[Mefustae]

Mefustae: Let's say you lived in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or Iraq. If rights can only be earned by service to the state, then it must mean that you serve the state in implementing one or more of its policies. So would you still earn your rights if it meant aiding the state in the genocide of Jews, hunting down of political dissidents, or gassing Kurds? One of the great concepts behind the idea of universal rights is that a corrupt or morally-bankrupt state cannot stifle its opponents.

What you're on about is not "individual sacrifice", because individual sacrifice needs to be judged to be so by some authority. When that authority is the state, it gives the state tremendous power over what an individual can and can't do. That's utterly authoritarian, and can't be described as anything but fascist.

It's quite curious you included Iraq in there.

It's quite easy to see those options as wrong, because society has already judged those actions to be wrong. Without a doubt, I would never willingly aid in the genocide of Jews, gas Kurds, or... well, being truthful i'd have no problem hunting down political dissidents [however that's another story]. But, from inside a nation commiting this atrocities, I would likely have no idea of the scope of what I would be contributing to, and thus... yes, I would. I would likely have done those things to earn my rights and freedoms. And I believe you would too.

As for a "morally-bankrupt state" being somehow unable to "stifle its opponents" ...Say what? I would have thought that a corrupt state would find it somewhat easy to silence opponents, namely locally, while a state of total freedom would find it incredibly hard to stifle opponents given the massive restrictions universal rights to the population places upon a given government.

Now, it's worth mentioning that i'm not implying those unwilling to make individual sacrafices to become part of the state are not part of the nation, but they simply don't enjoy the rights and freedoms, such as running for office, as those who would otherwise sacrafice for the advancement of the state. We're not talking about absolute power centred among the ruling elite, but rather a social filter to keep the nutters, cowards and Texans in check.

@Ghost: Touche, on all accounts.

EDIT: I'd just like to point out that Godwin's Law has once again been proven.

[Jetmech Jr.]

I'm not even going to TOUCH your "Democracy Sux" rant, Mefustae, but I would just like to say: You strike me as more of a tool than that kid. Sorry, but it's the truth.

[Mefustae]

Fair enough, i'll take that in stride. But it's worth noting I don't actually think the core ideals of Democracy "sux" as you so eloquently put it (). Indeed, it is merely the perversion of those ideals in modern, western Democracies [i'm not simply America-bashing here, i'm West-bashing] that I truly loathe.

[Jetmech Jr.]

Fair enough, i'll take that in stride. But it's worth noting I don't actually think the core ideals of Democracy "sux" as you so eloquently put it (). Indeed, it is merely the perversion of those ideals in modern, western Democracies [i'm not simply America-bashing here, i'm West-bashing] that I truly loathe.

Truth be told, I just skimmed your post and condensed what I could understand of it into something easy to type

[Mefustae]

I did wonder. I've never said democracy is wrong, just that it doesn't work in its current form.

[Jetmech Jr.]

I did wonder. I've never said democracy is wrong, just that it doesn't work in its current form.

Democracy just plain doesn't work, it's as simple as that

That would be the line that led me astray

[Mefustae]

It's 3:00 in the morning, you'll forgive me for being slightly contradictory here and there!

[Flaser]

While the movie was definitely a fascist take on the universe, considerably Nazi-esque to be more precise, the book was more anti-communism than pro-facist.

Still, is the idea that rights and freedoms should be earned through individual sacrifice such an undesirable view? Personally, I believe it would lead to a better, considerably more coherant society where those that shouldn't have a voice, quite simply, don't.

I so love when people try to subvert my idols for their own gains.
Read the novel again - they never pulled this ****.

Everyone has the right to earn their citizenships - the only reason you may not take the test is if you're mentally incapable of doing so.
Citizenship however doesn't equal freedom - it equals responsibility, and the power to go with it. Citizens are granted the power to decide for everyone by casting their own vote on issues. Everyone can attain this power provided they also accept the responsibility to go with it, which is putting the life and wellbeing of everyone else before your own.

However non-citizens aren't slaves or restricted either. It's power you gain with Citizenship, not freedom.
They have the rights for freedom more than anyone else in our history....with the aft forgotten ammendment, that in a JUST society your freedom may never become other people's restriction.
They can, and often ARE saying whatever they want to about the goverment.

What Heinlein DID dispute, is the LIBERAL BELIEF in INHERENT GOODNESS.
Liberal thinking assumes that humans are inherently good and just, and therefore wihtout restrictions to warp them, they're bound to live a happy life in a just society.

He claims, that this assumtions is entierly FALSE (which I strongly agree with), that humans must be thought what goodness is for the sake of society.
He never said, that it would be the state's bussiness to do so, or that there is a ONE TRUE MORAL CODE to adhere to.
He actually says counter-wise, that from scientific point of view morality is bull****; a code handed down accepted out adherence to customs without any (scientifically) prooven beneficial effect or understood mechanism. So he also dethrones CONSERVATIVISM.

What his rhetorics boils down to is the need for POWER to be equally weighted with RESPONIBILITY for society to function as a whole. The need for accountability, and especially among those in power.

So if you want to bring up Heinleinen rhetorics, start your purged at the top of the ladder, where the power and the hypocrisy are at their strongest.
Only regulate the others if you managed to clear that stable, which is probably the reason why Heinlein's utopia won't come to pass until another psychological innovations takes over modern societies like the idea INDIVIDUALITY did during the Middle Ages.

[SadisticSid]

As for a "morally-bankrupt state" being somehow unable to "stifle its opponents" ...Say what? I would have thought that a corrupt state would find it somewhat easy to silence opponents, namely locally, while a state of total freedom would find it incredibly hard to stifle opponents given the massive restrictions universal rights to the population places upon a given government.

A state which grants the same rights to all its citizens cannot legally stifle its opponents. A corrupt state which grants privileges of voting and free speech can use them as just another tool - i.e. granting them only to its supporters - to ensure its own perpetuity.

Oh, and it's quite curious to see you didn't refute my point about this being fascist.

[aldo_14]

Just as a curiousity, does the society described in Starship Troopers give any rights or redress to non 'citizens'?  Because a casual examination could lead to a person to believe that the state determining who to vote by determining what constitutes 'taking responsibility', is a system that essentially allows brainwashing and supresses the very possibility of reformation.  To service the state entails accepting it as it is, and thus prevents people with genuine political and ideological differences from changing anything.  For example, if you took Stalinist Russia and awarded voting rights solely to those serving in the army, building vast government projects, guarding the gulags, etc, it wouldn't be anything more than a facade of democracy, as the actions entailed to gain those rights invariably would require strengthening the government.  The converse would be also that it removes governmental responsibility altogether; if the government is dependent on the actions of its people, it can blame failure on non-participation and accept credit for success simply by dint of this system existing.

[NGTM-1R]

You seem to forget that if it's a private school, then it can do basically whatever it wants.

It isn't. Post irrelevant.

[Flaser]

Just as a curiousity, does the society described in Starship Troopers give any rights or redress to non 'citizens'?  Because a casual examination could lead to a person to believe that the state determining who to vote by determining what constitutes 'taking responsibility', is a system that essentially allows brainwashing and supresses the very possibility of reformation.  To service the state entails accepting it as it is, and thus prevents people with genuine political and ideological differences from changing anything.  For example, if you took Stalinist Russia and awarded voting rights solely to those serving in the army, building vast government projects, guarding the gulags, etc, it wouldn't be anything more than a facade of democracy, as the actions entailed to gain those rights invariably would require strengthening the government.  The converse would be also that it removes governmental responsibility altogether; if the government is dependent on the actions of its people, it can blame failure on non-participation and accept credit for success simply by dint of this system existing.

The redress non-citizens had all the civil rights, BUT the right to vote.
Also anyone IN the millitary is FORBIDDEN from both VOTING and holding government/parliament position.
So you have to spend your term, and only then are your permitted to vote - but if you fell in love with playing soldier, you will only get to excercise your right once you retire.

Also, the state doesn't brainwash you - or at least you're not required to accept anything as is. The only brainwashing that you may be subjected to is the civics class, which must be held by a citizen.
That's the only class where redshirts come into contact with direct government propaganda - or a citizens interpretation of it.

Even in the army you always have the right to discuss the validity of anything.
This doesn't entitle you though to not to carry out orders....you merely have to know when you can complein and when it's time to shut up and do your job. Which kinda makes sense when the lives of others depend on you doing so. However, YOU CAN ALWAYS RESIGN; serving is voluntary.

Mind though, that the majority of people aren't even in the army or navy during their civil service. There is simply no need. As the recruiting officier puts it: "We had to find the meanest, dirtiest, dangerous jobs imaginable just to make you remember that you earned your citizenship and make you apreciate it."

[aldo_14]

FYI: brainwashing is the simple act of taking in 'recruits' - in any vocation - and forcing in the idea that the system they work in is correct and just.

FYI2: what rights do non-citizens have to appeal against abuse by citizens or those in power?  A selective franchise is built to support itself by a pseudo-caste system, after all.

I don't see how any situation that require an explicit acceptance of the current form and system of government in order to have the right to vote, can be anything beyond dystopian and totalitarian; surely the most important thing to bear in mind is that the state defines responsibility, and thus controls the franchise in a manner that reinforces itself.  Moreso, it's pretty evident in modern society alone that this type of selective franchise is fatally flawed; unless the likes of military or civil service are unpaid, then there are motives beyond a desire for responsibility or patriotism.  Indeed, part of the problem such a system poses is that the state defines what is and what is not a patriotic, responsible vocation or act.

The simple and obvious truth is, of course, that any form of selective franchise allows the government to manipulate itself into continuous power; even if the actual party or parties can be voted out, the system is setup to inherently preserve the ideology, like a 2-party system between Fascists and Nazis.  Essentially it forces people to do what the government wants them to - serve - in order to have the right to tell the government want to do.  And part 1, influences part 2.