In Heinlein's 1959 book "Starship Troopers", the civilians in his society can only earn their right to citizenship, and the right to vote, through 2 years of "Federal Service"; being assigned combat or non-combatant roles in the Federal Army or Navy, all with a certain degree of risk of death.
His argument is that anyone who is willing to risk their life for the defence of their people puts the safety and prosperity of the tribe before their own personal success, and so makes a selfless, loyal and informed voter. In his book, positions of government can only be held by those who have served military terms.
Should we make Military Service mandatory for those that wish to vote? Would you sign up for 2 years of Military Service for your right to vote and hold government office? Would this be an ideal political system?
Yes. Yes. No, though it would form a component of one.
The problem with Heinlein's society is that its entirely civic - its a Civic Nationalist utopia: there is little-to-no sexual or racial division, with socio-economic class - on the axes of wealth and of citizenship - being the primary routes of division within the society. Obviously, this is nonsensical, and though Heinlein's story paints an interesting and potentially appealing picture, it is quickly soured by the realization that the aliens and advanced technology are not the most unrealistic thing in this work of fiction, but rather, the utopian civic nationalist post-racial, post-sexual society.
What multicultural civically-oriented powers we've seen cannot even begin to approach something in the vein of "nationalism", at the very least due to the fact that a nation is a thing of blood, or it is not a nation, and thus any civically-oriented power cannot, by definition, be "nationalist" without breaking its own mold, so to speak; meanwhile, those very same societies are rife with, on the verge of collapse due to, extreme - and ever-increasing! - sexual and racial tensions which tend to supersede the socio-economic class-based tensions which are also extant to an extreme degree.
Mandatory military service to acquire the right to vote seems potentially appealing; however, in the context at hand, it is addressed within a utopian work of fiction, which ignores the realities of our world in large part. I would argue a more-appealing notion would be that only land-owners be allowed to vote, AND that military service for land-owners be mandatory, in terms of a period of service AND during wartime. The issue then becomes, as it did for the Romans, how to keep the wealthy from buying up all the land such that you no longer have a functional fighting force as the consequence of all the land being owned by a small group of wealthy people.
Austin Stewart
In a perfect world, yes. But let's be honest - if things continue the same way, future "federal service" would end up being service to the communist party before being allowed to vote and move up in the party. Military services is always used to brainwash the citizens, like is done in Israeli military where every citizen gets mandatory muh Holocaust education. Great if you live in a state that actually puts its people first but not great in ZOGworld where the state is just an instrument against the people.
So no, bad idea
Nathaniel Kelly
As long as you didn't have jews in charge of the process it would work fine.
Elijah Evans
So basically, Rome. They operated exactly the same
James Thompson
Yeah, but that goes for basically any political system, relatively speaking.
Dylan Lopez
Not really, no. Checked for see here:
The situation with the Roman military and how it came to be what you're likely conceiving of was a long and arduous process, and its outcome arguably was not to the benefit of Rome itself. Initially, IIRC, during the Republic period, the Roman military was entirely drawn from land-owners - if you owned land, you had to fight to defend it, period. Over time, it became an issue, as the wealthy elite were buying up all the land and then operating it using slaves, leaving the rest of the Roman populace kinda fucked and thusly diminishing Rome's military assets. As a consequence, they eventually moved to a payment-based anyone-can-join model, via which mean could earn land, and thus gain the right to have a say politically. This became a real issue in itself however, as men were now fighting for gold and the prospect of land/privilege instead of to defend such; and this further led into individual military leaders becoming the source of payment, and thus, of the loyalty of the troops (as opposed to the state). This is basically why, when Caesar sought to cross the Rubicon to march on Rome, his men rallied behind him - he was their paycheck, thus, if something bad happened to him, it would happen to them by extension (in all likelihood at least - who is going to believe some newfag general is going to pay his men as well as the man who they've been fighting beside for nearly a decade?).
Dylan Walker
It would become a one party system rather fast. Yes Yes Based on whose interpretation of an ideal political system?
This is literally exactly how the Chinese genocide worked. Anyone who questioned Mao was put into the army and suicided.
Parker Cook
...
Thomas White
That's incorrect, military service was mandatory for all children both in the Republic and the Empire, you couldn't hold any status if you never served in the Legions
Evan Smith
Ignoring that your system inevitably opens the door for the government to freely execute anybody that they don't like without having to go through the due process of the law, and intentionally building a safeguard that protects said system while making the people entirely beholden to it, is about the most Jewish gymnastics I can imagine. Did you really not consider the fact that not everyone who works to earn the privilege of influencing the nation's politics would want to see the nation prosper? Look at the US military, the majority of enlisted servicemen are anti-America while worshipping the government.
Xavier Collins
I don't think thats true. I do think that's true.
Hmm.
That's present in pretty much every government on Earth my man, historically and presently. If you think otherwise, you're very naive… That said, I see what you're saying, but you're not entirely honest here, are you? They can and do do that RIGHT NOW, see Seth Rich. What you're talking about is the prospect of sending an entire military unit on a suicide mission strictly for the sake of killing one or a few dissidents therein, and I can't see how someone rational would consider that equivalent to "freely executing anybody they don't like without going through the law" anymore than any other system can promote; however, I'd be happy to hear your alternative potentialities in this regard.
Josiah Adams
There is nothing special about what ZOGbots do. Even shit-tier Democracy works when there are no kikes.
Connor Bailey
Mandatory military service in exchange for voting rights is generally a bad idea. You want it to happen because you see how terrible the status quo is, and (rightfully) see is as a step forward, but a nation can institute policies that encompass all the benefits of compulsory military service with less drawbacks (others have already pointed out what these drawbacks are).
What you actually want is an end to universal suffrage; you want a barrier to entry for voting so that easily swindled idiots are less likely to effect the election process. As it stands, democracy panders to the lowest common denominator. A politician can make a grand plan to uplift his country and people and he'll get 1000 good men on his side, or he can promise (lie) about giving everyone free stuff and play to the emotions of the masses and he'll get 100,000 people to vote for him. It's easy to see what kind of person is going to win elections and wield all the power with a system like that.
Add any kind of obstacle to voting, no matter what it is, and you'll weed out huge percentages of the population. Most people pretend to care very much about politics, but would not make any personal sacrifice for any of their beliefs. If the effort involved with voting is greater than whatever they think they will get in return for it, most won't do it. Rhodesia had it right. They did not allow just anyone to vote. Rhodesia had different requirements for voting at different periods of their history, but the basics were that a voter 1.) had to own land, 2.) had to have a minimum annual income, 3.) had to have lived in the country for a period of time, and 4.) had to pass an english test.
This is all predicated on the notion that democracy is a good idea in the first place. I would not agree with that notion, but you can certainly do a lot of good within the confines of a democracy by adding barriers to voting, thus ensuring that the character of the average voter is of a higher quality. Any leader who pursued a change like this would be attacked as a fascist, but this is what the Founding Fathers of America intended, so rest assured that it is in no way incompatible with liberty.
Andrew Moore
The last thing we need is our soft soy shitlibs actually knowing how to care for a rifle.
John Jackson
Is 2 years of Military Service not a high enough barrier for entry to voting that you only get the very capable and very devoted?
Julian Robinson
Landowner purebloods of that ethnicity which meet a certain IQ requirement. Stupid people should not be allowed to vote.
Mason Adams
In no fucking way sons and daughters of a certain (((group))) of people will be put at risk, they'll be given cushy military position and then claim "I've risked my life like everybody else".
Camden Moore
But any bum fuck can go into the military for 2 years. I think you need to be a proven asset before you have the right to vote.
Anthony Adams
Maybe military being one of many alternative determiners? Owning land could be one, wealth, having natural born children, etc
Adam Cox
The people are nothing but property and we call that a monarchy.
How about this? The same as the US is currently except: There is no central bank and owning, even by proxy, more than one percent of the nation's GDP is illegal. No one gets to serve more than 8 years in any government position. The military, police, and alphabet agencies are disbanded. The militia (citizenry) can own any weapon. Any platform that allows more than 3 people to talk is subject to the exact wording of the First Amendment and nothing else. (Censorship is illegal again)
Ethan Morales
wew
Dylan Peterson
What about any laws they pass they have to live under as well.
Levi Wright
Where else are they gonna go? Any other nation would be a shithole compared to this one.
Cameron James
I think it’s important to note that the state service described in the book is not necessarily military service. Not everyone is suited for military service, but a task requiring discipline and self-sacrifice can still be found for such individuals. He mentions hazardous waste clean up and being subject of state research programs as examples. Overall it’s a good idea, but—as other posters have already noted—it’s unrealistic in its post-racial Utopianism. Especially since it’s implied that this civic nationalism was instituted prior to the discovery of a hostile alien species. But Starship Troopers does provide a useful template for producing propaganda. Even if post-racialism is a pipe dream, the meme can still be used to coax people into playing along with what is a de facto white nationalist state. After all, I can’t imagine many nuggets signing on for citizen service. They’d happily live as civilians. Which is something inadvertently hinted at in the film. The majority of the cast is comprised of white males, with minorities being reduced to nigh token status despite it being a global institution.
Sub humans have no concept of service or self sacrifice so def a no go today unless ya know…well you know.
Camden Lewis
I have several friends in the military, they are dumb as shit and completely ignorant. They have no business voting, but they do it anyway. So the answer is no, being a grunt for the zog army shouldn't be a qualification to vote. Voting should be limited by taking an exam that covers basic math, economics, civics, history, basic science, ethics, etc. Requirements to run for office should be extremely high, so testing to qualify to run for office should be at a very robust.
Austin Bell
this degenerate pedo faggot kike's been writing perverted formulaic space opera for 70 years,so I know where this literal morherfucker comes from. Fuck this joo hack.
It is most certainly a barrier to entry, and there is no problem with making military service a possible path to obtaining voting rights, but specifically requiring military service and only military service as a requirement to voting has a lot of drawbacks. The biggest of these, which I don't believe has been noted yet, is that any nation that did this would not be able to shrink their military as they saw fit. They would have a huge army at all times whether they needed it or not.
Policies and laws are supposed to work towards the benefit of the people. If you have a large military force but don't need it, then you've put into place a perverse incentive to use that force simply to justify the huge investment required to maintain it, regardless of whether or not a military action would be the best course of action for the nation. Moreover, if the people did not consent to military action, then the bureaucrats would be constantly incentivized to take power away from the people in order to more freely use their military assets because this is what makes the most financial sense.
I could go on, but my point is that it's not necessary. You don't need to make somebody serve for years to ensure the good quality of potential voters; just make them take a basic english and history test before they cast a ballot and 50% of the population will deign voting as no longer worth the effort. Add a few more small barriers and you'll have made it too inconvenient for most people to care about justice, freedom, truth, etc. That won't solve all the problems of democracy, but it is a fine start.
Samuel Howard
Well, sacrifice MOAR of your tasty crotch-spawn for your jooniggerfemfaggot betters.
No. I prefer a simpler alternative: gun ownership and annual weapons training. If you can't defend yourself with a firearm, fuck you and your politics.
No, I don't want to fight wars for the kikes, unless we had a government like the one in National Socialist Germany, then yes
Zachary Bell
slide thread
Leo Allen
Starship Troopers is great Yes service to the Reich for 2 years should be mandatory in order to vote , own land , or own a business. Period Also no niggers spics jews or gooks. Only whites
Justin Fisher
Yes, fuck people who grow food and make things. Your only value is fighting and dying for Israel.
I understand the main idea behind requiring Service. in our present "liberal democracy" the pleb can vote themselves all the "free stuff" they want. Most don't give a shit that the whole will be destroyed by doing so. People who have put themselves in harm way would be reluctant to commit such folly.
Would this be the perfect system?
Hell no.
Would it be better than what we have now?
I think so.
Brandon Sullivan
Fag
Samuel Robinson
be careful what you wish for. Military is most Zio-cucked group in USA, probably more Zio-cucked than actual Jews. They are also the most entitled group outside maybe cops, and tend to hate moderately successful productive upper-middleclass people, out of jealousy, yet worship the uber-rich .0001%. IMO, narrowing the vote to vets would crash the USA even quicker than its going.
Joseph Perez
Limiting sufferage (and holding office) to those who serve certainly seems to be an ideal solution, as it demands the people who want to weild political power actually be willing to risk their own life. But is this right given to blacks? Immigrants? Women? What about people who can't serve, like cripples/handicaps? Also, as we've seen, a democracy ultimately becomes ruled by its bureaucracy, rather than the elected officials. So to be a bureaucrat, do you need to serve in the military as well? Or will that count as "service" as Heinlein suggested it might, when pressed about the issue of military service being the only method to earn the right to vote and hold political office? I surely don't want to be forced to fight wars on behalf of Israel, just to earn the right to vote.
Jack Smith
Where da proof tho?
Christopher Brooks
The best government is a dictatorship.
It is the most efficient one.
Luke Scott
In the 1990s, at maybe the height of cop worship, I'd say the police were much worse. Now, it's the military hands down. It still hasn't dawned on them that they are effectively massive leeches, particularly if they go the 20 year route, where you can retire in your late 30s.
It is also a fictional book, with many of it's plot components being just the personal views of the writer, disregarding any realistic view about the world and society as a whole. It is also a marxist fever dream, where men and women are treated as if they were equal, and even more retard, women are presented as if they were competent in doing any job, including military. Pure marxist retardation. And the whole "no individuals, only a tribe" fallacy is the main agenda pushed by communism. A person is an individual first, and above everything else. Being a member of any group or tribe is secondary to that. Putting a group above yourself is the definition of communist, and thus, doomed to fail.
Putting their country and their people above their individual lives is precisely what Hitler and the National Socialist did you kike sucking TOR-pedo. Putting your family, your friends, your nation above your petty personal interest is the very essence of Aryan duty.
Democracy is too corrupted to be trustworthy again.
Only idiots will become the lemmings for (((them)))
Right now, it is not. Maybe in the future but who knows? I have nothing against military forces or mandatory military services as long as the government is not corrupt.
Matthew Bailey
In a good and proper society, yes, military duty would be every able-bodied males responsibility. For ZOG occupied nations? No, I'd rather not serve in their militaries. We should be fighting for our peoples survival and way of life, instead of foreign wars for foreign and domestic billionaires.
Giving only the military the right to have voting power is one of the most difficult system for the jews to manipulate, since kikes hate the dirty work of being in the military. Of course, after 200 years with enough free reign, kikes are even able to take down an entire military, right now every major military leader is a kike puppet mason and probably closet sodomite.
I like the old system of our forefathers where only land owning men were allowed to vote, this ensures that all voters have some stake in the land, their livelihoods are tied to the very soil of the nation. Like all systems, this of course requires jews be barred from the land.
Ethan Moore
hahaha yikes, you can tell by her reaction that hit a fucking nerve.
Oliver Edwards
No that would just lead to the country being run by ZOGbots.
Gabriel Ross
But will they? Just for the right to vote? Forget about the GI bill.
Jaxon King
I don't think you read the book very closely if you think of the Human Federation as post-sexual; the book goes into great detail at how different are men from women, how when seeing women after combat, the infantry falls into an almost trance, lusting after the graceful movements and habits of the feminine form; but the soldiers are also very disciplined and respectful, and fear the absolute and swift retribution of their superior officers if they so much as speak to the woman without her inviting him to; subtle overtones of courtly love traditions, etc. you're a faggot who didn't read the book that closely. race is not the be end all of a civilization, faggot. Martial traditions matter, and this book is a vision of that par excellence.
Carson Wood
Not a risk, the soyboys simply won't enter the army. Their safety is more important than their vote to them.
Juan Brooks
No. I won't die for jews and neither will my family. In fact several neocons have suggested proposing such laws.
Justin Barnes
In SST the voting was done by retired military (you couldn't vote while still in service) but the difference there was that the military was actually dangerous because you had to risk your lives fighting alien bugs.
If we did it here, a bunch of retired boomers who barely risked anything would be voting to go save the Jews.
Something like this MIGHT have worked in the 1930s. It probably would've kept us out of WW2. I expect the reason we entered it was women voters.
Ryder Harris
nice
Joshua Reed
It’s fiction, Jim. Out in the real world pacifism is entry stakes to civilization, and the military is the only system that really ought to be a corrupt and dysfunctional loyalist construct. Not because that works, but precisely because it doesn’t, because it drags the military towards civilization.
Anthony Torres
If you require military service, all members of the government have taken a stake with their lives.
Easton Rogers
Yes it is. Fuck off.
Kayden Murphy
The movie has a left wing slant that the book doesn't have–particularly about sex. The movie has a little flavor of egalitarian feminism in it. Namely in how it portrays women in the army. Heinlein didn't want or believe in equality of the sexes–at least not the same way the left does. Case-in-point, he didn't make women into infantrymen in the book, although he did have female pilots and ship captains. I know there is a lot of anti-feminism going around, which I do appreciate, but Heinlein married a female naval officer. Having read a bunch of Heinlein books, if you thought the way that Heinlein did, you couldn't marry a female naval officer if she wasn't a hell of a woman. I mean, Heinlein was more red pilled than Zig Forums about women.
But really, Zig Forums, are women really only good for cooking, cleaning and vagina? Is being anti-feminist more important than accepting that some women actually want to do more and are capable of being more than be a housewife? I happen to appreciate if a woman has an interest in things that are atypical, like the military or aviation, instead of being complete idiots. So, that's why we need women in the military, because it makes them better. (except the ones that become dikes)
Read his other books, because Heinlein really cherishes straight sex, which seems to be the only kind of sex not celebrated.
Robert Ramirez
In the book, yes. In reality making military or civil service a requirement to full citizenship would immediately remove the vast majority of women and non-whites from politics. Neither group has any real interest in politics in the first place unless it serves their particular immediate interests.
Landon Russell
A lot of men do, im sure, but we both know that women like that are exceedingly rare.
Nolan Brooks
Military service does not make you special only a sucker. Only net taxpayers should be able to vote or hold office. If you cheat on your taxes or use loopholes and are no longer a net tax payer it takes care of it self you no longer can vote if you receive welfare you can no longer vote if you are an illegal you can no longer vote.
Colton Flores
that fat fuck needs to lose some weight
Luke Harris
Mandatory reminder that Heinlein was hardcore feminists. Using trick of false equivalence of his made up world and IRL to slip in false ideas that women are useful for things besides childbirth and simple household labor.
It already happens a lot. A lot of lower officer ranks are just faggots and womyn pushed through OCS because daddy is 06+, E8+, or some high up GS position. Most officers in intel, cyber security, or admin positions are just trash tier officers. Unless it's a combat role the officer is basically just another civilian.
Connor Mitchell
And men who aren't complete faggots are exceedingly rare. Men who think for themselves at all are exceedingly rare.
Doesn't mean women come out of the womb as they are poisoned by the left and the media and completely disinterested in the world.
John Cruz
He actually had naked super ninja female recon troops in the "Tunnel in the sky".
Ayden Richardson
No but their biological imperatives still affect them. The phenomenon of gender segregation in free societies is well established. Hence why I'm saying that even minimum requirements for voting would remove the majority of negative political influences. The overwhelming majority of women would not lift a finger just for the right to vote and it was in fact simply handed to them after some disproportionate nagging.
Daniel Morris
Doesn't compute. They worked hard. Of course using female methods. Nagging.
Austin Stewart
Service guarantees citizenship. However citizenship should not guarantee the right to vote. You can purchase deeds to property AFTER servicing the state for two years. Dishonorable discharge is treason and is penalized by death. You can voluntarily quit but can never rejoin the military if you cannot finish your service.
To join the military you must be physically fit to fight without medical aid (no diabetes or wheelchair) and you must pass a college level mental fitness exam. Yes we must discriminate against those unfit to succeed us. And physical and mental fitness exams will be required for voters every five years after service to prove they are capable to vote.
But what about voting? First after service you are authorized through vassalage to purchase property from the state or other citizens that bought property before you. Then you pay taxes on the land you work on. Only an idiot would not use his land for personal business.
So fitness, service, land ownership, and taxes are the four pillars of a voter's qualification to vote for their duty. After all if a voter votes in a corrupt politician then they will be held criminally accountable for that politicians actions. Speaking of accountability…
Also corporations will be illegal without holding the investors aka the business stock owners criminally accountable. Which means to invest in a company you must accept liability for that company by risking your own property. Money is worthless on it's own. It's a currency rewarded for labor. Therefore collateral must be paid in property or time for criminal accountability. And if the crime is severe enough like homocide, then your life must be paid for taking another.
Logan Hughes
The suffragettes were a minority. A disproportionately loud one but still tiny. They could easily have been ignored.
Justin Perry
Many countries already do this.
Jack Flores
Democracy is degenerate so there shouldn't be voting in the first place. Making conscription mandatory for voting rights is a bad idea because in the current system that means putting your life on the line for a decadent and corrupt government that hates you and your people and views them as nothing more than disposable pawns anyway. I would, however, support making life-risking military service a pre-requisite for receiving welfare, considering how the military is just a giant welfare scheme in the first place.
Ethan Torres
no have you read Francis Parker Yockey newfriend? If not, shut your whore mouth and lurk.
Aaron Stewart
it would sure as hell be better then we have now, all for it
Elijah Jones
Yes goy die for Israel.
Benjamin Hernandez
This book was satire mocking our beliefs.
Colton Miller
I'd add having to have brought life into this world in order to be eligible and that would've been perfect. Military service is really not a good idea due to the vulnerabilty it brings to one's situation, just as other user mentioned here:
Adrian Howard
There's no way anyone is clueless enough to really believe that is the case.
The only jews pushing the idea that I should go die in some jewish bankers war are the jews
Kill yourself Jared Kushner
Daniel Rivera
First 40 acres per real person is tax free. After that there's a steep progressive property tax. Why should anyone be taxed out of their ancestral home just because they don't want to participate in the economy? That's absolutely unjust. But if try to horde the land you absolutely will be required to make use of it through increasingly steep taxes. This prevents land hoarding while permitting people to develop ancestral estates.
Isaac Wright
The movie was satire. You've clearly never read the book.
Benjamin Jenkins
Only justified if we had a species-detriment, common enemy.
Some may call that the Jew.
Lincoln Murphy
That's not quite correct. The book is very clear that the only additional right you earn through service is the right to vote. You do NOT also get a right to run for office.
What that means is, theoretically, a civilian could run for president. It's just that, he would have to be elected by citizens and they probably wont vote for him.
James Gomez
Banker: go reduce the population. Kill these people so I can get rich off their resources. Make sure you die too. Inanimate objects are more important than human life. Consent to this. Youl be a hero!
Pol: uh, ok! Based Israel maga!
Easton Murphy
Hey if you all don't go fight my war for me you are lazy communists. Go die for oil. What are you lazy? Go die for Exxon profits. Losers. Fucking traitor. I can't believe you wont go die to increase BP profits. Fucking idiot. You are going to prison for not fighting an aristocrats war for him.
Dominic Peterson
This thread is how desperate these Jamaicans are to get all of us to go die fighting the army's they funded. Hahahahahahahahah dumb fuck Jamaicans forgot you cant have ww3 without goyim to fight it!
Lucas Morales
Stupid because voting is stupid. If you want to use Rome as a model, take it when it had kings.
Christopher Wood
Yes. Many countries have a military, reserve, or federal service requirement, including MEXICO (of course stronk womyn are volunteer basis in MX).
