• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Minority Rights

For a period in Ancient Rome there was shared leadership under two consuls:
“...(They) held office for only a year, and each consul had power of veto over the other’s decisions. After the establishment of other magistracies, especially the censorship and tribuneship, consular authority was further limited. Consuls, however, were in a very real sense the heads of state. They commanded the army, convened and presided over the Senate and the popular assemblies and executed their decrees, and represented the state in foreign affairs.”
- Britannica
 
Michael McMahon said:
For a period in Ancient Rome there was shared leadership under two consuls:
“...(They) held office for only a year, and each consul had power of veto over the other’s decisions. After the establishment of other magistracies, especially the censorship and tribuneship, consular authority was further limited. Consuls, however, were in a very real sense the heads of state. They commanded the army, convened and presided over the Senate and the popular assemblies and executed their decrees, and represented the state in foreign affairs.”
- Britannica
Click to expand...

So what ?

Are you suggesting the USA has two presidents ?

Say Trump and Hilary ?
 
Ensuring that minorities are sufficiently represented in the military is obviously essential:

“The plan by the United Nations Security Council to hold a public briefing focusing on the Rohingya crisis this week will rightly highlight the plight of nearly 800,000 refugees who have fled Myanmar to Bangladesh since October 2016.

But there is another aspect of the crisis that rarely receives the attention it deserves -- the overwhelming dominance in Myanmar's armed forces of the majority Burman population.

While mainly Buddhist Burmans comprise around 70% of Myanmar's estimated 52 million to 53 million people, they dominate the military, which still controls the country despite the political opening of recent years.

It is not just the Rohingya -- who accounted for roughly just 1.3 million of the population before the recent exodus -- who feel excluded, but also members of Myanmar's many ethnic minorities, notably the Shan, Karen, Wa, Kachin and others who have generated armed groups in conflict with the government...

But even these dim and distant hopes of achieving peace with other minorities depend on a significant growth in trust between the parties. That requires a sea-change in the ethnic and religious makeup of the military leadership and related defense services, known as the Tatmadaw...

This mistrust reflects a minority view of the Tatmadaw as a manifestation of ethnic Burman and Buddhist hegemony. Yet the military was not always a fiefdom of the Burman and religious majorities. Minority ethnic regiments have existed in the past, and at independence, the military commander was a loyal officer from the minority Karens. Over time, minority ethnic military leadership has gradually disappeared.“
- David I. Steinberg
 
Freedom of association is not segregationist because there are hate speech laws.
 
I’d brought up the idea of directly electing military generals (flag officers). This can be elaborated on by comparing and contrasting it to elections for judges. A talking point for whether judges should be appointed or elected in partisan elections is the notion of judicial independence. However we have the opposite aim for the military where the objective is to enhance civilian control of it.

We should elect Supreme Court justices: Glenn Reynolds
 
danielpalos said:
No, it isn't. Our First Amendment, amends this:
Click to expand...

No, hate speech laws don't apply unless you're inciting violence

You can say all manner of hateful and hurtful things and be protected by the 1st amendment, but you shouldn't be.
 
Michael McMahon said:
Ensuring that minorities are sufficiently represented in the military is obviously essential:

“The plan by the United Nations Security Council to hold a public briefing focusing on the Rohingya crisis this week will rightly highlight the plight of nearly 800,000 refugees who have fled Myanmar to Bangladesh since October 2016.

But there is another aspect of the crisis that rarely receives the attention it deserves -- the overwhelming dominance in Myanmar's armed forces of the majority Burman population.

While mainly Buddhist Burmans comprise around 70% of Myanmar's estimated 52 million to 53 million people, they dominate the military, which still controls the country despite the political opening of recent years.

It is not just the Rohingya -- who accounted for roughly just 1.3 million of the population before the recent exodus -- who feel excluded, but also members of Myanmar's many ethnic minorities, notably the Shan, Karen, Wa, Kachin and others who have generated armed groups in conflict with the government...

But even these dim and distant hopes of achieving peace with other minorities depend on a significant growth in trust between the parties. That requires a sea-change in the ethnic and religious makeup of the military leadership and related defense services, known as the Tatmadaw...

This mistrust reflects a minority view of the Tatmadaw as a manifestation of ethnic Burman and Buddhist hegemony. Yet the military was not always a fiefdom of the Burman and religious majorities. Minority ethnic regiments have existed in the past, and at independence, the military commander was a loyal officer from the minority Karens. Over time, minority ethnic military leadership has gradually disappeared.“
- David I. Steinberg
Click to expand...

Minorities are over represented in the US military.
 
Michael McMahon said:
I’d brought up the idea of directly electing military generals (flag officers). This can be elaborated on by comparing and contrasting it to elections for judges. A talking point for whether judges should be appointed or elected in partisan elections is the notion of judicial independence. However we have the opposite aim for the military where the objective is to enhance civilian control of it.

We should elect Supreme Court justices: Glenn Reynolds
Click to expand...

Electing military leaders went out in the Civil War as you ended up with popular but ineffective staff.
 
Fledermaus: "Electing military leaders went out in the Civil War as you ended up with popular but ineffective staff."

But one could say the same about democratically elected politicians; that they're popular but ineffective. Perhaps they fail to look beyond the next election and neglect the long-term.
 
Michael McMahon said:
But one could say the same about democratically elected politicians; that they're popular but ineffective. Perhaps they fail to look beyond the next election and neglect the long-term.
Click to expand...

So should the House be appointed at random like members of a jury ?
 
There are limits as to how apolitical the military can be:
"...Soldiers should take care not to speak for or be perceived as speaking for the military, but this does not mean we should pretend they have no personal opinions or political views. The opposite is true, and it is healthy for non-military citizens to see that their views are shared by some portion of the military..."
-Bill Kilgore

A Nonpartisan Military Means a Political Military – American Greatness
 
Michael McMahon said:
There are limits as to how apolitical the military can be:
"...Soldiers should take care not to speak for or be perceived as speaking for the military, but this does not mean we should pretend they have no personal opinions or political views. The opposite is true, and it is healthy for non-military citizens to see that their views are shared by some portion of the military..."
-Bill Kilgore

A Nonpartisan Military Means a Political Military – American Greatness
Click to expand...

That makes no sense.

The military should be totally apolitical.

Congress pays its wages.

They should be loyal it it.
 
Rich2018 said:
No, hate speech laws don't apply unless you're inciting violence

You can say all manner of hateful and hurtful things and be protected by the 1st amendment, but you shouldn't be.
Click to expand...

In public accommodation? You can't yell fire in a crowded room. It is not about any form of segregation in public accommodation but about the bottom line.
 
danielpalos said:
In public accommodation? You can't yell fire in a crowded room....
Click to expand...

Nope and you can't incite violence

Pretty much everything else though - and that is wrong.


Only political free speech is protected for redress of grievances purposes. Federal and State laws can handle the rest.
Click to expand...

Nope you can't use the 1st amendment to publish and sell pornography
You can say you think all Asians are stupid


The Constitution takes precedence over state laws.
 
Independently-minded soldiers would be needed to prevent tyranny. While soldiers can obviously already disobey illegal orders, maybe the whole topic of military insubordination needs to be looked into. So long as soldiers do a lot of the work that has been assigned to them, I see no reason why they have to do all of the work that they’re ordered to do. In any other job one doesn’t have to salute their boss and obey every single command. This would also help equality and free speech in the army.

Why German Soldiers Don’t Have to Obey Orders - HISTORY
 
Michael McMahon said:
The problem with having freely available guns without any background check is that armed civilians cannot protect themselves against snipers. With any gun such as a handgun or a shotgun it's possible to ambush a person and attack from behind or shoot from a concealed position.
Click to expand...
Sniping is usually aways done with rifles. Its done from a great distance with a rifle that has a scope, not with a shotgun and certainly not with a handgun. If your concern is about sniping than your focus should be on long range rifles.
 
Michael McMahon said:
Hi again.

One problem with using guns against opportunistic crimes is that some criminals are very psychopathic. So the criminal won't take any chances and opt to shoot first. This could turn robberies into armed robberies. Of course the other problem is that of proportionality in shooting at unarmed criminals.

In terms of tyranny I suppose no one can tell how the future will unfold in different countries.
Click to expand...
Criminals most often always get their guns from illegal sources, not legal sources.
 
flogger said:
Indeed. If knives and cutting implements were deemed that lethal guns would never have been invented :wink:

Guns make killing far too easy as US society bears witness

If only they cared about that :roll:
Click to expand...
Your positions and your arguments don't count, they haven't counted since 1776.
 
lwf said:
About 40,000 people are killed annually by firearms in the U.S. Almost 90,000 are killed in alcohol related deaths.
Click to expand...

There are over 430,000 deaths from cigarettes and tobacco smoking per year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom