Personally I don't see that as being an important investment in one's country. Especially when you're compelled to do so by law. I think the problem. Is the required methods have all been implied fascist, such as Minimum Service.
Personally, I'd say birth in a country is not a right to vote. You still get all your other rights based on human health and wellbeing but a citizenry test should be given and passed at a certain level for the right to vote. During possession of a right to vote, citizens should also then have criteria to meet to keep it. For example as you said, maintaining a net tax payment or in lieu of, proving work effort (ie volunteering).
However that isn't to say that there aren't problems with that as it brings us back towards hierarchical systems akin to feudalism (serfs weren't slaves, but couldn't vote thing).
The problem is, like most thi ngs it takes common sense to know when a system is being abused and the will to not abuse it in the first place.
It could even be much simpler I guess and instead of blind jury, we acknowledge opposing jurors and take people on specifically who think one way or another about the case at hand. In this case, three pro chauvin, three negative, three ambivalent and an elder who has seen/voted in a prior similar case (if not similar they're the tiebreak).
You shouldn't get to decide how money is spent if you aren't contributing any of the money. It's a pretty simple concept. People just vote to take other people's money otherwise.
Personally I don't see that as being an important investment in one's country. Especially when you're compelled to do so by law. I think the problem. Is the required methods have all been implied fascist, such as Minimum Service.
Personally, I'd say birth in a country is not a right to vote. You still get all your other rights based on human health and wellbeing but a citizenry test should be given and passed at a certain level for the right to vote. During possession of a right to vote, citizens should also then have criteria to meet to keep it. For example as you said, maintaining a net tax payment or in lieu of, proving work effort (ie volunteering).
However that isn't to say that there aren't problems with that as it brings us back towards hierarchical systems akin to feudalism (serfs weren't slaves, but couldn't vote thing).
The problem is, like most thi ngs it takes common sense to know when a system is being abused and the will to not abuse it in the first place.
It could even be much simpler I guess and instead of blind jury, we acknowledge opposing jurors and take people on specifically who think one way or another about the case at hand. In this case, three pro chauvin, three negative, three ambivalent and an elder who has seen/voted in a prior similar case (if not similar they're the tiebreak).
You shouldn't get to decide how money is spent if you aren't contributing any of the money. It's a pretty simple concept. People just vote to take other people's money otherwise.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE?
Having served and would again (for a legitimate service), Yes.