Starship Troopers - the novel (Was: Yesterday at the boo
Dennis Mccunney
** From jim...@acpub.duke.edu to All on 16 Aug 97 15:19:00
** Starship Troopers - the novel (Was: Yesterday at the boo
ji> John & Linda VanSickle (vans...@erols.com) wrote:
ji> : If you can supply a higher responsibility than risking your life for
ji> the sake : of another, we're all ears.
ji> Well, this isn't very difficult.
ji> How about risking your life for the sake of others without stooping
ji> to the destruction of life and property. Firefighters do it all the
ji> time.
They usually aren't being shot at when they do so. What happens if you
*are* being shot at?
Remember, one premise of ST was that attempts at a peaceful resolution
had failed with the Arachnids. The presumption that there is always a
peaceful solution to a conflict is rather naive and overly optimistic.
[Email: dmcc...@roper.com]
----
The Lunatic Fringe * Richardson, TX * 972-235-5288
Dennis Mccunney
** From gra...@gooroos.com to All on 16 Aug 97 15:20:00
** Starship Troopers - the novel (Was: Yesterday at the boo
gr> John & Linda VanSickle <vans...@erols.com> wrote:
>Considering that the hero never gets laid during the course of the novel,
>there is no justification for the reference to his gonads.
gr> 'Carmen had kissed me goodbye'; I would be hesitant to sugguest that
gr> Johnny never got laid, myself.
gr> While there are no scenes involving nameless viscous fluids and torrid
gr> couplings, I would say that the implication is certainly there.
What, she would only kiss him goodbye if she *had* laid him? Most
places, a kiss is a required *preliminary* to sex. I rather doubt
Carmen and Johnny had sex. They didn't when they were just friends
before joining up, and she didn't strike me as the kind of girl to lay
him on their first date after enlistment. Johnny might have managed it
with someone else along the line, like a prostitute during a period of
on planet leave. He certainly didn't have the opportunity in camp, on
ship, or in combat.
Dennis Mccunney
** From vans...@erols.com to All on 16 Aug 97 15:15:00
** Starship Troopers - the novel (Was: Yesterday at the boo
va> Larry Caldwell wrote:
> Re: Starship Troopers (the novel)
> sfh...@aol.com (SFHALLY) wrote:
> > Rats! I've been trying to find a copy of that forever. I wanted
> > it before the movie comes out. And it still isn't full of "militatistic
> > jingoism"
>
> I hadn't read it for maybe 30 years, and frankly, it doesn't stand up
> very well against modern science fiction. It's a straight ahead adventure
> narrative mixed with militaristic polemics. Other than killing bugs,
> there's no discernable plot,
va> You need better powers of discernment. The basic plot is Rico's
va> growth from a clueless wet-behind-the-ears recruit to an experienced
va> leader of men.
More broadly, it's a coming-of-age story, which Heinlein did an
assortment of back then. Rico grows up and learns responsibility,
first for himself, as a Trained Private in the Mobile Infantry, and
later for others, as a non-com and finally a commisioned officer in his
service. His moral growth can be charted by the differing answers he
gives to the question "Why fight?" at various stages in the book.
If I recall correctly, _Starship Troopers_ was originally intended for
the Scribner's Juvenile/YA line (hence the teenage protagonist), but
wound up as an adult SF book.
Graydon
In article <208.45...@lunatic.com>,
Dennis Mccunney <dennis....@lunatic.com> wrote:
>** From gra...@gooroos.com to All on 16 Aug 97 15:20:00
>** Starship Troopers - the novel (Was: Yesterday at the boo
>gr> Johnny never got laid, myself.
>
>gr> While there are no scenes involving nameless viscous fluids and torrid
>gr> couplings, I would say that the implication is certainly there.
>
>What, she would only kiss him goodbye if she *had* laid him? Most
It was the bit about coming back with stars in his eyes that's attached to
that passage.
>places, a kiss is a required *preliminary* to sex. I rather doubt
>Carmen and Johnny had sex. They didn't when they were just friends
>before joining up, and she didn't strike me as the kind of girl to lay
>him on their first date after enlistment. Johnny might have managed it
We don't know they didn't; we don't know anything much about the social
mores of the folks in the parts of that Federal culture Johnny has
anything to do with. We _do_ know that Johnny's mother approved of
Carmen, and that she had the run of part of the house. So they certainly
could have.
>with someone else along the line, like a prostitute during a period of
>on planet leave. He certainly didn't have the opportunity in camp, on
>ship, or in combat.
Assuming he's exclusuively straight for the first two.
--
gra...@gooroos.com | Praise ice when it is crossed,
is bouncing again Ale when it is drunk,
try pir...@pobox.com The day at evening-time,
with 'for graydon' in the subject line Domain service when it works.
Larry Caldwell
In article <207.45...@lunatic.com>,
dennis....@lunatic.com (Dennis Mccunney) wrote:
> ** From jim...@acpub.duke.edu to All on 16 Aug 97 15:19:00
> ji> How about risking your life for the sake of others without stooping
> ji> to the destruction of life and property. Firefighters do it all the
> ji> time.
> They usually aren't being shot at when they do so. What happens if you
> *are* being shot at?
I think it's been a while since you read the book. The reason Johnny
enlisted was to buy his citizenship. Non-veterans are denied the franchise
and treated as an enslaved population. Heinlein cheerfully points out
that the reason there has never been a revolution is that all the soldiers
are in control. He sees military dictatorship as a wonderful, stable
institution.
There are many forms of human responsibility, and many occupations worthy
of respect. Firefighters are certainly one, but so is the farmer who
bets his farm every year on seeds and rainfall, or the nun who takes a vow
of poverty and obedience in service to her god. Suggesting that these
people should be denied citizenship is contemptible.
Even the military ruling class has to be kept in line through "moral
philosophy" classes, since they can't be relied on to come to politically
correct conclusions without indoctrination. The officer corps has to
undertake a particularly rigorous course in "moral philosophy," and anybody
who doesn't toe the party line is washed out. High school instruction
in MP is mandatory and has to be taught by retired military.
The book certainly has many other flaws. The military organization is
laughable - mechanized infantry with no support troops, no coordination
with air cover, no orbital observation or intelligence. Heinlein should
have read up on military tactics before trying to write about the subject.
He sure didn't learn anything in the Navy. I could forgive him the
innocent stupidity of his military organization, but the active malignance
of his political stance deserves some comment.
-- Larry
Rich Rostrom
lar...@teleport.com (Larry Caldwell) wrote:
> I think it's been a while since you read the book. The reason Johnny
> enlisted was to buy his citizenship. Non-veterans are denied the franchise
> and treated as an enslaved population.
Which is why Johnny's non-citizen father was so rich he could buy the
school if he wanted to. Non-citizens don't have the vote and don't
get involved in politics. If you read the book carefully, RAH tried
to imply that most people looked on politics as a sort of Tammany Hall
racket for the lazy - it was beneath their dignity to take part.
They also looked down on military duty in much the same way. In the
19th century, a soldier (in the all volunteer US and British armies)
was looked on as a loafer or drunkard. Florence Nightingale was
criticized for employing female nurses in military hospitals because
that would expose respectable young women to "a drunken and licentious
soldiery." Officers of course were supposed to be gentlemen. This was
the attitude that Rudyard Kipling attacked in his famous poem "Tommy":
For it's Tommy this an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him, out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot...
> Heinlein cheerfully points out
> that the reason there has never been a revolution is that all the soldiers
> are in control.
Soldiers are not in control. They do not vote or hold office. Only soldiers
who have completed their service may do so. Discharged soldiers are not
even the majority of those who do vote - most are veterans of terraforming
Venus or other non-military forms of public service.
> He sees military dictatorship as a wonderful, stable
> institution.
It is _not_ a military dictatorship - no member of the military has _any_
political power, and it is not a dictatorship.
It works - or RAH suggested it would work - because it co-opted the
people who cared about the interests of society, and put _them_ into
the ruling class.
> There are many forms of human responsibility, and many occupations worthy
> of respect. Firefighters are certainly one,
> but so is the farmer who bets his farm every year on seeds and rainfall,
The farmer is out to make the best living he can for _himself_. He is not
sacrificing his private interests to the larger good - as a firefighter
does when he risks his life to rescue people from a burning building.
> or the nun who takes a vow of poverty and obedience in service to her god.
A nun who does service (such as teaching or nursing) is doing something for
society, and probably has foregone personal rewards. However, there have
been many religious devotees (of both sexes) who spent there time in
mystical comtemplation or other rituals. They did this in pursuit of their
own spritual advancement, and did not contribute to the larger society.
What use is a pillar saint?
> Suggesting that these people should be denied citizenship is contemptible.
If you had bothered to read the book, you would have found that most
members of the Federal Service were _not_ in military jobs.
If the system were in place today, "Federal Service" volunteers would of
course staff the military; they would also staff the Peace Corps, the
Federal Protective Service, and the Army Corps of Engineers, fight forest
fires, serve as research subjects (what other service could a severely
handicapped person do?), provide unskilled labor for numerous public
facilities... They might also serve as prison guards, firefighters,
tutors in slum schools, attendants in homes for elderly or disabled...
a lot of things.
> Even the military ruling class...
The ruling class contains _no_ military, and only a portion of ex-military.
> The book certainly has many other flaws. The military organization is
> laughable - mechanized infantry with no support troops...
Aside from the combat engineers, the heavy weapons units, the K-9 Corps...
RAH did not pretend to describe the entire Federation military, only
the part Johnny Rico was in. Other segments are mentioned in passing,
but there are enough mentions to make clear that these other branches
exist.
> ...but the active malignance
> of his political stance deserves some comment.
RAH commented on the reaction to _Starship Troopers_ in _Expanded
Universe_. It drew enormous amounts of "fan mail" - almost all of it
hostile, and almost all of the hostility "based on a failure to
understand simple English indicative sentences, couched in simple words."
This failure is clearly shared by Mr. Caldwell - or perhaps it should
be Professor Caldwell - RAH noted that his most illiterate critics
were professors of English.
--
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"
John & Linda VanSickle
Larry Caldwell wrote:
>
> In article <207.45...@lunatic.com>,
> dennis....@lunatic.com (Dennis Mccunney) wrote:
> > ** From jim...@acpub.duke.edu to All on 16 Aug 97 15:19:00
>
> > ji> How about risking your life for the sake of others without stooping
> > ji> to the destruction of life and property. Firefighters do it all the
> > ji> time.
>
> > They usually aren't being shot at when they do so. What happens if you
> > *are* being shot at?
>
> enlisted was to buy his citizenship. Non-veterans are denied the franchise
> and treated as an enslaved population.
They are denied the franchise, but they are not treated as slaves. BTW,
military service was not the only way to earn the franchise; one signed up
for two years of Federal Service, which could have been military, or if
one's talents were more useful elsewhere, in some other capacity.
> Heinlein cheerfully points out that the reason there has never been a
> revolution is that all the soldiers are in control.
An oversimplification. The reason that there was no revolt was because the
people most likely to lead a revolt were those most likely to take the pains
to earn their franchise, and thereby have a peaceful means of enacting
social change.
> He sees military dictatorship as a wonderful, stable institution.
Not even close. A dictatorship is rule by one man. There was no indication
of that in the novel.
> Even the military ruling class has to be kept in line through "moral
> philosophy" classes, since they can't be relied on to come to politically
> correct conclusions without indoctrination. The officer corps has to
> undertake a particularly rigorous course in "moral philosophy," and anybody
> who doesn't toe the party line is washed out. High school instruction
> in MP is mandatory and has to be taught by retired military.
In high school, taking the class was mandatory; learning anything in it is
not, and this was made explicitly clear in the book. And I recall no
requirement that a retired military member teach the class.
> The book certainly has many other flaws. The military organization is
> laughable - mechanized infantry with no support troops, no coordination
> with air cover, no orbital observation or intelligence.
Now I know why you've been making all of these mistakes. You haven't read
the book. The infantry DID have support troops. The book covered situations
where air cover could not be effectively used (remember, the bugs live
underground), and orbital observation was likewise useless. There was
ground intel in the book.
> Heinlein should have read up on military tactics before trying to write
> about the subject.
And you should read the book before commenting on it.
--
Dantalion will ride again the course of evils standing straight
Hot metal will abound the land as the form regards our blazing hand
eda...@cts.com
In <Fqd+z0O5...@teleport.com>, lar...@teleport.com (Larry Caldwell) writes:
>In article <207.45...@lunatic.com>,
>dennis....@lunatic.com (Dennis Mccunney) wrote:
>> ** From jim...@acpub.duke.edu to All on 16 Aug 97 15:19:00
>
>> ji> How about risking your life for the sake of others without stooping
>> ji> to the destruction of life and property. Firefighters do it all the
>> ji> time.
>
>> They usually aren't being shot at when they do so. What happens if you
>> *are* being shot at?
>
>I think it's been a while since you read the book. The reason Johnny
>enlisted was to buy his citizenship. Non-veterans are denied the franchise
>and treated as an enslaved population.
Nowhere in the book is it implied that the population is enslaved. It is
actually implied that most people dont feel it necessary to vote.
>Heinlein cheerfully points out
>that the reason there has never been a revolution is that all the soldiers
>are in control. He sees military dictatorship as a wonderful, stable
>institution.
Wrong again. It is flatly stated that people currently in the millitary can not
vote, only veterans can. It is not a military dictatorship;
>
>Even the military ruling class has to be kept in line through "moral
>philosophy" classes, since they can't be relied on to come to politically
>correct conclusions without indoctrination. The officer corps has to
>undertake a particularly rigorous course in "moral philosophy," and anybody
>who doesn't toe the party line is washed out. High school instruction
>in MP is mandatory and has to be taught by retired military.
Attendance is mandatory, It isn't even graded.
Mabey you should read the books you critize.
You're going to have to remove the extra stuff from my address to reply.
Edmond Dantes
eda...@cts.com
Joshua Jasper
In article <R-Rostrom-190...@ip163-63.neiu.edu>,
Rich Rostrom <R-Ro...@neiu.edu> wrote:
>lar...@teleport.com (Larry Caldwell) wrote:
>Soldiers are not in control. They do not vote or hold office. Only soldiers
>who have completed their service may do so. Discharged soldiers are not
>even the majority of those who do vote - most are veterans of terraforming
>Venus or other non-military forms of public service.
More the fool they, the vote guaranteas political power. Get a
good sized block together and you've got the ability to amke laws that
influence buisness.
>
>> He sees military dictatorship as a wonderful, stable
>> institution.
>
>It is _not_ a military dictatorship - no member of the military has _any_
>political power, and it is not a dictatorship.
>
Ok, a governmet ruled by veterans, an oligarchy of sorts, or
would the term be meritocracy. Any poli-sci majors out there?
>It works - or RAH suggested it would work - because it co-opted the
>people who cared about the interests of society, and put _them_ into
>the ruling class.
>
That's where IMO RAH makes a mistake. Power corrupts. I know of
no government in the world ever that this is not the case, except small
tribal societys where people live at a subsistance level.
>> There are many forms of human responsibility, and many occupations worthy
>> of respect. Firefighters are certainly one,
>
>> but so is the farmer who bets his farm every year on seeds and rainfall,
>
>The farmer is out to make the best living he can for _himself_. He is not
>sacrificing his private interests to the larger good - as a firefighter
>does when he risks his life to rescue people from a burning building.
>
I simply can't belive that once you give people power over others
there won't be someone(s) using it to thier own advantage. Military
service and History and Moral Philosophy classes to the contrary.
[snip]
>
>RAH commented on the reaction to _Starship Troopers_ in _Expanded
>Universe_. It drew enormous amounts of "fan mail" - almost all of it
>hostile, and almost all of the hostility "based on a failure to
>understand simple English indicative sentences, couched in simple words."
>
>This failure is clearly shared by Mr. Caldwell - or perhaps it should
>be Professor Caldwell - RAH noted that his most illiterate critics
>were professors of English.
Well, for me, I never knocked his ideas as workable _if_ you
assume that the veterans of whatever federal service weren't greedy
bastards. It's just that I dissagree with the book that this process will
produce non-corrupt types who are somehow going to work for the
betterment of society, as oposed to thier own good.
Sinboy
Bill McHale
: Larry Caldwell wrote:
: > Heinlein should have read up on military tactics before trying to write
: > about the subject.
Yep if poor old RAH hadn't been forced (because of health) to retire from
his commision in the US navy he might have learned about tactics. Pity
they didn't teach any of that at the U.S. Naval Acadamy.
Mr. Caldwell if you actually knew something about RAH you would have
realized that he probably knew more about military tactics than most of
the non-military people on this news group, and I would imagine a fair
number of the military people.
--
Bill
***************************************************************************
If at first you don't succeed, don't try sky diving!
Bill McHale
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home page - http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~wmchal1
***************************************************************************
Doug Lampert
In article <sinboyEF...@netcom.com>,
Joshua Jasper <sin...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <R-Rostrom-190...@ip163-63.neiu.edu>,
>Rich Rostrom <R-Ro...@neiu.edu> wrote:
>>lar...@teleport.com (Larry Caldwell) wrote:
>>Soldiers are not in control. They do not vote or hold office. Only soldiers
>>who have completed their service may do so. Discharged soldiers are not
>>even the majority of those who do vote - most are veterans of terraforming
>>Venus or other non-military forms of public service.
> More the fool they, the vote guaranteas political power. Get a
>good sized block together and you've got the ability to amke laws that
>influence buisness.
>>> He sees military dictatorship as a wonderful, stable
>>> institution.
>>It is _not_ a military dictatorship - no member of the military has _any_
>>political power, and it is not a dictatorship.
> Ok, a governmet ruled by veterans, an oligarchy of sorts, or
>would the term be meritocracy. Any poli-sci majors out there?
The term is republic. Most republics have voting requirements, many have
had far stricter requirements than in Starship Troopers (in Athens, Rome, or
early US history there was a property requirement + required militia duties).
>>It works - or RAH suggested it would work - because it co-opted the
>>people who cared about the interests of society, and put _them_ into
>>the ruling class.
Which explains the constant expantion of liberty and of the franchise in US
history. Naturally the small enfranchised group at the start of the nations
history used its power only to restrict the franchise and increase its own
wealth and power while crushing the rest of society. Whoops that did not
happen, oh well, I guess the US does not exist either.
Many small enfranchised groups in history have been well able to see that
it is in their interest to keep government a servant of the entire society,
this is a major reason for all restrictions on the franchise, to restrict
power to those who (hopefully) will excercise it for the greater good.
Thus the US still restricts the franchise to mentally competent citizens
over age 18, and in many jurisdictions only nonfelons have the franchise.
Last I heard US eligable voters were well under half the population.
I guess you also consider us to be a ruthless ageist dictatorship!
> That's where IMO RAH makes a mistake. Power corrupts. I know of
>no government in the world ever that this is not the case, except small
>tribal societys where people live at a subsistance level.
Then it is hopeless and Starship Troopers is as good as the alternatives
since the rulers are always going to be corrupt.
>>> There are many forms of human responsibility, and many occupations worthy
>>> of respect. Firefighters are certainly one,
>>> but so is the farmer who bets his farm every year on seeds and rainfall,
>>The farmer is out to make the best living he can for _himself_. He is not
>>sacrificing his private interests to the larger good - as a firefighter
>>does when he risks his life to rescue people from a burning building.
> I simply can't belive that once you give people power over others
>there won't be someone(s) using it to thier own advantage. Military
>service and History and Moral Philosophy classes to the contrary.
Of course they are. The goal is not perfection, it is adequate. Power
always exists, and someone always uses it to their own advantage. So?
The goal is to minimize this, or to maximize the extent to which people
see their own advantage and societies as the same.
You have said nothing to explain why RAH's system would not be better than
others at both of these goals. (I do not think it would be better, but this
has to go as unsuported oppinion, you seem to take the inferiority as
axiomatic, and I see no support for this position.)
>>RAH commented on the reaction to _Starship Troopers_ in _Expanded
>>Universe_. It drew enormous amounts of "fan mail" - almost all of it
>>hostile, and almost all of the hostility "based on a failure to
>>understand simple English indicative sentences, couched in simple words."
>>This failure is clearly shared by Mr. Caldwell - or perhaps it should
>>be Professor Caldwell - RAH noted that his most illiterate critics
>>were professors of English.
> Well, for me, I never knocked his ideas as workable _if_ you
>assume that the veterans of whatever federal service weren't greedy
>bastards. It's just that I dissagree with the book that this process will
>produce non-corrupt types who are somehow going to work for the
>betterment of society, as oposed to thier own good.
In some areas it is stated 80% of the adult population are veterns, the
lowest value is 3% IIRC. This is too large a pool for a single vote
to have the effect that you seem to give it credit for, the greedy bastards
may well cancel out to the same extent that they do in our society. And
there may be fewer of them with the vote.
DougL
Joshua Jasper
In article <5tfb5u$7...@s10.math.uah.edu>,
Doug Lampert <lam...@s10.math.uah.edu> wrote:
>In article <sinboyEF...@netcom.com>,
>Joshua Jasper <sin...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <R-Rostrom-190...@ip163-63.neiu.edu>,
>>Rich Rostrom <R-Ro...@neiu.edu> wrote:
>
>> That's where IMO RAH makes a mistake. Power corrupts. I know of
>>no government in the world ever that this is not the case, except small
>>tribal societys where people live at a subsistance level.
>
>Then it is hopeless and Starship Troopers is as good as the alternatives
>since the rulers are always going to be corrupt.
No, St provides for _more_ corruption, since to be able to vote,
you ahve to pass through service, whic, if you don't seem the sprt to
voted the 'right' way can be fatal, or rigged so you'll always fail. The
current franchise in the USA is at least not parceled out by the cronys
of the current ruling class.
>> I simply can't belive that once you give people power over others
>>there won't be someone(s) using it to thier own advantage. Military
>>service and History and Moral Philosophy classes to the contrary.
>
>Of course they are. The goal is not perfection, it is adequate. Power
>always exists, and someone always uses it to their own advantage. So?
>The goal is to minimize this, or to maximize the extent to which people
>see their own advantage and societies as the same.
And how would Henleins system prevent the opposite from
happening?
>
>You have said nothing to explain why RAH's system would not be better than
>others at both of these goals. (I do not think it would be better, but this
>has to go as unsuported oppinion, you seem to take the inferiority as
>axiomatic, and I see no support for this position.)
>
No, not inferior, but more open to corruprion, and abuse of
power. Once a selsct group (veterans) ahs the sole voting power _and_ the
power to decide what service (testing helicopter ejection seats?) that
every new voter has, thay have total controll. They can pass laws
benefiting themselves socialy and economicaly, they could pass a 'non
veterans to the back of the bus' law. They could rescind the constitution
and make everyone wear propellor beanie caps. The vote _and_ the power
(not directly, but in effect) to decide who gets the vote. That's not
inherently worse than our own system, but it's ton's easyer to set things
up so everything goes they way those in controll want it to.
>>>RAH commented on the reaction to _Starship Troopers_ in _Expanded
>>>Universe_. It drew enormous amounts of "fan mail" - almost all of it
>>>hostile, and almost all of the hostility "based on a failure to
>>>understand simple English indicative sentences, couched in simple words."
>
>>>This failure is clearly shared by Mr. Caldwell - or perhaps it should
>>>be Professor Caldwell - RAH noted that his most illiterate critics
>>>were professors of English.
>
>> Well, for me, I never knocked his ideas as workable _if_ you
>>assume that the veterans of whatever federal service weren't greedy
>>bastards. It's just that I dissagree with the book that this process will
>>produce non-corrupt types who are somehow going to work for the
>>betterment of society, as oposed to thier own good.
>
>In some areas it is stated 80% of the adult population are veterns, the
>lowest value is 3% IIRC. This is too large a pool for a single vote
>to have the effect that you seem to give it credit for, the greedy bastards
>may well cancel out to the same extent that they do in our society. And
>there may be fewer of them with the vote.
>
So, re-draw the voting districts. And who said the greedy
bastards in the US have canceled eachother out? have you taken a look at
politics lately? Our govenment sucks, but from my view, it's the _least_
sucky one out there. Much of this is (IMO) due to the checks and
ballances, and the vast number of voters we've got with differing views.
Sinboy
>DougL
>
>
>
Justin T. Broderick
Rich Rostrom wrote:
[...]
> It is _not_ a military dictatorship - no member of the military has _any_
> political power, and it is not a dictatorship.
>
> people who cared about the interests of society, and put _them_ into
But they are only the people who "cared about the interests of society"
because they say they are. What exclusive government class wouldn't
describe itself that way? And they say it over and over again in History
and Moral Philosophy classes, which seem very much like indoctrination to
me.
Of course anyone can join and get the vote, but the government they
maintain seems to be very concerned with pounding some ideas into young
people's heads. I don't know whether it's a repressive society or not,
there's not enough info in the book. But all that H&MP stuff was creepy.
jtb
Graydon
>Graydon <gra...@gooroos.com> wrote:
>>In article <5tfb5u$7...@s10.math.uah.edu>,
>>Doug Lampert <lam...@s10.math.uah.edu> wrote:
>>>>good sized block together and you've got the ability to amke laws that
>>>>influence buisness.
>>
>>law.
>>
> This is a grey area. I'd presumed they did have that power.
Why? It's a _federal_ government.
>Anyhow, they must have the power to tax people. Im not sure if it'd be a
Again, not necessarily; it might be a tax on governments.
>flat, graded or value added tax, but the've got to pay for the neato
>keeno MI suits somehow.
> If the government dosen't like you *WHAMO* you're taxed out of
>oblivion.
How? The _Federal_ government, with representatives from multiple worlds?
Exactly how to you propose to build a consensus in that group to tax some
particular minority on earth into oblivion? How do you expect to get this
past the courts? The principled (you have to _pass_ H&MP to receive a
commission, not just take it) former officers?
How does the government _last_ long enough to tax you into oblivion? It's
desperately hard to do what you intend to do with tax law at the best of
times, people are good at playing with categories.
>>Technically a meritocracy.
>>
> Yeah, but in theory they grant fed service to anyone who asks,
>right?
Asks and lasts.
>>Power exercised for the sake of power corrupts; power you have a
>>commesurate use for certainly need not corrupt.
>>
> Those who seek power are, in the majority, seeking to excercise
>that power for thier own gain.
Care to back that up?
It does not appear to be the case that the primary motivation for most
persons entering the civil service at the present time, frex.
> I still fail to see how the ST political system does this any
>better than the current US system, and how it's _not_ inherently more
>open to abuse.
The current US political system is set up to recognize money, plain and
simple; it has institutionalized bribery.
We don't _know_ what the :Starship Troopers: political system is; it is
certainly possible to imagine a Federal system that has the franchise
rules given that works much, much better than the current US system; if,
frex, the voters have a meaningful right of refusal as applied to
government measures.
>>It is generally better to have a ruling class that has experienced
>>hardship personally, and to have one that recognizes that making the pie
>>larger works better than fighting over relative size of the slice one has.
>
> 'hardship'? who's to say that there isn't a 'lounge chair and
>bannana daquiri testing' service job? If the people in power want to give
The great majority of the people with nasty, unpleasant jobs, and the
people who _did_ have nasty, unpleasant jobs, and who have self images
that sugguest that this was important and valuable.
>a special benifit, they are empowered to create just such a job, and no
>non-voter can stop them.
Why wouldn't the voters (who didn't get this benefit and can't, becuase
they've completed their service) want to stop them?
>>As for 'greedy bastards'; look at what Federal Service does to your
>>lifetime expectation of income, it's worse than Grad School.
>
> I can't remember the exact way the book works it, but do _all_
>fed service jobs pay the same? Why not a lounge-chair-and-bannana-daquiri
>-tester-with-a-six-figure-salary fed service job?
They all pay badly compared to the equivalent civilian job, although
the disability pensions appear pretty good.
> Vote with us, get the lounge chair, vote against us, get the
>'ejection seat on a helicopter tester job' Sounds simple to me. After
>all, with those MI suits who's to stop the government?
But they _can't vote_; they can only vote _after_.
How do you predict which ones are worth bribing? The ones who don't
survive their service won't be worth the effort, after all.
And, well, trying to use MI as some sort of riot police is laughable; they
don't have the endurance, the equipment, or the skills, and are quite
utterly dependent on a very large logistical tail, those suits break and
wear out and need maintenance. (the the real maintenance specialists are
Navy, not Army, guys.)
rsf...@uncg.edu
In article <sZd+z0O5...@teleport.com>, lar...@teleport.com (Larry
Caldwell) writes:
>Anyway, after rereading this mess, I am confident that it was written at
>the level of the average Hollywood sci-fi flic. There isn't much the
>screenwriters can do to hurt it, and they might actually add some dialog
>and make it a better story.
>
>The only reason anyone reads Starship Troopers is because it has Heinlein's
>name on it. It is the worst thing he wrote by several orders of magnitude.
>By any other author it would never have seen reprint.
Can you say "Troll," ladies and gentlemen?
I knew you could.
---
Rob Furr's .sig is at http://www.uncg.edu/~rsfurr/
Joshua Jasper
In article <5tg6h0$p...@excalibur.gooroos.com>,
Graydon <gra...@gooroos.com> wrote:
>In article <sinboyEF...@netcom.com>,
>Joshua Jasper <sin...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <5tffnb$m...@excalibur.gooroos.com>,
>>Graydon <gra...@gooroos.com> wrote:
>>>In article <5tfb5u$7...@s10.math.uah.edu>,
>>>Doug Lampert <lam...@s10.math.uah.edu> wrote:
>>>>> More the fool they, the vote guaranteas political power. Get a
>>>>>good sized block together and you've got the ability to amke laws that
>>>>>influence buisness.
>>>
>>>Not necessarily; the legislature might not have the power to make merchant
>>>law.
>>>
>> This is a grey area. I'd presumed they did have that power.
>
>Why? It's a _federal_ government.
Because politics in general is looked on as a fools game, by
Juan's father. I think it's a logical assumption
>
>>Anyhow, they must have the power to tax people. Im not sure if it'd be a
>
>Again, not necessarily; it might be a tax on governments.
>
>>flat, graded or value added tax, but the've got to pay for the neato
>>keeno MI suits somehow.
>> If the government dosen't like you *WHAMO* you're taxed out of
>>oblivion.
>
>How? The _Federal_ government, with representatives from multiple worlds?
>Exactly how to you propose to build a consensus in that group to tax some
>particular minority on earth into oblivion? How do you expect to get this
>past the courts? The principled (you have to _pass_ H&MP to receive a
>commission, not just take it) former officers?
>
Local ledgeslature. With political slots taken up by locals.
>How does the government _last_ long enough to tax you into oblivion? It's
>desperately hard to do what you intend to do with tax law at the best of
>times, people are good at playing with categories.
>
Yeah, but if it's a govenment that a non veteran can't change it
can make any law it wants.
>>>Technically a meritocracy.
>>>
>> Yeah, but in theory they grant fed service to anyone who asks,
>>right?
>
>Asks and lasts.
>
Hmm, true, a meritocracy it is then.
>>>Power exercised for the sake of power corrupts; power you have a
>>>commesurate use for certainly need not corrupt.
>>>
>> Those who seek power are, in the majority, seeking to excercise
>>that power for thier own gain.
>
>Care to back that up?
>
Take a look at congress.
>It does not appear to be the case that the primary motivation for most
>persons entering the civil service at the present time, frex.
>
Not civil service, politics.
>> I still fail to see how the ST political system does this any
>>better than the current US system, and how it's _not_ inherently more
>>open to abuse.
>
>The current US political system is set up to recognize money, plain and
>simple; it has institutionalized bribery.
>
And the ST system would take it a step further.
>We don't _know_ what the :Starship Troopers: political system is; it is
>certainly possible to imagine a Federal system that has the franchise
>rules given that works much, much better than the current US system; if,
>frex, the voters have a meaningful right of refusal as applied to
>government measures.
>
True, this is all so much conjecture, but it is a fun debate, and
at least I'm not saying it was a lousy book, or that RAH was a sexist
facist warhawk like so many others.
>>>It is generally better to have a ruling class that has experienced
>>>hardship personally, and to have one that recognizes that making the pie
>>>larger works better than fighting over relative size of the slice one has.
>>
>> 'hardship'? who's to say that there isn't a 'lounge chair and
>>bannana daquiri testing' service job? If the people in power want to give
>
>The great majority of the people with nasty, unpleasant jobs, and the
>people who _did_ have nasty, unpleasant jobs, and who have self images
>that sugguest that this was important and valuable.
>
>>a special benifit, they are empowered to create just such a job, and no
>>non-voter can stop them.
>
>Why wouldn't the voters (who didn't get this benefit and can't, becuase
>they've completed their service) want to stop them?
>
'cos they get special tax benefits? a weeklong full payed
'reunion' with theri service buddies on the pleasure planet zarquon? any
number of reasons.
>>>As for 'greedy bastards'; look at what Federal Service does to your
>>>lifetime expectation of income, it's worse than Grad School.
>>
>> I can't remember the exact way the book works it, but do _all_
>>fed service jobs pay the same? Why not a lounge-chair-and-bannana-daquiri
>>-tester-with-a-six-figure-salary fed service job?
>
>They all pay badly compared to the equivalent civilian job, although
>the disability pensions appear pretty good.
>
Still, the economic benefits of getting into politics if it _is_
corrupt outweigh the short term detriments.
>> Vote with us, get the lounge chair, vote against us, get the
>>'ejection seat on a helicopter tester job' Sounds simple to me. After
>>all, with those MI suits who's to stop the government?
>
>But they _can't vote_; they can only vote _after_.
>
Well, once you've bought someone with the cushy job, what reason
has he to turn against you? if he votes your way after his term is up, he
can get _more_ benefits.
>How do you predict which ones are worth bribing? The ones who don't
>survive their service won't be worth the effort, after all.
>
>And, well, trying to use MI as some sort of riot police is laughable; they
>don't have the endurance, the equipment, or the skills, and are quite
>utterly dependent on a very large logistical tail, those suits break and
>wear out and need maintenance. (the the real maintenance specialists are
>Navy, not Army, guys.)
>
>
They'd be realy usefull in keeping down a plantary revolution,
though.
Sinboy
Larry Caldwell
In article <33FA6E...@erols.com>,
John & Linda VanSickle <vans...@erols.com> wrote:
> They are denied the franchise, but they are not treated as slaves. BTW,
> military service was not the only way to earn the franchise; one signed up
> for two years of Federal Service, which could have been military, or if
> one's talents were more useful elsewhere, in some other capacity.
Not true. Military service is the only way to earn a franchise. The
military is required to accept all comers and provide a term of service
for them, but there is no other way to gain citizenship. You're thinking
like JFK, not RAH. No alternative service here.
> In high school, taking the class was mandatory; learning anything in it is
> not, and this was made explicitly clear in the book. And I recall no
> requirement that a retired military member teach the class.
Page 22.
"He meant our instructor in History and Moral Philosophy -- a veteran,
naturally."
> Now I know why you've been making all of these mistakes. You haven't read
> the book. The infantry DID have support troops. The book covered situations
> where air cover could not be effectively used (remember, the bugs live
> underground), and orbital observation was likewise useless. There was
> ground intel in the book.
If the bugs are all underground, how did they nuke Buenos Aires, and why
are we fighting them in the first place? The fact is, they are a space-
faring civilization, and Heinlein proposes to attack them with no air
cover. He sends in mechanized infantry with no support, and has ground
troops repairing their own armor with parts cannibalized from casualties.
He also goes on at great length about unit efficiency, and the 100% drop
rate. The unit repairs and maintains their own battle suits. There is
no medevac; no aid at all except for soldiers dropping out of battle to
drag their own casualties to the pickup point.
If you want to study how a competent military leader handles an operation,
take a look at Schwartzkopf and Desert Storm. No unit went into action
without multiple levels of redundant support and the absolute best
intelligence available gleaned from ground, air and orbital recons. The
operation was nowhere near as simple as he made it look. He assaulted
the fourth largest army in the world on it's own soil and sustained
almost zero casualties. That's a general who knows his business.
Granted, some of the technology is new, but the concepts were pretty well
worked out by the end of WWII.
> > Heinlein should have read up on military tactics before trying to write
> > about the subject.
> And you should read the book before commenting on it.
I think my comments are supportable.
-- Larry
Bob Goudreau
Doug Lampert (lam...@s10.math.uah.edu) wrote:
: Last I heard US eligable voters were well under half the population.
References, please? I have a hard time believing that less than 50
percent of the population consists of non-felon adult citizens.
Perhaps you are confusing eligible voters with *registered* voters,
or even with *actual* voters?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation
goud...@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive
+1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
Doug Lampert
In article <5thlvb$a...@dg-rtp.dg.com>,
Bob Goudreau <goud...@dg-rtp.dg.com> wrote:
>Doug Lampert (lam...@s10.math.uah.edu) wrote:
>
>: Last I heard US eligable voters were well under half the population.
>
>References, please? I have a hard time believing that less than 50
>percent of the population consists of non-felon adult citizens.
>Perhaps you are confusing eligible voters with *registered* voters,
>or even with *actual* voters?
Total population includes aliens, minors, residents of Puerto Rico and other
teritories and those rendered ineligable by other circumstances (principly
criminal conviction or mental incompetence).
[Some states many also still have residency requirements, I do not know.]
Criminal conviction only acounts for a small fraction of disenfranchised
residents. Especially since some states allow convicts to vote, and many
allow those who have served their time to vote.
Total population is well over 250,000,000.
The last estimate of total eligable voters I saw was 108,000,000.
If you wish to dispute these figures feel free. Both will be too low for
today.
DougL
Francis A. Ney, Jr.
In article <sinboyEF...@netcom.com> sin...@netcom.com writes:
> >Then it is hopeless and Starship Troopers is as good as the alternatives
> >since the rulers are always going to be corrupt.
>
> No, St provides for _more_ corruption, since to be able to vote,
> you ahve to pass through service, whic, if you don't seem the sprt to
> voted the 'right' way can be fatal, or rigged so you'll always fail. The
> current franchise in the USA is at least not parceled out by the cronys
> of the current ruling class.
Gee, here's someone who never lived in Crook, I mean "Cook" County. . .
Either that or he has a serious cranial-rectal inversion.
---
Frank Ney WV/EMT-B VA/EMT-A N4ZHG LPWV NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO
Sponsor, BATF Abuse page http://www.access.digex.net/~croaker/batfabus.html
West Virginia Coordinator, Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
NOTICE: Flaming email received will be posted to the appropriate newsgroups
- --
"Whether the authorities be invaders or merely local tyrants, the
effect of such [gun] laws is to place the individual at the mercy of
the state, unable to resist."
- Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning _Red Planet_
Rich Rostrom
lar...@teleport.com (Larry Caldwell) wrote:
> John & Linda VanSickle <vans...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > They are denied the franchise, but they are not treated as slaves. BTW,
> > military service was not the only way to earn the franchise; one signed up
> > for two years of Federal Service, which could have been military, or if
> > one's talents were more useful elsewhere, in some other capacity.
>
> Not true. Military service is the only way to earn a franchise. The
> military is required to accept all comers and provide a term of service
> for them, but there is no other way to gain citizenship. You're thinking
> like JFK, not RAH. No alternative service here.
"It says that everybody, male and female, shall have his born right to pay
his service and assume full citizenship - but the facts are that we are
getting hard pushed to find things for all the volunteers to do that aren't
just glorified K.P. You can't all be real military men; we don't need that
many..."
page 27, the Fleet Sergeant at the recruiting center to Carl, Carmen,
and Johnny.
> > ...(remember, the bugs live
> > underground), and orbital observation was likewise useless. There was
> > ground intel in the book.
>
> If the bugs are all underground, how did they nuke Buenos Aires, and why
> are we fighting them in the first place?
The Bugs _live_ underground. Before the MI go in, anything the Bugs
have above ground (such as starships, spaceports, or atmosphere craft)
would be destroyed by bombardment. The MI's job is like that of Marines
in the Pacific war: go in and dig the enemy out of his tunnels, bunkers,
and caves. This is a job that _only_ infantry can do. It is a job that
aerial recon and similar tools aren't really relevant to.
On the other hand, during the raid on the Skinnies, Johnny has a map
of the target area on one of his helmet displays. Where did that
intel come from?
> The fact is, they are a space-faring civilization, and Heinlein proposes
> to attack them with no air cover.
See above.
Define 'air cover'. It seems pretty clear to me that when the MI go in,
the space around the target planet is Navy-controlled. Navy ships in low
orbit provide the 'air cover' and 'air support'. If the Bugs launch
atmosphere flyers from underground, the Navy shoots them down from
orbit - if the MI need a target bombed, the Navy does that from orbit
too. OK, this isn't stated explicitly - but it makes at least as much
sense as your claim that RAH completely ignored the issue of 'air cover.'
RAH was very sanguine about the military potential of space. He wrote
at one time that "'Gravity gauge' will be as important as 'wind gauge'
was in the age of sailing ships", i.e. if you are gravitationally above
your enemy you have a decisive tactical advantage, much as being upwind
was for sailing warships.
> He sends in mechanized infantry with no support, and has ground
> troops repairing their own armor with parts cannibalized from casualties.
> He also goes on at great length about unit efficiency, and the 100% drop
> rate. The unit repairs and maintains their own battle suits.
Personally I don't think this was reasonable. But if you had read the book,
you might have noticed RAH's scathing comments about the absurd teeth-to-
tail ration of 20th century armies - meaning the US army in particular,
which in WW II and later had 5 to 7 'support personnel' for every fighting
man. RAH thought it was absurd to have an army 80% of which doesn't fight -
so he described an army 100% of which fought.
John & Linda VanSickle
Joshua Jasper wrote:
>
> In article <5tffnb$m...@excalibur.gooroos.com>,
> Graydon <gra...@gooroos.com> wrote:
> >In article <5tfb5u$7...@s10.math.uah.edu>,
> >Doug Lampert <lam...@s10.math.uah.edu> wrote:
> >>>good sized block together and you've got the ability to amke laws that
> >>>influence buisness.
> >
> >law.
> >
> This is a grey area. I'd presumed they did have that power.
> keeno MI suits somehow.
> If the government dosen't like you *WHAMO* you're taxed out of
> oblivion.
As if this wasn't already true for every other form of government.
> >>> Ok, a governmet ruled by veterans, an oligarchy of sorts, or
> >>>would the term be meritocracy. Any poli-sci majors out there?
> >
> >Technically a meritocracy.
> >
> Yeah, but in theory they grant fed service to anyone who asks,
> right?
>
> >>The term is republic. Most republics have voting requirements, many have
> >>had far stricter requirements than in Starship Troopers (in Athens, Rome, or
> >>early US history there was a property requirement + required militia duties).
> >
> >Republic also implies certain things about the structure of the
> >government, and we don't know anything about that; we just know about the
> >franchise requirements.
> >
> >>> That's where IMO RAH makes a mistake. Power corrupts. I know of
> >
> >Power exercised for the sake of power corrupts; power you have a
> >commesurate use for certainly need not corrupt.
> >
> Those who seek power are, in the majority, seeking to excercise
> that power for thier own gain.
It is the POWER that a government has that corrupts it, and not the nature
of the obstacles that are placed to prevent the abuse of that power.
If you give an unnecessary power to your government (or do nothing when
it assumes such without any regular citizen's consent), those who see a
benefit from abusing it will seek to do so, and they will eventually
overcome every obstacle placed in their path.
> >It is generally better to have a ruling class that has experienced
> >hardship personally, and to have one that recognizes that making the pie
> >larger works better than fighting over relative size of the slice one has.
>
> 'hardship'? who's to say that there isn't a 'lounge chair and
> bannana daquiri testing' service job? If the people in power want to give
> a special benifit, they are empowered to create just such a job, and no
> non-voter can stop them.
Since the Federation constitution is not available for our examination, we
can only speculate whether or not the ST government actually had this power.
> >As for 'greedy bastards'; look at what Federal Service does to your
> >lifetime expectation of income, it's worse than Grad School.
>
> I can't remember the exact way the book works it, but do _all_
> fed service jobs pay the same? Why not a lounge-chair-and-bannana-daquiri
> -tester-with-a-six-figure-salary fed service job?
>
> Vote with us, get the lounge chair, vote against us, get the
> 'ejection seat on a helicopter tester job' Sounds simple to me. After
> all, with those MI suits who's to stop the government?
Since the jobs are assigned BEFORE the individual in question was granted
the franchise, this is a straw man.
Joshua Jasper
In article <znr872178558k@Digex>,
Francis A. Ney, Jr. <cro...@access.digex.net> wrote:
>
>In article <sinboyEF...@netcom.com> sin...@netcom.com writes:
>
>> >Then it is hopeless and Starship Troopers is as good as the alternatives
>> >since the rulers are always going to be corrupt.
>>
>> No, St provides for _more_ corruption, since to be able to vote,
>> you ahve to pass through service, whic, if you don't seem the sprt to
>> voted the 'right' way can be fatal, or rigged so you'll always fail. The
>> current franchise in the USA is at least not parceled out by the cronys
>> of the current ruling class.
>
>Gee, here's someone who never lived in Crook, I mean "Cook" County. . .
>
>Either that or he has a serious cranial-rectal inversion.
>
on a rational discussion without resorting to name calling. Nice job.
Sinboy
Bob Riemenschneider
In article <iaz+z0O5...@teleport.com> lar...@teleport.com (Larry
Caldwell) writes:
> Not true. Military service is the only way to earn a franchise. ...
Rich Rostrom already supplied the quotation to show real military service
is a proper subset of Federal Service. [I added the qualifier "real"
because, as Jim Gifford has persuasively argued, even the non-military
service is military-like in some respects. Heinlein's claim that most
veterans are what we would call `former members of the civil service' is
somewhat misleading -- Jim says "wrong", but I don't think that's
justified -- in that Federal Service positions aren't *typical* civil
service positions. However, it is undeniably the case that not all
Federal Service positions involve soldiering.]
> > In high school, taking the class was mandatory; learning anything in it is
> > not, and this was made explicitly clear in the book. And I recall no
> > requirement that a retired military member teach the class.
>
> Page 22.
>
> "He meant our instructor in History and Moral Philosophy -- a veteran,
> naturally."
Just to complete the argument, in this case, "veteran" means veteran of
the Federal Service, not veteran of the military: "Of course we had known
he [i.e., Mr. Dubois] was a veteran since History and Moral Philosophy
must be taught by a *citizen*." (Ch. VI, emphasis added)
-- rar
Mjs68508
>> It has always seemed to me that this political system is the cause of
most
>> of the criticism of this book. Indeed many have accused RAH of being a
>> facist based on this book.
>
>Including the producer of the movie, who said it on record.
>
>
These books were written before he finally got to visit Russia. Up
until then he was enamored with Russia as a model government. After his
visit, he realized how bankrupt their (and his) ideology was and
repudiated it.
Mike
http://users.aol.com/gam68508/index4.htm
(Pacific War, Third Reich - PC, War on the Sea, War in Europe)
Francis A. Ney, Jr.
> >> No, St provides for _more_ corruption, since to be able to vote,
> >> you ahve to pass through service, whic, if you don't seem the sprt to
> >> voted the 'right' way can be fatal, or rigged so you'll always fail. The
> >> current franchise in the USA is at least not parceled out by the cronys
> >> of the current ruling class.
> >
> >Gee, here's someone who never lived in Crook, I mean "Cook" County. . .
> >
> >Either that or he has a serious cranial-rectal inversion.
> >
> Aha. the first few harsh words tossed out, guess you can't cary
> on a rational discussion without resorting to name calling. Nice job.
I carry on rational discussions with people who are rational.
Sorry. You come nowhere close to qualifying.
Bill McHale
Francis A. Ney, Jr. (cro...@access.digex.net) wrote:
: In article <sinboyEF...@netcom.com> sin...@netcom.com writes:
: > >Then it is hopeless and Starship Troopers is as good as the alternatives
: > >since the rulers are always going to be corrupt.
: >
: > No, St provides for _more_ corruption, since to be able to vote,
: > you ahve to pass through service, whic, if you don't seem the sprt to
: > voted the 'right' way can be fatal, or rigged so you'll always fail. The
: > current franchise in the USA is at least not parceled out by the cronys
: > of the current ruling class.
: Gee, here's someone who never lived in Crook, I mean "Cook" County. . .
Yep Cook county had some of the most generous voting requirements in
history; you could be dead and still not loose your right to vote.
Francis A. Ney, Jr.
In article <19970822130...@ladder01.news.aol.com> mjs6...@aol.com writes:
> These books were written before he finally got to visit Russia. Up
> until then he was enamored with Russia as a model government. After his
> visit, he realized how bankrupt their (and his) ideology was and
> repudiated it.
Would you like some salt to go with that foot?
Larry Caldwell
In article <5tkbhg$s...@news.umbc.edu>, wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale) wrote:
> Larry Caldwell (lar...@teleport.com) wrote:
: He also goes on at great length about unit efficiency, and the 100% drop
: rate. The unit repairs and maintains their own battle suits. There is
: no medevac; no aid at all except for soldiers dropping out of battle to
: drag their own casualties to the pickup point.
> Sort of like the Vietnam war.
Exactly. The Viet Nam war was a textbook example of political incompetency
in the face of battle. It butchered thousands of young American men in the
name of political expediency.
: If you want to study how a competent military leader handles an operation,
: take a look at Schwartzkopf and Desert Storm. No unit went into action
: without multiple levels of redundant support and the absolute best
: intelligence available gleaned from ground, air and orbital recons. The
: operation was nowhere near as simple as he made it look. He assaulted
: the fourth largest army in the world on it's own soil and sustained
: almost zero casualties. That's a general who knows his business.
> Actually if I remember correctly most of the tactics were developed during
> the Cold War to fight the numerically superior Russian Army.
No, he worked out the details in Viet Nam, as a batallion commander being
cut to shreds by the ARVN with no support. He watched good men die because
some fat-assed paper pusher back in Washington didn't know the first thing
about running a war.
As a military operation, Desert Storm was a textbook demonstration of
just how incompetent the generals and admirals of the 1960's and 1970's
really were.
-- Larry
Dennis Mccunney
** From Larry Caldwell to All on 19 Aug 97 18:04:00
** Starship Troopers - the novel
>> ** From jim...@acpub.duke.edu to All on 16 Aug 97 15:19:00
>
>> ji> How about risking your life for the sake of others without stooping
>> ji> to the destruction of life and property. Firefighters do it all the
>> ji> time.
>> They usually aren't being shot at when they do so. What happens if you
>> *are* being shot at?
> I think it's been a while since you read the book. The reason Johnny
> enlisted was to buy his citizenship. Non-veterans are denied the
I reread it within the past few years. Johnny has no such thoughts upon
enlisting: he does so because his friends Carl and Carmen do. And by
the end of the book, he has gone career military and become an officer,
thus delaying his receipt of the franchise indefinitely, since it is
explicitly stated that you don't *get* the vote until you *retire* from
the military, and MI types seem to "die with their boots on" more often
than not.
> franchise and treated as an enslaved population. Heinlein cheerfully
How long has it been since *you* read it? This is your interpolation
based upon your suppositions about how such a system would have to
work. It is *not* supported by the text. Note that Johnny is the son
of a *wealthy* manufacturer, whose company starts bidding on military
contracts as hostilities break out, and that his father is proud of his
non-citizen status. Johnny's friends are also non-citizens, since you
get the vote by serving a term of service, and none of them have when
the book begins. This hardly comes off as an "enslaved" population,
unless you have a rather broad idea of what slavery is.
Also note that *anyone* who wishes can sign up for a term and earn the
franchise. The tests administered are for the purpose of determining
what sort of service you are able to perform. The only way to *fail*
the test is to be proven psychologically incapable of understanding the
oath of service. That so few of Johnny's peers sign up (the figure is
stated later as averaging about 3% on Terra) can be taken as an
indication that the non-citizens, by and large, aren't displeased with
their lot. Again, this doesn't come off as an enslaved population.
> points out that the reason there has never been a revolution is that
> all the soldiers are in control. He sees military dictatorship as a
> wonderful, stable institution.
The exact political structure is not clearly delineated, but "military
dictatorship" it isn't. Note that you earn the right to *vote* by
serving a term in Federal Service, and that such service does not have
to be in the military. Voting implies a democracy, with the
qualification in ST that you have to earn the right to vote, instead of
getting it automatically when you reach a certain age. Dictatorship
implies no vote at all.
That there should have been no revolution against Heinlein's system in
ST is unsurprising: those unable or unwilling to invest the effort
needed to earn the franchise can hardly be expected to put forth the
vastly greater effort a revolution would require.
> There are many forms of human responsibility, and many occupations
> worthy of respect. Firefighters are certainly one, but so is the
> farmer who bets his farm every year on seeds and rainfall, or the nun
> who takes a vow of poverty and obedience in service to her god.
> Suggesting that these people should be denied citizenship is
> contemptible.
The book doesn't, nor does Heinlein anywhere else. All _Starship
Troopers_ does is require the inhabitants of its particular universe
to earn a vote by performing a public service first. Firefighters,
farmers, and nuns could all do this, if they desired. (Firefighter, in
fact, could be one of the "reserved" jobs alluded to, like cop, which
you can only get by having served a term.) It is explicitly stated
that anyone who wants to can sign up and serve a term; that the
government will try to find some service they are capable of
performing, and that they will get the franchise upon completion. The
service won't be easy, and they will have to work for it: part of the
point is to make the franchise valuable to them because they had to
expend some effort to get it.
> Even the military ruling class has to be kept in line through "moral
> philosophy" classes, since they can't be relied on to come to
> politically correct conclusions without indoctrination. The officer
> corps has to undertake a particularly rigorous course in "moral
> philosophy," and anybody who doesn't toe the party line is washed out.
The fundamental question in the military courses is "why fight?", and
you better *hope* that folks who can't come up with a good answer to
that one get washed out. These are officers-in-training, after all, and
those who conclude that you shouldn't fight at all have no business in
uniform. Those who conclude that you fight because it's fun, or for
personal power, or because they like violence and bloodshed, or any of
an assortment of other reasons are also poor candidates for the
position of leading others into battle. They'll make poor decisions,
get people killed unnecessarily, and quite possibly bring disaster upon
their society. And note, again, that you don't get the vote till
after you've served your term, and officers are career military. These
folks may not live to exercise the franchise.
> High school instruction in MP is mandatory and has to be taught by
> retired military.
High school instruction in MP is mandatory, but while you have to
*take* it, you *don't* have to *pass* it. And the assumption that it
must be taught by retired military is your interpolation from the fact
that Johnny's MP instructor was a retired MI Lt. Col. I do not recall
it stated in the text that such instructors must come from the
military. (They must be citizens, but that does not require military
service.)
> The book certainly has many other flaws. The military organization is
> laughable - mechanized infantry with no support troops, no
> coordination with air cover, no orbital observation or intelligence.
Define support troops. Rico mentions his interactions with combat
engineers, who are one type of support troop, and alludes to others.
Coordination with air cover, orbital observation, and intelligence are
also touched upon.
> Heinlein should have read up on military tactics before trying to write
> about the subject. He sure didn't learn anything in the Navy. I could
> forgive him the innocent stupidity of his military organization, but
> the active malignance of his political stance deserves some comment.
I'd be happier with your comments if you showed some understanding of
what his political stance actually was. Your comments above read like
those of someone reacting to what someone inaccurately *told* him
Heinlein said, rather than someone who read it first hand. Your
comments certainly aren't supported by the text.
Heinlein's basic philosophical point in what is otherwise a
coming-of-age story is that the right to help determine what your
society does should be an earned privledge, and not a right granted
automatically because you exist and are of a certain age. In Heinlein's
view in this book, those who would lead must first serve, and you get
the right to vote by serving a term of service in some branch of your
government. This does *not* have to be military. Johnny winds up in
the MI because he hasn't learned any skills that qualify him for
service elsewhere. (If you do go military, note that you don't become
an officer without serving time as a grunt first, a bit that cuurrent
militaries might do well to emulate.)
You can argue this contention if you will, but please adress the
fundamental contention, and not the straw man you set up to demolish in
its place. The fundamental question is "how do you ensure a
responsible electorate?", and Heinlein's answer to that question is
"Make them *earn* the right to vote by doing something to benefit their
society first".
Do you have a problem with that idea? If so, what do you propose in
its place? (Or do you consider what we have now to be a responsible
electorate?)
[Email: dmcc...@roper.com]
----
The Lunatic Fringe * Richardson, TX * 972-235-5288
Steve Brinich
Joshua Jasper wrote:
> I can't remember the exact way the book works it, but do _all_ fed
> service jobs pay the same? Why not a lounge-chair-and-bannana-daquiri
> -tester-with-a-six-figure-salary fed service job?
>
> Vote with us, get the lounge chair, vote against us, get the
> 'ejection seat on a helicopter tester job' Sounds simple to me. After
> all, with those MI suits who's to stop the government?
The notion that a government could do this and maintain the loyalty
of the MI people (who know full well that they are earning their
citizenship legitimately, the hard way) is ludicrous on its face.
--
Steve Brinich ste...@access.digex.net If the government wants us
PGP:89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E to respect the law
http://www.access.digex.net/~steve-b it should set a better example
Steve Brinich
John & Linda VanSickle wrote:
> It is the POWER that a government has that corrupts it, and not the nature
> of the obstacles that are placed to prevent the abuse of that power.
>
> If you give an unnecessary power to your government (or do nothing when
> it assumes such without any regular citizen's consent), those who see a
> benefit from abusing it will seek to do so, and they will eventually
> overcome every obstacle placed in their path.
I agree with this assessment; neither the _Starship Troopers_ model nor
any other will keep the rot at bay indefinitely. I don't recall Heinlein
claiming that it would.
The main risk factor for decay of the _ST_ model is probably human
clannishness, leading to a separation between the kind of people who
routinely go through the citizenship process and the kind of people who
routinely don't. Eventually, the two diverge to the point of no longer
considering themselves part of a common society. The results of this
I leave as an excersize for the student.
Steve Brinich
Joshua Jasper wrote:
> Hmm, nice job. I don't agred with you on a point, ergo I'm
> irrational.
When it's a point of indisputable common knowledge (in this case,
the fact that the government of Chicago decides who gets to vote,
even to the point of granting the franchise to the metabolically
inert), this is not altogether unreasonable.
Steve Brinich
Graydon wrote:
> Not necessarily; the legislature might not have the power to make
> merchant law.
The fact that Rico's father sees no reason to pay attention to them
makes it highly probable that they do not make policies that affect
day-to-day business.
Steve Brinich
Rich Rostrom wrote:
> In that year, a pacifist group ran an ad in the Colorado Springs newspaper
> calling for the US to end nuclear weapons testing and negotiate total
> nuclear disarmament. RAH and his wife repsonded by publishing a manifesto
> titled "Who Are The Heirs of Patrick Henry?", in which they advocated
> _continued_ weapons testing and whatever military spending was needed to
> keep the US supreme and safe frmo Communist aggression.
>
> They spent several weeks and a lot of money circulating the manifesto,
> getting citizens to submit signed copies which were mailed to the White
> House (and getting no response).
>
> Eisenhower went ahead and stopped nuclear-weapons testing, much to RAH's
> disgust. And then he wrote _Starship Troopers_.
>
> All this is discussed in his notes in _Expanded Universe_.
I recall this section of _Expanded Universe_ well, since reading it was
one of the few occasions in which I thought RAH made a complete and utter
fool of himself (at best) or was intellectually dishonest (at worst).
The issue at the time was not nuclear testing in general, but
_atmospheric_ nuclear testing in particular. Rather than attempt to
explain the alleged terrible threat to US security that would arise if
we put a lot of dirt on top of A-Bombs before testing them, RAH pretended
that _all_ testing was to be banned.
MN1st
Most states are passing "Defese of Marriage" laws, though. Considering
they're written by men on their 2nd or 3rd marriages (in most cases to
women much younger) it's rather ironic. You'd think if you wanted to
"defend" marriage you'd make it harder to get a divorce, not harder for
some groups to get married.
Look to the cookie!
Steve Brinich
One _big_ chunk of people ineligible voters is missed in the
previous analysis: people who have let their registrations lapse.
John Moreno
Joshua Jasper <sin...@netcom.com> wrote:
] Steve Brinich <ste...@access.digex.net> wrote:
] >Joshua Jasper wrote:
] >
] >> Hmm, nice job. I don't agred with you on a point, ergo I'm
] >> irrational.
] >
] > When it's a point of indisputable common knowledge (in this case,
] >the fact that the government of Chicago decides who gets to vote,
] >even to the point of granting the franchise to the metabolically
] >inert), this is not altogether unreasonable.
]
] Well then he should have pointed that out, instead of calling
] names. As for common knowledge, no, I didn't know.
Hold on a sec, let's quote the original statement and then parse it.
Francis A. Ney, Jr. wrote:
****
> current franchise in the USA is at least not parceled out by the
> cronys of the current ruling class.
Gee, here's someone who never lived in Crook, I mean "Cook" County. . .
Either that or he has a serious cranial-rectal inversion.
****
First part says you've never lived in Cook County and has a implied
statement that Cook County has blatant corruption, i.e. the faux mistake
of writing Crook and then correcting it.
The second part says that IF you HAVE lived in Cook County (eg Chicago)
and are STILL making the statement that the franchise isn't (or rather
can't be) parceled out by the ruling class THEN you've got shit for
brains.
Now if you have in fact lived in Chicago (which apparently you haven't)
and were making this statement then what he wrote would indeed be
insult. But since you haven't, it isn't.
I think this is the same problem that you're having with the novel, you
are reading stuff into that isn't there. Why don't you reread the novel
and underline anything that mentions how the government operates (not
the military but the civilian government). I think you'll find that
it's not really mentioned. Since the 'vote' is earned we know that it
has some kind of voting - see if you can find evidence that it is a
democracy (the citizens vote directly), a republic (they chose reps who
then act for them - not necessarily by voting), or a different system
entirely (say a constitutional monarchy where the citizens only get to
vote some of the leaders, the rest being hereditary or appointed by the
crown). Do former officers get more of a vote than enlisted personnel?
Do enlisted personnel get more of a vote than non-military FS people?
And just because it's not mentioned doesn't mean that it's not so - it
just means that THAT fact wasn't relevant to the general coming of age
story. Positive statements only.
--
John Moreno
Francis A. Ney, Jr.
In article <340220...@access.digex.net> ste...@access.digex.net writes:
> One _big_ chunk of people ineligible voters is missed in the
> previous analysis: people who have let their registrations lapse.
This is a group that will get smaller. Under the federal voting reform law
that got pushed through a while back, you can no longer remove people from the
registration rolls for not voting. Nor can you remove them for dying, unless
you've got paperwork in quadruplicate.
Rich Rostrom
phe...@interpath.com (John Moreno) wrote:
> The second part says that IF you HAVE lived in Cook County (eg Chicago)
> and are STILL making the statement that the franchise isn't (or rather
> can't be) parceled out by the ruling class THEN you've got shit for
> brains.
No, it says you have your head up your ass. Different insult entirely.
Incidentally, as someone who lives in Chicago and has worked on
several political campaigns (against the ruling Democratic organization)
I will state - unconditionally - that there is not much franchise
abuse in the city or in suburban Cook County. I have never heard of
anyone being arbitrarily denied registration. The 'graveyard' vote
is long gone. There are probably a fair number of ineligible persons
registered to vote - mostly aliens, legal and illegal - but not more
than 50,000 at the outside (in a county of 5 million people).
Which is not to say there isn't corruption and manipulation, but it's
far more subtle. RAH wrote in his politics book that large-scale vote
fraud is the sign of a political machine in collapse. An effective
organization works differently. The present Mayor and his clique use
control of city contracts and regulations to raise huge campaign funds,
far outweighing what independents can raise. They also strike deals with
selected "outsiders", providing a community grant here, a renewal
project there, campaign support somewhere else, and prevent any sort
of strong coalition againts them.
What brings a machine or ring down is blatant graft and incompetence,
both of which are absent here. (A flock of Chi aldermen are usually under
indictment at any given moment, but for personal grafting, not for
anything involving the Mayor. This helps him keep the rest in line.)
The political life of _ST_ is regarded, socially, as being about like
Tammany Hall in NY - a minor racket for a bunch of second-raters. The
Rico family is very wealthy, but Rico sr remarks that they have stayed
out of politics for over a hundred years - a 'fine record', in his view.
spam, no spam, la la la la la laaaa*wunsup635@worldnet.att.net Victor
Two points to disagree with you, sorry.
1.) MP must be taught by a vet
2.) all citizens are ex-military. remember that was the whole point of some
people joining.
on your note about the outlands that had no mp class, mp was not a
mandatory class in the federation, just in areas where the populace wanted
it. MP was only mandatory for officers.
vic
Joshua Jasper
In article <R-Rostrom-270...@ip97-61.neiu.edu>,
Rich Rostrom <R-Ro...@neiu.edu> wrote:
>phe...@interpath.com (John Moreno) wrote:
>The political life of _ST_ is regarded, socially, as being about like
>Tammany Hall in NY - a minor racket for a bunch of second-raters. The
>Rico family is very wealthy, but Rico sr remarks that they have stayed
>out of politics for over a hundred years - a 'fine record', in his view.
What gets me is how the Rico's, as a bunch of wealthy buisness
people have managed to avoid being involved in politics. Every big
buisness in the _world_ is involved in politics one way or another. In
this case, amazing as it is, RAH's legendary cynycism dosn't go far
enough! Rico Inc (or whatecer) was rich, and had been for generations
(IIRC) right? Name me one wealthy family that isn't involved in politics.
The Kenedys, The Duponts, The Morgans,the Rosthchilds heck, even the
current crop of neveau rich are working the political angle. And that's
just the US! I dno't see it as likley that they'd give up such
involvement just because politics are declasse. It'd be stupid.
Sinboy
K. Hu
On Thu, 28 Aug 1997 15:42:21 GMT, sin...@netcom.com (Joshua Jasper)
wrote:
> What gets me is how the Rico's, as a bunch of wealthy buisness
>people have managed to avoid being involved in politics. Every big
>buisness in the _world_ is involved in politics one way or another. In
>this case, amazing as it is, RAH's legendary cynycism dosn't go far
>enough! Rico Inc (or whatecer) was rich, and had been for generations
>(IIRC) right? Name me one wealthy family that isn't involved in politics.
>The Kenedys, The Duponts, The Morgans,the Rosthchilds heck, even the
>current crop of neveau rich are working the political angle. And that's
>just the US! I dno't see it as likley that they'd give up such
>involvement just because politics are declasse. It'd be stupid.
Why is it stupid? What would Rico Inc. have to gain from political
involvement?
Andy Mulhearn
On 28 Aug 1997 03:27:00 GMT, "Victor" <*no spam, no spam, la la la la
la laaaa*wuns...@worldnet.att.net> rendered unto us these pearls of
wisdom:
>Two points to disagree with you, sorry.
>
>it. MP was only mandatory for officers.
>
>vic
IMO, MP was mandatory for Officers because it taught them why to
fight, not just how to fight.
Andy
Steve Brinich
Joshua Jasper wrote:
> What gets me is how the Rico's, as a bunch of wealthy buisness
> people have managed to avoid being involved in politics. Every big
> buisness in the _world_ is involved in politics one way or another. In
> this case, amazing as it is, RAH's legendary cynycism dosn't go far
> enough! Rico Inc (or whatecer) was rich, and had been for generations
> (IIRC) right? Name me one wealthy family that isn't involved in politics.
> The Kenedys, The Duponts, The Morgans,the Rosthchilds heck, even the
> current crop of neveau rich are working the political angle. And that's
> just the US! I dno't see it as likley that they'd give up such
> involvement just because politics are declasse. It'd be stupid.
As I pointed out before, this is strong evidence that the government
in _ST_ does not significantly intervene in the economy.
Joshua Jasper
In article <3407d0bd...@news.u.washington.edu>,
K. Hu <nospa...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Aug 1997 15:42:21 GMT, sin...@netcom.com (Joshua Jasper)
>
>> What gets me is how the Rico's, as a bunch of wealthy buisness
>>people have managed to avoid being involved in politics. Every big
>>buisness in the _world_ is involved in politics one way or another. In
>>this case, amazing as it is, RAH's legendary cynycism dosn't go far
>>enough! Rico Inc (or whatecer) was rich, and had been for generations
>>(IIRC) right? Name me one wealthy family that isn't involved in politics.
>>The Kenedys, The Duponts, The Morgans,the Rosthchilds heck, even the
>>current crop of neveau rich are working the political angle. And that's
>>just the US! I dno't see it as likley that they'd give up such
>>involvement just because politics are declasse. It'd be stupid.
>
>involvement?
>
>
involvement? Why do you think they're involved? the answers are
inuumerable: trade concessions, government contracts, favoritism in
lawsuits, etc.. etc...
Sinboy
Ross TenEyck
sin...@netcom.com (Joshua Jasper) writes:
>K. Hu <nospa...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Why is it stupid? What would Rico Inc. have to gain from political
>>involvement?
>>
> What do the current rich companys ahve to gain from political
>involvement? Why do you think they're involved? the answers are
>inuumerable: trade concessions, government contracts, favoritism in
>lawsuits, etc.. etc...
Ah, but the Federal-Service-veteran-run government of the ST universe is so
wise and fair and uncorrupt that political favoritism for one business over
another is unheard of...
It is interesting that, for a book arguing that a superior government
would arise from only allowing people of (supposedly) demonstrable civic
virtue to vote, we see practically nothing of this government in action...
how do we know it's superior? Just about all we know about the ST
government is:
They believe in corporal and capital punishment
They are willing to go to war with an alien race
...neither of which necessarily demonstrates excellence in government.
(Not that they're incompatible with it; they just don't demonstrate it.)
--
================== http://weber.u.washington.edu/~teneyck/ =================
Ross TenEyck Seattle WA | I saw a dragon in the shape of a kite, riding
ten...@u.washington.edu | the wind ribbon-wise to amuse the children;
Tsuki ni kawatte oshioki yo! | he winked at me from one golden eye.
Joshua Jasper
In article <340648...@access.digex.net>,
Steve Brinich <ste...@access.digex.net> wrote:
>Joshua Jasper wrote:
>
>> What gets me is how the Rico's, as a bunch of wealthy buisness
>> people have managed to avoid being involved in politics. Every big
>> buisness in the _world_ is involved in politics one way or another. In
>> this case, amazing as it is, RAH's legendary cynycism dosn't go far
>> enough! Rico Inc (or whatecer) was rich, and had been for generations
>> (IIRC) right? Name me one wealthy family that isn't involved in politics.
>> The Kenedys, The Duponts, The Morgans,the Rosthchilds heck, even the
>> current crop of neveau rich are working the political angle. And that's
>> just the US! I dno't see it as likley that they'd give up such
>> involvement just because politics are declasse. It'd be stupid.
>
>in _ST_ does not significantly intervene in the economy.
Why in Ghods name would big buisness give up government influence?
Sinboy
K. Hu
On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 01:28:19 GMT, sin...@netcom.com (Joshua Jasper)
wrote:
>In article <3407d0bd...@news.u.washington.edu>,
>K. Hu <nospa...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>On Thu, 28 Aug 1997 15:42:21 GMT, sin...@netcom.com (Joshua Jasper)
>>
>>> What gets me is how the Rico's, as a bunch of wealthy buisness
>>>people have managed to avoid being involved in politics. Every big
>>>buisness in the _world_ is involved in politics one way or another. In
>>>this case, amazing as it is, RAH's legendary cynycism dosn't go far
>>>enough! Rico Inc (or whatecer) was rich, and had been for generations
>>>(IIRC) right? Name me one wealthy family that isn't involved in politics.
>>>The Kenedys, The Duponts, The Morgans,the Rosthchilds heck, even the
>>>current crop of neveau rich are working the political angle. And that's
>>>just the US! I dno't see it as likley that they'd give up such
>>>involvement just because politics are declasse. It'd be stupid.
>>
>>involvement?
>>
> What do the current rich companys ahve to gain from political
>involvement?
Starship Troopers, now do they? You are arguing about a fictional
system based upon assumptions grounded in our system. The two are
seperate and different, and thus your thinking does not necessarily
apply to _ST_.
>Why do you think they're involved? the answers are
>inuumerable: trade concessions, government contracts, favoritism in
>lawsuits, etc.. etc...
What little of the government Heinlein describes in Starship Troopers
is laissez-faire. This description, coupled with the apparent lack of
big business political influence supports the theory that big business
in _ST_ simply doesn't *need* political influences, because they can't
do much for business anyway.
Joshua Jasper
In article <340887ce...@news.u.washington.edu>,
Actualy, my primary pint was that such a system in the real world
would be more open to corruption than the current near-democratic models
we've got (parlimentary or republic).
>
>>Why do you think they're involved? the answers are
>>inuumerable: trade concessions, government contracts, favoritism in
>>lawsuits, etc.. etc...
>
>What little of the government Heinlein describes in Starship Troopers
>is laissez-faire. This description, coupled with the apparent lack of
>big business political influence supports the theory that big business
>in _ST_ simply doesn't *need* political influences, because they can't
>do much for business anyway.
Then in that case, someone went about making laws to prevent
government having influence over buisness. An admirable goal, but one
unlikley to happen in reality. Also a reason true libertarian politics
probably won't get a toe-hold in politics: can you imagine big buisness
giving up thier government influence without a huge fight? Or for that
matter, organized labor? It'd take abolishing what favorable treatment
big buisness gets from the government, and minimum wage and other
concessions in the case of labor. A nice proposition, but one that isn't
realistic.
Sinboy
Tom Carman
sin...@netcom.com (Joshua Jasper) wrote:
>In article <340648...@access.digex.net>,
>Steve Brinich <ste...@access.digex.net> wrote:
>> As I pointed out before, this is strong evidence that the government
>>in _ST_ does not significantly intervene in the economy.
> Why in Ghods name would big buisness give up government influence?
Big business is currently involved in government influence because it
is essentially an investment: they put money in, they get more back.
If government isn't interfering in the economy very much, then this
would be a waste of money.
Graydon
In article <3407d0bd...@news.u.washington.edu>,
K. Hu <nospa...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Aug 1997 15:42:21 GMT, sin...@netcom.com (Joshua Jasper)
>wrote:
>> What gets me is how the Rico's, as a bunch of wealthy buisness
>>people have managed to avoid being involved in politics. Every big
>>buisness in the _world_ is involved in politics one way or another. In
>>this case, amazing as it is, RAH's legendary cynycism dosn't go far
>>enough! Rico Inc (or whatecer) was rich, and had been for generations
>>(IIRC) right? Name me one wealthy family that isn't involved in politics.
>>The Kenedys, The Duponts, The Morgans,the Rosthchilds heck, even the
>>current crop of neveau rich are working the political angle. And that's
>>just the US! I dno't see it as likley that they'd give up such
>>involvement just because politics are declasse. It'd be stupid.
>
>Why is it stupid? What would Rico Inc. have to gain from political
>involvement?
In a procurment system more difficult to rig than the US one, possibly
nothing.
But do note that Juan's dad was at one point muttering about writing his
representative, 'a taxpayer has _some_ rights'; it looks like there is
some political involvement there.
--
gra...@gooroos.com | Praise ice when it is crossed,
is bouncing again Ale when it is drunk,
try pir...@pobox.com The day at evening-time,
with 'for graydon' in the subject line Domain service when it works.
Dave Griffith
Joshua Jasper (sin...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Then in that case, someone went about making laws to prevent
: unlikley to happen in reality.
Strange, I could have swore we were in the process of doing it.
: Also a reason true libertarian politics
: probably won't get a toe-hold in politics: can you imagine big buisness
: giving up thier government influence without a huge fight? Or for that
: matter, organized labor?
No, of course not. They will certainly put up a huge fight. The question
is whether they will _win_ the huge fight. In the short term, yes. In
the long term, don't be so sure. You didn't think we were expecting
to win them over with nothing but the sheer rightness of our cause, did
you. We are well aware of the battles we will face.
: It'd take abolishing what favorable treatment
: big buisness gets from the government, and minimum wage and other
: concessions in the case of labor.
It's tradeoffs like these that shall be our weapons.
:A nice proposition, but one that isn't realistic.
This cheers me up immeasurably. Freedom's recent victories on "nice but
unrealistic" propositions include abolition of conscription, farm subsidies,
any number of unrealistic free speech victories, privitization, and the list
goes on. If corporate welfare abolition and regulatory reform have already
risen to the status of "nice but unrealistic", I guess I can expect victory
within a mere couple of decades.
--
--Dave Griffith, grif...@crl.com
PMccutc103
sin...@netcom.com (Joshua Jasper) wrote:
> What gets me is how the Rico's, as a bunch of wealthy buisness
>people have managed to avoid being involved in politics. Every big
>buisness in the _world_ is involved in politics one way or another. In
Joshua, I don't want to shock your system, but the sort of mixed-economy
capitalism in which the government taxes and regulates and licenses and
subsidies businesses is not the only opition. In our present situation,
some companies, such as Archer Daniels Midland, find that it is sometimes
easier to compete with a bit of government help than it would be without.
Others enter the political arena out of sheer self-defense.
But there is another option. Set up a set of neutral ground rules, such
as property rules, and then _get out of the way_. If the society of
_Starship Troopers_ follows this path, well then, the disinclination of
business to become involved in politics is quite natural.
>this case, amazing as it is, RAH's legendary cynycism dosn't go far
>enough! Rico Inc (or whatecer) was rich, and had been for generations
>(IIRC) right? Name me one wealthy family that isn't involved in politics.
>The Kenedys, The Duponts, The Morgans,the Rosthchilds heck, even the
>current crop of neveau rich are working the political angle. And that's
>just the US! I dno't see it as likley that they'd give up such
>involvement just because politics are declasse. It'd be stupid.
David Friedman characterizes the descent of the Rockefeler family from a
very competent businessman to philanthropists, to politicians as an example
of "the decline of a great American family."
The simple answer is that the ease of entering politics together with the
advantage of wealth in our current politcal structure makes it quite
attractive to members of "old money" families, such as the Kennedys. My
guess is that if Teddy had had to sweat out basic at Camp Arthur Currie, he
would have been a lot less sanguine about it. Or maybe he would have
become a better man for it.
________________________
Pete McCutchen
David Johnston
Joshua Jasper wrote:
>
> In article <R-Rostrom-270...@ip97-61.neiu.edu>,
> Rich Rostrom <R-Ro...@neiu.edu> wrote:
> >phe...@interpath.com (John Moreno) wrote:
> >The political life of _ST_ is regarded, socially, as being about like
> >Tammany Hall in NY - a minor racket for a bunch of second-raters. The
> >Rico family is very wealthy, but Rico sr remarks that they have stayed
> >out of politics for over a hundred years - a 'fine record', in his view.
>
> people have managed to avoid being involved in politics. Every big
> buisness in the _world_ is involved in politics one way or another. In
> enough! Rico Inc (or whatecer) was rich, and had been for generations
> (IIRC) right? Name me one wealthy family that isn't involved in politics.
> The Kenedys, The Duponts, The Morgans,the Rosthchilds heck, even the
> current crop of neveau rich are working the political angle. And that's
> just the US! I dno't see it as likley that they'd give up such
> involvement just because politics are declasse. It'd be stupid.
>
Presumably Rico's father knows that his money votes far more
effectively than his ballot.
John Schilling
nospa...@u.washington.edu (K. Hu) writes:
>On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 01:28:19 GMT, sin...@netcom.com (Joshua Jasper)
>wrote:
[business & politics]
>>Why do you think they're involved? the answers are
>>inuumerable: trade concessions, government contracts, favoritism in
>>lawsuits, etc.. etc...
>What little of the government Heinlein describes in Starship Troopers
>is laissez-faire. This description, coupled with the apparent lack of
>big business political influence supports the theory that big business
>in _ST_ simply doesn't *need* political influences, because they can't
>do much for business anyway.
Of course the government can do things for big business. It can grant
trade concessions, government contracts, favoritism in lawsuits, etc,
etc...
Saying that the government in _ST_ *is* lasseiz-faire just means that
it *doesn't* do these things, not that it *can't*. It certainly has
the power to do so, and if its authority to exercise that power is
limited by some charter or constitution, then the question becomes
one of why the charter is obeyed or how it is enforced, when so many
others are not.
The reason business interests would involve themselves in politics in
the _ST_ universe is to convince, cajole, or coerce a government which
at present happens to be lasseiz-faire in policy, to adopt a more
corporate-friendly attitude. Even without the franchise, money does
have some ability to influence politics, so absent a countervailing
force political involvement by corporate interests would ultimately
create a corporate-friendly government.
And the only reason business interest would refrain from entering the
political arena, would be if the forces opposing their goals were so
overwhelming in nature that *no* attempt, however well-financed, to
influence (subvert, corrupt) government policy in a pro-business fashion
could achieve significant results.
So in order for the story to hold together, either Rico's father has to
be lying about his political non-involvement, or he must not be typical
of the business community as a whole, or there has to be some absolutely
infallible barrier against corporate corruption of the political process
in place.
Either of the first two alternatives are clearly possible. The third is
a nice thought, but it is sufficiently at odds with the bulk of human
political experience that it cannot simply be taken for granted, nor
does it follow inevitably from the franchise-for-service systemas
described.
A society where the business community tries, and generally fails, to
influence the government according to its interests, is plausible. A
society where they don't even try, stretches credibility.
--
*John Schilling * "You can have Peace, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * or you can have Freedom. *
*University of Southern California * Don't ever count on having both *
*Aerospace Engineering Department * at the same time." *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * - Robert A. Heinlein *
*(213)-740-5311 or 747-2527 * Finger for PGP public key *
Joshua Jasper
In article <5u6qb0$fu0$1...@nnrp1.crl.com>,
Dave Griffith <grif...@crl.com> wrote:
>Joshua Jasper (sin...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: Then in that case, someone went about making laws to prevent
>: government having influence over buisness. An admirable goal, but one
>: unlikley to happen in reality.
>
>Strange, I could have swore we were in the process of doing it.
No, we're in the process of observing something that looks like
it, but changes little in the overall picture. Perhaps you missed the
little two step that President Billy did around the whole UPS strike?
There are some laws to prevent government influence over buisness, and
vice verece, but odly anough, there's always some loophole or another.
>
>: Also a reason true libertarian politics
>: probably won't get a toe-hold in politics: can you imagine big buisness
>: giving up thier government influence without a huge fight? Or for that
>: matter, organized labor?
>
>No, of course not. They will certainly put up a huge fight. The question
>is whether they will _win_ the huge fight. In the short term, yes. In
>the long term, don't be so sure. You didn't think we were expecting
>to win them over with nothing but the sheer rightness of our cause, did
>you. We are well aware of the battles we will face.
>
You are also outnumbered and severley lacking in comprable
funds. How many supporters will, once they get wealthy, decide to vote
with the rest of the flock? The problem is, for such a thing to be in
your best intersts, you can't be in big buisness. The fact is, it takes
money to play in politics, and the people who are playing the game have a
vested interest in keeping it that way. To top that off, the've got tons
more money, and a _realy_ gullible public. Perhaps I'm wrong. I hope
I'm wrong, but the cynic in me says I ain't.
>: It'd take abolishing what favorable treatment
>: big buisness gets from the government, and minimum wage and other
>: concessions in the case of labor.
>
>It's tradeoffs like these that shall be our weapons.
>
>:A nice proposition, but one that isn't realistic.
>
>This cheers me up immeasurably. Freedom's recent victories on "nice but
>unrealistic" propositions include abolition of conscription, farm subsidies,
>any number of unrealistic free speech victories, privitization, and the list
>goes on. If corporate welfare abolition and regulatory reform have already
>risen to the status of "nice but unrealistic", I guess I can expect victory
>within a mere couple of decades.
>
Damn I hope so. I'll be lookin for them on my ballot.
Sinboy
>--
>--Dave Griffith, grif...@crl.com
K. Hu
On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 14:35:56 GMT, sin...@netcom.com (Joshua Jasper)
wrote:
>>>>> What gets me is how the Rico's, as a bunch of wealthy buisness
>>>>>people have managed to avoid being involved in politics. Every big
>>>>>buisness in the _world_ is involved in politics one way or another. In
>>>>>this case, amazing as it is, RAH's legendary cynycism dosn't go far
>>>>>enough! Rico Inc (or whatecer) was rich, and had been for generations
>>>>>(IIRC) right? Name me one wealthy family that isn't involved in politics.
>>>>>The Kenedys, The Duponts, The Morgans,the Rosthchilds heck, even the
>>>>>current crop of neveau rich are working the political angle. And that's
>>>>>just the US! I dno't see it as likley that they'd give up such
>>>>>involvement just because politics are declasse. It'd be stupid.
>>Current rich companies do not exist in a society as protrayed in
>>Starship Troopers, now do they? You are arguing about a fictional
>>system based upon assumptions grounded in our system. The two are
>>seperate and different, and thus your thinking does not necessarily
>>apply to _ST_.
>
> Actualy, my primary pint was that such a system in the real world
>would be more open to corruption than the current near-democratic models
>we've got (parlimentary or republic).
It doesn't look like that was your point at all. You were just saying
that Heinlein was stupid for not portraying business involvement in
politics.
>>What little of the government Heinlein describes in Starship Troopers
>>is laissez-faire. This description, coupled with the apparent lack of
>>big business political influence supports the theory that big business
>>in _ST_ simply doesn't *need* political influences, because they can't
>>do much for business anyway.
>
> Then in that case, someone went about making laws to prevent
>government having influence over buisness. An admirable goal, but one
>unlikley to happen in reality. Also a reason true libertarian politics
>probably won't get a toe-hold in politics: can you imagine big buisness
>giving up thier government influence without a huge fight? Or for that
>matter, organized labor? It'd take abolishing what favorable treatment
>big buisness gets from the government, and minimum wage and other
>concessions in the case of labor. A nice proposition, but one that isn't
>realistic.
Heinlein states that the transition from our form of democracy to the
_ST_ way of doing things was a (perhaps violent) revolution.
Revolution implies that the change was not gradual.. While I agree
that business would certainly not care to have its power taken from
it, it would have no chance to resist in such a revolution.
As for realism, well, if I wanted realism I would be reading from the
non-fiction shelves. As it stands, _ST_ is speculative, and its merits
lie in the exploration of this speculative society. As long as it is
internally consistent, and I believe that for the most part it is, I
have no problems with it.
Wim Lewis
In article <3406f88f...@news.zippo.com>,
Tom Carman <7177...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>sin...@netcom.com (Joshua Jasper) wrote:
>> Why in Ghods name would big buisness give up government influence?
>
>Big business is currently involved in government influence because it
>is essentially an investment: they put money in, they get more back.
>If government isn't interfering in the economy very much, then this
>would be a waste of money.
No, it wouldn't. Big business would put money into the government;
in return the government would interfere in the economy in their
favor. "Doing nothing" is just one of many things the government
can do. (And if the laissez-faire approach benefits you more than
it benefits your competition, well then, you'll be lobbying for that.
Either way, you'll be lobbying. Power is power.)
--
Wim Lewis * wi...@hhhh.org * Seattle, WA, USA
PGP 0x27F772C1: 0C 0D 10 D5 FC 73 D1 35 26 46 42 9E DC 6E 0A 88
Dennis Mccunney
** From Larry Caldwell to All on 21 Aug 97 04:03:00
** Starship Troopers - the novel
> John & Linda VanSickle <vans...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>> They are denied the franchise, but they are not treated as slaves. BTW,
>> military service was not the only way to earn the franchise; one signed up
>> for two years of Federal Service, which could have been military, or if
>> one's talents were more useful elsewhere, in some other capacity.
> Not true. Military service is the only way to earn a franchise. The
> military is required to accept all comers and provide a term of
> service for them, but there is no other way to gain citizenship.
> You're thinking like JFK, not RAH. No alternative service here.
Provide a citation from the text to back this up.
>> Now I know why you've been making all of these mistakes. You haven't read
>> the book. The infantry DID have support troops. The book covered situations
>> where air cover could not be effectively used (remember, the bugs live
>> underground), and orbital observation was likewise useless. There was
>> ground intel in the book.
> If the bugs are all underground, how did they nuke Buenos Aires, and
> why are we fighting them in the first place? The fact is, they are a
> space- faring civilization, and Heinlein proposes to attack them with
> no air cover. He sends in mechanized infantry with no support, and has
> ground troops repairing their own armor with parts cannibalized from
> casualties.
You can be space faring, and still live underground. It's made clear
in the text that the Bugs do so. In the combat sequences on Bug-held
planets, we see no surface installations -- the MI has to dig them out.
Air cover is necessary for reducing surface strongpoints, attacking
troop concentrations, and neutralizing opposing air cover. The Bugs
don't seem to *have* surface strongpoints, and further don't seem to
use aircraft. It's made clear the MI has heavy weapons units for
artillery support, and the spacecraft that got them there can provide
bombardment if required.
> He also goes on at great length about unit efficiency, and the 100%
> drop rate. The unit repairs and maintains their own battle suits.
Ground troops in combat are expected to do first-line maintenance now.
A grunt who can't field-strip, clean, oil, and re-assemble his rifle
will likely be dropped from the service or re-assigned to a
non-combatant role before ever getting out of basic training.
Serious problems with the suits were referred to a resident specialist.
> There is no medevac; no aid at all except for soldiers dropping out of
> battle to drag their own casualties to the pickup point.
Medevac to *where*? Remember, the MI is doing the equivalent of a
parachute drop into hostile territory. It isn't like there is a behind
the lines field hospital where casulaties can be taken to. In fact,
there probably aren't "lines" per se. They may also be fighting in
terrain where you can't peel a trooper out of his suit, because the
environment will kill an unprotected trooper. About all they can
really do for a wounded trooper is drag him back to the pickup site.
While it isn't explicitly stated, we get the impression that most MI
casualties are fatal, and those that aren't are career ending, like the
loss of one or more limbs. Anything that can get through the armor is
likely to be quite serious.
> I think my comments are supportable.
You have yet to do so.
[Email: dmcc...@roper.com]
----
The Lunatic Fringe * Richardson, TX * 972-235-5288
Barry DeCicco
In article <34089...@news3.ibm.net>, rrs...@ibm.net (Matt Hickman) writes:
|>
|> _Starship Troopers_ posits that morality is subject to mathematical proof
|> and analysis (something which is about as believable as FTL travel, but it
|> _is_ part of the _Starship Troopers_ universe). The legitimacy of the actions
|> of Federation government rests on provable their morality. The actions of
|> the Federation government would have to be mathematically shown to be
|> moral in order to be legitimate.
|>
|> It is not much of a stretch at all to assume that all major policies, laws
|> and initiatives of the Federation are subject to mathematical analysis. And
|> while that mathematical analysis may be done by the government, it would
|> also subject to peer review and kibitzing by both non-government citizens and
|> taxpayers. Universities, interest groups such as business associations,
|> unions etc. would have strong incentives to keep the government honest and
|> might do (or commission) independent analysis.
|>
|> So, attempts by the private sector to influence public policy would be
|> severely restricted to demonstratively 'moral' policies. After years of
|> lobbying groups trying to package pro-industry initiatives within provably
|> moral initiatives, a lot of folk would just give up.
|>
|> Regarding the subject of a scientifically based, mathematically rigorous
|> theory of morality -- for _Starship Troopers_ anyway -- one might take
|> Heinlein's levels of morality as axioms, then add an Anthropological/
|> ethological analysis of the evolved survival strategies for human societies
|> and mix in some game theory and who knows? Anyway, this is fuzzy enough
|> to allow me to suspend my disbelief.
|>
|> Matt Hickman
|> Matt, you are suffering from a disease of youth--you expect moral
|> problems to have nice neat black-and-white answers.
|> Robert A. Heinlein (1907 - 1988)
|> _Space Cadet_ c. 1948
|>
I feel that the quote you used is far more in line with reality than
the _ST_ view of morality.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if a mathematical system of morality
could be set up, which would be internally consistent. The problem
lies in what axioms and goals one chooses. And they are chosen,
never doubt that, no matter how much people will say that they are
the 'objective' ones. Some people could look at their desired conclusions,
and then work back to pick the proper premises to make those
conclusions inevitable. I'm not much on game theory, but I've seen
some claimes here and there that it quickly becomes reliant on the
initial assumptions, even for simple games. Let alone complex games
like the internal/external behavior of a human society over many generations.
And I'm sure that the 'known true' beliefs in anthropology and ethology
have changed over the last few decades.
Barry
Barry DeCicco
In article <19970829171...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, pmccu...@aol.com (PMccutc103) writes:
|> sin...@netcom.com (Joshua Jasper) wrote:
|>
|>
|> > What gets me is how the Rico's, as a bunch of wealthy buisness
|> >people have managed to avoid being involved in politics. Every big
|> >buisness in the _world_ is involved in politics one way or another. In
|>
|> capitalism in which the government taxes and regulates and licenses and
|> subsidies businesses is not the only opition. In our present situation,
|> some companies, such as Archer Daniels Midland, find that it is sometimes
|> easier to compete with a bit of government help than it would be without.
|> Others enter the political arena out of sheer self-defense.
|>
|> But there is another option. Set up a set of neutral ground rules, such
|> as property rules, and then _get out of the way_. If the society of
|> _Starship Troopers_ follows this path, well then, the disinclination of
|> business to become involved in politics is quite natural.
a) What are 'neutral' rules? If you think that there are, just
consider 'externalities'.
b) Why should businesses _stay_ out of the way? I'm sure that some
business involvement in politics is purely defensive - if you're
not playing the game, then somebody else surely is. However, this
doesn't mean that all is. Any government spends money, which businesses
do like to get ahold of. And some corruption can help boost the profit
margins considerably. There's nothing like a no-bid/rigged-bid
cost plus contract with lax auditing and performance standards
to boost the bank account.
|>
|> The simple answer is that the ease of entering politics together with the
|> advantage of wealth in our current politcal structure makes it quite
|> attractive to members of "old money" families, such as the Kennedys. My
|> guess is that if Teddy had had to sweat out basic at Camp Arthur Currie, he
|> would have been a lot less sanguine about it. Or maybe he would have
|> become a better man for it.
The moneyed people don't have to politicians themselves - they usually
play the game through money. And how rich is the Kennedy clan? Do they
own more than, say, Perot? IMHO, the Kennedy family is unique among the rich
precisely because they become politicians, instead of buying them.
Barry
Ross TenEyck
bdec...@sunm4048az.sph.umich.edu (Barry DeCicco) writes:
>I wouldn't be at all surprised if a mathematical system of morality
>could be set up, which would be internally consistent. The problem
>lies in what axioms and goals one chooses. And they are chosen,
>never doubt that, no matter how much people will say that they are
>the 'objective' ones. Some people could look at their desired conclusions,
>and then work back to pick the proper premises to make those
>conclusions inevitable. I'm not much on game theory, but I've seen
>some claimes here and there that it quickly becomes reliant on the
>initial assumptions, even for simple games. Let alone complex games
>like the internal/external behavior of a human society over many generations.
>And I'm sure that the 'known true' beliefs in anthropology and ethology
>have changed over the last few decades.
C. S. Lewis argued -- in "The Abolition of Man" -- rather convincingly
that it is *impossible* to be completely objective about the foundations
of your ethical system. You have to start with some kind of axioms
about what is "good" or "desirable" or something; but without a value
system -- you don't have one yet, you're trying to create one -- there
are no grounds for making those decisions.
In the ST universe, it's stated somewhere that their mathematical moral
system is rooted in the individuals will to survive -- then generalised
up from "survival of the self" to "survival of the group." Which is all
well and good; but it contains the implicit assumption that survival is
a good thing -- an assumption that you can only make if you have a value
system to tell that you being alive is better than being dead. Granted,
humans have an instinct that tells them that; but many humans also have
an instinct that tells them to mate with nearly every woman they meet,
and that's generally frowned upon. Instincts are a shaky ground upon
which to base your values.
MN1st
Military service was not the only way to earn a francise. In fact, most of
the federal service jobs weren't combat-related. Dangerous perhaps, but not
combat-related.
Joshua Jasper
In article <34096bdd...@news.u.washington.edu>,
K. Hu <nospa...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 14:35:56 GMT, sin...@netcom.com (Joshua Jasper)
>wrote
>>we've got (parlimentary or republic).
>
>It doesn't look like that was your point at all. You were just saying
>that Heinlein was stupid for not portraying business involvement in
>politics.
Actualy, I said he wasn't cynical enough. What he wasn't cynical
enough in was the (apparent) implication that it's somehow possible to
get buisness out of government and vice verce.
>
[snip]
>Heinlein states that the transition from our form of democracy to the
>_ST_ way of doing things was a (perhaps violent) revolution.
>Revolution implies that the change was not gradual.. While I agree
>that business would certainly not care to have its power taken from
>it, it would have no chance to resist in such a revolution.
>
I can't think of a revolution where economics wasn't involved in
one way or another. The one's where buisness ended up getting hurt in
were Communist revolutions. The ST world could possibly have evolved
from a communist world revolution. Actualy, this is something RAH might
have gone for, IMO. That is to say, having such a thing arise from a
comunist revolution. Comments?
>As for realism, well, if I wanted realism I would be reading from the
>non-fiction shelves. As it stands, _ST_ is speculative, and its merits
>lie in the exploration of this speculative society. As long as it is
>internally consistent, and I believe that for the most part it is, I
>have no problems with it.
Oh, as a book, it was quite neat. I completely agree with you
there. I still don't see anything wrong with debating it as a possible
real world system, though.
Sinboy
Joshua Jasper
In article <5ud75v$lso$9...@newbabylon.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
Barry DeCicco <bdec...@sunm4048az.sph.umich.edu> wrote:
>In article <34089...@news3.ibm.net>, rrs...@ibm.net (Matt Hickman) writes:
[sniboy]
>I feel that the quote you used is far more in line with reality than
>the _ST_ view of morality.
>
>
>I wouldn't be at all surprised if a mathematical system of morality
>could be set up, which would be internally consistent.
Any such language game can be constructed for any purpose, but
the fact is that such games simply aren't eficient at all. Allowing for
inconsistancies and differing views is the way language games evolve. In
a self contained system, it's either P or not P. The difference between
moral systems that are actualy in existance and considered functional,
like, say, Utilitarian and Kantian, is that you can get different moral
_answers_ to dilemmas. With a logical system, all you get would be a yes
or a no answer.
> The problem
>lies in what axioms and goals one chooses. And they are chosen,
>never doubt that, no matter how much people will say that they are
>the 'objective' ones. Some people could look at their desired conclusions,
>and then work back to pick the proper premises to make those
>conclusions inevitable. I'm not much on game theory, but I've seen
>some claimes here and there that it quickly becomes reliant on the
>initial assumptions, even for simple games.
Correct.
> Let alone complex games
>like the internal/external behavior of a human society over many generations.
>And I'm sure that the 'known true' beliefs in anthropology and ethology
>have changed over the last few decades.
>
Try reading Michel Foucault's 'Archaeology of Knowledge' if this
topic intersts you. It's a facinating book, if one can deal with the
language. Also, Wittgenstein on language games is a good read.
Actualy, the probelm wouldn't be in the axioms per-se, but the
moral dilemmas that fall outside the axioms. I wonder if such a system,
once created could have a Godel type proof applied to it.
>
>Barry
>
Sinboy
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
In article <5u7m6h$6kv$1...@spock.usc.edu>,
John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>nospa...@u.washington.edu (K. Hu) writes:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 01:28:19 GMT, sin...@netcom.com (Joshua Jasper)
>>wrote:
>
>
>[business & politics]
>
>
>>>Why do you think they're involved? the answers are
>>>inuumerable: trade concessions, government contracts, favoritism in
>>>lawsuits, etc.. etc...
>
>>is laissez-faire. This description, coupled with the apparent lack of
>>big business political influence supports the theory that big business
>>in _ST_ simply doesn't *need* political influences, because they can't
>>do much for business anyway.
>
>
>trade concessions, government contracts, favoritism in lawsuits, etc,
>etc...
>A society where the business community tries, and generally fails, to
>influence the government according to its interests, is plausible. A
>society where they don't even try, stretches credibility.
Okey doke, it's time for economic exegesis of _Starship Troopers_!
o The population of the Federation is concentrated on Earth. This is
justified by the fact that the Federation has apparently not been
colonizing interstellar space for very long; certainly not more than
a century. So we can reasonably assume that Earth is where the bulk
of the population lives. Since Earth went through a really long period
of brutal warfare (Finno-Turks, no Chinese at all) before settling down,
I'll conservatively call the population of Earth 5 billion people.
o The Federation is clearly a very wealthy place, and the wealth seems
to be spread out over all of humanity. (That is, there's no Third
World.) Since it's fairly far in the future, I'll make the per capita
GDP of the Federation 4 times that of the modern USA. This isn't as
big an improvement as we might hope for, but the Earth did have
a long history of terrible war, and besides growth is always fastest
at the start of industrialization. So call the Fed's per-capita GDP
to be $100,000 in today's dollars. (IRL, the US is tied with Hongkong
for first place at $27,500. The OECD average is around two-thirds that,
I think.)
o So the total GDP of the Federation is 5x10^9 people which $100,000 is
$ 5x10^14, or 500 trillion dollars.
o Now we need to estimate the size of the Federation government. If the
government's spending as a percentage of GDP is high, then we can
assume that there are strong incentives to corruption. If not, the
government might be too small for it to be efficient for large corporations
to bribe, and small corporations won't have the interstellar presence
needed to effectively corrupt the government.
o So now we need to estimate the number of people in the Federal Service.
We know that 3% of the Earth's population are citizens. Assuming the
average lifespan is 100 years (future medicine, remember?), around 1% of
the Fed's citizens die every year. (Well, you can't join the Fed. until
you are 18, but that's a minor effect and we are doing orders of magnitude
anyway.) So in order to keep the percentage of citizens stable at 3%, the
number of people joining the Service has to be 5x10^9 x .03 x .01 which
is 1.5 million. But there are a lot of colonials, and the participation
rates there are sufficiently high that they might mess up our numbers.
So let's double this to be on the safe side. 3 million new recruits a
year, then. This is likely also to be the order of the total number of
servicemen, since the term is two(?) years. So half the recruits leave
each year, to be replaced by newbies.
o Assuming the servers get paid something like the per-capita GDP (which
is likely to be close to the median income), then the cost of paying
the troops is going to be $100,000 x 3 million or $300 billion.
o If we take the pay costs to be 10% of the cost of the military (a smaller
fraction than the modern US's; high tech equipment costs a lot I guess)
then the cost of the military is going to be $3 trillion dollars a year.
o Thus military expenditure is around 0.6% of GDP -- or nearly an order of
magnitude smaller than the modern US's. If we assume a similar ratio
holds for other government expenditures, then government spending as a
percentage of GDP is going to be around 3-5% of total GDP.
This is remarkably small, so the role of the federal government is
likely quite minor. (Given how comprehensively the local institutions
of government were ignored, it's probable that the Federal government
is the overwhelmingly dominant part.) So it is not unreasonable that
even successful businessmen ignore the government; to a good approximation
it does not exist. Of course, there are likely exceptions like the arms
industry, but it seems clear Rico's dad was not in that business.
Neel
Joseph Askew
Ross TenEyck (ten...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: >I wouldn't be at all surprised if a mathematical system of morality
: >could be set up, which would be internally consistent. The problem
: >lies in what axioms and goals one chooses. And they are chosen,
: >never doubt that, no matter how much people will say that they are
: >the 'objective' ones.
Just in passing it is interesting to think about what makes Science
Fiction in a case like this. Heinlein wasn't, but could have been,
aware of Go"del and his work. Does that make _ST_ less hard because
it doesn't meet the cutting edge criteria?
: >And I'm sure that the 'known true' beliefs in anthropology and ethology
: >have changed over the last few decades.
I'm not convinced of that at all. Not one bit. Rather the proponents
of the Older Beliefs have died off one by one. Even where incompetence
and fraud have been shown. I don't even know of an anthropologist who
has changed his/her mind although I'm sure an example could be found.
Anyone like to try?
: C. S. Lewis argued -- in "The Abolition of Man" -- rather convincingly
: that it is *impossible* to be completely objective about the foundations
: of your ethical system. You have to start with some kind of axioms
: about what is "good" or "desirable" or something; but without a value
: system -- you don't have one yet, you're trying to create one -- there
: are no grounds for making those decisions.
It might be true of ethical systems, but not of all logical systems.
Geometry has been trying for centuries to produce a minimal set of
axioms. To say that the smallest set is best is an assumption about
what is good or desirable, but the system it produces is fairly
objective. You might have a choice about which set of chose if you
have two sets of equally small axioms, but by and large you don't.
You have to take the one which is smallest regardless of whether
you like the implications. Basis of things like Occam's Razor.
: In the ST universe, it's stated somewhere that their mathematical moral
: system is rooted in the individuals will to survive -- then generalised
: up from "survival of the self" to "survival of the group." Which is all
: well and good; but it contains the implicit assumption that survival is
: a good thing -- an assumption that you can only make if you have a value
: system to tell that you being alive is better than being dead. Granted,
: humans have an instinct that tells them that; but many humans also have
: an instinct that tells them to mate with nearly every woman they meet,
: and that's generally frowned upon. Instincts are a shaky ground upon
: which to base your values.
In fact it says "moral behaviour is survival behaviour above the
individual level - as in a father who dies to save his children".
Which is no doubt relatively uncontroversial when Heinlein applies
it to Humans and Bugs, but would be more if Heinlein tried it with
ethnic, religious, racial, philosophical distinctions *among* humans.
I would be very careful arguing what we have instincts to do. I don't
accept that men (which is what I assume you meant by "humans") do
have an instinct to mate with nearly every woman they meet. As can
be seen by the fact that men in fact go through life without mating
with anything like every woman they meet without much trouble. While
prostitutes might have some customers I doubt they have as many as
you would expect from such a system.
Joseph
--
"It formed with the rest of the solar system, around five
billion years ago. That's fifteen million human generations"
Kim Stanley Robinson, _Red Mars_, Part Three, The Crucible
Joshua Jasper
In article <5uq314$kb0$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>,
Joseph Askew <jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>
>Ross TenEyck (ten...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
[snip]
>: In the ST universe, it's stated somewhere that their mathematical moral
>: system is rooted in the individuals will to survive -- then generalised
>: up from "survival of the self" to "survival of the group." Which is all
>: well and good; but it contains the implicit assumption that survival is
>: a good thing -- an assumption that you can only make if you have a value
>: system to tell that you being alive is better than being dead. Granted,
>: humans have an instinct that tells them that; but many humans also have
>: an instinct that tells them to mate with nearly every woman they meet,
>: and that's generally frowned upon. Instincts are a shaky ground upon
>: which to base your values.
>
>In fact it says "moral behaviour is survival behaviour above the
>individual level - as in a father who dies to save his children".
Sort of a super Utilitarianism? I've never liked Utilitarianism
as a basis for making moral decisions. I could see tying Kantian ethics
in there somehow on the 'Duty' level, but it'd still leave too much open
for me. This sort of system would require alot of fine tuning, and still
be open to plenty of problems.
>Which is no doubt relatively uncontroversial when Heinlein applies
>it to Humans and Bugs, but would be more if Heinlein tried it with
>ethnic, religious, racial, philosophical distinctions *among* humans.
>I would be very careful arguing what we have instincts to do. I don't
>accept that men (which is what I assume you meant by "humans") do
>have an instinct to mate with nearly every woman they meet. As can
>be seen by the fact that men in fact go through life without mating
>with anything like every woman they meet without much trouble. While
>prostitutes might have some customers I doubt they have as many as
>you would expect from such a system.
>
On the whole, men _do_ have an instinct to mate, though. We've
got other instincts, though, plenty of them are ignored when facing moral
questions. The survival instinct for a person realy dosn't translate
into the survival instinct for somenoe you've never met, but it can, and
ought to be ignored if one is to act moraly in certain circumstances.
As for aplying Heinlen's system to the bugs, well, what's to stop
us from applying the characteristics Heinlen applys to the bugs to
another part of humanity. Ghod knows it's been done often enough, is
being done today, and will almost certainly be done in the future. A
decent moral system ought to not allow for dehumanization of humans en
masse, and IMO, individualy as well.
Sinboy
penny and david syber
Matt Hickman wrote:
>
> In <1057.45...@lunatic.com>, dennis....@lunatic.com (Dennis Mccunney) writes:
> >
> >High school instruction in MP is mandatory, but while you have to
> >*take* it, you *don't* have to *pass* it. And the assumption that it
> >must be taught by retired military is your interpolation from the fact
> >that Johnny's MP instructor was a retired MI Lt. Col. I do not recall
> >it stated in the text that such instructors must come from the
> >military. (They must be citizens, but that does not require military
> >service.)
>
<snip>
Using ace publication of SST, on p74
"Of course we had known that he was a veteran since History and Moral
Philosophy must be taught by a citizen." RAH
Seems to me proof positive that military service is necessary
Regards
david syber
K. Hu
On Sun, 07 Sep 1997 06:29:21 -0700, penny and david syber
<dss...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>> In <1057.45...@lunatic.com>, dennis....@lunatic.com (Dennis Mccunney) writes:
>> >
>> >High school instruction in MP is mandatory, but while you have to
>> >*take* it, you *don't* have to *pass* it. And the assumption that it
>> >must be taught by retired military is your interpolation from the fact
>> >that Johnny's MP instructor was a retired MI Lt. Col. I do not recall
>> >it stated in the text that such instructors must come from the
>> >military. (They must be citizens, but that does not require military
>> >service.)
>Using ace publication of SST, on p74
>
>"Of course we had known that he was a veteran since History and Moral
>Philosophy must be taught by a citizen." RAH
>
>Seems to me proof positive that military service is necessary
This has been brought up again and again by people trying to show that
all federal service was military in nature. Heinlein wrote in
_Expanded Universe_:
"...[C]riticisms [of Starship Troopers] are usually based on a
failure to understand simple indicative english sentences...
"'Veteran' does not mean in English dictionaries or in this novel
solely a person who has served in military forces. I concede that in
commonest usage today it means a war veteran...but no one hesitates to
speak of a veteran fireman or a veteran school teacher."
'Proof positive'? Hardly.
old...@thesea.com
Jack T Thornton wrote:
> In article <3412AC...@alphalink.com.au> penny and david syber
> <dss...@alphalink.com.au> writes:
>
> >Using ace publication of SST, on p74
>
> >"Of course we had known that he was a veteran since History and Moral
>
> >Philosophy must be taught by a citizen." RAH
>
> >Seems to me proof positive that military service is necessary
>
> I think you've missed some posts. Military service was not the only
> source of
> citizenship. There were other federal services that opened the same
> door.
>
> Jack
Jack,
I think citizenship requires military service, that service may be
counting caterpillar fuzz but the person doing it proceeds under
military law and chain of command. As an aside, does anyone else see a
link between the ability to defer to a chain of command and suitability
to participate in the government of others.
--
oldman
stolen from some witty guys post:
SPAM bait: the current board of the Federal Communications Commission:
Chairman Reed Hundt: rhu...@fcc.gov Commissioner James Quello:
jqu...@fcc.gov Commissioner Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov Commissioner
Rachelle Chong: rch...@fcc.gov
Tom Currie
penny and david syber wrote:
>
> Matt Hickman wrote:
> >
> > In <1057.45...@lunatic.com>, dennis....@lunatic.com (Dennis Mccunney) writes:
> > >
> > >High school instruction in MP is mandatory, but while you have to
> > >*take* it, you *don't* have to *pass* it. And the assumption that it
> > >must be taught by retired military is your interpolation from the fact
> > >that Johnny's MP instructor was a retired MI Lt. Col. I do not recall
> > >it stated in the text that such instructors must come from the
> > >military. (They must be citizens, but that does not require military
> > >service.)
> >
>
> Using ace publication of SST, on p74
>
> "Of course we had known that he was a veteran since History and Moral
> Philosophy must be taught by a citizen." RAH
>
> Seems to me proof positive that military service is necessary
>
> david syber
NOT AT ALL. The military was only one small segment of the service
which qualified a person as a "veteran" -- at several points in the book
it is explained that only a small percentage of "veterans" have actually
served in real military jobs, and only a small percentage of even those
actually see combat or other military danger.
The mailman would qualify as a "veteran" just as readily as an MI if
each had satisfactorily completed his term.
Jack T Thornton
In article <3412AC...@alphalink.com.au> penny and david syber <dss...@alphalink.com.au> writes:
>Using ace publication of SST, on p74
>"Of course we had known that he was a veteran since History and Moral
>Philosophy must be taught by a citizen." RAH
>Seems to me proof positive that military service is necessary
I think you've missed some posts. Military service was not the only source of
James Gifford
Jack T Thornton wrote:
>>> Seems to me proof positive that military service is necessary
>>> I think you've missed some posts. Military service was not the only
>>> source of citizenship. There were other federal services that
>>> opened the same door.
>> I think citizenship requires military service, that service may be
>> counting caterpillar fuzz but the person doing it proceeds under
>> military law and chain of command. As an aside, does anyone else see a
>> link between the ability to defer to a chain of command and
>> suitability to participate in the government of others.
> I think you are wrong. But, what do I know?
> I can find something that would make you a voter, if you wish.
Before you get all snotty, try reading my paper on the nature of Federal
Service. If there's any points you dispute, do speak up. But I'm
*really* tired of half-formed opinions based on vague recollections
based on readings of _ST_ "a few years ago" and so forth.
See my web page for the paper.
--
gif...@ns.net * See http://www.ns.net/~gifford for the
Heinlein FAQ & _Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader's Companion_
Jack T Thornton
In article <341474ED...@thesea.com> old...@thesea.com writes:
>Jack T Thornton wrote:
>> In article <3412AC...@alphalink.com.au> penny and david syber
>> <dss...@alphalink.com.au> writes:
>>
>> >Using ace publication of SST, on p74
>>
>> >"Of course we had known that he was a veteran since History and Moral
>>
>> >Philosophy must be taught by a citizen." RAH
>>
>> >Seems to me proof positive that military service is necessary
>>
>> I think you've missed some posts. Military service was not the only
>> source of
>> citizenship. There were other federal services that opened the same
>> door.
>>
>> Jack
> Jack,
>I think citizenship requires military service, that service may be
>counting caterpillar fuzz but the person doing it proceeds under
>military law and chain of command. As an aside, does anyone else see a
>link between the ability to defer to a chain of command and suitability
>to participate in the government of others.
>--
>oldman
I think you are wrong. But, what do I know?
I can find something that would make you a voter, if you wish.
Jack
David Fetter
> : >I wouldn't be at all surprised if a mathematical system of morality
> : >could be set up, which would be internally consistent. The problem
> : >lies in what axioms and goals one chooses. And they are chosen,
> : >never doubt that, no matter how much people will say that they are
> : >the 'objective' ones.
> Just in passing it is interesting to think about what makes Science
> Fiction in a case like this. Heinlein wasn't, but could have been,
> aware of Go"del and his work. Does that make _ST_ less hard because
> it doesn't meet the cutting edge criteria?
Maybe he knew about it, but thought it wasn't relevant. Goedel's
startling results apply only to a certain class of formal systems.
Would a system of moral axioms necessarily be "strong enough" to generate
statements which it cannot evaluate?
--
David Fetter 888 O'Farrell Street Apt E1205
sha...@ren.glaci.com San Francisco, CA 94109-7089 USA
http://www.glaci.com/~shackle +1 415 567 2690 (voice)
for(split/ /,"tsuJ rehtona lreP rekcah"){print $_=reverse(split)." ";}
Ever wonder why the SAME PEOPLE make up ALL the conspiracy theories?
old...@thesea.com
Jack T Thornton wrote:
Fair enough, but I have no need (at least in this universe).
John Moreno
James Gifford <gif...@ns.net> wrote:
] Jack T Thornton wrote:
] >>>penny and david syber <dss...@alphalink.com.au> writes:
] >>>> Seems to me proof positive that military service is necessary
] >>> I think you've missed some posts. Military service was not the
] >>> only source of citizenship. There were other federal services that
] >>> opened the same door.
]
] >> I think citizenship requires military service, that service may be
] >> counting caterpillar fuzz but the person doing it proceeds under
] >> military law and chain of command. As an aside, does anyone else
] >> see a link between the ability to defer to a chain of command and
] >> suitability to participate in the government of others.
]
] > I think you are wrong. But, what do I know?
] > I can find something that would make you a voter, if you wish.
]
] Before you get all snotty, try reading my paper on the nature of
] Federal Service. If there's any points you dispute, do speak up. But
] I'm *really* tired of half-formed opinions based on vague
] recollections based on readings of _ST_ "a few years ago" and so
] forth.
]
] See my web page for the paper.
Well, I've read your paper - and it seems to me that you've missed a
option implied by Heinleins comments in _EU_ but not stated in the
books, i.e. that at least a portion of the people end up being things
like firemen. Hard, dirty, but necessary jobs that involve a good
chance of getting killed but are not military in nature.
Also you ask why the examiner is a MI instead of a paper pusher if that
(or some other military branch) isn't the most common result of
enlisting - simple, the recruiters job is really to dissuade people from
joining (witness the fact that while doing so he doesn't ware realistic
look artificial limbs) not to encourage them. Finding out that you have
a good chance of spending the next two years filing papers in Hawaii is
hardly going to convince the recruit to skip out and not show up for the
oath.
But I'd also say that career military is probably the choicest
(safest/easiest) federal service jobs.
--
John Moreno
Jack T Thornton
In article <3414B5...@ns.net> James Gifford <gif...@ns.net> writes:
>Before you get all snotty, try reading my paper on the nature of Federal
>Service. If there's any points you dispute, do speak up. But I'm
>*really* tired of half-formed opinions based on vague recollections
>based on readings of _ST_ "a few years ago" and so forth.
>See my web page for the paper.
In this instance, there is no need for secondary sources, as the primary text
is clear. Federal Service DID NOT mean you were a war veteran. It meant an
understanding of the price you paid for being a voter.
I'm not sure what you mean by "half-formed opinions," but I know you don't
mean me, as mine are fully formed.
Best,
Jack
Jack T Thornton
In article <341474ED...@thesea.com> old...@thesea.com writes:
>Jack T Thornton wrote:
>> In article <3412AC...@alphalink.com.au> penny and david syber
>> <dss...@alphalink.com.au> writes:
>>
>> >Using ace publication of SST, on p74
>>
>> >"Of course we had known that he was a veteran since History and Moral
>>
>> >Philosophy must be taught by a citizen." RAH
>>
>> >Seems to me proof positive that military service is necessary
>>
>> I think you've missed some posts. Military service was not the only
>> source of
>> citizenship. There were other federal services that opened the same
>> door.
>>
>> Jack
> Jack,
>I think citizenship requires military service, that service may be
>counting caterpillar fuzz but the person doing it proceeds under
>military law and chain of command. As an aside, does anyone else see a
>link between the ability to defer to a chain of command and suitability
>to participate in the government of others.
>--
>oldman
Hey, I'm all for chain of command, it saved my ass more times than I can
count. But, as I recall, Rico's last chance at "military" service was the MI.
Beyond that, he was testing cold weather gear. There is authority. But, chain
of command is a military term, with special obligations, as you well know.
Cheers,
Jack
Joseph Askew
David Fetter (dfe...@shell4.ba.best.com) wrote:
: > Just in passing it is interesting to think about what makes Science
: > Fiction in a case like this. Heinlein wasn't, but could have been,
: > aware of Go"del and his work. Does that make _ST_ less hard because
: > it doesn't meet the cutting edge criteria?
: Maybe he knew about it, but thought it wasn't relevant. Goedel's
: startling results apply only to a certain class of formal systems.
: Would a system of moral axioms necessarily be "strong enough" to generate
: statements which it cannot evaluate?
I think that Heinlein was one of the many writers who hung around
Campbell too long and picked up some of his concepts. One I really
don't like, although it was reasonable for the time I suppose, was
the application of formal logic to spoken language. I always took
this in a strict sense when it turns up. I always thought that when
Heinlein talked of "proof" in _ST_ he meant it in a mathematical
sense. I could be wrong I suppose but it wouldn't be in character.
So that in this case Go"del's theorm would apply. Published in 1931
I think.