Starship Troopers - NEW MOVIE PICS
Abe D. Lockman
In article <61fn7o$qc3$1...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>,
pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Peter Ronaszeki) wrote:
> For those who are eagerly awaiting the upcoming 'STARSHIP TROOPERS' action
> blockbuster adaptation of Heinlein's classic sci-fi novel...
>
> Feast your eyes on some AMAZING new effects shot images from the movie, at
> 'The Entertainment Nexus':
{remaining flack deleted}
Do you have any pictures of people wearing black armbands, for those of
use who have actually read the novel and are not: under the age of 5, or
in mental institutions, or connected with the movie industry?
adl
Peter Ronaszeki
loc...@erols.com (Abe D. Lockman) writes:
>Do you have any pictures of people wearing black armbands, for those of
>use who have actually read the novel and are not: under the age of 5, or
>in mental institutions, or connected with the movie industry?
Hey, relax. Just read the novel again, if you don't want to watch the
movie. But a lot of people *are* looking forward to the movie. It offers
more thrills than the novel, and more people will end up being introduced
to Heinlein's books, as sales of the Starship Troopers novel soar to new
heights because of the movie (this is already happening - ask your local
sci-fi bookstores).
Peter Ronaszeki (pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au)
_THE ENTERTAINMENT NEXUS_
( Movies, video games, sci-fi, multimedia downloads, etc. )
*** http://www.student.uwa.edu.au/~predator ***
Chris and Elisabeth Zakes
pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Peter Ronaszeki) wrote:
>For those who are eagerly awaiting the upcoming 'STARSHIP TROOPERS' action
>blockbuster adaptation of Heinlein's classic sci-fi novel...
>Feast your eyes on some AMAZING new effects shot images from the movie, at
>'The Entertainment Nexus':
>( http://www.student.uwa.edu.au/~predator/ )
>The new shots are as follows:
>- Johnny Rico (Casper Van Dien) alerting the Mobile Infantry troops to the
>arrival of a huge "Tanker Bug".
>- The Fleet Command under attack by incoming Plasma Fire from "Planet P".
>- An AWESOME swarm of "Warrior Bugs" at Whisky Compound on "Planet P"
>(Personally, I can't wait to see this scene in motion, it'll be worth the
>price of admission alone!)
Okay, I looked. I'm underwhelmed.
These scenes were made up by the director, they are *not* in the
original Heinlein story; there's "Mobile Infantry" without powered
armor, and "pseudo-arachnids" that look like grasshoppers.
"Eagerly awaiting" doesn't begin to describe my disgust at the
apparent rape of an excellent SF story. Why didn't Verhoeven just do a
remake of "Them"?
-Chris Zakes
C and E Zakes
Tivar Moondragon (Patience and Persistence)
and Aethelyan of Moondragon (Decadence is its own reward)
moon...@bga.com
ctas...@acm.org
In article <61i7j9$q24$1...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>, pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Peter Ronaszeki) writes:
>loc...@erols.com (Abe D. Lockman) writes:
>
>>Do you have any pictures of people wearing black armbands, for those of
>>use who have actually read the novel and are not: under the age of 5, or
>>in mental institutions, or connected with the movie industry?
>
>Hey, relax. Just read the novel again, if you don't want to watch the
>movie. But a lot of people *are* looking forward to the movie. It offers
>more thrills than the novel, and more people will end up being introduced
>to Heinlein's books, as sales of the Starship Troopers novel soar to new
>heights because of the movie (this is already happening - ask your local
>sci-fi bookstores).
>
> Peter Ronaszeki (pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au)
Those new readers will just join the rest of us when they realize how the
movie scum butchered and twisted the story for no reason other then they had
to piss and shit on it to make it their's.
On a lighter note:
At Worldcon these people put a shotup bug on the floor of the dealers room.
I saw no other sign of them. I guess they were smart enough to know the kind
of questions and curses they would have received.(tar and feathers would have
been about right) The best line though was on friday when someone made little
signs and put the signs on the ropes around the bug. They gave a latin name
and then the common name. The common name was - THE LESSER TEXAS HOUSE ROACH.
I would have really liked to of had a presentation by these people. Maybe then
they would realize the mistake they are making.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Hamilton Fight Crime Shoot Back CTAS...@acm.org
d...@swbell.net
.
Chad M. Parish
I bet it'll be a cool movie...
---HOWEVER---------
it should NOT be called "Starship Troopers"; Perhaps "Amazing Battles
in the Twenty-Fourth Century"? That would be FAR more descriptive.
---------------------------------------------------
Chad Michael Parish,
cmparish.RE...@eos.ncsu.edu
Please see http://www4.ncsu.edu/~cmparish
---------------------------------------------------
Sophomore, North Carolina State University
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Please remove the .REMOVETOREPLY to send me e-mail.
---------------------------------------------------
K. Hu
>it should NOT be called "Starship Troopers"; Perhaps "Amazing Battles
>in the Twenty-Fourth Century"? That would be FAR more descriptive.
What's so amazing about foot soldiers slogging around like every other
war ever fought in the whole of human history?
I find powered armor drops from orbit much more interesting.
Ken Arromdee
j...@juand.earth.nwu.edu (John DeLaughter) wrote:
>While I can understand that
>there is honest disagreement about the nature of service in the FS, I
>still cannot fathom the claims that the FS is a fascist state - especially
>from those who should know better!
It's a fascist state because it lauds the rights of the state over the rights
of the individual. (In fact, in it, they've 'proved' that there _is_ no
such thing as individual rights, only duties.)
Granted it's not the obvious kind of fascist state portrayed in the movie.
--
Ken Arromdee |They said it was *daft* to build a space
arro...@inetnow.net |station in a swamp, but I showed them! It
karr...@nyx.nyx.net |sank unto the swamp. So I built a second
http://www.inetnow.net/~arromdee|space station. That sank into the swamp too.
--------------------------------+My third space station sank into the swamp.
So I built a fourth one. That fell into a time warp and _then_ sank into the
swamp. But the fifth one... stayed up! --Monty Python/Babylon 5
John DeLaughter
loc...@erols.com.edu (Abe D. Lockman) writes:
>
>Is a comic strip version coming out as _Starship Troopers: The Book_?
Unfortunately, yes. It is by Darkhorse Comics, and follows Verhoeven's
movie, rather than the book. I've only skimmed the first one, but it
seemed to indicate that (1) The bugs were never a serious threat to
humanity and (2) the Terran Federation is a fascist state which uses
straw-man enemies to prop up it's power. While I can understand that
there is honest disagreement about the nature of service in the FS, I
still cannot fathom the claims that the FS is a fascist state - especially
from those who should know better!
(Blech!)
John DeLaughter
Abe D. Lockman
In article <61i7j9$q24$1...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>,
pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Peter Ronaszeki) wrote:
> loc...@erols.com (Abe D. Lockman) writes:
>
> >Do you have any pictures of people wearing black armbands, for those of
> >use who have actually read the novel and are not: under the age of 5, or
> >in mental institutions, or connected with the movie industry?
>
> Hey, relax. Just read the novel again, if you don't want to watch the
> movie.
Nothing wrong with making shoot-em-ups, or enjoying watching them. Good
taste, however, precludes naming such for a mostly unrelated novel in the
hope of pulling in those who enjoyed the latter.
> But a lot of people *are* looking forward to the movie. It offers
> more thrills than the novel, and more people will end up being introduced
> to Heinlein's books, as sales of the Starship Troopers novel soar to new
> heights because of the movie (this is already happening - ask your local
> sci-fi bookstores).
Is a comic strip version coming out as _Starship Troopers: The Book_?
Nathan A. Bax
Chad M. Parish wrote:
>
> it should NOT be called "Starship Troopers"; Perhaps "Amazing Battles
> in the Twenty-Fourth Century"? That would be FAR more descriptive.
>
With a slight rewrite (Well maybe not a slight one) you could call it
Armor. Starship Troopers and Armor both use powered armor and bugs/ants
as a story backdrop. Starship Troopers focuses more on the
political/moral philosophy ideas. Armor focuses on the man behind the
armor, namely Felix. Neither of these movies would ever be made as they
are written. They wouldn't make enough MONEY!
Armor has more of the non-stop action though and could be kept closer th
the essential idea of the book. Only the Felix part could be done unless
you wanted a four hour movie. In Starship Troopers, the only time they
really fight the bugs is in the last twenty or so pages. They talk about
battles and such but don't actually do any fighting other than against
the skinnies. An actual straigh translation wouldn't make a whole lot of
money. It just wouldn't draw that well. Like Dune. I love the book and
the movie was all right but everyone considered it a flop. Well okay,
I'll admit the movie Dune is a little thin at parts but it isn't that
bad of translation.
As for going to see Starship Troopers? Hell yes! I haven't seen a good
action movie in awhile. Especially one with a Sci - Fi theme to it.
Plus I picked up Starship Troopers fascinated with the bug element
before even realizing what Starship Trooper was even about. I can't wait
to see the movie. Yes the powered armor would have been cool. But the
bugs look well done, and you never know. Maybe if it makes enough money,
the sequal will have powered armor.
Abe D. Lockman
> It's a fascist state because it lauds the rights of the state over the rights
> of the individual. (In fact, in it, they've 'proved' that there _is_ no
> such thing as individual rights, only duties.)
Um, that's a _very_ interesting interpretation. Are you sure you
actually read the book?
>
> Granted it's not the obvious kind of fascist state portrayed in the movie.
adl
Thurston
> karr...@nyx.nyx.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> It's a fascist state because it lauds the rights of the state over the rights
> of the individual. (In fact, in it, they've 'proved' that there _is_ no
> such thing as individual rights, only duties.)
Ever tried not paying taxes for a year or two?
Then come back and tell me all about "rights" and "duties".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Hickman
In <61lhdd$t...@nyx.nyx.net>, karr...@nyx.nyx.net (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>j...@juand.earth.nwu.edu (John DeLaughter) wrote:
>>While I can understand that
>>there is honest disagreement about the nature of service in the FS, I
>>still cannot fathom the claims that the FS is a fascist state - especially
>>from those who should know better!
>
>of the individual. (In fact, in it, they've 'proved' that there _is_ no
>such thing as individual rights, only duties.)
Nonsense. Individuals in _Starship Troopers_ have more freedom than
anywhere on Earth today. I would be enlightened to know of any government
currently in power which has forsworn prisons as the Federation has in
_Starship Troopers_ (the novel). The reason for corporal punishment in
the novel is that government does not have the right to incarcerate
individuals over a period of more than a few days -- if that. Trials are
speedy (really) and punishment swift.
That is the reason that conscription is not used in the novel. Individual
freedom has an absolute value above the convenience of the State. Duties
to the community, while lauded, cannot be forced on anyone, they must be
voluntarily assumed -- and what the individual does to fulfill that duty is
up to the individual -- whether it be volunteering for the Federal Service
or in some other way. This is also the reason anyone in the Federal Service
may quit at any time other than while in actual combat.
Matt Hickman
I believe that a man has an obligation to be merciful to the weak...
patient with the stupid...generous to the poor. I think he is obligated
to lay down his life for his brothers, should it be required of him. But
I don't propose to prove any of these things; they are beyond proof. And
I don't demand that you believe as I do.
Robert A. Heinlein (1907 - 1988)
"If This Goes On--" ASF c.1940
Richard A. Randall
Everyone should just read Spider Robinson's essay, "Rah, Rah, R.A.H."
Of course, many of the people who complain so bitterly about the
novel Starship Trooper apparently cannot read English anyway.
It is quite clear in the novel that nothing approaching fascism
is involved with the goernment. 95% of all voters never spend a
day in combat, as they are "civil servants." Most civillians introduced
in the book are opposed to Federal Service, and don't feel they
have lost anything by not having the franchise.
"Youngster, do I look that silly? I'm a civilian employee. . .
"No offense. But military service is for ants. Believe me. I see
'em go, I see 'em come back--when they do come back. I see what it's
done to them. And for what? A purely nominal political privilege that
pays not one centavo and that most of them aren't competent to use
anyhow." --Dialogue from the examining physician in Starship Troopers
". . . In the first place this family has stayed out of politics
for over a hundred years--I see no reason for you to break that fine
record." --Dialogue from Juan Rico's father, discouraging enlistment
In the meantime, the government DISCOURAGES service, while making it as
easy to resign as possible.
". . .Look, boys, have you any idea why they have me out here in front?"
I didn't understand him. Carl said, "Why?"
"Because the government doesn't care one bucket of swill whether you
join or not!. . . But if you WANT to serve, and I can't talk you out of it,
then we have to take you, because that's your constitutional right."
--Dialogue between Fleet Sergeant Ho (a triple amputee "anti-recruiter",
Juan Rico, and his friend Carl
For a contrast, compare Nazi Germany's recruiting methods. For that matter,
as the Nazis were Socialists (Yes, they were!), compare any of the totalitarian
Socialist nations' recruiting methods. Heinlein's government does not even
attempt to track down deserters! Fascism. . . RIIIGHT!
Richard A. Randall
respond to geo...@juno.com (not the default address)
Jim Pierce
Richard A. Randall <geo...@juno.com> wrote:
[] For that matter, as the Nazis were Socialists (Yes, they were!),
No, Socialism is left-wing, Nazis are extreme right-wing. The
rest of your post I agree with.
They had 'Socialist' in the name [ NSDP] as cover...
The 'D" stood for 'Democratic' and they were definately _not_
democratic.
JimP.
--
Jim
" Don't get discouraged...remember, when Cher first started going to the
spa, she already looked like Cher." Jake Vest.
Anders Dunkler
In article <343D88...@eos.ncsu.edu>, "Chad M. Parish" <cmparish.RE...@eos.ncsu.edu> writes:
> I bet it'll be a cool movie...
>
>
> ---HOWEVER---------
>
> in the Twenty-Fourth Century"? That would be FAR more descriptive.
>
Anders Dunkler
t...@eng.cam.ac.uk
In article <61lhdd$t...@nyx.nyx.net>,
karr...@nyx.nyx.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>> I
>>still cannot fathom the claims that the FS is a fascist state - especially
>>from those who should know better!
>
>It's a fascist state because it lauds the rights of the state over the rights
>of the individual.
How so?
Is this the definition of fascism?
>(In fact, in it, they've 'proved' that there _is_ no
>such thing as individual rights, only duties.)
I think what was 'proven' was that there are no such things as inalienable, or
universal rights. The point being that an individual only has those rights
that are granted by the society in which he lives. As these vary from society
to society then there are no *universal* rights (although there may be a
certain amount of agreement eg most societies consider murder to be wrong...)
I'm not sure that anywhere in the book the rights of the state are lauded over
the rights of the individual, but the fact that there is rule of law indicates
that there must be individual rights even if there is little explicit
reference to them...
To give an example, everyone has the right to be accepted for federal
service...
Ronald O. Christian
>As for going to see Starship Troopers? Hell yes! I haven't seen a good
>action movie in awhile.
And after you see this one, that'll still be true. :-)
>the sequal will have powered armor.
I've heard that, and it sounds like a gratuitious leak by the
producers to appease the fans. Firstly, if ST dies in the box office,
the sequal, if any, will be direct to video and have the budget of an
episode of "space above and beyond". Secondly, the lack of power
armor doesn't begin to describe what's wrong with the movie.
Ron
Ronald O. Christian
On 13 Oct 1997 03:58:11 GMT, Dj...@NORutabagas.concentric.net (Jim
Pierce) wrote:
>Richard A. Randall <geo...@juno.com> wrote:
>[] For that matter, as the Nazis were Socialists (Yes, they were!),
>
> No, Socialism is left-wing, Nazis are extreme right-wing. The
>rest of your post I agree with.
It's popular to say that these days, but it's not historically
accurate.
Ron
Ronald O. Christian
On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:59:52 +1300, Gareth Wilson
<gr...@student.cantxxxerbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>Calling yourself a "socialist" was just a trendy thing to do in the
>30's,
As opposed to now?
Well, regardless, the funny thing about the extreme ends of the
political spectrum is that they meet. You end up in pretty much the
same place, although the details might be slightly different.
Slightly. Like slogans, that sort of thing.
However, there was a lot of stuff in high school (a little over a
couple decades ago) about Adolf's socialist leanings. Probably not
taught that way anymore, though. Different generation, different set
of bad guys.
Ron
Tangents
Greg Trayling wrote:
>
According to a recent Fangoria article, that WAS the original title.
Then it became Outpost 14 (or something like that) and later they
decided to go with the Troopers license.
- Jay
--
TANGENTS
Your US Source for:
Sci-Fi & Fantasy Models Magazine
Science Fiction Modeller
http://www.ktb.net/~jayadan/tangent.htm
Rich Rostrom
In article <61s68j$n...@examiner.concentric.net>,
Dj...@NORutabagas.concentric.net (Jim Pierce) wrote:
> Richard A. Randall <geo...@juno.com> wrote:
> [] For that matter, as the Nazis were Socialists (Yes, they were!),
>
> No, Socialism is left-wing, Nazis are extreme right-wing. The
> rest of your post I agree with.
>
> They had 'Socialist' in the name [ NSDP] as cover...
> The 'D" stood for 'Democratic' and they were definately _not_
> democratic.
The D was for _Deutsche_
National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partie
(National Socialist German Worker Party)
This has gone off-topic, should stop here.
--
Rich Rostrom | You could have hit him over the head with it and he
| wouldn't have minded. He never did mind being hit
R-Rostrom@ | with small things like guns and axe handles.
neiu.edu | - Ellis Parker Butler, "That Pup of Murchison's"
backjohn
Hey who cares???
It's a "Science fiction" book people!!!
Get real.. And see the movie... it will be fun.
jj.
Cancel ST:voyager.
Gareth Wilson
Ronald O. Christian wrote:
>
> >Richard A. Randall <geo...@juno.com> wrote:
> >[] For that matter, as the Nazis were Socialists (Yes, they were!),
> >
> > No, Socialism is left-wing, Nazis are extreme right-wing. The
> >rest of your post I agree with.
>
> It's popular to say that these days, but it's not historically
> accurate.
>
> Ron
Calling yourself a "socialist" was just a trendy thing to do in the
30's,
it didn't have any connection to the Nazis' actual policies. The
far-right
Russian nationalists call themselves the "Liberal Democrats"
for similar reasons.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gareth Wilson
Christchurch
New Zealand
remove "xxx" from address to reply
Commercial e-mail will be deleted unread
"Medical personnel pick their noses
three times an hour, on average"
-Nurse, "ER"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Greg Trayling
Anders Dunkler wrote:
>
> In article <343D88...@eos.ncsu.edu>, "Chad M. Parish" <cmparish.RE...@eos.ncsu.edu> writes:
> > I bet it'll be a cool movie...
> >
> >
> > ---HOWEVER---------
> >
> > it should NOT be called "Starship Troopers"; Perhaps "Amazing Battles
> > in the Twenty-Fourth Century"? That would be FAR more descriptive.
> >
> It should be called `Space: Above and Beyond - The Motion Picture'.
>
I'm sticking with Bughunt.
http://www.cs.uwindsor.ca/meta-index/people/traylin
Junkencrapenmailgespammen ist verboten
J.D. Baldwin
In article <61lhdd$t...@nyx.nyx.net>, Ken Arromdee <karr...@nyx.nyx.net> wrote:
j...@juand.earth.nwu.edu (John DeLaughter) wrote:
>>While I can understand that
>>still cannot fathom the claims that the FS is a fascist state - especially
>>from those who should know better!
>
>It's a fascist state because it lauds the rights of the state over
>there _is_ no such thing as individual rights, only duties.)
After reading the above, I went back and found Mr. Dubois' diatribe on
the subject. He makes it quite clear that there are no "natural"
rights in the sense that there are "natural" laws of physics and
economics that constrain our behavior. You don't, for example, have a
"right to life," in an important sense, because the universe can reach
out and squash you like an insect at any moment, and you have no
recourse whatsoever.
But it's made quite clear that a society built on a foundation of
"inalienable" (by the state, anyway) rights and essentially *no*
enforceable "duties" (other than the requirement to audit a single,
painless academic course during high school) is the best possible
arrangement for a human society. To pronounce the state described in
"ST" to be "fascist" is really, really badly missing the point. Let
me guess: did you also think "2001" was about colonization of the
Moon?
>Granted it's not the obvious kind of fascist state portrayed in the
>movie.
Then just what kind of "fascist state" was it? What fealty did
ordinary people owe to the state? What "duties" (specifically
mentioned above) were imposed on same, without their consent? What,
exactly, did the state control, other than a military with fewer
domestic enforcement powers than what the U.S. Army has right now, in
real life?
Something, anything, specific along these lines would go a long way
toward providing the shred of justification a statement like the above
so desperately needs.
--
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tangents
Jim Williams wrote:
>
> >Hey who cares???
> >
> >It's a "Science fiction" book people!!!
> >
> >Get real.. And see the movie... it will be fun.
> >
> >
> >jj.
>
> the trailers to that monstrosity. Dropships? Powered Armor? All-male combat
> units? Not one mention of the philosophical discussions of the book? No sign
> of storyline in the trailers, other than a bughunt? No thank you. From the
> trailers, it appears that the most needed essay on human society today has
> been turned into yet another politically correct splatfest. Remembering what
> was done to Enemy Mine, I'll save my money.
>
> "... I prefer science fiction"
Wow... I LIKED Enemy Mine.
Jim Pierce
Dj...@NORutabagas.concentric.net (Jim Pierce) wrote:
[]> No, Socialism is left-wing, Nazis are extreme right-wing. The
[]>rest of your post I agree with.
Ronald O. Christian <ro...@europa.com> wrote:
[] It's popular to say that these days, but it's not historically
[] accurate.
I don't care whats popular these days... Nazism is right-wing.
Nazism was considered right-wing when it came out, and it continues
to be considered right-wing by all but the ones who just guess...
I was told, back in the 1950s, that Nazism was right-wing.
The NSDAP considered itself a right-wing answer to the Communist
left.
JimP.
--
Jim Pierce B.Sc. jmpi...@medea.gp.usm.edu
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity !" RAH.
Jim Pierce
Rich Rostrom <R-Ro...@neiu.edu> wrote:
[] This has gone off-topic, should stop here.
Sorry, I didn't see this until after replying to other posts.
JimP.
--
Jim
"Must be a bad accident over there...
that looks like lawyers a-circling." Jake Vest.
Jim Pierce
[] couple decades ago) about Adolf's socialist leanings. Probably not
[] taught that way anymore, though. Different generation, different set
[] of bad guys.
I graduated from high school in 1966. Its only fairly recently
that people have been claiming that Nazis practiced socialism.
My parent's generation, who fought in WW 2, were absolutely certain
that the Nazis were right wing.
True, the only major difference between Communism and Nazism is the
style of the dictatorship and the slogans.
JimP.
--
Jim M. Pierce jmpi...@medea.gp.usm.edu
Jim Williams
>Hey who cares???
>
>It's a "Science fiction" book people!!!
>
>Get real.. And see the movie... it will be fun.
>
>
>jj.
I will *not* see the movie. My blood pressure's been heightened enough from
the trailers to that monstrosity. Dropships? Powered Armor? All-male combat
units? Not one mention of the philosophical discussions of the book? No sign
of storyline in the trailers, other than a bughunt? No thank you. From the
trailers, it appears that the most needed essay on human society today has
been turned into yet another politically correct splatfest. Remembering what
was done to Enemy Mine, I'll save my money.
"... I prefer science fiction"
Jim
>
>
>Cancel ST:voyager.
Michael Hargreave Mawson
In article <baldwinE...@netcom.com>, "J.D. Baldwin"
<bal...@netcom.com> writes
>In article <61lhdd$t...@nyx.nyx.net>, Ken Arromdee <karr...@nyx.nyx.net> wrote:
>j...@juand.earth.nwu.edu (John DeLaughter) wrote:
>>>While I can understand that
>>>there is honest disagreement about the nature of service in the FS, I
>>>still cannot fathom the claims that the FS is a fascist state - especially
>>>from those who should know better!
>>
>>It's a fascist state because it lauds the rights of the state over
>>the rights of the individual. (In fact, in it, they've 'proved' that
>>there _is_ no such thing as individual rights, only duties.)
I think it might be really useful if whoever compiles FAQs automatically
included detailed dictionary defintions of the words "fascist,"
"communist," and "socialist" in the next issueof the FAQ.
This statement is not limited to a.f.h in its intended application.
--
Mike
"...on my own I not truly important am, or only to myself and my friends.
I only a link in a chain am, right back to the first ancestors who the
first world trod. And it my duty is, not to be a weak link."
from "Mindsail" by Anne Gay
Michael Hargreave Mawson
In article <3453a770...@news.europa.com>, "Ronald O. Christian"
<ro...@europa.com> writes
>>30's,
>
>
>Well, regardless, the funny thing about the extreme ends of the
>political spectrum is that they meet. You end up in pretty much the
>same place, although the details might be slightly different.
>Slightly. Like slogans, that sort of thing.
>
>couple decades ago) about Adolf's socialist leanings. Probably not
>taught that way anymore, though. Different generation, different set
>of bad guys.
>
>
respects, although often with ulterior motives. It was a quasi-
socialist (or at least egalitarian) ideal to create a society where
everyone could afford their own means of personal transport: the
"People's Car" (or "Volkswagen"). This ideal, however, sprang from an
authoritarian, nationalistic, protectionist, even fascistic motive -
that the German motor industry (which was vital to a military state)
should be stimulated, and able to rely on the German market. Porsche
designed not only the Beetles ("Bugs" in US) but also the Panzers.
German National Socialism had little to do with political philosophies
of either the right or the left; it was an approach based on pragmatism,
and started from the premise that Germany needed to re-establish its
place in the world, and to shake off the ridiculously savage terms of
the Treaty of Versailles.
Versailles had stripped Germany of much of its most productive territory
(the Saarland, Alsatz, Lothringen and most of Ost-Prussia) whilst
imposing reparations on such a scale that Germany - even if it had not
been grievously weakened by WWI, and had not lost much of the
infrastructure which helped generate wealth - could never have paid.
In addition, there were various "humiliation" terms; these included a
cap on the numerical strength of the German Army (a national institution
since 1870, and a Prussian institution since time immemorial), an arms
limitation clause which related to the development of crucial tactical
weapons (they weren't allowed even to *think* of building tanks),
controls on where German military units could be stationed (strategic
areas of Germany were forbidden to German troops) and so on.
Hitler's genius was to recognise the discontent and resentment of the
ordinary man-in-the-street, define a group of scapegoats ("I, a German,
may be considered the scum of Europe by citizens of other European
nations, but I'm a damn sight better than that lot"), and use the simple
philosophy of reviving national pride to achieve, democratically, the
leadership of the country. His madness was to continue to strive for
ever-more-unrealistic goals designed to increase national pride.
Neither in his madness, nor in his genius, was he remotely "socialist"
in his principles.
--
Mike
Thomas Andrews
In article <620aqd$p...@examiner.concentric.net>,>[] However, there was a lot of stuff in high school (a little over a
>[] couple decades ago) about Adolf's socialist leanings. Probably not
>[] taught that way anymore, though. Different generation, different set
>[] of bad guys.
>
>that people have been claiming that Nazis practiced socialism.
>My parent's generation, who fought in WW 2, were absolutely certain
>that the Nazis were right wing.
>
> True, the only major difference between Communism and Nazism is the
>style of the dictatorship and the slogans.
>
The truth is, IMHO, a rather more complicated case. Basically,
Nazism is a faux socialism - it is anti-capitalist anger deflected
towards scapegoats.
It definitely springs from discontents with capitalism, but
fascism focuses that discontent on a small group of capitalists -
immigrants, Jews, foreigners. Lose your life savings? It's not
all bankers' fault, it's the Jewish bankers' fault, the fascist
will tell you. Fascism is a way for the elites to turn socialist
leanings into something which less directly threatens their power.
--
Thomas Andrews tho...@best.com http://www.best.com/~thomaso/
"Show me somebody who is always smiling, always cheerful, always
optimistic, and I will show you somebody who hasn't the faintest
idea what the heck is really going on." - Mike Royko
John R Stobo
Some of the problems in many people understanding nazism is that
it did have some leftist populist roots. The party's name was afterall,
the National Socialist Party. So-called "grass-roots" populism has always
been an ambiguous term politically. In American history and in the
present day we see that economically depressed farmers and workers appear
equally drawn to those on the left and the right, anyone who seemed to
have a solution to their plight. The UAW and the militias draw from the
same population. So it was with early nazism. However, early on, I
believe it was The Night of the Long Knives (1934?), that the leftish wing
of the party was massacred by the rightist, racist faction. Not that that
absolves them, they all knew who Hitler was, but like many other political
dreamers, thought he could be controlled.
jack
Rt.Rev.Dr. Jeff Ganaposki
Ronald O. Christian wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:59:52 +1300, Gareth Wilson
> <gr...@student.cantxxxerbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> >Calling yourself a "socialist" was just a trendy thing to do in the
> >30's,
>
> As opposed to now?
>
> Well, regardless, the funny thing about the extreme ends of the
> political spectrum is that they meet. You end up in pretty much the
> same place, although the details might be slightly different.
> Slightly. Like slogans, that sort of thing.
>
> couple decades ago) about Adolf's socialist leanings. Probably not
> taught that way anymore, though. Different generation, different set
> of bad guys.
>
If you take the time to examine legal dictionaries, the language we have
been taught to use is on par with George Orwell's New Speak.
Socialists (& Communists) espouse State ownership of the means of
porduction, i.e. labor, land, and factories. That means no private
property. The only other historical group that preyed upon private
property is piracy. Socialism = Piracy.
Basically, World War II was fought between Socialist nations, not a
battle between dictatorship and democracy.
The major players:
USSR - Socialist
Great Britain - Socialist
United States - Socialist
Germany - Socialist
Italy - Socialist
only Japan was feudal and not socialist.
In summary, the world has become a haven for pirate socialists who
plunder the poor fools who are still productive and hard working.
--
_____________________________________________________
<>Rt.Rev.Dr.Jeff Ganaposki
<>mailto:jgm...@bellsouth.net
<>mailto:livin...@freeyellow.com
<>http://www.freeyellow.net/members/living-word
_____________________________________________________
Ken Arromdee
>[] couple decades ago) about Adolf's socialist leanings. Probably not
>[] taught that way anymore, though. Different generation, different set
>[] of bad guys.
>that people have been claiming that Nazis practiced socialism.
Of course, Nazi stands for the German for "National Socialist".
--
Ken Arromdee |They said it was *daft* to build a space
arro...@inetnow.net |station in a swamp, but I showed them! It
karr...@nyx.nyx.net |sank unto the swamp. So I built a second
http://www.inetnow.net/~arromdee|space station. That sank into the swamp too.
--------------------------------+My third space station sank into the swamp.
So I built a fourth one. That fell into a time warp and _then_ sank into the
swamp. But the fifth one... stayed up! --Monty Python/Babylon 5
Richard A. Randall
ro...@europa.com (Ronald O. Christian) writes:
> On 13 Oct 1997 03:58:11 GMT, Dj...@NORutabagas.concentric.net (Jim
>
> >Richard A. Randall <geo...@juno.com> wrote:
> >[] For that matter, as the Nazis were Socialists (Yes, they were!),
> >
> >rest of your post I agree with.
>
> accurate.
>
>
Richard Randall responds to Jim Pierce:
Nazi stands for the the National SOCIALIST German Workers Party
They called for the nationalization of key portions of the
economy, and ran the economy to suit the needs of the State.
That, my friend, is socialism. The left-right political model
properly describes only a VERY brief time in history (almost a
point), during the French Revolution, and it ceased to be
useful even for that in about a year. Dr. Jerry Pournelle has
developed a 2D (X & Y axis) political model that WORKS, rather
than a failed refuge, obsolete for 200 years. Don't try and use
the excuse that people, including some political scientists,
continue to use that Right-Left model. Popular agreement does
not determine the Truth, only correspondence with the observed
facts. If the Truth does not agree with observable events, than
it is obviously not True, now isn't it?
Ronald O. Christian
> Actually, the posts in here are the only time I have ever heard
>that the left-right wing models isn't true.
Although I don't agree one hundred percent with the previous poster,
to this I must respond: You don't get out much. That political
affiliations have more than one axis is a fairly common notion. It's
been around for decades in the independant parties (which are
independant, often, because they don't line up on the old
left-wing/right-wing scale). Even the new republicans are starting to
pick up on the idea, as a way to understand the wide range of
philosophical differences within the party.
The left-right wing model is at best obsolete. Ask around. Of
course, the media continues to use it, but is everything the media
says to be taken at face value?
Ron
Jim Pierce
[] Nazi stands for the the National SOCIALIST German Workers Party
terms that a political group calls itself is NOT a useful
descriptive term of that political group.
The rest of humanity, during WW 2, called them right-wing.
[] They called for the nationalization of key portions of the
[] economy, and ran the economy to suit the needs of the State.
Done by both left and right. So what.
[] That, my friend, is socialism. The left-right political model
Nationalization has been done by both Communist party leaders in
a country gone Communist, and by Military right-wing Juntas gone
military dictatorship. Its not a 'just socialism' phenomenon.
[] properly describes only a VERY brief time in history (almost a
Thats odd, I watch CSPAN, and they use the terms all the time.
It hasn't gone out of usage.
[] point), during the French Revolution, and it ceased to be
[] useful even for that in about a year. Dr. Jerry Pournelle has
[] developed a 2D (X & Y axis) political model that WORKS, rather
[] than a failed refuge, obsolete for 200 years. Don't try and use
[] the excuse that people, including some political scientists,
Actually, the posts in here are the only time I have ever heard
that the left-right wing models isn't true.
While I like Pournelle's sf, I don't care what kind of political
models he creates... The rest of humanity still uses, with the
exception of you and some others in here, the left right wing model
of political parties. I prefer the real world. When the rest of the
planet decides the labels are no longer true, then I'll change
terminology, not on the say so here.
[] continue to use that Right-Left model. Popular agreement does
[] not determine the Truth, only correspondence with the observed
[] facts. If the Truth does not agree with observable events, than
[] it is obviously not True, now isn't it?
You should sharpen your observing skills.
Just because you are politically naive, doens't mean I have to
believe you.
JimP.
--
Jim Pierce B.Sc. jmpi...@medea.gp.usm.edu
"What are they up to now ?" Melody; from 'Music of the Spheres'
Changing email adddress !
Dan Bongard
t...@eng.cam.ac.uk wrote:
: karr...@nyx.nyx.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
:>> I still cannot fathom the claims that the FS is a fascist state -
:>> especially from those who should know better!
:> It's a fascist state because it lauds the rights of the state over the rights
:> of the individual.
: How so? Is this the definition of fascism?
Actually it IS part of the definition of fascism:
A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that
exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a
centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe
economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Whether the ST government meets all of these criteria is largely in the eye
of the beholder. It is certainly closer to a fascist state than it is to
a democracy, however.
-- Dan
Sandra Mendoza
Rt.Rev.Dr. Jeff Ganaposki wrote:
> If you take the time to examine legal dictionaries, the language we have been taught to use is on par with George Orwell's New Speak.
>
> Socialists (& Communists) espouse State ownership of the means of
> porduction, i.e. labor, land, and factories. That means no private
> property.
> Basically, World War II was fought between Socialist nations, not a
> battle between dictatorship and democracy.
> The major players:
> USSR - Socialist
> Great Britain - Socialist
> United States - Socialist
> Germany - Socialist
> Italy - Socialist
> only Japan was feudal and not socialist.
>
> In summary, the world has become a haven for pirate socialists who
> plunder the poor fools who are still productive and hard working.
> --
Not quite, Rt. Rev.Dr. Ganaposki. You're part right but you muddy the waters
considerably by your anarchist's (off the spectrum Libertarian) analysis.
Socialist-leaning liberals love to present fascism and communism as opposites.
They never were. The Soviet-Nazi alliance made philosophical sense, two
variations on a theme. In Nazi Germany, they threw you in a concentration camp
if you were Jewish, Gypsy, Catholic, or Gay. In Soviet Russia, they threw you
in a concentration camp if you were an aristocrat, member of the middle class,
or prosperous farmer (kulak).
Japan WAS feudal. Italy and German were Fascist. Great Britain, which had been
sailing towards socialism had its ass saved by TORY (i.e. conservative)
Winston Churchill ( who was half-American:the fabulous American beauty -- and
heiress -- Jennie Jerome was his mom) The U.S. was run by left-wing Democrats
led by FDR BUT
In 1943, Ayn Rand, wrote a philosophical novel, THE FOUNTAINHEAD, which solved
the either-or, master-slave choice man had hitherto been given by giving a
MORAL underpinning not based on christianity's altruism to the American
POLITICAL system.
She pointed out that Nazi Germany told men they must live for the race and
Soviet Russia told men they must live for the state.
Above all, men were told, they had no right to live for themselves.
In Soviet Russia, the state controlled all the means of production. In
Fascist Italy and Germany, businessmen with political connections, much like
Oscar Schindler, were the ones to get ahead. Remember Schindler's enthusiasm
for doing business in wartime? Schindler had not prospered before the war nor
did he prosper after the war. He was a businessman -- much like Dwayne
Andreas, of Archer Daniels Midland, the "#1 Welfare Mooch"welfare billionaire,
who has grown rich through his friendships with Bob Dole and other powerful
Republicans and Democrats. He gives them money for their campaigns. They give
him tax breaks and millions in agricultural subsidies. Then he sponsors MEET
THE PRESS, FACE THE NATION, THE LEHRER NEWS HOUR, and THIS WEEK on ABC to
guarantee that no one will investigate his dealings. (John Stossel of ABC's
20/20 did, available on his video, FREELOADERS, through San Francisco's
Laissez Faire Books, 1-800-326-0996 or laissezfaire.org. (Ask for their
catalog. They are among the last folks in this country capable of writing a
precis, which gives the essence of what a book is about).
Liberals who haven't read Rand have always called anti-communists,
crypto-fascists. In 1968, the odd couple of Gore Vidal and Bill Buckley
commenting on the madness outside the Democratic Convention in Chicago had
this exchange:
Vidal, a left liberal: "As far as I am concerned, the only crypto Nazi I can
think of is yourself."
Buckley, libertarian-conservative and anti-communist, got his dormant Irish
up, totally blew his cool and responded: "Now listen you pink queer. Stop
calling me a crypto Nazi or I'll sock you in your goddamn face and you'll stay
plastered. They ended up in litigation. Buckley won.
Sandra ;-)
Evil succeeds when good men do nothing -- Edmund Burke
backjohn
Tangents wrote:
>
> --
> TANGENTS
> Your US Source for:
> Sci-Fi & Fantasy Models Magazine
> Science Fiction Modeller
> http://www.ktb.net/~jayadan/tangent.htm
And so did I.... go see the movie for the special effects.
Paul Verhoveun (sp??) did a good job... and it will be fun!!
Better than blah ST:Voy.....
Eh??
jj.
Sandra Mendoza
On October 12th, Richard A. Randall said:
>Everyone should just read Spider Robinson's essay, "Rah, Rah, R.A.H."
>Of course, many of the people who complain so bitterly about the
>novel Starship Trooper apparently cannot read English anyway.
>It is quite clear in the novel that nothing approaching fascism
>is involved with the government. 95% of all voters never spend a
>day in combat, as they are "civil servants." Most civillians introduced in
the book are opposed to Federal Service, and don't feel they have lost
anything by not having the franchise.
(snip of excellent quotes from the book. Go back and read Randall's original
post. It's excellent)
>In the meantime, the government DISCOURAGES service, while making it as
easy to resign as possible.
>For a contrast, compare Nazi Germany's recruiting methods. For that
matter,as the Nazis were Socialists (Yes, they were!), compare any of the
totalitarian Socialist nations' recruiting methods. Heinlein's government
does not even attempt to track down deserters! Fascism. . . RIIIGHT!
Right on. RAR! In GRUMBLES FROM THE GRAVE, edited by Heinlein's wife, the
jacket copy for STARSHIP TROOPERS reads:
"In this culture, the franchise or right to vote must be earned by
volunteering for Federal Service. It is not necessary that this service be in
the military -- quite the opposite. Johnny's decision to enter the military is
opposed by his father, but upheld by his instructor in history and moral
philosophy"
Hmmm! I have grown so weary of those who claim "rights" but are unwilling to
accept any RESPONSIBILITIES that Heinlein's concept of EARNING the right to
vote looks better and better.
Heinlein was a tad defensive about ST which he wrote as an adult book for
juveniles (RH: "...it is not a juvenile adventure story. Instead I have
followed my own theory that intelligent youngsters are in fact morfe
interested in weighty matters than their parents are.") RH had things he
wanted to say about military life (He had retired from the Navy because of
disability). However, Liberals have a lot of trouble with the whole idea of
the military (in that sense they lean towards anarcho-libertarianism). Hence,
the entire editorial board of Scribner's, including Mr. Scribner, turned ST
down after Heinlein had made tons of money for them. They did so without
offering Heinlein a single word of explanation. (Probably because they
couldn't. Pure Liberal gut reaction. Military? Ugghhh!
Heinlein then went over to Putnam which was delighted to get him. ST went on
to win the Hugo award for 1959. Scribner tried to woo him back, but Heinlein
wasn't having any. As the saying goes. "Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me
twice, shame on me."
t...@eng.cam.ac.uk
In article <dbongardE...@netcom.com>,
snip
>...the definition of fascism:
>
>A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that
>exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a
>centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe
>economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
>
>Whether the ST government meets all of these criteria is largely in the eye
>of the beholder.
I don't think so at all, there is objective evidence I believe:
Your definition has 2 elements and the way it is worded implies that they are
both necessary but neither is sufficient:
a. Exalts nation and ... race above the individual...
b. centralised govn ... dictatorial leader ... regimentation ... forcible
suppression.
I do not recall anything in the book that supports requirement a)
Nor do I recall any suggestion that govn is necessarily centralised (and in
fact it may well be impossible to centralise a interstellar society even with
a 'cherenkov' drive (or whatever)). There is no mention of a dictator except
as applies to the bugs, no social regimentation, nor is there any indication
of forcible suppression...
>It is certainly closer to a fascist state than it is to
>a democracy, however.
>
Please indicate how you come to this conclusion...
Graves
In article <dbongardE...@netcom.com>, dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) wrote:
>t...@eng.cam.ac.uk wrote:
>: karr...@nyx.nyx.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:>
>:>> I still cannot fathom the claims that the FS is a fascist state -
>:>> especially from those who should know better!
>
>:> It's a fascist state because it lauds the rights of the state over the
> rights
>:> of the individual.
>
>: How so? Is this the definition of fascism?
>
>
>A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that
>exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a
>centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe
>economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
>
I bet that'll suprise a lot of polsci teachers.
Lizard
Only the stupid ones. The smart ones already know it;it's just too hard to
explain it to the products of the American public school system. So we pretend
that 'communist' and 'fascist' bear a different relationship than 'six' and
'half a dozen'.
Graves
>
>:> A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that
>:> exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a
>:> centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe
>:> economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
>
>: Wow. Joe Stalin was a fascist.
>
>'Communist' government of the USSR did not promote economic or social
>regimentation, nor did it concern itself with race.
>
Three strikes in a row. You are out. Economic regimentation.
Collectivization. Social regimentation. NKVD, Party membership,
various paramilitary organizations. As for race, you may want ot take
a look at the effects of being what we would call a White Russian on
the chances that you will achieve power.
>: I bet that'll suprise a lot of polsci teachers.
>
>Polisci teachers make a career out of arguing over meaningless definitions.
>
>-- Dan
Graves
In article <625r87$q...@snews1.zippo.com>, liz...@mrlizard.com (Lizard) wrote:
>In article <625igg$g...@osh2.datasync.com>, mt...@datasync.com (Graves) wrote:
>> wrote:
>
>>>A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that
>>>exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a
>>>centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe
>>>economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
>>>
>>Wow. Joe Stalin was a fascist.
>>
>explain it to the products of the American public school system. So we pretend
>that 'communist' and 'fascist' bear a different relationship than 'six' and
>'half a dozen'.
Communists say that there is a science of history, and that effects
can have predictable results. Fascists say that there are things
which are destined to happen. If that is the same, Religeon and
Science are congruent.
Lizard
>Actually it IS part of the definition of fascism:
>
>A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that
>exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a
>centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe
>economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
>
>Whether the ST government meets all of these criteria is largely in the eye
>of the beholder. It is certainly closer to a fascist state than it is to
>a democracy, however.
>
Uhm...I don't recall anything in ST which implied the exaltation of nation or
race above the individual, nor was the government autocratic (the whole point
was that it was a democracy, just not one where you got the vote due to having
consumed resources for 18 years -- but ANYONE could earn the vote, no
discriminaton on race, sex, religion, etc. No one was excluded -- if you were
a quadripelegic with an IQ of 75, and you wanted to earn the franchise, a way
would be found for you to do it). Nor was there 'economic and social
regimentation' -- anyone could work at any job they wished, and keep all the
money they earned, and spend it as they saw fit -- at least as much so as
exists in the 'free' world today. And unless you count the Bugs, I didn't see
much 'forcible suppression of opposition'.
Can you give examples to prove your claim? Or are you claiming that
'democracy' means 'everyone votes, qualified or not'?
Richard A. Randall
Not only is Pournelle an excellant fiction writer, he is quite
well respected as a non-fiction writer. As to the "Right-Left"
political model, it is best illuestrated in the following passages:
"The notion of a "left" and a right" has been with us a long
time. It originated in the seating arrangement of the French
National Assembly during their revolution. The delegates
marched into the Hall of Machines by traditional precendence,
with the aristocrats and the clergy entering first, then the
wealthier bourgeois, and so on, with the aristocracy seated on
the Speaker's right. Since the desire for radical change was
pretty well inversly proportionate to wealth, there really was,
for a short time, a legitimate political spectrum running from
right to left, and the concept of left and right made sense.
Within a year it was invalidated by events. New alliances
were formed. Those who wanted no revolutionary changes at all
were expelled (or executed). There came a new alignment called
"the Mountain" (from their habit of sitting together in the
higher tiers of seats). Even for 18th Century France the
"left-right" mosel ceased to have any theoretical validity."
"No one can possibly define what variable underlies the
"left-right" continiuum today. Is it "satisfaction with
existing affairs?" Then why are reactionaries, who most
definately want fundemental changes in the system, called
"right wing"?"
"What are we to make of the Objecticists and the radical
libertarians? They've been called "right wing anarchists,"
which is plain silly, a total contradiction in terms."
"Some years ago I set out to replace the old model with
one that made sense. I studied a number of political
philosophies and tried to see what underlying concepts
separated them from their political enemies. [RAR notes:
Isn't this called making observations in science? From which a
hypothesis, and hopefully, a theory which properly describes
the relationships between events, will be derived.]
Eventually, I came up with two variables. I didn't then and
don't now suggest these two are all there is to political
theory. I'm certain there are other important ones. But my
two have this property: they map every major political
philosophy onto one unique place.
The two I chose are "Attitude toward the State," and
"Attitude toward planned social progress.""
I could go on, but I will close with this. Jim, you have a
science degree, so I hope you will recognize this inexact
quote:
"I tell you, it still moves!"
Sandra Mendoza
Dan Bongard wrote in response to... take your choice, I can't figure it out :
>
> Graves (mt...@datasync.com) wrote:
> :> t...@eng.cam.ac.uk wrote:
> :>: karr...@nyx.nyx.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:>
>
> :> exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a
> :> centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe
> :> economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
>
>
> Dan Bongard then said:
I see reading comprehension isn't your strong point. The so-called
> 'Communist' government of the USSR did not promote economic or social
> regimentation, nor did it concern itself with race.
>
Sandra: Are you serious? Economic and social regimentation is a specialty
of the
> Communist system: Endless speeches, brainwashing, the murder of the Kulaks,
> (the most efficient farmers in Soviet Russia), the starving of the Ukrainians
> after they had produced a bumper crop they were not allowed to partake of. On
> and on and on.
> Pure evil. Pure madness.
>
Sandra: I find your formulation interesting: "so-called 'Communist'
government of the USSR? . Are
> you one of those Utopians who believes that with different leaders there would
> have been a different outcome? No! The evil is inherent in the system.
> Wherever it's been tried, poverty, paranoia and power-mongering have followed.
> Cuba, China, North Korea. Ultimately, the poverty is shared by all -- except the leaders.
Sandra: And the lad who said Joe Stalin was a fascist was right. That's why
they called it Red Fascism.
>
> Sandra :-(
>
> Whatever hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.
Mike S. Medintz
>It's a "Science fiction" book people!!!
>
>Get real.. And see the movie... it will be fun.
Fun? What about the content of the book that's being butchered here?
And did they even cast someone to play the high school teacher?
(DuBois, IIRC)
Mike S. Medintz | KB9ODS |www.idir.net/~medintz
No snappy quotes today
Call your Congressman to oppose HR 659 and support
strong encryption for the private citizen
Jim Williams
Tangents wrote in message <34436C...@ktb.net>...
>Wow... I LIKED Enemy Mine.
I loved the book. Did you read it? In the book, they're rescued, he goes
home to us, the kid goes to the drac homeworld. He goes looking for the kid,
and the dracs have been giving him electroshock for saying he loved a human.
The kid's grandparent is so pissed, they move the whole clan to fyrene 4 and
the human sets up shop in the cave again, as the traditional teacher of the
clan's children. But in the movie, they had to make the humans the bad guys.
Evil slavers. Even worse.. capitalists slavers.
They did the same kinda thing to "The Cold Equations" on the Sci-Fi Channel.
I got so pissed, I wrote them and told them I was cancelling my cable
subscription.
Dan Bongard
:> A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti)
:> that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands
:> for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader,
:> severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of
:> opposition.
:> Whether the ST government meets all of these criteria is largely in
:> the eye of the beholder.
: I don't think so at all, there is objective evidence I believe:
: Your definition has 2 elements
Actually it is Merriam-Webster's definition, not mine. I forgot
to cite my sources.
: and the way it is worded implies that they are both necessary but
: neither is sufficient:
: a. Exalts nation and ... race above the individual...
Clearly the case for the ST government. Service to the state is the
highest good, and placing oneself above the state is the greatest
evil. Humanity has a manifest destiny to colonize the universe,
and other races interfere with this destiny.
: b. centralised government
Also the case.
: I do not recall anything in the book that supports requirement a)
Then re-read the book. The entire philosophy behind it is that the
state is more important than the individual and the human race is
superior to other races.
: Nor do I recall any suggestion that govn is necessarily centralised
Other than there being a single world government, that is?
: There is no mention of a dictator except as applies to the bugs,
True, although the government is ruled by a post-coup group of
ex-military and bureaucratic folks elected solely by other ex-
military and bureaucratic folks. That's certainly not a free
society.
: no social regimentation,
You have to be ex-military to gt the right to vote.
: nor is there any indication of forcible suppression...
There's no evidence of benevolence, either. It isn't something the
book deals with one way or the other. This is why I say it is arguable.
The government shows many signs of facism, and no traits that are
inherently anti-fascistic.
:> It is certainly closer to a fascist state than it is to
:> a democracy, however.
: Please indicate how you come to this conclusion...
By doing two things: understanding what fascism is, and reading the book. :)
-- Dan
K. Hu
On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 06:49:04 GMT, med...@idir.net (Mike S. Medintz)
wrote:
>And did they even cast someone to play the high school teacher?
>(DuBois, IIRC)
No. Rasczak is the History & Moral Philosophy teacher. He's got some
classic lines like:
RASCZAK
When you vote, you're exercising political
authority. You're using force. And force, my
friends, is violence, the supreme authority
from which all other authority derives.
Ooh, I can't wait, Mr. Verhoeven!
K. Hu
On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:33:34 GMT, dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard)
wrote:
>t...@eng.cam.ac.uk wrote:
>: In article <dbongardE...@netcom.com>,
>
>:> A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti)
>:> that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands
>:> for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader,
>:> severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of
>:> opposition.
>: neither is sufficient:
>
>: a. Exalts nation and ... race above the individual...
>
>Clearly the case for the ST government. Service to the state is the
>highest good, and placing oneself above the state is the greatest
>evil. Humanity has a manifest destiny to colonize the universe,
>and other races interfere with this destiny.
I don't know where you read anything about manifest destiny. If the
Federation had any ideology declaring humankind as destined to rule
the universe, then why does the Federation instead waste money on
research to see whether the bugs can be negotiated with? Negotiation
doesn't seem to be a common tactic of fascistic xenophobic hegemonies
with the aim of extermination of all other life forms.
>Then re-read the book. The entire philosophy behind it is that the
>state is more important than the individual and the human race is
>superior to other races.
Frankly, this is bullshit. It's tiring, always having to refute those
like yourself who insist on reading only those portions of this book
that might be conceivably interpreted to support your idiotic
arguments and ignoring the large part of the book that contradict you.
If the state is more important than the individual why the obsession
with *never* leaving wounded behind? Why, in almost every battle
scene, are injured infantry always rescued, regardless of the cost?
"Since they still hold prisoners of ours, we can't use a nova bomb on
Klendathu...If you're taken prisoner, keeo your chin up and follow the
rules -- becuase you've got the whole outfit behind you, you've got
the whole Federation behind you; we'll come and get you." (p207, Ace
edition)
This, even to your convoluted reasoning, cannot be consistent with a
facist state that cares not for the individual soldier. To such a
government, all soldiers would be expendable, since, after all, their
lives are worth nothing.
>: Nor do I recall any suggestion that govn is necessarily centralised
>
>Other than there being a single world government, that is?
>
>: There is no mention of a dictator except as applies to the bugs,
>
>True, although the government is ruled by a post-coup group of
>ex-military and bureaucratic folks elected solely by other ex-
>military and bureaucratic folks. That's certainly not a free
>society.
No. The government *originated* in a group of veterans stepped into a
power vacuum, *not* after a coup, but after the collapse of the old
democracies. The current 'rulers' are the voting citizens that have
volunteered and successfully completed a term of Federal Service. Let
me emphasize, *anyone* can volunteer and *anyone* who is not mentally
insane *must* be accepted into Federal Service.
>: nor is there any indication of forcible suppression...
>
>There's no evidence of benevolence, either. It isn't something the
>book deals with one way or the other. This is why I say it is arguable.
>The government shows many signs of facism, and no traits that are
>inherently anti-fascistic.
The only 'sign of fascism' you have even come close to showing
evidence for is 'centralised government', which makes for a
pathetically weak case.
>:> It is certainly closer to a fascist state than it is to
>:> a democracy, however.
>
>: Please indicate how you come to this conclusion...
>
>By doing two things: understanding what fascism is, and reading the book. :)
You seem to have done neither.
MercuryZ
In article <3445D0...@mail.softcom.net>, back...@mail.softcom.net says...
>
>Tangents wrote:
>>
>> Jim Williams wrote:
>> >
>> > >Hey who cares???
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >Get real.. And see the movie... it will be fun.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > I will *not* see the movie. My blood pressure's been heightened enough
from
>> > the trailers to that monstrosity. Dropships? Powered Armor? All-male
combat
>> > units? Not one mention of the philosophical discussions of the book? No
sign
>> > of storyline in the trailers, other than a bughunt? No thank you. From the
>> > trailers, it appears that the most needed essay on human society today has
>> > been turned into yet another politically correct splatfest. Remembering
what
>> > was done to Enemy Mine, I'll save my money.
>> >
>> > "... I prefer science fiction"
>>
>>
>> TANGENTS
>> Your US Source for:
>> Sci-Fi & Fantasy Models Magazine
>> Science Fiction Modeller
>> http://www.ktb.net/~jayadan/tangent.htm
>
>And so did I.... go see the movie for the special effects.
>
>Paul Verhoveun (sp??) did a good job... and it will be fun!!
>
>Better than blah ST:Voy.....
>
>Eh??
>
>
>jj.
Star Trek Voyager and Deep Space Nine both stink.
Anders Dunkler
In article <6262ml$i...@osh2.datasync.com>, mt...@datasync.com (Graves) writes:
>
> Communists say that there is a science of history, and that effects
> can have predictable results. Fascists say that there are things
> which are destined to happen. If that is the same, Religeon and
> Science are congruent.
>
> mt...@datasync.com
Communist `science' predicts things that are supposedly destined to happen.
For instance, history is supposed to go through six stages with feudalism,
capitalism, socialism and finally communism following each other in strict order,
yet in the real world capitalist countries are less likely to suffer from
revolution than feudal ones, not the other way around.
When the course of real history does not follow their theory, communists
always try to explain away the facts rather than discarding their theory. Sounds
more like Religion than Science to me. The holy word of Marx is taken as an
article of faith that cannot be questioned.
/ Anders Dunkler
Chris and Elisabeth Zakes
dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) wrote:
>Lizard (liz...@mrlizard.com) wrote:
>: I do not know what book YOU are discussing, but Heinleins work from his
>: earliest writings to his final books were stridently individualistic.
>That is, quite simply, not true in the slightest. Heinlein's main
>characters became increasingly individualistic, particularly in his
>later works, but they were not always that way. They certainly were not
>that was in "Starship Troopers".
All right, please provide documentation for this particular claim.
Preferably quotes from "Starship Troopers", maybe a few backup quotes
from other, early "non-individualistic" works by Heinlein.
-Chris Zakes
C and E Zakes
Tivar Moondragon (Patience and Persistence)
and Aethelyan of Moondragon (Decadence is its own reward)
moon...@bga.com
t...@eng.cam.ac.uk
>: a. Exalts nation and ... race above the individual...
>
>Clearly the case for the ST government. Service to the state is the
>highest good, and placing oneself above the state is the greatest
>evil.
Well I suppose that you deduce this from the requirement that in order to
become a citizen one must first serve the state in some way. However I don't
think this is an expression of the view of the politicians/leaders but rather
a recognition that the ciizen has a duty towards the state; this is not the
same as saying that the state is placed above the individual merely a
balancing of duty and privilege, responsibility and authority... (remember
kennedy's words, was he a fascist?)
>Humanity has a manifest destiny to colonize the universe,
>and other races interfere with this destiny.
where do you get this from?
>...The entire philosophy behind [the book] is that the
>state is more important than the individual
please explain how yuo get to thsi conclusion (other than by just stating that
it's in the book)
>and the human race is
>superior to other races.
Again how is this stated...? other than the quite normal assumption that
humans are better than other species or are you suggesting that we ought to go
around with an institutionalised inferiority complex...
>: Nor do I recall any suggestion that govn is necessarily centralised
>
>
>Other than there being a single world government, that is?
>
Is there mention of a centralised world government? Even if there is this is
not proof of fascism or even an indication of same. The civilisation depicted
in ST is a multi-planet federation, that the planets are centrally governed is
irrelevant. The USA is a multi-state federation, the states are centrally
governed does that mean that the USA is fascist in any way?
Postulating a world government is a device for setting a story in the future,
moreover there is no indication that said government is 'centralised'; there
is no indication of how power is devolved or if it is devolved at all (well I
can't think of any...)
However the overiding factor is the nature of an interstellar federation
(disregarding the fact that a federation is by definition not centralised).
Even with a hyperspace type of drive there is no instantaneous or
near-instantaneous communication (???) and governmental authority must
therefore be devolved locally...
>: There is no mention of a dictator except as applies to the bugs,
>
>True, although the government is ruled by a post-coup group of
>ex-military and bureaucratic folks elected solely by other ex-
>military and bureaucratic folks. That's certainly not a free
>society.
>
Explain how personal freedom is limited by this method of awarding the
franchise? (given that everybody has the right to enlist and cannot be turned
down...) In fact the book says the opposite (personal freedoms are... high,
its in a HMP lesson somewhere i think...). Even so lack of freedoms does not
necessitate a dictator...
>: no social regimentation,
>
>You have to be ex-military to gt the right to vote.
well there's a subject for debate. However assuming that your assertion is
correct, how does this make social regimentation? In Nazi Germany there was
social regimentation, Hitler youth and so on. What's your evidence of similar
in ST world...?
>: nor is there any indication of forcible suppression...
>There's no evidence of benevolence, either. It isn't something the
>book deals with one way or the other.
well I think you have to read between the lines somewhat. Those parts of the
book that deal with the 'home front' make absolutely no mention of any
suppression, in fact most people are so unconcerned about how the
world/federation is being run that they aren't even bothered that they don't
vote. To me that requires a peaceful generally benevolent society...
>The government shows many signs of facism, and no traits that are
>inherently anti-fascistic.
Well you can discern some right leaning views, but many of the requirements
for the defintion of fascims that you cited are absent; therefore ST world
can't be fascist by that definition...
Ken Arromdee
It denies a basic individual right (voting) to anyone who doesn't serve the
nation first.
(What would you say about a government that didn't let people practice their
religion unless they went through Federal Service? Or didn't allow freedom of
speech unless they showed they were responsible enough to be allowed to speak
freely?)
Ronald O. Christian
>Yes, "so-called". As in they called themselves Communists, but their
>governmental structure and philosophy bore absolutely no resemblance
>to Communism at all.
Dan is right. The classical definition of Communism (try accenting
the second syllable instead of the first) really doesn't bear much
resemblance to how "Communism" (accent on first syllable) was practice
as a national government. I think the argument is that classic
communism won't work for a group of people the size of a nation, and
always, ultimately, leads to the type of government that the soviets,
chicoms, etc actually ended up with. (I.E., centralized, dictatorial,
posessive.)
I've heard arguments that classic communism won't work for groups of
people larger than, oh, say 40 or so. But I'll leave that to the
people who like to argue that sorta stuff. Let's get back to why you
shouldn't waste your money on Starship Troopers. :-)
Ron
Jim Roberts-Miller
In article <6288e7$olf$1...@nyx.nyx.net>, karr...@nyx.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>t...@eng.cam.ac.uk wrote:
>>a. Exalts nation and ... race above the individual...
>>I do not recall anything in the book that supports requirement a)
>
>It denies a basic individual right (voting) to anyone who doesn't serve the
>nation first.
Ahem. Then you should lump Jefferson et al. in with the fascists.
After all, they generally believed the franchise should be restricted to
white male landowners. Even in these more enlightened times, you have
to be at least 18 to vote. Why not 16? Why not 21? These age
restrictions, while generally less onerous (everyone gets old enough
eventually, barring accident), are a lot more arbitrary than that of
Federal Service. Given my own life experience, I'd prefer restricting
the vote to those over 25. YMMV.
Further, even basic individual rights have had limitations placed on
them (Free speech and the classic fire in the theater, for one example).
Why not voting?
>(What would you say about a government that didn't let people practice their
>religion unless they went through Federal Service? Or didn't allow freedom of
>speech unless they showed they were responsible enough to be allowed to speak
>freely?)
Such a government was being goofy? The point at which restrictions on
rights can be seen as reasonable and at which point they become
fascistic is largely a matter of degree. Should infants be allowed to
vote?
Jammer Jim Roberts-Miller -- who wonders if he's just been distracted by
a strawman.
--
Texas A&M University '89,'91
"Sometimes lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for." -- Me
Rusty Wallace
karr...@nyx.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>t...@eng.cam.ac.uk wrote:
>>a. Exalts nation and ... race above the individual...
>>I do not recall anything in the book that supports requirement a)
>
>It denies a basic individual right (voting) to anyone who doesn't serve the
>nation first.
>
Don't be a dork, Ken. There is no such thing as a 'basic individual
right (voting)'. The fact that we think democracy and voting are
pretty neat is not proof of its inherent superiority. It is a way of
organizing the political/social decision making apparatus of a
society. The question of who should vote - and even whether voting
should occur - has no 'right' answer. Virtually universal voting
rights as practiced in modern America and Western Europe seems to be
working out pretty well - but that is no gaurrantee that it is 'best'
or even that it will continue to be a successful model.
Let me ask you a question - what is wrong with the idea that the vote
should be limited to those persons who have through personal sacrifice
and risk demonstrated a commitment to the interests of the group? If
you don't like that idea qualify it thus: what if everyone is given
the 'right' to so volunteer and the government is required to find
something for them to do to fulfill their service? Still don't like
it? What if the volunteer is given the right to renege on his
agreement and go home at any time with the only penalty being that he
does not gain the vote?
Do you really believe that -everyone- should have the right to vote?
Do you really believe that an electorate composed of everyone will
make the best decisions? Just for instance, do you think denying the
vote to anyone with an IQ of less than 80 would improve the quality of
the voting? If not - why not? What about eliminating from the voter
pool those people who never read a newspaper, watch the news on TV, or
discuss politics with their friends? People who are truly uninformed
about the candidates and their views? Do you think it is a good idea
for a person to cast a vote between two candidates when he/she really
has no idea where either of them stands on any of the issues? Is
there something magical about casting a vote that makes it a valid
exercise even for those ignorant of the issues involved?
If you are a reasonable person you will concede that an informed and
interested electorate is more worthy of voting than an electorate that
is composed of voters who are ignorant and disinterested. Given that
- how do we as a society insure an informed electorate? We could take
only smart people or only tax payers or only property owners. But in
each of those cases we may be denying the franchise to someone who
cares and does have an informed opinion. So how do we find those
people and exclude all others? Well first of all - we can't pick out
those whose opinions are informed from those who are ignorant. There
is no objective way to do so. The next best thing is to pick out only
those voters who really care. The problem: How to decide what
'caring' means and how find them. Answer - make every voter pass a
test whose purpose is to discriminate between those who care and those
who do not.
In the USA we do this now. The test we use is to require prospective
voters to register. This is a minor ordeal. It eliminates many who
don't care. The requirment of actually getting up off one's butt and
going to the polls removes some more who cared enought to register -
but enough to actually go do it. So now for the key points (follow
closely here, Ken): What is the qualitative difference between what
we do now and the system presented in ST? The quantitative difference
is obvious - we set a lower threshold of 'caring' that allows for a
larger electorate. But we still set limits. We don't let -anyone-
vote. Only those who feel like it is worth the trouble of registering
get to do so. Might more people vote if we sent a ballot to every
mailbox along with a SASE envelope and a pencil? Probably so. Does
that mean that our current system is facist because we deny the vote
to so many people? Don't be silly.
So, we limit the vote to those who feel like taking the trouble to
register and travel to the polls. The world of ST limits the vote to
those who feel like taking the trouble of giving two years of their
life to government service. In both cases -anyone- who desires to go
through the required steps gets to vote. The only difference is the
magnitude of the 'trouble' and, by implication, the level of desire to
attain the vote. Explain to me, then, why the one system is
qualitatively inferior to the other.
Rusty
(awaiting a substantive reply from Ken or anyone else...)
Remove the 'xx''s to reply via emai...
Thurston
> "K. Hu" <k...@u.washington.edu> writes:
> Ken Arromdee wrote:
> > It denies a basic individual right (voting) to anyone who doesn't serve the
> > nation first.
> > (What would you say about a government that didn't let people practice their
> > religion unless they went through Federal Service? Or didn't allow freedom of
> > speech unless they showed they were responsible enough to be allowed to speak
> > freely?)
> In the United States, freedom of speech and the freedom of religion are
> just that -- freedoms granted by the constitution, limited only in that
> one may not cause harm to others while exercising these rights.
WRONG. The Constitution does NOT "grant" anything. Read it. It >recognizes<
pre-existing freedoms and limits the government's ability to meddle with them.
> Voting is a privilege given to those who are deemed responsible enough to
> hold it. It is not a right granted to every single person, and it is not
> guaranteed to all people.
Nope. It's not a privilege. It's a right, especially in a supposed "democracy".
> Perhaps you also think the United States is fascist.
Yes, it is. And becoming more so.
Whenever "safety" takes precedence over freedom, fascism is not far behind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lizard
On 17 Oct 1997 11:48:55 -0600, karr...@nyx.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>t...@eng.cam.ac.uk wrote:
>>a. Exalts nation and ... race above the individual...
>>I do not recall anything in the book that supports requirement a)
>
>It denies a basic individual right (voting) to anyone who doesn't serve the
>nation first.
>
Voting isn't a right -- since voting implies a social context, and
most importantly is an act of domination over others, it most
assuredly isn't a right. Denying people the 'right' to vote, until
they have proven competance to do so, is more akin to denying people
the 'right' to become airline pilots until they've been trained.
>(What would you say about a government that didn't let people practice their
>religion unless they went through Federal Service? Or didn't allow freedom of
>speech unless they showed they were responsible enough to be allowed to speak
>freely?)
I would oppose those, because freedom of thought (which includes
speech and religion) *is* a right -- it is easily derived from self
ownership. But voting is a method of giving people orders, and no one
is born with the 'right' to tell other people what to do. (As it is,
democracy is far too broad -- the rights you mention above are not
secure BY democracy, they are secured FROM democracy. That's what the
B of R is all about -- it is saying the voters may NOT take away your
right to free speech. The state doesn't 'grant' you the right to speak
or believe as you see fit -- it is explicitly prohibited from REMOVING
those rights. It's very disturbing to me that I've had to say this to
so many people so many times. Fortunately, having gotten tired of
saying it repeatedly, I wrote it up.
http://www.mrlizard.com/symbols.html Enjoy.
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice;
Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue:AuH20
http://www.mrlizard.com
Richard A. Randall
> :> t...@eng.cam.ac.uk wrote:
> :>: karr...@nyx.nyx.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:>
> I see reading comprehension isn't your strong point. The so-called
> 'Communist' government of the USSR did not promote economic or social
> regimentation, nor did it concern itself with race.
Union, Dan. Does the phrase, "the nationality issue" ring a
bell. Study how the various nationalities were treated in
reality, especially the darker skinned Moslems, the Jews, and
the Orientals in the eastern portion. Ever wonder why almost
ALL Soviets of any importance were Great Russians? And as far
as economic and social regimentation, read Das Kapital, study
the "psychiatric" treatment given to non-conformists, learn how
the Soviet Union treated ANYONE who did not believe the Party
line. The only way to reach the MIDDLE of any profession was
to be a faithful Party member. Wouldn't you call that
regimentation? Besides, Socialism is an economic system,
that happens to show a correlation with totalitarianism
governments.
Richard A. Randall
> :>: Dan Bongard wrote:
> :>: Wow. Joe Stalin was a fascist.
>
> :> I see reading comprehension isn't your strong point. The so-called
> :> 'Communist' government of the USSR did not promote economic or social
> :> regimentation, nor did it concern itself with race.
>
> : Three strikes in a row. You are out.
>
> Whatever. If you feel that the things you list accurately represent the former
> USSR, then the USSR was fascist. If you, or any polisci professor, think
> differently, I suggest you pick up a copy of any English-language dictionary
> and read it.
>
> You can't claim that the USSR possessed all the traits of fascism and then
> act shocked that it meets the definition of facism. That makes no sense.
>
> -- Dan
No, the point is that "fascism" is a form of "socialism".
Richard A. Randall
> : which are destined to happen.
>
> arrived at the mistaken conclusions that (a) the USSR even vaguely followed
> anything resembling Communism and (b) that the destiny-obsessed Italian
> Fascist party represents the whole of fascism.
>
> -- Dan
Double buzz! The Communists in the Soviet Union frequently
referred to the fact that "Capitalism will fall. It is
inevitable due to the science of history." (I.e., it is
pre-destined.) They believed (or at least stated) that all
societies follow a predictable (pre-destined, if you will)
path through the European stages of government and economice,
and all societies sufficiently advanced MUST be ruled by "the
proletariat." Sounds suspiciously like pre-destiny to me.
By the way, the Soviets were supposedly developing a "true"
Communist society, but they had to develop through the
Socialist stage first.
P.S. I just thought of another example of regimentation:
official sponsorship of Lysenkoism and offical disbelief of
its opposition, Darwinism. Cost much wampum in crop failures
(repeated crop failures) before the Party quietly dropped the
issue, in favor of a science that might actually grow corn in
northern Siberia.
Richard A. Randall
nyr...@clark.net (Nyrath the nearly wise) writes:
>
> R ^ A: Max Stirner, Ayn Rand
> a +2 | B: Various Libertarians
> t A | E C: Welfare Liberals
> i +1 | D D: Socialists
> o B | C E: Communists
> n <----------+---------> F: Classical Anarchists
> a | H G: American "counter culture"
> l -1 G | I H: Various Conservatives
> i | J I: Fascists
> s -2 F | J: Nazis
> m v
> -2 -1 0 +1 +2
> Statism
>
> VARIABLE ONE: "Statism"
> This is the attitude towards the State. Is the government
> an object of idolatry, a postitive good, a necessary evil,
> or unmitigated evil?
> Put this on the X axis, with umitigated evil at -2,
> and object of idolatry at +2.
> (Anarchists would be at -2. Reactionary monarchists would
> be at +2. American political parties would cluster around
> 0. Both Communists and Fascists are from +1 to +2.
> Both American Conservatism and US Welfare Liberalism
> are from 0 to +1. Don't be fooled into thinking that
> Conservatives are anti-statits, they may want to dismantle
> the Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, but they
> would strengthen the police and army.
> Ideological libertarians are from -2 to 0)
>
> VARIABLE TWO: "Rationalism"
> This is the attitude towards planned social progress.
> It maps the belief that society has "problems" and
> these can be "solved".
> Put this on the Y axis, with "all social problems
> have findable solutions" at +2, and with
> "problems, what problems?" at -2.
> (Fascism is at about -1, since they appeal to
> "the greatness of the nation" or volk, and to
> the fuhrer-prinzip. Communism belongs up around
> +2, since they have all the answers to social ills.
> Welfare liberals are from +1 to +2 ("all crime
> is caused by poverty thus when we end poverty
> we'll end crime...")
>
> Note that this arrangement does explain some political
> anomolies. Pournelle gives an example of
> the two kinds of "liberal" who hate each other.
> Both liberals have a Rationalism from +1 to +2,
> but the XIXth Century Liberal has a profound
> distrust of the state (a negative Statism),
> while the mondern kind wants to use the state
> to Do Good for all mankind.
>
Thank you, I was just too lazy to type all that in. A failing,
but I felt anyone interested can find the book and give Baen
and Pournelle their money. Capitalism. It works.
Richard A. Randall
Ken Arromdee
liz...@mrlizard.com (Lizard) wrote:
>Indeed, the main focus of the book was of the
>*choice* to serve -- fascist societies do not offer a choice, do not
>let you live in peace if you do not serve. The government in ST was
>perfectly happy -- even ecstatic -- if you didn't enlist.
Well, if you didn't enlist, they wouldn't let you vote. If a government
only allowed you to practice your religion if you went through Federal
Service, but otherwise didn't do anything to you for not serving, would you
say they're perfectly happy with you not serving? Just because they
didn't do anything _else_ to you aside from taking away a right?
Ken Arromdee
liz...@mrlizard.com (Lizard) wrote:
>>(What would you say about a government that didn't let people practice their
>>religion unless they went through Federal Service? Or didn't allow freedom of
>>speech unless they showed they were responsible enough to be allowed to speak
>>freely?)
>I would oppose those, because freedom of thought (which includes
>speech and religion) *is* a right -- it is easily derived from self
>ownership. But voting is a method of giving people orders, and no one
>is born with the 'right' to tell other people what to do.
Voting involves giving people orders, yes, but some of the orders are about
what those people can do _to you_.
As long as the government gets to shoot you for violating the law, and as long
as the government can collect taxes, the right to vote for that government is
a matter of self-ownership too.
Ken Arromdee
loc...@erols.com (Abe D. Lockman) wrote:
>> (What would you say about a government that didn't let people practice their
>> religion unless they went through Federal Service? Or didn't allow freedom of
>> speech unless they showed they were responsible enough to be allowed to speak
>> freely?)
>restrictions and requisitions on others.
The problem is that that's not all that government does. Government also
imposes restrictions and requisitions on _you_.
Steve Fenwick
In article <lockman-1010...@dam-as5s51.erols.com>,
loc...@erols.com (Abe D. Lockman) wrote:
> In article <61i7j9$q24$1...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>,
> pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Peter Ronaszeki) wrote:
> > Hey, relax. Just read the novel again, if you don't want to watch the
> > movie.
>
> Nothing wrong with making shoot-em-ups, or enjoying watching them. Good
> taste, however, precludes naming such for a mostly unrelated novel in the
> hope of pulling in those who enjoyed the latter.
It's similar to what happened with Ian Fleming's works after he died. The
earlier films were very, very close to the original novels, but as time
went on, the movies became totally distorted, until the latest movies
simply used Fleming's story titles with no reference to the original
story.
Steve
--
Steve Fenwick s...@w0x0f.com
http://www.w0x0f.com
backjohn
YES!!!! THEY BOTH STINK AND SUCK!!!!
CANCEL THE SHOWS!!!!
JJ.
Dan Bongard
Dan Bongard
Graves (mt...@datasync.com) wrote:
: Dan Bongard wrote:
:> Graves (mt...@datasync.com) wrote:
:>: Dan Bongard wrote:
:>:> A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that
:>:> exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a
:>:> centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe
:>:> economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
:>: Wow. Joe Stalin was a fascist.
Dan Bongard
Sandra Mendoza (san...@saber.net) wrote:
: Dan Bongard wrote in response to... take your choice, I can't figure it out :
From your original post I see you are a stranger to Usenet post quotation.
I have taken the liberty of re-formatting your post to make it readable.
:> The so-called 'Communist' government of the USSR did not promote
:> economic or social regimentation, nor did it concern itself with race.
[snip]
: I find your formulation interesting: "so-called 'Communist' government of
: the USSR?
Yes, "so-called". As in they called themselves Communists, but their
governmental structure and philosophy bore absolutely no resemblance
to Communism at all.
: Are you one of those Utopians who believes that with different leaders
: there would have been a different outcome?
Are you one of those morons who believes that every educated person who
recognizes that the USSR was just another dictatorship is somehow, in
his heart, pro-Communist? Crawl back under your rock and stay there until
you learn the difference between Communist societies (which are bad) and
USSR-style dictatorships that _claim_ to be Communist (which are also bad).
: No! The evil is inherent in the system.
[babble, babble, babble -- snip. If you want to bash Communism, first learn
what it is, and then find somebody who doesn't already agree with you]
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
Lizard (liz...@mrlizard.com) wrote:
: Dan Bongard wrote:
:> Then re-read the book. The entire philosophy behind it is that the
:> state is more important than the individual and the human race is
:> superior to other races.
: I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing a book by Robert Heinlein.
We are. The difference appears to be that I read the book before entering
into the discussion. :)
: I do not know what book YOU are discussing, but Heinleins work from his
: earliest writings to his final books were stridently individualistic.
That is, quite simply, not true in the slightest. Heinlein's main
characters became increasingly individualistic, particularly in his
later works, but they were not always that way. They certainly were not
that was in "Starship Troopers".
-- Dan
Ronald O. Christian
>: a. Exalts nation and ... race above the individual...
>
>Clearly the case for the ST government. Service to the state is the
>highest good, and placing oneself above the state is the greatest
>evil.
>Humanity has a manifest destiny to colonize the universe,
>and other races interfere with this destiny.
You must be talking about the movie, which, of course, I haven't seen.
It's certainly not the case in the book.
Take your statement: "placing oneself above the state is the greatest
evil". Where, specifically, do you get this?
>: b. centralised government
>
>Also the case.
Not spelled out in the book. The federation could be a centralised
government, or, as it's name implies, it could be a collection of
member countries like the current United Nations.
>: I do not recall anything in the book that supports requirement a)
>
>Then re-read the book. The entire philosophy behind it is that the
>state is more important than the individual and the human race is
>superior to other races.
I personally own a copy and have read it many times. Your
interpretation is unusual. Can you quote passages that support your
theory?
>: Nor do I recall any suggestion that govn is necessarily centralised
>
>Other than there being a single world government, that is?
Would you argue that the United Nations is a single world government?
>: There is no mention of a dictator except as applies to the bugs,
>
>True, although the government is ruled by a post-coup group of
>ex-military and bureaucratic folks elected solely by other ex-
>military and bureaucratic folks. That's certainly not a free
>society.
Again, this is an unusual interpretation.
>: no social regimentation,
>
>You have to be ex-military to gt the right to vote.
...and the right to vote, and the right to run for office, are the
only benefits. Also, clearly, there is no particular social or
financial imperative to be ex-military. Certainly Juan's dad was
wealthy and didn't give a hoot whether he could vote or not. Reveled,
actually, in the fact that he wasn't a citizen.
Moreover, remember that if you wanted to enlist and earn your
franchise, they *had to take you*, regardless of who you were, what
race you were (demonstrable -- the racial makeup of boot camp) whether
you were a farm hand or the son of a wealthy businessman, no matter
what your physical or mental capabilities. The only only *only*
requirement was that you could understand the oath.
>: nor is there any indication of forcible suppression...
>
>There's no evidence of benevolence, either. It isn't something the
>book deals with one way or the other. This is why I say it is arguable.
>The government shows many signs of facism, and no traits that are
>inherently anti-fascistic.
>
>:> It is certainly closer to a fascist state than it is to
>:> a democracy, however.
>
>: Please indicate how you come to this conclusion...
>
>By doing two things: understanding what fascism is, and reading the book. :)
Three things: Adding your own unique interpretation. What you seem
to be hung up on is the requirement to do community service to earn
one's franchise. (Serving in combat was only one possibility.) I
suspect that no matter what else happened or was discussed in the
book, this one lone clause speaks fascism to you.
Ron
Rusty Wallace
Dan,
You are either being intentionally obtuse with respect to the ideas
presented in ST or you truly are an idiot. In the first case - bully
for you! Have fun goring the RH ox. It's good clean fun for all. But
if you really believe the crap you've been spouting I would suggest
you take a deep breath, chill for awhile and try reading the book
again. This time with an open mind...
Rusty
ps Could it be possible that ST will depose the current reigning
champion of shitty and disappointing SF movies. Yes, those of you
with a good memory KNOW I'm talking about ID4...
Ronald O. Christian
>Agreed. Here is Dr. Pournelle's system, mentioned before
>in this thread:
> <some good information>
Thanks, but what I meant was, I'm not personally a fan of Dr.
Pournelle, but you don't have to be a fan of some science fiction
writer to be exposed to the idea of a multiaxis political model. You
just have to be politically active -- to an extent slightly beyond
"left: good, right: bad" and sucking up whatever Dan Rather throws at
you.
Personally, and this is just me, I'm suspicious of a person who's
beliefs *exactly* correspond to the planks in his/hers party platform.
It's just extremely unlikely, for a thinking, aware individual.
Ron
Ronald O. Christian
On Fri, 17 Oct 1997 06:36:45 GMT, jbr...@remove.the.z.cts.com
(Maynard G. Krebs) wrote:
>No thanks, I'll save my
>$7 and buy another copy of the novel as a lending copy.
What a great idea! I think I will do that also. It can go right next
to my lending copy of "zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance".
Ron
Rich Rostrom
dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) wrote:
> I see reading comprehension isn't your strong point. The so-called
> 'Communist' government of the USSR did not promote economic or social
> regimentation...
What universe are you from? Because you _can't_ be from this one.
Perhaps you learned your history from Professor Murphy of Oakland
University.
> ... nor did it concern itself with race.
Race chauvinism is not a necessary component of fascism; the definition
mentioned it only as a possible element of a fascist ideology.
In recent years so-called 'skinheads' have been part of a quasi-fascist
resurgence. Some have been explicitly racist. At least one 'skinhead'
group in Chicago was explicitly multi-racial. They were into "All
we brothers march together and crush our enemies" (the classic Fascist
idea) - their additional gloss was "he who tries to turn me against
my brother because our skins are different is an enemy and we will
kick his face in with our steel-toed boots..."
--
Rich Rostrom | You could have hit him over the head with it and he
| wouldn't have minded. He never did mind being hit
R-Rostrom@ | with small things like guns and axe handles.
neiu.edu | - Ellis Parker Butler, "That Pup of Murchison's"
Bill Woods
Dan Bongard wrote:
> t...@eng.cam.ac.uk wrote:
> : karr...@nyx.nyx.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>
> :>> I still cannot fathom the claims that the FS is a fascist state -
> :>> especially from those who should know better!
>
> :> It's a fascist state because it lauds the rights of the state over the rights
> :> of the individual.
>
> : How so? Is this the definition of fascism?
>
> Actually it IS part of the definition of fascism:
>
> A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that
> exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a
> centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe
> economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
>
> Whether the ST government meets all of these criteria is largely in the eye
> of the beholder. It is certainly closer to a fascist state than it is to
> a democracy, however.
That's absurd. Of course the Federation is a democracy, albeit with the
franchise limited to those who earn it. The only criterion that the
Federation meets is that it has a central government - i.e. it exists as a
political entity.
It's peculiar that anyone would claim that the Federation is a fascist state,
when Heinlein set up *the Bugs* as the epitome of fascism/communism.
--
Bill Woods
"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely
mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way
down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."
-- Douglas Adams
NO.SPAM...@pacbell.net
On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 05:44:19 -0500, "Jim Williams" <am...@ionet.net>
wrote:
>
>I will *not* see the movie. My blood pressure's been heightened enough from
>the trailers to that monstrosity. Dropships? Powered Armor? All-male combat
>units? Not one mention of the philosophical discussions of the book? No sign
>of storyline in the trailers, other than a bughunt? No thank you. From the
>trailers, it appears that the most needed essay on human society today has
>been turned into yet another politically correct splatfest. Remembering what
>was done to Enemy Mine, I'll save my money.
>
>"... I prefer science fiction"
>
Weird. I read the book and it was great. But if they ever translate
this verbatim to a movie, it will be one boring, boring film. Maybe a
made for TV movie, but not a multi-million dollar movie. I read the
book for the philosophical aspect of it but I'm going to see the movie
for the sheer kick-ass in-yo-face action that it's gonna offer.
>Jim
>
>>
>>
>>Cancel ST:voyager.
>
>
cyphron
Please remove NO.SPAM. if replying by email.
Vozhd
>From: xxjru...@ix.netcom.com (Rusty Wallace)
>karr...@nyx.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote [re the military service requirement for
voting rights in Heinlein's novel]:It denies a basic individual right (voting)
to anyone who doesn't serve the nation first.
>Don't be a dork, Ken. There is no such thing as a 'basic individual right
(voting)'.
>Let me ask you a question - what is wrong with the idea that the vote should
be limited to those persons who have through personal sacrifice and risk
demonstrated a commitment to the interests of the group? [etc., etc., along
similar lines] If you are a reasonable person you will concede that an
informed and interested electorate is more worthy of voting than an electorate
that is composed of voters who are ignorant and disinterested.
A Mr. Thomas Jefferson - - someone whose opinions were probably known to
Heinlein - - agreed with colleagues in Philadelphia that any legitimate
government derives its just powers from "the consent of the governed." Unless
Heinlein considered those who abstained from service"ungoverned," he is
subverting the legitimacy of his Federation by basing its powers on an
arbitrary limitation of the franchise. Now, many of Jefferson's colleagues,
if not Tom himself, also limited the franchise in their home states, not only
along race and gender lines but also according to property ownership. This
was because they thought that property owners were the ones actually
"governed" by Congress and the several states, while "individuals" were
governed withing their families, their congregations, etc. I bring this up to
show that America's Founders, likely objects of Heinlein's homage, did not
base citizenship on some notion of service or reciprocal responsibilities. If
we must choose between the Founders and a science fiction writer, I'll take
the men of Philadelphia.
But since this is a MOVIE newsgroup, and I've come late to this particular
thread, I will raise a more relevant question: Is this controversial element
of Heinlein's novel even included in the Verhoeven film? I sorta doubt it
myself.
"Gangway you heelots!!!"
Vozhd
>From: jam...@a.crl.com (Jim Roberts-Miller)
>you should lump Jefferson et al. in with the fascists.
>After all, they generally believed the franchise should be restricted to white
male landowners. Even in these more enlightened times, you have to be at
least 18 to vote. Why not 16? Why not 21? These age restrictions, while
generally less onerous (everyone gets old enough eventually, barring
accident), are a lot more arbitrary than that of Federal Service.
Quite the reverse. The Founders (& I think Jefferson was for universal white
male suffrage) often insisted on property qualifications because they thought
property was what Congress and the states actually governed, rather than
individuals. They excluded blacks (mostly) because they were considered
inherently alien, and they excluded women because women were presumed to be
governed by the heads of their households, while the state would govern that
household head. These decisions, however wrong we now consider them, were not
arbitrary because they reflected the Founders' notions of what politics and
government were about, whereas Heinlein's premise is arbitrary because its
based on a subjective notion of who is "worthy" of having the franchise. But
I still kinda doubt that this is going to be an issue in the silly-looking
movie anyway.
"Gangway you heelots!!!"
Vozhd
>From: liz...@mrlizard.com (Lizard)
>Denying people the 'right' to vote, until they have proven competance to do
so, is more akin to denying people the 'right' to become airline pilots until
they've been trained.
This is a pernicious comparison. Jefferson says governments derive legitimacy
from "the consent of the governed" -- not the "informed" governed or the
"intelligent" governed. Everybody gets to consent, and they owe the
government no service in advance. If the Founders limited the franchise, it
was because they thought government itself covered a more limited area than we
assign to it now.
Don't expect conversations like this in the movie, so enjoy them here.
"Gangway you heelots!!!"
Vozhd
>From: Bill Woods <wwo...@ix.netcom.com>
>Of course the Federation is a democracy, albeit with the
>franchise limited to those who earn it.
The only way that democracy is "earned" is through revolutionary violence in
overthrowing a less democratic regime. Heinlein's junta, though far from
fascist, is granting the franchise according to an arbitrary standard of
worthiness. Someone who thinks these terms unfair can earn the franchise by
overthrowing the junta. That might make an interesting movie - - at least
more so than the apparent tripe Verhoeven is sending us.
It's peculiar that anyone would claim that the Federation is a fascist state,
when Heinlein set up *the Bugs* as the epitome of fascism/communism.
A charming bit of Cold War dehumanization of the ideological enemy. I doubt
whether Verhoeven will indicate any ideological subtexts, however, since he
apparently wanted only an enemy so subhumanly loathesome that everyone could
root against it without feeling guilty - - except, perhaps, those overly
sensitive to "speciesism." Whatever.
"Gangway you heelots!!!"
Vozhd
>From: liz...@mrlizard.com (Lizard)
>I would probably be a lot less opposed to democracy if voting
>was a privilege to be earned, not a 'right' granted to any moron who has
sucked air for 18 years.
Then it wouldn't be a democracy, or even a democratic republic, would it? The
hard part about modern democracy for lots of people is its stubborn insistence
that all citizens are equal in the voting booth because all citizens are
subject to a government that derives its just powers from the consent of the
governed. Mr Lizard can't accept that "stupid" people might have some say in
his citizenship, and would have the smart (defined by himself with the likely
assistance of objective tests based on his preconceived notions of
intelligence) govern the stupid (ditto). We might analyze this more closely,
except that Lizard probably confuses intelligence with ideology. Then again,
look at all of us debating the political philosophy of Robert Heinlein, for
gosh sakes. This stuff probably won't even make it into the movie.
"Gangway you heelots!!!"
Kenneth Mitchell
Let's get this straight; the actual name of the Nazi party was "National
Socialist". The Nazis were far-left socialists from the get-go, and nothing
anybody says will change that. It differed from Communism only in that the
Russians wanted WORLD socialism, while the Nazis were nationalists first.
Thomas Andrews <tho...@best.com> wrote in article
<620fhf$jn5$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>...
> In article <620aqd$p...@examiner.concentric.net>,
> Jim Pierce <Dj...@NORutabagas.concentric.net> wrote:
> >Ronald O. Christian <ro...@europa.com> wrote:
> >[] However, there was a lot of stuff in high school (a little over a
> >[] couple decades ago) about Adolf's socialist leanings. Probably not
> >[] taught that way anymore, though. Different generation, different set
> >[] of bad guys.
> >
> > I graduated from high school in 1966. Its only fairly recently
> >that people have been claiming that Nazis practiced socialism.
> >My parent's generation, who fought in WW 2, were absolutely certain
> >that the Nazis were right wing.
> >
> > True, the only major difference between Communism and Nazism is the
> >style of the dictatorship and the slogans.
> >
>
> The truth is, IMHO, a rather more complicated case. Basically,
> Nazism is a faux socialism - it is anti-capitalist anger deflected
> towards scapegoats.
>
> It definitely springs from discontents with capitalism, but
> fascism focuses that discontent on a small group of capitalists -
> immigrants, Jews, foreigners. Lose your life savings? It's not
> all bankers' fault, it's the Jewish bankers' fault, the fascist
> will tell you. Fascism is a way for the elites to turn socialist
> leanings into something which less directly threatens their power.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmit...@gvn.net
916-449-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax)
--------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/------------------------
"Powerful encryption threatens to make worthless the access assured
by the new digital [telephony] law." FBI Director Louis Freeh,
February 14, 1995, while insisting before the Senate Judiciary
Committee that the government has the inalienable right to tap
your telephone.
"Freedom Isn't Freeh." The resulting protest chant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
!yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT
Thurston
>>>>
Seeing that less than 50% of eligible voters actually voted in the 1996 election:
we're governed by people who were elected by a >minority< of the electorate.
Ergo: no "democracy" as such.
In any event, the U.S. is not a "democracy" nor a "republic" but-
"Is ours a government of the people, by the people, for the people, or a
kakistocracy rather, for the benefit of knaves at the cost of fools?"
James Russell Lowell - 1876
"Democracy is a form of religion, it is the worship of jackels by jackasses."
H.L.Mencken
"A politician normally prospers under a democracy in proportion to his
ability to excel in inventing imaginary perils and imaginary defences
against them."
H.L.Mencken - 1918
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin B. O'Brien
In the year 3997, a time capsule was opened. Inside was a single
message from "Kenneth Mitchell" <kmit...@gvn.net> who wrote:
>Let's get this straight; the actual name of the Nazi party was "National
>Socialist". The Nazis were far-left socialists from the get-go, and nothing
>anybody says will change that.
Ah, so that is how it works. So the German Democratic Republic was a
democracy because it had Democratic in its name! It is amazing how
much stuff you can learn in these newsgroups.
Next Week: Why China is a Republic!
--
Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL
ko...@ix.netcom.com
"A pessimist thinks everyone is as nasty as himself, and hates them for it."
--George Bernard shaw
Help fight SPAM. Join CAUCE. http://www.cauce.org/
Tom Mailloux
Kevin B. O'Brien wrote:
<snip>
> Ah, so that is how it works. So the German Democratic Republic was a
> democracy because it had Democratic in its name! It is amazing how
> much stuff you can learn in these newsgroups.
Yup, and every word every politicial ever uttered is the absolute truth,
too....
> Next Week: Why China is a Republic!
Can't *wait* for that one! ;-)
> Help fight SPAM. Join CAUCE. http://www.cauce.org/
^^^^^ not <snipped> because it's a good idea. ;-)
--
remove the ¬ to reply.
(Don't you *hate* spam?)
Jim M. Pierce
Sandra Mendoza wrote:
[] disability). However, Liberals have a lot of trouble with the whole idea of
Well... I rather tend more towards liberal than conservative. I'm
a USN veteran with 6 years Honorable service. But I do understand
what you mean.
Yes, I have read 'Grumbles from the Grave'. They did him wrong.
JimP.
--
Jim Pierce jmpi...@medea.gp.usm.edu Disclaimer: Standard.
Recent read Book: 'The Royal Oak Disaster' by Gerald S. Snyder
Jim M. Pierce
NO.SPAM...@pacbell.net wrote:
[] Weird. I read the book and it was great. But if they ever translate
[] this verbatim to a movie, it will be one boring, boring film. Maybe a
You must have only read part of the book, or you have no
imagination...
boring book ? Well, yes, if you think that extermination of humans
by another space-fairing race of beings is boring...
JimP.
--
Jim
" Don't get discouraged...remember, when Cher first started going to the
spa, she already looked like Cher." Jake Vest.
Ken Arromdee
liz...@mrlizard.com (Lizard) wrote:
>>Voting involves giving people orders, yes, but some of the orders are about
>>what those people can do _to you_.
>But most of the things they do to you, they don't have the right to do
>in the first place.
But they do do them in Starship Troopers.
So _in the context of Heinlein's novel_, self-ownership gives people a right
to vote in the same way it gives a right to free speech. In a society with a
government that couldn't tell you what to do, there might not be a right to
vote, but in Heinlein's society, there is.
Ken Arromdee
liz...@mrlizard.com (Lizard) wrote:
>But again, you miss the
>point that voting, per se, is not a right, in the sense that freedom
>of religion is a right. (Please note that many people in the US can be
>deprived of the right to vote, without being deprived of other rights.
People in prison can be prohibited from operating a newspaper or from
gathering to support a cause. They can certainly be prohibited from
travelling. Does this mean that there is no such thing as a right to free
press, freedom of assembly, or freedom to travel? (There certainly are other
rights that even prisoners have, after all.)
People in the US can be deprived of the right to property (civil forfeiture)
without being deprived of other rights too. Does that mean that the right to
property isn't real either?