Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PuckSR t1_itnbgcm wrote

It is important to remember that Heinlein believed in being a provocateur with his fiction. He repeatedly said that he wasn't advocating for the ideas in his books.

Example: In many of his books, he describes polygamy, polyamory, underage sexual partners, incest, homosexual relationships, and cannibalism(to leave off what happens in Starship Troopers). He may have liked some of these ideas and disliked others? But it is almost certain that he put some of these ideas just to get a reaction and to make people question cultural norms. He liked doing that.

Starship Troopers is mostly told via the perspective of a young man who joins the military somewhat randomly. A lot of his statements could be taken as the brash certainty of a young person wholly confident in their beliefs. For example, at one point there is a rapist who is just summarily executed. The protagonist basically says: "well, we all know there is nothing you can do to fix someone who is a rapist, so we should just kill them with minimal trial and get it over with".

However, the overall story is mostly about how these young people are used as cannon fodder and their lives are basically worthless to the military. In many ways it is a very heavy-handed takedown of the military-industrial complex.
It should be noted that "civil service" isn't just military. In fact, they make it very clear that he could have achieved his service requirement via numerous other less dangerous means.

6

Bomberman3301 t1_itndhdb wrote

This is even more self evident with Starship Troopers where fascism is given light and the characters discuss the ideals of their ideology and what motivates them; all of which is coming from a libertarian.

1

Fafnir26 OP t1_itnccng wrote

"In fact, they make it very clear that he could have achieved his service requirement via numerous other less dangerous means."

​

I know, thats why I wonder if I should read it. I could see maaaybe this being a positive thing, but if it really was just military service...

−1

PuckSR t1_itnd0in wrote

As I told someone else, the service requirement is the only thing that he might be advocating for, but it is more of a two-tiered citizenship thing. If you don't serve(provide some service to your country), you get all protections you just dont get to vote. If you do serve, you get to vote.

It isn't exactly a novel idea.

But the gung-ho military stuff? He is definitely writing a lot of that in a way that the reader winds up questioning the positive attributes of 'nationalism' near the end. This is also one of his first books after writing a lot for magazines like Boys' Life, so it is very basic. He gets into a lot more stuff in his later books.

2

Fafnir26 OP t1_itndl05 wrote

Voting is very important to me, though. What would I get from civil service that makes me a better voter? Either its tyranny or its not worth the hassle in my book. Sorry.

2

PuckSR t1_itnf7ak wrote

Good for you? But universal suffrage isnt practiced hardly anywhere.

There is a reason you don't have an enumerated right to vote in the USA

1

Fafnir26 OP t1_itng5ul wrote

But as a citizen of my state I should have the right to vote if I come of age. Maybe even earlier.

1

PuckSR t1_itngb86 wrote

But from a govt design perspective, why is that good?

1

Fafnir26 OP t1_itngkm4 wrote

Well the first thing that comes to mind is that it is the most honest representation of the will of the people. Thats what democracy is about, right?

1

PuckSR t1_itnh0jp wrote

So, do you think foreigners who are living here should get to vote too?
As they are subject to the laws too?

1

Fafnir26 OP t1_itnhds1 wrote

Well foreigners who live here aren´t foreigners.

1

PuckSR t1_itni231 wrote

I mean, they literally are?
So under your idea, a country could just send over enough people to swing the vote and then steal that territory from you?

This is the Texas problem

1

Fafnir26 OP t1_itnixcm wrote

In my understanding most foreigners have to undergo some sort of test to become a citizen and it would take a lot to organize such a "migrant army" before someone stepped in.

1

PuckSR t1_itnk172 wrote

No, you just said that foreigners who live here aren't foreigners. Apparently they get citizen status as soon as they came here?

So which is it? Can a foreigner be living in the USA?

1

Fafnir26 OP t1_itnku9v wrote

No, they don´t get citizen status immediately obviously. But if they are permenent residents I wouldn´t consider them foreigners, even if they might not be citizens yet legally.

1

PuckSR t1_itnm3fc wrote

So they get to vote?

1

Fafnir26 OP t1_itnmm5t wrote

No, only as citizens. I think that is not controversial, right?

1

PuckSR t1_itnopph wrote

You just said that everyone subject to the laws of govt should get to vote on that govt.

I'm trying to point out why alternative views should at least be entertained as something beyond "fascism"

1

Fafnir26 OP t1_ito5ocz wrote

I am not saying that. I want that people with a permanent residence who have taken basics tests for their citizenship should be allowed to vote.

Sure there are opinions other than facism. But what are you trying to prove here?

1

PuckSR t1_itofug5 wrote

I apologize, I think this is coming off too hostile. My original point was simply that universal suffrage isnt some objectively good thing. You are absolutely free to believe whatever you want, but given the vast number of societies that have implemented non-universal suffrage(and not simply for discriminatory reasons), there must be some good arguments to be made.

My point was that you would probably like Heinlein despite the story saying that suffrage was based on civil service, but maybe you won't? Regardless, it isn't an idea that can be dismissed as political idealogue or conservative

1

Fafnir26 OP t1_itpj28j wrote

No worries, I´ve heard a lot worse. Though I am not sure what exactly is the problem with universal suffrage. Which people exactly would you exclude from having political power? You´d think a goverment that represents all people living in a state is the most fair.

1

PuckSR t1_itpuc84 wrote

First of all, I never said I had a problem with universal suffrage.

That being said, there are numerous reasons you might not want to allow every person in your country the right to vote.

  • If you allow foreigners to vote, they might move in and vote to capitulate to their home country. Even Athens banned foreigners from voting for this specific reason.
  • If you allow children to vote, they might vote poorly
  • If you allow criminals to vote, they might vote to end the enforcement of crime
  • If you allow the poor to vote, they might vote for something like communism
  • If you allow slaves to vote, they might vote to end slavery(ignoring the morality of slavery)

Clearly, I dont support all of those reasons. Slavery should never be allowed in the first place. But, if you live in a society that has legal slavery, that is a very valid reason for not allowing universal suffrage. It is an interesting discussion to have regarding the meta-game of election politics.

I, for one, am a little troubled by the fact that the majority of people who vote in elections can't actually tell you the name of the candidates they are voting for in any office beneath POTUS. They just look for a D or R next to the name. I'd definitely be open to changes in the election system so that people were required to actually know something.

1

Fafnir26 OP t1_itpzfe5 wrote

Okay, thats good. But you still want to debate about it, so you should name problems if there are any, because I don´t see a lot if any.

I think the way universal suffrage is understood it still excludes children (I´d say give people the vote at 16 at the youngest) and "foreigners". Foreigners is not really precise term, though as you can change your nationality. Also, Athens excluded a whole lot of people if we are talking about ancient Athens.

​

As for criminals, I think they should have at least some say how they are treated, espacially if they suffered from mental ilness, drug addiction, prejudice or poverty. And lets not forget people still sometimes go to prison unjustly. Honestly I am more afraid of people treating criminals cruely than of criminals being able to create some sort of situation were they are coddled by the system.

​

Well, I am not sure if communism works economically but I don´t think they should be totally excluded from politics. We have a far left party here in Germany that has some communists I think. I don´t think its fair to put them on the same level as Nazis, Soviets or even facists (and a facist politician even won an election very recently in Italy).

​

Yeah, that is a problem, but I think the solution is better education and news reporting, not exclusion.

1

PuckSR t1_itqby4w wrote

>Yeah, that is a problem, but I think the solution is better education and news reporting, not exclusion.

I am just saying it is a discussion worth having. Maybe your solution is better, maybe mine is better. But someone saying that voting rights shouldnt be automatic isn't necessarily evil or malicious. Once again, that is somewhat the point of Heinlein's writing style; perhaps you have never considered an alternative system.

1

Fafnir26 OP t1_itrackl wrote

Well, I have thought a lot about it and I don´t like it. Maybe my views will change after I read the book? From what I´ve seen the author is not so much persuading the reader as he is preaching, though. But I will check out Starship Troopers now. Probably after I finished Salambo. And then maybe reward myself with A Knight in Anarchy. I am more of a history and fantasy guy to Sci Fi. I prefer swords over guns personally. Honestly, they seem like the more honorable weapon.

1

PuckSR t1_itraoax wrote

No, and that was my original point.

The entire story is told from the perspective of a cock-sure young man who is slowly learning about the realities of the world. You can't interpret any of the narrator's promotion of the govt agenda as true advocacy.
It would be like watching JoJo Rabbit and thinking that the director was pro-Nazi because the protagonist is pro-Nazi

1

Fafnir26 OP t1_itrixqq wrote

Oooookay, then tell me this, why are so many people defending this books ideas?? Whats the point? LOL

1

PuckSR t1_itroivv wrote

Some people are Nazis and think the Nazis are right. When they watch JoJo Rabbit, they see their beliefs reflected in this part of the movie.

That doesn't mean that the intent of the director/author has anything to do with how people interpret their book.

1

Fafnir26 OP t1_itrpy13 wrote

Fair enough, so you are really saying Heinlein wrote this book just to basicly say every view expressed in it was bullshit?

1

PuckSR t1_itrrjlf wrote

Nope. Heinlein wrote this book as a commentary on nationalism. But, he used elements of this fictional universe to juxtapose them with existing systems to make the reader consider if one was better or worse.

This is a standard practice in fiction when the alternative universe is not dystopian or utopian.

1

Fafnir26 OP t1_itrvek6 wrote

Uh huh. Problem is I already have an opinion on nationalism. I think its counterproductive, espacially in our time with global problems like climate change and the migration crisis.

1

PuckSR t1_itrz1ay wrote

Then you'd probably like the book?

1

Fafnir26 OP t1_its09sf wrote

I guess? If it does allow for a critical view of its politics. I´ll have to make sure. Watching JoJo Rabbit now, though and its definately more satirical than the book. Kinda fun though even if its just Nazis being awful and funny so far, nothing deeper.

1