NationStates Jolt Archive

The following is based upon the British system, and by that I mean high taxation for things such as the NHS, therefore if you are American or live in a totally different culture then the rest of this may not make sense.

This is a proposal I have been pondering for a few years now, and I would like to know where other people would stand on the issue.
To me, there is a clear difference between a citizen and a civilian, a citizen has done something for the nation and as such is entitled to certain privelages that civilians are not. A civilian is simply somebody living in the nation and respecting its laws. The following is a proposal to both seprate the two class tpyes and subsiquently list the benefits etc of each.

A citizen is somebody who has worked in; the military for 4 years or the civil service (and this includes, police, public transport and teaching) for 7 years. While working, they are still a civilian and recieve the basic pay and so on that goes with it.
Upon recieving citizenship, the person must take an oath of loyalty to the crown. Then they recieve their citizenship card and benefits. The benefits are:
1) They have the right to vote. The voting right is not given to everyone, people who simply live in the country and dont do anythign for it, cannot vote. Only a citizen can vote
2) A citizen can recieve free university education. A civilian must pay an extremley high amount to go to university.
3) A citizen receives a pension, a civilian does not
4) Certain items normally not on the NHS are open to civilians.
5) A citizen recieves much harsher punishments, and jail sentences carry a minimum of 5 years and a revoking of citizenship for citizens.
6) Divorce is harder for citizens
7) Adoption is easier for citizens
8) Unemployment benefit works on a sliding scale for citizens, starting rather high, but dropping each month they remain out of work.


It is however CRITICAL to remeber that both citizens and civilians pay the same rate of tax, both are EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW, and no sort of law is enforced wherebye citizens and civilians are forbidden to mix. NO clubs or discrimnation is to be made against citizens, with regards to " citizen only bars" however an employer may decide that they only wish to employ citizens. Also it is important to recognise that civilans can easily become citizens and also that citizens can lose their status.

What do you all think?

Some comments... moo.

3. I don't think you can just dump people without a pension - you'll have lots of elderly dying due to lack of food/heating - can't be good (even if they are only "civilians"?). Personally I think morons should be deported, but hey - that one'll never see the light of day either for the same reasons :P (Society can't just ditch people because they don't meet certain standards)

4. Disease picks people at random. What sort of things are you proposing?

5. Justice should be uniform and should seen to be fair otherwise the system will break down? Why should a citizen committing murder get a lesser sentence than a civilian doing the same.

6. Why? Being in the police/military/civil service for four years isn't going to make people more lucky in love or more emotionally capable. In fact - those damn free-thinking civilian hippies are likely to be better at it :D

Oath of loyalty to the crown...mwahahahahaha...no way...


if it was an oath pledging to uphold the rights of all people in the nation or something like that then maybe...

Ok, I shall answer, seen as Im testing the theory.

Pensions- People can save for a pension, its what I intend to do when I get older, why should the gov't pay. However, what may be a good idea is a system wherebye the gov't gives u a limited pension IF YOU SAVE

Disease- Whats that got to do with things? If u get sick, then go the NHS

Justice- It's harsher punishment for citizens because the idea is that a citizen is an upstanding person, who is given responsibilities and priveleges. That citizen has abused these rights and luxuries, therefore his act is all the more awful and should be treated as such.


The idea of the military and civil service is to act as an incentive for the people to join the services or help the nation. It forces those wishing to vote etc to give somethign back to the state and sign onto a contract if you will whereby they agree to take responsibilty and so on. I'm not suggesting it does help them develop in character, although I would argue that it does, with regards to the armed forces/



The oath, that is a minor factor that will differ with each nation depending on whether or not they are a monarchy etc, that is simply a minor point.



Thoughts.....?

someone's been watching Starship Troopers....

Seems unnecessary. Exactly why should one have to differentiate between civillian and citizen? If the point is to get people to serve their country, why not just use mandatory military/civil service?

It is however CRITICAL to remeber that both citizens and civilians pay the same rate of tax, both are EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW,
What do you all think?
If citizens and civilians are paying the same tax they should have the same representation, indeed if (as you propose) civilians are to be disenfranchised then , in accordance with our colonial cousins maxim "no taxation without representation" the civilians should not be paying tax at all.
After all why should civilians do something for the country(by paying tax) when they get nothing from the country in return (except for a taxbill)
Why are "citizens" getting the vote and "civilians" not? The military//civil service reason seems odd- given that they would have been paid for this service with tax money (some of which comes from the disenfranchised civilians)

A citizen is somebody who has worked in; the military for 4 years or the civil service (and this includes, police, public transport and teaching) for 7 years. While working, they are still a civilian and recieve the basic pay and so on that goes with it.

What about smoking. I selflessly smoked for 8 years, buying highly taxed ciggarettes and shortening my lifespan. Because of altruists like me the nation has a lot more money and a lot less pensions to worry about. I should be a citizen.

Upon recieving citizenship, the person must take an oath of loyalty to the crown.

Only if the crown swears loyalty to me and my decendants.

Then they recieve their citizenship card and benefits. The benefits are:

Is that like a nectar card/

1) They have the right to vote. The voting right is not given to everyone, people who simply live in the country and dont do anythign for it, cannot vote. Only a citizen can vote

Because being able to vote in a quasi-facist country is such an honour.

2) A citizen can recieve free university education. A civilian must pay an extremley high amount to go to university.

Since you only become a citizen after military service (which appears to be the earliest way to be a citizen), free education is a bit pointless.

3) A citizen receives a pension, a civilian does not

I'm beginning to hope that the civilians are less highly taxed.

4) Certain items normally not on the NHS are open to civilians.

You mean like scalpels? Morphine? X-rays? what?

5) A citizen recieves much harsher punishments, and jail sentences carry a minimum of 5 years and a revoking of citizenship for citizens.

Reason?

6) Divorce is harder for citizens

Why? Are you just out to torture them? What they ever do to you?

7) Adoption is easier for citizens

Again can see no reason for this.

8) Unemployment benefit works on a sliding scale for citizens, starting rather high, but dropping each month they remain out of work.

What abouts civs. Dare I ask.

It is however CRITICAL to remeber that both citizens and civilians pay the same rate of tax, both are EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW, and no sort of law is enforced wherebye citizens and civilians are forbidden to mix. NO clubs or discrimnation is to be made against citizens, with regards to " citizen only bars" however an employer may decide that they only wish to employ citizens. Also it is important to recognise that civilans can easily become citizens and also that citizens can lose their status.

If you are going to disenfrachise a sector of society they should pay less. Either that or call the serfs.

Ok, I shall answer, seen as Im testing the theory.

Pensions- People can save for a pension, its what I intend to do when I get older, why should the gov't pay. Because the government doesnt pay, the taxpayer does, and since taxpayers throughtout britain have paid for the current generation of pensioners they have a right to expect a pension on retirement for themselves, otherwise they have been made to pay twice for the same thing. However, what may be a good idea is a system wherebye the gov't gives u a limited pension IF YOU SAVE
so the more money a person has (in order to save) the more money the government gives them?




The idea of the military and civil service is to act as an incentive for the people to join the services or help the nation. It forces those wishing to vote etc to give somethign back to the state

those wishing to vote etc do give something back to the state, its called tax.I'm not suggesting it does help them develop in character, although I would argue that it does, with regards to the armed forces the armed forces exist to protect the people, the people dont exist to serve the armed forces.




Thoughts.....?
Authoritatian, oppressive, statism.

Ok, here we go:

Firstly thanks, the theory is still evolving in my head, and I appreciate the comments. I shall try to answer them or appluad.

Taxation in my mind should not instantly qualify you for voting, taxes pay for things like public transport and the NHS which you could use whether you vote or not, the cry " no taxation without representation" is a bit flawed seen as we all pay VAT from the age that we go out and buy stuff.


The reasons behind the divorce, adoption and harsher punishments for citizens are because of the reasoning that a citizen takes with them responsibilities, he or she takes the welfare of the state etc upon themselves and by breaking the law ( especially when considerable enough to involve a jail sentence) the citizen has gone against his duty and moral conduct that a citizen shoudl have, and should be punished acordingly. The divorce adoption is becuase of a personal belief in family values etc, and therefore these are up for change and debate depending upon personal belief.


The one point I would like to say thanks to is to " conceptualists" point on university education. That seeminlgy obvious point slipped through my net * slaps head* so, on consideration I change that free university education for you and your children.

The reason that military//civil service is not compuslory is that it forces service upon the people, when frankly many r not up to it, and I see that as a bit too extreme.


Yes, The original basis for my thought was starship troopers, it hit an emotional chord in me.


Thanks again, comments much appreciated.

how about the fact that someone slaving away in a job that wouldnt make them a "citizen" by your reasoning is contributing taxes , and is therefore contributing to the country?

that means anyone who ever worked is a citizen

This all seems based on that neo-fascist government in Starship Troopers. It's mean to be rather sinister, rather than some form of ideal state.

Ooo, a job in the British Civil Service, talk about being a made man. The only problem of course is that there are not enough jobs in the Civil Service for everyone who wants one. If there were, everyone would do it because that is one sweet ride.

If swearing a loyalty oath to the Queen was all I needed to have a comfortable secure life in the UK I'd be on the Virgin flight to Gatwick today with knee pads on, and I'm an American.


This sounds more like a scam to secure extra rights for Government employees.

While, in principle, I support the idea of rewarding citizens who give something back to their nation, why should things such as working in a public service profession such as "bus conductor" be conducive to citizenship in this system?

Additionally, as you may very well be aware, since the current Chancellor has raided both the national reserves and taxed private funds for pensions, how do you justify the idea of private pensions with no security? Why should civillians (of which regardless of the number of people who wish to sign up) subsidise the pensions and benefits of "citizens" with their national insurance contributions?

Referring to my last point in brackets, in this country, the cost of employing soldiers would be crippling on our nations economy. Over time, it would be seen as a necessary step for all "civillians" to take service in the military. Swelling its ranks as if national service were in effect.

How would such a changeover be handled? Would it be retroactive? Doing this would disenfranchise business in general, as high earners who do not qualify for citizenship see their rights being taken away, and hence move their business outside of the country.

Although I can see your point with regard to adoption and the like being easier for citizens, why is divorce punished? This point seems a little orwellian and pointless, as if your goal is to have citizens produce offspring, how likely is this if they hate each other?

Finally, on the oath to the crown, I don't really see any problem with this. Everybody with half an inch of sense knows that the crown is merely a figurehead that represents the nation, a part of our national identity. I have no problem with it, and personally, I think that this, as a point of loyallty to both the country and its leadership should have to be taken before you are allowed to vote.

I don't much like this idea. One reason being that points 1,5,6 and 7 would suggest that civilians and citizens are NOT EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW.

Bye, bye equality! Hello fascism! :rolleyes:

Bye, bye equality! Hello fascism! :rolleyes:

We have a winner!

the cost of employing soldiers would be crippling on our nations economy. Over time, it would be seen as a necessary step for all "civillians" to take service in the military. Swelling its ranks as if national service were in effect

The cost is of course a valid point, however it will be covered in the defence budget, it will not be necessary for civilians ot join the military, they could join the civil service. IF however the cost becomes increasingly unbearbale the state could set up a system like the Prussians in 1862 whereby only a small standing army is available, but most people are in the reserves. This reduces cost.


Divorce- Divorce is made harder because the idea of a family unit is important and citizens are encouraged to promote this idea.

To put the idea in one word: Shit.

But then I believe in equality.

Interesting... But whats the motive behind people joining the army or public service?

If it's recruiting for the army, Why not just have National Service? Force people to join the army for minimum 2 years like they do in Isreal, Singapore, Korea and some other nations? If the country goes to war, every male child over the age of 17 should be trained in firearms.. And would be able to defend their country to the death.

Recruiting them to go to war overseas would be a problem though.


Now lets go out there and kill some Bugs!

Not everyone can get a job good enough to save for retirement. Millions of Americans work in low paying jobs with no benefits barely making it from one paycheck to the next. Obviously, more people will end up in lower end jobs than higher. We need a lot more retail clerks and waitresses than doctors and lawyers. If we aren't going to have tons of people spending their golden years living without heat or decent shelter, the government has to help out.

The following is based upon the British system, and by that I mean high taxation for things such as the NHS, therefore if you are American or live in a totally different culture then the rest of this may not make sense.

This is a proposal I have been pondering for a few years now, and I would like to know where other people would stand on the issue.
To me, there is a clear difference between a citizen and a civilian, a citizen has done something for the nation and as such is entitled to certain privelages that civilians are not. A civilian is simply somebody living in the nation and respecting its laws. The following is a proposal to both seprate the two class tpyes and subsiquently list the benefits etc of each.

A citizen is somebody who has worked in; the military for 4 years or the civil service (and this includes, police, public transport and teaching) for 7 years. While working, they are still a civilian and recieve the basic pay and so on that goes with it.
Upon recieving citizenship, the person must take an oath of loyalty to the crown. Then they recieve their citizenship card and benefits. The benefits are:
1) They have the right to vote. The voting right is not given to everyone, people who simply live in the country and dont do anythign for it, cannot vote. Only a citizen can vote
2) A citizen can recieve free university education. A civilian must pay an extremley high amount to go to university.
3) A citizen receives a pension, a civilian does not
4) Certain items normally not on the NHS are open to civilians.
5) A citizen recieves much harsher punishments, and jail sentences carry a minimum of 5 years and a revoking of citizenship for citizens.
6) Divorce is harder for citizens
7) Adoption is easier for citizens
8) Unemployment benefit works on a sliding scale for citizens, starting rather high, but dropping each month they remain out of work.


It is however CRITICAL to remeber that both citizens and civilians pay the same rate of tax, both are EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW, and no sort of law is enforced wherebye citizens and civilians are forbidden to mix. NO clubs or discrimnation is to be made against citizens, with regards to " citizen only bars" however an employer may decide that they only wish to employ citizens. Also it is important to recognise that civilans can easily become citizens and also that citizens can lose their status.

What do you all think?

I haven't read whole thread, don't know if this is an original thought but... your Idea makes no sense. Civilians can become citizens by doing civil service jobs for 7 years, alot of civil service jobs require degrees (E.g teachers) but to get a degree as a civilian in order to go on and do your chosen 'civil service' you would have to pay a large amount of money, as uni is only free to citizens.

Further citizenship is based on your version of doing something for your country. What about Artists, writers, entertainers, engineers, the people who receive derisory sums to do the menial tasks we don't want to do, aswell as many more. I think it's disgusting that you regard these people as doing nothing for our country.

As for 7 years civil service, why is someone who works in a job centre more important than someone who works in tescos? Don't get me wrong I've nothing against those who work in job centres but I think you seriously under value all the people who do there Jobs everyday so that your life is made easier.

In summary I think yours is a terrible Idea.

You'll take me rights...

WHEN YE PRY THEM FROM ME COLD DEAD FINGERS!

Or you know, just fill the political system with parties with similar ideals.

Still don't see why people think combat / civil service makes for better people.

"I am a morally upstanding person, and kill people." :confused:

"Oh, me? I'm a Strategic Targets Analyser And Designator." :confused:

Ok guys, I have learnt a lot from this posting, but as a poor innocent schoolkid of 17, I dont have the time to continue this as much as I'd like. Feel free to continue posting, but I may not be posting as much.

I would like to say thankyou to you all, becuase it has given me food for thought (which is good, ive just come off a thought diet). Thanks again, Michael

someone's been watching Starship Troopers....

Ditto.. But i guess this is still discussable (by the way, is discussable a word, or did i drank too much?)