Military service as a "poll tax".

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

My reading of Heinlein is more holistic - stressing the importance and value service, community, and society.

VR/Marg

I think he got the general idea from Neville Shute's "In the Wet" (1957)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,566]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Actually, the franchise was extended to civil service as well, not just military service.

No it wasn't.

Yes, it was - not all federation service was military.

Any Federal service that lead to citizenship was expressly military in nature. Anything that we would recognise as civil service was handled by civilians, who would not get citizenship.

Quote

So why don’t you boys go home, go to college, and then go be chemists or insurance brokers
or whatever? A term of service isn’t a kiddie camp; it’s either real military service, rough
and dangerous even in peacetime, or a most unreasonable facsimile thereof. Not a vacation.
Not a romantic adventure.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,566]

Quote

If you have put something into the system then you have more of a vested interest in the direction it is taking.

Everyone who lives in a country has a vested interest in where it is going.

And government service, either military or civil, is not the only way to contribute to the success of a nation either.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Amazon 7]

In this country voter apathy is destroying our nation...

When many elections go by with less than 50% of the people voting...then the nation as a DEMOCRACY can not continue. ( It may continue as something we dont really want to see and those first steps have been put in place)

Right now its Government BY the lobbyists for the corporations.. who have bought and paid for the politicians.

And NO not everyone has a vested interest in that by virtue of their lack of interest in showing up and being a part of the process... which includes being knowledgeable on the issues at hand.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

If you have put something into the system then you have more of a vested interest in the direction it is taking.

Everyone who lives in a country has a vested interest in where it is going.

True, but many (in this country) seem completely apathetic about it.

Quote

And government service, either military or civil, is not the only way to contribute to the success of a nation either.

I don't think that's the main point, here.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

I do think we need a draft by lottery in this country. That would motivate people to learn about the issues and vote.

Funny you would say that in this thread;

Quote

I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!

-Robert A. Heinlein

[Lefty 0]

Quote

Any Federal service that lead to citizenship was expressly military in nature. Anything that we would recognise as civil service was handled by civilians, who would not get citizenship.

Quote

So why don’t you boys go home, go to college, and then go be chemists or insurance brokers
or whatever? A term of service isn’t a kiddie camp; it’s either real military service, rough
and dangerous even in peacetime, or a most unreasonable facsimile thereof. Not a vacation.
Not a romantic adventure.

Ah, forgot about that. You're right.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[Lefty 0]

Quote

It's an interesting argument (as well as a fantastic book, even if not my favorite of Heinlein's).

Two counter-arguments immediately come to mind:
(1) What about firefighters? They willingly put themselves in danger in service of society.

(2) What about those opposed to war or who serve the state or society through non-military service? A couple dozen (or more) countries have mandatory service - both traditional or a "home guard" (somewhat akin to full time National Guard or Coast Guard); many have exemptions for conscientious objectors who are required to engage in some sort of civil service. e.g., Norway, Greece, Switzerland. Or Ameri-Corps or un-armed Peace Corps volunteers (see http://www.daytondailynews.com/projects/content/project/peacecorps/index.html)? My recollection from reading Starship Troopers (probably >10y ago) is that Heinlein's federal service went beyond traditional military.

My reading of Heinlein is more holistic - stressing the importance and value of service, community, and society.

VR/Marg

I was thinking of the firefighters argument earlier. My best answer is that they're not defending us from any external, sentient threat.

As for the conscientious objectors, I really have no sympathy. A society full of conscientious objectors would be taken over so fast it wouldn't be funny. The only reason they can enjoy the luxury of holding those opinions is because someone else will fight for them. Same with pacifists.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

I think a high school diploma (including classes in critical thinking, the scientific method, constitutional law, and history of the founding of our nation) would be a better qualification. That way, we can be sure that people can read and understand our constitution and the intentions behind it. Military service, while noble, doesn't mean that someone is capable of looking at a law, examining the effects it may have, and making a rational (rather than emotional) decision whether or not to vote for it.

The danger in this is that there would now be an incentive for some groups to deny other groups the qualifying criteria. You may see high school graduation rates amongst minority groups fall in certain districts. Wasn't the literacy criterion used to prevent blacks from voting in the south for quite a while?

[Nightingale 0]

I don't think there should be a qualification at all, beyond citizenship, but if we were going to put a qualification, I think high school would be better than military.

[billvon 3,085]

>My best answer is that they're not defending us from any external,
>sentient threat.

True - but neither are military types during peacetime, and logistics military types during war. Doesn't diminish what they do, though.

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

It's an interesting argument (as well as a fantastic book, even if not my favorite of Heinlein's).

Two counter-arguments immediately come to mind:
(1) What about firefighters? They willingly put themselves in danger in service of society.

(2) What about those opposed to war or who serve the state or society through non-military service? A couple dozen (or more) countries have mandatory service - both traditional or a "home guard" (somewhat akin to full time National Guard or Coast Guard); many have exemptions for conscientious objectors who are required to engage in some sort of civil service. e.g., Norway, Greece, Switzerland. Or Ameri-Corps or un-armed Peace Corps volunteers (see http://www.daytondailynews.com/projects/content/project/peacecorps/index.html)? My recollection from reading Starship Troopers (probably >10y ago) is that Heinlein's federal service went beyond traditional military.

My reading of Heinlein is more holistic - stressing the importance and value of service, community, and society.

VR/Marg

I was thinking of the firefighters argument earlier. My best answer is that they're not defending us from any external, sentient threat.

As for the conscientious objectors, I really have no sympathy. A society full of conscientious objectors would be taken over so fast it wouldn't be funny. The only reason they can enjoy the luxury of holding those opinions is because someone else will fight for them. Same with pacifists.

All those folks at Los Alamos, Oak Ridge and Hanford in 1943-45, what a bunch of undeserving civilians! Never mind that the bombs they developed saved (insert estimate here) of Allied troops' lives.

Then there are the civilian slackers who developed radar, and the proximity fuze, developed and built B17s, 24s, 29s, and P51s, and... No votes for them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,566]

Quote

True, but many (in this country) seem completely apathetic about it.

And I know a lot of military guys who couldn't care less about politics.

It is possible that people who have served in the military are more likely to be politically minded, but it is certainly not a cure for apathy.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,566]

Quote

When many elections go by with less than 50% of the people voting...then the nation as a DEMOCRACY can not continue.

And your solution to that is to limit the number of people that can vote?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

I don't think there should be a qualification at all, beyond citizenship, but if we were going to put a qualification, I think high school would be better than military.

I learned way more about life and what is important in the military than I did in high school. Most people don't know their asshole from a hole in the ground coming out of high school.

It's hard to say if other services and trades get the same out of the military though. I was in a fairly technical field in the Navy. I'd guess that grunts have a decidedly different experience.

Bottom line is, I agree that there should be no qualifications to vote.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

All those folks at Los Alamos, Oak Ridge and Hanford in 1943-45, what a bunch of undeserving civilians! Never mind that the bombs they developed saved (insert estimate here) of Allied troops' lives.

Then there are the civilian slackers who developed radar, and the proximity fuze, developed and built B17s, 24s, 29s, and P51s, and... No votes for them.

"I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

That's a pretty heavy oath...one unique to military officers. Did those civilians who developed the bombs have to swear to such things? Do firefighters? Remember, there would be nothing stopping these people from joining the military in the Starship Trooper world and providing similar services...only with the small stipulation of perhaps sacrificing your life for the good of the society.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

When many elections go by with less than 50% of the people voting...then the nation as a DEMOCRACY can not continue.

And your solution to that is to limit the number of people that can vote?

He shoots!






HE SCORES!!!

[shropshire 0]

<>

But forcing people to vote would be .... um.... undemocratic.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[DZJ 0]

I don't see how the substance of that oath is much different from making kids swear allegiance to the flag of the United States, and the Constitution for which it stands. On that basis, every person educated in the public system (Q. - are private schools obliged to have their students pledge allegiance?) has already sworn their loyalty. Why then deny them the vote?

[nerdgirl 0]

A critical component of the strength of the US military and the overall US nation-state is being missed in this discussion - the importance of civilian control of the military.

The fundamental notion of civilian controlled military has long been shown to be a necessary (but not solely sufficient) characteristic of stable, liberal democracies like our own (... & that's "liberal" in the political theory meaning of the word, i.e., Western Age of Enlightenment ideas like rule of law, property rights, market capitalism, private enterprise, as opposed to Divine Right of Kings, autocratic dictatorship, Communism, radical Salafism, theocracy, etc,) by folks like Samuel Huntington, Clausewitz, Michael Desch, etc.

(The importance of a strong civilian controlled military is another topic.)

I was curious exactly what oath the member of the US military actually take. The USMC Oath of Enlistment, which is similar to the oaths of USA, USN, and USAF:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
http://www.marines.com/page/usmc.jsp?pageId=/page/Detail-XML-Conversion.jsp?pageName=Oath&flashRedirect=true

Supporting and defending the Constitution -- which gives responsibility & power to raise & pay for military to Congress and vests executive authority in the President "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States," -- is the critical part.

Most convincingly, at least to me, historically what have been the results of military-controlled societies? None have been/are places I would want to live: Myanmar (nee Burma), Pinochet's controlled Chile, Argentina under Videlia, Greece in the late 60's/early '70s, Nicauargua under the Sandanistas, Uganda under Idi Amin (or any of the dozens of other military-rules in Africa), Franco's Spain ...

VR/
Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

That's a pretty heavy oath...one unique to military officers. Did those civilians who developed the bombs have to swear to such things? Do firefighters?

I don't know what oaths firefighters take but US federal civil servants, as well as many State employees (e.g., Georgia) do sign or say an oath very similar to the US uniformed services, which include the Coast Guard and Public Health Service.

Per US Code 5 Part III.B.33.II Section 3331:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00003331----000-.html

"An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath:

'I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'

That's remarkably similar to the USA, USN, USMC, and USAF Oath. SES's (Senior Executive Service) have a similar oath.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Amazon 7]

Quote

When many elections go by with less than 50% of the people voting...then the nation as a DEMOCRACY can not continue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And your solution to that is to limit the number of people that can vote?

My solution would be to REDUCE the amount of apathy by having people become PART of the system...to put something into it... and also provide them with 2 years of college so they are given at least a semblance of an education....enough to read the voters pamplet would be a good start.

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

All those folks at Los Alamos, Oak Ridge and Hanford in 1943-45, what a bunch of undeserving civilians! Never mind that the bombs they developed saved (insert estimate here) of Allied troops' lives.

Then there are the civilian slackers who developed radar, and the proximity fuze, developed and built B17s, 24s, 29s, and P51s, and... No votes for them.

"I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

That's a pretty heavy oath...one unique to military officers. Did those civilians who developed the bombs have to swear to such things? Do firefighters? Remember, there would be nothing stopping these people from joining the military in the Starship Trooper world and providing similar services...only with the small stipulation of perhaps sacrificing your life for the good of the society.

Maybe you'd like to go to war armed with 19th Century weaponry, since you appear to devalue the contributions of those who developed the 20th and 21st Century weapons systems. Yes, Oppenheimer would have been far better employed carrying a rifle than running Los Alamos.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

All those folks at Los Alamos, Oak Ridge and Hanford in 1943-45, what a bunch of undeserving civilians! Never mind that the bombs they developed saved (insert estimate here) of Allied troops' lives.

Then there are the civilian slackers who developed radar, and the proximity fuze, developed and built B17s, 24s, 29s, and P51s, and... No votes for them.

"I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

That's a pretty heavy oath...one unique to military officers. Did those civilians who developed the bombs have to swear to such things? Do firefighters? Remember, there would be nothing stopping these people from joining the military in the Starship Trooper world and providing similar services...only with the small stipulation of perhaps sacrificing your life for the good of the society.

I think that point flew well over your head, there.

Dying in a firefight wouldn't have served the country nearly as well as developing the A bomb, esp if the Nazis had hung on long enough to do it themselves. (the Germans had the delivery system already in the V2).

Loyalty oaths still exist, and in 1959, they were universal. You can't really ignore the time in which Starship Troopers was written. He was definitely a pro government man in a time when merely associating with 'alternative' thinkers got you blacklisted. Not really my idea of a great society.

Nor is one that was essentially a caricature of the Marines - fight hard, kill hard, die hard, think light. That brilliant thinking got the troopers slaughtered by the alien forces, certainly didn't value the individual soldiers much. Some might see a parallel in US foreign policy dating back to Teddy and the war with Spain.

Starship Troopers is 1959. Not sure how much of it was devised/written by him before Sputnik in 1957. At that point, for those too dense to get it sooner, society realized that engineers were as important to the country as the soldiers, for all the G MacArthurs couldn't stop an ICBM.

I liked the movie, and read the book at some point. I enjoy Cold War movies and books, be it Red Dawn, Dr. Strangelove, or even High Noon (read the Pravda review the movie). Fun viewing, but as a model for society...please.

[JackC 0]

Quote

I think a high school diploma (including classes in critical thinking, the scientific method, constitutional law, and history of the founding of our nation) would be a better qualification.

I like that idea.
As far as Heinlein's idea to serve in the forces to qualify for a vote. That's a stupid idea. Everyone should get a vote. They should bring back national service and be done with it.