7 ms·
> So it's okay to give people who will never be forced to step onto a battlefield and die the power to decide who to fight and when to do it? That is literally
by shkkmo 5y ago
> So it's okay to give people who will never be forced to step onto a battlefield and die the power to decide who to fight and when to do it?
That is literally the only sane and stable way to run a country. Otherwise you are describing a military dictatorship.
- matheusmoreira 5y agoIt may be a sane and stable way to run a civilian society but in times of war they're not gonna be the ones who get killed. It will be young men.
- shkkmo 5y agoAnd if you were pointing out that leaders should treat the responsiblity with care and respect I would agree. Advocating for military dictatorship is quite different.
- tablespoon 5y ago>>>> So it's okay to give people who will never be forced to step onto a battlefield and die the power to decide who to fight and when to do it? > Advocating for military dictatorship is quite different. It sounds like they're arguing more for something like a military oligarchy a la Starship Troopers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers#Setting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers#Setting), which is somewhat different but still not good.
- matheusmoreira 5y agoI don't know about starship troppers. I'm just saying it's not at all fair when 50% of the population can elect leaders who have the power to order the other 50% to die on their behalf. That is the current situation with men and women in the vast majority of countries today, including mine: men and women can vote but only men are conscripted into military service.
- tablespoon 5y ago> I'm just saying it's not at all fair when 50% of the population can elect leaders who have the power to order the other 50% to die on their behalf. They wouldn't be ordered to die, they'd be ordered to fight.