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.
"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
"No one should suffer from lack of {fill in the blank}", must be prefaced with "No one should be compelled to labor for the benefit of another, so that...".
Slavery is never an acceptable solution to the ills of mankind.
Voluntary charity is a blessing.
Compulsory charity is a curse.
If Mr Asimov didn't know the difference, shame on him.
my answer is 3%. if you understand what my answer means, then you will know why I typed it.
A "revolution" against "voluntary servitude" is absurd.
Just stop volunteering.
However, since the vast majority do not know that they volunteered to be socialist slaves, I strongly suggest education precede action. Read the law. Read the law. Read the law.
The biggest victory of the propaganda ministry was to eradicate the memory of the republican form of government from the people of these united States. (Which Mr. Heinlein did not grasp, either.)
Once you grasp what the republican form of government truly means, you will shake your head in bewilderment. How did "we" lose such a precious and rare thing?
GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695
Unlike a democracy, where a majority can wield power to the detriment of a minority, in the republican form, the people are sovereign - individually - and no servant government can impair their inalienable rights (except in the pursuit of justice, for the benefit of an injured party).
And once you realize that there is only ONE NATION on Earth that has a republican form, you will understand the magnitude of our loss, when the bulk of 300 million Americans have no knowledge of it.
America is the only nation, whose government admits that it is a servant of the people, not the master.
But America is filled with people who have surrendered their birthright, and became subjects of their servant, and now believe that the government is their master. Not only that, they believe that the president is their leader, when in fact, he was only the highest ranking public SERVANT.
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?
There was no implication that a standing army had no politics.
A professional "Standing Army" is not what the Founders wanted.
"When a government wishes to deprive its citizens of freedom, and reduce them to slavery, it generally makes use of a standing army."
-- Luther Martin, Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention
“A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen.”
-- James Madison (1751-1836), US fourth president
"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789)
The militia was defined as all able bodied male CITIZENS, between 17 and 45.
They were obligated to train, fight and die, on command. They obviously consented to the loss of their inalienable rights... didn't they?
Somewhere along the line we lost our Republic.... As in “Starship Troopers” our government is not a democracy but a corporatist form of Fascism.
Actually, what you relate shows how victorious the propaganda ministry is.
Go look up the actual definition of Fascism in a dictionary.
And no, the U.S. was not designed to be a democracy. Read Article 4, Section 4, USCON.
It would be more accurate to state that the United Socialist States of America, on schedule to be dismantled and rebuilt as the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America, was originally instituted in 1935, via FICA / Social Security Act of 1935. Though the law did not compel participation, the vast majority of Americans believed that "the law" required them to enroll and participate. Thus by "voluntary servitude" the original compact was side stepped and the people were enslaved - by their own consent.
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?
"Starship Troopers" has often been condemned as fascist or elitist and militaristic.
While I would not want to live in the society of the book and don't go for the notion of "military utopia", certain things should be remembered.
When Heinlein wrote that book the military draft existed in all major western democratic nations (not sure about Canada, but the US and every Western European democracy had the draft - most of continental Europe still had it until the last decade or so, and a few continental Western Euro countries still have it). It also reflects the Cold War, with the giant bugs supposed to be the commies - a sentiment widely held at the time. Not to mention at the time the book was written, unlike today, Israel - at the time a society which was virtually identical with its military, I remember my elementary school social studies classes concerning ancient history comparing Sparta to Israel - was widely admired in the western world. In addition, the "Starship Troopers" world is one of racial and ethnic equality, as the military contains all ethnicities and races (it is one of the few American novels of the time with a Filipino as its hero). Obviously the US military of the time was no panacea of racial harmony and tolerance, but it was one of the few institutions in American life where blacks enjoyed positions of authority ; the civil rights movement as we know it was largely created by WW2 veterans who fought for freedom and democracy abroad but were denied it at home. In Heinlein's own California, the GI Bill created the Mexican-American middle class and Latinos integrating into the white community, while the Chinese being on our side in WW2, the Filipino resistance to Japanese occupation, and Asian-Americans fighting in the war - even the 442nd Division of Japanese-Americans who left the camps in order to prove their patriotism - destroyed the "yellow peril" myth that was the West Coast's major form of racism. Nationwide, the experience of WW2 led to the acceptance of the children of Southern and Eastern European immigrants as full members of white society. So given the times, one could have made a reasonable case for the military as the great integrator which made all men equal. It is a product of its time and the views that were common in its time.
I wouldn't see the Starship Troopers world as being a desirable one to live in, but I think there is one idea from the book that would actually be good in today's world - that of veterans being teachers. I wouldn't want military service as a requirement for being a teacher at all, but it would be good policy to give Iraq and Afghanistan veterans special preference for teaching jobs as a way of reintegrating them into civilian life, keeping them from joining America's socioeconomic morass right now, and also providing role models who can keep and earn the respect of their pupils. These men and women in the educational system would be a major benefit for all concerned.
Reasoning:
[1] Fascism is defined as having THREE characteristics:
FASCISM - any political or social ideology of the extreme right which relies on a combination of pseudo-religious attitudes and the brutal use of force for getting and keeping power.
- - - Webster's Dictionary
The major characteristics of "Fascism" :
* EXTREME RIGHT
* PSEUDO-RELIGIOUS
* BRUTAL
Right wing is associated with traditional values - which is subjective to the respective culture - we'll give that a pass.
There was nothing about Starship Troopers that had pseudo-religious adoration of the State or a cult of personality.
Brutal? What evidence supports that?
Swift punishment for murder?
[2] Elitist is defined as the belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. 2. a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class. b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
To become a citizen, under S.T. rules, one would have to step DOWN in status, become a servant of the people, via Federal service. Citizenship was open to all who demonstrated their willingness to sacrifice for the good of the society. After achieving citizenship, they did not possess any favored treatment other than the privilege of voting and holding office - as public servants. They had no other advantage over the noncitizen. They did not "control", nor "rule", nor "dominate" - at least there were no specific examples that would support that interpretation.
[3] Militaristic is defined as 1. Glorification of the ideals of a professional military class. 2. Predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state. 3. A policy in which military preparedness is of primary importance to a state.
In Starship Troopers, veterans of Federal Service - not the professional military class - were the elected officials and not necessarily the administrators. There was no evidence that "going career" was a ticket to political or personal gain. Based on the limited scenario of the Bug War, one cannot judge whether military preparedness was crucial. In several events it was obvious that the humans were unprepared for what they were dealing with.
In short, the objections against Starship Troopers are inaccurate and misleading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun
While I would not want to live in the society of the book and don't go for the notion of "military utopia", certain things should be remembered.
When Heinlein wrote that book the military draft existed in all major western democratic nations (not sure about Canada, but the US and every Western European democracy had the draft - most of continental Europe still had it until the last decade or so, and a few continental Western Euro countries still have it). It also reflects the Cold War, with the giant bugs supposed to be the commies - a sentiment widely held at the time. Not to mention at the time the book was written, unlike today, Israel - at the time a society which was virtually identical with its military, I remember my elementary school social studies classes concerning ancient history comparing Sparta to Israel - was widely admired in the western world. In addition, the "Starship Troopers" world is one of racial and ethnic equality, as the military contains all ethnicities and races (it is one of the few American novels of the time with a Filipino as its hero). Obviously the US military of the time was no panacea of racial harmony and tolerance, but it was one of the few institutions in American life where blacks enjoyed positions of authority ; the civil rights movement as we know it was largely created by WW2 veterans who fought for freedom and democracy abroad but were denied it at home. In Heinlein's own California, the GI Bill created the Mexican-American middle class and Latinos integrating into the white community, while the Chinese being on our side in WW2, the Filipino resistance to Japanese occupation, and Asian-Americans fighting in the war - even the 442nd Division of Japanese-Americans who left the camps in order to prove their patriotism - destroyed the "yellow peril" myth that was the West Coast's major form of racism. Nationwide, the experience of WW2 led to the acceptance of the children of Southern and Eastern European immigrants as full members of white society. So given the times, one could have made a reasonable case for the military as the great integrator which made all men equal. It is a product of its time and the views that were common in its time.
Militia duty, the basis for conscription, was part of American law from 1777.
See Articles of Confederation.
The supporting storyline that various ethnicities and races were not discriminated against is present, but if you have read the book, it's not about how great military life is.
The basic theme honors those who sacrifice for others, whether by military service or any other service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun
I wouldn't see the Starship Troopers world as being a desirable one to live in, but I think there is one idea from the book that would actually be good in today's world - that of veterans being teachers. I wouldn't want military service as a requirement for being a teacher at all, but it would be good policy to give Iraq and Afghanistan veterans special preference for teaching jobs as a way of reintegrating them into civilian life, keeping them from joining America's socioeconomic morass right now, and also providing role models who can keep and earn the respect of their pupils. These men and women in the educational system would be a major benefit for all concerned.
Can you enumerate which facets of the Starship Troopers world that are undesirable?
"Special preference" for veterans in the high school was limited to the one course that one could not flunk. I do not think that extends to a guaranteed job for any and all veterans. And there was no such guarantee to veterans of Federal Service.
However, the original point was to contrast the political system that was originally created, under the organic documents: Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution, and how RAH's objections to democratic socialism was expounded in Starship Troopers.
Under the "original recipe", Americans were endowed with the potential to be sovereigns, at majority. However, they could surrender that sovereignty for political liberty (the privilege to vote and hold public office), and accept the civic duties associated with that status (compulsory militia duty, jury duty, etc.). Furthermore, the privilege to vote was limited to property owners who had paid taxes, which reduced the size of the political arena.
In essence, what Heinlein was suggesting - the prerequisite of public service - was what America was founded on, but changed quite early on, by various special interests and partisan politicians.
That Heinlein, a graduate of a military academy, did not know of these facts, gives one pause. But it could mean that even by the early 20th century, the propaganda ministry had successfully eradicated the basic knowledge from the military hierarchy.
Restating what Heinlein apparently didn't know -
[] American people are sovereigns
[] American citizens are subjects
[] American socialism is 100% voluntary
[] The legal meaning of the republican form of government.
I suspect that he relied on others instead of reading the law, which is a common failing.
Those are criticisms often made of the book, I was not saying I agreed with the fascist or elitist criticisms. The militarist criticism is more accurate as it depicts a military society as an ideal society and a cure-all for social problems. There is some point to the elitist criticism given that service did create an elite with more rights than others.
Quote:
Militia duty, the basis for conscription, was part of American law from 1777.
See Articles of Confederation.
Superseded by the Constitution, however there was no military draft in the US until the Civil War, and then no military draft in the US until World War I, then there was a military draft from 1940-73 except for a brief period in 1946-48.
Quote:
The supporting storyline that various ethnicities and races were not discriminated against is present, but if you have read the book, it's not about how great military life is.
It does glorify the honor of battle and the camaraderie of military life. If I hadn't read it I would not have posted.
Quote:
Can you enumerate which facets of the Starship Troopers world that are undesirable?
A military utopia is not my idea of a utopia although I respect those who serve.
Quote:
"Special preference" for veterans in the high school was limited to the one course that one could not flunk. I do not think that extends to a guaranteed job for any and all veterans. And there was no such guarantee to veterans of Federal Service.
Only veterans of Federal Service were eligible for teaching positions.
Quote:
Furthermore, the privilege to vote was limited to property owners who had paid taxes, which reduced the size of the political arena.
That was inherited from Great Britain. In the 19th century that was done away with in America and later in Britain due to said restriction causing too much social and political instability and tension. Restricting the franchise to property owners was not good for society or for the individuals living in it. In the one US state that kept property ownership as a restriction on the franchise, Rhode Island, there was an actual revolution, albeit a failed one (the Dorr rebellion). However, even though the Dorrites were unable to overthrow the state's government, the governor and legislators came up with a new constitution which not only abolished the property ownership restriction on the franchise but exceeded the demands of the Dorrites' "People's Constitution" in widening the franchise and the rights of those without property.
In the UK property ownership restrictions on the franchise were gradually phased out over the course of the 19th century ; Disraeli's Reform Act made men who did not own property but who were heads of households eligible to vote, the 1918 Representation of the People Act abolished all restrictions on male suffrage (other than the incarcerated ; Britain and America are the only two democratic nations which ban prisoners from voting to this day) but allowed women who owned property to vote, and in 1928 property restrictions were finally abolished for women. Again, limiting the franchise brought about too much social upheaval.
Robert Heinlein fundamentally misunderstood the point of democracy. It runs through his books. He thought it was suppoed to make better decisions. He never seems to have twigged that democracy is about maximizing the self-determination of the people, while maintaining a fuctional modern nation.
The best available cross between people getting a voice in decisions that affect them, while working together to maintain the essentials of a modern nation.
Today, you see a sad bunch of people who grow up enjoying the benefits of others labour, such as roads, education, sanitation, defense, protection etc and then figure all contributions from them to society should be voluntary.
There seems to be a growing class of aspiring freeloaders today who do not understand that priviliges and duties go hand in hand.
Those are criticisms often made of the book, I was not saying I agreed with the fascist or elitist criticisms. The militarist criticism is more accurate as it depicts a military society as an ideal society and a cure-all for social problems. There is some point to the elitist criticism given that service did create an elite with more rights than others.
You don't make the distinction between endowed rights and government privileges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun
Quote:
Militia duty, the basis for conscription, was part of American law from 1777.
See Articles of Confederation.
Superseded by the Constitution, however there was no military draft in the US until the Civil War, and then no military draft in the US until World War I, then there was a military draft from 1940-73 except for a brief period in 1946-48.
Actually, the Articles were incorporated into the USCON, by reference, in Article 6.
But, you missed the entire point of law. ALL male citizens are the militia, obligated to train, fight and die on command. That is the reason why conscription is 100% constitutional. "Selective" Service is how the government picks and chooses which individuals are to immediately serve.
Proof:
Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, CITIZENS of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Title 50 USC Sec. 453. Registration (Selective Service)
(a)...it shall be the duty of every male CITIZEN of the United States, and every other male person RESIDING in the United States, who, on the day or days fixed for the first or any subsequent registration, is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to present himself for and submit to registration at such time or times and place or places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by proclamation of the President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder.
Art. 1, Sec. 8, USCON
Congress shall have power ... To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
Articles of Confederation, VI.
...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".
If you're male, a citizen, able bodied, within the age guidelines, etc, YOU are the militia, and are obligated to train, fight and die - on their command.
That has been the law since 1777.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun
Quote:
The supporting storyline that various ethnicities and races were not discriminated against is present, but if you have read the book, it's not about how great military life is.
It does glorify the honor of battle and the camaraderie of military life. If I hadn't read it I would not have posted.
I interpreted it differently. The glorification of the sacrifice made by warriors is not the same as glory in battle. And there is camaraderie in any subset placed into a stressful environment - prisoners - hospital interns - and so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun
Quote:
Can you enumerate which facets of the Starship Troopers world that are undesirable?
A military utopia is not my idea of a utopia although I respect those who serve.
What evidence of "military utopia"?
Details, please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun
Quote:
"Special preference" for veterans in the high school was limited to the one course that one could not flunk. I do not think that extends to a guaranteed job for any and all veterans. And there was no such guarantee to veterans of Federal Service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun
Only veterans of Federal Service were eligible for teaching positions.
Only for the one course, History and Moral Philosophy:
Quote:
Mr. Rico, "In the first place this family has stayed out of politics and cultivated its own garden for over a hundred years -- I see no reason for you to break that fine record. I suppose it's the influence of that fellow at your high school -- what's his name? You know the one I mean."He meant our instructor in History and Moral Philosophy -- a veteran, naturally. "Mr. Dubois."
...
or in another part:
... Of course we had known that he was a veteran since History and Moral Philosophy must be taught by a citizen.
Quote:
Furthermore, the privilege to vote was limited to property owners who had paid taxes, which reduced the size of the political arena.
That was inherited from Great Britain. In the 19th century that was done away with in America and later in Britain due to said restriction causing too much social and political instability and tension. [1] Restricting the franchise to property owners was not good for society or for the individuals living in it. In the one US state that kept property ownership as a restriction on the franchise, Rhode Island, there was an actual revolution, albeit a failed one (the Dorr rebellion). However, even though the Dorrites were unable to overthrow the state's government, the governor and legislators came up with a new constitution which not only abolished the property ownership restriction on the franchise but exceeded the demands of the Dorrites' "People's Constitution" in widening the franchise and the [2] rights of those without property.
In the UK property ownership restrictions on the franchise were gradually phased out over the course of the 19th century ; Disraeli's Reform Act made men who did not own property but who were heads of households eligible to vote, the 1918 Representation of the People Act abolished all restrictions on male suffrage (other than the incarcerated ; Britain and America are the only two democratic nations which ban prisoners from voting to this day) but allowed women who owned property to vote, and in 1928 property restrictions were finally abolished for women. Again, limiting the franchise brought about too much social upheaval.
[1] That may be fine for a democracy, but that's not what was promised to the American people.
The republican form of government does not rely upon the franchise to control government nor prevent social upheaval.
In the republican form of government, the people are sovereigns. They have nothing to rebel against. Their inalienable rights are intact and protected by servant government.
[2] Inalienable rights to life and liberty are not impaired in those who did not own property. Do not make the mistake of confusing government granted privileges as rights. As Ben Franklin said, public service must be a step DOWN in status, lest the servant becomes the master. And to become a public servant one had to accept the civic duties of citizenship, and surrender one's sovereign prerogatives.
Remember, since 1935, Americans have been indoctrinated under the aegis of democratic socialism, and thus are conditioned to want government to legally rob one for the benefit of another. Only by the charade of "voluntary" participation, does FICA / Soc Sec pass constitutional challenge.
Frankly, if ever the American people made the effort to read the law, and withdrew consent to be governed, 99.8% of the laws* would cease to have force and effect. (* I refer to Malum Prohibitum, not Malum Per Se.)
The American people are sovereign over the government, see Art. 4, Sec. 4, USCON
REPUBLICAN (form of) GOVERNMENT. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary
Note: Do not make the common mistake of assuming "through representatives chosen" to mean elected officials. It means when one petitions the government, he has delegated certain powers to the government to help secure his rights. In a county, his Sheriff would be his representative, after filing a complaint. In a foreign country, the U.S. ambassador would be his representative.
It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997
In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
What most Americans don't realize is that citizens are subjects. Which begs the question - how can any one be "born" a U.S. citizen, obligated to perform civic duties?
CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244
SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
Note: There is only one nation with a "republican form of government".
"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)
If you are one of the sovereign people, your rights are protected.
If you are one of the subject citizens, you surrendered your rights.
No amount of political liberty, franchise or voting can restore those surrendered rights.
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.
