So a while ago I read Starship Troopers, and I really like the idea of making citizens earn their franchise. Requiring people to serve a term in the military would mean that the only people voting would be people who genuinely care about their country, and not lazy nignogs and feminists. What do you guys think?
That was really the movie, not the book. If I remember the book correctly, it was still a full on democracy, but you just didn't vote until you proved you were willing to work for it.
Tying the right to vote to serving in the army is nonsense. Serving in the army doesn't imply you genuinely care about your country. It could imply many other things like you have no other skills and can't find work doing something else, you're a violent sociopath, you're easily brainwashed by the media, etc.
And someone who votes shouldn't have to be blindly nationalist; if they feel their country is headed in the wrong direction and they want to change it why would they serve in the army?
If you're against the war in Iraq and want to vote to change foreign policy does it make sense to have to go fight in the war just for the right to vote against fighting in the war?
The only thing I think should change about voting is you should have to take a series of tests to get a voting license.
Basic reading comprehension and basic finance and economy to get a voting license.
Fuck, I forgot to mention that it wasn't just military service. It was just federal service, and not strictly military. Also, caring about your country doesn't mean you're blindly nationalist. Nothing would stop you if you wanted to make a change, save your own laziness.
I agree with you on the idea of testing for a voting license, this is just that sort of idea taken to extremes.
What's the difference between a "Citizen" and a "Civilian"?
I love the concept, I get to vote so that's good.
I hate to tell you this but that law would also include American loving conservatives would also be excluded from voting due to majority of them are afflicted with Chicken Hawk Syndrome.
>What's the difference between a "Citizen" and a "Civilian"?
im not racist i just think people who vote must be competent and understand enough about th implications of casting their vote for themselves and their country
it would also prevent politicians with garbage platforms getting a landslide victory because "HE GON LEGALIZE WEED"
That is in the book. If you are the best of the best of the best god bless the USA! you serve in the space marines.
If you are dumb you test drive shit on Neptune and it has a high mortality rate. If you are blind you count the hairs on a dogs back. Dumb shit.
Basically, except maybe with more emphasis on useful things and less death. Heinlein has too much of that Shi'ite love for martyrdom that I think is kind of silly.
Why would you want to destroy your best gene-pool?
He is wanking over military service and I can only get that excited when states are fighting for their survival but even then millions dead to protect a financial and political elite is not in the interest of the common man.
>he still thinks the political process is functional, let alone legitimate
If a person votes they are taking an interest in the political process which is all that it should require. If a person is too lazy to take an interest they eliminate themselves from the process.
Voter turn out is already low.
>Only people who serve the federal government can become citizens.
>Only citizens can vote.
>Citizens vote themselves into positions of power and wealth through taxation.
>Everyone MUST become a citizen or they are reduced to poverty.
>Everyone wastes years of their life with pointless busy work to become citizens.
Nice race to the bottom there Heinlein.
Heinlein was attempting to portray a system, one of many possible systems, where there is a greater is placed on ensuring that people's rights to decide for a human collective (ex. vote) are in some proportion to taking responsibility for that human collective (ex. military service).
What do you get when you give children all kinds of rights but not a shred of responsibility? Spoiled little shits with no sense of the value of anything.
What do you get when you have shiftless welfare niggers voting for the party that will sign them the biggest monthly cheque? Take a look around.
The heart of that book is exploring the moral equivalence of rights with responsibility. The military backdrop of the story was just a setting. Heinlein wasn't advocating fascism, militarism, or anything like that. He was showing us some of the contradictions and problems of taking the ideas to that extent. He wanted us to think about this stuff for ourselves.
Maybe they have a constitution that protects civil liberties for civilians as well as citizens?
I haven't read the book in ages but I remember it being mentioned that the rich don't usually bother with service since all it grants you is the right to vote and hold political office, which would imply citizens aren't capable of forming a monopoly for themselves.
Unfortunately for you democracy is supposed to allow the many to benefit from the state as much as possible.
If poor people vote themselves more welfare this is very much in the spirit of democracy. I am quite well off and I feel I am over taxed but there is nothing wrong with politicians appealing to the masses.
Thirty minutes ago I suddenly started thinking about Starship Troopers for absolutely no reason. I thought about having read the book and thought about the movie and the flyer they handed out at the 1998 premier. Then I came here and saw this thread. Go figure.
>they have a constitution that protects civil liberties for civilians
>So citizens cant effect change in taxation laws?
>I wouldnt bother with military service. Sounds like its for retards.
Yeah, there's obviously no middle ground between being constitutionally unable to tax civilians at a higher rate than citizens or discriminate against them, and being completely unable to change your societies tax levels.
I think your post is a pretty good argument for implementing something like this....
Its fine. When the system breaks down the capable will have as much as the incapable and will thrive.
Its much better than a non democratic system where a single talented or lucky dictator spawns generations of retards who own everything.
This is about much more than democracy vs. the other -acys and -isms floating around out there.
"No fault divorce," false rape claims without any accountability, now even the right to fuck other people without telling them you have AIDS. When rights are decoupled from responsibility, chaos ensues. That was the central thrust of Starship Troopers.
" … I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea — a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history that has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."
He sighed. "Another year, another class — and for me another failure. One can lead a child to knowledge but one cannot make him think." Suddenly he pointed his stump at me. "You. What is the moral difference, if any, between the soldier and the civilian?"
"The difference, I said carefully, "lies in the field of civic virtue. A soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. The civilian does not."
"The exact words of the book," he said scornfully. "But do you understand it? Do you believe it?"
"But if you want to serve and I can't talk you out of it, then we have to take you, because that's your constitutional right. It says that everybody, male or female, should have his born right to pay his service and assume full citizenship— but the facts are that we are getting hard pushed to find things for all the volunteers to do that aren't just glorified KP. You can't all be real military men; we don't need that many and most of the volunteers aren't number-one soldier material anyhow...[W]e've had to think up a whole list of dirty, nasty, dangerous jobs that will...at the very least make them remember for the rest of their lives that their citizenship is valuable to them because they've paid a high price for it...A term of service is...either real military service, rough and dangerous even in peacetime...or a most unreasonable facsimile thereof."
"Value" has no meaning other than in relationship to living beings. The value of a thing is always relative to a particular person, is completely personal and different in quantity for each living human — "market value" is a fiction, merely a rough guess at the average of personal values, all of which must be quantitatively different or trade would be impossible. … This very personal relationship, "value", has two factors for a human being: first, what he can do with a thing, its use to him… and second, what he must do to get it, its cost to him. There is an old song which asserts that "the best things in life are free". Not true! Utterly false! This was the tragic fallacy which brought on the decadence and collapse of the democracies of the twentieth century; those noble experiments failed because the people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted… and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears. … I fancy that the poet who wrote that song meant to imply that the best things in life must be purchased other than with money — which is true — just as the literal meaning of his words is false. The best things in life are beyond money; their price is agony and sweat and devotion . . . and the price demanded for the most precious of all things in life is life itself — ultimate cost for perfect value."
I don't know.
Electronic voting machines seem as susceptible to being hacked as paper ballots are susceptible to being "lost".
I would rather have a team of people tallying paper than some wizards clicking on a computer.
>"But if you want to serve and I can't talk you out of it, then we have to take you, because that's your constitutional right. It says that everybody, male or female, should have his born right to pay his service and assume full citizenship— but the facts are that we are getting hard pushed to find things for all the volunteers to do that aren't just glorified KP. You can't all be real military men; we don't need that many and most of the volunteers aren't number-one soldier material anyhow...We've had to think up a whole list of dirty, nasty, dangerous jobs that will...at the very least make them remember for the rest of their lives that their citizenship is valuable to them because they've paid a high price for it...A term of service is...either real military service, rough and dangerous even in peacetime...or a most unreasonable facsimile thereof."
How are you this stupid? The film just triples down on the satirical elements so that even dumbfucks can understand. The core of the book is that you have to critically examine a militaristic, borderline fascist government system and understand why the main characters are so enthusiastic to be a part of it and everyone older than them (military advisers, parents) tries to convince them to avoid the system and do something else with their lives.
On your first reading you identify with Rico and the main characters and want to be a part of the state.
But by the end of the book you're supposed to understand that the militaristic government is the cause behind most of the Earth suffering and to reject militarism.
But you're not smart enough to get that.
"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."
Eh. It SOUNDS good in theory, but in reality it would become a way for the elite to screen voters and indoctrinate others. People who enter the service as good little statists? Good, they rise quickly through the ranks. Weak-willed and moldable? They'll learn how to be good little worker bees. Guys who don't hold to the party line and look like they might upset the status-quo? They get shit on until they wash out.
Imagine a world where, instead of military service, to vote you have to complete a degree at a state-approved University. Now imagine all those neo-marxist professors aware that they get to hand-pick the next generation of voters.
The system would quickly become a feedback loop to make sure whoever is in power stays in power.
The book isn't satirical to the level of the film where they went over the top with it, but neither is it intended as a gospel for how society ought to be ordered. Heinlein wasn't trying to portray a utopia or a dystopia... just another civilization where a few ideas are taken to extremes for better or worse. He didn't expect anyone to lap it all up, and would probably be horrified if they did. He wanted to spark young male readers to think about ideas bigger than robots, death rays, and mutant princesses.
The book never breaks from sincerity, at least half way through. I stopped reading it because its badly written, the characters are shallow and the writers political ideas seem juvenile.
Congratulations on enjoying shit, pleb.
You absolute dumbass, you don't need to be beaten over the head with something to realize that it's satire.
Or maybe you do. Maybe you're literally that stupid.
If you can't understand that Heinlein is making fun of Rico (and later his father for falling back into the pit) for being a complete and total idiot taken in by people who don't have his best interests at heart, then you're an idiot not worth talking to.
I would settle for a passing score on a basic test of reasoning skills. That alone would eliminate the niggers, the feminists, and a good chunk of the rest of the Democrats. Might knock out a bunch of Bible Belt Conservatives, but in the end it would be a good trade.
To vote is to wield authority; it is the supreme authority from which all other authority derives—such as mine to make your lives miserable once a day. Force if you will!—the franchise is force, naked and raw, the Power of the Rods and the Ax. Whether it is exerted by ten men or by ten billion, political authority is force.
To permit irresponsible authority is to sow disaster; to hold a man responsible for anything he does not control is to behave with blind idiocy. The unlimited democracies were unstable because their citizens were not responsible for the fashion in which they exerted their sovereign authority . . . other than through the tragic logic of history. The unique 'poll tax' that we must pay was unheard of. No attempt was made to determine whether a voter was socially responsible to the extent of his literally unlimited authority. If he voted the impossible, the disastrous possible happened instead—and responsibility was then forced on him willy-nilly and destroyed both him and his foundationless temple.
Without debating the usefulness or morality of planned parenthood, it may be verified by observation that any breed which stops its own increase gets crowded out by breeds which expand.
>Tfw when no self proclaimed nationalists/ fascists can't recognize their own fucking arguments
Those who were not citizens would have to pay no tax as they were not responsible for the state and receive no benefits from it.
To be honest, that kind of system is just not possible. Everything is held together these days through subsidies, no one would gain anything at all from it. The every rich and the very poor would lose everything.
That system just looks appealing on the surface to ultra nationalists. It's just not workable in real life.
Oh, you mean like a literacy test, like we used to have?
It was racist so it was struck down
>pic related, racist literacy test
>life must be difficult for you
I dunno, I can finish a book
>That still works against republican interest, most dems have college degrees or are in college.
So be it. It's about educated people voting, not people you like or feel deserve it just because they vote for your party.
/pol/ getting blown the fuck out by /lit/ yet again
>I LOVE THIS BOOK, IT IS THE FOUNDATION FOR MY POLITICAL IDEOLOGY BUT I DIDN'T FINISH IT OR EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT I WAS BEING LAUGHED AT
This board is the definition of pleb.
With national governments in collapse at the end of the XXth century, something had to fill the vacuum, and in many cases it was the returned veterans. They had lost a war, most of them had no jobs, many were sore as could be over the terms of the Treaty of New Delhi, especially the P.O.W. foul-up — and they knew how to fight. But it wasn't revolution; it was more like what happened in Russia in 1917 — the system collapsed; somebody else moved in. The first known case, in Aberdeen, Scotland, was typical. Some veterans got together as vigilantes to stop rioting and looting, hanged a few people (including two veterans) and decided not to let anyone but veterans on their committee. Just arbitrary at first — they trusted each other a bit, they didn't trust anyone else. What started as an emergency measure became constitutional practice in a generation or two.
>Tfw accidental double negative
Being a citizen of the military does not make you an informed governing intelligent agent. What we need are classes on how to be Leader aka governing people aka manipulating people since that is the essence of governing. Military may make you hyper-aware of government and politics but doesn't mean you'll be intelligent in ruling.
This is the future you chose. But seriously this book is hilarious.
>It was racist
You seem to be implying that only niggers are illiterate. Just like I was implying they don't have reasoning skills. Guess we are both racist.
I really don't see a problem with having basic literacy being a requirement to vote. Otherwise, how are we to assume the individual is informed on the issues on which they are voting.
I used to work as a Registrar in my voting district in Idaho, and a few years ago the state passed a law that said the ticket could no longer list R, I, or D next to the candidate to indicate party. This was to favor the Democrats, since Idaho is about 95% Republican. Nevertheless, first fucking day some Dem comes in and actually asked me "Which of these guys is the Democrat candidate?"
Stupid fuck wasn't even informed enough to know his party representative, but was so sheep-drawn he was just going to check next to the D.
Fortunately, it was illegal for me to "inform" his decision, and I was able to reply by stating I was not allowed to divulge any information about the candidates.
Didn't say that I did! Never much cared for Heinlein. He was like a store-brand Frederik Pohl but with bizarre sexual hangups
I just think it's hilarious that the conversation goes like this
>that book sucks it's glorifying fascism
Actually, it starts out that way, since it's from Rico's perspective as a dumb teenager, but by the end it's obvious that the military is evil and is the cause of most of the problems
>well I didn't finish it cuz it sucked
I don't know if you're an American, but we already have too many soldiers. Whenever there is a conflict, something like 2% of soldiers actually do anything, most of it is handled by our superior technology. And besides, the humans in Starship Trooper were basically like zerg. We have proven that smaller units of highly skilled soldiers are more effective than sending millions to die. And who would we attack? Niggers? Sandniggers? I would sign up if we did but we have no enemy to attack. If everyone suddenly joined the military it would be millions of useless potential workers camping in the desert.
Morals — all correct moral laws — derive from the instinct to survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level.
While a judge should be benevolent in purpose; his awards should cause the criminal to suffer, else there is no punishment - and pain is the basic mechanism built into us by millions of years of evolution which safeguards us by warning when something threatens our survival. Why should society refuse to use such a highly perfected survival mechanism?
The basis of all morality is duty.
When you come right to it, it is easier to die than it is to use your head.
Basic truths cannot change and once a man of insight expresses one of them it is never necessary, no matter how much the world changes, to reformulate them. This is immutable, true everywhere, throughout all time, for all men and all nations.
>the idiots who are shitposting their opinion heinlein wasn't totally advocating a government along the lines of a democratic but very communitarian fascist state should go back to /int and or tumblr. He devised a model for government adequate to serve the vox populi and also ensure it would never be dictated to by those who lacked in responsibility. Funny thing is that in this model minorities would be better represented (look at us army demographics) and have a good way to legitimize their role in society in the eyes of the public at large. An expiramental model, but that's why he wrote the book, right?
this guy is the only one who actually read the book
plebs think rico is celebrated because he lived and he convinced his dad that the state is right and that they should go shoot some bugs and win the war together
in reality the message of the book is that everyone who the state touches becomes corrupted. rico is destined to end up like the crippled ex-soldier who tries to convince him not to enlist and to earn his citizenship another way.
if you disagree just answer me this. how did that man lose his legs?
Aye. For some reason I believe that even though anything on the internet is forever, you are in a "program" that is disputed between two or more powerful entities that can and have done some seriously shady things to remain in power.
I have to either get up early and drive myself to the polls while there are buses that bring people who have nothing better to do and are dependent on services out to vote.
>having my vote by undermined by 30 shitheads because of "free this" or "more this"
or "no-guns" yuppies thinking criminals will be compliant
Captcha: trying onssand
>Serving in the army doesn't imply you genuinely care about your country
Of course it does.
>you have no other skills and can't find work doing something else
Useless people go on welfare.
>you're a violent sociopath
If "sociopaths" want to kill people, they just kill people.
The military is a strict hierarchy and is the last place antisocial people would want to join.
Irony bro, irony.
The point is that they are not racist. However, they were fought against and struck down on the "grounds" that they were. Google "literacy test racist" and be prepared to have your mind blown.
I'm just laughing at the conversation
>this story sucks it's X and I hate X
Actually, it starts out sounding like X but by the end you see it's a satire and criticism of X. That's what makes it a satire
>well I didn't finish it because it sucks
You should try reading half of Animal Farm sometime! Dat glorious Soviet revolution that turns out to have no downsides whatsoever
>Of course it does.
If it does then why do I know military people who doesn't give a shit?
I'm confused, you just said it does but there are example you're wrong? How does that work? Fuck what's the right answer???
I TA'd a class that used this book as instruction material. Since most of you don't understand the themes in the book, I'll just give you one of the exam questions about Starship Troopers.
"Explain the significance of Rico's father reversing his stance on his son. Why did he disown him in the first place? Why does he change his mind at the end? What external forces operated on him?"
If your answer is BCUZ THEY WUZ GUNNA WIN DA WAR AND THEY HAZ TEH GUNZZZ you get an F.
Dude you are giving Heinlein way too much credit. He cant write for shit. There is no chance that there was any meaning to what he wrote beyond what is put right in front of you. He just wasnt a very bright person. You just accepted some morons summary of it.
Are you religious by any chance?
>you're supposed to understand that the militaristic government is the cause behind most of the Earth suffering and to reject militarism
Who told you this garbage? Are you parroting someone else or did you make it up yourself?
>If it does then why do I know military people who doesn't give a shit?
How do you know they don't care? Did you ask them? Ask them why didn't they go on welfare instead.
>there are example you're wrong?
OP here. Just wanted to clarify that I'm not talking about having exactly the form of government that Starship Troopers did. It had problems that you guys and Heinlein himself pointed out.
I'm talking about just the idea of making people work for their sufferage, through military service or some other form.
I love Heinlein’s Citizen Rule. The problem is that it’s an extreme measure that can only be put into place after the current government completely collapses. Here’s my idea for a moderate Citizen Rule that can be enacted by reforming today’s existing government.
Today America has universal suffrage, the draft and selective service. I say we abolish universal suffrage and the draft. Both are horrible. Turn selective service into voluntary service/voting registration. To register to vote you have to sign up for voluntary service of your own free will.
Voluntary service will only be enacted when America is losing a war. When voluntary service is activated, voters that refuse to join the military when called upon will be stripped of their voting privilege for the rest of their cowardly, oath breaking lives. And they will only have themselves to blame. That’s justice.
>Did you ask them?
Yes, I did that's why I know otherwise how would I know if I didn't ask them? Your question implies your stupidity though to no offense to you.
>Ask them why didn't they go on welfare instead.
He got a lot more money and wasn't in-combat.
I'm confused, what's my example then?? A hiccup?
/pol/ is always advocating nationalism, knows women voting is part of the problem.
Reasonable solution: Only vets can vote. Vast majority are men (conservative) and older (conservative). Very nationalistic, care deeply for the nation.
> /pol/ makes fun of the idea
If you want a system that is heavily traditionalist and conservative, I can't think of a better demographic. I'm not a vet and I advocate this system because I care about the long term sustainablility of society.
My favorite part about the forever war is the past when comes back from his 2nd or 3rd tour. Now keeping in mind that this is a direct allegory for how the author felt during his time fighting in Vietnam. Well the main comes back from this tour and everyone in earth is gay. Like literal duck sucking faggot gay. And then it clicked for me. This author came back home after a tour in Vietnam, looked around at all the hippies, and said "Fuck these fags, I'm going back to Vietnam.".
I just asked you some simple questions. Why are you getting so defensive?
>what's my example then?? A hiccup?
For all I know it could be a complete lie on your part. That would explain why you are being so sensitive.
I'm against any form of government that would make Doogie Howser a full colonel straight out of basic because of brain powers, fictitious or otherwise. A meritocracy of high scoring individuals with little practical experience gives us the kind of leadership that leads to things like the 2nd Iraq War.
It is clear that voting privileges must be restricted. The current US government has made it a game - let's see what horrible ethnic minorities we can siphon votes off of with cheap handouts and lies about white oppression. It's madness.
Citizenship shouldn't be like nobility, as in, it shouldn't be inherited or bought. Citizenship should be more like membership to an exclusive club (which, when you think about it, is exactly what it is). There are dues (taxes) and certain bylaws and restrictions you voluntarily assume in order to enjoy the benefits of being part of the club.
I would even go so far as to make citizenship impermanent. You should have to reapply occasionally.
You are missing the most important virtue of the citizen, which the book openly states:
A citizen accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic, defending it with his life, a civilian does not.
"Citizenship is an attitude, a state of mind, an emotional conviction that the whole is greater than the part...and that the part should be humbly proud to sacrifice itself that the whole may live"
Until one can prove through federal service that said person does accept responsibility for the health and safety of the state, they have no right to make decisions about how the state runs.
Many nations have tried this, in various forms, the most common of which is the idea that citizens should own land (the idea being that if one is physically vested in the state, the citizen will also have interested in keeping society and the state stable).
Also while the veteran or ex-service member (the only people allowed to vote, it keeps the soldiers from voting to increase war spending, larger pay checks, generally keeping the military industrial complex in check) may not be the most educated, the are the most virtuous, seeking that which betters the state, not themselves. Given of course a proper indoctrination program in which this quality is stressed
>but by the end it's obvious that the military is evil and is the cause of most of the problems
no by the end its an acknowledgement that war against the buggers is unsustainable because they breed so damn fast and unless they find a solution with the captured brain bug the humans will lose from attrition.
Its the Chinese reinforcements in Korea and in Vietnam. MacArthur was relieved from duty in the Korean War because he publicly advocated using nuclear weapons against the Chinese.
“Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage.”
>lel conservatism means you can't like groups
Get a load of this cocksucking liberal.
Conservatism is all about groups and general welfare. Free markets and state-sponsored job rehabilitation programs are objectively superior in both the efficacy of bringing equality to a group of people than crony capitalism and welfare slavery.
We just believe that you should work for it. If you aren't a useless lazy fuck, you shouldn't have any problems.
You got an F because you wrote like a nigger.
It would abolish the draft and universal suffrage. That's a huge change.
The draft is what created the hippie movement in the first place. The useless hippie baby boomers turned into liberals and now we all suffer.
And females are not in selective service. Most females would be too scared to sign up for voluntary service.
I don't agree on votes expect perhaps legal immigrants, if they are allowed. It would be a good way to prove loyalty. Military service could be connected with other benefits and rights. For example the right to bear arms only to citizens with a minimum service and other deep root connections to the land. Not a generalized libshit human right, which leads to every drug dealer, benefit sucker allien to purchase guns and play the mafia shit.
>Requiring people to serve a term in the military would mean that the only people voting would be people who genuinely care about their country,
Confirmed for not having read the book, or at the very least not understood it. Military service was completely voluntary in Starship Troopers
>everyone older than them (military advisers, parents) tries to convince them to avoid the system and do something else with their lives.
In the book, the veterans all did their best to talk all applicants out of joining up because they were trying to weed out the people that weren't committed. All of the worlds militaries do the same thing by making the enlistment process and basic training a difficult, tedious, and intimidating process.
These "military advisors" you are referring to made the choice to remain in service despite the fact they are allowed to quit at any moment, without penalty. What line from the book actually makes you believe these men continue to dedicate their lives to a cause they hate when they can quit without repercussions?
If you dont have any understanding of military service and you are too stupid to understand the book then keep your thoughts to yourself and quit shitting all over the conversation.
By the end of the book Rico and his father are together, happy and fulfilled. The humans are winning the war. Earth is still as prosperous as ever. How is this supposed to make the system look bad?
Prior to Rico's enlistment his father was a materialist who put acquiring wealth above all things. He was completely lacking any sense of duty or commitment to a cause greater than his own comfort. He disowned Rico for not following in his footsteps mostly out of a knee-jerk reaction to Rico having a mindset completely alien to him. It was also implied his father was embarrassed of Rico. Civilians who couldn't understand duty comforted themselves by asserting that they are superior in intellect to the "brutes" who couldn't succeed in the business world and Rico's father was ashamed that one of these brutes was his son.
After Rico's mother died, Rico's father found himself alone and unfulfilled. He realized that his family was more important than his wealth and in desperation he tried to follow in his sons footsteps as penance for his sins. Just like Rico, the experience gave him a deeper sense of fulfillment now that he was dedicated to a more noble cause; now he had discovered duty.
What's my grade, prof?
>He already knew duty-that's he raised Rico to follow in his footsteps
This isn't a proper sentence, and the duty you are implying is not the same concept of duty that was implied in the book.
Furthermore you simply tried to say i was wrong without explaining what the correct answer would be. I'm seriously starting to think you are full of shit.
It wasn't just serving in the army.
Dangerous work on colonies that would help the Federation as a whole guaranteed citizenship. The difference between a citizen and a civilian is that the Citizen puts the safety of the body politic above his own well being and accepts personal responsibility for it. If you'd have read the book you'd know that.
fail anyone. The law doesn’t permit us to."
"Huh? I mean, Excuse me, Doctor? Then what’s the point of this goose-flesh parade?"
"Why, the purpose is," he answered, hauling off and hitting me in the knee with a hammer (I kicked him,
but not hard), "to find out what duties you are physically able to perform. But if you came in here in a
wheel chair and blind in both eyes and were silly enough to insist on enrolling, they would find something
silly enough to match. Counting the fuzz on a caterpillar by touch, maybe. The only way you can fail is by
having the psychiatrists decide that you are not able to understand the oath.'
The poorly formed sentence was a mistake in my part.
Just because his father's sense of duty wasn't the same sense of duty portrayed as the theme throughout the rest of the book is irrelevant. It would be more accurate to say that he found duty to community/society/nation rather than he simply found duty. There's your answer.
>Pretty sure that it was implied
Well you are only pretty sure, not certain, and take it from someone who is certain and can actually explain why rather than resort to ad-hominem, that you are fucking wrong.
Again, 90% of the people in this thread are arguing against points that the book never even made. Op failed to be clear and several important details and the thread is pure shit because of it.
You are pulling out of your ass the idea that Rico's father was grooming his son to follow in his footsteps out of a sense of duty. That is nowhere in the book, literal or implied. All of his spoken objections were along the lines of "your wasting your life, your gonna get killed, etc." No moral objections were made.
If OP didn't mean to say that it was required citizenship, then why would Starship Troopers be used by OP as an example at all.
Note that OP states: 'making citizens earn their franchise' just before mentioning military service.
Read the OP again, slowly and with an open mind
>So a while ago I read Starship Troopers, and I really like the idea of making citizens earn their franchise. Requiring people to serve a term in the military would mean...
Imagine one who has never read the book or seen the movie. You would assume everyone still was given the right to vote but everyone would be forced to serve in the military as a way of "earning it." This is a horrible idea obviously, so this thread has become flooded with people arguing against this abomination despite the fact its not what the book was suggesting.
At the end of the day, laws are backed by the credible threat of force.
Don't feel like paying a traffic ticket?
If you refuse it obstinately enough, men with guns will force you to pay it or take you to jail or kill you if you resist.
Your original point was that OP had not read (lol) or if OP had read, understood the book.
But now your point is that he wasn't clear enough for the retards who didn't catch the implication. What are you even trying to say?
Frankly the only way I can support democracy as a form of government would be in a way that service was required for citizenship. In any group, you get out of it what you put into it. The franchise and rights of citizenship are huge privileges in any society, without asking for some form of responsibility it the libshit that ruins societies. Natural rights may be god given, but they must be protected by the strength of men. To make then an entitlement would be akin to handing out cash annually to people just because they happened to be born somewhere. Maybe you support a system of entitlement like that, but I don't because I'm not a supporter of communism. Faggots here talking shit on heinlein and sucking orwells fetid cock are degenerate liberals who have no place in a nationalist and free nation. They would be the business people and intelligentsia who are disenfranchised by the system the author proposes. What he seeks to do is remove the cultural Marxists/ Jews/ and sjw types from the decision making process without them proving they aren't invested in subverting the whole process.
TLDR; Heinlein is based, liberals can't read.
No, you just didn't understand OP's post. As evidenced by the fact that you still think he may not have read the book even thought the first thing OP says is that he did.
Trying that hard to call OP out on a mistake that was never made just to jerk yourself off to your imagined sense of superiority confirms that you are the faggot here.
i'm pretty sure JIDF is shitposting itt intentionally
I agree in principle with what you wrote, basically that liberty and freedom come with responsibility and civic duty, but it's not in the spirit of the constitution to condition basic rights. The U.S. Constitution doesn't "give" you rights, it defends rights you have from birth. I like the idea of patriotism and nationalism but that's also kind of antithetical to the federal system in which the central government should ideally have less power over individuals and regions than in traditional nationalist states. "That government is best which governs least"...
makes sense, but what is to keep the program of indoctrination from being watered down or even disregarded? If it is done via the chief political executive(s), then vets can vote to bring it back. But if it is done internally, due to the military getting complacent, who is there to ensure the next generation of citizens are the same quality as the previous?
There was a day I would have entirely agreed with your point. From the context of the book, humanity is facing multiple existential threats and in that situation, the idea of a libertarian/ anarchic system becomes hard to support. I'm not a 'muh roads' fag, but if the human species is facing a threat capable of threatening extinction, or a nation is facing the threat of subjugation, I would far rather side on the fascist side of the spectrum. I think maximum liberty ought to be the goal of any government, but government exists for a reason, and sometimes the stakes are high enough to justify extreme measures.
Yeah, in the context of the book I get your point. In general, survival situations require organization and leadership. Ancient Rome understood this with their temporary dictatorships during the Republic.
>Hard to argue against "by any means necessary" when it comes to saving humanity.
The danger though, due to human moral failure, is that those who are trusted with the extreme power often do not wish to return societies to the free state they were at.
The Cincinnatus and George Washingtons are long past.
Even if we do find that rare man, what prevents his successors conjuring crises to seize power?
>See Caesar and Sulla
The last man the Romans elected dictator claimed it for life and led directly to the end of the Republic
virtuous men are hard to find, though Heinlein has the brilliant idea to grow them, it may not work
That's one of those characteristics of history that we could talk about all day: the need for direct leadership free from the constraints of bureaucracy and procedures, or the time and complexity of democracy, but the inherent danger of so much power concentrated in one person or a few persons. What can be an extremely beneficial dictatorship/monarchy for one generation can turn into a nightmare for succeeding ones.
The town of Cincinnati is named after a roman dictator who had to do this multiple times. We may disagree in a sense, but respect because you know your shit.
I think its interesting how the military was far more supportive of libertarians in the last election cycle than of any other party. I get that enforced federal service could lead to a runaway military complex, but the whole idea of making people suffer danger to have a say in matters of war and peace makes sense if you've ever had to be in the shit yourself. Look at Obama, he's started more wars than any other president and he never came close to serving in any capacity.
in the book the largest percentage of citizens came from people who did infrastructure work. military had the smallest representation in the citizen population. Only the head of state/government, the skymarshal, required military service.
vets are often the harshest critics of unneeded wars. Often because they know the price of war personally. I think thats why Starship Troopers doesnt let soldiers vote, only vets: because as older, experienced people, they can direct a nation better than hotheaded grunts
I agree, in my original reply I defend constitutional democracy, but the posters reply was that when it comes to the survival of the species, extreme measures are warranted. I have to agree. Lets keep humanity in existence and worry about regaining our freedoms after we have that sorted out. Heinlein's idea of citizenship through service has always appealed to me even though I can't agree with it because of my loyalty to the constitution and it's enlightenment principles. It's sad to think the founding fathers had so much faith in the American spirit of rugged individualism and industry... and then I look at how things have turned out.
It may not work, but democracy with dindus granted the franchise by virtue of birth alone clearly does not work. This is a possible alternative, which has some clear advantages. Frankly I think democracy (in practice, not in theory) is inferior to guardianship (in Dahl's sense) as far as being the basis for an effective and benevolent government.
I feel like it is worth mentioning that a great many of the founding fathers were Masons, and Masonic government is both democratic and requires a great deal of responsibility on the part of participants to be allowed to vote. I'm certain there was a great deal of overlap in their notions of responsible citizenship being linked to healthy democracy (disenfranchisement of women, children, slaves and those without property). I think all Heinlein did was take it a step further, but that many of the framers/ founders would not disagree with his central thesis.
Yes, he had literally nothing to do with helping his nation better utlilize its resources or compete in a global economy against superpowers like the US or Europe. His autocratic style has nothing to do with his enduring local popularity and effective leadership. American presidents in the same time period had no windfalls of natural resources (shale gas) or other unearned advantages
>Electronic voting machines seem as susceptible to being hacked as paper ballots are susceptible to being "lost".
And yet our money is safe in electronic forms, be if stock markets or bank computers.
Only he can mass the bikes and get us to race more now.
He used to think he could get a seat at the ZOG table, and now that its clear that will never happen, its either they kill him or he kills them.
have you ever met and talked to a vet that is not employed by the defense industry?
They fucking hate it. They know that some fucker is getting fat selling guns and bombs so that pvt joe snuffy can go kill pvt achmed al-snackbar and make a couple rich pricks even richer.
>I have counted votes. I prefer the idea of a paper trail too.
Why can't you guys count to like 100,000 without making errors? Every election should have two counts if they are different the election should be called null and void and a new one called.
Honestly you just have to count, that's grade 1 level math, why can't you get the same number each time?
Yeah but those wild swings in ruling styles, you go from a shitstorm between Nero and Domitian, to a golden age between Nerva and Marcus Aurelius, to another shitstorm starting with Commodus on until the end of the Empire with a few positive exceptions mixed in. Democracy at least allows for peaceful transitions and finite terms of power. I agree though, potentially, a strong leader can accomplish much in a short period. But the potential for the opposite makes the idea highly unappealing.
What if a certain ethnoreligious group just made sure that there were minimal choices for high office and that all were loyal to their tribe? Like say they ran a nignog faux-dove and had his opponent be an elderly man who nominates a genuine lunatic to be his next in line?
because modern western democracies are getting such strong consistent leadership from their elected 'useful idiots'.
>All of the worlds militaries do the same thing by making the enlistment process and basic training a difficult, tedious, and intimidating process.
That's far from true, basic military training is meant to be something everyone from cooks, clerks and bin rats, to infantry, armor and engineers can pass.
The real fuck job comes in trades training, while the cooks and clerks get their training and pressure suited to their duties, the combat arms trades get training suited to force people out that are unsuited for combat while training combat skills.
Basic training is easy, otherwise you would have no support staff that make up 2/3 or more of the military.
but women are given the chance to prove themselves, I know some really based girls who have served
I didn't say that man, I'm not even saying dictatorships are necessarily bad, relax. We probably agree more than we disagree. But seriously, humans with power don't have a great track record, for every good one there are like 10 horrible ones. Why would we want to potentially give anyone lifelong power? I subscribe to the enlightenment principles of intellectual maturity, liberty, and individualism in the best possible sense of the concept (self reliance, responsibility, resourcefulness, and self improvement), but I see where you are coming from and I'm actually nostalgic that we have lost the "strong consistent leadership" some of our leaders had in the past. I've already said that in the context of the book I agree with strong central leadership.
>blah blah fascism is bad
Why is it that so few of the people who shit on the book have ever read it?
I agree that we probably agree for the most part. But I'm not advocating lifelong power in any sense. A strong executive doesn't necessarily imply a permanent one. Appreciate your opinion, I just think a lot of others in this thread are conflating democratic process (voting) with the 'democratic' republican systems we see in the world today
>Yes, he had literally nothing to do with helping his nation better utlilize its resources or compete in a global economy against superpowers like the US or Europe. His autocratic style has nothing to do with his enduring local popularity and effective leadership. American presidents in the same time period had no windfalls of natural resources (shale gas) or other unearned advantages
He didn't raise the value of oil and gas, or develop the tech to extract it.
Just like how the Canadian government did little to nothing to cause the oil and gas boom in western Canada. Just like how the US government did little or nothing to cause the fracking boom.
The outside forces that demanded energy in China, India and Malaysia caused the energy economy boom.
>the main character was doing fine without being a citizen, his girlfriend drags him into it, leaves and goes and fuck another guy and than he barely ends up alive in the end.
Think about how great the book would have been if he was a dog handler taking a cyborg war dog into battle.
>And yet our money is safe in electronic forms, be if stock markets or bank computers.
I think the difference is that banks have a vested interest in protecting peoples money because it is the money the bank uses to lend out and the bank needs to maintain customer confidence. However you have to ask who would handle the electronic votes? Any government body would have constant accusations of favoring whoever is currently in office and any private corporation could just as easily be bought off.
I dont think it would be impossible to create a system of electronic voting that could be safe and work well but it would require some innovation and wouldnt be a simple solution
Russia had those resources for a long time before, it was his leadership that allowed them to be effectively exploited for national benefit and not just for the jews. He arrested Khodovorkosky the kike who owned Yukos which was their biggest energy company. That's an autocrat fucking a jewish oligarch for the national benefit, exactly what I'm arguing he did for Russia
just read a book and let it rest for a bit
words aren't monliths
women simply have certain qualities that men in general lack and vice versa
these are generalizations and the transitions are fluid
That could be our next president, just stop scrolling and think about that for one second... right there the most powerful person in the world... her. Then think about names like Washington, Jackson, T. Roosevelt....
>I think the difference is that banks have a vested interest in protecting peoples money because it is the money the bank uses to lend out and the bank needs to maintain customer confidence. However you have to ask who would handle the electronic votes? Any government body would have constant accusations of favoring whoever is currently in office and any private corporation could just as easily be bought off.
Well if you live in a nation that doesn't just assume the government can't do anything that's not a real problem.
>I dont think it would be impossible to create a system of electronic voting that could be safe and work well but it would require some innovation and wouldnt be a simple solution
It's already been made and it's open source.
The current private sector voting machines are so fucking terrible they would be illegal.
Premier Election Solutions or Diebold Election Systems until they had to change their names because of their bad rep, is a great example of what not to do.
I'm just saying that sexism isn't really necessary in this, but feel free to make traditionalist points about the role of women in society. I think a major point of what the author wanted to illustrate is that there can be no equivalent for proving worth as a citizen (regardless of race or gender), than service.
Putin served his country as a foreign service operative for the KGB, Eisenhower, Nixon, Kennedy, Washington and Jackson served theirs long before they were President. Good leaders often develop their patriotic sense in dedication to their nation. Hell, even Adolf served as a courier in the first world war. Few libshit chickenhawk leaders will go down in the annals of history as good leaders.
Have Space Suit—Will Travel, is a also a great read.
funny how 'american democracy' has brought us
and next up Hillary or Jeb
the idea of 'earning' the right to vote is based on the false assumption that the media doesn't decide the election.
Most voters know almost nothing, having them spend their time in the military would probably make them even less aware
I see nothing wrong with a society that expects you to defend it and fight for it in order to potentially change who is in charge and what goes on.
It's better than letting stupid border-hopping spics and retarded niggers vote for whoever is going to hand them the most aid.
Out of curiosity OP: Have you served in the military?
Not OP, but I signed up for the Air Force. Once you realized it was a little game and not even your Team Chief wanted to be a part of BMT, the whole thing became a major farce.
FUCK BEAST Week, though.
>but it's not in the spirit of the constitution to condition basic rights. The U.S. Constitution doesn't "give" you rights, it defends rights you have from birth
Voting isn't a right. It wasn't a right when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. It was a privilege that was reserved only for landowners. Because they were the ones that paid taxes.
Voting is a privilege that should be earned. Using violence to force people to your will should never be considered a "right". And it should never be given away for free to people that haven't earned it. America forgot that and is now suffering because of it.
Because that would entail forming opinions of their own. Which something most people don't like doing because it involves critical thinking. It's much easier to say, "Heinlein was a fascist!" than it is to read and re-read the text and from there evaluate the merits of Heinlein's proposed society. This isn't something exclusive to the Left, as I've met plenty of conservatives who operate on similar levels. We live in a low information age where people would rather have an intelligent sounding demagogue tell them what to think and what to do rather than go out and discover on their own what course of action should be taken.
American democracy was established because people were being taxed without being given representation in the government the taxes went towards.
Why not just cut off everyone who doesn't make a net contribution?