Philosophy/Sociology in Robert Heinlein books

[hamishspence]

Forked from the Atlas Shrugged thread.

What do you think of the main philosophical and sociological themes in, for example, Starship Troopers?

[Ozymandias]

Personally, I find the idea of mandatory service being required for holding office or voting to be fundamentally repulsive. Firstly, it's inherently and virulantly anti-democratic.

Secondly, I don't agree with the basic premise. How many US presidents have seen active combat? Eisenhower was a general but did he ever risk his life? (I don't think so though I could be wrong.) There is already a significant cachet attached to having served anyway (take JFK, McCain, or Kerry, who all pushed it).

And also, having the electorate represented by a demographic that's much more likely to be fundamentally conservative (i.e. resistant to change) is pretty dodgy. "Want to change the system? Sure, we're enlightened! Just spend the next five years on a tour with a 95% mortality rate, then get the people who survive to vote you in!"

And then the thing about corporal punishment, which is just a huge straw-man argument. I also remember one of the ways it was presented being, "Well, you beat your dog, don't you? How is this any different?" Which is just, well...

[hamishspence]

"Want to change the system? Sure, we're enlightened! Just spend the next five years on a tour with a 95% mortality rate, then get the people who survive to vote you in!"

I don't think the 95% mortality rate was mentioned.

[Gaius Marius]

Well, e.g. only allowing soldiers to vote or hold office, making civics teachers by law veterans, lashing soldiers soldiers/hanging them for insubordination. There's also the weird "no corporal punishment causes the fall of western civilization" but honestly that's just confusing more than it is offensive.

1) Allowing only soldiers to vote:

Nop. Allowing people who have done their federal service, which more often than not, is a non-combat job (since the actual combat jobs are SO hard to get). And again, it's not the people IN the service who are allowed to vote, it's those who have stopped it.

As long as you are in the service, you aren't allowed a vote.

2) Making civics teacher by law veterans

That only occurs in a minority of countries members of the Federation, as stated near the beginning of the OSC section of the book.

And again, is it that bad of an idea? Say what you want about pro- or anti-militarism, the idea of recruiting youth, etc... Having an actual veteran rather than the equivalent of a car salesman ('cause that's how I see some recruiting officers) talking about civil duties to young people is much more ethic than what I see in the U.S. at the moment.

3) lashing soldiers soldiers/hanging them for insubordination

You completely misread that part, have you?

The only hanged person we've seen in this book was a child murderer. I am not 100% sure with the author's reasoning in that part, however, with the exception that: "What if we cure him, but he does it again? Can we risk being responsible?"

Society sometimes should definetly be a little more.. err... careful about who she lets loose, and should face up when she screws up about recidivists.

Nothing I hate more than hearing a recidivist drunk driver killer people. It was his 8th offense. DAMN IT LEGAL SYSTEM

And regarding lashing: I have yet to understand why corporal punishment such as lashing are any worse than, let's say, confining someone in a small room for 2 years of his life.

If you make sure a doctor is standing by to assure that no permanent damage is done to the body, obviously.

You don't put the man's job into jeopardy. You don't deprive him of his family, nor do you deprive his family of him.

Oh, and it wasn't lashing for "insubordination", re-read the book carefully.

3) There's also the weird "no corporal punishment causes the fall of western civilization" but honestly that's just confusing more than it is offensive.


Since the book was written in the 50s, this is more a sign of the time than anything else. Doctor Spock's theory were starting be popular within the parents of the baby boomers, and I guess Heinlein was afraid of the long-term consequences of lack of stern education.

Seeing as it led to the 60s and the hippy era, I am fuzzy on the topic :smallbiggrin: Although I am wondering if the rising gang warfare problem we see here in Montreal is symptomatic through the whole of North America and/or Europe, and if it's linked to the "weak" behavior that is denounced in Heinlein book.

It's something worth discussing, at the very least, isn't not?

[Gaius Marius]

Personally, I find the idea of mandatory service being required for holding office or voting to be fundamentally repulsive. Firstly, it's inherently and virulantly anti-democratic.

Depend on what you define as "democratic". When you see how little value some people give to their voting right, you have to wonder if they would value it more when you try to take it away.

The argument was, you won't value something you always had for granted, and I strongly agree with Heinlein on the topic. Just look at Middle-Eastern countries who go voting with 90- high % turnout rate, despite bombing threats and violence possibilities.

While we struggle to have it at 60%, and even 30% in some elections here in Quebec.

Says something about how important this "universal" voting right is, don't you think? If you had people having to actually struggle to get it, like passing a test or something like that, I am sure they would show up more to the polls.

[TheArsenal]

Well my philosophy is " sometimes stuff works, and sometimes it doesn't". Works pretty well I think

[Ozymandias]

I don't think the 95% mortality rate was mentioned.

Yeah, that was just poetic license. My point is that the government oversees who can participate in the maintenance of the government, which is a dangerous principle.


1) Allowing only soldiers to vote:

Nop. Allowing people who have done their federal service, which more often than not, is a non-combat job (since the actual combat jobs are SO hard to get). And again, it's not the people IN the service who are allowed to vote, it's those who have stopped it.

As long as you are in the service, you aren't allowed a vote.


Ok, but you can still apply to other things and get shunted into general infantry (which is what happened to Rico). And the point is the same anyway - so long as there's a risk to one's life, it's more or less the same.



2) Making civics teacher by law veterans
That only occurs in a minority of countries members of the Federation, as stated near the beginning of the OSC section of the book.

And again, is it that bad of an idea? Say what you want about pro- or anti-militarism, the idea of recruiting youth, etc... Having an actual veteran rather than the equivalent of a car salesman ('cause that's how I see some recruiting officers) talking about civil duties to young people is much more ethic than what I see in the U.S. at the moment.

There's nothing wrong with veterans teaching civics; there is with mandating that only they do. Especially given how fundamentally rhetorical the teaching seems to be (from what we see of it). So yes, when I "say what I want about pro-militarism" I really think it doesn't have a place in what should be an unbiased learning environment.


3) lashing soldiers soldiers/hanging them for insubordination

You completely misread that part, have you?

The only hanged person we've seen in this book was a child murderer. I am not 100% sure with the author's reasoning in that part, however, with the exception that: "What if we cure him, but he does it again? Can we risk being responsible?"

Society sometimes should definetly be a little more.. err... careful about who she lets loose, and should face up when she screws up about recidivists.

Nothing I hate more than hearing a recidivist drunk driver killer people. It was his 8th offense. DAMN IT LEGAL SYSTEM

I was referring to the guy who was discharged for whacking the sarge. They could have and almost did hang him, and it was, explicitly, a hanging offense. So it's the exception that proves the rule.


And regarding lashing: I have yet to understand why corporal punishment such as lashing are any worse than, let's say, confining someone in a small room for 2 years of his life.

If you make sure a doctor is standing by to assure that no permanent damage is done to the body, obviously.

You don't put the man's job into jeopardy. You don't deprive him of his family, nor do you deprive his family of him.

Oh, and it wasn't lashing for "insubordination", re-read the book carefully.

The near-hanging was for insubordination; the lashing was just for incompetence, I thought.

In any case in current society we tend to find flogging cruel and unusual, as well as sort of retro, although I guess you don't have to think that way.


Since the book was written in the 50s, this is more a sign of the time than anything else. Doctor Spock's theory were starting be popular within the parents of the baby boomers, and I guess Heinlein was afraid of the long-term consequences of lack of stern education.

Seeing as it led to the 60s and the hippy era, I am fuzzy on the topic :smallbiggrin: Although I am wondering if the rising gang warfare problem we see here in Montreal is symptomatic through the whole of North America and/or Europe, and if it's linked to the "weak" behavior that is denounced in Heinlein book.

It's something worth discussing, at the very least, isn't not?

Gang violence is mostly linked to poverty; drug use, inconsistent family structure, and unstructured learning environments are also linked more-or-less directly to poverty. I can't speak to Montreal, but in the US that's how it is.

Depend on what you define as "democratic". When you see how little value some people give to their voting right, you have to wonder if they would value it more when you try to take it away.

It really doesn't. Anything that reduces the ability of the populace to participate in elections is anti-democratic. Such as, for example, voting ages. So there has to be a balance.


The argument was, you won't value something you always had for granted, and I strongly agree with Heinlein on the topic. Just look at Middle-Eastern countries who go voting with 90- high % turnout rate, despite bombing threats and violence possibilities.

While we struggle to have it at 60%, and even 30% in some elections here in Quebec.

Says something about how important this "universal" voting right is, don't you think? If you had people having to actually struggle to get it, like passing a test or something like that, I am sure they would show up more to the polls.

People who wouldn't vote anyway certainly aren't going to join the army just so they can. There is no way that Heinlein's system increases voter turnout - I think it's made explicit in the book that it's very low.

[hamishspence]

Ok, but you can still apply to other things and get shunted into general infantry (which is what happened to Rico). And the point is the same anyway - so long as there's a risk to one's life, it's more or less the same.

Rico specifically didn't put down any of the noncombatant services on his application, since he figured if he flunked all the combatant ones, it didn't matter to him which noncombatant one he got.

So- Mobile Infantry, for him, ranked above all the noncombatant services.

[Gaius Marius]

I was referring to the guy who was discharged for whacking the sarge. They could have and almost did hang him, and it was, explicitly, a hanging offense. So it's the exception that proves the rule.

I don't know what kind of army you've been in, but striking a superior officer doesn't just rates as "insubordination". Insurbodination is talking back to him.

Hitting? That's a major offense in any army.

[Ozymandias]

I don't know what kind of army you've been in, but striking a superior officer doesn't just rates as "insubordination". Insurbodination is talking back to him.

Hitting? That's a major offense in any army.

Okay, but in any case it's not a hanging offense.

[hamishspence]

Wasn't it considered so in the 50s, or in time of war?

[pendell]

The near-hanging was for insubordination; the lashing was just for incompetence, I thought.


it's best to look at Heinlein's ST military organization more from the standpoint of Ancient Rome than from that of a modern military.

In a military, there are mortal sins and venal sins.

In such an ancient military, striking a superior officer or insubordination is among the worst crimes a soldier could commit. Everything depends on soldiers doing what they're told and not deciding in the middle of a battle that they know more than the people who actually have that rank. This is why Article 9 (http://www.suvcw.org/education/documents/articles.htm) of the old-time regulations states



Art. 9. Any officer or soldier who shall strike his superior officer, or draw or lift up any weapon, or offer any violence against him, being in the execution of his office, on any pretense whatsoever, or shall disobey any lawful command of his superior officer, shall suffer death, or such other punishment as shall, according to the nature of his offense, be inflicted upon him by the sentence of a court-martial.


The private in question condemned himself out of his own mouth when he told the Captain officially that he had not only disobeyed a superior officer but had struck him as well. It was precisely for that sort of situation that the above regulation was written. The maximum penalty is death. The "such other punishment" escape clause is what allowed the Captain to simply throw the private out of the service rather than string him up.

As toward's Rico's flogging ... Look more closely at what he did.

He deliberately fired a nuclear weapon at men under his command .

THAT is what he was flogged for. He was in a hurry. He didn't check to see that the soldiers under his authority were well clear of the blast zone. He fired anyway.

And people are complaining that he was *flogged* for that? If he'd actually done that in the field and his fellow soldiers had died because of it, the survivors would have torn him limb from limb!

Trust in the military is a two-way street. If enlisted are compelled to obey their officers, there is an obligation to see to it that the officers use the enlisted men properly and not use them as pawns or toys to be disposed of as they please. Rico was under special observation because Zim saw him capable of greater things than being a mere private. And if he's ever going to be a sergeant or an officer, then concern for the welfare of his men is something that is going to be beaten into him at all costs. Literally.

What separates an army from a mob -- the reason for the uniforms, the flags -- is trust. The willingness to stay in battle to bail out your brothers, knowing they'll do the same for you. Deliberately betraying that trust , betraying your fellow soldiers, strikes at the very core of the entire military, making it less likely to hang tough in adversity and more likely to turn into a panic-stricken every-man-for-himself mob.

Because of forgetting this, John Rico was rightly flogged. And as he said,that was a sort of complement, because they thought he could improve and get better. If they hadn't thought that, they wouldn't have touched him -- simply given him his walking papers and thrown him out.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

i He was in a hurry. He didn't check to see that the soldiers under his authority were well clear of the blast zone. He fired anyway.

Yup- he checked by eye rather than by sensor- which is not enough.

[Ozymandias]

it's best to look at Heinlein's ST military organization more from the standpoint of Ancient Rome than from that of a modern military.

I didn't realize this was a controversial position, but I don't think that the Roman Legions are where we should be getting our views on crime and punishment.


As toward's Rico's flogging ... Look more closely at what he did.

He deliberately fired a nuclear weapon at men under his command .

THAT is what he was flogged for. He was in a hurry. He didn't check to see that the soldiers under his authority were well clear of the blast zone. He fired anyway.

And people are complaining that he was *flogged* for that? If he'd actually done that in the field and his fellow soldiers had died because of it, the survivors would have torn him limb from limb!
I'm kind of out of my depth here, but I think that he would actually be court-martialed, discharged, and possibly worse, but certainly not killed. If the other soldiers had torn him limb from limb, then they would be court-martialled.


Trust in the military is a two-way street. If enlisted are compelled to obey their officers, there is an obligation to see to it that the officers use the enlisted men properly and not use them as pawns or toys to be disposed of as they please. Rico was under special observation because Zim saw him capable of greater things than being a mere private. And if he's ever going to be a sergeant or an officer, then concern for the welfare of his men is something that is going to be beaten into him at all costs. Literally.

What separates an army from a mob -- the reason for the uniforms, the flags -- is trust. The willingness to stay in battle to bail out your brothers, knowing they'll do the same for you. Deliberately betraying that trust , betraying your fellow soldiers, strikes at the very core of the entire military, making it less likely to hang tough in adversity and more likely to turn into a panic-stricken every-man-for-himself mob.

Because of forgetting this, John Rico was rightly flogged. And as he said,that was a sort of complement, because they thought he could improve and get better. If they hadn't thought that, they wouldn't have touched him -- simply given him his walking papers and thrown him out.

I don't think flogging follows. There are reasons that physical harm isn't used as punishment in most modern militaries.

[Gaius Marius]

I don't think flogging follows. There are reasons that physical harm isn't used as punishment in most modern militaries.

Actually, there is only one: PR


It looks bad to the civilians. Nothing else.

[Ozymandias]

Actually, there is only one: PR


It looks bad to the civilians. Nothing else.

Well, as a civilian, you can understand my reservations, then.

[hamishspence]

In the older Heinlein book- For Us, the Living, some of the military themes are similar- specifically, the idea that some things, people need to be willing to risk themselves over.

Specifically, the decision to go to war. Only people eligible to serve in the military are allowed to vote on this particular issue- and by voting in favour, they automatically are required to enlist.

That said, it does take a general view that "inappropriate behaviour" such as some crime, warrants psychiatric counselling rather than punishment.

[pendell]

I don't think flogging follows. There are reasons that physical harm isn't used as punishment in most modern militaries.

The army of starship troopers is not a modern military. It is squarely in line with the military forces of the entire world from the day Thutmose III broke the Canaanites at Megiddo to the surrender on the deck of the Missouri. From the viewpoint of Starship Troopers, the modern world is the Crazy Years, where up and down and black is white. So from the perspective of Starship Troopers the modern world is an aberration due to receive a harsh corrective from reality. Nor is that viewpoint isolated to Starship Troopers. The WH40K Imperium is even tougher on its own.

I am not going to defend corporal punishment, but Heinlein was a big believer in it , both here and in Podkayne of Mars. If you read ST, you can see his argument for it when he discussed disciplining a dog.

The way he saw it, the traditional way to punish a dog for wetting inside was to rub his nose in it so he knew what he did wrong, smack him with a newspaper to send the signal on a gut level that he couldn't misunderstand that you thought it was wrong. And then watch and catch him again and again until he got the message.

By contrast, his view of the 'modern' approach in his day was to talk to the dog and reason with him, ignore his bad behavior up until the moment he suddenly stopped being a puppy and became a fully adult dog, at which point you whip out a gun and shoot him dead. Or lock in prison without possibility of parole, as the case may be.

Back in the 1950s, he'd seen the results of traditional upbringing and he'd seen the results of modern upbringing, and it's not surprising which one he decided was more effective.

Of course, I have a copy of 'dogs for dummies' at home and we find that it is no longer necessary either to rub a dog's nose in wet or swat him with a newspaper to get him to behave. What you do need to do though, is catch him at it and discipline him SOMEHOW ( a firm 'NO!' can work, and there are other ways). And keep at it consistently until he gives up. It turns out the important thing is not HOW you discipline, it's the fact of discipline itself.

We know that now in 2011. Possibly if Heinlein had lived long enough to see it, he'd have agreed. But from his perspective in the 1950s he'd seen nothing to indicate that modern methods worked at all compared to the traditional ones which had turned out citizens for hundreds of years.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Gaius Marius]

Well, as a civilian, you can understand my reservations, then.

Thing is, do you know what is the optimal way to have an efficient fighting force available to fight your wars?

Why are civilians allowed to be picky regarding how the military rule themselves, especially when said military are the ones risking their lives for the safety of these civilians?

What if the discipline instaured by harsh disciplinary measure gives you a more efficient military, one that has less casualties? You are asking the military to be less efficient, to risk their lives more, just so you can assuage your ignorant* conscience.

* Ignorant in the sense that you don't have the expertise to know what's best for a military, and you are making ethical jugements on something you don't know, over the jugement of people who do know.

[averagejoe]

The main thing I have to say on the issue: there was an uncomfortable amount of incest in his books, sometimes popping up in the oddest situations.

(Also be wary of real world politics. Some posts have come pretty close already. Remember, it's still against the forum rules if the politics are old/obsolete.)

[Axolotl]

Why are civilians allowed to be picky regarding how the military rule themselves, especially when said military are the ones risking their lives for the safety of these civilians?Not to get too political but because they fund the whole thing.

[Gaius Marius]

Not to get too political but because they fund the whole thing.

One give the money
The other give their lives


So the 1st gets precedence?

[Axolotl]

One give the money
The other give their lives


So the 1st gets precedence?Yes.

I've never liked Heinlein, I jus find the whole "only certain people are allowed to vote" idea far too offensive to sympathise with any character who's in support of it

[Gaius Marius]

Yes.

I've never liked Heinlein, I jus find the whole "only certain people are allowed to vote" idea far too offensive to sympathise with any character who's in support of it

May I point out that this is a very, very close-minded point of view?

I mean, I understand if you claim that "only certain people will ever be allowed to vote", which means you are restraining the voting capability into the hands of a few Chosen Few.

But in that case, anyone, regardless of physical capability, political view, mental potential (except for the most mentally deficient) are allowed to try to sweat out these 2 years. Everybody is given the same chance.

It's not the eventual outcome that is fair, it's the system that is. Which I believe is extremely just. I'd rather have everybody having the same chance in life rather than everybody ending up equal.

(by the way, yes, this is an analysis on social/economical justice)

[Weezer]

The main thing I have to say on the issue: there was an uncomfortable amount of incest in his books, sometimes popping up in the oddest situations.

What's so wrong with incest, assuming no children result or that there is some way to determine that bad genes aren't being reinforced to an unconscionable extent? It, like most of our sexual taboos, is merely a remnant of tribal morality.

[Axolotl]

May I point out that this is a very, very close-minded point of view?Yeah I'm not open minded about dictatorships, that isn't something I feel bad about.


I mean, I understand if you claim that "only certain people will ever be allowed to vote", which means you are restraining the voting capability into the hands of a few Chosen Few.

But in that case, anyone, regardless of physical capability, political view, mental potential (except for the most mentally deficient) are allowed to try to sweat out these 2 years. Everybody is given the same chance.

It's not the eventual outcome that is fair, it's the system that is. Which I believe is extremely just. I'd rather have everybody having the same chance in life rather than everybody ending up equal.

(by the way, yes, this is an analysis on social/economical justice)I'm not really sure what you're saying here.

[Gaius Marius]

Yeah I'm not open minded about dictatorships, that isn't something I feel bad about.

And where the hell did you came at the conclusion that it was a dictatorship?

Don't you seem there might be a middle ground between the so-called "universal" democracy that we live in and an absolute dictatorship?


I'm not really sure what you're saying here.

'cause you don't even want to listen.

[hamishspence]

It's not one-person rule though- everyone who has done their service, is a potential voter or officeholder.

The idea is that anyone who "has civic virtue" can contribute- but, having civic virtue is something a character needs to prove.

on the soldiering- it's surprising just how easy it is to get out of the service once you're in:

"He can quit thirty seconds before a drop, lose his nerve and not get into his capsule, and all that happens is that he is paid off and can never vote"

[Jan Mattys]

One give the money
The other give their lives


So the 1st gets precedence?

Totally.
No seriously... totally.

I'm with Axolotl on this one. Reducing people's access to a right will never be a good thing, despite the fact that they do not seem to use that right.

[comicshorse]

Nop. Allowing people who have done their federal service, which more often than not, is a non-combat job (since the actual combat jobs are SO hard to get). And again, it's not the people IN the service who are allowed to vote, it's those who have stopped it.



Okay ages since I read the book. What is defined as Federal service ? Does a police officer not get to vote ? or a paramedic or a doctor ? Or does those count

[bibliophile]

Yes.

I've never liked Heinlein, I jus find the whole "only certain people are allowed to vote" idea far too offensive to sympathise with any character who's in support of it


The whole point of restricting the vote to those voluntarly joined the service is based on his idea of what makes a good voter.

The army is purposely made very unpleasant and dangerous, and very easy to drop out. The only way to way to get in is to value the group above your personal well being. He argues that is the essential element of a volunteer soldier.

It is also what he thought made the best voter, namely, being willing to put the group ahead of yourself.

Not intelligence, for there is no garentee that an intelligent voter will look out for society as opposed to himself (he mentions briefly a failed government of scientists).

[hamishspence]

The argument seems to be that voting (and citizenship for that matter) are a privilege that must be earned, not a right.

Something like "When you vote- you hold other people's lives in your hands- so how do they know, that you can be trusted with that responsibility"?

With "because I've proven a willingness to put my own life on the line" being the answer.



The army is purposely made very unpleasant and dangerous, and very easy to drop out. The only way to way to get in is to value the group above your personal well being. He argues that is the essential element of a volunteer soldier.

It is also what he thought made the best voter, namely, being willing to put the group ahead of yourself.

The army- and the various noncombatant auxiliary services as well- who aren't given the same military discipline.

[comicshorse]

The whole point of restricting the vote to those voluntarly joined the service is based on his idea of what makes a good voter.

The army is purposely made very unpleasant and dangerous, and very easy to drop out. The only way to way to get in is to value the group above your personal well being. He argues that is the essential element of a volunteer soldier.

It is also what he thought made the best voter, namely, being willing to put the group ahead of yourself.

Not intelligence, for there is no garentee that an intelligent voter will look out for society as opposed to himself (he mentions briefly a failed government of scientists).

But the reasons people have for joining the army are many and some of them have nothing to do with valuing society ahead of yourself

[Gaius Marius]

Okay ages since I read the book. What is defined as Federal service ? Does a police officer not get to vote ? or a paramedic or a doctor ? Or does those count

Nop, those are civilian jobs. Although I think there are some posts a veteran can have priority when applying to. Which ain't a bad idea.

At the beginning of the book, they are pretty clear that the main problem the Federal Service has is they don't have much available jobs for the people who want to enlist. They certainly don't want to send to the front people who aren't qualified for the MI. I remember the graduation rate being about 15% of the people who started training... maybe?

The rest become cooks, technicians, janitors, etc... everything that you need a pair of arms to have it done. Not the most glorious of duty, obviously... but then again, it's not supposed to be.


I'm with Axolotl on this one. Reducing people's access to a right will never be a good thing, despite the fact that they do not seem to use that right.

But we do it on an everyday basis, dude.

[Axolotl]

And where the hell did you came at the conclusion that it was a dictatorship?Because it denies the fundemental human right for a nation to be able to choose it's government..


Don't you seem there might be a middle ground between the so-called "universal" democracy that we live in and an absolute dictatorship?No, a government is either Tyranous or it isn't, there is no middle ground.


'cause you don't even want to listen.No I literally don't understand what you were trying to say in that part of your post.

[Gaius Marius]

But the reasons people have for joining the army are many and some of them have nothing to do with valuing society ahead of yourself

Even if you are joining the Federal Service for selfish reason (like having your franchise), you are going to sacrifice part of yourself in that Service.

Ergo, the sacrifice has greater value than the intent.

[pendell]

Okay ages since I read the book. What is defined as Federal service ? Does a police officer not get to vote ? or a paramedic or a doctor ? Or does those count

Federal service is anything that you are physically qualified for that somehow puts the server at risk of life or at least inconvenience for the sake of society.

Federal service in ST is a right , not a privilege. I can't join the US Armed Forces because of Asthma. But I could join Federal Service in the ST universe. VOTING in ST is not an unqualified right -- but you do have the unqualified right to EARN your vote.

No one can be turned down for federal service. If you can't serve in the army, you can serve on a deep space mining outpost. If you can't serve on a mining outpost, then presumably you could do something like the real-life Peace Corps, building roads or bridges on some distant planet. If you can't travel, you can be a guinea pig for experiments that require human volunteers.

The government in ST is OBLIGATED to give you some way to serve. And if they don't have one, they are OBLIGATED to make a job for you.

The point is , again, that to have citizenship in the Federation you must demonstrate that you are willing to put society before yourself. That's all. Anyone who wants the vote can have it -- they just have to demonstrate a minimal level of commitment to wanting it.

The military services are a common way for people like John Rico who are physically healthy but not exceptionally smart to serve their hitch. But I suspect that when the Federation is not actually fighting a war the military is not even the largest part of federal service.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Gaius Marius]

{Scrubbed}

[hamishspence]

I remember the graduation rate being about 15% of the people who started training... maybe?


"The regiment had started with 2009 men: we graduated 187- of the others, fourteen were dead (one executed and his name struck) and the rest resigned, dropped, transferred, etc."

So slightly less than 10%.

One of the guys had "refused discharge- you don't have to accept a medical- and wound up as third cook in a troop transport"- so it's possible for those not cut out for the MI to still stay in Federal Service.

[pendell]

No, a government is either Tyranous or it isn't, there is no middle ground.


Tolkien's Aragorn is a king of a monarchy. Is he a tyrant?

And if you've played the Civilization series, you know there's a large continuum between 'Despotism' and 'Democracy'. There is constitutional monarchy, there is limited monarchy, there is aristocracy, there is oligarchy, et cetera. It's not just "tyrant" or "free".

And even when one government is a dictatorship and the other is 'free', that doesn't necessarily mean people are better off under one than under the other. I'm thinking of David Weber's Honor Harrington series, where you have the "People's Republic of Haven" facing off with the "Star Kingdom of Manticore". It's ostensibly a war between free people and a detestable monarchy. But if you read past the title page, you'll see it isn't like that at all.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

But I suspect that when the Federation is not actually fighting a war the military is not even the largest part of federal service.

Yup- in the History & Moral Philosophy classes at Officer Candidate School, Major Reid says (when countering the argument that discipline is what makes good voters":

"In peacetime, most veterans come from non-combatant auxiliary services and have not been subjected to the full rigors of military discipline; they have merely been harried, overworked, and endangered- yet their votes count."

[bibliophile]

But the reasons people have for joining the army are many and some of them have nothing to do with valuing society ahead of yourself


True, but that was the whole point of making passing basic training very difficult and easy to drop out of. To weed out the insincere. The recruiter is a veteran missing several limbs. The government (and Heinlien) goes out of it's way not to portray the army as fun or glamorous. Members of the electorate are not portrayed as respected by the general populace either.

[Gaius Marius]

Tolkien's Aragorn is a king of a monarchy. Is he a tyrant?

And if you've played the Civilization series, you know there's a large continuum between 'Despotism' and 'Democracy'. There is constitutional monarchy, there is limited monarchy, there is aristocracy, there is oligarchy, et cetera. It's not just "tyrant" or "free".

And even when one government is a dictatorship and the other is 'free', that doesn't necessarily mean people are better off under one than under the other. I'm thinking of David Weber's Honor Harrington series, where you have the "People's Republic of Haven" facing off with the "Star Kingdom of Manticore". It's ostensibly a war between free people and a detestable monarchy. But if you read past the title page, you'll see it isn't like that at all.


Hell, even if you go back to what is considered to be the basis of modern democracy: the Roman Republic. The Romans were split between 5 economical classes, + the Capite censi. The votes were worth more the higher your social class, with the 1st Class alone could secure the title of Senior Consulship for a candidate, so much it had weight.

The Capite Censi (Head Counts) were citizens, but they did not had the right to vote.

Was the Roman Republic a tyranny, tell me, Axolotl?

[Axolotl]

Tolkien's Aragorn is a king of a monarchy. Is he a tyrant? Well no but he is a dictator. I'm sure in the appendices Tolkein explains about how he was good, wise king who made Gondor prosper. But that's not why he becomes king. He's made king solely because he is the descendant of other kings and that's a horrible way to pick a ruler.


And if you've played the Civilization series, you know there's a large continuum between 'Despotism' and 'Democracy'. There is constitutional monarchy, there is limited monarchy, there is aristocracy, there is oligarchy, et cetera. It's not just "tyrant" or "free". That's not a middle ground though, they're just different forms of government.


And even when one government is a dictatorship and the other is 'free', that doesn't necessarily mean people are better off under one than under the other. I'm thinking of David Weber's Honor Harrington series, where you have the "People's Republic of Haven" facing off with the "Star Kingdom of Manticore". It's ostensibly a war between free people and a detestable monarchy. But if you read past the title page, you'll see it isn't like that at all. I've never read them so unless you elaborate I can't comment.


"No middle ground", that's hilarious. You might even add "Only Sith deals in Absolute" :smallcool:So please tell me where is the middle ground is between a just government and an unjust one? Where's the middle ground between a criminal and an innocent man?

I'd love to know.

[hamishspence]

I like the phrase "tyranny of the majority"- when a majority is not constrained enough- they may end up oppressing minorities. So tyranny isn't solely a matter of who can vote and who can't- it's a matter of "are people oppressed"?

If they are, than the oppressors are tyrants. Even if both oppressors and oppressed are able to vote.

[Gaius Marius]

{Scrubbed}

[Yora]

The argument seems to be that voting (and citizenship for that matter) are a privilege that must be earned, not a right.

Something like "When you vote- you hold other people's lives in your hands- so how do they know, that you can be trusted with that responsibility"?

With "because I've proven a willingness to put my own life on the line" being the answer.
I have to admit it's an interesting concept. I think it's safe to say that a lot of people who can vote in a democracy, don't have any idea what's actually happening in politics and vote for the candidate or party that seems trustworthy or sympathetic in the media.

So the reasoning that if you want to have a say in how the country is run (electing representatives and officials), you also have to prove you have the good of the people in mind, and don't just vote for the guys who promise you tax cuts is, in theory, really not that bad. And the best prove that you care for society as a whole would be to spend a few years working for the public.
Focusing on military service seems a bad idea in that light though.

In Germany, we only recently suspended conscription for reservists, but until then you could get out of military service by volunteering for an equal length civilian service (or by working in the police, fire departments, and so on).
Conscription was first introduced to raise troops for the expected soviet invasion, but there's a clause in the consitution that forbids compulsory military service. So they had to also introduce an option to get out, for which they created the civilian service, which in the 50s and 60s was very discriminating and humilating. But over time the "civies" became very respected for their virtually unpaid worked in hospitals, nursery homes and so on. And at least since the end of the cold war, public perception shifted so much that the recruits were sometimes considered to "weasel out" of civilian service and spend their time goofing around in field training, while the "brave ones" where the ones who volunteered to work with the old, sick, and disabled.
The main problem was, that only males could be drafted and a huge number was classified as unfit for service, and those few young people of each generation that were considered able, only a fraction was actually drafted, so it was a lottery if you had to do service or left ignored. I got a pretty low, but still fit rating and could have tried to sit it out and hope that I wouldn't get drafted, but applied for civilian service anyway, because it's a damn good experience introducing young people into the world of public service. For one thing, it gets you an idea what work is. It's easy to go through school and university and at the age of 30 you've never seen a person work outside of education. But more importantly, it takes you out of your own social class and takes you into the real world where people from low-income classes and high-education classes mix and work together for the needs of people of all social status. How can you be a responsible corporate leader if the only person from a low-income background you've ever meet is cleaning your apartment?
However, there are some people who would like to see a compulsory 12-month-service for all young adults, regardless of sex or physical fitness (there are enough assignments that don't include physical work). However, that would also be unconstitutional, as forced labor is forbidden. Forcing someone to work for almost no pay with only minimum living expenses covered is clearly a severe interference with peoples most basic rights. But then, our society has done so for 50 years with few people complaining, and that was when a coin flipped decided if you have to serve or go free. And I'm also quite socialist when it comes to these issues. :smallbiggrin:

[pendell]

So please tell me where is the middle ground is between a just government and an unjust one? Where's the middle ground between a criminal and an innocent man?


I cannot discuss real-life politics, so I'll take an example from Terry Pratchett: Sam Vimes "Night Watch".

Lord Winder is considered to be a tyrant because, in the words of vimes mother -- "It's all right if they lock up criminals but not if they lock up ordinary people."

As Sam Vimes sees it, everyone has a guilty secret. That doesn't mean you should sweep up random people in the street and hit them with rulers until they tell you what it is.

A just government then -- according to Terry Pratchett -- is one in which the government is largely invisible. It locks away dangerous thugs and criminals, delivers the mail, and keeps the roads in repair. Other than that it is unobtrusive and invisible. An ordinary person can go through their entire lives and not think about the government. Tolkien's Shire follows the same principle. There is actually a king-like figure in the shire -- the Thain -- but even ordinary hobbits don't think about it. The only ones who remember it are the Tooks, who are the Shire equivalent of the royal family.

An unjust government is one in which ordinary people suffer. Secret police listening at every door. Informers. People being dragged away at night because they said the wrong word to the wrong person. Witch hunts.

An unjust government, in short, is a just government that has had the dial turned to 11 on the law enforcement end.

There is nothing in this criteria that says the government is more just because it was voted in, or less just because it was inherited by birth. I assume you've seen a fictional story of the Salem Witch Trials. Well, that happened in a "Free" country. And if you've seen Dances With Wolves, remember that the white settlers lived under a democracy.

And if you use that word "free" -- by what do you mean? Do you mean that people have a chance, once every few years, to check a box on a form? Or do you mean "live lives without government interference?" On that score, I suspect the people of Pratchett's monarchy of Lancre are more "free" than the people of Lucas' Coruscant. To Lancre, the king is a man who lives in a castle and otherwise leaves them completely alone. They don't have the department of this or the bureaucracy of that or clone troops on every street corner, etc. etc. The standing army of Lancre is one man, Sean Ogg, and that only when he can be spared from his other duties.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Axolotl]

Was the Roman Republic a tyranny, tell me, Axolotl?Was the society that led a campaigns to conquer most of Mediterranean Europe, destroyed entire cultures, paid it's soldiers by stealing land from it's lower classes and whose whole economy was based on slavery? Was that a tyranny? What do you think?

[Gaius Marius]

Was the society that led a campaigns to conquer most of Mediterranean Europe, destroyed entire cultures, paid it's soldiers by stealing land from it's lower classes and whose whole economy was based on slavery? Was that a tyranny? What do you think?

You are talking about the Roman Empire/late stage Republic

I was talking about the Roman Republic, early stages, which still was discriminatory toward it's poorer social class, yet was one of the most just government of the time.. hell, would be one of the top-quartile government of the modern world.

[Yora]

Tyranny is not a structual concpet, but a functional one, at least in the sense we use the term Tyranny today.
It does not matter if the government does this or that, the defining point is if the majority of the population feels oppresed or not.

[Ozymandias]

Thing is, do you know what is the optimal way to have an efficient fighting force available to fight your wars?

Why are civilians allowed to be picky regarding how the military rule themselves, especially when said military are the ones risking their lives for the safety of these civilians?

What if the discipline instaured by harsh disciplinary measure gives you a more efficient military, one that has less casualties? You are asking the military to be less efficient, to risk their lives more, just so you can assuage your ignorant* conscience.

* Ignorant in the sense that you don't have the expertise to know what's best for a military, and you are making ethical jugements on something you don't know, over the jugement of people who do know.

Well, it's incumbent upon the military to demonstrate the utility of such a position. And you haven't shown that the military does know that flogging makes for a more efficient army. There aren't going to be any studies, because it's unethical, which means that we don't have any actual evidence either way. I'm not going to support a position that seems barbaric and unnecessary to me based on the anecdotal evidence of anyone, especially considering that I honestly doubt there is a consensus within the military that corporal punishment ought to take place.


One give the money
The other give their lives


So the 1st gets precedence?

Edit: This is getting too much into real world politics. Let's just agree to disagree.

[hamishspence]

It does not matter if the government does this or that, the defining point is if the majority of the population feels oppresed or not.

Can it be a tyranny if the people don't think they're oppressed? What about sci-fi examples- where the people are mentally modified?

And what if a minority genuinely believe (for good reason) they're oppressed, but the majority don't?

[pendell]

Tyranny is not a structual concpet, but a functional one, at least in the sense we use the term Tyranny today.
It does not matter if the government does this or that, the defining point is if the majority of the population feels oppresed or not.

Terry Pratchett illustrated the flaw in this approach in Guards! Guards! The villain in the story demonstrates that in any society, no matter how fairly run, it is possible to convince the citizenry that they are oppressed because things aren't quite as good as they want them to be.

Let's ask the citizens of Naboo living under a Republic which permits the Trade Federation to conquer the world and herd them into prison camps: Is the Republic a tyranny?

One of the grownup things about Star Wars is to follow Padme's progression from idealistic believer in the Republic to a disillusioned woman who realizes that the "Republic", by the events of Ep. III, is an Empire , a tyranny, in all but name. And it didn't start because Palpatine turned the peaceable country into a dictatorship. No, Palpatine was possible because the Republic was already more than halfway to Empire before he was even born.

The Republic was a democracy. The Republic was also unjust and corrupt. If this were not so, it never would have turned into the Empire. Remember that when Palpatine announced the birth of the Empire, he was not greeted by shrieks of horror, but with thunderous applause.

In Lucas' universe, people really do get just the government they deserve.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Ozymandias]

The Republic was a democracy. The Republic was also unjust and corrupt. If this were not so, it never would have turned into the Empire.

At the same time, though, it was only when the senate relinquished power to Palpatine that it really started getting bad. It's like the end of the Roman Republic, except with Caesar as an evil wizard.

[pendell]

At the same time, though, it was only when the senate relinquished power to Palpatine that it really started getting bad. It's like the end of the Roman Republic, except with Caesar as an evil wizard.

Think so?

Let's ask the slaves on Tatooine -- are things really bad?

Let's ask the clones, sentients mass-produced to serve as cannon-fodder: Are things bad?

Let's ask the denizens of the underlevels of Coruscant, hooked on death sticks -- are things bad?

Let's ask the sentient droids who are memory washed to prevent them developing personalities -- are things bad?

Let's ask the parents of the jedi children , parents taken away to serve as janissaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries) -- are things bad?

Yes, Palpatine made things worse. The Republic never destroyed Alderaan. But it was a corrupt and oppressive system, even so.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[bibliophile]

So the reasoning that if you want to have a say in how the country is run (electing representatives and officials), you also have to prove you have the good of the people in mind, and don't just vote for the guys who promise you tax cuts is, in theory, really not that bad. And the best prove that you care for society as a whole would be to spend a few years working for the public.
Focusing on military service seems a bad idea in that light though.



But the society described doesn't focus on military service. The book does, however.

[Ozymandias]

Yes, Palpatine made things worse. The Republic never destroyed Alderaan. But it was a corrupt and oppressive system, even so.

Well, the republic controls like, what's the figure, a million developed worlds? There really isn't a way to effectively administrate on such a scale. And anyway it's more ineffectual bureaucracy than "Let's blow up Alderaan to make a point."

The clone thing is pretty messed up though, granted.

[Gaius Marius]

At the same time, though, it was only when the senate relinquished power to Palpatine that it really started getting bad. It's like the end of the Roman Republic, except with Caesar as an evil wizard.

Make it a Warlock, and I'm gonna write a RPG module about that!! :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

Yes, Palpatine made things worse. The Republic never destroyed Alderaan. But it was a corrupt and oppressive system, even so.

Even back in the Darth Bane era, there's an element of this- it's one of the things that gave the young Bane a resentment of the Republic in the first place- the fact that it does nothing to stop the exploitation of the people of his world, but still tries to recruit them into the war against the Sith.

[bibliophile]

Think so?

~Star Wars~

Respectfully,

Brian P.


Perhaps you should start a new thread.

[Gaius Marius]

But the society described doesn't focus on military service. The book does, however.

Because sociological concepts were only half of the arguments presented in the book. The other half was about futuristic warfare depiction, both in methodology of fighting, equipment, and the mentality your soldiers should have. there is a reason why Starship Troopers is the only Sci-Fi novel recommended reading at all US military academies.

So you kinda had to focus on the military.

[hamishspence]

But the society described doesn't focus on military service. The book does, however.

Because the protagonist was a soldier. It mentions nonmilitary service though.

[Gaius Marius]

Perhaps you should start a new thread.

nononono, we already had Star Wars thread about the morality of the Empire not long ago. All had been said.

[pendell]

Well, the republic controls like, what's the figure, a million developed worlds? There really isn't a way to effectively administrate on such a scale.

I respectfully disagree. The Republic was a thousand years old and had effectively administered its territory for a significant part of that time. Indeed, the people of the Republic, from the ordinary citizen in the street to the Jedi Masters in the Temple didn't even realize something was wrong with it until the whole rotten structure exploded on them.

IIRC, before there was the Galactic Republic there was the Old Republic as well. It effectively administered a million worlds by giving them almost complete autonomy. It was when this was taken to extremes that people like Padme began agitating for a new , strong , central government that would have more power and authority to keep powerful regional players in check. And there was Senator Palpatine ready to be that central authority. It's what the shift in the US from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution might have been like, except with Satan as commander-in-chief instead of George Washington.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[bibliophile]

[QUOTE=Gaius Marius;10814833]Because sociological concepts were only half of the arguments presented in the book. The other half was about futuristic warfare depiction, both in methodology of fighting, equipment, and the mentality your soldiers should have. there is a reason why Starship Troopers is the only Sci-Fi novel recommended reading at all US military academies.QUOTE]

I've heard Ender's Game is also recommended reading.

[Gaius Marius]

I've heard Ender's Game is also recommended reading.

Only for the Marines, Wikipedia says.

[hamishspence]

I respectfully disagree. The Republic was a thousand years old and had effectively administered its territory for a significant part of that time. Indeed, the people of the Republic, from the ordinary citizen in the street to the Jedi Masters in the Temple didn't even realize something was wrong with it until the whole rotten structure exploded on them.

The current incarnation of it was- but a Republic, of sorts, when back 20000+ years: it had just been "reformed" after the last Sith War.

So when Palpatine says "I will not let this republic that has stood for a thousand years be split in two"- he's referring to just that period.

In A New Hope "for a thousand generations the Jedi Knights were the guardians of truth and justice in the Old Republic".

[Ozymandias]

I respectfully disagree. The Republic was a thousand years old and had effectively administered its territory for a significant part of that time. Indeed, the people of the Republic, from the ordinary citizen in the street to the Jedi Masters in the Temple didn't even realize something was wrong with it until the whole rotten structure exploded on them.

Certainly the Republic suffered from stagnation, but I wonder how much of it we really see - Coruscant is like the Manhattan of it, I guess, but it's really only a tiny part of the whole system. Presumably most of the worlds are more-or-less autonomous simply because no one cares about them. Tatooine kinda sucked, and I think it really always did, old or new republic.


IIRC, before there was the Galactic Republic there was the Old Republic as well. It effectively administered a million worlds by giving them almost complete autonomy. It was when this was taken to extremes that people like Padme began agitating for a new , strong , central government that would have more power and authority to keep powerful regional players in check. And there was Senator Palpatine ready to be that central authority. It's what the shift in the US from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution might have been like, except with Satan as commander-in-chief instead of George Washington.


I don't know if that's really true - I haven't read the EU extensively but I highly doubt that one million autonomous worlds would produce one million happy and productive worlds. Without checks you could have regional warlords and such crop up pretty easily - and that's what happened with the Mandalorians, which was pretty bad for everyone involved.

[Kato]

Yay, another Heinlein thread! Is it just me or do those pop up every three or four months? And somehow the arguments always go the same way...


Anyway, main focus seems to be the voting privilege (and as a side bonus tyranny and democracy though I kind of missed where this one popped up from. Something about middle grounds and stuff... For the records: Of course there are middle grounds :smallannoyed: How can anyone claim otherwise? Putting aside the fact there never was a 'pure' democracy (none I'm aware of and if so it didn't last more than a few months I guess) between a common representative democracy and a monarchy with an undisputed king who reigns absolute power over a country treating it as his toy (e.g. Absolutism) is no middle ground?)

Aaanyway. I've said it before and I say it again: I support the idea of limiting voting rights to people who earned it. Not by serving in the military (not exclusively anyway) but in some manor depending on their preferences and capabilities. I feel sad when I think some giant jerk who never did anything to help anyone but himself has the same rights as someone who e.g. serves as a police man and puts his life at risk everyday. (And please, no corrupt cops discussion now. Yes, even if you take one of these jobs you can still be a bad person, to sort that out or try your best to do so... that's another story again) It's not even about proving you put your life at risk for society or something but about having some indication your not a total jerk and actually your opinion should have any value for society.
But that's just my opinion, really. I can see why people question this kind of categorizing people, but still, if I had to chose I knew what I'd go for.

[averagejoe]

The Mod They Call Me: Alright, this has gotten way too far into real world politics, even, in some cases, when it's superficially not real-world. And where it isn't political it's off topic. Thread locked.