View Single Post
Old 12-12-17, 10:40 AM   #933
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 40,658
Downloads: 9
Uploads: 0


Default

And a crime done by a cirminal is legal because viticms have the freedom to evade, to flee, to try to escape?

You forget one thing here, I call it the criterion of first aggression, or "Verursacherprinzip". The one aggresisvbely imposing the consequences of his deeds on others is responsible, not the victims of these consequences. You break it - you mend it. The othe rmust not work around your breaking act - YOU have to either not breaking it, or if oyu did, YOU have to mend it.

It is not morally okay to demand somebody to join the military if he doe snot want. However, if you rtefuse to do your share in case the society you live in gets attacked, you have no longer any claim towards that society. If you do not give, you lose rights to take. Its not just rights, but also duties (moral imperatives, in this case). If you refuse help to defend of what you live, you lose the right that this context/system/society must care about your well-being. Give and take, take and give.

The origin of the ancient Greek word we know as "citizen", refers to small groups of armed men. Warrior, soldiers, in other words. Citizens are warriors. One of the reasons why females were no citizens in ancient Greece, since females were not allowed to carry arms. Smae for slaves, servants, subordinates, unfree, non-welathy people - none of them was a citizen. In fact the overwhelming part of the population in ancient Greek cities were not considered to be citizens with citizen rights. Only 1-3 in twenty were "citizens". - In modern time, only fascism has reminded of this implication, and then abused it, of course. Because, on the other hand and oppposite to modenr Italy and the Duce, the city state of Sparta, often accused to have been the first fascist state there was (an idiotic claim), Being a warrior not necessarily makes you hungry for war and aggression, it only means you are ready for what war brings, if need arises. When Alexander called the Greek to gather around him for his cause to conqueer the known world, the Spartans were the only ones who refused to follow, and stayed home. And while being met with scorn and mockery, they nevertheless came to the rescue of Greek homelands when foreign aggressors threatened the Greek.

Citizens are warriors/soldiers.

And from here you could indeed argue that as a citizen you have a duty to serve. Seems I just managed to bite my own tail. LOL

I just have a big problem to let just miserable politicians decide whether I have to fight and shoot at other people and try to kill them and risk my life. I leave this decision to nobody else than to myself, and my conscience. And not before I decide for myself that here ius a valdi need or a valid reason to fight, I accept to then take cokmands by some military officers and generals that tell me to shgoot these guys and to bomb those houses. But the base decision that coems first - is it worth the fight for my conscience criteria - is first, and that oen is mine, and mine alone. I do not allow politicians - or anyone else - to order me on that decision already, I am not their slave-by-birth.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

Last edited by Skybird; 12-12-17 at 10:56 AM.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote