An Alternative to Traditional War and Soldiers - Voluntary Military Service and Just War

If a nation believes the wars they fight are just, then that nation should allow its soldiers to decide whether to fight in specific wars.  Voluntary Military Service would allow for individuals to decide whether the war they are fighting in is just or not.

With a truly just cause, the soldiers would be more than willing to volunteer and fight. If the war is not just, then the lack of volunteering soldiers would reveal that the war is not one worth fighting. Voluntary Military Service would be a preventative measure from fighting too many wars while at the same time insuring the effectiveness of the military in fighting the wars it does fight.

From a purely military perspective, morale would be much greater if a soldier could make the conscientious decision that he believes the war he is to risk his life in is worth fighting.

From a social perspective, the citizens of the United States would know for a fact that the soldiers were not giving their lives away for something they did not believe in.

From a political perspective, Voluntary Military Service would have a taming effect on the nation, forcing it to be more particular in where and how often military incursions are undertaken. No longer would leaders be able to send people to war without making a solid and convincing case for that war.  But when the nation would go to war, the politicians would know that the people are behind it.

From a religious perspective, this would allow people to join the military that believe in the "just war" theory. Right now, proponents of "just war" should not in good conscience enlist in the military.  A soldier has to subject their opinion on whether a war is just or not to the heads of the State. When they join the military, in effect, they are making a permanent surrender of their religious conviction to the decision of the leaders of that nation. For an enlisted soldier, it does not matter if a war is just or not; it matters whether they have been given a command or not.  Religious beliefs should not be subjected to the state.

The very idea of "just war" means that in every war there is at least one side that is unjust.  The logical conclusion is that at least one side should have people conscientiously opposed to that war.  It is very convenient, although intellectually dishonest, to say that our side would always be on the just side in a war. 

For Voluntary Military Service to be implemented, transparency of information from the top of the executive branch all the way to the soldiers in the barracks would need to occur.  Information on why a war should be fought could not be withheld if the government needed to convince its citizens that they should enlist and fight in a war.  This would not give the soldier freedom to disobey orders once he has enlisted in a specific war; what it does is allow the soldier the option of deciding whether to participate in a war that they felt is just.

The benefits of allowing soldiers to decide whether to fight in a war outweighs the detriments to such an unorthodox process. Just wars would be decided based upon the conscience of the people rather than the conscience of a select few. The bar for the case for war would be raised. The responsibility for war would be on the shoulders of those actually fighting it. All soldiers would be allowed to participate with a self-perceived clean conscience. There is nothing to fear in allowing soldiers to decide whether they will or will not fight in a war if the war is just.  Unless we fear not fighting in wars all of the time.

Begin to Pay at the Pump

My old routine of buying a donut and a coffee or beef jerky and a pop has been squelched by paying at the pump. With the increase in gas prices, gas stations saw an increase in drive-offs. This increase led to most gas stations making us pre-pay inside or use a credit card at the pump before pumping our gas. Now that I am forced to pay at the pump, I do not go inside and use my credit card for a measely additional purchase.

I have a solution to make everyone happy. It's what I call "begin to pay at the pump." This might need some new technology, but the reality is that gas station owners do not make much money (or any money) from selling gas. The oil companies make a good profit, but the local retailer does not get a cut of that. The retailer needs the additional purchases at their convenience store. By instituting pay at the pump to decrease drive-offs, they also decreased one of their most important revenue streams, the small impulse buy from the person paying for their gas.

With "begin to pay at the pump," I would be able to slide my credit card at the pump, then I could go in, pick out the items I want, and finish the purchase at the register. This way gas stations would sell more, and I would be able to waste money on my little treats once a week. Win-win for everyone.

A New Type of Internet Browser

In the world where Mozilla is making millions of dollars of profit through Google searches, I propose a change in the browser model. No longer should the company that provides the browser make exorbitant amounts of money off of the users using and buying off of the internet. Rather than just some company lke Mozilla, where the CEO makes $500,000/year, acquiring all of the profits, the profits would be shared among the programmers, users, testers, and charity. Despite the lack of evidence for any browser besides Firefox, I am sure that all of the other browsers out there are also pulling in the dough for providing those search boxes built into their browsers. It is evident that every time we buy through the search box or click on ads after a search, the browser manufacturer makes money.

I propose a shift from corporate browsers to a browser made by the people and paying the people. I am not the guy to bring this browser revolution about since my techie skills are about limited to me posting words on the internet, but it would be nice if I was actually profiting from my use of the internet rather than some company out there. There are a lot of bright techie guys who actually participate in coding Firefox and other browsers for free because they think they are doing the public a service when they are actually padding Mozilla's pocketbooks. In this new system, they would be compensated for their work. Instead of Mozilla making millions of dollars and not compenasating the open source community, coders would actually receive a portion of the company profits. 10% of the money earned would go to accounting to administrate the payouts, 10% to the programmers and testers, and 10% to charity. This would be an actual non-profit rather than a non-profit like Mozilla that squeaks by just to insure that they retain non-profit status.

What this browser would do is cut the user a check for 70% of the earnings made from them using the internet, a cut of the money that all of the browsers are already earning. The earnings would compile in an account until the payout was significant enough to warrant a payout. No longer would the money earned by us using the internet be given to some massive corporation; it would be given back to everyone who has earned it.

So someone, please start a people's browser. One that actually pays the open source community, cuts the user in on the profits made off of him using the internet, and makes the world a slightly better place.