How about a new rule that if you vote for a war, you are automatically enlisted. And if you’re ineligible to enlist you must either abstain or vote no.
Congress members get as many votes for war as they have draft-age family members. For each vote they cast, they must enlist 1 family member. Starting with their own children.
Senators are (with few exceptions) extraordinarily wealthy. When climate change is destroying crops and making some areas uninhabitable, these senators’ families will still be living very comfortably.
I see an obvious exploit with this: congress members enlisting family members who would rather vote ‘No’ just so they can get more votes for their own choice.
You might think “nobody would enlist their child to fight a war that they’re against” but I promise you, there are people like that.
We basically had that a century ago, before the nobility moved behind the scenes and became the 1%
Unqualified scions were sent to the battlefield to gain military merits, which was generally bad for everyone. I’m pretty sure it only really stopped after WWI, when the death toll from combat started getting ridiculous
Smedley Butler solved this issue back in the 1920’s, change the vote from Congress to eligible draftees to solve us going to war for stupid reasons.
Then during times of war, lock down every individual’s income and ability to earn money to that of the soldier. Keeping war profiteering from stretching wars on indefinitely.
It’s radical, but would probably keep us from just “being at war” eternally. A reality we have had to live in since at least 9/11.
The problem these “add a meta policy” proposals all have in common is that they assume we have any control over the legislature… which we don’t have; they don’t work for us at all. At this point only organizing and other direct action will have any significant impact on actual policy.
In this particular case, legislators would continue to receive bribe income that they refuse to acknowledge as bribery.
The problem is the us hasn’t had a formal declaration of war since WW2. Basically we’ve just had military engagements. Some haven’t even been authorized by congress.
Basically we’d need to fix that issue before worrying about the other suggestions. Else it’d just be military engagement not a war so don’t need to fallow them.
How about a new rule that if you vote for a war, you are automatically enlisted. And if you’re ineligible to enlist you must either abstain or vote no.
Congress members get as many votes for war as they have draft-age family members. For each vote they cast, they must enlist 1 family member. Starting with their own children.
Some of em don’t care about their kids. They can go fight, themselves.
As evidenced by their complete lack of concern regarding climate change.
Nah just ship the congressmen/women off with the infantry. Then they can see exactly what they’re voting for.
Given the low regard for their children and grandchildren they show when it comes to climate change, I doubt that would be an adequate deterrent.
Senators are (with few exceptions) extraordinarily wealthy. When climate change is destroying crops and making some areas uninhabitable, these senators’ families will still be living very comfortably.
Most of their kids are 55+, they can’t enlist lol
No different than having no kids.
No kids/grandkids/niblings we can send to war? No right to vote for war.
Why not?.. Look at the Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine, they clearly look like 60+.
I see an obvious exploit with this: congress members enlisting family members who would rather vote ‘No’ just so they can get more votes for their own choice.
You might think “nobody would enlist their child to fight a war that they’re against” but I promise you, there are people like that.
As if someone like Trump would even give a second thought to sending his kids off to war?
deleted by creator
We basically had that a century ago, before the nobility moved behind the scenes and became the 1%
Unqualified scions were sent to the battlefield to gain military merits, which was generally bad for everyone. I’m pretty sure it only really stopped after WWI, when the death toll from combat started getting ridiculous
many have already gladly voted yes for both many times. I don’t think that will stop enough of them.
Smedley Butler solved this issue back in the 1920’s, change the vote from Congress to eligible draftees to solve us going to war for stupid reasons.
Then during times of war, lock down every individual’s income and ability to earn money to that of the soldier. Keeping war profiteering from stretching wars on indefinitely.
It’s radical, but would probably keep us from just “being at war” eternally. A reality we have had to live in since at least 9/11.
The problem these “add a meta policy” proposals all have in common is that they assume we have any control over the legislature… which we don’t have; they don’t work for us at all. At this point only organizing and other direct action will have any significant impact on actual policy.
In this particular case, legislators would continue to receive bribe income that they refuse to acknowledge as bribery.
The problem is the us hasn’t had a formal declaration of war since WW2. Basically we’ve just had military engagements. Some haven’t even been authorized by congress.
Basically we’d need to fix that issue before worrying about the other suggestions. Else it’d just be military engagement not a war so don’t need to fallow them.
Is the US even still involved in a war since 2021? At least through direct action.
The Global War on Terror is what it’s called, it’s just a neverending operation of military sorties across the world to support whatever and wherever.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
You can be against war without thinking you’ll end war.
Unfortunately he was a Lieutenant commander in the Navy. Going back probably doesn’t concern him.