Apparently, voting rights and military duty are intrinsically linked since ancient times.

Greek and Roman citizens had the right to vote linked to their duty of military service at times of war. E.g. Athens had lots of free non-citizens who did not have that privilege and that duty. (Also look up the etymology of the word "idiot".)

Democratic institutions in Europe started to crop up (sometimes as a result of revolutions) when subjects to a particular crown started to be drafted, and thus learned military skills. Nobility, who traditionally had some freedoms and could even be elected to various councils and parliaments under a monarch were also usually bound to military service.

People of the US in particular won their right to vote as free citizens (and not be subjects to British crown) in a literal war in 1775-83 (and then again in 1812).

That "price of freedom is eternal vigilance" idea also links these two ideas pretty tightly.

Your line of thinking is exemplary of what I was talking about: “violence first, democracy later”, “democracy comes from fighting”, and soon enough thousands of people are sent to die for nothing in a Middle-Eastern desert.

It just so happens that in the real world independence can only be defended by force.

In a civilized society, this force is normally only exerted by specially designated people, the police force, and, more rarely, by citizens defending themselves against assault.

But any society that wants to preserve itself has to have an army, or some other kind of a self-defense force, else the first invader to come by will overrun and subdue it. Delegating this to someone who are not the citizens possible to an only very limited extent.

Violence is not a great thing, sure, but sometimes it's the lesser evil, when the greater evils are serfdom or extermination. What a civilized society has to curb is aggression, which is the source of violence.

Even if you assume that violence is a necessary evil, there is no need to exhalt it or link it to the democratic expression of will. By doing so, you end up favouring a reverence to military structures, which are completely anti-democratic in nature and prone to be twisted towards external aggression. That is my point.

“If your role in life is that of peacemaker, you must resign yourself to the fact that sometimes, peace can only be made through force. Peace is a condition that exists only when those who hate to fight are better prepared to do so than those who love to. It is very simple and very easy to kill. If you would learn to neutralize an opponent while doing them the minimum possible amount of harm, you must master the art of attack; master it more thoroughly than any killer ever needs to"

> thousands of people are sent to die for nothing in a Middle-Eastern desert

This is sad. I don't like wars. A war is only worth it when all other means fail. I only see the point in defensive wars; the 1991 war in the Middle-Eastern desert was that, protecting Kuwait. Later, not so much, to say the least.

> violence first, democracy later

Rather, "independence first, democracy based on that". I don't see how this Middle-Eastern warfare ever helped US independence, or e.g. Iraqi independence. Except maybe it helped a bit Afghani independence, because Taliban long-term would likely be even worse that the total disarray they're having now.

“There’s a reason you separate the military and the police. One fights the enemy of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.”

Seems fitting for the US, as sad as it is... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Bri...

I would like to know more.

If this was a subtle starship trooper reference, bravo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdrjzE1SE58 (depictions of violence, satire)

For those that don't know, Starship troopers is a scathing satire about how "war makes fascist of us all".

Starship Tropers the movie is a brilliant "anti-anti-utopian" story.

To my puzzlement, some people don't notice how ironic it is, throughout.

The movie has its ups and downs, but the propaganda interludes were absolutely brilliant. I believe in the context of this discussion, the most relevant one is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_5UZfwX0ss.

I haven't found anything ironic about that movie up until now - last time I watched them was when I were about 11. Thanks.

I thought it was pretty blatant TBH.

Lummox thought so too. Now I must get back to raising John Thomases.

When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.

(Other than being an authority, presumably. Notwithstanding authorities on violence, such as Heinlein)

How is democracy the opposite concept to the military? Or was that just poorly phrased?

Try voting out your sergeant.

Try having a political leader jailing people who don’t do what he tells them to do.

Ah, so you're comparing them on basis of formation of will.

That's not the point that was made, however. The post you replied to connected the military to democracies as protectors of their physical integrity.

The distinction is subtle and lost on most people. By liniking the military to elections, you can bet good money that every politician in the country would jump on acritical "support the troops" propaganda lines that result in de-facto fascism, like the US experienced under G.W. Bush.

The first thing any State does is place the military under civilian government control. This is actually a huge part of the Constitution (the Founding Fathers were very clever and they all read Ceasar's biography).

Well if it wasn't linked US soldiers would still be denied of voting despite being drafted at 18 in WWII.