Pages: 1 2

 

2008-04-23 17:09:07
Major.League.Infidel
Make Love and War
+303|6475|Communist Republic of CA, USA
The Book, not the movie.

What are your guys thoughts on Heinlein's style of society and government in his novel, Starship Troopers?  In a nutshell, you must be a citizen to vote, the fastest/best/(only?) way to gain citizenship is through Federal service (2 Year Minimum commitment).  Practically anyone in someway can serve the Federal Government, they will stick you where they deem fit.  Only service members can be elected to Powerful positions, yet active service members cannot vote.  There's a lot more to it, I highly recommend that if you haven't, go out and read that book.

I for one agreed on many parts with Heinlein's views.  What do you guys think?

https://i30.tinypic.com/2uig7bm.gif
(Click for Wiki Summary)

Last edited by Major.League.Infidel (2008-04-24 16:01:57)

2008-04-23 17:10:56
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6526|Global Command
Career politicians suck balls.
2008-04-23 17:39:01
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6408|'Murka

While I agree with it placing an importance on service, the basic construct is definitely at odds with the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

I think the biggest take-away from that book WRT the citizenship issue is that citizenship should be treated as a privilege even though it is a right...if that makes any sense.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-04-23 19:31:09
<BoTM>J_Aero
Qualified Expert
+62|6462|Melbourne - Home of Football
Perfect for expansionary militaristic governments under constant threat from an opposing power of equal or unknown size, (probably ugly bugs from outer space, you know).
2008-04-23 19:59:28
imortal
Member
+240|6662|Austin, TX

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:

Perfect for expansionary militaristic governments under constant threat from an opposing power of equal or unknown size, (probably ugly bugs from outer space, you know).
...okay, first off; have you even READ the book?

Second, while the book did focus on military service, all the book specified was federal service.  The purpose was to put you to work that you considered hard and demanding, so in the end, you feel like you EARNED your citizenship.  Your "expansionary militaristic government" comment leads me to assume that you are basing your comment on the movie, and not on the book.  If that is the case and you are relying on the movie for your information, then you are not qualified to give an imformed response on this topic.
2008-04-23 20:10:45
imortal
Member
+240|6662|Austin, TX
There is a misconception that seems common that the services have to be a military or support service, or that there has to be some societal benifit to your contribution.  That was not the purpose of the service.

The entire basis of Heinlein's requirement for service before being granted the ability to vote rests on a concept he discussed previously.  That something earned is held as more precious than something given.  When you have sweat and bled for something, you hold it as more valuable than if you were given the same thing for free, because of the effort expected in getting it.  The particular example was given to Rico in his high school H&MP class with the example of the track medal.

Second, one of the critical elements was the fact that absoultely NO ONE who wanted to work to earn their citizenship could be turned away.  The only requirement was the mental capacity to understand the oath.  The goverment would find something for you to do to earn your citizenship, even if (as it suggested in the novel) it was counting the hairs on a catipillar by touch.  The qualifications were areas you were mentally and emotionally geared toward, and not what you already knew how to do.  Indeed, I would think you would be purposefully steered AWAY from what you normally do, because you might not get that feeling of having 'earned' it.

As for areas in the real, modern world for things to do for federal service?  How about an unskilled or semi-trained labor force that companies can hire for construction work?  Road building, home construction.   That not only gives you enough hard, physical labor to make you feel the value of your citizenship, but by hiring out labor teams, it becomes another form of income for the governmet to suppliment normal taxes.

No, that is not the only thing I think would qualify, but it is an example.
2008-04-23 20:22:29
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6402|North Carolina
I personally like the idea of universal conscription.  When everyone has a familiarity  with and a stake in the military, then people are better informed and more reluctant to enter war.

To put it bluntly, if every family runs the chance of losing someone to war, they each take a much more serious and thoughtful look at whether or not a conflict is worth dying for.
2008-04-23 21:06:44
imortal
Member
+240|6662|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

I personally like the idea of universal conscription.  When everyone has a familiarity  with and a stake in the military, then people are better informed and more reluctant to enter war.

To put it bluntly, if every family runs the chance of losing someone to war, they each take a much more serious and thoughtful look at whether or not a conflict is worth dying for.
Let's not turn this into a mandatory service in the military, okay?  Besides, a mandatory service would go against the very concepts RAH was proposing, and would be counter-productive. He even covered it in the book.  Some people are completely unfit to serve in just about any capacity.  Not to mention that there are droves of people in America now who have the rigth to vote and don't.  How bad is it that 20% is considered a high turnout?  There are a great many peole out there who have no business being in a uniform. That kind of service is not for everyone.

The entire point is that voting should be an EARNED priviliage.  If it is a right given to absoultely everyone, the privilage of voting is not held as dear than if you worked for it.  But, in order to be fair, absolutely everyone should have the opportunity to earn the privilage of voting.

In fact, I will shortly be checking, but I do not think that this concept of earning the right to vote in this manner is unconsitutional in any way, as long as absolutely everyone is capable of earning the vote.   As for the Declaration of Indipendance, RAH points out quite succinctly that man has no natural or inaliable rights of any kind.
2008-04-23 22:49:01
Major.League.Infidel
Make Love and War
+303|6475|Communist Republic of CA, USA

Turquoise wrote:

I personally like the idea of universal conscription.  When everyone has a familiarity  with and a stake in the military, then people are better informed and more reluctant to enter war.

To put it bluntly, if every family runs the chance of losing someone to war, they each take a much more serious and thoughtful look at whether or not a conflict is worth dying for.
There is no conscription in the novel.  You volunteer, and the Government finds something for you to do.  imortal is spot on with this.
2008-04-23 22:51:57
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|6765
dont tell china about this. they will be onto it in a flash
2008-04-24 01:47:03
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6769|PNW

Piers Anthony had a short story version where in this one alien society, only those willing to undergo rigorous torture were allowed to assume positions of power. The greater the position, the greater the prerequisite mutilation.

I'd rather suffer Heinlein's ST society, to be honest.
2008-04-24 01:53:20
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6408|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

To put it bluntly, if every family runs the chance of losing someone to war, they each take a much more serious and thoughtful look at whether or not a conflict is worth dying for.
Families don't determine whether or not the country enters a conflict or if it "is worth dying for"...the elected politicians do.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-04-24 02:00:25
Marinejuana
local
+415|6582|Seattle
lol, u dont need a federal government in order to challenge yourself and find gratification. you also dont need to challenge yourself at all if thats your choice. if anyone ever comes to your home trying to force you into any form of service, you need to stand up like an american, show them your weapon, and then let them exercise their free choice to gtfo of your face. people have been interdependent and in perpetual service to each other for all of our history. theres really no need to further empower our ultra-centralized modern governments by reinventing the wheel at the cost of our freedom.

why does it seem like every other American i meet is just begging for authoritarian/socialist reform?
2008-04-24 02:54:41
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6739|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
Always loved Heinlein's writing, sci fi with fascist undercurrents is always hard to beat imo..  Would you like to find out more?  Also highly recommend "the moon is a harsh mistress"
2008-04-24 07:08:24
imortal
Member
+240|6662|Austin, TX

Marinejuana wrote:

lol, u dont need a federal government in order to challenge yourself and find gratification. you also dont need to challenge yourself at all if thats your choice. if anyone ever comes to your home trying to force you into any form of service, you need to stand up like an american, show them your weapon, and then let them exercise their free choice to gtfo of your face. people have been interdependent and in perpetual service to each other for all of our history. theres really no need to further empower our ultra-centralized modern governments by reinventing the wheel at the cost of our freedom.

why does it seem like every other American i meet is just begging for authoritarian/socialist reform?
Wow.  Empowering the goverment?  Cost of our freedom?  Did you just want to insert your political message into anything that seems to relate?  There was nothing discussed about freedoms.  The basic tennant we are looking at is voting.  There is no talk about anyone forcing anyone into service.  Furthermore, even here in America, there have historically been qualifications to vote.  They have been abused to try to prevent certain portions of our society from voting in the past, and in a fit of socialistic zeal, just decided to open it to everyone. 

IG-Calibre wrote:

Always loved Heinlein's writing, sci fi with fascist undercurrents is always hard to beat imo..  Would you like to find out more?  Also highly recommend "the moon is a harsh mistress"
(The "Would you like to know more" thing is a nod to the Starship Troopers movie; it is not found in the book in any way.  Why do people see the movie and think they know what the book says?

I also read "Moon is a Harsh Mistress."  TANSTAAFL is a basic tennant of my thinking.  I think it is an incredibly sane adaption to an enviroment where the very air is limited, and not free.  Not to mention a society with very few women.  But I do not see how you can put forth the idea of fascism in his writings, especially in "Moon is a Harsh Mistress."  Heinleins ideal model even specifies that there should be as few laws as possible, and that freedoms should prevail.

RAH has also said that "A president should be dragged into office kicking and screaming but, once there, do the best job possible in the hopes of being released early for good behavior."  That does not seem like a fascist thought to me.

And let us not forget an even more famous RAH quote: "An armed society is a polite society."

Perhaps you should reread some of those books.
2008-04-24 10:47:40
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6712|US

imortal wrote:

As for the Declaration of Indipendance, RAH points out quite succinctly that man has no natural or inaliable rights of any kind.
I really have to disagree with that.  Everyone has an inherent right to things like life and self-defense.  To say otherwise is to open society to the possibility of total anarchy and oppression.

[having not read the book...]
While I think people would value the right to vote more if they had to serve...it wouldn't be a right anymore...
I also think that the people who do value the right to vote are likely the ones who actually do vote.

Why should there be a time/service requirement in order to have your voice heard by YOUR government?  That just does not seem very "free" to me.
2008-04-24 10:57:07
TheTrueQuaid
What was I doing mars?
+11|5895|Assachusetts
https://i27.tinypic.com/ejzy4h.jpg

RICO'S ROUGHNECKS!
2008-04-24 10:58:55
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6524|Portland, OR USA
I always thought the style of government was a tongue-in-cheek poke at Nazi Germany ... though I DO like and agree with needing a license to have children.  Kinda ... well no ... but yeah
2008-04-24 11:25:16
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6488|Northern California
i've always felt the USA should have compulsory military service, and I agree that you should earn the right to vote beyond the constitutional criteria there is for it...even though the election process hardly reflects value on the citizen's votes.

By compulsory military service, you have a nation ready and able to defend itself.  As it is, we'd be destroyed if invaded by someone like China.  it would be as EASY to invade this country as it was in Red Dawn..especially with our spent military.  If all citizens (or a good 80% of them) had completed their compulsory service, such an invasion would be much more hard to accomplish or succeed at because no, some high school kids would not be enough! lol

And yes, fighting men and women who put their nation first, even if it's "just a job for college money" do earn more say regarding our leaders, IMHO.
2008-04-24 11:29:23
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6524|Portland, OR USA

IRONCHEF wrote:

And yes, fighting men and women who put their nation first, even if it's "just a job for college money" do earn more say regarding our leaders, IMHO.
I'd agree with that to a point.  I would define that point contingent on two things.  One, stopping short of creating a caste system based on service.  Two, providing an alternate but equal method of service for those not physically able to serve in the military under current standards.  Those who would serve but are told they are not of any use to the military have plenty to offer by way of any number of other avenues.  I would dare say the American military could do well to put a bit more emphasis on mind power and less on muscle power in their recruiting.  Not every division really needs to be able to handle basic training.
2008-04-24 12:16:51
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6488|Northern California
Of course, good point.  Like in other countries with compulsory service, it's not too hard to get deferments (yep, just like Dick Cheney's multiple deferments).  But with the requirement for service in order to vote, like you said, there'd have to be complete fairness given to those normally not capable for military service (like myself).  For example, me being psoriatic and unable to enlist, if I was not able to comply with my compulsory service, I should be given something compatible to it, relative to my abilities.  A desk job or something where me and my degenerate skin could fulfill the requirement of 2 years service.

I like your idea of overhauling the military in general, and have additions I'd add if I were god of the USA.  I'd return the military to STATE ONLY entities, have the basic form of military (the conscript level) for those doing compulsory time.  I'd then have the elevated version for those volunteering or those who have completed their compulsory service and wish to remain and build a career.  The latter could be the primary force in each state who could be called up for international deployment, and the secondary volunteer group for domestic deployment, and as a backup to the primary in international theater.  This would satisfy those wishing to retain the benefits and prestige of an all volunteer army.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2008-04-24 12:17:48)

2008-04-24 15:17:08
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6712|US

PuckMercury wrote:

Not every division really needs to be able to handle basic training.
I disagree with that!  Basic training is there to teach the basic skills and confidence which could be demanded of any military member.
2008-04-24 15:18:53
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6402|North Carolina

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I personally like the idea of universal conscription.  When everyone has a familiarity  with and a stake in the military, then people are better informed and more reluctant to enter war.

To put it bluntly, if every family runs the chance of losing someone to war, they each take a much more serious and thoughtful look at whether or not a conflict is worth dying for.
Let's not turn this into a mandatory service in the military, okay?  Besides, a mandatory service would go against the very concepts RAH was proposing, and would be counter-productive. He even covered it in the book.  Some people are completely unfit to serve in just about any capacity.  Not to mention that there are droves of people in America now who have the rigth to vote and don't.  How bad is it that 20% is considered a high turnout?  There are a great many peole out there who have no business being in a uniform. That kind of service is not for everyone.

The entire point is that voting should be an EARNED priviliage.  If it is a right given to absoultely everyone, the privilage of voting is not held as dear than if you worked for it.  But, in order to be fair, absolutely everyone should have the opportunity to earn the privilage of voting.

In fact, I will shortly be checking, but I do not think that this concept of earning the right to vote in this manner is unconsitutional in any way, as long as absolutely everyone is capable of earning the vote.   As for the Declaration of Indipendance, RAH points out quite succinctly that man has no natural or inaliable rights of any kind.
I'm basing my conclusions on the cultural unity that results from Israel's conscription policy.
2008-04-24 15:23:53
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6524|Portland, OR USA

RAIMIUS wrote:

PuckMercury wrote:

Not every division really needs to be able to handle basic training.
I disagree with that!  Basic training is there to teach the basic skills and confidence which could be demanded of any military member.
Then we'll agree to disagree.  To clarify, when I speak of basic training I am referring to the physical demands not to any information gained.  I fully appreciate and understand a need for certain basic skills and knowledge.  These skill sets need not always entail push-ups, laps or obstacle courses.

I was told I was not fit to serve in the military.  There are a great many things I could have done that would have leveraged my mind and abilities vs. my inability to perform strenuous physical activity.
2008-04-24 22:01:45
Karbin
Member
+42|6292
Lets not forget, that in the book, there had been a large scale war that devastated the northern hemisphere. Use of WMD's of all kinds was common.
Add a peace treaty the didn't cover POW's.
"The best estimates place the number around sixty-five thousand"

What happened, on Heinlein's earth, was a solder's revolt.
That came home to a public the didn't care, didn't want to know and politicians that didn't see them as a voting block to care about.
The returned solder's took up politics' and changed the system.

Through service, you earned the right to have a say.
As well, those that had a say, had a common standard to judge each other by.
"You have proved you can think of something other then for yourself".

A nice idea but, I think you'd STILL get twits joining up for two years just to get some power to throw around.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard