this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2026
756 points (96.7% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
40509 readers
4314 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why is Israel sending children to fight?
Edit: This was more controversial than I had imagined, so I'll summarise my point like this: If your country is invaded, and you and your family are in danger of being bombed or shot, do you believe that you have some special right that says someone else should put their life on the line to protect you, while you sit back and do nothing? Do you think that you, your family, and your society have a better chance of survival if you all work together to defend yourself? Do you think it's fair that someone who has no impact on the decision to resist or capitulate is bound by that decision? My answers are: No, Yes, No. My right to protection hinges on my obligation to contribute to the protection of others. If we are not willing to collaborate to defend ourselves, we cannot consider ourselves citizens of the same state. A child (or other person without voting rights) cannot be bound by the political decision to resist an invasion, since they have no real way of impacting that decision.
Original post
The shitshow that is the IDF aside, 19 year olds are perfectly capable of being soldiers. Call me old-fashioned, but I honestly believe that being an adult with rights (e.g. to vote) in a democratic society also implies obligations to that society, and that the two (rights and obligations) should follow each other.
To be clear, what I mean is this: I live in a society that provides me with a solid social safety net, as well as a right to protection if shit hits the fan. I then think it's reasonable that I'm obliged to contribute to that safety net for others (in the form of taxes or community service), and protection (in the form of military service if shit hits the fan). Basically, it's an "all for one, one for all" mentality. We're all better off standing together, which means that we all take care of each other (via taxes etc.) in peacetime, and protect each other (in the form of military service) if necessary.
Since I believe that these rights and obligations should be balanced, I think it's reasonable that an 18 year old (which has all the rights of any other adult in my country) carries the same obligation as everyone else. It would be unfair if, say, 18-26 year olds got all the rights but none (or fewer of) the obligations. That immediately also opens the door to the question of which groups should bear the burden of the obligations, and which groups get only the rights.
Full disclaimer: I think the IDF deserves to be burnt to the ground. I also think (in general) that invading another country is, almost^1^ without exception, abhorrent.
^1^The exception being when you invade a country in defence of another country that has already been attacked, like when the UK attacked Germany in WWII, in defence of Poland, France, etc. without having been attacked themselves first.
None of what you say makes any sense in modern society.
How so? Do you not think that the right of social benefits should be coupled with the obligation to pay taxes if you're capable? Do you actually believe that, if a neighbouring country invaded, you have some kind of right to hide in the basement while someone else mans the AA protecting your house?
If the answer to either is "no", then you probably agree with me.
In the context of Modern US the majority of people pay the taxes and the minority of people who have the majority of wealth do not. Do you think the Social contract is already broken?
Do you actually believe any modern war was actually for its stated purpose. Do you think it is wrong sending young men to die in the Middle East for oil profits?
If you answer no to either of these then perhaps you are just simping for an abusive government.
Oh, absolutely YES. The social contract in the US is broken to the point where I don't know if it can be repaired.
That depends: I think Ukraine defending itself from a russian invasion is legitimate. I also think there are other wars where there is some party legitimately defending themselves against aggression. This question seems loaded in the sense that it appears to me like you're asking if I think a war of aggression is defensible. On general grounds, I would immediately say no.
Obviously, YES (it's pretty obvious that you're writing this question in the context of US invasions/wars of aggression in the Middle East, so I understand the context of the question). I honestly have no idea what would make you think that I would answer otherwise.
It seems, based on your questions, like you think I'm some US imperialist/capitalist. I couldn't be much further from it.
Having answered your questions, I would very much like to see your answers to mine.
I am glad to hear you can recognize that the US is broken. Of course it is much more than just the US at this point, but I digress
I am not really concerned about Ukraine defending itself, but I am concerned about Russia attacking what is equivalent of their own brothers and sisters. Yes, I was totally seeing where you land on wars of opportunity/agression and I am pleasantly surprised. Thanks for your candor.
I am not sure I agree with the concept of taxes, but obviously a government needs to operate with some monetary injections. I think if you have a strong social contract and everyone pays an amount that is equitable it could work out fine. I also believe there are other ways for the government to fund itself.
I am not sure I am ready to take up arms to kill my fellow man. Why are they invading. Would you expect me to fight a European army if I was in the US and they were invading to stop US war crimes? I do not owe allegiance to a concept. I would be much more likely to try and defend a person as opposed to a government.
The government doesn't just need to fund itself, it needs the resources to provide collective goods like a social safety net (unemployment, health care, legal assistance, and other fundamental rights). No matter how you twist it, those resources have to eventually come from the population. We can call that resource acquisition "taxing the population", disregarding the details of how it's done. In that case, taxes are an absolutely fundamental part of implementing a social contract that involves the collective helping each other provide collective goods. If you remove taxation (in this expanded sense) completely, you are no longer capable of sustaining a government of any kind: You're left with a collection of individuals with no common programs. Note: I'm saying here that any common program implies that people are providing resources to the collective, which is a de facto form of taxation in the expanded sense.
Disclaimer: The following retort is conceptual, not tied to your concrete example. If russia, or israel, or china, etc... invaded your country to displace your people, steal your homes and resources, and kill those in the way, do you believe that your government has any obligation to protect you? If so, who should risk their life to enact that protection? Who should decide whether to resist or not in the first place?
The point of these questions is that if we believe that we have a right to protection, we are implying that someone has an obligation to protect. Furthermore, that someone's obligation to protect is tied to your right to protection, not their personal opinion on who they want to protect you from. Basically, stating that you would only conditionally fight to protect your country against an invading force is incompatible with believing you have the right to protection from any invading force. If it comes down to opinion, there's nothing in the way of everyone else stepping aside when your house is the one being bombed, because they personally feel that particular bombing is justified. If that can happen, you have no right to protection.
Furthermore, unless someone is obliged to protect, nobody can have a right to protection. These are two sides of the same coin. What I advocate for is that everyone in a society should have equal rights to protection, and that we should collectively share the attached obligation to protect.
Someone coming from Norway is familiar with other ways a government can fund itself having one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world.
Some of the more obvious ones are relying on natural resource revenues, consumption and value-added taxes (VAT), corporate taxes, fees for services, taxing land, fines, or heavy customs duties.
Some of the more non-traditional are state owned companies, taxing pollution, lotteries, etc.
The whole philosophy that governments needs to tax citizens is honestly questionable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory
As far as your conceptual example, no. The government does not have a duty to defend you at least in the US.
"DeShaney v. Winnebago County and Castle Rock v. Gonzales established that the government has a general duty to protect the public at large, but no legal mandate to protect any specific, individual citizen from violence."
I would generally agree with your premise around everyone having an equal right to protection and in turn a obligation to defend but only in a perfect world where wars are not fought to enrich the military industrial complex.
Modern warfare is unnecessary and driven by profit and propaganda. In this respect our rights have been usurped by corporations and politicians who make money from killing people.