(Disclaimer; I have only watched one movie, so I don't know the entirity of "Starship Trooper-dom")

What I'm talking about is their system; Everyone has basic rights, but only those who serve in their military are granted "Citizenship", granting them even more rights. Some of these rights would include, for us, The Right to Vote, the Right to run for Public Office, and other stuff like that.

Everyone would always have the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happyness, though.


I was wondering about this, because as it stands there is absolutely no real reason to be voting, while either party has the idea to make dead people vote for them.... That and it would stop shafting our military, as all the Senators/Reps would all be Vets.

So, what are your thoughts?

Possibly, but it would work better if such benefits were extended to all forms of public service excluding politicians.

Co-ed Showers!

World problems are solved!


Seriously tho... why not keep it even simpler...

If you pay taxes... you get to vote.

(not sure if I agree with that tho)

I also believe there isn't a "perfect" system either... there will always be people who will game the system.

No, I love the military and what they do. But forcing everyone to go into service(which some may no agree with) is not what rights are meant to be about. Rights are supposed to be something that is given to you regardless.

I toy with the idea if your to serve in congress you need to have serve in the military. To be better aware on committing troops to combat.

So taxes aren't enough now you need people to put their lives on the line for the right to be involved in democracy. Why don't you introduce two minute hate sessions too.

hotsauceman1 wrote:No, I love the military and what they do. But forcing everyone to go into service(which some may no agree with) is not what rights are meant to be about. Rights are supposed to be something that is given to you regardless.

They would still get their rights. Let's assume we only mean Government Positions/matters. You would still have the right to bear arms (or, arm bears, whichever) and all of those. You would just have to Serve the people in the military before you can serve the people as a senator.

Glorioski wrote:So taxes aren't enough now you need people to put their lives on the line for the right to be involved in democracy. Why don't you introduce two minute hate sessions too.

We have week long hate sessions. It's called Congress..... And if people aren't willing to die for their country, why should they be willing to run it?

Jihadin wrote:I toy with the idea if your to serve in congress you need to have serve in the military. To be better aware on committing troops to combat.

Probably a good idea.

If you think back, many of our greatest presidents / politicians in american history have been from military backgrounds...

Unless in a state of emergency, I think the armed forces are best served by volunteers, not conscripts.

The idea that national service somehow makes people better in society is nonsense, and in the UK at least, is often suggested by people who didn't even do it because they aren't nearly old enough, you'd have to be at least 70 now. National service stopped in 1960 but the 50s was hardly a period of low crime, some of the violence my grandfather saw in the 40s and 50s would frighten even the toughest of today's yoof. When people have been through a world war and all worked manual labor jobs in heavy industries, you shouldn't be surprised just how hard as nails they could be. We have low crime today, the streets are safer than ever, regardless of what the tabloids would have you believe.

There are probably some ways to improve society, the idea of social responsibility. But it's not an easy thing to tackle, pushing people into the army for a bit isn't actually a solution. Not to say the army doesn't massively turn around the lives of some people, there are plenty of accounts to that, but as a national policy, no.

Who said anything about conscription?

Aaaand no one bit on my "co-ed shower" idea...

Aaaand no one bit on my "co-ed shower" idea...

Its a "giving"

Why would you need to have been in the military to run for mayor's office? Or State governor. Or Attorney general? What's the advantage of doing so? I see none. What are the possible disadvantages? Plenty. First amongst them that you might lose potentially good candidates in a line of duty they simply did not excel at.

Why would you need to have been in the military to run for mayor's office? Or State governor. Or Attorney general?

Congress I said. The Senate to be exact. The ones that gives the green light for the Pres to commit troops to combat. Maybe if they were prior military they won't be so quick to punch the "green" button on votes.

Also having a requirement to be in the military to be heavily involved in politics would likely lead to a Egypt like situation. The military would control everything from the background since their people control government

Jihadin wrote:

Why would you need to have been in the military to run for mayor's office? Or State governor. Or Attorney general?

Congress I said. The Senate to be exact. The ones that gives the green light for the Pres to commit troops to combat. Maybe if they were prior military they won't be so quick to punch the "green" button on votes.

Are you OP? Did OP write

Slarg232 wrote: the Right to run for Public Office

?

Yeah? Thought so.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Why would you need to have been in the military to run for mayor's office? Or State governor. Or Attorney general? What's the advantage of doing so? I see none. What are the possible disadvantages? Plenty. First amongst them that you might lose potentially good candidates in a line of duty they simply did not excel at.

The idea presented in Starship Troopers is that anyone willing to put the good of the nation/planet/race over their own personal needs by serving in the military is best suited to decide who is in government.

As opposed to morons who just recognize a name because of ads or think they are cuter than the other guy.

Huffy wrote:Also having a requirement to be in the military to be heavily involved in politics would likely lead to a Egypt like situation. The military would control everything from the background since their people control government

And this.


Also, OP, refrain from watching the other movies. They are worse than a gak shower.

Stick with the movie theme K.O.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:
The idea presented in Starship Troopers is that anyone willing to put the good of the nation/planet/race over their own personal needs by serving in the military is best suited to decide who is in government.

As opposed to morons who just recognize a name because of ads or think they are cuter than the other guy.

Then its a stupid idea, and doesn't take account of the tendency of institutions to amass power and conserve it as much as possible. And I can assure you, for having jarheads in my family, they are as much if not more susceptible to propaganda than normal citizen.

As opposed to *normal* citizens obsessed with conspiracy theories?

Jihadin wrote:Stick with the movie theme K.O.

Oh thanks, gee, I needed the reminder ...

Of course ,a change in incentives to serve might also change the kind of people who served.

Amaya wrote:As opposed to *normal* citizens obsessed with conspiracy theories?

Humm what? Not sure I follow. Have I given the impression I'm obssessed with conspiracies? And how would military personnel be less so...?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Of course ,a change in incentives to serve might also change the kind of people who served.

Ah quite possibly. ''Less soldiers and more warriors'' as Nietzsche said...

Wrong time frame though. All soldiers are warriors today

I have always championed this idea. If you want to lead you have to learn to follow first, and public office is about putting others first. The military breeds the best leaders by virtue of followership, and if anyone understands sacrifice and what it means to put others first its military personnel. Oh, and people pay taxes so they can enjoy the benefits given by government, such as servicable roads and infrastructure to provide a higher quality of living.

chaos0xomega wrote:I have always championed this idea. If you want to lead you have to learn to follow first, and public office is about putting others first. The military breeds the best leaders by virtue of followership, and if anyone understands sacrifice and what it means to put others first its military personnel. Oh, and people pay taxes so they can enjoy the benefits given by government, such as servicable roads and infrastructure to provide a higher quality of living.

The best leaders perhaps, personnaly I think that's bullgak, just as much as the 'if you want to lead you need to follow first'. Sentences like that are to me empty of meaning, and strikes by virtue of the contradiction in terms. But one thing is for sure, military life doesn't make the best voters. Critical analysis and information gathering does this. Military life doesn't prepare for those skills in the social context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:Wrong time frame though. All soldiers are warriors today

I think Nieztsche meant more 'individuals that love war' and less 'individuals ready to die for their country'.

Slarg232 wrote:
What I'm talking about is their system; Everyone has basic rights, but only those who serve in their military are granted "Citizenship", granting them even more rights. Some of these rights would include, for us, The Right to Vote, the Right to run for Public Office, and other stuff like that.

In the books its different, and notably less insane. Basically, if you want the right to vote or hold office you have to serve the state, but not necessarily in the military. You can serve in any capacity, and if you want to serve the state is required to find a means by which you can do so that is appropriate to your abilities.

chaos0xomega wrote:I have always championed this idea. If you want to lead you have to learn to follow first, and public office is about putting others first. The military breeds the best leaders by virtue of followership, and if anyone understands sacrifice and what it means to put others first its military personnel.

Of course it helps when you can punish the people following you for not doing so.

Political leadership is very, very different from military leadership.

dogma wrote:In the books its different, and notably less insane. Basically, if you want the right to vote or hold office you have to serve the state, but not necessarily in the military. You can serve in any capacity, and if you want to serve the state is required to find a means by which you can do so that is appropriate to your abilities.

Are the books good? As far as presentation of an ideology... Lets say, in comparison to A brave new world?

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Are the books good? As far as presentation of an ideology... Lets say, in comparison to A brave new world?

To some extent yes, the classroom scenes in particular are basically just soapboxes for Heinlein, but its much more a narrative than it is a political essay.

Its a good read KO. I recommend it

Dogma wrote:To some extent yes, the classroom scenes in particular are basically just soapboxes for Heinlein, but its much more a narrative than it is a political essay.

Jihadin wrote:Its a good read KO. I recommend it

Thanks. I no longer have Internet at home, haven't hooked it back since my move. Result ; I'm finally catching on to the (once seemingly endless) list of books I want to go through, and for the first time in years, I'm looking to add a few titles to it.

Back on topic, the idea that some Rights are given to you only once you have accomplish a service, any service to the State, is already a bit more reasonnable. It still reeks of risks of abuse tho. Public offices are meant to be accessible on merit, not history (although history will show merit), and how you develop that merit is not particularly relevent. Let's say I'm born in a generation where my State doesn't need much intellectuals, but many labourers. Let's say, for any reason, that I cannot do labour (maybe I'm physically handicapped, maybe I'm just not meeting the criterias, etc...). So I cannot obtain the Rights I wish I could obtain, and have a willingness to work for, based on the fact that the needs of the States do not coincide.

Other scenarios are probably more likely, but this one came to mind quickly. To me, it's a less than optimal organisation of social potential... as all ideologies are.

Co-ed showers, one government, and fighting bugs=right to vote. Problems are completely solved. Let's focus on the shower part. Also, it turns out that my shower is co-ed, who knew. Any takers?

If you only let soldiers vote, you're going to almost only get people who support the current stupid wars the US is in.

And pay raises for soldiers.

So, bad idea.

Slarg232 wrote:(Disclaimer; I have only watched one movie, so I don't know the entirity of "Starship Trooper-dom")

What I'm talking about is their system; Everyone has basic rights, but only those who serve in their military are granted "Citizenship", granting them even more rights. Some of these rights would include, for us, The Right to Vote, the Right to run for Public Office, and other stuff like that.

Everyone would always have the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happyness, though.


I was wondering about this, because as it stands there is absolutely no real reason to be voting, while either party has the idea to make dead people vote for them.... That and it would stop shafting our military, as all the Senators/Reps would all be Vets.

So, what are your thoughts?

This would create a society led by soldiers, not philosophers, scientists, or businessman. Such societies usually have little respect for human or civil rights (as evidenced throughout history).

Are you serious?

Please tell me that you are not seriously suggesting this.

This sounds like one of those crazy ideas that I have that I know I shouldn't even bother to suggest and is completely off the rails.

Plus the fact that it sounds like the recruitment in Sturmkrieg makes it sound even more fictional to me.

Please don't pull an Inquisitor Ehrenstein; that's my job.

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Back on topic, the idea that some Rights are given to you only once you have accomplish a service, any service to the State, is already a bit more reasonnable. It still reeks of risks of abuse tho. Public offices are meant to be accessible on merit, not history (although history will show merit), and how you develop that merit is not particularly relevent. Let's say I'm born in a generation where my State doesn't need much intellectuals, but many labourers. Let's say, for any reason, that I cannot do labour (maybe I'm physically handicapped, maybe I'm just not meeting the criterias, etc...). So I cannot obtain the Rights I wish I could obtain, and have a willingness to work for, based on the fact that the needs of the States do not coincide.

One other thing to note is that Heinlein mentions that service requirement could be fulfilled by being a medical test subject (I envision something like the scenario we see today, in which military recruiters pressure people into in demands OSs.), though I don't recall if whether or not you had any choice in what capacity you would serve, or if you could opt out if all options given to you were not agreeable.

Are we talking about the movie or the book. Because they are two VERY different things. That said IMHO no. The point of book is that people realize how much more important/costly those freedoms are to have and protect. Thus they are better to entrust with it. If you have population that already understands that then it isn't necessary. But, IMHO no. As it could be too easily abused.

This would create a society led by soldiers, not philosophers, scientists, or businessman. Such societies usually have little respect for human or civil rights

The "senate" is compose of members who served in the military not still actually in the military. Actually I might have to reread the book and rewatch the movie. Can't remember if it was brought up how the gov't was actually structered. Barring the 2 and 3 (suck)

Isn't this how Scientology started too? Science fiction novel writer and we're here discussing it too?

Jihadin wrote:Isn't this how Scientology started too? Science fiction novel writer and we're here discussing it too?

Scientology didn't have a message at first. From what I've red, Heinlein was motivated by the talks of dismantling all nuclear devices, and then set to write a book about the responsabilities necessary for protecting the rights of modern democracies. It's weird how it turned out to become a Sci-fi cult of sort. Scientology is just another sort of cult altogheter. Hubbard was a broke writer (and a poor one at that), and decided he could make millions simply by saying ''Hey, that stuff's actually true!''. And here we are...

EDIT: Ah! I'm proud to say that in Canada Scientology isn't a religion!

The idea that increased cohesion and a willingness to serve the public would make a better society isn't new, and I believe it has some merit. Though I do agree that a volunteer military is more efficient, I have in the past also defended conscription as I see it serving as a "link" between the military and the people it serves; the concept of a "citizen in uniform" has actually been the premier reason for why Germany had conscription for so long before it was finally abolished a couple years back.

That said, you don't need to limit the display of such service to the military. That said, if you expand it to other areas of life, I suppose you'd be arriving at ... *gasp* communism!

Jihadin wrote:

This would create a society led by soldiers, not philosophers, scientists, or businessman. Such societies usually have little respect for human or civil rights

The "senate" is compose of members who served in the military not still actually in the military. Actually I might have to reread the book and rewatch the movie. Can't remember if it was brought up how the gov't was actually structered. Barring the 2 and 3 (suck)

Isn't this how Scientology started too? Science fiction novel writer and we're here discussing it too?

Yeah, umm, that's gonna be a society where pro-military people rule.

Also KO read "The Forgotten Soldier" its another good read. Its about a german soldier on the Eastern Front.

back to topic

The overall theme of the book is that social responsibility requires being prepared to make individual sacrifice. Heinlein's Terran Federation is a limited democracy, with aspects of a meritocracy in regard to full citizenship, based on voluntarily assuming a responsibility for the common weal. Suffrage can only be earned by those willing to serve their society by at least two years of volunteer Federal Service – "the franchise is today limited to discharged veterans", (ch. XII), instead of, as Heinlein would later note, anyone "...who is 18 years old and has a body temperature near 37 °C"[16] The Federation is required to find a place for anyone who desires to serve, regardless of his skill or aptitude (this also includes service ranging from teaching to dangerous non-military work such as serving as experimental medical test subjects to military service -- such as Rico's Mobile Infantry).

There is an explicit contrast to the "democracies of the 20th century", which according to the novel, collapsed because "people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted... and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears."[17] Indeed, Colonel Dubois criticizes as unrealistic the famous U.S. Declaration of Independence line concerning "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". No one can stop anyone from pursuing happiness, but the Colonel claims life and liberty exist only if they are deliberately sought and, often, bought painfully by great effort and sacrfice.

from Wilki

non-military work such as serving as experimental medical test subjects to military service -- such as Rico's Mobile Infantry
Can we say Anthrax Series Shots

2nd paragrapth though is like in the "gray area" to whats happening today.

Jihadin wrote:

This would create a society led by soldiers, not philosophers, scientists, or businessman. Such societies usually have little respect for human or civil rights

The "senate" is compose of members who served in the military not still actually in the military. Actually I might have to reread the book and rewatch the movie. Can't remember if it was brought up how the gov't was actually structered. Barring the 2 and 3 (suck)

Isn't this how Scientology started too? Science fiction novel writer and we're here discussing it too?

It doesn't matter if they are active or not. They become initiated into a subsect of the population which has commonality in experience. That experience is violent and militaristic in nature and thus you are creating a dominance in society based around violence and militancy. There are upsides like honor, duty, and blah blag nice things, but lets be perfectly realistic. What people take home from military service is the training and the memories. That training is to kill, dehumanize your enemy, and follow orders no matter what logic or your conscience says. Those memories are of tedium, loss, anger, violence, and obedience. The military makes soldiers, not social or civic leaders. It's idiotic to think that military service by default breeds a better ruler. There are too many examples in history of military service simply creating a more violent one.

Ugh.

I almost really went off thread

Jihadin wrote:Ugh.

I almost really went off thread

Come on Jihadanabannanna, tell us how you realllllly feel.

I really liked Starship Troopers... both the book and the first movie. I liked the whole idea of being a true citizen by serving a term in the military. Even before the book I always thought this was a good idea. Then again you can call me a hypocrite because my sorry fat arse never made it into the Marines... but I'm not too old for the Army... yet. I think its the inner communist/socialist in me talking, but I feel some military service should be a way you contribute to your community... your homeland.

This would create a society led by soldiers, not philosophers, scientists, or businessman. Such societies usually have little respect for human or civil rights (as evidenced throughout history).

And as an addition to this, they also have a tendency to wind up culturally devoid of the arts or intellectual pursuits not related to warfare (the early Romans and most notably the Spartans are prime examples).

Lynata wrote:The idea that increased cohesion and a willingness to serve the public would make a better society isn't new, and I believe it has some merit.

Sure, but that's like saying "If society were more like my perfect society, it would be better!"

Its as much a pipe dream as Plato's Republic, which Heinlein panned.

Lynata wrote:
That said, you don't need to limit the display of such service to the military. That said, if you expand it to other areas of life, I suppose you'd be arriving at ... *gasp* communism!

People gak a brick when Obama expanded Americorps. They called them "brown shirts" as I recall.

Or, alternatively:

"Why isn't the government fixing this!"

Government tries to fix it.

"Why is the government intruding into my affairs!"

(placeholder for whoever can find the My Fellow Americans scene)

LoneLictor wrote:If you only let soldiers vote, you're going to almost only get people who support the current stupid wars the US is in.

And pay raises for soldiers.

So, bad idea.

Most of our soldiers don't actually like going to war. Pay raises, yes.
I'd say people that have never been to war are at least as if not more willing to send other people off to die.

Alternatively everbody could just stop arguing and disband their militaries.

Slarg232 wrote:
Everyone would always have the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happyness, though.

"Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can ensure that I will catch it."
Source: Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois (Ret.), Page 119

Hence why you have to serve to be a citizen.

More gems here:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers

Slarg232 wrote:(Disclaimer; I have only watched one movie, so I don't know the entirity of "Starship Trooper-dom")

What I'm talking about is their system; Everyone has basic rights, but only those who serve in their military are granted "Citizenship", granting them even more rights. Some of these rights would include, for us, The Right to Vote, the Right to run for Public Office, and other stuff like that.

Everyone would always have the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happyness, though.


I was wondering about this, because as it stands there is absolutely no real reason to be voting, while either party has the idea to make dead people vote for them.... That and it would stop shafting our military, as all the Senators/Reps would all be Vets.

So, what are your thoughts?

More than yours, because this system is thoughtless.

The book is way different than the movie. The movie twists the ideas of the book into facism and glorication of violence, neither of which are part of the book.

Heinlein did write it with the aim of making a particular political point. People who disagree with the idea expressed often fall into the trap of criticizing Heinlein while failing to recognize that he wrote books expressing different and often radically-contradictory philisophical and political points at different times. The same guy wrote ST, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and Stranger in a Strange Land.

In the book military service is the most common form of service, but everyone has the right to serve, no matter their aptitudes or abilities, they'll find a strenuous and challenging job for you to do with similar difficulties and potential hazards as military service. You have to put in your two years (or possibly more in time of active war) of hard work and sweat to earn the rights to vote and hold public office.

All other rights are equal between people who have served or not served. People who are actively serving can't vote or hold office; you don't get those rights until after you leave. If you go career military you prevent yourself from being able to vote until after you retire.

Heinlein said he based the idea on the Swiss system.

You could dig tunnels on the Moon, I recall.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or be a medical test subject :p

Or test out survival gear, etc. Something similarly strenuous, stressful, and difficult to military service. You have to sweat for it; you have to put your life on hold and potentially at risk for the period of service, thus putting your own life secondary to the good of all, to earn the right to exercise authority over all.

Sturmtruppen wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:(Disclaimer; I have only watched one movie, so I don't know the entirity of "Starship Trooper-dom")

What I'm talking about is their system; Everyone has basic rights, but only those who serve in their military are granted "Citizenship", granting them even more rights. Some of these rights would include, for us, The Right to Vote, the Right to run for Public Office, and other stuff like that.

Everyone would always have the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happyness, though.


I was wondering about this, because as it stands there is absolutely no real reason to be voting, while either party has the idea to make dead people vote for them.... That and it would stop shafting our military, as all the Senators/Reps would all be Vets.

So, what are your thoughts?

More than yours, because this system is thoughtless.

I was merely starting a conversation. Not saying I agree or disagree with this sort of system.

It's a laughable idea from a mediocre novel.

Hey, here's an equally stupid one: why don't we restrict the franchise to citizens with university degrees?

chaos0xomega wrote:The military breeds the best leaders by virtue of followership,

This... isn't quite accurate.

It may be true for NCO's(I honestly don't know too many anymore due to being married to an officer), but my wife's had to deal with too many fellow officers(up to and including Colonels) that can't lead worth gak but are excellent followers.

English Assassin wrote:It's a laughable idea from a mediocre novel.

Hey, here's an equally stupid one: why don't we restrict the franchise to citizens with university degrees?

Why stop there? Limit positions in government to those who have a degree in a field directly applicable to that area of government. So no more Chancellors with History degrees, I want a damn economist to be in charge of the economy!

Have the country run by the professional community, so the Treasury run by the top economists, the MoD run by experienced Officers from every branch of the forces etc.

These groups then present their plans to Parliament, then the MPs (who are respected members of the constituency they were elected by rather than just being from the "political class" of rich ) take them back to their constituents, explain the plans and the reasoning behind them and put it to vote. Then the MPs return and present the results of these votes to each other, without polluting it with their own personal bias. If there is a majority consensus on a plan then it is passed and goes into effect, if not then it is returned to the experts with a list of things the public are worried or unsure about and is either explained better or changed to suit what the public wishes. So no political parties, an MPs loyalty is solely to the people they represent.

dogma wrote:Sure, but that's like saying "If society were more like my perfect society, it would be better!"

The main issue is that people basically aren't sure what they want. Actual needs clash with belief, resulting in people rejecting things that would help them because "it's different" than the stuff they've been spoon-fed by the establishment for decades.

I had to read up on what "AmeriCorps" is, and it sounds like a splendid idea. It is sad when good things are ridiculed or rejected purely because of supposed affiliations with political rivals, be it on a domestic or global scale.
As I spent some years of my youth in the GDR before the reunification, I've still been in the Young Pioneers for a few years, and the activities of this group were benefitial to society as a whole as well. It's a sad thing that something like this does not exist in reunified Germany anymore, for it shows in how kids these days deal with each other, or the grown-ups. Instead of partaking in activities and events designed to foster cooperation and cohesion (partially even across borders), lots of youngsters nowadays spend their free time either sitting at home and watching TV, or gathering in dark alleys and forming cliques where they dare each other into stealing from shops or whatever.

In my opinion, mankind yearns for some sort of group membership and affiliation - we've got the "together we are strong" hardcoded into our instincts. A culture that favours people living apart from one another, where egoism and greed override appreciation of the greater good, is one that will breed social issues like a cancer.

http://ppc.warhawkenterprises.com/theclans/csa.html

dogma wrote: "AmeriCorps" .

Had to look this up to. Gotta say, at first mention I thought it was the start of corporativism. Now I'm sad I won't get to live as a shadowrunner...

Watching starship troopers right now. Number 3, It opens about how
1: Anything To demoralize the troops is punishable by death
2: Any religion that preaches sedition is not tolerated.
Just thought i would put that out there.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Watching starship troopers right now. Number 3, It opens about how
1: Anything To demoralize the troops is punishable by death
2: Any religion that preaches sedition is not tolerated.
Just thought i would put that out there.

None of the movies are remotely relevant to a ST discussion. All that matters is the book.

Amaya wrote:None of the movies are remotely relevant to a ST discussion. All that matters is the book.

But wasn't there some anti-religious stuff in the book? I thought I heard that somewhere...

Oh and poor hotsauceman1, I hope you are thouroughly blazed, otherwise I can't see how you could enjoy that show... Hey at least it's better than Screamers 4... somewhat...

I woke up to it, its still on but right now im watching netflix.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Amaya wrote:None of the movies are remotely relevant to a ST discussion. All that matters is the book.

But wasn't there some anti-religious stuff in the book? I thought I heard that somewhere...

Oh and poor hotsauceman1, I hope you are thouroughly blazed, otherwise I can't see how you could enjoy that show... Hey at least it's better than Screamers 4... somewhat...

How? They have a bloody chaplain for feth's sake.

Amaya wrote:
How? They have a bloody chaplain for feth's sake.

Oh well people misreporting stuff... I still haven't red the book, you know, since last night...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:I woke up to it, its still on but right now im watching netflix.

From what I was told, the ending is a little wink to the drop armour... To those of us (we made a party of watching the 3 in a row... most of us got discouraged halfway through the second) who had red the book that was the highlight of the film. And even that was supposedly horrible...

hotsauceman1 wrote:Watching starship troopers right now. Number 3, It opens about how
1: Anything To demoralize the troops is punishable by death
2: Any religion that preaches sedition is not tolerated.
Just thought i would put that out there.

Paul Verhoeven didn't even read the book all the way through... it 'bored' him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:How? They have a bloody chaplain for feth's sake.

Yeah they reputedly refer to a Chaplain who has to fight with them in their drops (along with the cook and all others... hence the motto of the M.I. being 'Everybody Fights').

IIRC he's not ordained in any one faith, though, and just serves the spiritual needs of everybody.... since there are a lot of ethnicities/faiths floating around in the future.

Heinlein was all for racial equality and tried to have non-whites seize prominent roles. One of the big twists at the end of Starship Troopers is that Johnny Rico turns out to have been Filipino all along

A Town Called Malus wrote:

English Assassin wrote:It's a laughable idea from a mediocre novel.

Hey, here's an equally stupid one: why don't we restrict the franchise to citizens with university degrees?

Why stop there? Limit positions in government to those who have a degree in a field directly applicable to that area of government. So no more Chancellors with History degrees, I want a damn economist to be in charge of the economy!

Have the country run by the professional community, so the Treasury run by the top economists, the MoD run by experienced Officers from every branch of the forces etc.

Superficially appealing as that might be, it - like every other political ideology that has arisen in the past few centuries - it's still not a better one than "Of the people, by the people, for the people.".

Edit: For the sake of amusement I feel compelled to add that until done away with by the Representation of the People Act 1948, graduates of the UK's ancient universities indeed did get an additional vote, cast in their alma mater's constituency.

I can think of one or two American Presidents who led their country through dark times and they didn't have any military service. One of them was a lawyer who had to deal with one or two states breaking away from the Union and the other spent most of his life in a wheelchair and had to deal with an Austrian with a dodgy fringe and a dodgier moustache!!

No.

Military service doesn't have any particular merit above & beyond other ways people can participate in society. This idea is just plain silly.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

English Assassin wrote:It's a laughable idea from a mediocre novel.

Hey, here's an equally stupid one: why don't we restrict the franchise to citizens with university degrees?

Why stop there? Limit positions in government to those who have a degree in a field directly applicable to that area of government. So no more Chancellors with History degrees, I want a damn economist to be in charge of the economy!

Have the country run by the professional community, so the Treasury run by the top economists, the MoD run by experienced Officers from every branch of the forces etc.

These groups then present their plans to Parliament, then the MPs (who are respected members of the constituency they were elected by rather than just being from the "political class" of rich ) take them back to their constituents, explain the plans and the reasoning behind them and put it to vote. Then the MPs return and present the results of these votes to each other, without polluting it with their own personal bias. If there is a majority consensus on a plan then it is passed and goes into effect, if not then it is returned to the experts with a list of things the public are worried or unsure about and is either explained better or changed to suit what the public wishes. So no political parties, an MPs loyalty is solely to the people they represent.

That's a decent plan, but the different experts would have to chime in on various projects. For (a silly) example, let's say the MoD decides that it needs to test a new generation of hydrogen bombs. The Treasury would have to be allowed to have their say, as would various environmental agencies etc.

And the entire point is that you CAN'T explain all of this to people who aren't educated in the specific field, because quantum physics (for example) is hard!

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

English Assassin wrote:It's a laughable idea from a mediocre novel.

Hey, here's an equally stupid one: why don't we restrict the franchise to citizens with university degrees?

Why stop there? Limit positions in government to those who have a degree in a field directly applicable to that area of government. So no more Chancellors with History degrees, I want a damn economist to be in charge of the economy!

Have the country run by the professional community, so the Treasury run by the top economists, the MoD run by experienced Officers from every branch of the forces etc.

These groups then present their plans to Parliament, then the MPs (who are respected members of the constituency they were elected by rather than just being from the "political class" of rich ) take them back to their constituents, explain the plans and the reasoning behind them and put it to vote. Then the MPs return and present the results of these votes to each other, without polluting it with their own personal bias. If there is a majority consensus on a plan then it is passed and goes into effect, if not then it is returned to the experts with a list of things the public are worried or unsure about and is either explained better or changed to suit what the public wishes. So no political parties, an MPs loyalty is solely to the people they represent.

That's a decent plan, but the different experts would have to chime in on various projects. For (a silly) example, let's say the MoD decides that it needs to test a new generation of hydrogen bombs. The Treasury would have to be allowed to have their say, as would various environmental agencies etc.

And the entire point is that you CAN'T explain all of this to people who aren't educated in the specific field, because quantum physics (for example) is hard!

You might not be able to explain exactly how it works but you can probably explain what the end result will be and how it will affect the people of the country. For example, in the last election the Tories made a huge fuss about our national debt and saying we had to cut our way out of the recession.

To normal working 9-5 people this makes sense, how can we solve our debt problem by borrowing more? Nobody actually explained the principle behind the Keynesian plan put into effect by Labour, that when the private sector cuts back to survive the public sector must take up the slack to prevent mass unemployment and a crash in productivity. So the government was borrowing money now to ensure people stayed in work and paid taxes until the private sector had grown stronger and could support more jobs again, at which point the public sector pulls back and it's back to normal. Then when everything is working again you pay off the debt you accumulated.

The Tories preyed on people's ignorance of the economics behind the plan to put forward their massive cuts as a solution, which have led us here in the UK into a double-dip recession with lots of unemployment, disabled people being pressured to work 30 hours a week for no pay etc.

There are, of course, sincere and opposed beliefs about how economics works. And no one can reliably predict the future when you're talking about policies and implementations so complex.

This is a silly and awful idea.

Mannahnin wrote:There are, of course, sincere and opposed beliefs about how economics works. And no one can reliably predict the future when you're talking about policies and implementations so complex.

Right but I would rather trust a committee of economists who share differing views to come up with a viable plan than a politician with no experience in economics whose plan is based on political ideology.

Historically a Keynesian stimulus plan has worked. Roosevelt's New Deal was important in helping the USA get back to its feet in the aftermath of the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression. Then what ultimately brought the US out of that depression was the enormous mobilisation for World War 2, which could be viewed as another example of huge government spending which reduced unemployment drastically and increased productivity of the country to unprecedented levels.

English Assassin wrote:It's a laughable idea from a mediocre novel.

The idea posited is- Would we have a more functional government and society if we could somehow train people to/made a test to require people to demonstrate that they could put the welfare of the group above their self-interest? At least in large, important matters? IMO there's nothing laughable about that (unless you're a cynic), except how difficult it is. We all wish people weren't so shortsighted and selfish. And those of us who are concerned about our society and our values worry about the future, if people can't rise to overcome our petty divisions and selfishness.

Heinlein served in the military, and he was aware of several modern governments which did have compulsory military service. He was morally opposed to compulsive military service (a draft), but thought that public/civil service (often, but not exclusively, military) might be one possible way to instill those values in people. So in his concept, service and this training is voluntary. But only the folks who volunteer get to vote/make decisions for everyone. ST is an idea coming from a guy who felt positively about then military and the virtues of service, of putting the greater good ahead of oneself, and putting your own life on the line to help others.

I don't think those are laughable. Maybe laughably idealistic. Do we really know so much more, fifty years later, that we can comfortably write Heinlein off as ignorant or deluded? Do we have these societal issues solved? Have we now gathered data that allows us to confidently conclude that an idea like this could never work?

How about the Federation but with "Soldiers" (Kurt Russel" movie)

This thread has Verhoeven levels of satire in it.

Veterans are being ripped off, but the military isn't under-appreciated. It is massively over-funded IMHO. Such a system is basically a military dictatorship (and we all know how those usually work out) but it is better than the wealthy getting more votes than the middle class, which is basically what has been happening since the "Corporations= People" ruling IMO.

The Five Most Dangerous Things in the Army

1. A Private saying, "I learned this in Basic..."

2. A Sergeant saying, "Trust me, sir..."

3. A Second Lieutenant saying, "Based upon my experience..."

4. A Captain saying, "I was just thinking..."

5. A Warrant Officer chuckling, "Watch this $#!+..."

You know...just with those 5 quotes....military leaders might not be so different from congressional leaders..........

DOOMBREAD wrote:Veterans are being ripped off, but the military isn't under-appreciated. It is massively over-funded IMHO. Such a system is basically a military dictatorship (and we all know how those usually work out) but it is better than the wealthy getting more votes than the middle class, which is basically what has been happening since the "Corporations= People" ruling IMO.

It doesn't actually stop that you know.

Lynata wrote:
The main issue is that people basically aren't sure what they want. Actual needs clash with belief, resulting in people rejecting things that would help them because "it's different" than the stuff they've been spoon-fed by the establishment for decades.

Sure, but you can't get rid of uncertainty, not on that abstract a level. And even if you could I imagine the result would be a very boring, and deeply unsatisfying place. I don't want to know what I want, I want to dick around until I find something cool and fun; the act of which is itself cool and fun.

And, honestly, I'm not even necessarily sure its a matter of uncertainty. I think most people know what they want, generally, but are not fully cognizant of how to achieve their desired goal; or are unwilling to do what is needed. A good example is weight loss. Lots of people want to lose weight, but fewer know how, and even fewer are willing to do so.

Lynata wrote:
In my opinion, mankind yearns for some sort of group membership and affiliation - we've got the "together we are strong" hardcoded into our instincts. A culture that favours people living apart from one another, where egoism and greed override appreciation of the greater good, is one that will breed social issues like a cancer.

I'm not sure its a universal yearning, but it does exist in many people. There are also other ways to arrive at similar ends. Personally I'm a selfish bastard, but I like the company of others. I don't value them more than I value myself, but I do value them enough to expend resources in the course of ensuring that they're still around when I want to socialize. This is a worldview that's driven almost entirely by ego and greed, but it also makes me generous and occasionally compassionate.

ShumaGorath wrote:

DOOMBREAD wrote:Veterans are being ripped off, but the military isn't under-appreciated. It is massively over-funded IMHO. Such a system is basically a military dictatorship (and we all know how those usually work out) but it is better than the wealthy getting more votes than the middle class, which is basically what has been happening since the "Corporations= People" ruling IMO.

It doesn't actually stop that you know.

Yeah, but if soldiers are the only ones with a real voice, it might make it better, even though such a system would be not much better in the long run.

In Heinlein's posited system from ST, no soldiers can vote or hold office. Only people who completed Federal Service and are out.

Career military guys don't wind up being able to participate in politics until they retire.

Only 20% of the 535 members of the new Congress have served in the military, 25 from the Senate and 90 from the House of Representatives.

Juxtapose that with 1975, when over 70% of those elected had served in the armed forces.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/20/congress.veterans/index.html

By ST book this was the only time we came close (loosely)

I find the idea that the only way of making a contribution to society sufficient to allow you to vote/represent is through holding a gun is just really goddamn puerile.

holding a gun

We don't hold a weapon 24/7 while in garrison only in a combat zone.

This is probably the dumbest idea I've ever seen posted up for debate and taken seriously.

Precisely 0% of the people in this thread seem to be aware that Starship Troopers (both the book and the film) was written as satire.

It's like coming along and saying that the system the Imperium of Man uses should be considered to replace IRL governments.

scarletsquig wrote:This is probably the dumbest idea I've ever seen posted up for debate and taken seriously.

Precisely 0% of the people in this thread seem to be aware that Starship Troopers (both the book and the film) was written as satire.

It's like coming along and saying that the system the Imperium of Man uses should be considered to replace IRL governments.

The movie was definitely satire. But, the book was a genuine essay from Heinlein.

The movie is a fun and campy film that's really enjoyable. The book is a boring, terrible essay about how awesome fascism is.

Are you sure?

I've read it and it was so ridiculous that I just assumed the author wasn't entirely serious. Watching the film first might have coloured my view a bit.

If he was then that's Ayn Rand levels of crazy, right there!

Grakmar wrote:

scarletsquig wrote:This is probably the dumbest idea I've ever seen posted up for debate and taken seriously.

Precisely 0% of the people in this thread seem to be aware that Starship Troopers (both the book and the film) was written as satire.

It's like coming along and saying that the system the Imperium of Man uses should be considered to replace IRL governments.

The movie was definitely satire. But, the book was a genuine essay from Heinlein.

The movie is a fun and campy film that's really enjoyable. The book is a boring, terrible essay about how awesome fascism is.

scarletsquig wrote:Are you sure?

I've read it and it was so ridiculous that I just assumed the author wasn't entirely serious. Watching the film first might have coloured my view a bit.

If he was then that's Ayn Rand levels of crazy, right there!

Have either of you read any of Heinlein's work outside of ST, because he was most assuredly not advocating fascism. In addition the state described in the book doesn't even come close to being described as a fascist state

Some books should not be read when you have a strong "belief" to influence on what you read. Ruins the book. My soldiers looked at me a bit wide eye when I was reading "The Forgotten Soldier" till they in turned read it themselves

scarletsquig wrote:Are you sure?

I've read it and it was so ridiculous that I just assumed the author wasn't entirely serious. Watching the film first might have coloured my view a bit.

If he was then that's Ayn Rand levels of crazy, right there!

Regrettably, Heinlein was entirely serious. In fairness to him, his views and his writing matured, and, even if though I still don't agree with the knee-jerk anti-authority, rugged individualism they espouse, some of his later novels are better, particularly The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

sebster wrote:I find the idea that the only way of making a contribution to society sufficient to allow you to vote/represent is through holding a gun is just really goddamn puerile.

Good thing no one's advocated that. I thought we were talking about Heinlein's book.

Grakmar wrote:The book is a boring, terrible essay about how awesome fascism is.

That is not even vaguely true. I mean, you can hold the opinion that it's boring and terrible, and that's your right. But it's not about facism, and it's a dishonest or extremely ignorant slur to claim that it is. Quite a bit of it is a love letter to the military- but not the military in the sense of glorifying war. The military in the sense of honoring the Poor Bloody Infantry. The citizen-soldiers who live and die in the muck, in defense of freedom (remember this was relatively soon after WWII, and at the height of the Cold War). And of wishing that everyone who makes important decisions that impact the welfare of others had the courage of their convictions to put their life on the line for what they believe, and for the good of society. That's idealistic, but nothing about it is fascistic.

English Assassin wrote:Regrettably, Heinlein was entirely serious. In fairness to him, his views and his writing matured, and, even if though I still don't agree with the knee-jerk anti-authority, rugged individualism they espouse, some of his later novels are better, particularly The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

How much Heinlein have you actually read, and how long ago? His early works (particularly the "juveniles") are some of his best. Middle of career he played around a lot with more high-concept ideas. Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Stranger in a Strange Land are particularly prominent, and are both brilliant books in their own right, though with some flaws (particularly Stranger). Late in life he got more self-indulgent, self-referential and wish-fulfullment fantastical (stuff like To Sail Beyond the Sunset, Number of the Beast, and Cat Who Walks Through Walls).

Heinlein was in a somewhat knee-jerk and reactionary mood when he wrote ST, but anyone who's read it, Moon, and Stranger should be able to tell pretty easily that this is a writer who was capable of seeing multiple different perspectives and worldviews, and of advocating ideas in a novel that he didn''t necessarily agree with or think would definitely work in reality. Some consistent themes definitely emerge and are certainly central to his worldview (the whole rugged individualist thing you mentioned, for example). But claiming he sincerely advocated facism based on ST is like claiming Christianity is all about stoning people to death based on the New Testament.

It's sad that Moorcock and few other rabble-rousers yelled "facism!" fifty years ago to stir up some discussion, but people are still repeating that claptrap as if it were true.

sebster wrote:I find the idea that the only way of making a contribution to society sufficient to allow you to vote/represent is through holding a gun is just really goddamn puerile.

... the idea is that you have to be willing to put yourself at risk for the good of everyone before you get to vote on things that effect everyone. As has been pointed out a few times, this does not necessitate military service in the novel.

Mannahnin wrote:Good thing no one's advocated that. I thought we were talking about Heinlein's book.

What thread are you reading? I mean, here's the opening post;
"What I'm talking about is their system; Everyone has basic rights, but only those who serve in their military are granted "Citizenship", granting them even more rights. Some of these rights would include, for us, The Right to Vote, the Right to run for Public Office, and other stuff like that."

He states 'only those who serve in the military'. And then goes on to say that the vets wouldn't get shafted because everyone in congress would have served. So that's one person who's talking about it just being the military.

Jihadin then says he toys with the idea. Horst says its probably a good idea. Chaosxomega said he's always championed the idea.

None of them are referring to the concepts in the book. They are all referring entirely to military service, and military service alone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bromsy wrote:... the idea is that you have to be willing to put yourself at risk for the good of everyone before you get to vote on things that effect everyone. As has been pointed out a few times, this does not necessitate military service in the novel.

The idea that there needs to be risk is just as bad.

What about a person who works their life as a nurse, and volunteers in soup kitchens on the weekend? Have they contributed as much as a guy who takes up a Quartermaster post in the army, does his minimum term and exits with full citizenship?

What about a great author? I mean, is Orwell more valued than CS Lewis, because the former fought?

sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bromsy wrote:... the idea is that you have to be willing to put yourself at risk for the good of everyone before you get to vote on things that effect everyone. As has been pointed out a few times, this does not necessitate military service in the novel.

The idea that there needs to be risk is just as bad.

What about a person who works their life as a nurse, and volunteers in soup kitchens on the weekend? Have they contributed as much as a guy who takes up a Quartermaster post in the army, does his minimum term and exits with full citizenship?

Provided that healthcare is provided by the federal government, then yes, the person who works as a nurse has been doing federal service. Presumably they would have to do so at a location and pay scale determined by the federal government for a period of no less than two years, and for as much longer as deemed necessary. And remember that in the example of the novel, serving military personnel don't have the franchise, so it is questionable whether someone who dedicates themselves as a lifelong nurse would.

youbedead wrote:Have either of you read any of Heinlein's work outside of ST, because he was most assuredly not advocating fascism. In addition the state described in the book doesn't even come close to being described as a fascist state

Well, such a society could easily be described as a fascist state. Fascism is a concept with a broad range of definitions, afterall. I don't think I'd use the term, as it is likely to cause more confusion than convey information, but I wouldn't dispute it if someone else was trying to use it to criticise the society in Starship Troopers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bromsy wrote:Provided that healthcare is provided by the federal government, then yes, the person who works as a nurse has been doing federal service. Presumably they would have to do so at a location and pay scale determined by the federal government for a period of no less than two years, and for as much longer as deemed necessary. And remember that in the example of the novel, serving military personnel don't have the franchise, so it is questionable whether someone who dedicates themselves as a lifelong nurse would.

Just take it back a second. I commented on people who were in favour of the idea as presented in the film, and by the OP - military service was the only means of qualifying. Then you replied arguing that some form of risk was necessary, and now seem happy to fall back onto the book definition, and ignore your previous point about risk.

So, are you just arguing that many forms of government service would qualify, including many jobs with no more heroism or risk than an ordinary profession?

sebster wrote:

youbedead wrote:Have either of you read any of Heinlein's work outside of ST, because he was most assuredly not advocating fascism. In addition the state described in the book doesn't even come close to being described as a fascist state

Well, such a society could easily be described as a fascist state. Fascism is a concept with a broad range of definitions, afterall. I don't think I'd use the term, as it is likely to cause more confusion than convey information, but I wouldn't dispute it if someone else was trying to use it to criticise the society in Starship Troopers.

If using the term fascism to describe a state with autocratic dictatorial rule or one that 't seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical training, and eugenics.' you can't really describe the government in ST as fascist. I could see a argument that it seeks to remove 'unclean' thought but even then it only does so in a single class course in high-school. To call ST fascist is no better then calling Obamacare communist

youbedead wrote:If using the term fascism to describe a state with autocratic dictatorial rule or one that 't seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical training, and eugenics.' you can't really describe the government in ST as fascist. I could see a argument that it seeks to remove 'unclean' thought but even then it only does so in a single class course in high-school. To call ST fascist is no better then calling Obamacare communist

I just said fascism has a broad range of definitions... so why would I pick out one definition? It's a complex term, with a variety of meanings that are often contradictory.

There are parallels, for instance, between fascist Spain and Heinlein's society, that could be worth exploring. The problem is, to expand on the point I made above, that to talk about those similarities by referring to fascism will immediately get people thinking of Nazi Germany or something like that, and cause more trouble than it's worth. That's why I said I wouldn't use the term to describe that society, but at the same time someone who does so isn't strictly wrong, because many elements of the society in Starship Trooper share elements with those broadly found in fascism. For instance, the concept of sacrifice for society and the fixation on tradition (particularly military tradition) are strong elements of fascism.

Fair enough, as I said there are parallels but I agree that it is more trouble than it is worth to use fascism to describe the society.

sebster wrote:
I just said fascism has a broad range of definitions... so why would I pick out one definition? It's a complex term, with a variety of meanings that are often contradictory.

There are parallels, for instance, between fascist Spain and Heinlein's society, that could be worth exploring. The problem is, to expand on the point I made above, that to talk about those similarities by referring to fascism will immediately get people thinking of Nazi Germany or something like that, and cause more trouble than it's worth. That's why I said I wouldn't use the term to describe that society, but at the same time someone who does so isn't strictly wrong, because many elements of the society in Starship Trooper share elements with those broadly found in fascism. For instance, the concept of sacrifice for society and the fixation on tradition (particularly military tradition) are strong elements of fascism.

Finding upon analysis points that could be identified in fascism doesn't at all justify calling the analysed object fascist. That can only be judged once analysis as given way to synthesis. Heinlein's work, as described here and elsewhere, are not fascism. Unity doesn't make fascism. Tradition doesn't make fascism. Jingoism doesn't make fascism. You could even arrange all three togheter and yet not arrive at a fascist result. Fascism doesn't have a broad range of definitions, at least not in any significant way in comparison to other political systems. It just has a broad definition.

What thread are you reading? I mean, here's the opening post;
"What I'm talking about is their system; Everyone has basic rights, but only those who serve in their military are granted "Citizenship", granting them even more rights. Some of these rights would include, for us, The Right to Vote, the Right to run for Public Office, and other stuff like that."

He states 'only those who serve in the military'. And then goes on to say that the vets wouldn't get shafted because everyone in congress would have served. So that's one person who's talking about it just being the military.

Jihadin then says he toys with the idea. Horst says its probably a good idea. Chaosxomega said he's always championed the idea.

None of them are referring to the concepts in the book. They are all referring entirely to military service, and military service alone.

No need to assume those that served or serving cannot read a book
I've read the book, I'm sure Horst and Chong read the book to.

Since its been so long we read the book that maybe the movie version appealed to us to

Do you guys think that a Super Troopers approach would help out America? Would an increase in shenanigans and mustache rides help us through these troubled times?

sebster wrote:

youbedead wrote:Have either of you read any of Heinlein's work outside of ST, because he was most assuredly not advocating fascism. In addition the state described in the book doesn't even come close to being described as a fascist state

Well, such a society could easily be described as a fascist state. Fascism is a concept with a broad range of definitions, afterall. I don't think I'd use the term, as it is likely to cause more confusion than convey information, but I wouldn't dispute it if someone else was trying to use it to criticise the society in Starship Troopers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bromsy wrote:Provided that healthcare is provided by the federal government, then yes, the person who works as a nurse has been doing federal service. Presumably they would have to do so at a location and pay scale determined by the federal government for a period of no less than two years, and for as much longer as deemed necessary. And remember that in the example of the novel, serving military personnel don't have the franchise, so it is questionable whether someone who dedicates themselves as a lifelong nurse would.

Just take it back a second. I commented on people who were in favour of the idea as presented in the film, and by the OP - military service was the only means of qualifying. Then you replied arguing that some form of risk was necessary, and now seem happy to fall back onto the book definition, and ignore your previous point about risk.

So, are you just arguing that many forms of government service would qualify, including many jobs with no more heroism or risk than an ordinary profession?

Well, actually I was saying that in the book they demanded some level of risk, but Military wasn't the only thing you could do. Since we are discussing if/how/would it be good for this to be applied to America, I am on board with people doing difficult, tedious work, which I would include nursing as, provided the state ran the medical services. You would basically have to be doing it all pro bono, but I'd be on board with it... and I'd have some way of transitioning from the volunteer field to a retired or 'reserve' version of the job where you are doing the same work at a more senior level with better pay and the franchise.

After being a parent, I'm a firm believer that corporal punishment instituted publicly as the penalty for most misdemeanor offenses would eliminate them entirely.

Whatever else about Heinlein, he definitely got that bit right.

The paddles with the holes drilled in it for a better grip on the butt cheek....yes yes bring it back

DOOMBREAD wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

DOOMBREAD wrote:Veterans are being ripped off, but the military isn't under-appreciated. It is massively over-funded IMHO. Such a system is basically a military dictatorship (and we all know how those usually work out) but it is better than the wealthy getting more votes than the middle class, which is basically what has been happening since the "Corporations= People" ruling IMO.

It doesn't actually stop that you know.

Yeah, but if soldiers are the only ones with a real voice, it might make it better, even though such a system would be not much better in the long run.

And then everyone else is getting ripped off. Unpopular representation rarely results in equal treatment between social classes.

CHP 2 pretty much goes indepth about whats happening in the world. Think we all need to reread the ST to get a better handle

sebster wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Good thing no one's advocated that. I thought we were talking about Heinlein's book.

What thread are you reading? I mean, here's the opening post;
"What I'm talking about is their system; Everyone has basic rights, but only those who serve in their military are granted "Citizenship", granting them even more rights. Some of these rights would include, for us, The Right to Vote, the Right to run for Public Office, and other stuff like that."

He states 'only those who serve in the military'. And then goes on to say that the vets wouldn't get shafted because everyone in congress would have served. So that's one person who's talking about it just being the military.

Jihadin then says he toys with the idea. Horst says its probably a good idea. Chaosxomega said he's always championed the idea.

None of them are referring to the concepts in the book. They are all referring entirely to military service, and military service alone.

My bad. I forgot that NO ONE on the first page of the thread (except possibly dogma) had actually read the book or knew what they were talking about. This thread has been more ignorant than most ST threads I've encountered in the past.

My point was that the error had been pointed out, and multiple people had already said that a military government was a dumb idea, and the conversation had moved on. Your original comment seemed a bit of a non sequitur.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:Do you guys think that a Super Troopers approach would help out America? Would an increase in shenanigans and mustache rides help us through these troubled times?

I endorse this plan. Our neighbors in Vermont once again are showing us the way.

Kovnik Obama wrote:That can only be judged once analysis as given way to synthesis.

I thought that came at evaluation under Bloom's.

dogma wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:That can only be judged once analysis as given way to synthesis.

I thought that came at evaluation under Bloom's.

Yes, although I don't see how you could process from analysis to synthesis without a priori generating an evaluation. In fact, you should've identified values right around comprehension, or at least application, and they'll 'control' the final objectivity.

Bloom's taxonomy is a bit overly 'mechanistic', even tho I guess its perfect for learning skills.

Edit ; Also, useful knowledge can be gleaned from simple analysis, and seems to me to be the rule. Certain things can't, perception, political organisations, moral ideas, etc maybe because they're epiphenomenal?

Mannahnin wrote:
My bad. I forgot that NO ONE on the first page of the thread (except possibly dogma)...

Its been at least 10 years since I read it, so I refreshed by Wiki which isn't bad summary of criticism.

Mannahnin wrote:

English Assassin wrote:Regrettably, Heinlein was entirely serious. In fairness to him, his views and his writing matured, and, even if though I still don't agree with the knee-jerk anti-authority, rugged individualism they espouse, some of his later novels are better, particularly The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

How much Heinlein have you actually read, and how long ago? His early works (particularly the "juveniles") are some of his best. Middle of career he played around a lot with more high-concept ideas. Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Stranger in a Strange Land are particularly prominent, and are both brilliant books in their own right, though with some flaws (particularly Stranger). Late in life he got more self-indulgent, self-referential and wish-fulfullment fantastical (stuff like To Sail Beyond the Sunset, Number of the Beast, and Cat Who Walks Through Walls).

Heinlein was in a somewhat knee-jerk and reactionary mood when he wrote ST, but anyone who's read it, Moon, and Stranger should be able to tell pretty easily that this is a writer who was capable of seeing multiple different perspectives and worldviews, and of advocating ideas in a novel that he didn''t necessarily agree with or think would definitely work in reality. Some consistent themes definitely emerge and are certainly central to his worldview (the whole rugged individualist thing you mentioned, for example). But claiming he sincerely advocated facism based on ST is like claiming Christianity is all about stoning people to death based on the New Testament.

I was still in my teens when I last read any Heinlein (with the exception of ...Mistress, which I dug out a few months ago, thanks to noticing GW's references to it), and - as you guessed - was referring not to the various Lazarus Long novels of the '80s (which I read and enjoyed at the time,but am conscious that I wouldn't necessarily appreciate now), but to the (later than Starship Troopers) "Stranger...", "Glory Road" and the aforementioned "...Mistress", which I still recall fondly now. The library at my school had quite a selection of Heinlein's early stuff which I, at the time, found disappointingly old-fashioned and pulpy compared with his later (or rather middle) material, and with other sci-fi of the same era I had read around the same time (particularly Clarke - whose later material I have also, in retrospect, come to disdain - and Vonnegut). I don't know whether my opinion were I to revisit them today change; perhaps I should find out.

Mannahnin wrote:It's sad that Moorcock and few other rabble-rousers yelled "facism!" fifty years ago to stir up some discussion, but people are still repeating that claptrap as if it were true.

"Starship Stormtroopers" is a piece of polemic, so judge it on that basis. I can't blame Moorcock for perceiving in Heinlein's romanticisation of militarism and authoritarianism, in his disdain for democracy and personal equality, obvious parallels with the public trappings of fascism; a dangerously, disingenuously simplified projection of reality is indeed what we call propaganda when it's not presented as fiction. (It's worth noting how the two writers' backgrounds inevitably coloured their views; for Heinlein, an American who served in the second world war, it was easy for him to see war as a crusade against evil, for Moorcock, who was six years old when it ended, and who grew up in a ruined 1950s London, the war was a shared tragedy which had destroyed Europe, and ended the forward-looking artistic and intellectual movements of the '20s and '30s.)

Frankly, Moorcock isn't wrong either in lampooning the flatness of Heinlein's phlosophical soundbite-spouting, "competent man" cypher-characters, nor the oddly traditionalist message of most American sci-fi of that type (and of most traditional fantasy), nor indeed the ultimately juvenile nature of the "rebellious hero" who at the end of the story has restored the old order and bows his head to get a medal from the princess. Much as I enjoy a little harmless escapism, it's more than a little disheartening to find science fiction "the fiction of ideas" offering nothing more imaginative or radical in its social prescriptions than more of the same; I'm governed by people with opinions like Heinlein's, don't expect me necessarily to enjoy reading about them. Moreover, I can't avoid noticing that it's among those "rabble-rousing" sci-fi writers of the liberal left - Moorcock, Kurt Vonnegut, Philip K. Dick, J.G. Ballard - not the "Eisenhower men" - Heinlein, Isaac Asimov and John W. Campbell - one finds those who, decades later, still enjoy literary credibility outside of the sci-fi ghetto.

A Town Called Malus wrote: Then what ultimately brought the US out of that depression was the enormous mobilisation for World War 2, which could be viewed as another example of huge government spending which reduced unemployment drastically and increased productivity of the country to unprecedented levels.

That's not actually correct. The mobilisation for WW2 would be somewhat an example of an accommodative measure, but the 'hunkering down' of society in general was adoption of a significant level of austerity. There were fewer goods so there was less consumption and less spending on an individual level. Money was put into bonds or saved. The re-ramping of industry primed the pump for the rebound out of the Depression, but it was the unleveraged stockpiles of household cash (personal disposable income) that kickstarted the whole consumption based economy that lasted at least until the late 80s and could be argued is still going on today.

The Depression did not end because of easy access to cheap capital.

English Assassin wrote:I was still in my teens when I last read any Heinlein (with the exception of ...Mistress, which I dug out a few months ago, thanks to noticing GW's references to it), and - as you guessed - was referring not to the various Lazarus Long novels of the '80s (which I read and enjoyed at the time,but am conscious that I wouldn't necessarily appreciate now), but to the (later than Starship Troopers) "Stranger...", "Glory Road" and the aforementioned "...Mistress", which I still recall fondly now. The library at my school had quite a selection of Heinlein's early stuff which I, at the time, found disappointingly old-fashioned and pulpy compared with his later (or rather middle) material, and with other sci-fi of the same era I had read around the same time (particularly Clarke - whose later material I have also, in retrospect, come to disdain - and Vonnegut). I don't know whether my opinion were I to revisit them today change; perhaps I should find out.

Might be worth it. Some of his early stuff (Tunnel in the Sky is classic) still holds up well, though if "pulpy" is purely a negative quality for you, that's a hindrance. The first couple of books with Lazerus Long (Methuselah's Children, Time Enough for Love, the latter moreso than the former) are still excellent, for my money. Later stuff not so much.

English Assassin wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:It's sad that Moorcock and few other rabble-rousers yelled "facism!" fifty years ago to stir up some discussion, but people are still repeating that claptrap as if it were true.

"Starship Stormtroopers" is a piece of polemic, so judge it on that basis. I can't blame Moorcock for perceiving in Heinlein's romanticisation of militarism and authoritarianism, in his disdain for democracy and personal equality, obvious parallels with the public trappings of fascism;

That's not what he does or says in ST, though. Has it been since you were a teen since you read it, as well? That's what you seem to indicate above. There's certainly romanticisation of the military, but I don't think that's really the same thing as romanticisation of militarism. I don't see any advocacy of authoritarianism in the book; that would be antithetical to Heinlein's worldview. Remember, the book is dedicated to the grunts and the NCOs.

I cannot see where you're getting a disdain for democracy out of it, unless it's (in my view) a misiterpretation of what one professor says in the book. One of the teachers says that one of the reasons past democracies failed, in the background of the book, was because people thought they could simply vote for things to get them. Even if you take that one character as representative of the entire worldview/political viewpoint expressed in the novel, that's not a condemnation of democracy as a whole. It's a condemnation of a selfish, lazy, and shortsigned society making irresponsible choices using democracy. Like the ballot initiatives in California which have made it so hard for them to get their budget under control. Which is the same complaint many of us make today. Heinlein loved democracy, and the society in the book (while not described at length) is democratic. Every person has the right to earn their vote by dint of effort and sacrificing two years (usually) of their time, sweat, and discomfort, in return for the power to make choices which impact everyone, not just themselves. His concept being that by working to earn things we value them more, hold them more precious and might (hopefully) exercise that right more responsibly. People who are actively serving cannot vote or hold office, so society can't be controlled by the military; career military officers are completely out of the political picture until after retirement. In the book the characters express that other systems might work as well, but that system has worked for them so far.

English Assassin wrote:Heinlein, an American who served in the second world war, it was easy for him to see war as a crusade against evil,

While many people have (I think, defensibly) seen WWII as in some ways a war in which genuine evil was fought against and defeated, Heinlein has never (to my knowledge, certainly not in ST) expessed the idea that war is generally a crusade against evil, never mind predominantly. That's not even vaguely representative of his views. Rather he expresses repeatedly that it's a brutal, horrible thing only engaged in for pragmatic reasons of resources and survival. If it has any romance, it's in the sacrifices people make to protect one another and their people and family back home.

English Assassin wrote:Frankly, Moorcock isn't wrong either in lampooning the flatness of Heinlein's phlosophical soundbite-spouting, "competent man" cypher-characters, nor the oddly traditionalist message of most American sci-fi of that type

As for the quality of Heinlein's characters, that's mostly a matter of taste, but certainly I'll grant Moorcock's right to express his. Maybe he was an ass in how he chose to do it, but he has every right to that opinion. I do think good and even great artistic works can be made with a protagonist who is, to some extent, a cipher. Drive is an excellent recent movie, for example, which uses the Steve McQueen-style mysterious hero, and I think novels can work without having to tell us everything about the protagonist's inner struggles.

I don't think that Moorcock accurately understood what "type" Heinlein's sci-fi fell into, which also casts some doubt in his capacity at that time for drawing broad conclusions about other writers' merits or the genre's subcategories and themes.

English Assassin wrote:... (and of most traditional fantasy), nor indeed the ultimately juvenile nature of the "rebellious hero" who at the end of the story has restored the old order and bows his head to get a medal from the princess.

No argument here, but IMO it's unrelated.

English Assassin wrote:... Much as I enjoy a little harmless escapism, it's more than a little disheartening to find science fiction "the fiction of ideas" offering nothing more imaginative or radical in its social prescriptions than more of the same;

Once again, I don't think that's in any way descriptive of Heinlein's work. His books may feature characters who agree with and support the philosophical system they live in (like in ST or MiaHM) as easily as they feature those who are happily trying to overthrow it (like in Stranger, though in MitHM of course they're planning a rebellion to throw off Earth's rule), but in none of them will you find that "rebellious hero to old order" pap.

I'm governed by people with opinions like Heinlein's,

No, I don't think that's true at all. Even if you think one book of Heinlein's is representative of all his opinions, which it certainly isn't.

English Assassin wrote:... don't expect me necessarily to enjoy reading about them. Moreover, I can't avoid noticing that it's among those "rabble-rousing" sci-fi writers of the liberal left - Moorcock, Kurt Vonnegut, Philip K. Dick, J.G. Ballard - not the "Eisenhower men" - Heinlein, Isaac Asimov and John W. Campbell - one finds those who, decades later, still enjoy literary credibility outside of the sci-fi ghetto.

"If poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world, science-fiction writers are its court jesters. We are Wise Fools who can leap, caper, utter prophecies, and scratch ourselves in public. We can play with Big Ideas because the garish motley of our pulp origins makes us seem harmless." -- Bruce Sterling

The last thing I'd like sci-fi writers to worry about is literary credibility outside of the sci-fi ghetto. If they can write a simulatneously entertaining and thought-provoking story, they're doing their jobs. Heinlein did his masterfully. Critics who can't see that mostly harm only themselves, except when they misrepresent the writer's work and stoop to slandering him and that work.

sourclams wrote:That's not actually correct. The mobilisation for WW2 would be somewhat an example of an accommodative measure, but the 'hunkering down' of society in general was adoption of a significant level of austerity. There were fewer goods so there was less consumption and less spending on an individual level. Money was put into bonds or saved. The re-ramping of industry primed the pump for the rebound out of the Depression, but it was the unleveraged stockpiles of household cash (personal disposable income) that kickstarted the whole consumption based economy that lasted at least until the late 80s and could be argued is still going on today.

The Depression did not end because of easy access to cheap capital.

You just explained why the Depression ended due to easy access to cheap capital.

It explains a bit further into the book when Rico went to OCS school. How the federation came about was a WWIII and collapse of the governments occur. Majority of grps that formed were lead by veterans. As grps encounter each other and formed together there was already a degree of trust between the leaders and the other veterans amongst the group. Yes he mention that there might be bad apples but he didn't go in details about it because the "veteran" already know the verdict.

Kings used to lead their countries in war. Many died in such a cause.

At least three kings of England died killed in action between the 11th and 15th centuries. The first was Harold II, the last Anglo Saxon ruler of England. After killing the Viking king Harald Sigurdsson (yes, another “Harold”) at the battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066, England’s King Harold II would also die just days later at the Battle of Hastings. Reports on how the ruler was killed vary – some suggest that the Harold was killed in a melee with Norman knights including William the Conqueror himself. However, the famous Bayeux Tapestry suggests that Harold was actually shot in the eye with an arrow.
http://thisiswarblog.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/checkmate-kings-who-died-in-battle/

I think that is the president was forced to go serve in the front lines of battles, he would be less willing to commit our troops to war. I make this statement as a broad brush stoke that goes back to President Harry S. Truman and his "police action" of the Korean War.

Its easy to send men/boys off to die from across an ocean. When you have to look them in the eye beforehand and look at their bodies afterwords, its a different story.

Many of these presidents were vets, yet still sent boys off to die in other countries for political purposes. I don't think military service is the solution. I think sending him to stand with his soldiers is.