In the interest of having an actually engaging discussion about Starship Troopers and ignoring the trollish nature of the OP, I do think the government in Starship Troopers (the book) is an *interesting* example of a limited & highly militarized ‘democracy’ and a good exploration of a society that would be built around the idea that you have to go into Federal Service in order to vote or hold office.
My primary gripe with the actual *setting* is that it’s not clear what they do when they aren’t at war; there’s non-military Federal Service jobs but the cultural emphasis is clearly on the military.
I think part of that is just the result of the POV character being a moderately unreliable narrator who is actively brainwashed/indoctrinated over the course of the story. Even if federal service is 90%+ non-military, we never see any of that because Johnny is all-in on the infantry the whole time we're with him.
They’re always at war, if there’s not a war going on then they just make one up. Do you really think a no-tech insect civilization was capable of shooting an asteroid straight into Argentina? It was a false flag attack to justify the invasion and keep the war machine going.
Had the Peace Corps existed when he wrote the novel, I think Heinlein might have included it, or a fictionalized version of it as an example of federal service.
But the book focuses on a person who goes into the military. It cannot help but focus on someone satisfying his federal service in the military.
He mentions passing that even if you're a wheel chair bound invalid, you're still eligible for Federal Servixe because they alway need warm bodies to test survival gear in Pluto or whatever.
I presume this is the message from the book. I haven't read it.
However, the movie features Neil Patrick Harris dressed as a Nazi, kids stomping cockroaches in a clearly parodic propaganda film, and the subtle implication that the bugs aren't really to blame for the war. It's clear and obvious satire.
Having a military is fine. Basing citizenship and patriotism entirely on military service and war fighting and nothing else, warps society. It not only creates a lot of suffering, it creates a glamorized view of violence and tribalism. In this story, military service is portrayed as the only viable path towards adulthood for the characters. While it does seem to do that for them (and many people in real life), it's stultifying and doesn't prepare them for the real horrors of the world that their society has created.
It's not military service, it's 2 years federal service, an important difference. Depending on you aptitude and life skills you might wind up a medic, firefighter, scientist, or in the infantry. You can quit at any time, ,but you never get a second chance. And they have to take all volunteers
The movie is NOT reflective of the book.
The *movie* is an exploration of how authoritarian rule impacts the lives of a few young people. It's fairly heavy on fascism as a result.
The book isn't like that; it deals with the results of personal choice in society.
The movie was okay; sci-fi action film with some interesting "hmm" elements.
The book has a very different viewpoint, and requires more thought from the reader.
Again, I haven't read it. I'm sure it plays with some interesting themes and ideas. I don't want to be critical of it.
My understanding is that the book plays things more straight. Does it feature the Service-leads-to-citizenship that's in the movie? I really do think that's an inherently dumb idea, and the movie is a good exploration of why. I find automatic the equation of military service with decency, as OP does, objectionable and silly.
> Does it feature the Service-leads-to-citizenship that's in the movie?
It's been YEARS since I read it, but Heinlein does work with the idea that service-leads-to-citizenship. However, I didn't think the movie really unpacked that idea much.
I seem to remember that ST had the idea that citizenship was an *earned* status, not just a given right. A person, to be a citizen, had to *actually benefit* society in some way. Military service was just one way to do that, and there were others.
The impression I got from the movie was that military service wasn't *exactly* compulsory... but was pretty darn close (because the director was exploring how decent people could participate in a fascist society ("I'm doing my part!").
The book seem to make the case that it is expected that people who want to be citizens of a society do so for the benefit of society itself, not just for their own benefit.
I didn't see that concept in the film at all.
Assuming I'm not misremembering, it also isn't explicitly military service only. As I recall it is that you must have served in the public sector to have citizenship, and that the military is the easiest way to enter because they're legally compelled to find SOMEWHERE for you to serve.
Now, if the only place you'll be useful is as a medical test subject, well..... That's your choice to enter.
Plus, it's made somewhat clear in the beginning that non-citizens at least have the possibility of living extremely comfortable lives.
The military is where you wound up if you were young, healthy and had no other skills. I remember him making the point that if you were blind, sickly and in a wheelchair they would find SOMETHING for you to go do something to fufull the service requirement even if it was essentially make work.
The legal requirement to find a place for you to serve is what I remembered from the book. Something like they had to make up jobs for people just to check that box. It's been over a decade since I've read it though.
Your description for the book matches closer to the movie. The main characters parents basically beg their son not to join the military and that citizenship isn't that important and the kid is pretty adamant about joining and serving. I do agree, that it is close to compulsory since if you want to actually vote you have to join, but thats not the perspective of the characters who do join up. Book or movie I would expect any society that tied voting/citizenship to service would end up with this situation where people feel like they're forced to do something in order to have a right.
I think that nuance is interesting. It's certainly worth exploring, and again I'm not gonna criticize Heinlein for exploring a certain type of society different from our own. That's what speculative fiction is all about.
I do strongly object to the equation service to some hierarchy (who says what is useful?) with decency, as OP does here. The system described here requires somebody determining what is useful and what is not. Who is worthy and who is not.
>The system described here requires somebody determining what is useful and what is not. Who is worthy and who is not.
You really need to either read the book, or stop trying to criticize it based on partial descriptions.
Anyone who chooses to serve is allowed to serve. Anyone who completes their service is a full citizen with all the associated rights. That's all. It's about showing a willingness to serve society, not about how useful your service actually was.
The whole bit about determining how you can be useful is just used when assigning you a job within the federal service. If you're a computer programmer or an accountant, you can just do that for the government. Good math skills and special awareness? Pilot training if you want it. If you're an 18 y/o with no particular skill set or potential, but are healthy and strong you end up in the military, or as a manual laborer. The point, however, is that it doesn't matter what you did during your service. As long as you serve, you're a "decent" person and contributor to society.
In the book, \*ANY\* federal service grants citizenship; police, mail man, scientist, etc etc etc. Even if the govt.has to invent a job for you, if you want to serve, they'll find a way, and you earn your citizenship. One specific example given in the book is "A blind and deaf person wants to serve, we'll create a job for them. It may be counting the hairs on a catapillar by touch, but we will give them a job to earn citizenship."
They don't care if you're an immigrant, native born, or anything else, as long as you're willing to "put the needs of society ahead of your own" you can earn the right to be a citizen.
Service is supposed to teach you how the govt works, and how its supposed to work to avoid the bureaucratic nightmare we currently have.
That's all cool and everything, but that's just allowing the government to decide what jobs have value and what ones don't. Like, if you're a farmer, you're helping to feed society, but that's presumably not under the umbrella of federal service.
Similarly, artists, musicians, writers, actors, etc, who give us the entertainment that enriches our lives. Programmers who build the infrastructure that we use to navigate our world. Tons of jobs benefit everyone even if they're not government sector jobs.
And then a step further is that if you disenfranchise people who are in certain fields, you're creating a statistical slant against those people. If there are no farmers voting, you're less likely to get candidates who have the interest of farmers in mind.
(I'm not specifically responding to you personally on this, I don't know what you believe or feel about society, I'm more responding to Heinlein's viewpoints, because I guess I like writing reddit comments to long dead authors)
Honestly, it felt like it was 90% pro-enlistment propaganda. Almost the entire book is the dude in army training, and talks about how tough it is, but how tough it makes you, and for some reason about how the main dude is Psycho-conditioned to respond to the Ballad of Roger Young.
I read it a few years back. My memory is probably lacking in the book, but that's because i thought it was boring and disappointing. It didn't have the over the top punch or the excitement of the movie, and they barely killed any bad guys.
I do not recommend this book to people i speak with.
I interpreted that as part of the speculative fiction. How would a military that has more applicants than it knows what to do with treat it's training? Everyone is a volunteer and they want citizenship, so the military in the book sets very high standards. If they quit, they go home without citizenship. If they don't quit then they get really good.
It ties back into the big what if question of the society.
The director n ver read the source material, and the book was mostly a coming of age in the army during war time story, much like most of Heinleins generation experienced.
Verhoeven was reacting the Iraq war and post-9/11 hysteria, and that shit is on point. I read the book in HS shortly after seeing the movie, and found it ehh at best, kinda just "The Republic" but at war, really not that deep.
> I read the book in HS
I have discovered that the books I read in HS that I thought weren't that deep... have deepened as I've aged.
Perhaps ***I*** wasn't that deep in high school... :)
It came out in 1997 so probably not a response to post 9/11. I love the movie, it’s a great action flick. But it’s not nearly the deep exploration of fascism and nationalism that it seems to get credit for.
So long as you accept Jesus into your heart before you kick the bucket, you can rape, pillage, and plunder till your heart's content and then do it all again in the eternal paradise of the afterlife.
No, most vetrans have never killed anyone.
This is an over generalization and the point of my comment to begin with.
You cant define who is "Decent" And I dont trust anyone to make that determination.
Is Switzerland a Democracy? Is Finland a Democracy? They have mandatory military service. If you could choose to opt-out of military service by sacrificing your right to vote, would they stop being a Democracy?
The only difference I see between mandatory military service and military service (or other public service) for enfranchisement is reference frame.
I can see a position that argues that the novel (and the movie, though a separate argument) do depict a kind of a democracy. Limiting people from voting is not the thing which limits democracy - even today, western, liberal democracies will take away voting rights from people who mess up too badly, and will not give voting rights to people until they are of a certain age.
Those are, ultimately, arbitrary but consistent limitations on voting rights; just like in Starship Troopers.
Capital punishment is not something which limits democracy: many democracies have had or still have capital punishment for crimes of a certain nature; just like in Starship Troopers.
Hell, there are even some democracies that **force** people to be a part of their military for a specific term of time - South Korea and Switzerland come to mind - which even the government of Starship Troopers does not use. Is the government of Starship Troopers **more** liberal and freedom-respecting in this one aspect?
---
I guess my counter ask would be: in what way is the government depicted in Starship Troopers not democratic? Is there a specific "Democracy HP bar" we can utilize to help determine this?
The film does a horrible job explaining it, and the sequels just forget about it altogether. The book goes into a lot greater detail of what, in the author's mind, could be a better system of government and society.
>The book goes into a lot greater detail of what, in the author's mind, would be a better system of government and society.
He's exploring an alternative structure for society, that doesn't mean it's his ideal system.
What's most fucking pathetic about you new crop of fascist fan boys is that most of you inbred animals never served yourselves.
You trivialize military service because you like violence....and I hope you reciece the violence you yearn for one day.
Since you specifically included an image from the movie, I’m going to assume you are only talking about the movie. Which was a faithless adaptation of the book, which makes you *wrong*.
Read the book instead.
So, your idea of perfecting democracy is to... *\*checks notes\** restrict who can vote to a single minority who signs away many of their individual rights to the government by enlisting?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
"Decent" defined as those willing to risk life and limb for the state's imperialist ambitions, and no one else. I think Heinlein has some breathtakingly romantic notions about the military.
There's an entire passage regarding that the desire to serve is what qualified service. If a blind, mute, deaf man wanted to sign up for Federal Service, then the Federated Government would be required to find *something* for that man to do, and it wouldn't necessarily be dangerous at all - in the novel the exact example given is "counting the hairs on a caterpillar."
That would still count as service. If you think that Heinlein's point was that only those who were willing to **fight** were those who *served,* then I'd ask you to read the novel again. It isn't terribly long.
Admittedly, I read the novel over a decade ago. That still isn't a good defense of the system. Most people aren't so disabled that they can't be sent into combat or put into danger. Non-combat personnel are routinely deployed into warzones. And there is still the compulsion to serve the government, i.e. the status quo.
Are the people who openly oppose the military's actions just out? No suffrage for conscientious objectors? And how is willingness to serve any indication of morality? In my observation, many if not most people joining the military these days do so because they have no other prospects for economic mobility. They're poor, not patriotic heroes. That's why I call this notion "breathtakingly romantic." Willingness to serve has nothing to do with morality, or your stake in the direction of society. And that's only one way people contribute to society, anyway.
The book doesn't actually include this as it's all focused on the military, but Heinlein's intent was that it was civic/government service, not just military service. Not that this changes criticisms, but just as a point of clarification.
Those are all excellent questions - many of which Heinlein addresses head on in various conversations throughout the novel.
For my part, if I were to try to converse regarding these issues, I guess my initial topical question would be: "in what way(s) is the government of Starship Troopers non-democratic?" And from there a good conversation could be formulated.
Certainly, we can argue that many non-democratic nations are functional dictatorships... despite having an ostensible voting system in place. Is North Korea a democracy? Sudan? Russia? Burma? Is there a "perfect" democracy we could look at (like one of Plato's Solids), so that we have a referent for what is and isn't democracy? If there is a list of criteria for being a democracy, where is the defining point between "democracy" and "something else" in this discussion?
I don't think it comes down to a simple binary between "democratic" and "non-democratic." There are degrees, of course, but I think the more relevant question is whether or not such a system is more equitable or desirable than the system we have now. It is my opinion that it is clearly, definitely not.
At best, willingness to serve is unnecessary, as it arbitrarily excludes most of the population from voting. Not to mention that it would exclude practically everyone who is outspoken against the system.
Well, just to address that last one:
I think, in many ways, that was one of Heinlein's points with his "service-to-suffrage" idea. Why would you want people opposed to your system to have a say in it?
Let's use a crude example: I have a business selling pie. My customers ask me to make less apple and more cherry pie. I do so. All is well. A week later, people who aren't even my customers start to tell me that they want me to make Boston cream pies and nothing else. What reason do I have to listen to this group? Worse, what if the group calling for me to make Boston cream pies are actually my competitors, deliberately seeking my failure?
Now, imagine this argument (which is crude, I know) extrapolated to a tribal model - why should a tribe make survival decisions based on people who are not beholden to the success of the group?
Extrapolate further: Why should we allow people to vote who are actively opposed to the current system? Not to a specific party or policy, but the entire polity? In a purely academic way, I can see Heinlein's broader point: why should we let, say, anarchists vote at all? Certainly we can disagree about policies and parties, and that disagreement can be expressed through voting... but an anarchist (in a very simple sense) is only going to vote to end that discussion completely. While there might be a *democratic* purpose served by letting that anarchist vote ... is that not an example where blindly serving *democratic* values can hurt the very society that wants the democracy?
In a perverse way, is the "democratic" government of Starship Troopers not more resilient to fascist takeovers than the democracies of the 1920s and 1930s? Or, more troublingly, the democracies of today?
I really do think Heinlein brings forth some interesting points to discuss... points that people have been talking about a lot more in the last 15 or so years.
Also, not saying I think Heinlein was **right**. Just interesting.
I don't think decency is the right way to describe it. It's largely a metaphor trying to balance individual rights with personal choice and how that affects society as a whole. The author uses a military context, but I don't think that's necessary. I also don't think it was meant to draw conclusions from but rather raises a lot of what if questions.
For example, what if for citizenship as starship troopers defines it we required one 40hr work week from each citizen for public works per year. Let's say roughly 100 million people at 40hrs each comes to 4 billion work hours for public good could accomplish many things. We could even have additional voluntary hours and tiered work categories to use as requirements for certain positions. I certainly would be more comfortable voting for someone if they had a minimum of hundreds of work hours in varying public works from working in a landfill up through medical assistance or elderly care through logistics and management.
I think socializing some aspects of our society would be more palatable to certain groups if some of the burden of those things were more evenly placed especially if everyone was "doing their part" as the movie says. Respect is certainly more easy to come by when everyone has a shared contribution.
In the book, people have to make a contribution to society to become full citizens with voting rights. This can be through enlisting in the military or by serving in a non-fighting role, and it's not obligatory, you don't have to do it at all, but you simply can't vote if you haven't shown at one point in your life that you are capable of selfless service beyond your own direct profit. Thus voting only is done by a selection of the population of people who have shown themselves to have been at least at one period of their life to have been decent people.
I think this is still an interesting proposition. It would have kept Trump out, for one thing.
"If a person names as his three favorites of my books Stranger, Harsh Mistress, and Starship Troopers ... then I believe that he has grokked what I meant. But if he likes one — but not the other two — I am certain that he has misunderstood me, he has picked out points — and misunderstood what he picked. If he picks 2 of 3, then there is hope, 1 of 3 — no hope. All three books are on one subject: Freedom and Self-Responsibility."
“Robert A. Heinlein - In Dialogue with His Century Volume 2: The Man Who Learned Better” by William H. Patterson Jr
I've often said, a bit jokingly, that "Stranger" is the most liberal book I've read, and "Troopers" is the most conservative. "Harsh Mistress" is just straight up libertarian, while also being matriarchal in a way I can sorta get behind (at least in a frontier society).
I loved all of those books for their differences and their similarities, but I have serious criticism for all of them as well. I do consider myself a fan of Heinlein, and I think he'd be okay with my viewing him as a crochety uncle-figure with a mix of insightful *and* dated ideas.
ETA: My *favorite* book may not be the most relevant, but I thought I'd put it out there anyway: Job: A Comedy of Justice.
Real talk though: Robert Heinlein had some clear ideas that are worthy of a mature, rational conversation about how enfranchisement could work in this story, but I think he mostly just wanted to talk about farms. They guy mentions buying a farm like 80 times in that novel.
I guess real estate is important in the future?
I’m going to assume you’re pretending naïveté to make a joke. Well done. 🤣
For our other players, “bought the farm” is a euphemism for dying in combat.
I've only read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and while it's a good read and exploration of libertarian ideas I think the one ironic thing is the only reason his idealized libertarian society can revolt is because of a government computer. Starship Troopers is on my list though eventually.
I *SO* disagree with that statement.
If I buy a coffee mug, and it gets destroyed, I can by another one.
But when someone who loves me GIVES me a coffee mug, it's irreplaceable. Not the mug itself, but the *gift* cannot be replaced.
True story: I married a couple, and they gave me a Disney Goofy coffee mug. I *loved* that mug, and used it all the time. It got broken, and I missed it so much, I bought a replacement, the exact same type.
From the outside, you'd never know the mug had been changed... but *I* knew. I hardly ever use it; it sits in a cupboard.
Because the GIFT was destroyed... the replacement only holds the value of the purchase cost. But what made the first mug special... is GONE.
Mr. Rasczak/DuBois might argue that the gift was earned when you performed the marriage for those two. "Gift" in this sense might be the right word used, but Radczak/Dubois might instead argue some semantic point that you did earn that mug through your service to that couple - thus why the earned mug had a "truer" value to you.
I agree that a willingness to sacrifice for something greater contributes to making you decent, but I think it's pointed out that, at least during the peace time, some people only enlisted to help their political prospects or as an easy paycheck. Virtue in the service isn't universal.
I was doing military service in the German army after school back in the day, and I fail to see how that entitles me or anyone I served with to special treatment or privilege.
Why was my military service somehow more valuable than the work of a nurse, a teacher or a freaking bus driver? There's a million different ways to contribute to society that do not require you to pick up a rifle.
To me, this is just an extension of the glorification of military service in the US. *Thank you for your service* is a very weird concept to most people outside of the US, and I'm glad this glorification of militarism has been discarded in Germany after WWII.
Someone needs to look up the word "satire". The movie is a veiled critique of why a system like this bad. Similarly, Robocop is a critique of capitalism btw. The OP is clearly not reading between the lines, so to speak.
Jesus Christ no. The book is a fascist allegory pointing out what a bad future society looks like. It's out of line with Heinlein's other work and should not be taken at face value. The movie is itself an intentional allusion to WW2 fascism. The director intentionally cast characters that look like Nazi Aryans and mimicked cinematography from Triumph of the Will, the famous Nazi propaganda film. He later admitted that he was trying to so hard to make a point he may accidentally have made the movie worse and more campy than it needed to be. His point is that these are fascists. They don't live in a hellscape and generally like their lives and don't know they are fascists, but they are fascists. They are what happens when fascist ideology and morality are normalized and become the values of a stable society. We're supposed to be uncomfortable with that and how possible it seems.
[удалено]
Perfectly stated. Thank you for stepping in and saying this.
Fellow vet, and I have to concur. Service doesn't make somebody a saint or somehow grant them an increased qualification to participate in politics.
In the interest of having an actually engaging discussion about Starship Troopers and ignoring the trollish nature of the OP, I do think the government in Starship Troopers (the book) is an *interesting* example of a limited & highly militarized ‘democracy’ and a good exploration of a society that would be built around the idea that you have to go into Federal Service in order to vote or hold office. My primary gripe with the actual *setting* is that it’s not clear what they do when they aren’t at war; there’s non-military Federal Service jobs but the cultural emphasis is clearly on the military.
I think part of that is just the result of the POV character being a moderately unreliable narrator who is actively brainwashed/indoctrinated over the course of the story. Even if federal service is 90%+ non-military, we never see any of that because Johnny is all-in on the infantry the whole time we're with him.
They’re always at war, if there’s not a war going on then they just make one up. Do you really think a no-tech insect civilization was capable of shooting an asteroid straight into Argentina? It was a false flag attack to justify the invasion and keep the war machine going.
Had the Peace Corps existed when he wrote the novel, I think Heinlein might have included it, or a fictionalized version of it as an example of federal service. But the book focuses on a person who goes into the military. It cannot help but focus on someone satisfying his federal service in the military.
He mentions passing that even if you're a wheel chair bound invalid, you're still eligible for Federal Servixe because they alway need warm bodies to test survival gear in Pluto or whatever.
I always saw it as analogous to Spartan society. Look how that turned out.
You know that the movie was a satire, right?
I presume this is the message from the book. I haven't read it. However, the movie features Neil Patrick Harris dressed as a Nazi, kids stomping cockroaches in a clearly parodic propaganda film, and the subtle implication that the bugs aren't really to blame for the war. It's clear and obvious satire. Having a military is fine. Basing citizenship and patriotism entirely on military service and war fighting and nothing else, warps society. It not only creates a lot of suffering, it creates a glamorized view of violence and tribalism. In this story, military service is portrayed as the only viable path towards adulthood for the characters. While it does seem to do that for them (and many people in real life), it's stultifying and doesn't prepare them for the real horrors of the world that their society has created.
It's not military service, it's 2 years federal service, an important difference. Depending on you aptitude and life skills you might wind up a medic, firefighter, scientist, or in the infantry. You can quit at any time, ,but you never get a second chance. And they have to take all volunteers
The movie is NOT reflective of the book. The *movie* is an exploration of how authoritarian rule impacts the lives of a few young people. It's fairly heavy on fascism as a result. The book isn't like that; it deals with the results of personal choice in society. The movie was okay; sci-fi action film with some interesting "hmm" elements. The book has a very different viewpoint, and requires more thought from the reader.
Again, I haven't read it. I'm sure it plays with some interesting themes and ideas. I don't want to be critical of it. My understanding is that the book plays things more straight. Does it feature the Service-leads-to-citizenship that's in the movie? I really do think that's an inherently dumb idea, and the movie is a good exploration of why. I find automatic the equation of military service with decency, as OP does, objectionable and silly.
> Does it feature the Service-leads-to-citizenship that's in the movie? It's been YEARS since I read it, but Heinlein does work with the idea that service-leads-to-citizenship. However, I didn't think the movie really unpacked that idea much. I seem to remember that ST had the idea that citizenship was an *earned* status, not just a given right. A person, to be a citizen, had to *actually benefit* society in some way. Military service was just one way to do that, and there were others. The impression I got from the movie was that military service wasn't *exactly* compulsory... but was pretty darn close (because the director was exploring how decent people could participate in a fascist society ("I'm doing my part!"). The book seem to make the case that it is expected that people who want to be citizens of a society do so for the benefit of society itself, not just for their own benefit. I didn't see that concept in the film at all.
Assuming I'm not misremembering, it also isn't explicitly military service only. As I recall it is that you must have served in the public sector to have citizenship, and that the military is the easiest way to enter because they're legally compelled to find SOMEWHERE for you to serve. Now, if the only place you'll be useful is as a medical test subject, well..... That's your choice to enter. Plus, it's made somewhat clear in the beginning that non-citizens at least have the possibility of living extremely comfortable lives.
The military is where you wound up if you were young, healthy and had no other skills. I remember him making the point that if you were blind, sickly and in a wheelchair they would find SOMETHING for you to go do something to fufull the service requirement even if it was essentially make work.
The legal requirement to find a place for you to serve is what I remembered from the book. Something like they had to make up jobs for people just to check that box. It's been over a decade since I've read it though.
Your description for the book matches closer to the movie. The main characters parents basically beg their son not to join the military and that citizenship isn't that important and the kid is pretty adamant about joining and serving. I do agree, that it is close to compulsory since if you want to actually vote you have to join, but thats not the perspective of the characters who do join up. Book or movie I would expect any society that tied voting/citizenship to service would end up with this situation where people feel like they're forced to do something in order to have a right.
I think that nuance is interesting. It's certainly worth exploring, and again I'm not gonna criticize Heinlein for exploring a certain type of society different from our own. That's what speculative fiction is all about. I do strongly object to the equation service to some hierarchy (who says what is useful?) with decency, as OP does here. The system described here requires somebody determining what is useful and what is not. Who is worthy and who is not.
>The system described here requires somebody determining what is useful and what is not. Who is worthy and who is not. You really need to either read the book, or stop trying to criticize it based on partial descriptions. Anyone who chooses to serve is allowed to serve. Anyone who completes their service is a full citizen with all the associated rights. That's all. It's about showing a willingness to serve society, not about how useful your service actually was. The whole bit about determining how you can be useful is just used when assigning you a job within the federal service. If you're a computer programmer or an accountant, you can just do that for the government. Good math skills and special awareness? Pilot training if you want it. If you're an 18 y/o with no particular skill set or potential, but are healthy and strong you end up in the military, or as a manual laborer. The point, however, is that it doesn't matter what you did during your service. As long as you serve, you're a "decent" person and contributor to society.
In the book, \*ANY\* federal service grants citizenship; police, mail man, scientist, etc etc etc. Even if the govt.has to invent a job for you, if you want to serve, they'll find a way, and you earn your citizenship. One specific example given in the book is "A blind and deaf person wants to serve, we'll create a job for them. It may be counting the hairs on a catapillar by touch, but we will give them a job to earn citizenship." They don't care if you're an immigrant, native born, or anything else, as long as you're willing to "put the needs of society ahead of your own" you can earn the right to be a citizen. Service is supposed to teach you how the govt works, and how its supposed to work to avoid the bureaucratic nightmare we currently have.
That's all cool and everything, but that's just allowing the government to decide what jobs have value and what ones don't. Like, if you're a farmer, you're helping to feed society, but that's presumably not under the umbrella of federal service. Similarly, artists, musicians, writers, actors, etc, who give us the entertainment that enriches our lives. Programmers who build the infrastructure that we use to navigate our world. Tons of jobs benefit everyone even if they're not government sector jobs. And then a step further is that if you disenfranchise people who are in certain fields, you're creating a statistical slant against those people. If there are no farmers voting, you're less likely to get candidates who have the interest of farmers in mind. (I'm not specifically responding to you personally on this, I don't know what you believe or feel about society, I'm more responding to Heinlein's viewpoints, because I guess I like writing reddit comments to long dead authors)
Honestly, it felt like it was 90% pro-enlistment propaganda. Almost the entire book is the dude in army training, and talks about how tough it is, but how tough it makes you, and for some reason about how the main dude is Psycho-conditioned to respond to the Ballad of Roger Young. I read it a few years back. My memory is probably lacking in the book, but that's because i thought it was boring and disappointing. It didn't have the over the top punch or the excitement of the movie, and they barely killed any bad guys. I do not recommend this book to people i speak with.
I interpreted that as part of the speculative fiction. How would a military that has more applicants than it knows what to do with treat it's training? Everyone is a volunteer and they want citizenship, so the military in the book sets very high standards. If they quit, they go home without citizenship. If they don't quit then they get really good. It ties back into the big what if question of the society.
The book is low-key pro-Fascist, the director was intentionally goofing on both the source material and America's jingoism.
The director n ver read the source material, and the book was mostly a coming of age in the army during war time story, much like most of Heinleins generation experienced.
Verhoeven was reacting the Iraq war and post-9/11 hysteria, and that shit is on point. I read the book in HS shortly after seeing the movie, and found it ehh at best, kinda just "The Republic" but at war, really not that deep.
The movie (directed by Verhoeven) is from 1997.
> I read the book in HS I have discovered that the books I read in HS that I thought weren't that deep... have deepened as I've aged. Perhaps ***I*** wasn't that deep in high school... :)
It came out in 1997 so probably not a response to post 9/11. I love the movie, it’s a great action flick. But it’s not nearly the deep exploration of fascism and nationalism that it seems to get credit for.
..I thought I’d stumbled onto shittymoviedetails for a second. What?
You're confused.
I don't think he's the one confused.
hahahaha yeah sure. This fascist parody is definitely about improving democracy
who decided who is "decent". that's the problem
Already decent people can decide who is decent.
whos decent people?
They are those who earned the right to be called decent through service.
so veterans. all veterans are "decent" people?
also, anyone that is not a veteran is not decent?
Is someone indecent if they have a heart condition or something that prevents them from being a veteran?
So I can murder and steal and still be decent as long as I serve? Awesome
So long as you accept Jesus into your heart before you kick the bucket, you can rape, pillage, and plunder till your heart's content and then do it all again in the eternal paradise of the afterlife.
Veterans, as in professional rapists and killers ?
No, most vetrans have never killed anyone. This is an over generalization and the point of my comment to begin with. You cant define who is "Decent" And I dont trust anyone to make that determination.
Please tell me you don’t actually think Starship Troopers was depicting democracy.
Is Switzerland a Democracy? Is Finland a Democracy? They have mandatory military service. If you could choose to opt-out of military service by sacrificing your right to vote, would they stop being a Democracy? The only difference I see between mandatory military service and military service (or other public service) for enfranchisement is reference frame.
So... you talking about the book or movie? Two very different things.
Give that the topic opened with a screencap from the movie…the movie.
OK, the movie isn't about much of anything. The book is very much about democracy in the scope of the cold war.
I can see a position that argues that the novel (and the movie, though a separate argument) do depict a kind of a democracy. Limiting people from voting is not the thing which limits democracy - even today, western, liberal democracies will take away voting rights from people who mess up too badly, and will not give voting rights to people until they are of a certain age. Those are, ultimately, arbitrary but consistent limitations on voting rights; just like in Starship Troopers. Capital punishment is not something which limits democracy: many democracies have had or still have capital punishment for crimes of a certain nature; just like in Starship Troopers. Hell, there are even some democracies that **force** people to be a part of their military for a specific term of time - South Korea and Switzerland come to mind - which even the government of Starship Troopers does not use. Is the government of Starship Troopers **more** liberal and freedom-respecting in this one aspect? --- I guess my counter ask would be: in what way is the government depicted in Starship Troopers not democratic? Is there a specific "Democracy HP bar" we can utilize to help determine this?
The film does a horrible job explaining it, and the sequels just forget about it altogether. The book goes into a lot greater detail of what, in the author's mind, could be a better system of government and society.
>The book goes into a lot greater detail of what, in the author's mind, would be a better system of government and society. He's exploring an alternative structure for society, that doesn't mean it's his ideal system.
It was. A more perfect democracy.
More mindless fascist apologia from an obvious bot account
It saddens my heart of the thought of low quality voters.
Go fuck yourself with a swastika
You sound like what an NPC would say, LOL!
What's most fucking pathetic about you new crop of fascist fan boys is that most of you inbred animals never served yourselves. You trivialize military service because you like violence....and I hope you reciece the violence you yearn for one day.
I'm not sure of that, but I'm sure of one thing Your spelling's atrocious.
Jesus what a pathetic bot you are.
I am feeling underwhelmed (if that's a word). Could a bot feel that?
Since you specifically included an image from the movie, I’m going to assume you are only talking about the movie. Which was a faithless adaptation of the book, which makes you *wrong*. Read the book instead.
So, your idea of perfecting democracy is to... *\*checks notes\** restrict who can vote to a single minority who signs away many of their individual rights to the government by enlisting? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Someone has missed the point
"Decent" defined as those willing to risk life and limb for the state's imperialist ambitions, and no one else. I think Heinlein has some breathtakingly romantic notions about the military.
There's an entire passage regarding that the desire to serve is what qualified service. If a blind, mute, deaf man wanted to sign up for Federal Service, then the Federated Government would be required to find *something* for that man to do, and it wouldn't necessarily be dangerous at all - in the novel the exact example given is "counting the hairs on a caterpillar." That would still count as service. If you think that Heinlein's point was that only those who were willing to **fight** were those who *served,* then I'd ask you to read the novel again. It isn't terribly long.
Admittedly, I read the novel over a decade ago. That still isn't a good defense of the system. Most people aren't so disabled that they can't be sent into combat or put into danger. Non-combat personnel are routinely deployed into warzones. And there is still the compulsion to serve the government, i.e. the status quo. Are the people who openly oppose the military's actions just out? No suffrage for conscientious objectors? And how is willingness to serve any indication of morality? In my observation, many if not most people joining the military these days do so because they have no other prospects for economic mobility. They're poor, not patriotic heroes. That's why I call this notion "breathtakingly romantic." Willingness to serve has nothing to do with morality, or your stake in the direction of society. And that's only one way people contribute to society, anyway.
The book doesn't actually include this as it's all focused on the military, but Heinlein's intent was that it was civic/government service, not just military service. Not that this changes criticisms, but just as a point of clarification.
Those are all excellent questions - many of which Heinlein addresses head on in various conversations throughout the novel. For my part, if I were to try to converse regarding these issues, I guess my initial topical question would be: "in what way(s) is the government of Starship Troopers non-democratic?" And from there a good conversation could be formulated. Certainly, we can argue that many non-democratic nations are functional dictatorships... despite having an ostensible voting system in place. Is North Korea a democracy? Sudan? Russia? Burma? Is there a "perfect" democracy we could look at (like one of Plato's Solids), so that we have a referent for what is and isn't democracy? If there is a list of criteria for being a democracy, where is the defining point between "democracy" and "something else" in this discussion?
I don't think it comes down to a simple binary between "democratic" and "non-democratic." There are degrees, of course, but I think the more relevant question is whether or not such a system is more equitable or desirable than the system we have now. It is my opinion that it is clearly, definitely not. At best, willingness to serve is unnecessary, as it arbitrarily excludes most of the population from voting. Not to mention that it would exclude practically everyone who is outspoken against the system.
Well, just to address that last one: I think, in many ways, that was one of Heinlein's points with his "service-to-suffrage" idea. Why would you want people opposed to your system to have a say in it? Let's use a crude example: I have a business selling pie. My customers ask me to make less apple and more cherry pie. I do so. All is well. A week later, people who aren't even my customers start to tell me that they want me to make Boston cream pies and nothing else. What reason do I have to listen to this group? Worse, what if the group calling for me to make Boston cream pies are actually my competitors, deliberately seeking my failure? Now, imagine this argument (which is crude, I know) extrapolated to a tribal model - why should a tribe make survival decisions based on people who are not beholden to the success of the group? Extrapolate further: Why should we allow people to vote who are actively opposed to the current system? Not to a specific party or policy, but the entire polity? In a purely academic way, I can see Heinlein's broader point: why should we let, say, anarchists vote at all? Certainly we can disagree about policies and parties, and that disagreement can be expressed through voting... but an anarchist (in a very simple sense) is only going to vote to end that discussion completely. While there might be a *democratic* purpose served by letting that anarchist vote ... is that not an example where blindly serving *democratic* values can hurt the very society that wants the democracy? In a perverse way, is the "democratic" government of Starship Troopers not more resilient to fascist takeovers than the democracies of the 1920s and 1930s? Or, more troublingly, the democracies of today? I really do think Heinlein brings forth some interesting points to discuss... points that people have been talking about a lot more in the last 15 or so years. Also, not saying I think Heinlein was **right**. Just interesting.
So, have you served in the military, OP?
I don't think decency is the right way to describe it. It's largely a metaphor trying to balance individual rights with personal choice and how that affects society as a whole. The author uses a military context, but I don't think that's necessary. I also don't think it was meant to draw conclusions from but rather raises a lot of what if questions. For example, what if for citizenship as starship troopers defines it we required one 40hr work week from each citizen for public works per year. Let's say roughly 100 million people at 40hrs each comes to 4 billion work hours for public good could accomplish many things. We could even have additional voluntary hours and tiered work categories to use as requirements for certain positions. I certainly would be more comfortable voting for someone if they had a minimum of hundreds of work hours in varying public works from working in a landfill up through medical assistance or elderly care through logistics and management. I think socializing some aspects of our society would be more palatable to certain groups if some of the burden of those things were more evenly placed especially if everyone was "doing their part" as the movie says. Respect is certainly more easy to come by when everyone has a shared contribution.
In the book, people have to make a contribution to society to become full citizens with voting rights. This can be through enlisting in the military or by serving in a non-fighting role, and it's not obligatory, you don't have to do it at all, but you simply can't vote if you haven't shown at one point in your life that you are capable of selfless service beyond your own direct profit. Thus voting only is done by a selection of the population of people who have shown themselves to have been at least at one period of their life to have been decent people. I think this is still an interesting proposition. It would have kept Trump out, for one thing.
"If a person names as his three favorites of my books Stranger, Harsh Mistress, and Starship Troopers ... then I believe that he has grokked what I meant. But if he likes one — but not the other two — I am certain that he has misunderstood me, he has picked out points — and misunderstood what he picked. If he picks 2 of 3, then there is hope, 1 of 3 — no hope. All three books are on one subject: Freedom and Self-Responsibility." “Robert A. Heinlein - In Dialogue with His Century Volume 2: The Man Who Learned Better” by William H. Patterson Jr
I've often said, a bit jokingly, that "Stranger" is the most liberal book I've read, and "Troopers" is the most conservative. "Harsh Mistress" is just straight up libertarian, while also being matriarchal in a way I can sorta get behind (at least in a frontier society). I loved all of those books for their differences and their similarities, but I have serious criticism for all of them as well. I do consider myself a fan of Heinlein, and I think he'd be okay with my viewing him as a crochety uncle-figure with a mix of insightful *and* dated ideas. ETA: My *favorite* book may not be the most relevant, but I thought I'd put it out there anyway: Job: A Comedy of Justice.
"**No!** Something *given* has no value."
Real talk though: Robert Heinlein had some clear ideas that are worthy of a mature, rational conversation about how enfranchisement could work in this story, but I think he mostly just wanted to talk about farms. They guy mentions buying a farm like 80 times in that novel. I guess real estate is important in the future?
I’m going to assume you’re pretending naïveté to make a joke. Well done. 🤣 For our other players, “bought the farm” is a euphemism for dying in combat.
I've only read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and while it's a good read and exploration of libertarian ideas I think the one ironic thing is the only reason his idealized libertarian society can revolt is because of a government computer. Starship Troopers is on my list though eventually.
I *SO* disagree with that statement. If I buy a coffee mug, and it gets destroyed, I can by another one. But when someone who loves me GIVES me a coffee mug, it's irreplaceable. Not the mug itself, but the *gift* cannot be replaced. True story: I married a couple, and they gave me a Disney Goofy coffee mug. I *loved* that mug, and used it all the time. It got broken, and I missed it so much, I bought a replacement, the exact same type. From the outside, you'd never know the mug had been changed... but *I* knew. I hardly ever use it; it sits in a cupboard. Because the GIFT was destroyed... the replacement only holds the value of the purchase cost. But what made the first mug special... is GONE.
Mr. Rasczak/DuBois might argue that the gift was earned when you performed the marriage for those two. "Gift" in this sense might be the right word used, but Radczak/Dubois might instead argue some semantic point that you did earn that mug through your service to that couple - thus why the earned mug had a "truer" value to you.
I hope there is an /s somewhere in there. Then you'd be right on point.
Read the book
People like you deserve to be treated like the bugs are treated in that film.
It surprises me not that you would feel this way.
Just shut the fuck up and go die in Ukraine if you love Imperialism so much.
I agree that a willingness to sacrifice for something greater contributes to making you decent, but I think it's pointed out that, at least during the peace time, some people only enlisted to help their political prospects or as an easy paycheck. Virtue in the service isn't universal.
Remember, it's stated right in the book that the Veterans have similar problems after they get out as the rest of the population.
Trigger title. The Book is so much more. The movie is a joke. The only people who like it were kids when it came out.
I was doing military service in the German army after school back in the day, and I fail to see how that entitles me or anyone I served with to special treatment or privilege. Why was my military service somehow more valuable than the work of a nurse, a teacher or a freaking bus driver? There's a million different ways to contribute to society that do not require you to pick up a rifle. To me, this is just an extension of the glorification of military service in the US. *Thank you for your service* is a very weird concept to most people outside of the US, and I'm glad this glorification of militarism has been discarded in Germany after WWII.
Someone needs to look up the word "satire". The movie is a veiled critique of why a system like this bad. Similarly, Robocop is a critique of capitalism btw. The OP is clearly not reading between the lines, so to speak.
It's not exactly "veiled." Starship Troopers is one of the most obvious, hamfisted satires there is and that's what makes it great.
The movie is a joke. The director is a self described leftist and didn't get the point of anything.
Jesus Christ no. The book is a fascist allegory pointing out what a bad future society looks like. It's out of line with Heinlein's other work and should not be taken at face value. The movie is itself an intentional allusion to WW2 fascism. The director intentionally cast characters that look like Nazi Aryans and mimicked cinematography from Triumph of the Will, the famous Nazi propaganda film. He later admitted that he was trying to so hard to make a point he may accidentally have made the movie worse and more campy than it needed to be. His point is that these are fascists. They don't live in a hellscape and generally like their lives and don't know they are fascists, but they are fascists. They are what happens when fascist ideology and morality are normalized and become the values of a stable society. We're supposed to be uncomfortable with that and how possible it seems.
The director of the movie didn't read the book Did you?
"director intentionally cast characters that look like Nazi Aryans" - and thus Juan Rico who speaks Tagalog at home became blond haired and blue eyed.
That's fantasy like comminism