[Wolfman]

I'm sure most here have read, or atleast familiar with SST. While Heinleins government isn't exactly Dictatorial/Fascistic/whatever, it has a similar mentality, I would say. I'm curious though, has anyone other then Heinlein proposed such a government?

[Preston Cole]

As far as militarism is concerned, the Federation is extremely similar to the early spirit of the Italian Fascists. It's a very veteran-centric system, soldiers should act as a model for the nation, emphasis on selfless service, etc. The difference between Fascism and the Federation is that the latter seems to be more libertarian, as Heinlein himself was. Personal liberty is cherished in the Federation (the conservative concept that personal liberty leads to self-reliance and maturity and whatnot) and service isn't mandatory. It's really similar to the US in the sense that a strong, disciplined military layer envelops a liberal-conservative society. Not my cup of tea and not really fascist.

I don't know of any real life examples of this. I don't think combining a Federation-like system, which is authoritarian on the outside and not so authoritarian on the inside, could lead to a sustainable authoritarian movement, fascist or otherwise, as authoritarianism automatically involves minimizing personal liberty. It's a fictional system with little plausibility in real life. (For instance, how the hell could a group of vigilante army veterans in Scotland serve as a basis for a global state, as the book says?)

There's a user around here, Andropov, whose ideas are similar (totalitarian state with personal liberty) to the Federation's. Perhaps he could provide some examples of similar politicians/movements.

[powertoolsculpture]

Heinlein's Federation isn't a state. It's a decentralized tribal system run by a military caste. It has more in common with Scylding tribes than Fascism.

[Section Leader]

There are some good ideas in Starship Troopers, but I disagree on several key issues. For instance I believe military service should be compulsory.

[Americanroyalty]

Heinleins theories on governmant are a little unrealistic in starship troopers. It's more of a crituque of the liberal tendencies of most democracies. Where destructive behavior is lightly punished and personal responsibility is generally not encouraged (it's always someone elses fault).
oh and by the way I believe military service should be compulsory not volunteer based like in the book. The strongest and most dedicated recruits would be the core of the fighting force. where as anyone who doesn't make the cut is used in support (like sorting stuff, actual supply officers need to be motivated and skilled) and militia roles

[Cartertonian]

It's been a helluva long time since I read Starship Troopers but, if I recall correctly, the central premise was of a limited franchise wherein one had to earn the right to vote. One could earn the vote through military service, but that wasn't the only way. Other roles, that we think of today as 'public services', would also earn you the vote.

I confess that despite my left-liberal leanings, I like this idea. If you are not able to demonstrate your contribution to society, what right have you to be involved in deciding how society should be run?

[Decky]

I confess that despite my left-liberal leanings, I like this idea. If you are not able to demonstrate your contribution to society, what right have you to be involved in deciding how society should be run?

Sounds pretty good but how do you define "demonstrating your contribution to society?"

I mean the military demonstrates your commitment to killing members of other societies. Unless we are being invaded then one single ambulance driver, street sweeper or care worker contributes more than a whole battalion of soldiers.

[Potemkin]

Sounds pretty good but how do you define "demonstrating your contribution to society?"

I mean the military demonstrates your commitment to killing members of other societies. Unless we are being invaded then one single ambulance driver, street sweeper or care worker contributes more than a whole battalion of soldiers.

Precisely. Such a system could only really operate in a time of total war, and would probably fall apart rather rapidly once the existential threat had ended.

[Cartertonian]

There's a thread hijack rabbit-hole staring us in the eyes, here.

For what it's worth, although I disagree with your ratios (1 for a battalion? Methinks you take the piss) a teacher, nurse, ambulance driver, even a street-sweeper if you must, might be worth more to society than a soldier, but this is the perennial difficulty with defence, as a concept.

Here's the troublesome phrase...

Unless we are being invaded...

OK, fine. So let's demean, deride, deskill and deconstruct our defence - because clearly person-for-person they're only worth one three-hundredth of a street-sweeper ( ) and then, when we are being invaded, we'll all just roll over and play dead, shall we, because we will have no credible defence. They will all have left in order to raise their social standing three-hundredfold by sweeping streets, apparently.

[Pants-of-dog]

Taking that idea a step further, a standing army cannot show its worth to the polity (and thereby show how it has earned the right to vote) unless it engages in conflict. If it is not being invaded, it must invade. In this respect, such a society is similar to an insect colony in that it creates a certain number of warrior bugs whose energy investment must be repaid by conquering new areas with new resources, or defending the hive.

I wonder if an author has ever made that comparison?

[Decky]

For what it's worth, although I disagree with your ratios (1 for a battalion? Methinks you take the piss)

Me? Never We really need a smiley with a halo haha.

OK, fine. So let's demean, deride, deskill and deconstruct our defence - because clearly person-for-person they're only worth one three-hundredth of a street-sweeper ( ) and then, when we are being invaded, we'll all just roll over and play dead, shall we, because we will have no credible defence. They will all have left in order to raise their social standing three-hundredfold by sweeping streets, apparently.

Firstly, (as you well know) social standing has nothing to do with social utility. When did I mention social standing? Then again I did say "worth more" without qualifying it so I suppose I bear some of the responsibility for your confusion.

As for the rest. Do you (genuinely) feel we (the United Kingdom) are facing an existential military threat? If we were (for example) to retain the Navy, a slimmed down RAF (hopefully as the Republican Air Force ) and essentially replace the army with an almost entirely territorial army based force then what to we lose? The ability to invade small oil; rich Middle Eastern nations? Oh Noes, woe is me.

This brings me on to

OK, fine. So let's demean, deride, deskill and deconstruct our defence - because clearly person-for-person they're only worth one three-hundredth of a street-sweeper ( ) and then, when we are being invaded, we'll all just roll over and play dead, shall we, because we will have no credible defence. They will all have left in order to raise their social standing three-hundredfold by sweeping streets, apparently.

Obviously if we needed to fight a war in defense of our sons and daughters (as opposed to blowing up evil brown Mohammedans for no reason) those street sweepers (and everyone else) would sit at home waiting for the occupation rather than volunteering?

You seem to have a very low opinion of the British public. In the very unlikely even of the hun trying to come back or another Spanish Armada being sighted then even I would be up for sending the fuckers home in as brutal a fashion as possible.

Bingo we have street sweepers who can be soldiers when needed and who wont be sitting around eating up tax payers money and demanding to be the only citizens with a vote when not.

We haven't fought a war even close to that since the Falklands.

If you were to bringing qualified voting, fair enough it does have some decent arguments (even if on the whole I come down against it).

Why does helping the Yanks out with invading Iraq and confiscating their many invisible WMDs qualify military personal for a vote more than say a council street sweeper who makes more of a difference to public life, does it for less money and doesn't increase the likelihood of some religions nutter trying to blow me up on a train while doing it?

That question is not rhetorical. In a qualified voting system it would seem to me that neither would qualify.

[Preston Cole]

Why does helping the Yanks out with invading Iraq and confiscating their many invisible WMDs qualify military personal for a vote more than say a council street sweeper who makes more of a difference to public life, does it for less money and doesn't increase the likelihood of some religions nutter trying to blow me up on a train while doing it?

Isn't the answer obvious? Military personnel put their lives on the line and their hearts lie firmly with the nation's best interests. That some governments have misused the military for their own political interests is a different story. I agree on the Iraq issue.

Additionally, creating combat-ready, properly armed and modernized military forces is imperative even when you're not being threatened. Maintaining a militaristic spirit among your countrymen assures that they'll always be ready to crack down on even smaller terrorist threats with full force. That's the only way a nation can be properly secured, not by compromising on the basis of need.

[Decky]

Isn't the answer obvious? Military personnel put their lives on the line

People who fight against Britain with the Taliban are putting their lives on the line too. It doesn't mean I have to like them does it? I hope not. People who play on railway tracks put their lives on the line.

Why is it relevant?

and their hearts lie firmly with the nation's best interests.

So we need to allocate votes based on where peoples hearts lie? That is hilarious even before we confront defining the nations best interest.

A BNP member would argue that his heart lie firmly with the nation's best interests, he might even believe it. So would a member of the Socialist Workers Party which of them would get to vote under a sytem with qualifies sufferage?

Additionally, creating combat-ready, properly armed and modernized military forces is imperative even when you're not being threatened. Maintaining a militaristic spirit among your countrymen assures that they'll always be ready to crack down on even smaller terrorist threats with full force. That's the only way a nation can be properly secured, not by compromising on the basis of need.

Poppycock.

If there is a terrorist threat abroad then tough on the country getting bombed, no reason for a single British soldier to bleed for it or a single tax payers penny to be spent on it.

If someone wants to plant a bomb in Briton it is a police issue. Murder is illegal, so is bomb making, so is almost all gun ownership. Where does terrorism or war come in to it?

War involves two states an individual attacking other individuals is a crime.

[Preston Cole]

If there is a terrorist threat abroad then tough on the country getting bombed, no reason for a single British soldier to bleed for it or a single tax payers penny to be spent on it.

If someone wants to plant a bomb in Briton it is a police issue. Murder is illegal, so is bomb making, so is almost all gun ownership. Where does terrorism or war come in to it?

War involves two states an individual attacking other individuals is a crime.

So what you're saying is that if the state of Bumfuckistan or its Islamist allies sponsored terrorist cells against your country, you still wouldn't send the military to hang them upside down?

That's just insane, mate. A foreign individual's act of aggression against fellow citizens, repeated by several other persons and sponsored by states or state-affiliated movements is an act of war against you, nothing less, nothing more.

A BNP member would argue that his heart lie firmly with the nation's best interests, he might even believe it. So would a member of the Socialist Workers Party which of them would get to vote under a sytem with qualifies sufferage?

Ironic that you would ask a person with fascistic sympathies this.

[Decky]

So what you're saying is that if the state of Bumfuckistan or its Islamist allies sponsored terrorist cells against your country, you still wouldn't send the military to hang them upside down?

If someone wants to plant a bomb in Briton it is a police issue. Murder is illegal, so is bomb making, so is almost all gun ownership. Where does terrorism or war come in to it?

I would find and arrest the terrorist cells. It (regrettably) worked against the IRA. The Americans funded them but Britain did not invade the US and yet somehow magically won.

Ironic that you would ask a person with fascistic sympathies this.

Surely you understand the point I was trying to make? What is or isn't in the national interest is totally subjective. I mean there isn't such a thing, if they got rid of the NHS and bought in a flat tax it would help the rich, would it help me or you? No.

[Preston Cole]

What is or isn't in the national interest is totally subjective. I mean there isn't such a thing, if they got rid of the NHS and bought in a flat tax it would help the rich, would it help me or you? No.

I imagine it would be subjective, but I also imagine that such values as national conservatism, cultural conservatism, protectionism and militarism would at least be conducive to national interests regardless of whether you're left or right (obviously cosmopolitan liberals don't count).

On a side note,

The Americans funded them

Americans funding anti-British organizations? I really have to check up on my history. This is really interesting.

[Decky]

Americans funding anti-British organizations? I really have to check up on my history. This is really interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1563119.stm

Most IRA arms came from Libya and Yankeeland. By the time the American government had cracked down on it Britain had already neutered the Irish Republican Movement.

They did this without having to invade the US. Not that we could have anyway. Terrorism on our soil is a police issue not a military one. That is not to say that the police should crack down on it with terrible brutality however, I am up for that.

Perhaps a:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror

[Figlio di Moros]

Seems like someone doesn't understand the role of power projection in international relations...

The American, and British, servicemembers are singlehandedly the most important people in the world. We already have problems with piracy off the coast of Somalia and through the Jakatur straits because of the collapse of the British Empire; without hegemonic power projection to promote peace and trade, Europe wouldn't be able to make a few cultural exports and stick it's nose up the way it does.

Even Iraq and Afganistan, for whatever you think, are important in this regard. We keep the oil flowing from Kuwait, out the gulf, and into British cars and onto British fields. That can't be said of the street-sweeper.