You are showing no understanding of what democracy and representative government are, in that argument.
Starship Troopers
- Thread starter McCoy
- Start date
You are showing no understanding of what democracy and representative government are, in that argument.
^ I understand more than you think. I repeat: Why should anyone be allowed to vote if they haven't demonstrated they know something about what they're voting for?
That being said, I also believe that everyone who can vote should be *made* to vote. Voting should both be earned and compulsory.
That being said, I also believe that everyone who can vote should be *made* to vote. Voting should both be earned and compulsory.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
That question alone betrays your statement that you understand it.
You don't understand it anymore than that Mr. Heinlein.
^^^Well, technically it is possible to understand it but reject it. One of the things in Starship Troopers was the H&MP teacher pontificating about how talk about rights is useless. What use are rights to a person drowning in the Pacific Ocean? (The actual example I think.) The thing is, of course, is that talk of rights is of vital importance to someone being tortured by military officers in the Dirty War.
J.T.B., there is no need for a even a blind paraplegic to count the hairs on a caterpillar. That would be an impossible task, and I can't think of any reason for it other than to discourage the hypothetical person, no matter what the text is willing to say. The further quote about "dirty, nasty dangerous jobs" makes it quite clear that the franchise is to be limited. But the defense is that the franchise is widespread. The quotes that supposedly show this are contradicted by the other parts. I attribute this to duplicity. Heinlein took a tour of the USSR and came back with tips for tourists on how to browbeat Intourist officials, including such time honored tactics as shouting, verbal abuse, refusing to move or even moving into the victim's work area/personal space. Heinlein also wrote a number of scenes mocking pushy tourists. There is no contradiction, I think, if Heinlein was just a mean, lying militarist, Social Darwinist who wrote Starship Troopers as promilitary propaganda for adolescents.
First, I'm talking about real life, which Starship Troopers conspicuously isn't like. Second, the thing about armies, is that the soldiers do what they're told. It's called discipline. This is generally not attributed to soldier support but to the leadership of the officers. When the ranks stop following orders, it's called revolution, and blamed on Satan. If military officers choose to stage a coup, they rarely have much trouble ordering the ranks into action. If they choose to organize "off duty" soldiers into death squads, they rarely have much trouble either. If they are ordered to place the country under curfew they rarely have much trouble ordering the troops out on the streets. And so on, and so forth.
A military court trims its justice to suit the needs of the officers, which explains why rich kid Rico gets whipped. A civilian court trims its justice to fit its superiors, which includes rich people. Rich people are much less likely to be charged, much less convicted. Which means the equal tenderness of the skin on their backs is totally irrelevant to the fake argument for superior justice advanced in the book.
When one out of three civil service jobs is civilian, then we have confirmed that veterans get preference, instead of civil service being a road to the franchise. Which I knew. What I don't understand is how these facts are supposed to refute me.
The gods are the basic subject matter of The Iliad, and the movie Troy does not respect them. It totally rewrites the character of Achilles if he is not divinely destined, for one thing.
The story of Starship Troopers is as I summarized it. The book does indeed discuss quite a bit else, but discussion is not a story.
If Starship Troopers inspired military sf, so much the worse for it. Hindsight is easy, though.
If I recall correctly, the novel says specically all enlistments are for the duration of the war.
But most of all, Athenian democracy was marked by Cleon the demagogue, Hyperbolus who is an eponym for demagogy, the career of Alcibiades, the seizure of power by the Thirty and their reign of terror, Theramenes' revolt against the Thirty, etc. That's just a few fragments off the top of my mind. Do not trust in wikipediea for any subject of controversy, which includes the role of classes in democracy.
J.T.B., there is no need for a even a blind paraplegic to count the hairs on a caterpillar. That would be an impossible task, and I can't think of any reason for it other than to discourage the hypothetical person, no matter what the text is willing to say. The further quote about "dirty, nasty dangerous jobs" makes it quite clear that the franchise is to be limited. But the defense is that the franchise is widespread. The quotes that supposedly show this are contradicted by the other parts. I attribute this to duplicity. Heinlein took a tour of the USSR and came back with tips for tourists on how to browbeat Intourist officials, including such time honored tactics as shouting, verbal abuse, refusing to move or even moving into the victim's work area/personal space. Heinlein also wrote a number of scenes mocking pushy tourists. There is no contradiction, I think, if Heinlein was just a mean, lying militarist, Social Darwinist who wrote Starship Troopers as promilitary propaganda for adolescents.
First, I'm talking about real life, which Starship Troopers conspicuously isn't like. Second, the thing about armies, is that the soldiers do what they're told. It's called discipline. This is generally not attributed to soldier support but to the leadership of the officers. When the ranks stop following orders, it's called revolution, and blamed on Satan. If military officers choose to stage a coup, they rarely have much trouble ordering the ranks into action. If they choose to organize "off duty" soldiers into death squads, they rarely have much trouble either. If they are ordered to place the country under curfew they rarely have much trouble ordering the troops out on the streets. And so on, and so forth.
A military court trims its justice to suit the needs of the officers, which explains why rich kid Rico gets whipped. A civilian court trims its justice to fit its superiors, which includes rich people. Rich people are much less likely to be charged, much less convicted. Which means the equal tenderness of the skin on their backs is totally irrelevant to the fake argument for superior justice advanced in the book.
When one out of three civil service jobs is civilian, then we have confirmed that veterans get preference, instead of civil service being a road to the franchise. Which I knew. What I don't understand is how these facts are supposed to refute me.
The gods are the basic subject matter of The Iliad, and the movie Troy does not respect them. It totally rewrites the character of Achilles if he is not divinely destined, for one thing.
The story of Starship Troopers is as I summarized it. The book does indeed discuss quite a bit else, but discussion is not a story.
If Starship Troopers inspired military sf, so much the worse for it. Hindsight is easy, though.
If I recall correctly, the novel says specically all enlistments are for the duration of the war.
But most of all, Athenian democracy was marked by Cleon the demagogue, Hyperbolus who is an eponym for demagogy, the career of Alcibiades, the seizure of power by the Thirty and their reign of terror, Theramenes' revolt against the Thirty, etc. That's just a few fragments off the top of my mind. Do not trust in wikipediea for any subject of controversy, which includes the role of classes in democracy.
Ah, universal suffrage is the requirement for an elected body not to be tyrannical in your eyes?
How do you reconcile that with the concept that no democracy has ever allowed universal suffrage?
Is your government a tyranny? Why not? I guarantee you they don't allow everyone that is alive to vote.
Universal suffrage isn't - there are age requirements uniformly, arbitrarily set at 18 despite the fact that the concept that our children are adults at that age is a recent societal invention.
Many countries remove convicted felons. All of them have sound mind provisios.
There is differentiation in suffrage, always has been. You just happen to agree with the concepts that are in place now.
And this of course is the 2nd time I've brought this up in response to the same query.
As I said, I don't believe we should change our system to the one Heinlein proposed. But it clearly is a form of democracy, even if you don't agree with that. It isn't tyranny, because everyone has the same opportunity to earn the vote. It isn't just arbitrarily given to them at a certain age.
I'm sure the primary issue isn't the restriction of franchise, but instead the fact that he proposed it being given to veterans. That draws a shiver from many of our friends here who outright despise the military.
But the argument has already been presented, and not discussed at all - Heinlein saw the trend in participation in democracy in 1959 and decided a fun thought experiment would be taking Thomas Paine's quote and put it on the political structure of Athenian democracy.
Funny that that combination is regarded as tyranny. LOL.
Rii
Rear Admiral
I'll take this opportunity to mention that there's no evidence that Heinlein thought that we should change our systems of government to that in Starship Troopers either. It's an adolescent novel designed to make the reader think the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, about the relationship between the citizen and the state. It's not a blueprint.
No clearer explanation of 'rights' exist than that - be they natural or divinely inspired, they provide you exactly as much protection as the side that has power over you allows.
Yet another misperception. The franchise is obviously limited. However, opportunity to earn the franchise is available to all adults.
My lord, what a spin job. Heinlein became enraged when he was in Russia for a tour and Gary Powers spy plane was shot down. He was sent to an Intourist office and browbeated by the local KGB representatives (yes, that's who ran Intourist) about how evil the US was for spying on the peaceful, tranquil Soviet Union. He became incensed.
Ah, yes, no bias here.
Absolutely no insight either.
And you are contradicting yourself to boot - nice triad.
Which is one of the reasons why professional ethics are so important to the concept of training our soldiers, why the military academies are some of the best universities in the world, and with the inclusion of discipline why the military is such a unique institution for Heinlein's thought experiment - that the men there can be trained in civics.
If there is any mention of civilian justice, it is theoretical and doesn't include any examples. All the justice system that is showed is explicitly the military version.
As we don't know anything about the procedures involved in their civil court system, speculation is pointless. About all we know is that Heinlein advocated corporal punishment, we know nothing about the structure that would have been imposed in outside of the military.
As far as we know all courts, lawyers and juries were appointed by random lot, if that system was even used.
The only stated preference is that of teachers of moral philosophy must hold the franchise and therefore be veterans. It was also the only class that wasn't graded. We know the majority of MP teachers were not MI.
A sample size of three isn't exactly overwhelming evidence - it's statistically representative of nothing.
Yet strangely that aspect they left in - his mother's prophecy to him. Regardless, the gods aren't the only theme of the Illiad, and the movie Troy was clearly an attempt at a historical retelling of the work without relying on divine providence. It didn't mock the concept that these people believed in gods, it just removed them as the manipulators of humanity and showed how the men and women involved could have made the same decisions without Athena whispering in their ear.
Semantics. If you ignore the philosophical underpinnings of why the society works, it clearly wouldn't - that's why Voerhoven portrayed it as he did. It changes from an adventure story with a debatable philosophical theme into a complete farce, and explicitly works to contradict the themes of the work.
You are fine with that because of your obvious contempt for the military, which leads you to be contemptous of the themes of the novel.
Again, I have to differ - hindsight can be limited based on one's own preconceptions. Subjectivity is easy, hindsight can still be difficult if your vision isn't clear in the first place.
No, for the duration of the Confederations need - just like our service oath states. It is stated that Johnny realizes he could be signing up for life. However, he takes the oath before the war, and therefore he doesn't expect it to be so. Indeed, one of the major issues about going to OTC is it extending his enlistment - going career.
Again I'd differ - most of all Athenian democracy was noted by it being the first true direct democracy and a successful one for over two centuries. The Thirty were an example of its strength, that even defeated by the Spartans and having an oligarchy forced on them that the Athenian citizens revolted and restored their previous form of rule. As stated, the only thing that eventually bereft them of their form of government for any length of time was an external force. Yes, the demagogues could alter political thinking their way - exactly how is that any different then modern democracy except in scale?
I have yet to see any proof that a world wide system that granted the franchise to veterans would fail inexorably because Athens was eventually overhwhelmed by Macedon. And of course it's a strawman regardless - Heinlein never stated that it was an impervious system of government, only that it involved its stake holders in a more direct manner because the franchise had to be earned as opposed to given upon an arbitrary standard.
Perhaps you, like Verhoeven, are mistaking it for a different political system that promised to span a millenia.
The first Starship Troopers film is my ABSOLUTE favorite movie ever. I loved the way Paul adapted it, and I've also read the book... BOTH versions of the story are equally as awesome.
I'll take this opportunity to mention that there's no evidence that Heinlein thought that we should change our systems of government to that in Starship Troopers either. It's an adolescent novel designed to make the reader think the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, about the relationship between the citizen and the state. It's not a blueprint.
LOL, I concur. Besides, it's not even Heinlein's primary manifesto - Stranger in a Strange Land did have a cult like following and is pretty much directly antiethical of his thoughts expressed in this novel. He was a scifi author, he was playing games with his speculative fiction.
Funny how it still gets folks riled up 50 years later though...
It's a strongly conservative piece, in many of its assumptions, and as such has to be discredited in the eyes of many. Can't allow that kind of thought, can we? It could lead to Nazis!
john titor
Captain
great film, even though it loses wind through the second half. Verhoven is a master of combining intelligent subtext with enjoyably commendable cheese.
Wow, its been a hell of a discussion so far.
Surprised we've gotten this far without anyone bringing up the 'he left out the power armor!' debate. I remember that was a huge fannish gripe back when the movie came out.
Surprised we've gotten this far without anyone bringing up the 'he left out the power armor!' debate. I remember that was a huge fannish gripe back when the movie came out.
Rii
Rear Admiral
I'll take this opportunity to mention that there's no evidence that Heinlein thought that we should change our systems of government to that in Starship Troopers either. It's an adolescent novel designed to make the reader think the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, about the relationship between the citizen and the state. It's not a blueprint.
LOL, I concur. Besides, it's not even Heinlein's primary manifesto - Stranger in a Strange Land did have a cult like following and is pretty much directly antiethical of his thoughts expressed in this novel. He was a scifi author, he was playing games with his speculative fiction.
Funny how it still gets folks riled up 50 years later though...
I'm actually reading the "uncut" version of Stranger in a Strange Land at the moment, so far I think I prefer the "cut" version.
What's amusing to me is the level of discussion the novel actually provokes, despite one "side" claiming that it's utterly without merit and the other not exactly asserting that it's mankind's greatest work of literature. The discussions in this thread alone are evidence enough that there's more to it than most of what passes for sci-fi these days.
Well, it's like making Star Trek and leaving out the Enterprise.
It invented the powered armor genre, and directly led to Iron Man, Armor, and mecha.
It also was a dominant influence in military scifi. Another hugo award winner the Forever War is largely considered a direct rebuttal, though the author claims otherwise. LOL. Current military scifi often includes its concepts, including the Legacy of Aldenata and Old Man's War series, both bestsellers and both directly claim lineage from Starship Troopers.
Last edited:
I'm actually reading the "uncut" version of Stranger in a Strange Land at the moment, so far I think I prefer the "cut" version.
Very cool - didn't know such a thing existed. I'll see if I can track it down.
Funny that an old warmongering, intentionally deceiving, morally bereft conservative like Heinlein (he insulted the KGB, the NERVE! LOL) also wrote the scifi counterculture handbook of the sixties and seventies.
Absolutely. Its an important work, but it outraged his critics at the time and obviously it still does.
Of course, the results speak for themselves - one of his seven Hugos, along with the first winner of the Science Fiction Writers of America Grand Master Award for lifetime achievement. He's one of the big three - the three great masters of the beginning of scifi, along with Asimov and Clarke.
Which also outrages the people that believe he should be scorned and forgotten.
I definitely liked "The Forever War" better than "Starship Troopers".
The recent novel "Old Man's War" is also a great novel in the same military SF genre.
The recent novel "Old Man's War" is also a great novel in the same military SF genre.
Agreed. I'd love to see 'The Forever War' turned into a feature film or miniseries, though I suspect it would be ruined by Hollywood. The 2458 time period alone would probably be drastically changed due to the way sexuality in that time was portrayed in the novel.
Ridley Scott bought the rights, and last I heard is looking for a writer for the screenplay and intends to release it sometime in 2011.
http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/10/13/the-forever-war-ridley-scott-returns-to-sci-fi/
Forever War was a great book, especially as the character struggled to deal with a future that didn't really include him.
The sequel was god awful though.
http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/10/13/the-forever-war-ridley-scott-returns-to-sci-fi/
Forever War was a great book, especially as the character struggled to deal with a future that didn't really include him.
The sequel was god awful though.
Similar threads
