Heinlein's Vision, Perfected Liberalism? Re: Starship Troopers - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14962727
Rugoz wrote:I thought the book was boring, there's little political philosophy in it.

Besides, tying citizenship to military service is hardly a revolutionary concept. It existed in ancient city states as well as modern nation states. Lots of countries still have conscription. From a military point of view it doesn't necessarily make sense anymore though.


:lol: You did not understand it at all. Starship Troopers has the opposite of conscription, in box standard nationalism birth right citizenship makes you liable to service, while in starship troopers voluntary service entitles you to citzenship. I seriously wonder how thick one has to be not to get that?
#14962739
SolarCross wrote::lol: You did not understand it at all. Starship Troopers has the opposite of conscription, in box standard nationalism birth right citizenship makes you liable to service, while in starship troopers voluntary service entitles you to citzenship. I seriously wonder how thick one has to be not to get that?


I don't see it as fundamentally different. After all one can flee the community to avoid being drafted.

In any case, I don't see the relevance for the modern world. My military service was pointless. I certainly didn't put my life on the line. Even in the US there's little risk of dying in service despite active participation in wars and having far less soldiers per capita. As a signalling device for "civic virtue" it's useless.

P.S. Did anyone suggest the movie isn't biting satire? It's as on-the-nose as it can get.
#14962831
I can't say I have come across 'Starship Troopers' being ideological fiction but it does seem answer a way to solve a moral issue. Which is how do you ensure equality in the face of inequality? If servitude to the state is a condition to hold power then perhaps we would have honorable leaders instead of pussies like Trump who will pay to skip the draft. They would have a sense of hardship and as such would make sure fairness was paramount. But not only that, it solves the biggest dilemma of all. By ensuring rights are earned and not given, you effectively make sure class is not a factor in politics. You are merited on your actions and not your wealth.

Nonetheless I don't know whether I agree with the principle of voting rights not given to civilians but I do believe if military leaders were in power within Westminster, we wouldn't have the weasel class we have today and actually have someone worth voting for.
#14962838
SolarCross wrote:PERFECTED LIBERALISM?

Obviously, not.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"Ah yes, ... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can ensure that I will catch it."

Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois (Ret.), p. 119; expanding on his statement that "a human being has no natural rights of any nature."


:lol:
#14962878
ingliz wrote:Obviously, not.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"Ah yes, ... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can ensure that I will catch it."

Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois (Ret.), p. 119; expanding on his statement that "a human being has no natural rights of any nature."

:lol:


Liberalism is a big tent, the idea of natural rights is a post-christian revision of rights from god, but the more hard, pragmatic and atheist strains of liberalism would as, Heinlein's Dubois does, disparage natural rights as unrealistic idealism. Dubois however still holds "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as goals, as seen in your quote, he just thinks one has to snatch them from the jaws of a hostile universe that is both red in tooth and claw.

You are a supporter of the genocide against the P[…]

@skinster well, you've been accusing Israel of t[…]

Before he was elected he had a charity that he wo[…]

Candace Owens

... Too bad it's not as powerful as it once was. […]