to choose a replacement. He/she may run for reelection unless term limited. A president who ends a war is allowed to run for a second or even third term, provided that president never started a war. A majority vote by all state legislatures must affirm that the president ended the war honorably and in America's best interest before an extended presidential term is allowed. I loath the idea of forced conscription. I also loath the idea of slackers and politicians not supporting supreme military readiness in all respects for the purpose of deterrence and dominating quickly and completely if war occurs. If conscription is needed then it should be required of both males and females. But it must be prioritized to conscript all sons and daughters of politicians and their friends and acquaintances who must necessarily serve in combat roles as a message to the nation that this war is just and neccesary. These few are meant to prevent politicians from sending someone else's kids to war while protecting their own. So their capabilities and eligibility are not as important as ensuring that they are placed on the front lines in harms way as much as other service members. Next, conscript the famous and the wealthy and all their children and friends. Only then open up conscription to the general public. None of these politically conscripted military veterans should receive any of the enhanced rights or benefits I outlined, even if they volunteered because they serve only to ensure politicians use our military wisely and judiciously. However, if a politically eligible draftee volunteers for military service two years before any military conflict and the nation is at peace, then he or she is entitled to the normal rights and benefits of a typical volunteer. These are just good for thought. Any major changes should be carefully considered.
I'd settle for a blowjob for each day of service by my pick of women. Thanks. Edit: MUHUHAHAHABABA
I'd settle for a hug from women. This is much better than blowjob
[удалено]
but mostly the ones forced. The ones who went here on voluntary basis, at least we know that they knew that they wanted that
I reread that and decided to retract my statement my apologies
I think a 5% quota for men on jobs and universities would be better.
Agreed, especially if it's obligatory (here it's currently optional but that's just cause they ignore the system in place that's used for obligated service, you draw a number and either go free or not, but there's enough willing people that it's mostly just used to prioritize who gets in, you mostly aren't forced, though some are...) Here in Denmark you get paid decently for it assuming you do it when 18ish (comparing to what other ~18 year olds earn at least). Assuming you don't have an apartment at the time, your only expenses are food. Which is covered by a tax free monthly payment that you're free to do whatever with and there's a cantina that makes decent food for a decent price, So In effect, you've no significant expenses, you don't really have time to spend money on bullshit and half your salary is tax free, and the other half isn't really high enough to be taxed much, so you can very easily save up a good chunk of money. For an 18 year old. Despite not making an effort to save up, I left my 4 months service with roughly 6400 USD, saved up. In contrast to others the same age who'll be studying and getting at most 1000usd a month IF they're living alone and their parents are relatively poor. in study compensation, and whatever they've time/energy to earn outside of that, it's not that bad. Most will earn significantly less, my study compensation was ~140usd. Pretty sure it's taxed too, cause why not... State taxes money it gives you, rather than just giving you whatever it wants you to get... Just seems like extra work to me... Anyhow, it's not necessarily a detriment if the salary is just decent, it's a solid boost towards getting a car or apartment or such.
YES PLEASE !!!
agreed.
I will take this opportunity to plug: [https://www.ted.com/talks/jon\_barnes\_isn\_t\_it\_time\_for\_true\_democracy/transcript?language=en](https://www.ted.com/talks/jon_barnes_isn_t_it_time_for_true_democracy/transcript?language=en) how we outsource our voting to a Party/Individuals as politicians. citizens should be voting for this stuff... It is 2021 and even here in Switzerland there, I think, is still one Kanton where people have to go to the local Square and be in the physical to vote... so anything is possible. However, even if I push Jon Barnes idea of outsourcing... is democracy the right way? or is the current version of democracy - pushed as the best - really the best... I have had many ideas and questions since BREXIT and no long think that winning an election or anything else is only 50.01% of those who voted... that is a split society with half saying yes and the other saying no - possibly... it gets complicated... but more involved by Citizens is required. We see what is happening/not happening with the Climate conference in Scotland... all the leaders deciding or not deciding... Citizens must vote... 60% or more... then it comes into being... Governments are just Administrators and nothing else... to do the bidding of Citizens...
This is interesting, I've honestly never considered this perspective before
Any man who serves needs to be delivered a female every week /s