Genuine question. I feel like there’s too much division and that people should find common ground. I really don’t like the two-party system in the US either.

  • Tuukka R@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    You could directly vote against being sent to die. You might not care about a ski hill funding request.

    Uh, people choose when they are 18 whether they want to go to civil service or army. If they choose army, they will obviously be drafted if the Russia ever attacks, unless they have later had themselves removed from the drafting lists. To make a decision on how many soldiers we’ll need for the defence is actually an extremely good example of what kind of decisions absolutely cannot be made by a broad public vote. You need a military person relaying secret strategical information to the Ministers of Parliament. It cannot be relayed to all 5.6 million people without compromising the information. If such an amount of people knows about our military strategy, so does the Russia.

    So, at least for that kind of decisions something else must be at place. Maybe there could be a restricted set of representatives that are allowed to vote in case we are attacked and you could then choose which one of those will handle your vote in this precise case – before they have talked with the military specialists.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Paid young adult mandatory military training/service is an entirely reasonable policy where if pay is high enough, enough old people will force the young to do it. Even mandatory “go die in vietnam because domino theory will destroy capitalism” can have more old people force the young into draft. Though obviously, exposing those reasons to kill our youth makes the vote less favourable.

      If such an amount of people knows about our military strategy, so does the Russia.

      Our military slave numbers are public.

      The extreme cost of maintaining offensive and diminishment operations is the first thing likely to be eliminated in favour of cash dividends to voters. There can be constititutional limits on what can never be voted against. Legitimate defensive needs/preparation of the nation would be covered. Funding a proxy war on Russia or Palestine or Israel would come from personal individual donations rather than forced social budget support. Constitutional limits against offensive war propaganda are just as important as defense preparation.

      Maybe there could be a restricted set of representatives that are allowed to vote in case we are attacked

      There needs to be an administrator (President) to respond quickly to emergencies. Review of adminstrator behaviour after emergencies is a liquid democracy process. You’re right that genuinely required secrets (as opposed to frequent national security classified corruption and evil) would require private judicial review, but liquid democracy would select the judges.