>>25021169Stupid ideas, which were wonderfully lampooned in the film. (And the author even tried to mis-remember into meaning something else. He didn't even like what he wrote)
>>25021180Stupid is not the same as controversial though
>>25021180>lampooned?we got a brain bug here sarge
>>25021169Something about disenfranchising the masses, I guess.You don't get to vote unless you serve the state, which is tough luck if you're opposed to the state.
>>25021220>why do people dislike limburger cheese?>"because it's stinky">stinky is not the same as disliked though
>>25021169Because it's pro-fascist
>>25021180>>25022064You're both stupid and disliked but neither of them necessarily have anything to do with the other. You're just a retard with a shit personality.
>>25021180>>25022203Heinlein: Non-citizens should be able to become citizens by working for the government.Liberals: That is literally fascism REEEEE!
>>25022316I, not the frog poster, are neither stupid nor disliked. This shows you don't know me at all.Or this stinky old book. Your post reveals your shitty personality though.
>>25022465Heinlein: billions must die for Israel and oilChuddies: WAOW!!!!
>>25022472t.Bug
>>25021180It doesn't lampoon heinlein's feminism at all though?
>>25021169unironically because libtards can't fathom the idea of even discussing things such as:>the military being anything other than a pure fascist colonialist demon organisation>serving your society being a good thing>negative reinforcement being good (i.e. punishing crime, which is argues as being good for both the society and the punished individual)>the individual having to sacrifice for the society (i.e. the discussion about radiation on earth being bad for the individual, but good for the race as a whole, since it forces rapid evolution)
>>25023704Also,>writer glorifies war but is too coward to join the armed forcesGive me Joe Haldeman any time.
>>25021169Because it presented the idea of citizenship as actually not that important. In the novel most people don't even pursue it.
>>25021169It was poorly thought out trite that only existed as an excuse for scifi military wankery. As a result, it was pro-fascist which wasn't the intention but it ended up there anyway.
>>25022465>you cannot participate in the social contract until you have sacrificed your health and life to the state to which you are subservient, but you may at all times be bound by the social contract which you have no say in because you are not sovereignWell what the fuck would you call this, then? Liberalism?
The controversy resulted from the fact that Heinlein was writing a series of juvenile novels for Scribner's and then offered this as another. The editors there didn't think that this was quite what they were looking for. Putnam then published it. -- The Wikipedia article goes into much more detail if you're interested.
Okay, shut up and have a listenPart Ihttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H52OedcjRFAPart IIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0w1gB1hC64
>>25023863Yes, you're right. Everything that's not liberalism is fascism.
>>25023045 > heinlein's feminismyou mean where he said if a woman is being raped she should close her eyes and "do her whorish best"? nah, starship troopers was controversial because the protagonist wasn't white.
>>25024290HehFascism is liberalism in crisis.
>>25023863>>25024290>>25024344Americans literally don't know what liberalism is.
>>25024260More like feral CHUDstorian
>>25024371Nnnnnot really. Not at all in fact. >>25024367It is in general the liberation movement that opposed the ancien regime of divine right, monarch and church. Primarily concerned, and funded, by the merchant class that had been growing since the riches of the New World opened up. New ideas from hard science and social science also started to crack the old facade apart. The main idea was that, yes we could and should improve our lots in life. Put Thomas Hobbes ideas away.But the merchant class seized power and put the breaks on all that freedom stuff. Finding common cause with their political foes the Hobbesian conservatives, they fought back the lower classes who wanted more liberty than what the liberals wanted to give up. The socialists were resisted for a long time till the excesses of capitalism collapsed (this is a feature of capitalism not a bug) The liberals slowly and painfully adopted social programs to bribe the masses and retain their power. Fascism was funded to fight the more zealous socialists who wouldn't take the bribe. Clear?
>>25024367Very useful post. Really added a lot. >>25024469Marxist gibberish. Clear as mud. A total hallucination of the world.
Not as good as the one where Heinlein's self-insert protagonist bangs his 13-year old twin female clones, before going back in time to bang his mom.
>>25024507>MarxistNonsense. >Having trouble understanding itI hope you're just trolling. If not you have cognition problems.
Pro military Pro propaganda
>>25024290so then what the fuck is it, smart assit's a reactionary work that is explicitly anti-liberal (as opposed to something being merely a-liberal, like monarchism which preceded liberalism). The two main reactionary, anti-liberal camps are communism and fascism and it's obviously not the former, and now you're saying it's not the latter either, right? So it's just nothing, then?
>>25023704>>the military being anything other than a pure fascist colonialist demon organisationthe last time the US had an actual good war rather than running around overseas to meddle in shit it had nothing to do with or run errands for megacorps, it was slaughtering rebel scum in the 1800s. of course nobody alive today remembers a time when the american military wasn't a worthless leech on the american taxpayer.
>>25025073America is not the world
>>25022465why did Heinlein write a book about serving the state while claiming to "make Ayn Rand look like a socialist". >inb4 herp herp "socialism is when the government does stuff"show me a socialist country which is stateless and still managed to function, either in the past or in recent memory. Rojava doesn't count because they can barely enforce their borders and CHAZ fell apart in a week.
>>25025262oh but it is, you eat American food, consume American movies and listen to American music. cope.
>>25025282But I eat Mexican food,play Canadian games, and listen to Russian music.
>>25025290You just made that up. Liar.
>>25023725It do present citizenship as something important.But it makes a effort that its not for everybody. As shown by the fratboy breaking.
>>25025278>a book about serving the stateYou can be for small governments but still acknowledge that soldiers serve an important purpose in society.
>>25021169Because people are retards who don't understand what speculative fiction is.Mid-century scifi writers would come up with book ideas by asking some weird question and then writing out a story to illustrate the answer.>What would a being that thinks as well as a man but not like a man be like?>What would the conflict between the ultimate cops and ultimate robbers be like?>What if there were beings as much more advanced than us as we are than animals scavenging at the side of the road?>What would Stalinism pushed to its most extreme form look like?Etc, etc.The question of Starship Troopers is this:>What would a pure meritocracy look like?Heinlein asks this, and comes up with answers like:>You'd have to prove your competence and investment in society to be able to vote.>The opportunity to prove your competence would be open to everyone, even a blind paraplegic.>A father would not object to being his son's subordinate if the son was more competent as a commander.It has nothing to do with promoting fascism, it's just illustrating a possible answer to one of those weird questions that scifi writers were speculating about at the time. He does the same thing in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress when he asks, "Exploration bases always have a skewed sex ratio of more men than women, how would they build a society under those circumstances if they had to?" and decides that they'd probably resort to polyandry.
>>25025524>>You'd have to prove your competence and investment in society to be able to vote.this is a nonsensical statement. The only purpose of consensus is to determine what the will of the people is in a system where they are sovereign and that matters.Critics of liberalism have been autistically trying to confound the purpose of voting for decades. Retards on this site always say shit like "democracy doesn't work because sometimes people vote for bad stuff."The purpose of voting IS NOT to try and determine what is best or even necessarily good for a country. A consensus does not prove rightness or justness, and in fact it doesn't even have to imply those things either. A consensus is just a consensus.A bar to voting for most classes of people just makes a consensus not a consensus, and the people aren't sovereign in any event, so it doesn't make sense that a governing body would be compelled to listen to them anyway.
>>25025555That's all completely irrelevant. The question is "What does a pure meritocracy look like?" not "What does a perfect democracy look like?"
>>25025566I'm asking why a meritocracy where the people are not sovereign would have a superfluous mechanism for determining consensus welded onto the side of it?It's on the same level as having a socialist, anarchist country and then establishing an ineffective monarchy with no legal rights or powers. Like what the fuck are you doing?
>>25025582Meritocracy means rule by merit. All that's necessary is to determine the consensus of those people who have proven a certain level of merit.
>>25025592>All that's necessary is to determine the consensus of those people who have proven a certain level of merit.except citizens aren't sovereign either, so their votes don't matter. If you have to be given enfranchisement as a reward by a higher body who was previously withholding it from you, then you are not sovereign. The state is sovereign. Do you think that if a plurality of citizens voted to annul the current regime, it would just go away?
>>25025603Who cares? Your concept of sovereignty is a vague abstraction, and the theory is that if the politicians and voters are all made to prove their merit ahead of time then the state will be benevolent anyway.>Do you think that if a plurality of citizens voted to annul the current regime, it would just go away?Do you think this is the case in real-world liberal democracies? Or that the citizens are more sovereign than the state in real-world liberal democracies? If your problem is with the sovereignty of the state, then you're talking about something which is simply outside of the scope of the book.
>>25025616>theory is worthless because it's not the same as practice>so anyway, the theory in ST is...uh huh. >and the theory is that if the politicians and voters are all made to prove their merit ahead of time then the state will be benevolent anyway.How does that follow at all? WHy would you expect war veterans to inherently be more moral than anyone else?> Your concept of sovereignty is a vague abstractionIt's not vague at all, it's pretty specific. Sovereignty is the power to bind the state pursuant to the social contract. Non-citizens certainly cannot bind the state in any respect in ST by design, and citizens also cannot realistically bind the state as they are subservient to it.
>>25025631>>theory is worthless because it's not the same as practice>so anyway the social contractlolAs long as the state exists, no matter what form it takes, it will be sovereign for all practical intents and purposes. You cannot bind the state in any manner which the state does not consent to. The state will always hold a monopoly, or at least a controlling share, on force, and those who seek to bind it against its will will be put down. Even if you could establish a perfect direct democracy where consensus directly and perfectly translates into policy, this would still be the case. Your problem is with reality, not the book.
>>25025649>I am le dark and twisted sociopath who only believes in le force and le power...>Let me tell you how grim the world is from my mother's basementok article 5 of the US constitution doesn't exist and has never been invoked before, I got you
>>25025657That the basis of the state's authority is its monopoly on force is the most principle of political theory known to man. There's nothing dark or grim about that, there is no other way to have a functional state. Society would collapse if random schizos could simply overthrow the state every time it does something they don't like.
>>25025663>That the basis of the state's authority is its monopoly on force is the most principle of political theory known to man.it is a theory, but social contract theory says that government authority is derived from the consent of the governed, hence why consensus is important for countries that are popularly sovereign.Your response to this is an unfalsifiable edgelord-ism that basically amounts to "nuh-uh."I say unfalsifiable because for any instance I could provide of democratic consensus dismantling certain regimes (e.g. Jim Crow), you would just respond that that doesn't show that the state is not supreme, it just shows that the supreme state let the foolish cattle run around and vote and pretend like they're doing anything. Which is how ST actually works.
>>25025671>it just shows that the supreme state let the foolish cattle run around and vote and pretend like they're doing anythingNo, I would say that the state may be bound where it consents to be bound. This is the case in real-world liberal democracies, and there is no reason why this wouldn't also be the case in hypothetical perfect meritocracies.
>>25025674So you're agreeing with me that your position is that the state is always supreme relative to the people in the state, even when the people enact change on the state, thus making your belief in the state an unfalsifiable dogma, in which case there isn't any point in continuing to have a conversation.Have a good one.
>>25025681>erm this obvious and easily falsifiable fact is a heckin dogma so i'm leaving in a fit of autistic rageYou're right, there's no point in continuing this.
>>25025603Said plurality in this case are veterans who understand the basics of power and where it stems from, not you and your kin of mongrel leeches. The second amendment was designed with said people in mind.
>>25025524What was Heinlein asking when he wrote Friday?
Why aren't you doing your part?
I read the first chapter of this and it was passable. Dropped the second chapter quickly it was some boring lame character stuff. Does anyone want to tell me how the book differs from the movie?
>>25023863Everyone can participate in a very free, very prosperous, very safe society in ST. It is in one of the most liberal human societies depicted in SF, excluding utopias.But if you want to direct state violence one way or the other, you can't shrug your responsability in it. You, as a citizen in a democracy, are either a) cumplicit in the violence of the state because your vote matters or b) superfluous because it doesn't. The citizens in ST are purer democrats than is possible in our world of accidental citizenship and moral laundering.
>>25025489Yeah true. But the armed forces can't be all just be composed of mercenaries
>>25023720Heinlein was in the Navy for WWII.
