🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 06 Nov 1999 11:04:05 GMT, nenosed@apex.met.au (Ned Latham)
wrote:

>Lugnut <ausbiz@iinet.net.au> wrote:

snip

>I presume you're talking here of the big boys: the ones who have enough
>money for fancy lawyers and their special pleadings and/or enough influence
>to affect the judicial process.
>
>Censorship won't touch those people, ever.

not so long as $$$ talks.

>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.

>>                         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?

>>                                                               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?

>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?
 
>> There are some people who would not take to that kind of life :-)
>> Those who are *delicate* of psyche and body.
>
>Products of the nanny society. Some assertiveness training might be
>beneficial for them.
>
>And I'm not happy about the assumption I feel behind your phrase
>``that kind of life''.

you shouldnt assume :-)
what do you feel?  

>> 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.

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

any job.
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?

>> 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? 

But...   if you dont have down and dirty training - full on, how the
hell are the recruits going to be prepared for war?  They wont know
what hit them. Slitting throats and kids carrying grenades is pretty
hard to prepare for at the best of times.

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


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

snip
>> 
>> If you are not free to take up job offers/committments/ then you may
>> loose an advancement/job.  Same on the home front. Not there for
>> important family events, etc.  It puts the NS people at a
>> disadvantage. What can NS offer to compensate?
>
>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.

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.



------------------
ECHELON, listening in to your communications,

http://www.qainfo.se/~lb/echelon.htm