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.

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.