Starship Troopers

[ImmoralLibertarian]

Just got the DVD for £3, seen it before, some bad acting and lots of cheese but a good movie overall I think.

Anyway, an interesting point was raised in it;

In the film, There’s a single Earth Government called the Federation. In this Federation there are two types of people, citizens and civilians. Only citizens can vote (and I presume are entitled to more benefits, health care and the like than civilians).

People are born civilians, and to gain citizenship they must enter the army for 2 years. I also presume that they can gain citizenship through other means, maybe working in the civil service or something, but they all help the Federation in some way.

Civilians aren’t necessarily second class ‘citizens’ (for lack of a better word). In the film the main character’s parents didn’t have citizenship but where still rich and lived happy lives (until they were killed by a meteor!).

Suppose a similar system was introduced in your country. Suppose that you had to help your country in some way, trade a year or two of your life for your nation before you could vote, would you agree with this?

[Jerconjake]

Hell yes! The system in that movie is excellent.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 7/24/04 07:52 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Hell yes! The system in that movie is excellent.

I think the question is are people born with the right to vote/receive benefits or do the need to earn it.

I must say I go with the former.

[witeshark]

Don't forget that the right to vote can be lost forever

[bakomusha]

dude thats a republic, aka what the romans used.

[jonthomson]

At 7/24/04 07:32 PM, grand_retard wrote:

Suppose a similar system was introduced in your country. Suppose that you had to help your country in some way, trade a year or two of your life for your nation before you could vote, would you agree with this?

Hmm, interesting point. If some system came along where there were people worth voting for, I'd certainly consider it.

[fli]

I think that would be something terrible, especially in the United States. Already here in the US we had to create Civil Rights for minorities.

In that type of government, the majority will be making policies for everyone, meaning if the minority doesn't like, then they're screwed. Just like the Blacks in the US... they had to fight to gain the right to vote without any Grandfather clauses, reading rules, etc. So unless there is some kind of provision like a Bill of Rights for everyone, with Civil Rights and contract of liberties, then this system could probably float well enough for a while.

[RedSkunk]

Naw. Society is stratified enough, without resorting to rigid restrictions such as you propose.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 7/25/04 06:51 PM, uncle_skunk wrote: Naw. Society is stratified enough, without resorting to rigid restrictions such as you propose.

Hey! I wasn’t proposing anything. lol, I’m happy with the way things are.

[Montgomery-Scott]

but what about people who can't fight, like retarded people, or paraplegics, or blind people, or something like that?

[exide-edge]

At 7/25/04 09:37 PM, Quanze13 wrote: but what about people who can't fight, like retarded people, or paraplegics, or blind people, or something like that?

i dont know about blind or retarded people but a paraplegic could possibly still serve the government in an office type position.

[Jlop985]

It is interesting, a republic in which one must serve the government in order to receive citizenship rights. I think the underlying motivation for such an idea is that citizens must have a sense of responsibility. The system could be easily abused, though.

[antiklaus]

At 7/25/04 10:03 PM, Jlop985 wrote: It is interesting, a republic in which one must serve the government in order to receive citizenship rights. I think the underlying motivation for such an idea is that citizens must have a sense of responsibility. The system could be easily abused, though.

Agreed.

Why we aren't discussing "Stranger in a Strange Land" is beyond me =)

Now there was a book with some moral issues.

[slicindicin]

The book was WAY better. It went into detail on a lot of the political theories. It changed my opinion a bit on flogging. Wouldn't 3 lashes in the public square be more effective at stopping drunk driving than jailtime?

[Memorize]

thats acually a good way to do it.

[Spookshow]

Rights should be earned in my opinion. You should'nt just talk, vote, or protest something you haven't personally experienced. I know this argument could be turned back on me (i.e things like Rape) But we must earn things not just be handed them. Like the woman who has 5 kids, is a crack addict and homeless (in jail now I think) and thinks she still has the right to have kids...

[not-typing]

This proposal sounds good n'all but it's not, think obout it if only army people could vote (+a few sivil servant's), then these few veteranse will rule over the majoraty of the population, that's anty democratic

and if you go with this sistem then forget about democrasy, because one of the ground rules in democrasy is that every vote is equal to the other, and that everyone (from a certain age ) get's a right to vote.

[bumcheekcity]

I fail to see how being in the army constitutes you getting your right to vote.

[slicindicin]

I think that we all have an inflated opinion of democracy. Our schools teach constantly that it is the most perfect system possible and that democracy is the best indicator of political freedom. Maybe a smaller group making decisions is a good idea. I'd recommend you read the book, Henlein goes into detail on why he thinks this system is superior.

[Spookshow]

At 7/26/04 09:25 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: I fail to see how being in the army constitutes you getting your right to vote.

It isn't a matter of military service, it also stated other forms (I am assuming something like a political office or gov job).

[The-Enforcer]

I think that system is a very good idea. You have to give to your country in order to take from your country.

[Jlop985]

Democracy, while good, is not an end, but only the means to an end, IMO. Much more important than democracy is liberalism. I don't mean left-wing liberalism, but I mean it in the broadest sense, as in freedom from opression, freedom of opportunity, and having a non-intrusive government. If 51% votes to enslave the 49%, then democracy has failed. There should be certain things a government, even a democratic one, cannot do. I see democracy relating to liberalism as an extension of republicanism. Republicanism is the diffusion of power, as to discourage concentration of power and the abuses that follow. A legitimate government should have the input of all its citizens., but it should never opress anybody.

[Rabindarath]

Interesting thought. I'm reading Robert Heinlein's first novel "For Us, The Living". It's set in late 21st century and tells the story of a man who is suddenly jolted from 1939 to the year 2080-something.

I mention it because Heinlein basically uses this book to describe an alternate future where the concept of 'Social Credit', an elaborate monetary theory that involves the redistribution of economic productivity away from banking institutions and towards the public (that actually doesn't do it justice, but it's the best I can do...;D). Never really took off except in Western Canada, and even then the idea was quickly abandonned, but the whole book describes a future utopia built on those principles.

Oddly enough, it had hot looking babes in it too...:)

The idea of 'earning' rights leaves me cold. Saying that you can not have a say in a society that can govern your actions, and won't until you follow the rules laid out by that governing group is one that's just wide open for abuse. It complicated the issue of "Who governs the governed?" more than it needs to.

I agree that the idea of responsibilities being reconnected with the concepts of rights is necessary, but isn't that vigilance up to the citizens themselves?

I know 15 year olds who are very actively involved in civil society (political party member, volunteering etc.) and he doesn't have the right to vote, despite what obviously looks like a willingness to be involved in their community.

I also know a bunch of sloths who swill their coffee, groom their mullet and say, "They're all a bunch of crooks", believing their contribution to political discourse ends there.

Let's keep rights as innate for the moment...until the Earth is invaded by Denise Richards clones dressed in lycra..ooooo, baby.

[Spookshow]

At 7/27/04 01:04 AM, Rabindarath wrote: Interesting thought. I'm reading Robert Heinlein's first novel "For Us, The Living". It's set in late 21st century and tells the story of a man who is suddenly jolted from 1939 to the year 2080-something.

Heinlien wrote alot about subjects like this... Anyone know his views about democracy and the ways things are shaping up today?

I mention it because Heinlein basically uses this book to describe an alternate future where the concept of 'Social Credit', an elaborate monetary theory that involves the redistribution of economic productivity away from banking institutions and towards the public (that actually doesn't do it justice, but it's the best I can do...;D). Never really took off except in Western Canada, and even then the idea was quickly abandonned, but the whole book describes a future utopia built on those principles.

We should give in order to recieve... but some things are taking advantage of that, I recently read about how one city is ceceding sp* because they pay $20 million a year in taxes and get $3 million in services.

Oddly enough, it had hot looking babes in it too...:)

All his books do :P

The idea of 'earning' rights leaves me cold. Saying that you can not have a say in a society that can govern your actions, and won't until you follow the rules laid out by that governing group is one that's just wide open for abuse. It complicated the issue of "Who governs the governed?" more than it needs to.

Some rights should be earned, the right to criticize the military on certain things and to lead the military should only be done by people who have been there, doen that. Please, do NOT turn this into a Bush vs. Kerry post.

I agree that the idea of responsibilities being reconnected with the concepts of rights is necessary, but isn't that vigilance up to the citizens themselves?

Could'nt we have a clause in the constitution that states that we could in effect use a vote to impeach the president, and other political figures? Also how are we supposed to carry through with the vigilance, even if we know something is up and bad. If we have no means to fight, we are doomed to failure.

I know 15 year olds who are very actively involved in civil society (political party member, volunteering etc.) and he doesn't have the right to vote, despite what obviously looks like a willingness to be involved in their community.

I think it's funny:

That we have:

The right to die for our country and not vote.
The right to die for our country and not drink, smoke, own porn, and own guns.

I also know a bunch of sloths who swill their coffee, groom their mullet and say, "They're all a bunch of crooks", believing their contribution to political discourse ends there.

I get out and vote and try to inform people when I can. The AWB is a good example.

Let's keep rights as innate for the moment...until the Earth is invaded by Denise Richards clones dressed in lycra..ooooo, baby.

Yeah, then the US Military can lay down and the aliens can blow the hell outta them :P

[Einzelgaenger]

Please, for the love of all that is nice, read the book!
The system Heinlein suggests is an interesting one, though. I don't really agree with it, though.

[Rabindarath]

At 7/27/04 07:35 AM, Einzelgaenger wrote: Please, for the love of all that is nice, read the book!
The system Heinlein suggests is an interesting one, though. I don't really agree with it, though.

I'm getting there, just got it very recently, ya know :)

[ChaosFoot]

of course not, if that were the case, many MORE people would die in senseless wars because they want a better live, therefore enlisting in the military, if that were to happen, eventually many more freedoms would be added to this "citizens only" clause, meaning there would be a at some point be a massive gap between the quality of life of citizens and non-citizens, this would disenfranchise the non-citizens, eventually causing a revolution or complete change in policy. Either way the government would be shattered and take a very long time to rebuild, leaving all people in danger of starvation or robbery (etc.) due to an inability of the now weak gov't to react or provide support.

[Rabindarath]

At 7/27/04 04:11 AM, Spookshow wrote:

At 7/27/04 01:04 AM, Rabindarath wrote:

Oddly enough, it had hot looking babes in it too...:)

All his books do :P

The idea of 'earning' rights leaves me cold. Saying that you can not have a say in a society that can govern your actions, and won't until you follow the rules laid out by that governing group is one that's just wide open for abuse. It complicated the issue of "Who governs the governed?" more than it needs to.

Some rights should be earned, the right to criticize the military on certain things and to lead the military should only be done by people who have been there, doen that. Please, do NOT turn this into a Bush vs. Kerry post.

Perish the thought.

I think those, to use your example, who have served within the military can potentially speak with less ignorance and can provide better input as to how that institution runs. But others can surely have some valid input without actually being in the military. It's less likely, but still possible. Why exclude them?

I agree that the idea of responsibilities being reconnected with the concepts of rights is necessary, but isn't that vigilance up to the citizens themselves?

Could'nt we have a clause in the constitution that states that we could in effect use a vote to impeach the president, and other political figures? Also how are we supposed to carry through with the vigilance, even if we know something is up and bad. If we have no means to fight, we are doomed to failure.

Well, I meant vigilance as being as conscientious (sp?) & thoughtful as possible when executing your civic duties. For example, when protesters, say most of whom live in cities, travel to a remote region to prevent the harvesting an old-growth forest, do the protestors realise that if they're successful in stopping any logging within that forest, they could destroy the economy of that region?

The opposite applies. Do the residents of that town realise the potential long-term consequences of their logging practices, despite the short term gains it can bring? (My belief has always been that the former don't, but the latter do, but have no choice when it comes to keeping their town alive...but that's another rant)

I just believe a more holistic approach needs to be taken by all when it comes to the choices one makes as a citizen, even considering choices and options that may have no direct bearing on you, but may affect other thousands of miles away.

[Rabindarath]

At 7/27/04 07:23 PM, Rabindarath wrote:

At 7/27/04 07:35 AM, Einzelgaenger wrote: Please, for the love of all that is nice, read the book!
The system Heinlein suggests is an interesting one, though. I don't really agree with it, though.

I'm getting there, just got it very recently, ya know :)

Actually, I should more accurately say that it is just a portion of the book. But Heinlein was a Socred through and through. It plays a strong role in his future vision.

[god-damn-it]

At 7/24/04 07:55 PM, grand_retard wrote:

At 7/24/04 07:52 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Hell yes! The system in that movie is excellent.

I think the question is are people born with the right to vote/receive benefits or do the need to earn it.

I must say I go with the former.

booooooo