So you think every political system has been tried, huh? (Starship Troopers)

[mover1]

The quote below is from Robert A. Heinlein, Authour of Starship Troopers in his book Friday ( 1982 ). How true is this Science Fiction coming to play in our moden world. Heinlein also wrote in another nove that Terroism was stopped by making the suicide bombers etc... look the fools by being so dumb as to blow themselves up.

Interesting reads



What are the marks of a sick culture?

It is a bad sign when the people of a country stop identifying themselves with the country and start identifying with a group. A racial group. Or a religion. Or a language. Anything, as long as it isn't the whole population.

A very bad sign. Particularism. It was once considered a Spanish vice but any country can fall sick with it. Dominance of males over females seems to be one of the symptoms.

Before a revolution can take place, the population must loose faith in both the police and the courts.

High taxation is important and so is inflation of the currency and the ratio of the productive to those on the public payroll. But that's old hat; everybody knows that a country is on the skids when its income and outgo get out of balance and stay that way - even though there are always endless attempts to wish it way by legislation. But I started looking for little signs and what some call silly-season symptoms.

I want to mention one of the obvious symptoms: Violence. Muggings. Sniping. Arson. Bombing. Terrorism of any sort. Riots of course - but I suspect that little incidents of violence, pecking way at people day after day, damage a culture even more than riots that flare up and then die down. Oh, conscription and slavery and arbitrary compulsion of all sorts and imprisonment without bail and without speedy trial - but those things are obvious; all the histories list them.

I think you have missed the most alarming symptom of all. This one I shall tell you. But go back and search for it. Examine it. Sick cultures show a complex of symptoms as you have named... But a dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than a riot.

This symptom is especially serious in that an individual displaying it never thinks of it as a sign of ill health but as proof of his/her strength. Look for it. Study it. It is too late to save this culture - this worldwide culture, not just the freak show here in California. Therefore we must now prepare the monasteries for the coming Dark Age. Electronic records are too fragile; we must again have books, of stable inks and resistant paper.
--- Friday and Dr. Baldwin in Friday

 

[Dog]

I know that numerous people on these forums have read it, and if you haven't read it yet, pick up a copy of Robert Heinleins book "Starship Troopers" and give it a thorough once over... ignore the fact that there is a movie of the same name, as they are almost entirely different from each other.

I did a search for "starship troopers" and came up with a bunch of threads that mentioned it, or reviewed it, but none that actually discussed the percieved viability of the political philosophy behind it...


"What is the moral difference, if any, between the soldier and the civilian?"

"The difference,lies in the field of civic virtue. A soldier accepts responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. The civilian does not" (Starship Troopers, page 26).

"Can you tell us why our system works better than any of out ancestors? (...) Because under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage" (page 182).

The main point is that the duty to society is best executed by those who have put their own ass on the line. There has been debate about the system that is described in the book and some say that it is similiar to Fascism or Communism.... I personally think that it's something different, something that hasn't been tried out.

Thoughts?

 

[George Wallace]

There is a bit more discusion in the Book Reviews:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/4541.0.html

It has also seen some discusion in some of the other threads.

 

[Dog]

Already read it, hoping to contribute to a discussion that I was sure would be dragging on somewhere....
no real discussion of the political ideology had cropped up, so I thought I'd start a thread focussing exclusively on it...

So much for that. :

Like I said, I did search... if there's a thread about the political system, you can point me in that direction or move this thread there.

 

[Dog]

What the....??

It seems you already moved it, but kept my initial thread name....


Anyway, the thought that Heinleins society described in the book could be compared to ancient Sparta just crossed my mind, thought I might throw that out there.

 

[48Highlander]

The main point is that the duty to society is best executed by those who have put their own *** on the line. There has been debate about the system that is described in the book and some say that it is similiar to Fascism or Communism.... I personally think that it's something different, something that hasn't been tried out.

Thoughts?

Heinlein doesn't argue that "those who have put their own *** on the line" are any more capable or intelligent or in any way better suited to running a country.  That's part of what gives his argument merit;  I'd be hard pressed to back someone who claims that serving his country makes Pte. Bloggins a smart voter, even though he can't even tie his own shoe-laces.

What Heinlein DOES argue is that only those willing to place the well-being of the group ahead of their personal well-being should be allowed to vote.  Not because they're more intelligent, or more capable, or have a better understanding of "the world";  but simply because those who do NOT value our society more highly than their own personal ambitions can not be trusted to manage the way that society is run.

But at the same time, you often get people in the military who also place their own personal ambitions above the well-being of their men, or of the service as a whole.  Maybe if Heinleins theory were applied to an army which was always on a war-footing, it would make sense.  Otherwise his theories are just a unique form of idealism.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

I know that numerous people on these forums have read it, and if you haven't read it yet, pick up a copy of Robert Heinleins book "Starship Troopers" and give it a thorough once over... ignore the fact that there is a movie of the same name, as they are almost entirely different from each other.

I did a search for "starship troopers" and came up with a bunch of threads that mentioned it, or reviewed it, but none that actually discussed the percieved viability of the political philosophy behind it...


"What is the moral difference, if any, between the soldier and the civilian?"

"The difference,lies in the field of civic virtue. A soldier accepts responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. The civilian does not" (Starship Troopers, page 26).

"Can you tell us why our system works better than any of out ancestors? (...) Because under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage" (page 182).

The main point is that the duty to society is best executed by those who have put their own *** on the line. There has been debate about the system that is described in the book and some say that it is similiar to Fascism or Communism.... I personally think that it's something different, something that hasn't been tried out.

Thoughts?

      This system has been used before.  The early Roman Republic, the early Greek democracies, the Germanic tribes, and later Swiss Cantons.  In each case, the right to vote was places solely in the hands of those free armed men who accepted the responsibilities to serve their people under arms.  The concept of universal sufferage is anathema to this viewpoint as those lacking the physical, moral, mental, or material ability to fulfill a citizens responsibility were subjects, not citizens.  This system works, but the tendency for the collection of power and wealth to form small oligarchies, and slowly disenfranchise larger and larger portions of the population is one danger.  The other danger can be found in the very real fact that when military force becomes the sole basis for political power, it often becomes the determiner of political direction.  The late Roman Republic was often in a state of civil war as failed or stalled political leaders would use their legions and provincial levies to force political change. The main aim of the Roman Empire after Augustus was to depoliticize and demilitarize the Roman people to stop the constant civil wars.  In the end, the Roman Empire's weak mercenary legions fell to forces that the early Republic could have defeated many times over.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Okay, so don't limit the right to vote to the military.  There are other avenue of service available.  Work in hospitals, urban renewal projects etc.  I think the idea is that once you are out there and serving something greater than yourself, you start to develop a sense of ownership.  Who among us does not think in terms of  "my Canada" when they think of the country. 
How can some disingenuous slacker-hippie child be trusted to vote when all he as done is sit around and have everything handed to him?  Why would he give a crap about anything other than himself? 
With the brain trust we have here on these pages, I'm sure a viable framework for earning a right to vote could be developed. 
Now getting it passed in Parliament.  That would be quite the fiasco.

 

[KevinB]

Have a coup  ;D


  Remember Henlien was a Nuke boat guy - and his logic was after the collpase that this method (in ST) was brought into being since the warm fuzzies had screwed the pooch.

 

[TCBF]

"Rah! Rah! R.A.H.!"

Tom

(a fan)

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

    Actually I agreed with much of the social premise behind Starship Troopers and have been extolling its virtues to all who will listen for decades.  That the system eventually failed means little.  Every system involving humans can and will be corrupted by said humans.  The societies that I pointed to were very successful for reasonably signifigant periods of time, proving that the model works.  With the right checks and balances, and a written constitution, this model could work very well.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

    On the subject of political systems in fiction, check out Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's Oath of Fealty (Pocket Books 1981).  It is no coincidence it is dedicated to Heinlein.  The book takes a utopian society based on an Arcology inside Los Angeles, and shows how it drifted into nothing less than the Feudal system.  The citizens trading privacy in return for security and loyalty, binding each citizen to the other, and with the "Big Brother" of security being an ally, not enemy of the citizens.  As much as Starship Troopers, this book pushes the issue of responsibility to your society, and its resulting responsibility to you.  It is disliked because it dares suggest that freedom may be acheived by giving up the right to privacy, that the freedom from harm is of more value to an honest citizen than the freedom to commit crime undetected.