The distinction between a well-regulated militia and a standing army is fairly clear. The former involves the civilian population as the defense, police, and emergency services forces, whereas the latter is a professional and specialist group designed for aggressive invasion (or, in the case of police, an internal invasion of last resort).
Militia are good for defense, not invasion (as the War of 1813 illustrated). They are made up of local people. So if there is a reactionary revolution in the Boondocks it will remain local unless the ideas are sufficiently convincing to spread elsewhere.
In a democracy a civilian militia is supposed to be part of the democratic process (unlike self-selecting militia).
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 21/1/13 08:12 (UTC)Militia are good for defense, not invasion (as the War of 1813 illustrated). They are made up of local people. So if there is a reactionary revolution in the Boondocks it will remain local unless the ideas are sufficiently convincing to spread elsewhere.
In a democracy a civilian militia is supposed to be part of the democratic process (unlike self-selecting militia).