Any government/country is actually just a kind of service (you pay taxes and get different goods from it). Every person should have the right to choose the provider of this service (change the country) or completely refrain from it. It means that mandatory military service is no less than slavery. People are not guilty for being born in a country they don’t want to fight for (or that they don’t want to fight at all)
You largely can choose the provider of this service, but they will also choose you (or not).
And you can not refrain from the service while being in the community of those that don’t refrain. In practice there are (nearly) no places where the community as a whole chooses to refrain.
If you’re in a country with compulsory military service, make yourself interesting for other countries and leave.
The current situation is not the best in my opinion. I think people who don’t agree with it (like me) should try to change it if possible (peaceful ways are always preferred) instead of adapting to the situation. Though everyone has the right not to fight and not to do anything at all. I’m not saying that fighting the regime you don’t like is mandatory
unless you’re a US citizen which requires the extra step of completely renouncing your US citizenship or continue paying US taxes (and therefore supporting the military mostly lol) regardless of where you may live in the world
It’s complicated, but not necessarily. The US has a lot of agreements with other countries for you to avoid having to pay taxes for both countries. If you’re living in a country with one of those agreements, you can file with the US to claim you’ve paid taxes to the foreign government.
And the US doesn’t force you to renounce your citizenship, it’s generally other countries that don’t allow dual citizenship; Germany and Denmark for example don’t allow it.
I was wrong about Denmark. I did some research last year and apparently what I found was wrong.
But the US has Tax treaties, the FEIE, and the Foreign Tax Credit programs for expats to avoid paying US tax when overseas. But you still need to file with the US.
I think you are on the right track with your ideals of the world, but I also guess you kinda know that this is not how states operate. Of course there are different types of states, but if you think of democracies, they are also not service providers to their citizens. On the contrary. Democratic states are the abstraction of all the private interests of their citizens. This is what they protect and advance. What arises out of that is that occasionally these interests will suggest a war is what the nation desires.
I do not believe in “nation’s interest”. That’s the thing that made USA an aggressive state. It also means that the minorities’ opinions are completely rejected. And yk politicians often like to do what people didn’t ask them to do. Democracy is good but the right of choosing the country and freely leaving one must always be there
At first you got to have a good analysis of how society and the economy works. Unfortunately this already is a tricky thing, because not everybody agrees.
Of course not everybody agrees. And we shouldn’t force them to agree. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make the world better for everyone. Ik it sounds naive but I’m just getting into all of this. Now I’m not an expert at all. I think you get the main idea. I’m not capable of detailing it very much yet
I think the point they are trying to hint at is that it makes sense to try and understand the emergent forces that culminate in events as horrific as war.
You may “not believe in national interests” but something closely resembling that is a force governing social behavior.
So while it is important to pass moral judgements on these phenomena, you will be more effective at doing so if you can abstractly evaluate them absent moral judgement. Just as you couldn’t coherently understand an ecology if you cannot accept obligate predators as a concept because of the moral implications of predation.
We will all differ in our moral and strategic assessments, but we all cohabit the same world, in which we can all recognize common truths arising from nature.
A democratic state allows its citizens to pursue their private interests. This is only possible though if this is happening in a legal framework, so that the private interests of one citizen don‘t infringe upon the ones of another. The outcome of this consideration then is the abstraction (the specific applied to the universal) of the free will of the citizens. We call it freedom and justice. Others call it the free market.
Eh… Close, but they are also a concentration social power (and fundamentally deferred violence), and rights only really exist in the context of social power. You can try and establish your own personal sovereignty but you can be sure that any state that cares to will test that. Sometimes the most you can do is accept that it is able to imprison you or go down fighting, and if you are committed to pacifism the latter is a harder option.
Fighting is the last option. It’s needed when a state becomes usurpated and (unpopular opinion) when the current situation creates an objective high risk for the society or its part and waiting for the election is not really an option (such risk can be exhibited as genocide, severe discrimination or just as creation of a good environment for spreading aggressive ideas. All are dangerous). I think the best thing to do in a democratic society is trying to promote ideas which you think are right so people who agree can join you and you all can have a bigger influence on elections and people who aren’t sure about their views can also find yours appealing. Leave the enforcement part for people who really know what they’re doing and who you’re sure are doing it for the higher good
Idk much about fascism but I don’t think my views are close to it. Afaik it relies on patriotism and nationalities and similar kind of stuff. I don’t believe in any of that. But I do believe that my English is not the best so it can be easy to misunderstand what I say
Fascism is the merging of the corporation and the state. Ignore the bullshit redefinition the US pulled out of their ass so that it wouldn’t apply to themselves. Kind of like how liberalism was redefined from class collaboration (what fascism is about) to being about progressivism.
Corporations should never control any states. It is what an evil corporation is. What I meant is that ultimately a government is a service because it has basically the same idea and that it must never force anyone to obey it. Laws can and should exist (it’s one of the important government’s services after all) but military service is a different thing
It’s not, mister. It’s really not. People like you make this world more aggressive. I’m not trying to fight you though. And I don’t have the energy or even the knowledge to explain. Nothing is simple. Hopefully at some point you will understand it. Though it probably would be nice to have this world simplified a little ngl
here they were martyred anyway, in this 'safe' place, in the tent that my brother set up in this field."
At least 14 Palestinians, including nine children, were killed in strikes on al-Mawasi early on Thursday, according to the Hamas-run ministry of health in Gaza.
Sherut Leumi (Hebrew: שירות לאומי, lit. ‘National Service’) is an alternative voluntary form of national service in Israel, as opposed to the mandatory military conscription prevalent in the country. It is designed for individuals who do not meet the eligibility criteria for service in the Israel Defense Forces, or who hold conscientious objections to military enlistment. The program primarily was created for religious Jewish girls aged 17 to 24, although it is open to all applicants who cite diverse grounds for their decision.
The majority work in schools, but can also work in places such as special education, administration, hospitals,[3] law, geriatrics, nursing homes, health clinics, teens at risk, internal security, disadvantaged communities, immigrant assistance, and many other organizations. Acceptance is based on an interview via a placement organizations that try to find the youth appropriate skills, interests, and needs.
Although the Israeli army’s Conscience Committee can decide to allow exemption from military service, this is usually granted only to those conscientious objectors who refuse to serve on religious grounds. However, according to the UN Human Rights Committee, no discrimination is permitted “among conscientious objectors on the basis of the nature of their particular beliefs” - i.e. whether they are religious or otherwise. Even though Israeli law does allow for exemption on grounds of pacifism, the army’s Conscience Committee frequently rejects pacifists’ cases. The authorities deny objectors the possibility of performing alternative civilian service. Conscientious objectors in Israel can be convicted of and imprisoned for the same “offence” repeatedly. In 2003, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention said that this practice flouts the rights of conscientious objectors under international human rights standards which prohibit “double jeopardy”.
Your point was already refuted in the article from amnesty I linked.
So, as an aside, I’ve heard that the whole story in the Quran about murdering people with Mohammed depictions is about false idols, not about depictions. Basically don’t worship a statue.
Not to take away from the barbarism of punishment, let alone lethal punishment, for doing so.
I guess that means there’s a huge pool of younger Ukrainians still to pull from for the military? I’m guessing that’s a good thing for their long term recruiting prospects.
It’s the opposite. The pool of young people to pull from is smaller everyday.
In this regard, Russia has the advantage where they can just keep throwing more and more bodies into the war without major unrest. Luckily Wagner is gone, as they had the human wave then special forces combo down to a science, but the problem of Russia having exponentially more manpower at their disposal remains unless they begin drafting all Women between ages 18 - 60. Which will likely never happen.
Artillery. Artillery wins wars. The role of a soldier in the modern battlefield is a) spot for artillery and b) kill what artillery can’t.
Ukraine has been making absolutely devastating use of every piece of artillery they’ve been given, even using highly unorthodox (but effective) tactics like using Russian news broadcasts to zero their shots.
The Russians have, to be fair, also made excellent use of artillery, which has historically formed the backbone of their military. This has been largely a conflict of big guns engaged in sniper duels, when they’re not laying waste to anything that pops it’s head out in the open.
They were very active and loud on social media the days after Oct 7th. But, as the months went by and the current situation has exceeded every form of “self-defense” not a single gvmt soul has spoken up. Bare in mind, we’re talking about people who portray themselves as human-rights supporters.
I used to raise my voice against far-rights and corrupt politicians. Now, I’m at the point where I just don’t give a fuck about this country anymore, and their political outcome.
“It’s a shitty situation,” Sausage said. The shell shortage forces soldiers like Sergeant Taras “Fizruk”, a 31-year-old mortar gunner, also from the 2nd Battalion, to make impossible life and death decisions. “We had ten times more ammunition over summer, and better quality,” he said. “American rounds come in batches of almost identical weights, which makes it easier to correct fire, with very few duds. Now we have shells from all over the world with different qualities and we only get 15 for three days. Last week we got a batch full of duds.” Ukrainian soldiers from the 47th brigade appeal for western support Ukrainian soldiers from the 47th brigade appeal for western support Instead of firing on Russians as soon as they come within range, they have to wait to be sure they are heading for their positions, and only hit large groups. “We should be controlling our sector from 4km away, so we can kill a few hundred Russian soldiers before they get to our infantry and we only take a few wounded,” he said. “But without ammunition we can’t. When it’s two or three soldiers I’m not shooting any more, only when it’s a critical situation, say ten guys close to our infantry, we will work. If our rounds aren’t the same weight, the next round will fly two hundred metres past the Russians. And then it’s too late.” Rather than watch helplessly as smaller groups encroach on their infantry, his men sometimes resort to flying their unarmed drones at enemy troops, who temporarily scatter fearing they are about to have a grenade dropped on them.
Over the following weeks, Brand referred to her as “the child”, asked her to read Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita and coached her on what to say to her parents when he wanted to see her, Alice says.
She was 16, so yeah, he’s right: he was banging a child.
Even if he isn’t convicted of the others (one was treated at a clinic after the assault) dating a 16 year old when you’re 30 is gonna get you some time.
Assuming this is all true (I do believe them, but it’s up to judge/jury to decide) but he somehow manages to get out of this, his reputation is in the toilet
It’s creepy and abusive as fuck so I don’t say this out of any great desire to defend him, but that girl is of legal age in the UK, so by our standards he isn’t a nonce, legally speaking.
Ya’ll motherfuckers need Romeo and Juliet laws. Age of consent at 14-16 isn’t a horrid idea, but slap a “within 5 years of the age of the oldest companion” and you fix Richard Brand grooming a fucking child.
The thing is, if this happens 4 times, most likely there are more who might speak up. The thing with these victims, in many cases, they think they are the only one. Knowing there might be others, would increase the chances of them to go public with their experience which might be even worse.
16 is above the age of consent in the UK as far as I know, so the issue wouldn’t be the dating of a sixteen year old, it’d be the apparent rampant rapes and assaults regardless of age.
Not to dog on the UK but maybe they should raise that a little, it’s incredibly easy for an adult to take advantage of a 16 year old, not even just sexually.
I think it’s actually the USA who has an unusually high age of consent. Most of us have an age of consent of 16 and a drinking age of 18.
I don’t exactly think we should raise it, but I sure wouldn’t be against a Romeo and Juliet style amendment. I remember dating an 18 year old when I was 21, and that felt like a big gap. I can’t begin to imagine 16 to 30+. Though that wouldn’t be illegal here either^*.
We have exceptions if the older person is in a position of trust like a teacher, coach etc. Then it’s illegal.
There’s no defence here, just correcting someone who seems to be defaulting to the USA law
I literally said brand is a cunt in my comment, what more do you want me to say? That he’s a total cunt? He’s still a rapist regardless if this is all true.
You know we have a real problem in our society when these women haven’t been able to come forward with these allegations until the press have contacted them.
If they fear coming forward after being assaulted by someone who is hardly discreet about being a sexual predator, what must it be like for the victims of more outwardly respectable public figures?
thetimes.co.uk
Hot