I'm doing my part!

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?

Attached: screenshot_271.png (1200x680, 1.33M)

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.

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

As long as you didn't have jews in charge of the process it would work fine.

So basically, Rome. They operated exactly the same

Yeah, but that goes for basically any political system, relatively speaking.

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?).

It would become a one party system rather fast.
Yes
Yes
Based on whose interpretation of an ideal political system?

Attached: Robertsons spice salt & vinegar.jpg (800x800, 50.44K)

>your ZOGbot unit gets (((defeated))) in battle

This is literally exactly how the Chinese genocide worked. Anyone who questioned Mao was put into the army and suicided.

...

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

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.

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.

There is nothing special about what ZOGbots do. Even shit-tier Democracy works when there are no kikes.

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.

The last thing we need is our soft soy shitlibs actually knowing how to care for a rifle.

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?

Landowner purebloods of that ethnicity which meet a certain IQ requirement. Stupid people should not be allowed to vote.

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".

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.

Maybe military being one of many alternative determiners? Owning land could be one, wealth, having natural born children, etc

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)

wew

What about any laws they pass they have to live under as well.

Where else are they gonna go? Any other nation would be a shithole compared to this one.

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.

great movie

Attached: asshole - Copy.jpg (381x260, 28.84K)

It would work were it not for subhuman niggers

Gee,what does that remind me of….oh,yeah.The Anglo-Judaic floval empire that had 90% to do with murdering my race.
FOAD pic related

Attached: 1515560004853.png (720x405 3.84 KB, 27.43K)

Sub humans have no concept of service or self sacrifice so def a no go today unless ya know…well you know.

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.

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.

Attached: d7b15e5eb5fadb208c05502c111d95de425ec422b8963566a76af2cb8b9a6afd.jpg (227x255 12.52 KB, 13.55K)

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.

Well, sacrifice MOAR of your tasty crotch-spawn for your jooniggerfemfaggot betters.

Attached: vKEqUVJ.jpg (768x1024 108.83 KB, 110.49K)

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.

This.

Attached: 1418257181710.png (795x3687, 430.67K)

Attached: Protestors Follow Richard Spencer Supporter - Short, LQ.mp4 (640x360, 8.77M)

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

slide thread

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

Yes, fuck people who grow food and make things. Your only value is fighting and dying for Israel.

Attached: killed_ten_kids_for_you.jpg (970x647 131.46 KB, 792.22K)

In theory this is nice. But since our Armies basically only fight proxy wars for Israel and Saudi Arabia which tribe would they really be loyal to?

You are a citizen if you are white.

This shit skin meme with tard face, what is it called?

Goblina or le 56%

Attached: brittany-venti-white-skin.mp4 (1280x720, 4.11M)

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.

Fag

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.

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.

Where da proof tho?

The best government is a dictatorship.

It is the most efficient one.

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.

People still do this

Attached: XNqlNhiq-0s.jpg (1280x967, 110.8K)

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.

Denise Richards is hot

Attached: do_your_part.webm (640x348, 834.33K)

Why would we be stupid enough to fall for a sham like democracy?
Also, the anime was better than that shitty leftist movie.

Attached: Novel-poweredsuit-illust-color.jpg (538x357, 30.75K)

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.

Attached: Heinrich here.jpg (500x425, 43.42K)

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.

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.

Attached: 15578602_1658211087805107_332888959771485912_n.jpg (960x540, 40.91K)

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.

hahaha yikes, you can tell by her reaction that hit a fucking nerve.

No that would just lead to the country being run by ZOGbots.

But will they? Just for the right to vote? Forget about the GI bill.

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.

Not a risk, the soyboys simply won't enter the army. Their safety is more important than their vote to them.

No.
I won't die for jews and neither will my family.
In fact several neocons have suggested proposing such laws.

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.

nice

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.

If you require military service, all members of the government have taken a stake with their lives.

Yes it is. Fuck off.

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.

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.

A lot of men do, im sure, but we both know that women like that are exceedingly rare.

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.

that fat fuck needs to lose some weight

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.

Attached: 12341234.jpg (1280x853, 85.85K)

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.

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.

He actually had naked super ninja female recon troops in the "Tunnel in the sky".

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.

Doesn't compute.
They worked hard. Of course using female methods. Nagging.

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.

The suffragettes were a minority. A disproportionately loud one but still tiny. They could easily have been ignored.

Many countries already do this.

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.

no
have you read Francis Parker Yockey newfriend? If not, shut your whore mouth and lurk.

it would sure as hell be better then we have now, all for it

Yes goy die for Israel.

This book was satire mocking our beliefs.

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:

There's no way anyone is clueless enough to really believe that is the case.

Attached: 78467.png (547x442, 551.49K)

The only jews pushing the idea that I should go die in some jewish bankers war are the jews

Kill yourself Jared Kushner

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.

The movie was satire. You've clearly never read the book.

Only justified if we had a species-detriment, common enemy.

Some may call that the Jew.

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.

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!

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.

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!

Stupid because voting is stupid.
If you want to use Rome as a model, take it when it had kings.

Yes.
Many countries have a military, reserve, or federal service requirement, including MEXICO (of course stronk womyn are volunteer basis in MX).

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (598x399, 502.96K)