In his book "Starship Troopers," Robert Heinlein paints an interesting picture of a society. One that requires Federal Service in order to become a full fledged citizen. However, Federal Service does not necessarily mean military service. Do you peoples think this is a good idea? And how would it affect a nation to require service as such?
Federal Service required to vote
- Thread starter Fallen Angel
- Start date
In the same book Heinlein also describes an inhabited planet that the main character feels sorry for because its star puts out a below average level of radiation and hence, according to him, they will mutate and evolve more slowly. He notes that this could be fixed with a sufficient amount of nuclear explosions, but they probably wouldn't do that because people just don't think this way. This was included in the book because Heinlein was a strong supporter of hydrogen bomb tests on American soil, because he believed our existing nuclear arsenal (already sufficient to destroy the world several times over) were not sufficient to deter the Russians (who we inspired to develop nukes in the first place by threatening them with their use...)
Anyway, my opinion of Heinlein is that he was an arch-conservative libertarian who demanded to be taken as an authority on every issue he spoke about, but wasn't really worth listening to on half the issues he did bring up.
As for the specific issue of having to serve to get your right to vote, I do think that that is counter to the principals of American democracy, and it is a rather insane stance for a professed libertarian to take being that this is the most authoritarian stance one could hope for. The government is a service of the people for the people by the people, not a playground for a self professed elite. Such a policy of mandatory service makes the people a tool of the government.
Anyway, my opinion of Heinlein is that he was an arch-conservative libertarian who demanded to be taken as an authority on every issue he spoke about, but wasn't really worth listening to on half the issues he did bring up.
As for the specific issue of having to serve to get your right to vote, I do think that that is counter to the principals of American democracy, and it is a rather insane stance for a professed libertarian to take being that this is the most authoritarian stance one could hope for. The government is a service of the people for the people by the people, not a playground for a self professed elite. Such a policy of mandatory service makes the people a tool of the government.
Last edited:
Pangloss said:
That is the problem with some libertarians. They are so conservative they are liberal. Or is that the other way around? I’m not so confused by what seem like the two very different ideologies professed in Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land. They both seem to fit well into the working model I have of Heinlein.
I'd have to agree with Spymoose, both that Heinlein was a dick, and that the idea that some sort of federal service should be required to earn a franchise (IE the right to vote) is simply incompadable with America.
The idea behind our democracy is that the people who end up being governed by the rules aught to be the ones making them in the first place (ok it doesn't always work out that way, and with the whole representation thing it gets rather diluted, but the idea is still there!).
Creating a society where one has to win their franchise has to work on the precept that people haven't got any rights except the ones that the government grants them. Though the Declaration of Independence never had any sort of legal significance, I think that it's message still carries a lot of weight in America, we do have certain inalienable rights; a man is still entitled to certain things with or without his government.
On a side note, I laughed my ass off when Joseph Heller joked, in Catch-22 about American conservatives who believe that "Decent people"s votes aught to count more, but I laughed even harder when Heinlein proposed essentially the same idea with a straight face.
The idea behind our democracy is that the people who end up being governed by the rules aught to be the ones making them in the first place (ok it doesn't always work out that way, and with the whole representation thing it gets rather diluted, but the idea is still there!).
Creating a society where one has to win their franchise has to work on the precept that people haven't got any rights except the ones that the government grants them. Though the Declaration of Independence never had any sort of legal significance, I think that it's message still carries a lot of weight in America, we do have certain inalienable rights; a man is still entitled to certain things with or without his government.
On a side note, I laughed my ass off when Joseph Heller joked, in Catch-22 about American conservatives who believe that "Decent people"s votes aught to count more, but I laughed even harder when Heinlein proposed essentially the same idea with a straight face.
Last edited:
Asguard said:
I suppose the idea is that he'd be more qualified to vote because he had the guts to stand up and be the unquestioning pawn of the government in whatever they ordered him to do; an action which we all too often attribute to courage bravery and heroism rather than feeble submission and dependence.
I would have to know the specifics of what "federal service" would be defined as. Personally, i am sad to say that there are just somethings that i wouldnt want to do for my country, hence why im not in the military. Although, I know there used to be (and maybe still are? someone correct me....) some countries out there that made it mandatory for males to serve a standard one year in the military before being released into the work force. But usually thats because if no one made people in those countries, no one would join the military. 
Although i DO think that everyone should be made to take some type of preparitory class about voting before registering, because so many people dont know how much one vote can make or how to even research candidates before voting instead of just picking a name. I have always said that an educated vote is 10 times better than a blind one. :bugeye:
Although i DO think that everyone should be made to take some type of preparitory class about voting before registering, because so many people dont know how much one vote can make or how to even research candidates before voting instead of just picking a name. I have always said that an educated vote is 10 times better than a blind one. :bugeye:
c_david_neely
Registered Member
Greetings and Felicitations,
First. lets understand that Heinlein was a writer. He wrote stories for a living. Robert Heinlein wrote first to make money (in Expanded Universe he wrote about writing novels until he had paid off his mortgage) second to entertain. You can't judge someone's philosophy based on the fiction they write.
The society in Starship Trooper's wasn't America. He plainly states that there was failing of social engineering that led to the fall of democracy. What Starship Troopers outlined was a militocracy where only military service was valid. How do we know this? Because he plainly states in the novel that democracies failed and were changed when the Veterans took over. This fact delineates why the society works the way it does.
Other people contribute to the development in Starship Troopers. The only thing a non-citizen can't do is vote and hold high offices.
Another important point is to make sure that you are using the book and not the stupid movie. The movie, other than name, had pretty much nothing to do with the book.
Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely
First. lets understand that Heinlein was a writer. He wrote stories for a living. Robert Heinlein wrote first to make money (in Expanded Universe he wrote about writing novels until he had paid off his mortgage) second to entertain. You can't judge someone's philosophy based on the fiction they write.
The society in Starship Trooper's wasn't America. He plainly states that there was failing of social engineering that led to the fall of democracy. What Starship Troopers outlined was a militocracy where only military service was valid. How do we know this? Because he plainly states in the novel that democracies failed and were changed when the Veterans took over. This fact delineates why the society works the way it does.
Other people contribute to the development in Starship Troopers. The only thing a non-citizen can't do is vote and hold high offices.
Another important point is to make sure that you are using the book and not the stupid movie. The movie, other than name, had pretty much nothing to do with the book.
Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely
Hmm... I read this the wrong way at first, i thought you were implying that you had to vote to be a full fledged citizen. This wouldn't be such a bad idea, seeing as voter turnout sucks ass. And i bet a minority president would rise very quickly, seeing as minoritys outnumber the majority.
Citizens of a country use part of their tax money to hire federal employees to serve. How can these employees be the only the people who can be given citizenship, therefore given the voting right and determine how tax money is supposed to be spent? Is this supposed to be a joke?
ahhh.. that's a good point GuessWho. However, my understaning is that only once an individual completes his term of Federal Service, is he allowed to vote. Let's say that's how the thing would be set up. Tho I still think that you got a valid point there, that would be a possible corruption method right there.
A couple of points here. First of all, in Starship Troopers going into 'federal service' didn't necessarily mean that you went into the military. The book makes it clear that there were other forms of federal service, although they weren't ever really explored in the story. I seem to recall that early in the book Rico (the hero) has an encounter with a medical doctor who's doing federal service and when Rico asks him if he's in the military, the doctor says something like “Heavens no, I'd never go into the military. You'd have to be crazy to want to do that.” Basically when you go to apply to do federal service, they offer you a job (or choice of several jobs) based on what you were qualified to do. If you couldn't stand the thought of doing any of them, you could simply chose to not do your federal service. The main character, Rico, was a recent high school graduate who had gotten terrible grades, so the military was basically the only option open to him.
That being said, the society in Starship Troopers wasn't supposed to be some sort of perfect liberal democracy that respected people's rights. According to the story there had been some sort of near-total societal collapse some time in the past, and the new order was only really concerned with ensuring order and stability.
The idea was that people who had performed federal service had demonstrated that they really cared about society functioning properly, so they were more likely to carefully examine issues and make thoughtful decisions when voting, unlike the majority of people who didn't really care about political issues and were likely to make poorly-informed or frivolous choices. It's also suggested that people will take their right to vote more seriously if they have to earn it rather than simply having it handed to them. I have to admit that both points seem to make sense.
That being said, the society in Starship Troopers wasn't supposed to be some sort of perfect liberal democracy that respected people's rights. According to the story there had been some sort of near-total societal collapse some time in the past, and the new order was only really concerned with ensuring order and stability.
The idea was that people who had performed federal service had demonstrated that they really cared about society functioning properly, so they were more likely to carefully examine issues and make thoughtful decisions when voting, unlike the majority of people who didn't really care about political issues and were likely to make poorly-informed or frivolous choices. It's also suggested that people will take their right to vote more seriously if they have to earn it rather than simply having it handed to them. I have to admit that both points seem to make sense.
c_david_neely, I know that was Heinlein’s position, that you can't judge him by the fiction that he writes, but it always has and still does just sound like a device to not have to try to justify his ideology to others. Read his work, he claims great authority in every matter on which he speaks, mocks opposing views, and his books, Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land are chock full of preachy moralistic garbage. For instance, why in Stranger, would he have his self insertion character Jubal Harshaw, assert that 90% of the time a rape is the girls fault. Did he just think that would be the sort of cute thing SF fans like to read? Or was he preaching part of his fucked up ideology in a tone that defied you to disagree?
Nasor said:
I remember it a little differently than that. I seem to recall it being explained that the militant gets first pick of everyone who takes federal service aptitude tests, and they take the best of the best because the military isn't just for dumb goons. After this explanation, there was some snide comment about people who don't test high enough for military service are sent to off world colonies for busy work. It was clear that military service was the point. Hold on a tick, was his name Rico in the book? I don’t think it was. I think his name was Juan… and his mom called him her little Juanito…
nasor hits the nail on the head right there and puts it more better than i did. anyone see how this is happening with voting in america? do what the tv tells you, don't research, yell, mob rule, don't consider issues. my point exactly, federal service would perhaps help to avoid that?
the biggest problem, as i see it, with Heinlein's service concept is that if you were fundementally opposed to your government's current policies when you came of age to enter federal service, then you'd be out of luck. It would be a system that disenfranchised all principled people who opposed the status quo.
one point
Doesnt the millatry teach people to NOT question authority?
Isnt that exactly the OPOSITE position that anyone (right, left, commi or fundi in there opionions) should have?
I mean people of ALL political perswasions have to QUESTION there goverment before they can CHOSE whats best
Maybe it should be that you are EXSCLUDED from voting if you serve as you are being trained to do exactly the oposite to what you need to do to be a responable citizen <- (please forgive how clumsy that sentance is, i cant think of how to refraze it)
Doesnt the millatry teach people to NOT question authority?
Isnt that exactly the OPOSITE position that anyone (right, left, commi or fundi in there opionions) should have?
I mean people of ALL political perswasions have to QUESTION there goverment before they can CHOSE whats best
Maybe it should be that you are EXSCLUDED from voting if you serve as you are being trained to do exactly the oposite to what you need to do to be a responable citizen <- (please forgive how clumsy that sentance is, i cant think of how to refraze it)