The responsibilities of citizens according to LKD

[LKD]

This is a topic that’s been on my mind for a while. But it is difficult to broach the topic effectively because it’s an amorphous idea and discussion. I shall give it a good old fashioned college try, though.

In Western Democracies, we always hear about rights. In Canada, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the U.S.A. has the Bill of Rights, I’m sure European countries have either documents or traditions that protect and enumerate the rights of citizens. People talk a lot about the rights that they have in a given society, often loudly, obnoxiously, and inaccurately.

Yet when the idea from the opposite side of the coin is brought up, responsibilities, people get very uncomfortable. If you opine that while society owes it to its citizens to protect their rights, it is also true that those citizens also owe it to the society to fulfill their responsibilities, well, people start talking about totalitarianism, police states, Orwell, and other such nonsense.

Yet surely responsibilities should be addressed. The parameters regarding what we consider to be rights and how far we should protect them, and what the responsibilities of a citizen are and how far we should go in demanding they be fulfilled are discussions worth having.

Here is a sampling of what I think should be considered responsibilities, drummed into the heads of young children and immigrants from the day they enter society.

1: You have a responsibility to obey the laws of the land. Even if you don’t agree, and have the right to protest laws you don’t agree with, you are expected to follow these laws.

2: You have a responsibility to get an education. It’s a right people died to get you, but now in order to be a productive and useful citizen, it is expected that you complete your publicly funded basic education. Dropping out is not an option.

3: You have a responsibility to vote (Australia has this, IIRC). Spoil your secret ballot if you wish to protest the institutions, but get off your butt and at least try to influence the political system.

4: You have a responsibility to work to the best of your abilities. Contribute to society in whatever way your talents take you. You don’t have the right to exploit social programs for mere laziness. Those programs are intended for people who have legitimate physical or mental reasons for not working.

5: You have a responsibility to defend your country from direct threats. If you have a true religious or ideological objection to fighting, you can still help by cooking food, issuing equipment, or in other non-combat roles in the military. There’s lots of them.

Failure to fulfill these responsibilities should, IMHO, result in extremely draconic punishments.

Any I missed? Thoughts? Accusations of totalitarian ideology?

[dmc]

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country."

- JFK

[joacqin]

I surprisingly agree with most of them except the last one. There is nothing that could make me fight as long as I have the option to run or just to surrender.

The big problem comes when it is time to define what "people who have legitimate physical or mental reasons" is. In addition there is the problem of our modern efficient societies not needing as much manpower as we used to. Way back when you basically needed the labour of one person to feed one person but nowadays the labour of one person can feed thousands. That in combination with machines and all consuming pursuit of efficiency where everyone who has a job does work that was done by several people in the past leads to the inevitable conclusion that there is very little room in the work force for "low achievers". The upside is that despite fewer people working more wealth is generated and there is more than enough resources for everyone in a western society but how to distribute it without making the contributors feel disgruntled and without pacifying and exclude the receivers is probably one of the greatest challenges we face.

[Blades of Vanatar]

1 - Agree
2- Agree
3 - Disagree.... voting is not a responsiblity, only a privilege. But if you don't vote, don't carp about way things are. Simple enough in my book.
4 - Spot on!
5 - Maybe....

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Originally Posted by LKD

1: You have a responsibility to obey the laws of the land. Even if you don’t agree, and have the right to protest laws you don’t agree with, you are expected to follow these laws.

I don't really consider this a responsibility. If you break the law, and get caught, you go to jail. Most people don't want to go to jail. If you take a risk and break the law, you're taking the risk of going to jail.

2: You have a responsibility to get an education. It’s a right people died to get you, but now in order to be a productive and useful citizen, it is expected that you complete your publicly funded basic education. Dropping out is not an option.

I will only point out that there are exceedingly few jobs that are available to someone who is just a high school graduate as compared to someone who dropped out of high school. The purpose of graduating high school is so you can get into college or a trade school (most trade schools require a high school diploma or GED for their applicants).

That said, nearly 30% of kids in the US drop out of high school without a diploma. So while I agree with you in theory, I'd say you have a responsibility to learn a skill - be that through college education, or by going to a trade school.

3: You have a responsibility to vote (Australia has this, IIRC). Spoil your secret ballot if you wish to protest the institutions, but get off your butt and at least try to influence the political system.

Hmmm... I'm of two minds on this one. I'm not sure what is worse - having about 1/3 of people not participate in the public process, or having that 1/3 who don't vote - who are by definition among the least informed members of the electorate - actually influencing the outcomes of elections. Although I suppose if you MADE them vote, they may take the time to at least learn the names of the candidates.

4: You have a responsibility to work to the best of your abilities. Contribute to society in whatever way your talents take you. You don’t have the right to exploit social programs for mere laziness. Those programs are intended for people who have legitimate physical or mental reasons for not working.

What about people who legitimately cannot find work - which is currently about 8% of the US workforce? I'm with you on the people who don't want to work, but that isn't most of the 8%. Most unemployment benefits are restricted to people who are actually seeking work.

I know in Maryland, you have to go once per week to the unemployment center (or login online) and ask for a printout of jobs that meet your qualifications. You can also apply for jobs outside your field, but the idea is that they help you try to find a job. If you fail to check in and take the job leads (I don't think they actually force you to apply to every job you qualify for, but you have to at least look at them), your unemployment checks stop showing up in the mail.

5: You have a responsibility to defend your country from direct threats. If you have a true religious or ideological objection to fighting, you can still help by cooking food, issuing equipment, or in other non-combat roles in the military. There’s lots of them.

While I work FOR the military as a private contractor, I never had any desire to actually JOIN the military. AFAIK, the US has not had significant problems getting enough soldiers since the draft ended around 40 years ago, and we seem to do just fine from people who willingly enlist. And now that I'm in my late 30s, I'm probably too old for them to want me anyway. Service should only be obligatory if you don't have enough from those who sign up voluntarily.

I don't know how it is in other nations, but I know a lot of people sign up for the military because they offer you a carrot: if you serve, you get a free education out of the deal. There's a few ways to do it. If, when you graduate from high school and have the grades that would get you into college, you can go ROTC (Reserve Officers Training Corps).

The deal is this: free education, participate in military training activities on the weekends and the summer (like anyone in the reserves would do). Upon graduating from college you get your commission as an officer. For the army, it's 1st Lieutenant - the lowest rank of an officer, but above all enlisted men. You then serve active duty for four years. And anyone who stays with the military for a significant period of time inevitably moves up in the ranks. You'd have to be completely incompetent to not make at least Captain or Major if you stick with it. Lieutenant Colonel is probably the first rank where the winnowing process really kicks in.

Alternatively, you can enlist right out of high school and sign up for four years. At the conclusion of those four years you can: Retire and go to college on the GI Bill, sign up for OCS (Officer Candidate School) and move up form an enlisted person to an officer, or go to college through the ROTC program.

The US may be unique though in this regard. There is certainly a quid pro quo arrangement with the military. I doubt that there would be nearly as many people who would sign up for the military if it were not for the benefits you receive in return. If you actually stay with the military for a full 20 years (and you only have to be active 4 of those years - you can serve in the reserves for the remainder of that time), you get additional benefits. In addition to retirement pay, you get free healthcare for life at VA facilities.

[LKD]

When it comes to school, at least the K to 12 model we have here in Canada, I think that droputs should be imprisoned and forced to work at jobs like manual sewer line blockage removal. Far too many kids just don't want to cooperate, because they are at an age where rebellion is the norm and has been glorified in the media, so they drop out and go get high paying jobs in the construction industry. Then they realize those jobs aren't as awesome as they once thought, and they end up just sitting around collecting welfare and whining about the bum deal society gave them. Some of them skip the working part. This should not be allowed. Society should have no qualms telling people that they need to complete certain academic (or trade) courses in order to be considered responsible citizens.

As for the military, I'm not advocating constant conscription, but if there is a major threat coming directly at your country, you should be willing to contribute in some way to the defense of your citizens. For example, Joacqin, would you be willing to be a quartermaster in the Russians decided to invade Sweden? No fighting involved!

[joacqin]

I am not exactly sure what your question is LKD I think you might have missed a word somewhere. My point stands though, I would not be willing to fight. I can't even begin to imagine circumstances which would make me consider fighting. None that are even remotely plausible now. My unwillingness to fight has nothing to do with ideology, although I am borderline pacifist, but more with simple cowardice. I see no reason to risk my life on any political altar or take the life of others. Not to mention that the likelihood of being on the "good" side of any conflict is slim, most of the time two bad sides fight each other and on the rare occasions where there actually is an "evil" side the chance of you being on it is only 50%. If fighting starts I get the hell out of Dodge or hide in a hole somewhere.

As for forcing people to do slave labour it might not be in tune with democratic values. That part is as you said totalitarian and even to some extent fascist. Basically you do what oh so many people do and find easy solutions to complicated problems. The world doesn't work that way. Easy solutions to complicated problems inevitably leads to even more complicated problems.

[Gaear]

Freedom should include the freedom to be a f*ck-up if you want to be, though that should not include any type of free ride.

The notion of any citizenship type requirements like these makes me a bit uncomfortable, to be honest, though you do seem to make the distinction of responsibility as opposed to requirement. But if it's merely a moral responsibility, it's unenforceable and thus has no teeth beyond potentially earning you the disdain of your fellow citizens. Which free people should be free to ignore.

[Taluntain]

Originally Posted by LKD

Any I missed? Thoughts? Accusations of totalitarian ideology?

Well, you missed most of those which would apply to immigrants. Such as, you should learn and use the language of the country that's writing your paychecks, you should make the best possible effort to integrate, you should not expect the country you've immigrated to to cater to your religious and/or social ideals and/or practices when they are in conflict with the established ideals and practices of the society you've decided to become a part of... probably a few more too.

Oh and in case you aren't ignoring me, you've had a new PM for a while. You know, the one that a huge notice on top of every page of the board with your name on it tells you about. Plus the notification area below the PM count near the top right corner of every page on the boards.

[T2Bruno]

6. You have the right to remain silent ... especially if you're on commuter transit or driving in heavy traffic. Put away the cell phone and STFU.

7. You have a right to equitable treatment. Don't be surprised when you decide to hurt someone in public if several people start beating on your ass before calling the police.

8. You have the right to make mistakes ... but the not the right for the federal government, your old school district, the Boy Scouts, or any other scape goat to pay you for your mistakes.

9. You have the right to speak your native language. You do not have the right to have every government form delivered to you in your native language at no charge. Also, no one has any obligation to understand you if you do not speak the country's accepted language.

10. You have the right to shoot for fame and fortune; there is no guaranty and if you make it you can't complain about the press crawling up your ass with a camera ... that just goes with the rich and famous part.

[LKD]

Originally Posted by Gaear

Freedom should include the freedom to be a f*ck-up if you want to be, though that should not include any type of free ride.

The notion of any citizenship type requirements like these makes me a bit uncomfortable, to be honest, though you do seem to make the distinction of responsibility as opposed to requirement.

Why does the idea of requirements for citizens make you (and others) uncomfortable? Is it the spectre of of the World Wars and totalitarianism? I mean, we demand all of these things from our country, what is wrong with the country making commensurate demands of the citizens? That doesn't seem to me to be an infringement of freedom, just common sense.

Joacqin, my question was this: If Russia decided to invade your country today (Sweden, IIRC) would you be willing to join the military in a non-combat capacity, such as a cook, quartermaster, firefighter, driver, or other such non-fighting role?

I have a problem with foreign wars requiring a draft, but if the homeland itself is under attack, I think there should be no conscientious objectors allowed to completely bail on the effort to protect the country from an invasion. If they partake of the good stuff, they should be willing to protect their fellow citizens so they too can get the good stuff.

[joacqin]

The difference is marginal between pulling the triggers myself and taking care of the people pulling the triggers so I have always seen "non-fighting" military as pretty big hypocrites (if they serve in a non-fighting position due to philosophical or idealogical reasons) . I would be a part of the conflict whatever role I had. So no, I would not willingly participate in an armed conflict between Sweden and Russia.

[Gaear]

Originally Posted by LKD

Why does the idea of requirements for citizens make you (and others) uncomfortable? Is it the spectre of of the World Wars and totalitarianism? I mean, we demand all of these things from our country, what is wrong with the country making commensurate demands of the citizens? That doesn't seem to me to be an infringement of freedom, just common sense.

Well in my view, it's the job of a country to protect the rights of its citizens, period, not make demands of them. If it's required that you do any of the things in your list, are you really free? For example, if I don't want to vote in an election but am required to by law, I'm being forced to do something against my will. You may think it's a good idea, but I may not. Why should I be compelled to do something I don't want to do as long as I'm not harming anyone else or violating their rights?

Again, I could get behind the notion that people may have certain moral responsibilities, but not literal or practical requirements. This means if I don't vote, shake your finger at me all you like and say that I'm a very, very bad person. But don't cart me off to jail. People don't exist in order to serve their countries; countries exist in order to serve their citizens. And by "serve," I don't mean provide for from the cradle to the grave. I mean protect citizens' rights.

[Déise]

1. Agree.
2. I think this involves a lot more rationality than your average 14 year old tearaway has.
3. I don't agree it should be compulsory. It can be a valid choice not to vote and if someone's that disinterested I'd hate to see who they elect. Also what happens if you can't vote? At the last referendum a few weeks ago I had to work at short notice in a completely different place to where my polling station was and couldn't vote.
4. If I could have become a doctor instead by pushing myself a bit further does this count as not working to the best of my ability? Would I be be punished if I decided I'd rather just be a gardener instead?

Social programmes should be designed to give a hand up rather than a hand out but there are limits. A junkie or violent criminal isn't somebody who can easily be put into a job.

5. This is very theoretical for me. I doubt I'd be deemed suitable for the front lines anyway if I did join up. And who's going to invade a rock in the Atlantic with no meaningful resources? And what contribution would we realistically contribute abroad?

@ Aldeth we provide education to everybody anyway which is nice. The army still has no problem recruiting though. It's a very cushy number if you know you're never actually going to be sent to war .

[joacqin]

The English are still around.

[Sir Rechet]

1. Agree. Also, willingly breaking the law hoping to stay within the majority that does NOT get caught for it due to underpaid law enforcement should carry at least double the penalty compared to idiotic stuff people do when drunk, out of sheer stupidity or just generally without the direct intent of malice.
2. Agree. Not everyone can be a doctor or head honcho of UN/IMF/EU/Whateveristan, but unless you've actually tried AND given an honest shot at education that leads to a job, no matter the education level, you only suffer of an attitude problem. (Disclaimer: I'm assuming that you're not locked out of education due to economic realities as that's just so stupid to skimp on THAT on a national level.)
3. As others have pointed out, responsibility to vote is a scary thought if the anywhere between 20 to 40 percent that fail to vote on any given major voting only add random noise if FORCED to vote. Such disinterest in politics can only lead to misinformed voting behaviour, such as falling for the cheap trick of being promised a lot of money/booze/"fame" if you'd just vote for a certain candidate.
4. Agreed. It's a bit short-sighted to rationalize away low-qualification jobs, if it ONLY leads to that part of the workforce living on welfare of the remaining part. On the other hand, it's really NOT cool to fail to realize you probably don't have what it takes to work in that dream branch of yours if you haven't landed such a job after, say, ten years of actively trying. Keep trying if that's really what you want, but at least get a job for something else in the meanwhile and don't be such an elitist prlck.
5. As far as I can tell, there's exactly one VALID use for violence: To force idiots NOT use violence on others, if that's the only way to get the point across. And I don't mean physical violence only - any unnecessary harassment (is there any other kind, btw?), especially if its only purpose is to induce violent response so that you can get an excuse for carrying on with it. "But HE started the fight, ma'am!"

[chevalier]

Originally Posted by LKD

Any I missed? Thoughts? Accusations of totalitarian ideology?

Accusations of having too much time on your hands maybe.

Re #1, I'll disagree, as in everybody has an obligation to God and even non-believers should be aware of some form of obligation to their conscience, which could lead to a moral obligation to refuse to follow an unjust law.
Re #2, morally yes but not sure to what extent legally, politically etc. or expectable/enforceable by others. Obviously, kids shouldn't be allowed to walk out but with adult people who want to remain unqualified labourers and disqualified from positions requiring an education, well, if they want that, let them have it.
Re #3, I'd say get informed and vote. A person hopelessly unable to decide (or get informed) should abstain from voting. I suspect the left's electoral victories in Poland after the fall of the red regime were due to voter apathy. Couldn't be arsed to go and vote, so ended up with same old faces.

I also believe that stupid laws should not lead to punishment when disobeyed, e.g. prohibition against jay-walking when violated on an empty road by a person in a hurry, who displeases the cops by failing to stand at attention for 2-3 minutes as a testimony of his obedience.

And Tal was first and took immigrants & language. Was gonna mention it. Just +1 from me in that case.