Political/Theoretical question

[FallenAngel]

I was just wondering what some of you thought about this idea, and would such a society survive or even flourish?

Imagine a society something like a mix between '30s Germany and Rome. A democratic system of course, but who would hold the real power? In the USA and most of the western world, it's the rich and powerful who make the biggest individual dents in our government-- a government which sets the bounds for society to exist in. However, those in the military make barely enough to keep them out of "poverty"...even career officers make less than the private sector. There seems to be a stigma that- especially enlisted personel- are towards the bottom of society, that they didn't have enough going for them to make it to a big university and become a doctor or lawyer where the 'real' money and prestigue comes in.

What if we could change that? What if people looked up to military personel - especially the officers- and say "that's the best my country has to offer....an elite class of citizens that not everyone can belong to."

Now, I know people will say that doctors and laywers make their contributions to society and that Military officers do have our respect and admiration. However, I wanted to know if (America at least) would ever change its views and realize that these protectors of our way of life deserve more than what they get now.

Sorry if none of that makes any sense, I just had to type it, I just hate the feeling that our military is not appreciated enough and I want a society where that is fixed. I just wondered if I am crazy or if anyone agrees.

[Knave]

I might be going out on a limb, but modern democracy - where the franchise of the vote is given to everyone, regardless of your contribution (or lack thereof) to society. Even criminals get to vote in some democracies.....

.... limiting the franchise is one means to prevent the stagnation of democracy which seems to be growing. Elections in the US, Canada and several other countries see only half or little more than half of eligible voters turn out.... the reason being that only that small percentage values their franchise, when it should be the majority.

Tying the franchise of Citizenship to service - whether it be military or social or whatever - might be a means to improve and strengthen democratic values.

Not really what you were getting at, maybe, but perhaps a means to get there........

[David]

sounds a lot like Sparta except Sparta focused all it's efforts almost completely on it's military and they kicked ass for it. I don't know if paying our military more would make people respect them more, it might attract the wrong type of people for the job (lawyers and doctors aren't the nicest people), afterall it is not about the money. People are stupid, they will never understand the military and will always say stupid stuff, it's a fact of life. The only people that the enlisted and officers should really look for respect from is their fellow officers and enlisted, because they're the only ones that truely know what the hell they're talking about.

[FallenAngel]

Actually Knave....that is EXACTLY what I was going after. Thank you for articulating it for me.

People don't seem to care about "the system" anymore, only when it seemingly doesnt give them the advantage over someone else. And yet there are people fighting and dying to keep that system strong and promote it to others. Linking franchisement to service (any form really- although civil and military would be the most reconizable) would promote the "value" of the power to vote and take direct part in government.

....that, and I was thinking about conscription in the US--sorta like Israel. Everyone, regardless, does 3-4 years of service (again, doesn't really matter what type) after highschool and before college. Gives them a sense of civic duty, discipline, hierarchies, etc.

which Idead do you folks think is better?

[papabear]

I was just wondering what some of you thought about this idea, and would such a society survive or even flourish?

Imagine a society something like a mix between '30s Germany and Rome. A democratic system of course, but who would hold the real power? In the USA and most of the western world, it's the rich and powerful who make the biggest individual dents in our government-- a government which sets the bounds for society to exist in.

Yes, the rich set some of the rules for the game, but you also have to include impersonal corporations, which are almost like living entities unto themselves, though there is no accountability whatsoever for bad acts. Secondly, the fact of the matter is, whatever influence the wealthy have in the US is not resisted by the rest of society--you find people who believe that $$$ is the highest good to be pursued at all levels within society, and that is part of the problem.


What if we could change that? What if people looked up to military personel - especially the officers- and say "that's the best my country has to offer....an elite class of citizens that not everyone can belong to."

Now, I know people will say that doctors and laywers make their contributions to society and that Military officers do have our respect and admiration. However, I wanted to know if (America at least) would ever change its views and realize that these protectors of our way of life deserve more than what they get now.

Read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and his Politics--he holds up Sparta as being close to the idea of timocracy, the good form of government which is opposed to democracy. In a timocracy, you find the political body consisting primarily of citizen-soldiers who rule--thus there is a great emphasis on the virtues, such as courage, and aims associated with citizen-soldiers, such as the pursuit of victory and honor. However, Aristotle does not think this is the best form of government, because the virtues of the citizen-soldier are not the same as those of the good statesman, who is the ideal. But timocracy is certainly better than the democracy, in which the political community is geared towards satisfying the bodily appetites of the individuals.

Nevertheless, I have thought it ridiculous that the enlisted ranks have to even pay income taxes, since their service and willingness to make the "ultimate" sacrifice is a great enough contribution to the country...

Granted--courage and obedience are important virtues--however, prudence and justice are also important, and the lack of these virtues has a profound influence on the character of our society.

[papabear]

Linking franchisement to service (any form really- although civil and military would be the most reconizable) would promote the "value" of the power to vote and take direct part in government.
Hmmm this proposal would probably be deemed "unconstitutional"--afterall the citizens possess a "right" to vote.


....that, and I was thinking about conscription in the US--sorta like Israel. Everyone, regardless, does 3-4 years of service (again, doesn't really matter what type) after highschool and before college. Gives them a sense of civic duty, discipline, hierarchies, etc.
If you're interested in reading a good analysis of some of the problems affecting this country, read Wendell Berry's The Unsettling of America. I really doubt that conscription will lead to any improvement in overall virtue--maybe some form of courage and obedience, but probably not any of the other virtues. (See Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics for an account of the virtues.)

[Knave]

....that, and I was thinking about conscription in the US--sorta like Israel. Everyone, regardless, does 3-4 years of service (again, doesn't really matter what type) after highschool and before college. Gives them a sense of civic duty, discipline, hierarchies, etc.


In Israel, having every able-bodied man and woman inducted into military service - and carrying knowledge and skills from that service through life, and for possible future use - is a necessity considering the country is surrounded by hostile forces which outnumber the Israeli population.

Conscription is not the answer to instil a sense of civic duty or discipline into youth. You may actually find it would foster more discontent and such than the actual advantages you envision. No, service must be a choice.

To make it work, you have to tie some very real benefits to giving time in Service, and you also have to make Service - not necessarily military service - open to everyone, regardless of race, creed or religion. Service would guarentee citizenship; the right to vote and control over the direction the state and society take, namely. It would be a necessary requisite for participation in government - as a voter or as a representative.

Those who choose not to serve should not be punished unfairly, of course - it should be choice whether you serve or not. Those who do not serve simply would not be able to participate in government.

A civilian - those who do not serve and become Citizens - would have all the rights of free speech, religion, press and so on.... but, realistically, they would be able to complain all they want about government.... but without the franchise of citizenship, their opinion would hold little weight, as they can't change it themselves anyway.

And really, the franchise shouldn't be given away.... once you Serve, you're entrusted with the franchise to vote...*entrusted*. but if you don't use it, it should be taken away. If you don't value your vote enough to use it whenever you have a chance, you shouldn't have the vote at all.

[a. enders]

I'd suggest Hienlien's STARSHIP TROOPERS.Avoid the movie.It's damn near a blueprint for the society where the military personnel are given more power (maybe not the right word,but bear with me) by having the vote.And it's a hell of a war story as well.

[dweebie]

I'd have to say no way on mandatory military duties. But let me explain why.
There are alot of criminals out there that peek their "criminal activities" around the age of 18 about the time you are saying they need to go in. This is not a time to be teaching them to kill, survive, and tactics to avoid their enemy. Although this is a huge threat anyways to law enforcement i.e. Timothy Mcvay (I'm an oklahoman and don't care if his name is spelled correctly so don't bother) I think it would just multiply that threat.
I also think it would attract even more retaliation within the military and against the military. If they have to fight because someone has told them to without their consent, and especially if it's something that the indivual doesn't believe in, they're more likely to retaliate against the soldiers that are there to do the job and believe in what they're doing. Those are the soldiers we need the most.

As far as the pay and respect .... one of my "mentors" gave the best advice about going into law enforcement *which I think is very very similar to military* he told me, "If you go through life demanding respect and wanting people to acknowledge things you've done to protect them, you're only going to hate people. You chose this profession so they doin't owe you anything, this is your job, so you better be happy doing your job because that's the only person that's going to be satisfied with your job and how well you do it." I also agree that giving military the highest pay would corrupt it, politics proves that in my oppinion.

[FallenAngel]

Enders....I've read the book by Hienlien-- that's where I really started thinking about this. Damn good book, horrible movie.

Dweebie...I only used the Military as the most obvious example. But really, there are many jobs that need to be done in the civil service. Firemen, police, postal workers, trash-collectors, etc. Any job that really makes you serve others.

Papabear....yes, it's a constitutional right, but our government has long limited who that right applies to. There are exceptions to every rule. Making it a "right" does not immediately imply everyone has the privledge of that right. Also, thank you for those reading suggestions-- I intend to look into those.

Thanks to everyone who responded so far...it's been a great learning experiance for me at least. :)

[papabear]

Papabear....yes, it's a constitutional right, but our government has long limited who that right applies to. There are exceptions to every rule. Making it a "right" does not immediately imply everyone has the privledge of that right. Also, thank you for those reading suggestions-- I intend to look into those.


If I remember correctly, historically, the right to vote had been tied to certain requirements--property, etc., in addition to citizenship. However, the U.S. has progressed more towards the Enlightenment assumption that anyone who has the power of reason can use that power as well as anyone else--consequently, all such restrictions, which were somewhat arbitrary to begin with, were dropped, with the only one left, besides citizenship, is the age requirement.

The point is, it would take something really drastic in order for this shift, whereby the qualifications for citizenship remain the same, but the qualifications for the power to vote be more restrictive, to take place, and we would have to admit that having an electoral process in which all citizens could participate, simply because they are citizens, is not really necessary for a good government--for now, most advocates of democracy however see universal enfranchisement as part and parcel of democracy.

The alternative strategy, which you see in Heinlein, is to restrict the power to vote by restricting citizenship--in his story, the only people who can be citizens are those who have served in the military. In effect, two or more classes will result--citizens, and at least one group of non-citizen--and what will be owed to members of each group will differ. This strategy, perhaps even more so than the first, goes against the classical liberal's egalitarian tendencies. Besides, I find that to restrict citizenship based on what one can offer to the community problematic in itself--while the work of one group may be "better" or more noble than that of another, the understanding here is that no one is being deprived of citizenship unjustly, because if they wanted, they could do that "extra" that would merit citizenship.

The underlying assumption is that all people have the same talents and abilities--therefore, those who put out the extra effort to do something visible for the community should be rewarded with citizenship (and the power to vote), because they are morally superior to those who don't put out such effort. But the problem with this is that all people do not have the same talents and abilities.

Similarly--while it may be true that some vocations contribute more to the community, or their form of service is more "high-profile" or visible, the fact of the matter is that all (legitimate) vocations contribute something to the community, and one's vocation should naturally be based on one's talents and abilties [which differ from person to person]. Read Berry if you want to understand why people have lost this sense of serving the community by living their vocation well--it's tied to why the "sense of community" has been lost.

Well, I should probably extend what I've written so far, but unfortunately I don't have the time right now--I have other responsibilities. But I hope you can sort of get the gist of what I'm saying.