Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

Dave · Mar 25, 2019

I kind of agree that citizens should participate in some sort of fashion with our military or community. I firmly believe we should implement a system where people at the age of 18 - before they allowed to enroll in college or post-high school education - need to complete 2 years worth of compulsory service. They would be get military training and be active duty unless they opted for community service. And I'm not just talking picking up garbage on the weekend. I'm talking a job that serves the community. After this obligatory 2-year stint they can elect to return to civilian life. NO deferrals for anything other than health reasons. None. Bone spurs? Well, I guess you are doing community service.

But since they are in the military or working for the greater good (the grea'er good) then go ahead and vote, 18-year old.

blotsfan · Mar 25, 2019

Dave said:
I kind of agree that citizens should participate in some sort of fashion with our military or community. I firmly believe we should implement a system where people at the age of 18 - before they allowed to enroll in college or post-high school education - need to complete 2 years worth of compulsory service. They would be get military training and be active duty unless they opted for community service. And I'm not just talking picking up garbage on the weekend. I'm talking a job that serves the community. After this obligatory 2-year stint they can elect to return to civilian life. NO deferrals for anything other than health reasons. None. Bone spurs? Well, I guess you are doing community service.

But since they are in the military or working for the greater good (the grea'er good) then go ahead and vote, 18-year old.

I don't even necessarily disagree with this (assuming the community service option is there). It's just incredibly not libertarian.

GasBandit · Mar 25, 2019

blotsfan said:
I don't even necessarily disagree with this (assuming the community service option is there). It's just incredibly not libertarian.

You don't even know what the word means, you still think it means anarchist corporatocracy.

Dave · Mar 25, 2019

I don't care about libertarianism. I think it's stupid for the most part. They have some good ideas, but they are offset by batshit insane ideas like no regulations and things like that. Anarchy is not a good form of government, nor is letting the corporations run everything, because that's exactly what they'd do under Gas's world. Yes, even more so than they do now.

Dave · Mar 25, 2019

GasBandit said:
You don't even know what the word means, you still think it means anarchist corporatocracy.

Pretty much what would happen, yes.

blotsfan · Mar 25, 2019

I don't understand how you can call a system of government with a legally defined underclass, with no way to be part of the superior class beside submitting yourself to the whims of the government for a set period of time "small."

AshburnerX · Mar 25, 2019

Dave said:
I kind of agree that citizens should participate in some sort of fashion with our military or community. I firmly believe we should implement a system where people at the age of 18 - before they allowed to enroll in college or post-high school education - need to complete 2 years worth of compulsory service. They would be get military training and be active duty unless they opted for community service. And I'm not just talking picking up garbage on the weekend. I'm talking a job that serves the community. After this obligatory 2-year stint they can elect to return to civilian life. NO deferrals for anything other than health reasons. None. Bone spurs? Well, I guess you are doing community service.

But since they are in the military or working for the greater good (the grea'er good) then go ahead and vote, 18-year old.

This really just sounds like another way for the rich to get preferential treatment. Community service would inevitably become cushy management/internship work for the elites and grueling labor for the rest... just like the DRAFT did/does. Fundamentally, this system can only be exploitative.

Worse, because it's MANDATORY, it interfers with young adults ability to sustain themselves: are parents on the hook for an additional 2 years of shelter or are the poor supposed to be doing this alongside a full-time job? Are they being paid for this work? Even people in countries with mandatory military service get paid for their time.

GasBandit · Mar 25, 2019

blotsfan said:
no way to be part of the superior class beside submitting yourself to the whims of the government for a set period of time

Says the guy who wants the government to be 100% in charge of what medical services he gets, what food he eats, what beverages he drinks, and basically what media he is allowed to consume... FOREVER.

And really, the only difference between what I suggested and what Dave suggested is that mine isn't mandatory (unless you want to vote/hold office).

figmentPez · Mar 25, 2019

blotsfan said:
I don't understand how you can call a system of government with a legally defined underclass, with no way to be part of the superior class beside submitting yourself to the whims of the government for a set period of time "small."

"OH, you want to vote. Well first you'll have to go through a rigorous systems of tests designed to weed out undesirables. Strength and endurance ~~tests~~ training will eliminate anyone with a physical disability, and a number of those with mental illneses, as well as excluding a higher percentage of women than men. Recruits will be housed according to gerrymandered regions, allowing for ethnic and socioeconomic groups to be segregated and subjected to harsher treatment in hopes that more of them will (white)wash out."

Blots and Ash, you both make a very good points. Such a system is doomed to be exploited.

figmentPez · Mar 25, 2019

GasBandit said:
(unless you want to vote/hold office).

Yeah, because giving an arbitrarily chosen minority the ability to dominate the government has never led to problems in the past....

Dave · Mar 25, 2019

AshburnerX said:
This really just sounds like another way for the rich to get preferential treatment. Community service would inevitably become cushy management/internship work for the elites and grueling labor for the rest... just like the DRAFT did/does. Fundamentally, this system can only be exploitative.

Worse, because it's MANDATORY, it interfers with young adults ability to sustain themselves: are parents on the hook for an additional 2 years of shelter or are the poor supposed to be doing this alongside a full-time job? Are they being paid for this work? Even people in countries with mandatory military service get paid for their time.

Well, considering this would be a job, their parents wouldn't NECESSARILY be on the hook for them. People in the military would have housing already. The 2 year community service (which, by the way, would be CHOSEN FOR THEM much like the jobs in the military) would be a livable wage that teaches a craft while giving back.

As to your point about the rich getting by...I'm not sure there's a system that COULD be put into place that would stop some level of that. Make the jobs tie in to academic performance? The rich will (continue to) use test takers or bribe their way to cheat. Make the selection completely random? No such thing.

No, it's not perfect, but we as Americans are (for the most part) too removed from what it means to BE citizens. There are pockets of it, but we have lost our community feel and need to be reconnected to it.

Ravenpoe · Mar 25, 2019

And once the military are the only ones able to hold power, they will outlaw guns so as to keep it. So at least Gas is finally for gun control.

GasBandit · Mar 25, 2019

Ravenpoe said:
And once the military are the only ones able to hold power, they will outlaw guns so as to keep it. So at least Gas is finally for gun control.

That's the slipperiest slippery slope fallacy I've ever read.

figmentPez said:
Yeah, because giving an arbitrarily chosen minority the ability to dominate the government has never led to problems in the past....

I'd wager less probems than the problems we already get by having the ignorant and unqualified have more of a say and leadership role as those they outnumber. At least in my example, enfranchisment is earned by showing you'd put your life on the line for your country if asked.

blotsfan · Mar 25, 2019

GasBandit said:
Says the guy who wants the government to be 100% in charge of what medical services he gets, what food he eats, what beverages he drinks, and basically what media he is allowed to consume... FOREVER.

Forgetting the hyperbole, I'm not a libertarian and don't constantly advocate for small government so that wouldn't make my a hypocrite the way you are, regardless.

GasBandit · Mar 25, 2019

Dave said:
Pretty much what would happen, yes.

If libertarianism guarantees corporatocracy, than anything everybody else in this thread is suggesting guarantees North Korea.

IE, no, neither is true.

GasBandit · Mar 25, 2019

blotsfan said:
Forgetting the hyperbole, I'm not a libertarian and don't constantly advocate for small government so that wouldn't make my a hypocrite the way you are, regardless.

The point, which you miss as usual, is that yes, my ideal government is smaller than your ideal. And smaller than what we have now.

blotsfan · Mar 25, 2019

Oh so I gotta correct the hyperbole? I didn't think you seriously believed that those were my beliefs.

GasBandit said:
Says the guy who wants the government to be 100% in charge of what medical services he gets, what food he eats, what beverages he drinks, and basically what media he is allowed to consume... FOREVER.

Universal healthcare in no way is the government telling you what healthcare you're allowed to have. No more than insurance companies tell you now at least.

An extra tax on soda doesn't mean you aren't allowed to drink it. It's just an incentive for people not to, since it's not good to. If you'd really rather drink it, then hey at least you're contributing to the cost of your insulin.

I don't think I've advocated banning food, unless you mean wanting regulations on what food companies can put in the food they sell in which case...yeah I do. I admit that I haven't served in the military, but from my understanding, that is a touch more controlling than the fact that the foods I buy don't cause cancer as much as a cheaper version would.

And what media have I advocated the government banning? Beyond child porn, I can't think of anything I've said. And if you think that's a bridge to far then...

GasBandit · Mar 25, 2019

I was simply applying the same accuracy to your assertions that you were to mine.

Gruebeard · Mar 25, 2019

Thordammit, people. I said Robocop, not Starship Troopers!

blotsfan · Mar 25, 2019

GasBandit said:
I was simply applying the same accuracy to your assertions that you were to mine.

And I don't consider a government that has degrees of citizenship tied to pledging your life in service of the government to be "small."

blotsfan · Mar 25, 2019

And if today you were forced to choose between paying a 10% tax on non-diet soda for the rest of your life, or being in the military for two years, I find it highly unlikely that you'd choose the latter.

GasBandit · Mar 25, 2019

blotsfan said:
And if today you were forced to choose between paying a 10% tax on non-diet soda for the rest of your life, or being in the military for two years, I find it highly unlikely that you'd choose the latter.

4 of my 5 parents were in the military, as were both my grandfathers (and the great grandfathers that were alive to meet me when I became cognizant of my surroundings). It was actually something of a surprise that I didn't go into the military myself. So you might be glad you didn't put money on that guess.

Even though I pretty much don't drink soda any more (other than what I mix with booze).

blotsfan said:
And I don't consider a government that has degrees of citizenship tied to pledging your life in service of the government to be "small."

That government can be small. But I'd like to see the commitment held by those who would influence and shape that government - and therefor the country - not be small, yes.

blotsfan · Mar 25, 2019

GasBandit said:
4 of my 5 parents were in the military, as were both my grandfathers (and the great grandfathers that were alive to meet me when I became cognizant of my surroundings). It was actually something of a surprise that I didn't go into the military myself. So you might be glad you didn't put money on that guess.

I'd also bet that the majority of them either didn't have a choice or enlisted so they could preemptively choose their branch before they had the decision made for them.

Dave · Mar 25, 2019

blotsfan said:
I'd also bet that the majority of them either didn't have a choice or enlisted so they could preemptively choose their branch before they had the decision made for them.

Even during the days of the draft you could choose your branch. You just had to choose one. Well, unless you had bone spurs or something equally 1%.

blotsfan · Mar 25, 2019

Dave said:
Even during the days of the draft you could choose your branch.

My understanding was that thats not how it was in WW2 though, which was probably the war Gas' grandparents fought in.

Actually from a cursory google, if you were drafted into Vietnam you were going to the army so even then people would willingly enlist in other branches where they'd be less likely to die just or avoid the draft.

Dave · Mar 25, 2019

blotsfan said:
My understanding was that thats not how it was in WW2 though, which was probably the war Gas' grandparents fought in.

Sort of. If you waited for them to tell you it was time to go, you had no choice. But most people knew this and went voluntarily to the branch of their choosing. So if you waited you were subjected to the whims of the military as a whole but if you went in yourself you had a modicum of control.

And again, control is an interesting thing. In the Army and Air Force you can choose your job before you go to basic. So if you want job X and there are openings, you sign for job X and that's where you'll go. In the Navy and Marine Corps they can TRY to get you where you want to go, but they can put you anywhere they need help. Mostly infantry for the Marines.

blotsfan · Mar 25, 2019

Dave said:
Sort of. If you waited for them to tell you it was time to go, you had no choice. But most people knew this and went voluntarily to the branch of their choosing.

Which is exactly my point. "Not joining the military" wasn't really an option for them. While it was for gas, an option he took.

Dave · Mar 25, 2019

blotsfan said:
Which is exactly my point. "Not joining the military" wasn't really an option for them. While it was for gas, an option he took.

I totally misread your post about where you said the exact same thing I did. Sorry for "Davesplaining" to you.

(Davesplaining is where Dave is at work, reads things really quickly, misses the point entirely, then parrots back the exact thing you'd originally said.)

Celt Z · Mar 25, 2019

blotsfan said:
Actually from a cursory google, if you were drafted into Vietnam you were going to the army so even then people would willingly enlist in other branches where they'd be less likely to die just or avoid the draft.

Dave said:
Sort of. If you waited for them to tell you it was time to go, you had no choice. But most people knew this and went voluntarily to the branch of their choosing. So if you waited you were subjected to the whims of the military as a whole but if you went in yourself you had a modicum of control.

And again, control is an interesting thing. In the Army and Air Force you can choose your job before you go to basic. So if you want job X and there are openings, you sign for job X and that's where you'll go. In the Navy and Marine Corps they can TRY to get you where you want to go, but they can put you anywhere they need help. Mostly infantry for the Marines.

Wasn't this part of the brouhaha over W Bush's Air National Guard service? Or was that rich parents pulling strings, a la Operation Varsity Blues? I can't remember the details at the moment.

Dei · Mar 25, 2019

blotsfan said:
Which is exactly my point. "Not joining the military" wasn't really an option for them. While it was for gas, an option he took.

Gas and I were at an age where, and I don't know if he saw this at his college but I definitely saw it in mine, where kids were signing up for ROTC because it made college way cheaper and "There was no way we were going to get involved in a war anyways, so it's a totally safe choice." That was proved hilariously false however.

GasBandit · Mar 25, 2019

blotsfan said:
I'd also bet that the majority of them either didn't have a choice or enlisted so they could preemptively choose their branch before they had the decision made for them.

You continue to make bets that you would lose.

Great Grandfather 1 (and she who would become his bride) both signed up before WW2 broke out because their other career options were not very appetizing and they wanted the heck out of Dodge (Dodge, in this case being, their parents' struggling, dusty, New Mexico farms deep in Courage-the-Cowardly-Dog levels of nowhere). They met in the service (she was a nurse, he was injured), and she left so they could get married.

Great Grandfather 2 volunteered immediately after pearl harbor.

Grandfather 1 had 5 mouths to feed and joined the air force. Ended up flying in Vietnam, but C-130s, not combat. Also spent time in Germany and Woomera, Australia.

Grandfather 2 didn't talk much about his service, so I'm not entirely clear on.

All my parents joined of their own volition for various reasons (3 of them to do with paying for school - 2 to become doctors, 1 to become a lawyer). Only my father was deployed for Desert Storm, and he got out as soon as he returned.

GasBandit · Mar 25, 2019

Dei said:
Gas and I were at an age where, and I don't know if he saw this at his college but I definitely saw it in mine, where kids were signing up for ROTC because it made college way cheaper and "There was no way we were going to get involved in a war anyways, so it's a totally safe choice." That was proved hilariously false however.

Eh, if I did end up signing up when I graduated HS in 1997, I probably would have been out by Iraq in 2003, though who knows if 9/11 would have convinced me to stay in or not. I'd be getting deep into what-if territory in any event, at this point.

Tinwhistler · Mar 25, 2019

blotsfan said:
An extra tax on soda doesn't mean you aren't allowed to drink it. It's just an incentive for people not to, since it's not good to. If you'd really rather drink it, then hey at least you're contributing to the cost of your insulin.

I haven't been following this whole debate, but a couple of points here that don't have much to do with politics:

* If you're over-consuming sugar, you're going to get type-2 diabetes. This is "insulin resistant" diabetes or "adult onset" diabetes. This kind of diabetes generally doesn't take insulin shots (unlike type-1 diabetes, where your body doesn't make enough insulin). Instead, you usually take a drug, like metformin, that are much cheaper than insulin injections.
* If you're type-1 diabetic, and taking insulin shots, I promise that you're already "contributing to the cost of your insulin". Insulin can run you $1000-1500 a month, just to stay alive. And people are literally dying because they can't afford it. (source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mother-fights-for-lower-insulin-prices-after-sons-tragic-death/ ). Unlike type-2 diabetes, you don't need insulin because you're fat or eat too much sugar. It's a genetic disease. So taxing sugary drinks has nothing to do with insulin.

netsirk · Mar 25, 2019

Tinwhistler said:
* If you're over-consuming sugar, you're going to get type-2 diabetes. This is "insulin resistant" diabetes or "adult onset" diabetes. This kind of diabetes generally doesn't take insulin shots (unlike type-1 diabetes, where your body doesn't make enough insulin). Instead, you usually take a drug, like metformin, that are much cheaper than insulin injections.

One minor medical clarification on this point - people with type 2 diabetes commonly are treated with insulin as a component of medical management, particularly in higher-risk populations or where dietary/weight/lifestyle modifications are unlikely to effect sufficient change in a short period of time. While those affected with T2D are indeed insulin resistant (and the pancreas is unable to produce sufficient endogenous insulin to make up the difference in need), it doesn't mean that a higher-than-a-non-T2D-person's-dose-of-insulin won't work in these patients. Per the Mayo Clinic's lay summary of T2D, physicians are moving to use insulin earlier in the course of therapy for T2D these days (perhaps as more information comes out about the deleterious effects of chronic hyperglycemia?) Anyway, this is all aside from the actual ongoing topic, just didn't want anyone to be confused if they/someone they know has T2D and has insulin as a portion of their therapy!

Tinwhistler · Mar 25, 2019

netsirk said:
just didn't want anyone to be confused if they/someone they know has T2D and has insulin as a portion of their therapy!

Yup..i knew some T2D folks used insulin. Which is why i said "generally", because every exception has the rule and all that

Incidentally, even T2D diabetes has a genetic factor. It's not all down to "those fat asses got themselves into this mess, and they got what they deserved". Recent genetic testing shows that I'm 40% more likely to develop type-2 diabetes than the average based on genetics.