🚀 go-pugleaf

Lugnut <ausbiz@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> nenosed@apex.met.au (Ned Latham) wrote:
>
> > Lugnut <ausbiz@iinet.net.au> wrote:

----snip----

> > As to those lower on crime's social ladder, gaol is a more effective teacher
> > of criminal knowledge and attitude than the internet will ever be.
>
> exactly.  you cant censor the internet (yet) and you cant stop crims
> learning more about how to perform crime when they come into contact
> with other criminals.

So, as I said, gaol is a bad idea.

> > >                         Jail seems to be a school for apprentice
> > > crims, as is juve.  You cant stop them talking to each other,
> >
> > Precisely my objection: see above.
>
> so....  if you dont have jails, those crims who want to, will leave
> town for crimes unknown - perhaps in other towns, or just move to
> another suburb and carry on.  Perhaps you mean have a kind of 'home
> detention' with those electronic devices?

Actually, I wasn't thinking of that, but hey, not bad.

> > >                                                               so whats
> > > the answer?
> >
> > 1. The Law must be just, so that it is *worthy* of respect.
> 
> hah!  whens the next flying pig take off?   ;->
> if we can decide on what to reform, and how - who will implement the
> reform and when?

We now have the technology to enable democracy.

If Australia became a democracy (big if, I know), we could amend the
Constitution to require that all laws have (or have imputed to them)
a sunset clause.

Eventually, everything would get considered by the poeple.

> > 2. It must be administered justly, humanely, and evenly.
> > 3. The system should be aimed at motivating twho commit crimes to reform.
>
> yeah, it should....  but.....  will it ever?

Dunno. I do know this: if we don't try for it, it won't happen; if we do,
it might. I think the possibility makes the effort worthwhile.

----snip----

> > > You dont want to ruin the life of a person who cant handle being
> > > yelled at/dressed down in front of mates for continual mistakes.
> >
> > I've never believed or accepted that malarkey about the ``necessity''
> > of breaking people down in order to make soldiers of them. There are
> > better ways to do it.
>
> yes there are, but shit happens.
> NS will see a lot of shit, so those from the nco's up had better have
> good attitudes, eh?  people get ridden and it will be hard to police.

Presently, it's institutionalized - heavily encouraged: the movies even
glorify it. That encouragement can be removed.

I repeat, this NS is not about making soldiers.

> > > Also those with real medical problems that would affect them in any
> > > job should be exempt.
> >
> > *Any* job?
>
> any job.

If people have problems such that they are unsuitable for *any* job, then
they can't support themselves: they need care; they should be wards, not
citizens.

> if you cant work in civy street, you cant work in the forces.
> so such a person would have medical grounds/documentation to prove
> such a medical condition or disability.
> What would you do with pregnant women??
> Give them a discharge or make them attend later, or not at all?

It sounds like you're being wilfully obtuse here, Lug. Earlier, I said
that it should apply to immigrants as well as natives. I also spoke of
disfranchised convicts regaining citizenship.

Is there any way you can avoid the conclusion that this form of NS should
be available flexiblby?

> > > If we had NS now, they would be training for East Timor
> >
> > If we'd had for some years the kind of NS I have in mind, and since
> > ``that kind of life'' actually does suit many people once they've
> > experienced it, we'd have a large pool of volunteers ready for
> > battlefield training.
>
> yeah, its not a bad life, pretty easy money and good benefits for the
> work, I thought.   although now I believe that taxing away those extra
> benefits is not in our interest as a country - but then again, I guess
> we dont really rely on our armed forces to defend us, do we? 

We have too little. As Lang Hancock said: ``Singapore could take us by
telephone''.

> But...   if you dont have down and dirty training - full on, how the
> hell are the recruits going to be prepared for war?

See above: ``ready for battlefield training''.

----snip----

> > We'd be able to field volunteer forces comparable to those we
> > fielded in WW 1. And more quickly.
> 
> ahhh, but the kids of today have some idea that war is a nasty thing
> and many that did NS wont volunteer again.

It *is* nasty.

Many won't volunteer, many will.

>                                             Has patriotism ever been
> as high as it was back then?

Australia was a progressive country back then, and the majority of
people believed in its future. The politicians and the establishment
have destroyed that, but there's no reason it can't be restored.

> > > are off to that location now, and we havent sent them to a zone of
> > > strife you many years. If the need is there, they *will* be sent.
> >
> > You're assuming that this NS would be managed the way selective conscription
> > was in the sixties. That is most definitely *not* what I propose: rather,
> > the nasho is a trainee, and only a trainee. (S)he is not a conscript,
> > and is not liable for active service.
>
> So you are preparing a 'community army' or a 'citizenship army'?
> Not a real fighting army?

Yes.

> Will they be called up full time if needed later on?
> If not, why not?

No: because there will be plenty of volunteers.

----snip----

> > I don't understand this objection: the NS ``disadvantage'' applies to
> > *everyone*; in other words, it's not a disadvantage. I repeat:
> > Allowing exceptions means introducing/perpetuating privilege.
> 
> no, it does not.  I dont see it that way.
> it does not apply to anyone who has done NS and gets the job I was
> forced to leave. that disadvantages *me* as when my NS is done, the
> person who took my job has 12 months experience that I dont have when
> we compete for contracts or jobs. they may also have the pay level I
> would have had, if I had been left alone to persue my career.

There you go again with assumptions that are not justified by what I said.

You don't get forced to leave a job. You choose when you enrol: say, any
time after your 16th birthday.

And since it's a condition of cirizenship, employers who disadvantaged those
who enrolled would not flourish.

> also, 12 months of normal family life is lost.  thats a lot when you
> have kids. you cant sell up and move to where the NS person is posted.

Why wait until you've got children?

Ned

-- 
To reply, cut out my nose and make the met a net.