An interesting idea...

[Phoenix Rising]

I have been thinking about this theoretical form of government for a few weeks now. What if we lived in a world where there were two types of people, citizens and civilians and the only difference between the two is that citizens can vote (and run for office) and civilians cannot. Anyone can attain citizenship by enlisting in the military (or otherwise serving the state), and after say, two years of service, they would be granted citizenship.

In this sort of society, the only people who would be able to make decisions for the state are those who are willing to die for the state. Civilians would not be discriminated against in any way, they would have all the same rights and privileges as civilians, save for the right to vote. If a civilian enlists in the military and gives up (leaves the military) before reaching their two-years, then they can never attempt to become a citizen again.

I'm not saying that we should implement such a system in the United States, but it is still an interesting idea. So what are everyone's thoughts on this theory?

 

[Richard B Riddick]

Reminds me of Robert Heinlein's book Starship Troopers.

I think most soldiers and military personnel I've met have a difficult time questioning the government. The government is their 'boss' and criticizing it may not result in them being fired, but the outcome isn't so different. General McChrystal questioned & criticized the Obama Administration for its handling of the Afghan War and was relieved of duty in favor of General Patraeus. Likewise, I'm certain those who publicly criticize the government aren't likely to be promoted or gain the approval necessary to succeed in the military.

This and other precedents may illustrate military men may not be in a position to question the government and get away with it.

Arranging a society where the only ones capable of voting are those least in a position to question government motive could be a bad strategy.

There's also a question of indoctrination. Soldiers are indoctrinated into following orders, no matter what they might be. In a perfect world, it may be that voters should be those best capable of intelligently questioning their government rather than those accustomed to following orders issued by a government.

In terms of separation of church and state, the necessary distinction of abstraction layers may also apply to a separation of military and state.

Taxation or government without representation is one of the major reasons for the rebellion of the founding fathers. It may be that a civilian faction without representation in government would invite similar historical precedents. Whether by rebellion, or the exploitation and abuse that fuels it.

 

[seddy-0]

i think this would be a horrendous idea and would be causing a big brother effect. it would start off as an idea of citizens voting for politicians, but it will take one power hungry person to be charismatic enough to stay in power and keep certain people oppressed. that's one scenario. another would be the civilians uprising and causing a revolt of "why do we have to serve the state to vote for the state" thing. i applaud the idea, but it has disaster written all over it.

 

[Will Graham]

How does it start? Before we have a government we would need two years of people serving their country, so who governs the country to begin with? Who gives the people serving the country for that first two years their orders?