NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm spreading the word on my new resolution. According to it, the PEOPLE controll the army, not the government; the government stics to making and enforcing laws. If the people decide certain weapons are immoral, more power to 'em; but the army is exempt from weapons laws.
HERE IT IS:

Seeng that the ethical opinions of poloticians, made extreme in their attempts to gain popularity, often restrict military efficiency:

1. The government shall stick to making and enforcing laws.
2. The army shall stick to maintaining the security of the nation from outside armies.
3. The army shall be exempt from laws that restrict weapons on the basis of ethics.
4. The army shall be directed by the people, not the government.

What if the army is the state?

it would cause more problems than what i will fix. A effective government cannot exist if i dosnot have control of dimplomacy,money, and the armed forces. This would just cause a power strugle.

I agree with Thiede...you talk about "the people" as if it is singular, but they will always have differing viewpoints.

in this case you have to remember that a person is very smart and can make a good decision but people are dumb and unreasonable. If you left the morality issues up to the people your nation would split right in half and noone would agree on anything and if you brought it to a vote, whoever wins would be criticized immediately and i say let the government make the choices rather than your country and its many different viewpoints.

I would like to ask how a government under this system could enforce laws if it did not control the military, which is generally en enforcing agent? Anyway, this is moot because the government IS the people and the people ARE the government, so the people already control the military by means of popular government (well, at least in countries with popular governments - Oppressed Possums makes a good point when s/he asks what about when the military is the government, such as in many dictatorial or other autocratic regimes).

The government is not the people. As I said, the government is full of poloticians, who are mostly just trying to sound good to the people. The government can still use police to enforce laws. The people may be devided, but a majority can be reached in a 2-option decision. If the minority doesn't like it, they can use their free speach and convince the other side, if they have a good argument. I'll try to make this more clear if I post the resolution again. It doesn't look like I'll get the support I need by the end of the day. Please support my resolution.

first off its Politican and you have a very cynical view of them. Not all government are corrupt. You have to understand that a government and a millitary can NEVER be seperately run and expect it to work effectivly. It had never happend and never will. Perhapes if you modify the resolution to say for example the government needs to have the support of the people to go to war. However the UN cant tell countries how they should set up their government so i wouldnt post a resolution like this again.

I modeled this resolution after the American Seperation of Powers (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) and after the Seperation of Church and State. The American government has worked fine with this division. Also, my vision of this is that people vote "yes" or "no" for "Attack this country?" and then a ruling body of military personell decides how to best carry out the attack. I could make that aspect more clear, if I try again with this bill. This COULD work.

Another question I haven't addressed: "what if the nation IS the army?" Well, I suppose this could be, but it would generally be bad, and probable would NEED some change. This bill would force such a police-state style government to change.

Why must it change? Have you ever thought that one way ISN'T better than another?

What happens when I am allies with one country the citizens say we should nuke them back to the stone age?

The American system does not separate state from military in this fasion. On the contrary, the President is also Commander-in-Chief, and the military is strictly subordinate to the state.

There is no way that a military can be directly controlled by the people (except, in a sense, with a system such as our Rationality has, in which the people ARE the military). In any large organization, many thousands of decisions are made every day, and there is a need for these decisions to be coordinated. Making each decision by referendum is not only a very bad idea, it's not possible.

Imagine if the military were subject to the kind of fluctuations and inconsistencies that exist in public opinion: 51% of the people might decide one day to declare war on Bigtopia, and the next day 51% of them might decide to cut the military budget in half. X might be put in command of the army, and his mortal enemy Y in command of the navy. All officers would be politicians. Forces in danger of being cut off would have to wait for a public vote before retreating.

Of course, if the military got fed up with this situation - or any other - they could take over the state, which after all can't give them orders.

We rather think that state control over the military is indispensible.

you didnt model it after seperation of powers and seperation of church and state. Seperaton of powers just menas that the three branches work seperatly from each other they are still part of the government. you know in parlimentary systems whcih most countries are there is no seperation of powers. Also seperation of church and state is just a concept that says the governement will have no influence on any religon. seperating the millitary is a total different thing. a seperation that would work like the seperation of powers would be that the millitary is seperate and acts like a seprate branch it makes its own desicions. that is not what you proposed. Also if a government has enough legitimacy why would you want to give the power away from them

That's like the ruler asking the military, "Um, people are invading. Can you please stop them?," and the military saying, "We'll thnk about it."