Do you guys think that a Starship Troopers approach would help out America?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Jihadin**

Its a good read KO. I recommend it

**Kovnik Obama**

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.

**timetowaste85**

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?

**LoneLictor**

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.

**ShumaGorath**

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).

**Inquisitor Ehrenstein**

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.

**dogma**

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.

**Makarov**

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.

**Jihadin**

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?

**Kovnik Obama**

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!

**Lynata**

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!

**LoneLictor**

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.

**Jihadin**

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.

**ShumaGorath**

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.

**Jihadin**

Ugh.

I almost really went off thread

**ShumaGorath**

Jihadin wrote:Ugh.

I almost really went off thread

Come on Jihadanabannanna, tell us how you realllllly feel.

**djphranq**

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.

**LordofHats**

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).

**dogma**

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)

**Bromsy**

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.

**Squigsquasher**

Alternatively everbody could just stop arguing and disband their militaries.

**Henners91**

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

**Sturmtruppen**

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.

**Mannahnin**

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.

**Henners91**

You could dig tunnels on the Moon, I recall.

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

**Mannahnin**

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.

**Slarg232**

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.

**English Assassin**

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?

**Platuan4th**

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.

**A Town Called Malus**

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.