Starship Troopers (1997) is coming back to Theaters...

[DalekJim]

everyone else here hates the novel

This is a Star Trek forum, and therefore full of liberals. I think Starship Troopers is a masterwork of literature, and Heinlein's my idol. I don't fully agree with the society presented in the book on issues like the death penalty, but I definitely agree with many of the quotations within it on the necessity of the military and he makes amazing points on the danger of a non-limited voting franchise.

Some critics say the book glorifies war but it really doesn't, so I doubt they've read the book. The novel is grim and realistic, showing war as a necessity to be endured and not enjoyed. The military are glorified to a high extent but that's a principle I have to agree with. Especially after recently rewatching a few episodes of the modern Doctor Who series which saw The Doctor chastise every soldier as a dumb coward worthy of disgust, in as horrid a display of neo-liberalism in the media as you'll find. These people are protecting you, and should be respected. The novel never glorifies war at all, it glorifies the type of person that would put his life on the line to save his home. That is the type of person that should be glorified.

I still greatly enjoy the Paul Verhoeven movie as its own thing. It's more of a social commentary on the modern world than the society in the novel, and I love the presentation of the media especially. Comparing Heinlein's society to Nazis is idiotic and inexcusable though, especially as it's a utopian, multi-cultural democracy and not a totalitarian dictatorship. In the book, the main character isn't a white Nazi poster-child at all, and is of South American descent.

I don't agree necessarily that military or federal service is the answer, but I immensely agree with Heinlein's proposal that voting would ideally be limited only to those that care, and are aware of politics and reality. Otherwise we end up with a world where people like this have as big a say as anybody else. No wonder the world is so fucked.

 

[Sci]

I don't agree necessarily that military or federal service is the answer, but I immensely agree with Heinlein's proposal that voting would ideally be limited only to those that care, and are aware of politics and reality. Otherwise we end up with a world where people like this have as big a say as anybody else. No wonder the world is so fucked.

Isn't it just awful that when governments can't exercise power over people without also giving them a voice in the election?

I tell ya, equality is just terrible. Next thing you know, inferiors will be demanding other rights!



No one disagrees that voters have a responsibility to make educated decisions, or that voters who fail in this responsibility are not being good voters. But governments only have the right to exercise power because that authority has been delegated to them by the people as a unit -- which means they must renew that mandate through democratic elections. Which means universal adult suffrage.

Anything else is just might-makes-right tyranny.

 

[DalekJim]

The version of democracy you advocate lends itself to only serving the interests of big business. You'd actually be under less tyranny living in the world of Starship Troopers.

The parties that get the most votes will always be the ones that had the most money to spend on promotion to get the votes. This eliminates all the parties that weren't willing to make deals with the devil to get said money. There is absolutely nothing inherently fairer in a mindlessly democratic society. It would just mean the rights of minorities would be at best ignored, and at worst attacked. Something isn't morally right or wrong depending merely on how many people agree with it. Imagine if ethnic minority or gay rights were put to a public vote when first introduced. They'd have been completely dismissed. But hey, it's democratic so it's fair. Right?

Pure democracy only works if you think that the public's majority opinion is always right on every issue. If you do believe that, then I pity you.

Anything else is just might-makes-right tyranny.

How!? Asking people to maybe take a simple exam before they vote, ensuring they're aware of what their chosen party stands for would make all the difference to me.

 

[Sci]

The version of democracy you advocate lends itself to only serving the interests of big business.

Actually, big business benefits more from a limited franchise. Much easier to control that masses that way. As a result of the expansion of the franchise, they've had to find ways to manipulate public opinion through propaganda.

The solutions to that problem are complex, but they involve things like having a real public education system rather than a joke designed to produce ignorant worker-drones; limiting campaign contributions and ad buys for giant corporations; and introducing democratic socialist reforms.

Anything else is just might-makes-right tyranny.

How!?

Because it means the government is not obtaining a mandate from the whole of the people, just a segment of them. (Yes, I favor requiring universal voting.) Ergo, such a government no longer has a democratic mandate, and loses the right to govern.

Asking people to maybe take a simple exam before they vote,

We used to do that in America. Only those "simple exams" were actually designed to be nearly impossible for most people to pass, and were targeted at black people to keep them from voting. You can't trust a government to gain this ability to keep people from voting and use it fairly; it would inevitably be used to suppress voting from people of whom the reigning party disapproves.

Adults have an inherent, natural right to vote. Period. Full stop. Not qualifications, modifications, or provisos.

 

[DalekJim]

Adults have an inherent, natural right to vote. Period. Full stop.

Wrong. It is a privilege given to you. There is absolutely nothing natural to this process. In the natural order, there is no democracy at all. The strongest leads the pack.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Did Verhoeven write the script or guide the writing of the script?

Edward Neumeier wrote the screenplay. (He has a cameo in the film as the death row inmate.) I don't know if HE read the novel or any part of it. I'd like to think that he did.

In any case, Verhoeven - as the director - is the one who is most responsible for the movie as a finished product. If the director doesn't know the whole story that the movie is based on, I don't see how a true representation can be made.

 

[Trekker4747]

Wrong. [Voting] is a privilege given to you. ...

 

[DalekJim]

Wrong. [Voting] is a privilege given to you. ...

Explain this reaction.

I don't see how anybody could argue that the right to vote in a system that has only been around for a mere few hundred years, could be viewed as a natural thing all humans are born with. As if we're born with a heart, lungs, brain... and the right to submit your preference from a select choice of candidates at a voting ballot.

The point is moot though, as many people would agree that America is not a democracy. You are given a choice of two barely separable parties, that wish to govern your country in the exact same way.

 

[Sci]

Adults have an inherent, natural right to vote. Period. Full stop.

Wrong. It is a privilege given to you.

No. It is a right to be taken.

There is absolutely nothing natural to this process. In the natural order, there is no democracy at all. The strongest leads the pack.

You apparently don't understand the concept of "natural law."

Wrong. [Voting] is a privilege given to you. ...

Explain this reaction.

He has no obligation to explain a common-sense reaction to such a deeply authoritarian statement.

I don't see how anybody could argue that the right to vote in a system that has only been around for a mere few hundred years, could be viewed as a natural thing all humans are born with. As if we're born with a heart, lungs, brain...

You are, again, confusing physical nature with the concept of natural law and natural rights.

The point is moot though, as many people would agree that America is not a democracy.

On this, I actually do agree. The United States was not a democracy prior to the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- because it did not allow all adults to vote. And I frankly think it has degenerated into a plutocracy in the years since Reagan.

None of this changes the fact that all adults have a natural right to vote.

 

[DalekJim]

I genuinely don't understand the argument. If the government didn't exist to give you that right, then you wouldn't have the right to vote. How can it then be considered natural? The government came first, the right to vote came second.

To attempt to get us back on track, I don't think Heinlein's vision of the future is realistic. It's a right-wing utopia, and as unattainable as a left-wing utopia. Like the unattainable utopia of Star Trek, it hinges on people holding to non-selfish values with minimal pressure.

The reason these societies aren't attainable is the reason they're utopias though, and they're fascinating to experience in other media regardless. I don't think the world of Starship Troopers could ever sustain itself long enough without turning in to totalitarianism, I also think the same of Star Trek. Possibly to an even greater degree, as Star Trek puts a lot more in to the hands of the government

 

[Hound of UIster]

Adults have an inherent, natural right to vote. Period. Full stop.

Wrong. It is a privilege given to you.

Not according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

here is absolutely nothing natural to this process. In the natural order, there is no democracy at all. The strongest leads the pack.

Both are human constructs. Neither is more natural than the other. There are animals that practice democracy too.

 

[DalekJim]

I believe there are no rights, only privileges. I get the feeling we essentially agree, and the argument is merely semantics.

 

[Sci]

I genuinely don't understand the argument. If the government didn't exist to give you that right, then you wouldn't have the right to vote.

No. The people create the government and grant to it the authority to govern, on the condition that it obtain a democratic mandate through elections.

The government does not create the right to vote.

How can it then be considered natural? The government came first, the right to vote came second.

Tell that to those towns in New England that have been voting in town halls since long before the United States government was established.

 

[Trekker4747]

Wrong. [Voting] is a privilege given to you. ...

Explain this reaction.

I'd rather not live in the Fascist Heaven you apparently want to live in. Want me to explain it, sure I will.

First of all voting is not privilege, it is a RIGHT. It is GIVEN to every adult citizen at 18. Driving is a privilege. There's a difference, one is a guaranteed aspect of American life the other is something government lets you do under certain circumstances.

And EVERYONE has the right to vote and should not have to qualify it with everything. Is it kind of sucky that so many under-informed, ill-informed, or uninformed people vote? Yeah, it is. But who are you, I, the government or anyone else to tell someone their ideas and views are wrong and they're not qualified to vote.

If someone wants to think that Obama is a socialist who wants to ruin America at his dying his hands they're allowed to think that and vote him out. Voting is the ONE power we Americans have to control our government without resorting to violence.

Do I think people should have some fundamental grasp of how government works and the facts of the election environment before voting? Ideally, yes. It IS bad that so many poorly informed voters vote.

But then I weigh that against rights and freedom being taken away and decide things are fine the way it is because, again, who and how do we decide what a good voter is and what a poor voter is? Understanding the mechanics of government is not a good metric.

The "society" set-up in Starship Troopers is insane and disgusting considering were told people aren't even allowed to BREED freely without being a "citizen." It's an overly fascist system that DOESN'T work but everyone thinks does because of the propaganda they're given.

People have rights. We ALL have rights and if you want to start saying people should have to pass exams to get to do the most basic thing we're all allowed to do how long before we do the same thing for:

Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Religion
Freedom of the Press (state controlled and restricted press. That always works out well!)
Innocent until proven guilty.
Trials by Jury
Freedom from Self Incrimination

And pretty much all of our other rights.

None of that should be controlled which is why I've always held and speak the belief the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution isn't about GIVING rights it's about controlling and restricting what GOVERNMENT can do. Americans have ALL OF THE RIGHTS we want that are not specifically taken away/controlled by law. It's called Presumption of Rights, it's something the Founding Fathers feared when making the BoR that people would think it's all they have.

It's not. We have every right we want so long as it hasn't been taken away/restricted. The Bill of Rights and Constitution tells GOVERNMENT what it can't do. The First Amendment doesn't say "The people have the right to freedom of speech..." it says that Congress shall pass no law abridging the following rights.

So that's what my response is about.

1. You think the right to vote is a privilege.
2. You think the right to vote should be controlled and mandated.

How about a poll tax or allowing candidates to promise direct rewards for a vote in their favor as well?

 

[DalekJim]

I'd rather not live in the Fascist Heaven you apparently want to live in.

Ridiculous rhetoric.

First of all voting is not privilege, it is a RIGHT. It is GIVEN to every adult citizen at 18.

Doomed by your own use of caps. A "right" is not something that has to be given. By its very nature, people should already have it. Privileges are given. Who gives the right, if not the government? A government given right is a privilege.

Driving is a privilege. There's a difference, one is a guaranteed aspect of American life the other is something government lets you do under certain circumstances.

The government allow you to vote under certain controlled circumstances. They're called elections.

 

[Trekker4747]

The government allow you to vote under certain controlled circumstances. They're called elections.

That's not control. That's called organization. Or "it's better everyone does it on these specific days so we get an answer confirmed and quickly rather than people just doing it whenever and us not getting a damn thing done. We do too little as it is."

Doomed by your own use of caps. A "right" is not something that has to be given. By its very nature, people should already have it. Privileges are given. Who gives the right, if not the government? A government given right is a privilege.

What to be pedant, sure. I'll give you that slip.

Regardless, we as Americans have rights, one of them is the right to vote at the age of 18. There's already too many restrictions on it as is (for example, I'm not a fan of the idea of felons losing the right to vote) but at the most basic level everyone has the right to speak their mind (on given days) and choose their leaders. Why they pick one over the other is their own business.

A "government given" anything isn't a "right." I do not have a right to drive a car, it's something I can lose at any time if I don't follow the rules. There's only a small handful of things that'll cause me to lose my right to vote, it's something I was given at birth and will have until the day I die.

A "right" is something you always have and one of those things you always have -or should- is to pick your leader. The Constitution outlines that. People have the RIGHT to pick their leader rather than having one forced on them by the will of whatever entity.

 

[Nagisa Furukawa]

Tell that to those towns in New England that have been voting in town halls since long before the United States government was established.

He... obviously didn't mean the specific government that was eventually founded, but the concept of societal organization within a society, of which those New England towns mostly certainly were.

 

[Nagisa Furukawa]

Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Religion
Freedom of the Press (state controlled and restricted press. That always works out well!)
Innocent until proven guilty.
Trials by Jury
Freedom from Self Incrimination

And pretty much all of our other rights.

All of these things you listed are awesome things, and it's smart and moral to run a society where the above things are given to everyone (as they are in Starship Troopers, BTW the ONLY things non-citizens can't do are vote and run in elections), but I think the language often given to them, alienable, god-given, natural, etc., is inaccurate pleading for concepts that are really pretty easy to justify. They're concepts and privileges given because of the corruption and negative effect on society seen where this is not the case. Calling them inalienable or natural rights is itself propaganda language to justify them!

 

[DalekJim]

That's not control. That's called organization. Or "it's better everyone does it on these specific days so we get an answer confirmed and quickly rather than people just doing it whenever and us not getting a damn thing done. We do too little as it is."

Imposed organisation is obviously the exact same thing as control?

There's no real difference between your right to drive or vote. Both can get taken away if you break the law (If you live in a certain state!), and you only gain both after reaching an arbitrary age. All of these things are dictated by the government. That isn't an authoritarian view, that's just how society works.

I'd written more but it's 4am and I want to sleep, so I'll call an end to this for tonight. It's good that this book can still get people debating though.

 

[Thestral]

Especially after recently rewatching a few episodes of the modern Doctor Who series which saw The Doctor chastise every soldier as a dumb coward worthy of disgust, in as horrid a display of neo-liberalism in the media as you'll find.

In the book, the main character isn't a white Nazi poster-child at all, and is of South American descent.

What are you even banging on about there? Even "The Doctor's Daughter" never went that far.

Also: for somebody so obsessed with the book, you missed that he's Filipino, not South American.

How can it then be considered natural? The government came first, the right to vote came second.

Tell that to those towns in New England that have been voting in town halls since long before the United States government was established.

C'mon now, you know that's weak sauce.

Doomed by your own use of caps. A "right" is not something that has to be given. By its very nature, people should already have it. Privileges are given. Who gives the right, if not the government? A government given right is a privilege.

What to be pedant, sure. I'll give you that slip.

Dude, that's not a slip, that's like... falling off a ladder onto a fence post.