Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you've seen the movie "Starship Troopers", this is not about that movie - a complete distortion of the book. Starship Troopers was a tribute to the mud footed soldier who places himself between his loved ones and danger. The moral is that he who accepts the duty, without coercion, is a far better public servant and "leader" than a glib politician, who is skilled at lying, corruption, bribery, and general thievery.
Robert A. Heinlein, a writer that I greatly admire, showed a gaping hole in his philosophy regarding government. RAH was of the generation that endured the socialist revolution, without quite knowing what hit them. At first, he was an ardent supporter of progressive socialism. But then he had an awakening. For the remainder of his life, he was politically "right wing". However, his blind spot showed up in Starship Troopers when he inferred that the government was stable because only veterans could vote and hold office.
Frankly, if he truly understood American law, he would have known that the U.S. was set up almost EXACTLY like what Starship Troopers had, only that active military service was not always performed BEFORE exercising political liberty.
For example, the militia, who are legally obligated to train, fight and die on command, are ALL able bodied male citizens, between 17 and 45. Since 1777. That's why conscription was both legal AND not involuntary servitude. What RAH did not realize was that citizenship was a voluntary assertion by American nationals (or naturalized citizens). {Interesting point - one could volunteer to be a citizen BEFORE one could exercise the vote, at age 21. Apprentice citizenship, perhaps?}
Unfortunately, the original concept of limited citizenship and suffrage (limited to property owners who had paid taxes) was diluted by embracing "democracy", and seeking to enfranchise every warm body in sight. We now suffer the consequences of a majority who have learned to vote for scoundrels adept at accepting and disbursing bribes (aka "pork"), instead of statesmen bound to secure inalienable rights of the people.
Contrary to the popular adage, that you can't complain unless you vote, the reverse is more accurate. For those who exercise the franchise, vote and hold office have given consent to be governed. If ever the American people learned the law of the land, and withdrew consent, the stable and sane government promulgated in Starship Troopers might result. For only those who were selfless and took the responsibility to serve the people would enter public service. There wouldn't be any great mass of "human resources" to rule, nor gigantic revenue streams to expend. Nor would there be ways to get rich and powerful. In many ways it would be a thankless task, for the great majority would rather not be bothered by such things, and want to be left alone.
Can you imagine politics and public service when the electorate is 1% - and the government's budget is funded only by THEIR taxes? (You have to pay if you want to play!)
Remember, governments are instituted among men to (a) secure rights endowed by our Creator and (b) govern those who consent.
Based on the law regarding militia duty, it's clear that consent waives job #1. How many Americans would "volunteer" to be citizens, if they knew that they volunteered to train and serve in combat, and surrendered their inalienable rights? How many would "volunteer" if they understood that they dropped in legal status and became subject citizens?
Ask yourself if America would be a better place if the government spending was reduced to less than 1% of the current budget, and the number "working in government" were limited to those who anted up that budget?
And the 99% of uninterested Americans could go back to drinking beer and watching sports without the airwaves cluttered with campaign sound bites.
Do you think there is no politics in the military, and that by virtue of service members putting their lives on the line, their higher ranks do not engage in the same wheeling and dealing, self-aggrandizing, budget-pumping activities we typically associate with members of Congress?
I read Starship Troopers about 50 years ago and was convinced of the importance and duty of military service. After my term in Vietnam I thought differently, very differently. I was betrayed by my country into fighting for the French colonialists and for our own profiteering warmongers. I still feel that morally I was on the wrong side of that war.
Somewhere along the line we lost our Republic. We are run by a set of elite voters. These people do not use the polls but vote with their contributions, collusions and bribes. Our government responds to the needs of the financial elite far more efficiently than the needs or desire of the popular vote. As in “Starship Troopers” our government is not a democracy but a corporatist form of Fascism.
"He always pictured himself a libertarian, which to my way of thinking means 'I want the liberty to grow rich and you can have the liberty to starve.' It's easy to believe that no one should depend on society for help when you yourself happen not to need such help."
- Isaac Asimov on Robert A. Heinlein and libertarian ethic
The article on it there is a featured article and it looks deservedly so -- comprehensive.
"There is an explicitly-made contrast to the democracies of the 20th century, which according to the novel, collapsed because "people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted... and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears."[17] Indeed, Colonel Dubois criticizes as unrealistic the famous U.S. Declaration of Independence line concerning 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. No one can stop anyone from pursuing happiness, but life and liberty are said to exist only if they are deliberately sought and paid for."
The article on it there is a featured article and it looks deservedly so -- comprehensive.
"There is an explicitly-made contrast to the democracies of the 20th century, which according to the novel, collapsed because "people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted... and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears."[17] Indeed, Colonel Dubois criticizes as unrealistic the famous U.S. Declaration of Independence line concerning 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. No one can stop anyone from pursuing happiness, but life and liberty are said to exist only if they are deliberately sought and paid for."
Is this some of what you're saying above, OP?
Not exactly.
What the ORIGINAL compacts created, was NOT a democratic form of government, in which a majority could legally rob a minority.
In the republican form, EACH individual had inalienable rights which no majority could deny.
However, the sovereign individual could surrender his status, and become a subject citizen, and exercise political liberty.
In more succinct terms, an American republic composed of 99% sovereign individuals (untaxed, unobligated), with 1% subject citizens, whose selfless public service would operate the necessary public institutions, the likelihood of abuse would be very small.
Of course, the "original recipe" was obfuscated and eradicated from our collective memories. But one can still find shining examples, like the 1776 Virginia Constitution.
SEC. 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their representatives* so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled, for the public good.
All men ... cannot be taxed without their own consent.
All men ... cannot be deprived of their property for public uses
without their own consent.
All men ... cannot be bound by any law that is not for the public good.
*(Since only property owners who had paid taxes could vote, only they had consented to be governed. The rest still had their inalienable rights intact.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
