Penta wrote:Lost Boy wrote:Here's my two cents on the matter.
Not really the matter at hand, but fair enough.
You're right. Thank you for humoring me with a response, notwithstanding my off-topic rambling.
Penta wrote:I'm not keen on the last, though.
"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."
I certainly would never have wanted to be a soldier. Very glad my sons didn't either. If someone actually tried to invade us again, I - and they - would no doubt think differently, but I wouldn't want them inculcated with a military mindset when it wasn't necessary. I think it's better for people to be brought up in a spirit of free enquiry, and taught to think for themselves rather than to follow orders.
I'm no soldier, either.
When Jefferson said this, there existed a very different definition for the term 'soldier'. In those days, a soldier was usually a farmer or tradesman, who was responsible for keeping and maintaining his own weapons, and usually was assigned to a local militia. They would train every so often, and were ready to respond at a moment's notice to any threat (i.e. Indian raid, piracy, etc.) to their state or township, or, less often, to their country (i.e. "The Redcoats are coming!" ;)
There were several pros to this type of military. It didn't strain the public coffers or require enormous funding to maintain, like our modern military-industrial complex. Also, the emphasis on this type of military was strictly for defense, as it would have been much more difficult to explain to a farmer or blacksmith why he was being called up to action and sent overseas to fight some politically hazy bush war. It is easy, however, for one to understand why he is being called up to defend his own town or state in the event that his country is invaded by enemies. One of the best results of having this type of military is the effect is has upon the common man's mindset. He takes his voting and civil duties very seriously, and tends to act in a much more responsible manner.
The only country I can think of that still uses this
modus operandi is Switzerland, and I commend them for it. They don't involve themselves in other peoples' wars, (although I find their neutrality in WW2 a bit questionable). Their crime rate is very low, their citizens are generally responsible, and they don't get invaded. They also don't involve themselves in other peoples' wars.
Overall, the biggest advantage of requiring the common people to shoulder the burden of providing for their own defense is they tend to act more responsibly, and usually refrain from engaging in militaristic follies in other peoples' countries. Unless they are Mongols, that is.
"If a principle exists it must be immutable, for that is what a principle is - a truth standing apart from the mood of the times." - Jeff Cooper