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.

(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.