Position:Home>Philosophy> Would the government proposed by Heinlein in Starship Troopers work in real life
Question: Would the government proposed by Heinlein in Starship Troopers work in real life!?
He proposes that there are two classes of people, civilians and citizens!.
Civilians are your average people, they are born in a country and can live as they want!. One major caveat, they cannot vote!. Other than that, with limited restrictions, they are free!.
Citizens on the other hand are the only ones who can vote and hold office!.
To become a citizen, you must serve the military for a minimum of 2 years!. This is a completely voluntary and available to all civilians!. You can only attempt to join the military once!.
Would this be a viable form of government, hypothetically!? Heinlein, in his book, points out that the system is not perfect, but is better than other systems tried before, namely democracy!. What is wrong in his opinion with democracy!? He also claims his system will never have a revolution!. Why!?
I already know what he says, and his views!. I'm looking for a debate of his points, and what your ideas are on it!. 10 points to the most reasoned argument for or against!.
Cheers!Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
Certainly his government is no less viable than many that have been tried!. And arguably variants of this one have been tried to a degree - in some nations in history there wasn't an appreciable difference between the military and the ruling body!. Though in those cases it was the active military, we're still pretty close!.
I think he's way off about its vaunted stability!. Certainly he'll be right if we accept all his premises - that everyone aggressive will be in the military so there will be nobody left to revolt!. But he overlooks at least three major exceptions to this rule: all those people (like the main character's father) who may very well be aggressive but just aren't interested in the military for one reason or another, all the people who washed out of the military or weren't qualified perhaps for mental reasons (those unstable folks are probably MOST likely to revolt), and then there are all the military graduates who just don't like the way things are done even though they have a vote (not everyone has the patience for democracy and compromise)!. Nor does he seem to consider kinds of action other than direct violence against violence; some systems are overthrown due to economics and social changes, after all!.
It is also worth mentioning that we really do have a case of 'unreliable narrator' here!. Everything we see is coloured by the main characters' militaristic views, and it serves that characters' psychological purposes to have justification for what he does and the way things are!. I think evidence that Heinlein personally isn't committed to this particular system can be seen in the afterword that appears in some editions (he spitballs about other hypothetical systems!.!.!. like how about only mothers are franchised - at least they have an interest in the future of the nation) and in the book 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' where one of the characters also tries to encourage out-of-the-box thinking about what makes a government good and how it should be structured!.
My take, for what it's worth!. Peace!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
U!.S!.A!. Militia or Roman Legions were similar except in first a certain amount like four years only!.
also Switzerland has a similar system except everyone serves but are citizens anyway!.Www@QuestionHome@Com