• flossdaily@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    197
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • admiralteal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      73
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

        • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          38
          ·
          1 year ago

          Some of em don’t care about their kids.

          As evidenced by their complete lack of concern regarding climate change.

      • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nah just ship the congressmen/women off with the infantry. Then they can see exactly what they’re voting for.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • flossdaily@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • Jim@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

      • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        many have already gladly voted yes for both many times. I don’t think that will stop enough of them.

    • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • explodicle@local106.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • TheDubh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • AlexisFR@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is the US even still involved in a war since 2021? At least through direct action.

        • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • NaN@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unfortunately he was a Lieutenant commander in the Navy. Going back probably doesn’t concern him.