Question about citizenship in Starship Troopers

[wuushew]

Given the low percentage of people eligible to vote in that universe, would the number of political offices exceed the pool of contestants?
How many political positions exist in the United States including all areas from dog catcher to Congress?

Furthermore, our franchised citizens are not everywhere a small fraction; you know or should know that the percentage of citizens among adults ranges from over eighty per cent on Iskander to less than three per cent in some Terran nations yet government is much the same everywhere

[marmar]

1. Enjoyed your weekend in Amsterdam, did you?

:smoke: :) :hi:

[Canuckistanian]

2. Ya got me. I flunked Iskanderian Civics class

But the sex education class left me scarred for life....

[cliffordu]

5. Roflmao.....

[baldguy]

3. "The best government is that which governs least."

Less government, fewer personnel needed for government.

[YOY]

4. In the book you had to serve to be able to vote if I remember correctly.

And the book's service training made our modern training seem like childsplay.

[Marr]

8. But you couldn't vote *while* serving, IIRC.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. Probably not so many elected officials in Heinlein-world

Heinlein town would hire a private dog-catcher. (And then tar and feather him if he missed a dog.)

[The Traveler]

7. Probably the least understood of Heinlein's works

and the movies are perfectly horrible.

Like all science fiction, Starship Troopers starts off with a premise: That after recovery from a nuclear war, an emerging society decides that the franchise shall be held only by those who have demonstrated at least some willingness to put the needs of the society above their own personal needs and desires.

Federal Service is not limited, in this hypothetical system, to military service, nor can the right to serve be denied to anyone based on mental or physical handicap, race, creed, gender, etc. All Federal Service, however, must be difficult and/or dangerous to some degree. The act of serving thus produces a level of discipline, and demonstrates a significant level of desire for the power of franchise. That is the theory, anyway.

This eliminates a high percentage of the Dick Cheney types ... those who want power but who have never demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice for the greater good of the society. Sounds tempting.

The rest of the novel is simply action scenes involving conflict with a couple different species of aliens inserted between ruminations over the implications of such a system. The vision presented is semi-utopian.

There is a definite militaristic overtone to the management of a society so organized ... a point Heinlein does not dodge. Nor does he view that as a problem specifically ...

But most reasonable people would! A society so organized around military service is going to have issues. Heinlein's system filters the Dick Cheney's but does not filter the General Boykins'. Even though he specifically points out that military service does not necessarily confer wisdom or virtue, he fails to explain how this system achieves a measure of either.

But, then, that was not his point. His point was that criteria for franchise that are egalitarian might be devised that better prepare voters and representatives for their roles and result in more effective, less corrupt government. (Heinlein would have had no use for Dick Cheney.) Such a criteria need not be organized around Federal or military service. This is an interesting idea, but fraught with dangers.

Regard it as a thought experiment, then. As such, it does provide grounds for thought.

[jobendorfer]

9. Thought Experiment?

If _Starship Troopers_ gets people thinking and pondering, sure.
Heinlein's specific proposal in the novel ... don't think very much of it.
The majority of Presidents, Representatives, and Senators for the last 75 years were veterans of either military service, or of state/federal civil service ( prosecutors, for example ), and would qualify for the franchise and to hold political office in Heinlein's scheme.
I rest my case.


J.

[The Traveler]

12. Not sure your statistics are correct

I do know the percentage of veterans in Congress and the Senate has dropped precipitously in recent decades. (Not sure that is a bad thing in and of itself.)

Also, what you mean by "Federal Service" and the term as employed in the novel are quite distinct. Federal service in our world might be pushing paper in an air conditioned office. In Heinlein's usage, it might be camping out on the flank of an active volcano taking up close measurements, for example. (Difficult and/or dangerous.)

I am certainly not going to advocate a society structured along the lines Heinlein explored in the novel. Not sure Heinlein would have advocated that, specifically. I know from his writings on the topic he regarded it as thought experiment in which a system like ours was taken and distorted by injection of a new rule.

One further point. The book was written as a juvenile science fiction novel ... written for adolescent boys of the era. (Late 50's as I recall ... but maybe early 70's.) So it was an entertainment that drew the reader of that age group into some interesting ground. I picked up a lot of other books that this book lead me towards ...

I defend the book not because it is particularly ground breaking or anything. It was a fun read for a pre-teen boy and chock full of some interesting ideas. Oddly, it provokes a surprising level of pro or con gut reaction from people, and usually both sides take its premises too seriously. Like many science fiction writers, Heinlein tried to concoct a premise that distorts or exaggerates what we experience in the here and now, that thereby we catch a different view of things.

In this vein (again in the 50s) he wrote a book called "If This Goes On ..." which speculated on what he saw as a dangerous coupling between politics and evangelism. In this "future history", a theological dictatorship assumes power in America, and it must be over thrown by means of rebellion a coup.

[XOKCowboy]

10. That was Heinlein's genius...

His Future Histories provided plenty of ground for thought. I prefer Stranger In A Strange Land and Time Enough For Love for his vision of a world where peace, love and intelligence were the norm.

[Truth4Justice]

11. The movie was horrible, but under the rules Obama, Hillary and Edwards couldnt run. Mcsame could. nt

[Frank Cannon]

13. The first movie was actually not as bad as everyone thinks

Try watching it again with your post-9/11 glasses on. It's actually a clever parody of "Beverly Hills 90210"-like soap operas and the war in Iraq, produced six years before "shock and awe".

I can't vouch for the sequels, because I never saw them.