this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
767 points (97.8% liked)
memes
10649 readers
3944 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I read the book just a couple years ago thinking it would be awesome because the book is usually better than the movie, and oh my God. I can't believe someone actually thought that kind of government would be rad.
I'm not sure if Heinlein genuinely thought it would be rad. He did play around with a lot of ideas in his books. Stranger in a Strange Land is totally different and full on hippie communism or whatever you'd call it, which is in a bit of a contrast to Starship Troopers. And then there's the Finnish matriarchy in one of the books. Of course another explanation was that he just radically changed his minds but I dunno.
Interesting stuff, nevertheless and IMO really good book if you like military scifi.
How do you world build if you don't feature your kinks prominently, front and center?
Imagine if you will, a ring that could render you completely invisible to the naked eye...
"Dare ye enter my MaGiCaL ReAlM?!?!"
source: gunshow comic
(There was a hilarious entry about this on 1d4chan but that site blips on and off the Internet so often...)
The spanking I can get past, but the extensive genetic analysis in "The Tale of the Twins Who Weren't" in Time Enough for Love was a tad... indulgent of something.
He was just ahead of time.
Which is unfortunate because it's an otherwise fun read
I always find it interesting to read stories investigating alternative ideas. I'm generally very left wing in my views. Stories like starship troopers are 1 way of doing it.
The thing is, such a system has some significant advantages. You just need to paper over the cracks. The biggest issue is the requirement for an external enemy. Without one, it would likely turn inwards and destroy itself. In the book's case it's the bugs that provide this. They are also not mindless. You start the book with a terror raid on an ally of the bugs, proving they are capable of interstellar diplomacy. It's designed to "persuade" them to stay out of the war, but they also idly use nuclear weapons on civilian targets.
A "benevolent dictator" funnelling public funds and lives into an offensive war effort to keep the populace unified in hate sounds, and is meant to sound hellish. It's an unnecessary waste of resources and lives that comes at the direct expense of providing for your people.
What are the advantages?
Common goals, with a strong unifying purpose for 1. Opportunities for significant advancement. Significant investment into medical care. Strong leadership direction. An extremely egalitarian society. Filtering of those in power.
Just because it's a horrifying setup doesn't mean it doesn't have advantages. It's possible to dissect a large complex idea and extract useful tools from it. It also helps you better see the pitfalls, both to help you make decisions on it, and explain the problems to others.
A couple of examples. The Nazis significantly improved the fitness level of a large chunk of the population. Nazi scientists were also critical in America making it to the moon. The current German autobahn road network is one of the best built in the world.
Just because the source is horrifying doesn't mean everything it is attached to is also horrifying. The catch is separating the 2, or explaining why the cost is not worth the benefit.
And just to clarify. I'm a strong proponent of a robust social safety net. I also think all "natural monopoly" infrastructure should be controlled by a government owned non profit. Capitalism and nationalism should be treated like fire. A fire in a hearth will keep you warm. A fire in a smelter will help make steel. A fire in your bedroom will kill your family. Useful, but controlled and channeled.
In no way reliant on a benevolent dictator, and using authoritarianism to push a purpose generally results in outcomes like genocide and the annexation of neighbouring territories.
The opposite is typically true as autocratic leaders use their power to entrench their power, enforcing strong hierarchies.
This one is a mixed bag, but also isn't remotely dependent on an autocrat.
That needs to point in a positive direction for it to be a positive - something that's almost never happened for long
The opposite is almost invariably the case - preferential treatment (generally paired with bloodshed) is necessary to keep the powerful in power.
Who filters the dictator? That would mean they're not a dictator.
I liked the general approach, but my own system designed by the same method plus my, not author's personality would look completely different.
Books like this are a "what if" game. The details, and the author's biases will shape it. They are still useful tools however for seeing how things will play out.
Its a facist utopia, if you're a facist it IS great.
The parts of that book that aren't heavy handed philosophy are great. There's some fuckin awesome sci Fi hidden in the book that's pretty much "Atlas shrugged for the military"
People used to think that a lot.
They still do too, which is concerning.
The movie more borrowed the name than anything. "Bug assault on outpost 9" is the origination story.
There is a lot of good arguments in that book.
A system where you have to do something positive for your country to vote isn't the worst idea.
... And who, exactly, gets to decide what is something "positive" enough to warrant having your voice represented? Fucking yikes my dude.
Citizens vote on it I imagine.
It was a very democratic society all you had to do was serve.
Right, so if I don't serve I don't get to vote. That's fucking wild. Let's look at Israel for how great compulsory service is and a beacon of democracy then shall we
Israel is way more militaristic than the society in Starship Troopers. That isn't a fair comparison.
Who gets to vote is decided by a vote? How did they get their right to vote? That's a great incentive for current voters to prevent anyone who doesn't agree with them from getting voting rights in the future.
Same as women voting or 16 years old or people without land.
People vote on who gets to vote
Yeah sure, until civil war breaks out decades later over the huge portion of the population that couldn't vote because it was democratically decided that they were the wrong skin color. It's not like this is some untested idea.
Okay you're right. An elite few should hold the power on who gets to vote and who doesn't.
What is the original voting block hoarding their voting rights (eg white male land owners) if not an elite few?
Look, obviously infants can't vote, so you have a point that technically there needs to be a democratic way to decide who can and can't vote based on maturity/age at least, but there's no good argument for any further restrictions on adult residents subject to the law of their government. I don't care if they're not in military service, I don't care if they're bums on the street, I don't care if they're slaves, I don't care if they're serving life in prison - they're citizens, they're subject to the system, they deserve equal say in how the system works. Excessively legislating who can and can't vote is just asking for "an elite few" to exploit it.
You could argue that people exploit the system when someone leaches off it when others do hard work.
At least it someone had to serve the betterment of their country for a while they aren't just leaching.
Like those hardworking slaves in the South! Wait they couldn't vote, and a large chunk of the people who could vote (ironically leaching off the slaves hard work) had a vested interest in making sure it stayed that way. Do you see the problem?
Power begats power, and even with good intentions concentrating it historically will strip minorities of their rights, even after they're no longer minorities, ironically leading to minority rule. Gerrymandering is essentially this same problem of voters (indirectly through their representatives) deciding how votes are counted. Whoever is in power now will change voting rights in their favor to keep it, it's naive to think otherwise.
I'm sorry who changed it so slaves could vote the majority of people or a minority of people?
Technically a majority ... 80 fucking years after the country was established. In fact, it wasn't even a true majority per se as former confederated states weren't even allowed their congressional representation back until they agreed to adopt the 14th amendment. Citizenship for citizenship. There was never a come-to-Jesus moment, they were tugged by the ear into giving African-Americans citizenship after failing to secede ironically because they feared the threat of losing slavery as an institution. Practically speaking, "who changed it who so slaves could vote" was the majority, but not the majority of voters, it was the majority of bullets and bayonets. Turns out when people don't get representation legally, they'll figure out another way to make their voice heard, eventually.
What you are saying exactly here is the majority of men and women only in the North got to decide the future for everyone in the south unless they signed up for something they didn't want to sign up for. Is that right?
That's sounds more democratic than a system where the majority of the adult population do something to contribute to the imporvement of their country and planet, then they get to vote.
You seem to be glossing over the fact that this "something they they didn't want to sign up for" was literally the abolition of slavery. Slavery as in people are property, they have no rights, and to use your words, they were signed up for something they didn't want to sign up for - for life.
But no, let's mourn with those poor slaveowners, who were forced by the Yankees to give up their right to - checks notes - own people to regain their own voting rights after a failed secession over this same issue.
Why the fuck am I arguing the morality of slavery with you? Good luck raising the south or whatever. I know it's tough these days making sure only good ol' boys can vote
Good strawman.
Actually what was happening is you said a system where even the majority vote for something is a bad system, the only possibility is everyone has to vote.
Then to prove your point you used an example where a minority changes the rules for everyone.
Lol it was just terrible a terrible argument because you proved my point but you are too far down the rabbit hole to admit you fucked up.
Let me say it slow: tolerance paradox. Intolerance can't be tolerated. The right to deny another person's rights isn't a right, it's oppression.
Early on I thought this might be good conversation. I offered slavery and the civil war as a counter point to illustrate why the whole "yesterday's citizens decided who today's were, and today's citizens decide who tomorrow's will be" idea is a faulty one, but you jumped right in the pig sty because apparently granting voting rights to freed slaves in the South was an anti-democratic move. That's both immoral and illogical. So yeah, we're done here. get blocked
No I was saying you was saying not having everyone allowed to vote is undemocratic.
People in starship troopers have the right to vote, everyone has the same right. It just has to be earned. They see a vote as something of value and not to be given away to someone that doesn't care about it.
But in your example white men chose to give the vote to more people and men chose to give it to women. So the few can choose to expand the vote to others that may disagree with. That's against what you said with those with the vote will make it harder for others to vote.
History shows that to be false.
Nah, that's a pretty shit idea bro.
What if I were to tell you, in the book, you could do it by being a social worker, a teacher, or any form of civil service?