(Original post by pinkpinkuk)
You cannot deny that joining the armed forces is optional.
I don't think I did deny that. I pointed out that you choose the career, but the risk itself is no more optional than the risk you accept when you choose to cross a busy street. It's nto the risk you're primarily interested in, but the utility of the action. You can't therefore thrust fault ont he soldier for the risk incurred by his profession.
If you do join the armed forces you do take on the risk of being injured, just as, if you run out into that busy road, you run the risk of being injured.
Yes and this is quite different to playing on a railway line, where you are warned: you do so at your own risk - the fault for injury is shifted to you. In the armed forces, this isn't the case because the government needs people to do the job, so they accept to cover the risk. In other words, you're not doing anything you shouldn't be
I'm aware compensation isn't meant as a 'reward', but it is often seen as such.
Well, whether it's "seen as such" or not is irrelevant to the necessity of such structures in a justice system. Where there's a right, there must be a remedy. How undesired the misfortune was, and how avaricious the claimant, are irrelevant to this.
People will inevitably try and milk all they can out of a situation, even if common sense dictates that if you put yourself in a position of danger, you run the risk of injury.
But again, people have this assumption that if you get hurt you just find a random person to give you sorry money. That's not how Tort works. The way that law spreads risk depends on various factors including policy, economic considerations and the most probable way of avoiding risk. So where it's clear that you had every reason to expect to be injured, and where you're solely responsible, then it's rare that you just get paid anyway. You only have a claim where somebody who the law had accredited with a duty of care, has ignored or not done enough to insure it.
But again, the injured party absolves themselves of any responsibility for their situation.
No. It's not
job to make sure that your hamburger isn't made from rotten meat. Equally, it's not your
job to provide safety equipment if you do a dangerous job. It all depends on who the law says must ensure minimal risk (note I don't say no
risk, but if it can be minimised as greatly as possible). Where there's a right, there must be a remedy.
They can't just use the excuse "The government told me to go there" in order to rid themselves of any blame.
They can. The job is there only because the government provided it.