- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
You don't have to. Military is a profession. But if this is a profession, then you need to pay a salary. But why spend so much money when you can make people work for free? Manipulation comes to the rescue. How to make a person work for free and even be proud of it? You need to intimidate him, impose a sense of guilt, inspire joy.�
How to intimidate? You need to create an article in the criminal code for refusing to work for free. How to impose a sense of guilt? We need to set up propaganda so that free work is perceived as a kind of debt that everyone should pay back. We need to convince people that if they do not pay this debt, then they are traitors, losers, outcasts. You also need to inspire a sense of joy – that if you do a good job, you can get brilliant baubles (you should call them as pretentious as possible-orders, medals), you can be proud of them. But if you work so well that you die at work , then they will give your parents a rebuke, they will praise them for such a good son. You need to be taught that working for free in a military uniform is prestigious and cool.
So you need to open your eyes: you are being manipulated, you are being treated as a slave, as cannon fodder. Do not give in to manipulation, mow down in all available ways and do not feel guilty. You don't owe anyone anything. You will give so much effort and money to the “motherland” in your life that it will more than pay for all the costs of your primary education, medicine, police and other benefits.�
If all conscripts recognize themselves as individuals, and not as slaves, then Rodina will be forced to introduce a contract army.
Many “patriots” will say that the country is big, there is not enough money to pay all the military personnel. But at one time they also defended serfdom: “The country is big, it needs to be raised, where to get so much money to pay salaries to freelancers… labor is a sacred duty of every person…”. Conscription service is archaism, it is the remnants of serfdom.�
I put” Rodina ” in quotation marks, because this is also an effective way of manipulation. Come up with some mythical, idealistic, abstract deity, which for some reason you need to love unrequited, worship, sacrifice yourself. On behalf of this deity, you can send serfs on military adventures. They will die, be maimed, but at the same time they and their relatives will rejoice, because they did it for the sake of the “motherland”. And cynical generals and politicians will giggle at these fools, eating caviar sandwiches, sipping century-old cognacs and slapping the ass of beautiful girls on their yachts.
Ilya, if you are a Russian citizen, then you have not only rights, but also responsibilities.
First of all, according to Article 59 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the defense of the Fatherland is the duty and duty of a citizen of the Russian Federation.
Therefore, you must serve.
Now about the fact that the Motherland has done nothing for you.
You may not exercise your rights or consider them insufficient, but you do have them. You are a student, which means that your university was most likely created by the state. It is responsible for ensuring that the University provides you with a high-quality education (if the university, of course, has accreditation). The state provided you with a secondary education, it provided you with high-quality medical care at birth and in the future (you may not think so, but it is relatively high-quality). We've already talked about the infrastructure.
Yes, all this is paid for from taxes, but they are also an obligation of the citizen.
Since there is such a law, and you are a citizen, you are legally obligated. And morally, everyone decides for himself what he owes and to whom. The concept of duty can be considered in different aspects. It happens that a person is not legally obliged to do something, but considers himself obligated (for example, to help adult children and parents). And it happens the other way around, as in your case. So you need to specify in what sense you are obligated or not.
To begin with, your homeland gave you the opportunity to be born and grow up in a more or less modern medical environment. She treated you and taught you. And at the age of 14, I gave you a citizen's passport, which also implies the presence of certain rights and freedoms. If it seems to you that this is “nothing”, throw out your certificate, MHI policy and passport and live like this.
On the one hand, the state is still doing something: as you correctly said above, education (municipal kindergartens are heavily subsidized), primary, secondary and higher education (nominally free), medicine (nominally free), infrastructure, some protection (police, army, etc.)
On the other hand: the above is not free of the best quality, it is already paid for by your parents ' taxes, all the same benefits can be obtained in many countries of the world without being properly served urgent for it.
First of all, I didn't borrow anything from my homeland. Accordingly, I don't owe her anything. Moreover, when my pension savings are frozen or withdrawn, I believe that my homeland owes me them. Accordingly, the question is, when is she going to pay off her debt to me?
Duty to the Motherland is not service in the armed forces of the country. This is love for the parts where you were born. A nagging sense of belonging to the territory that surrounded you from the cradle. Expats are familiar with it and even without being around they experience this feeling repeatedly reinforced by the inability to be a part of it physically. Love for the Motherland is a debt that is paid by a highly spiritual person. Based on this post, derivatives arise – service to the fatherland, protection of territorial borders, etc.
In the wild, no one really owes anyone anything. But no one guarantees you and your family a long and peaceful life there either. Why in the state someone and someone should protect at their own expense, and someone should evade this duty under various “plausible” pretexts… Then live in the taiga or steppe, but no one will be responsible for your life and safety. That's when the state, with our help, will be able to fully ensure the security of the country only at the expense of the contract army, then the training of reservists…( and the current service in the army is basically training the reserve in case of a military conflict) will not be needed. But this will not happen soon, based on modern realities. The laws of society are binding on everyone. In a State governed by the rule of law, your consent or non-consent is decided by legal instruments, not by personal decision-making. The law states that if you are fit for health reasons, have no reason to delay, then you, like many others, must prepare yourself to defend the state in which you live and your entire family. It would be interesting if such questions arose among the citizens of the country in the 41st year. Then we wouldn't even have such a question… because of our absence from this world. The state already provides technical means in the form of modern weapons. Spends money on maintenance and training of personnel… feeds, dresses. Provides normal living conditions. Cosmopolitans and sissy boys, with childish thinking, do not understand this.
Historically, military service is closely linked to power. Once upon a time, when there were no states, the greatest power and influence was held by the leader who had the most warriors on his side. After all, if it was not possible to reach an agreement in a peaceful way, then in the end the conflict turned into a purely military one, and the winner was the one who had the most soldiers. Therefore, the terms of all agreements between the leaders were always such that the one who controlled the large army would benefit from them. At the same time, the warriors themselves understood how it works. Therefore, the leader could not make decisions absolutely independently, but was forced to take into account their interests. If he suddenly started making decisions that his warriors didn't like, they would stop supporting him and he would lose power.
With the advent of states, the situation has changed a lot in form, but not much in essence. For example, ancient Rome was a republic. This is an early form of democracy. However, not all citizens had the right to vote, but only those who had a place in the legion. In the event of a war, they had to drop all their usual activities and arrive at the gathering point. Other citizens could not influence political decisions in any way.
In the Middle Ages, there was a slight shift away from democracy. States were ruled by monarchs. Ordinary people had no influence on anything. Including warriors. However, power in the state still depended on who had the most warriors. Those feudal lords who could maintain a large army had a significant influence on the monarch. He was forced to take their interests into account when making decisions. Although the relationship between a feudal lord and his warriors might be purely monetary, the relationship between a suzerain and his vassals was like a service. In the event of war, the vassals had to abandon their business and arrive at the gathering point with their armies. And if they didn't, then the monarch was in an idiotic situation. Therefore, he tried to prevent this in advance, taking into account the opinion of the vassals on key issues.
In Modern times, military conflicts have become much steeper. If in the Middle Ages an army of 10 thousand people was considered very large, then in Modern times the bill went to hundreds of thousands. There was no way to pay such a large number of soldiers. Therefore, we have introduced mandatory conscription. However, since military service is closely linked to the authorities, the political system also had to be reformed. We have returned to democracy, as in ancient Rome. But already at a new stage. After all, the draft has now become mandatory for everyone, so the right to vote had to be made universal.
If you think about it, it definitely makes sense. If we imagine that universal democracy really works, and the elected authorities make decisions in the interests of the people, then these decisions can only be disliked by those who do not belong to this people, i.e. external forces. And in the extreme case when it is impossible to reach a peaceful agreement, it is precisely those in whose interests these decisions were made, i.e. the entire people, who should defend their decisions with weapons in their hands. And who else? External forces will not fight for the policy that the country pursues in its own interests. They just need a different policy.
I will not discuss the advantages and disadvantages of compulsory military conscription at the moment, I am only interested in the moment of psychological manipulation described by the author.
And what is the problem with answering the manipulator so that he understands that there is simply no one to manipulate him? For example: “Debt? My dear fellow, I never pay my debts on principle. Whether it's a debt to the Motherland, a bank, or a neighbor before payday. That's the kind of sinner I am. I only like to take from everyone and not give anything to anyone. Poor Motherland-My mother did her best for me, did not sleep at night, went out of her way, did not spare herself. Only here I am-that's what a bitch, took and framed her in the most difficult moment for her!”
Putting pressure on feelings of guilt is possible only as long as the person tries to fight this feeling and deny it. And if the person who is being manipulated openly declares himself, they say, yes, this is me, you have nothing to do with it, then the manipulator's weapon is knocked out of his hands-he has nothing more to put pressure on.
Sorry for the indiscreet question, but what EXACTLY was it supposed to do for YOU personally, and did not do it?
A list, pliz, with a justification for why IT SHOULD have been.
And then it turns out like in that Monty Python parody of the story about Jesus Christ.
There was an episode like this: several young recruits come to join a secret society like “Jews against the Romans” (then, as you remember, Judea was a Roman province).
They bring them, like, to an agit class. The main agitator asks with pathos: “WHAT DID THE ROMANS DO FOR YOU?” (expecting newbies to say “NOTHING”)�
But the newcomers “did not see through the chip” and one said: “Eh! Good roads?”
The agitator was taken aback, said, “No, that's not it,” and asked again: “WHAT DID THE ROMANS DO FOR YOU BESIDES ROADS?”
I wish I hadn't asked.
Order on the night streets?
A stable monetary system?
In general, the agitator screwed up badly…
I probably don't have to.But for myself.this may be useful.That would, for example, break away from my mother's guardianship.Get independent experience.Ie here you need to decide whether you need it for yourself.For life experience.
There are rules in our lives, so-called “rules of the game”. I don't mean to say I'm a great judge of the rules, but I do know something. So, for the above question, the rule reads as follows: “Anyone who refuses to support and defend the state in which they live has no right to demand protection from it.”
Why and on what grounds do you say that the state has done nothing for you? Do you have an education? There is. Do you have a job? There is. Yes, it may well be that this is not the job you want, but you have it. You obviously don't live on the street, if the question is published on Yandex-q. There is gas in the stove, water in the tap, and light in the sockets. Shops are open, transport is moving.
So the Motherland has something to give, first of all, and secondly, they serve much less now than before, I once served in the navy from April 1982 to May 1985. And you are already raising howls to the skies because of the service life that you have now…
“I don't have to,” say the cowardly mama's boys! Did your homeland give you anything? Did you starve, go naked, and can't read or write? Lived under a fence? What should I give you? A palace and a limousine? Have you ever done anything yourself in your life?
For your information, hitrozh..for the liberalists. In Switzerland, EVERY man is required to serve in the army. And not for a salary. And then all his life periodically retrained passes. These are real men.
The military is a profession and you need to protect your homeland for money? Well, yes, of course, the war will start and the cunning assholes will hang out in the rear of the clubs, and someone has to give their life for them? For a salary? Why the fuck does a dead person need your salary? Yes, such tricks..They should be called to the front line first of all.
Already the service life has been reduced to a year, but no, all sorts of ssykuns still do not want to go to serve.!!!
Switzerland and Israel have conscripted armies, although these countries are not poor. It is an honor to serve in the army there. In general, in most countries of the world there is a call to the army. Someone who doesn't want to serve хит – �khitrozh…y ko … L. So it's normal to live and enjoy everything, and someone else should protect the country? Let them say “fools” serve! So, in case of war, someone has to die for you, and you will drink beer on the couch? Don't like the country? So zvizduy in another! Although khitrozh…number of goats…they don't like fishing anywhere!
You don't have to, even if Rodina did something (or a lot) for you. A” debt ” in the literal sense of the word is a voluntary commitment to do or provide something (usually in exchange for something else). For example, a contract soldier voluntarily undertakes to serve a certain period of time in the army in exchange for certain benefits. In addition, the debt of one person may pass to the legal successor (for example, to the person who accepted the inheritance). But even the heirs and relatives of fallen contract soldiers do not inherit the duty of the deceased to serve the remaining term: this is a purely personal “duty”. But monetary debts, on the contrary, are inherited.
There is also a “moral duty”. From an individual point of view, this is something that the person himself considers necessary to do, even without being legally obliged. From a social and collective point of view, it is a similar representation of the majority of society or some group. As far as the State is concerned, it is not an individual or a collective/society and does not have any form of morality. Any appeal of the state to moral categories is always manipulation.
If we talk about military duty, then a conscript has a” duty ” (moral) only if HE HIMSELF thinks so. Another thing is that there is a duty stipulated in the law and reprisals for evading it. Willy-nilly, this has to be taken into account somehow. But all this has nothing to do with” duty ” – even if the word itself is used in the wording of a law or bylaws. From a moral point of view, the fact of the “oath” does not change anything, since the latter is not truly voluntary: the refusal is reprisals. Therefore, the observance of such an oath is not necessarily from the point of view of morality: as well as fulfilling promises made under the threat of violence, for example. But the law, while agreeing with the nullity of forced promises, considers otherwise in the case of an” oath”, which it itself imposed. But the law is not a moral criterion, but only an external circumstance that has to be somehow taken into account. For example, finding ways to get around it with impunity.
This is not a valid question.
“The state does nothing” is a universal principle that can be applied by a citizen of any State. The same thing can be said to you by a citizen of Norway or the United States, for example. Norwegians and Americans formally achieve everything themselves, they always have a lot of complaints about their country, and in general, no one usually likes their government. In short, this phrase has no factual basis. It doesn't matter what the current standard of living in Russia is. You can always say “The motherland did nothing for me”, because this is your personal principle.
“Pay your debt to the Motherland” is nothing more than a beautiful description of the draft law. Again, this has no logical basis whatsoever. Perhaps you were born with minimal interaction with the state, maybe you were born in a forest community at all – you have a “duty to the Motherland”. Or maybe you take something from your homeland from the cradle, maybe your parents have not paid a single ruble of taxes in their entire life, and you spend years in free hospitals, attend all possible subsidized sections and study for free at uni. This does not affect the amount of debt, because it is not a debt, but simply the law on military service. But if you are a woman or have health problems, then the “debt” is written off.
Thus, we get just a law that obliges us to serve. You, as a law-abiding citizen, must obey it, and that is why it is the law. Or you can tell him to fuck off. But then what is the point of this question? To whom else can you be indebted, if not to the state and its laws? To the Lord God? Public morals?
To summarize: the concepts of “Debt to the Motherland” and “I do not owe anything to the Motherland” do not have any actual meaning because they do not have any specific debts. By law, you are required to serve if your health permits. In fact, you can circumvent this law, as many other people circumvent many other laws.
In the case of Russia, you need to understand that the country is one thing. But the state is different.�
The government steals, lies to our faces, intimidates, doesn't tell us, stigmatizes, betrays, and never does anything for free, because we pay taxes.�
The country, on the other hand, includes your friends, subscribers in social networks, taxi drivers and hairdressers, birches and poplars, Russian cuisine, bears, literature, and centuries-old history.�
Therefore, if you pay a debt to anyone, it is only to those who made you yourself, as you are now.
P. S. I don't know, Ilya, whether the military registration and enlistment office has taken on you or not, but it has taken on me firmly. However, I'm not going to serve, and by the way, I don't consider myself a woman, because in fact the state has not given us much that we have every right to have. Even the opposition was taken away.