I've just been re-reading Robert A. Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers, which creates a future in which only persons who have gone through voluntary military service are allowed to vote. Heinlein clearly presents this as an ideal system, with no irony or satiric intent that I can discover.

To be debated: What do you think of Heinlein's idea? Is is "fair"? Would it lead to a better society, a worse one, or just a different one?

I've read it a few times and I'll agree wholeheartedly that there was no satire intended.

That said, I find myself disagreeing on Heinlein on this note (though the book is full of other tid-bits that have my support).
Unfortunately in a volunteer force veterans are more likely to be from a lower socio-economic level and be recipients of inferior education from our oh-so-wonderful education systems. While the considerable sense of responsibility for one's country that military service can indicate (or cultivate) is a big plus, the level of education is a big minus. Even beside theses characteristics I don't believe limiting franchise military service necessarily increases the number of responsible voters. There are plenty of responsible people in other professions.

All in all limiting franchise to those considered "qualified" should be avoided when at all reasonable to avoided making unfair generalizations.

If the voluntary veterans served during war times such as Iraq, then i believe we would have a peaceful nation. These former veterans had been threw so much, including physical and emotional problems. Some examples are : Viet-Nam, WW11, etc.

If we had just veterans to vote during an election, they would vote for the peace-loving canidates. Im not saying every veteran would do this, but i believe the majority would.



A Different One.

I guess you must believe that the Republican Party and GW Bush are more inclined toward peace than the Democratic Party and any Democratic nominee.

While I am against qualifications, with the exception of age, I do think you should be able to vote your correct intention on a butterfly ballot.

I can tell you one thing for sure; if only vets could vote vetrans pensions and healthcare benefits would go through the roof.

Did i say anything about Bush and Republicans? It is all part of america, wether it is republicans, dems, independents, green party, nuthing, it doesnt matter really.

It wouldnt be a republican that would be more inclined to peace, it would most likely be the democratic Party and any Democratic nominee.

I will bet you a dollar to a doughnut hole that the Republicans once again get the military vote and that veterans follow suite in 2004.

I've often wondered about that idea of Heinlein's myself.

Someone who joins the military in order to get the ability to vote is likely to have the following characteristics:

1. They care enough about having the 'right' to vote that they served their country.
2. They appreciate the seriousness of going to war along with the fact that it is sometimes a necessity.

If something cost nothing, it rarely is considered to have much value. The right to vote is free to all men and women over a certain age, and consequently, we need to have 'Rock the Vote!' shows on MTV, with Lieberman being asked penetratingly stupid questions like, "Which candidate would you most like to party with?"

The only caveat would be that the military would have to make space for people with handicaps that would ordinarily not be capable of serving - to be fair.

I've never understood this notion of joining the military as "serving your country." I don't see how picking up a gun means that you serve the country any more than any other job. I mean, almost every profession is essential to run the country. I mean, everyone hates Used Car Salesmen, but what if there weren't any? We wouldn't be able to buy used cars. Working at McDonald's (or Taco Bell, for that matter) doesn't seem to provide and essential service, but if all the McDonalds's shut down due to lack of workers, then there'd be serious problems for the US.

In fact, in many ways, being in the military is less beneficial to the country than working at McDonald's. Most soldiers don't go into combat, and there's been no combat that was imperative to the US' survival since 1945 anyway. Not only does the government have to pay your wages (regardless of their size,) they have to pay for room and board, college, guns, uniforms, ect. Not that I look down on soldiers, but I still don't see how they're "serving their country" any more than another person. For the most part, they're peripheral.


I'm sure someone will bring up the point that it's a dangerous job. Well, there are plenty of other jobs that are at least (and often more) dangerous than being in the military. Even for infantry, there aren't nearly as many casualties in war as there used to be. Are people with jobs such as, say, the ones on this list, in which soldiering is not included, "serving their country" a lot more than a Marine by this line of logic?



I'd think this'd be a terrible idea. I don't see where you got the idea that Heinlein thought this was a "flawless idea." I've read the same book, and one of the things that clearly sticks in my mind about it is that when the main character signs up, he signs a contract in which he agrees to fight for "4 years or as long as he is needed," and gets a chilled feeling that he's signed up for life.

Not like an idea like that'd ever float, anyway. Americans like soldiers, but they aren't all willing to be one themselves.

I am a HUGE Hienlien fan, and have read his books many times. One thing you are missing here, is that in his book EVERYONE has the right to serve, there is no discrimination in the military, gays and women and the disabled allowed to serve, actually had a right to serve. So, if you want this, you should have the whole equation. I actually like the idea.

Let's see, there have been 292 casualties in Iraq, out of 130,000 soldiers. That makes 224 deaths per 100,000.

From your link:
Occupation Fatalities per 100,000
Timber cutters 117.8
Fishers 71.1
Pilots and navigators 69.8
Structural metal workers 58.2
Drivers-sales workers 37.9
Roofers 37
Electrical power installers 32.5
Farm occupations 28
Construction laborers 27.7
Truck drivers 25


Being a soldier is obviously more dangerous. Also, without a military, there might be BE a United States. The same cannot be said of almost any other profession (including McDonald's worker).

I still think Heinlein's idea is off-base. Military vets obviously do not represent everyone: they're too conservative .

On that note, I've known several pilots who have died while on duty (not in combat, but training exercises). Life insurance companies won't usually cover fighter pilots at all, or the premiums are extreme. So yes, it's a dangerous line of work.

Because it's so dangerous and demanding, we need our forces to be capable. I don't believe the requirements for combat success necessarily correlate with the ability to choose an elected official. I definitely don't believe in compromising national security to ensure such a voting process is "fair". Therefore, I don't think much of the idea.

Would combat vets get to vote twice? Or maybe ten times over due to having been in the extremely high risk of life/limb to serve the desires of whatever administration sent them to whatever fight they were fighting?

Maybe Afghanistan vets would get to vote 15 times over while Iraq vets get the standard 10.

Non-combat vets, maybe 5 votes over?

And never-deployed former military just one vote like the rest of us.

What about civilian military contractors? Maybe two votes for them?

So if war never happens, then everyone gets one vote. If war is happening, military vote is suspended? You know, because it's hard to make an informed decision from the foxhole?

Then for nominees, only combat vets? So long Bush. Hello Kerry.

But what if the rest of us stopped paying taxes? So long military.

Actually, that situation might be closer than anyone imagines right now. The unemployed and underemployed don't pay much in taxes, if any, and the economists are already talking about the next recession.

Anyway, if the argument is that one segment of society is more important than another, I can see room to adjust this politically.

I'm not so sure about the Starship Troopers idea, and what's more as a lifelong Heinlein fan, I'm not so sure he'd go for it himself. SF writers like to toss out ideas, turn them around and play with them, and look at them from all angles. That book was one such exercise, and it was fairly early in his career, before his political views were done forming.

But anyway, I'm not necessarily against the idea of their being some qualifications for voting other than just a warm body. The idea may be undemocratic, but then I'm not a democrat, not even with a small "d", and such qualifications are definitely compatible with a limited constitutional republic.

One thought I've entertained from time to time is that maybe anyone who receives all or most of their income from government should be disqualified from voting. I'm sure you can guess why.

They usually take THEMSELVES out of that process Isdaari- the poor are the worst voting bloc, where home owners are the largest!

I am for some other qualification issues first 1) Test to be able to own firearms
2) Test to have babies
3) THEN test to vote!

CruisingRam, it isn't so much people on welfare I was thinking about, whom I'm well aware mostly don't vote, but the legions of government employees, who nearly all do.

Whether for offense, defense, a pre-emptive strike or idealist peacekeeping, Violence is inevitable. No disrespect to vets, but do we truly want a group of people that has ultimately decided to serve their country, understanding this ultimate end, to decide our present and future? Why not only pass on such a privilege to those aiming for an arguably more positive end - such as diplomats? Selective voting rights would not work(well) because it is controversial to differentiate between qualities that apply to a "good" citizen and a "bad" citizen. I think I'll pick up a copy of this book sometime this week. Sounds kinda cool.

If the idea was changed to include other, non-military forms of service, I like it.
Perhaps our educations system would improve for the majority of us, instead of the best of it being reserved for the elite of this country. The first thing I learned in the military is that there are a lot of people out there who don't think the way I do, and the next thing I learned is acceptance of their opinions.

As I recall, according to hienliens book, only the vets could be goverment employees! LOl

I am a goverment employee- x2 soon, as I intend to join the Army Guard in the next couple of months- You know why goverment employees vote so much? Because they know that the poeple that think they are worthless are the first ones to whine when they need them LOL- DMV

Also remember how many vets work for the goverment- we get preferential hire- damn vets, how dare they provide service to the public LOL

The idea is not totally dissimilar to the Swiss practice of compulsive civil or national service for everyone over the age of (I think) 17. Heinlein's idea was that everyone has a choice - serve your country and vote or do not, wheras in Switzerland, you serve your country and vote, but cannot opt out of serving.

The Swiss believe that it contributes to their society by teaching various skills to young adults and also engenders a sense of patriotism......however, unlike Starship Troopers, the Swiss have the option to take up something non-military instead (for example firefighting) that also contributes to society.

Heinlein's idea makes the assumption that fighting for your country is the highest form of service - I believe this discriminates against those who reject violence as a way of solving problems.

I do agree with the premise of some that franchise shouldn't be 100% universal. However, whatever limits are placed on suffrage should be very carefully applied indeed. I dealt with this topic in one of my blogs and I do not pretend to have a solution in mind, but I do think one is possible. I think that people who don't really know what they're voting on should not vote, but I don't know by what mechanism these people could be deterred from voting.

As for Heinlein's solution to not only voting, but citizenship itself, I'm not sure that military service is the best criterion. Under such a system as that described in Startship Troopers, military service could eventually become nothing more than a tool by which people are indoctrinated and perhaps even brainwashed into a certain line of thinking, thus producing a homogenous voting populace. Consider the fact that when in the military, the military practically has carte blanche to indoctrinate you and otherwise subject you to all manner of psychological conditioning. At least it could eventually. After all, militaries are a bad place to try and implement "fairness" etc. The military is one the few (if not the only) places where obedience must be absolute and where personal freedom is essentially non-existant. So such a system could easily be coaxed over time to become something rather sinister if it provided a means by which the entire voting population could be influenced or even controlled.

Consider Heinlein's own description of the hypnotic conditioning techniques used. If they can program people in the military through hypnosis to attain this degree of control, what's stopping someone from using it within the military to control people even after they're out and in the voting booth?

However, I do favor the idea of voluntary citizenship. That is, I like the idea of a system that doesn't assume you to be a citizen by default and thereby assumes your consent to be taxed, etc. I think a good proposal would be to have a citizen contract that each person signs voluntarily that obligates them to certain things, but also confers on them the benefits of government. But you could opt-out of citizenship and live as a resident without the right to vote, without various government services and protections, but without taxation or other obligations as well.

Now this could intersect with Heinlein's idea in that the contract could possibly stipulate consent to a period of military service, or at least availability for military service. But the thing I like about this plan is that you can't complain about taxes or other such things since being subject to them is your choice. Nothing is forced upon you without your agreement beforehand.

Now I don't recall if non-citizens were taxed in Heinlein's book... were they? If so, I don't think the whole taxation without representation thing would work too well.

Are you serious?


Ok, first off, the American military does not have just 130,000 soldiers. Including National Guard & Reserve, (seeing as they're included along with active military in Iraq deaths,) there's about 1,599,214 people in the American military, not 130,000. That makes the current death toll 1.82 per 100,000 people. Now, that's just counting this year, a year we're at war. In most years, we're not. On average, I'd guess there'd be less than 1 death per 100,000 on a year when we're not at war. So, obviously, the military is not that dangerous compared to some other jobs.


You also mentioned that without the American military, there might not be an America, and you're obviously right. However, you claim that without any other profession, that wouldn't be true, and that's just wrong. If there weren't timber cutters, we wouldn't have anything made of wood (unless we imported it.) If we didn't have roofers, we wouldn't have rooves on our houses, and that just wouldn't work. If we didn't have electricians, we'd be stuck back in the 19th century. If we didn't have construction workers, we wouldn't have buildings beyond what we can make with our own hands. If we didn't have truckers, we couldn't ship anything, and our economy would collapse.

If any of the professions I mentioned above didn't exist in America, then we'd be at such a disadvantage that any country could march in and conquer us, regardless of whether we have a military or not. I mean, if we don't have electricity or rooves, then how can you expect us to win a war?

Almost every job is either vital or important. Just as you can't cut soldiers out, you can't cut out any other profession. Other professions risk their lives more than soldiers doing tasks vital to the survival of America, so how are they any less important than soldiers? Just because they don't kill people and don't work for the government doesn't make their risk or service any less.

Rattlesnake, you should check your math...

[URL=http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/m07fig1.jpgU.S. ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY DEATHS PER 100,000 SERVING - 1980 through 2002[/URL]
This graph doesn't include 2003, but total deaths in the US military over the past decade averages over 50 per 100,000 serving. That's alot considering the lengths the US military goes to to protect its soldiers.

Serving in Iraq, obviously, is much more hazardous (actual deaths in Iraq are 420 from all causes as of Nov 17, 2003).

Roofers and timber cutters don't protect us from our enemies. We could survive without roofs, but not without protection from external aggressors.

I think you're misunderstanding the point of the system detailed in Starship Troopers and therefore the topic under debate. The idea of franchise to those who've served in the military is not based upon the presumption that military occupations are superior or more important than anything else. The idea, as described in the book, is that the soldier makes it his/her personal responsibility to ensure the safety of the "body politic". Supposedly, this entitles one to a say in what the government does. And I also have to imagine that since one of the most impactful things a government can do is embark upon war, that those who have had to subject themselves to the horrors of war should be the ones deciding when war is necessary and when it is not.

This is not to say that I agree with this view, but that's the view presented in the book.

Well, I was just using your method, Amlord. It would have been better had you just posted that one thing to begin with.




Actually, we could techically survive without either. Without any protection, America would be conquered, but if we for some reason didn't have rooves on any of our buildings, we'd be almost as vulnerable to foreign agression as if we didn't have a military. Just because roofers aren't right there on the front lines doesn't mean they don't provide an essential service. I mean, ask anyone if a roof is an essential thing to have. I don't know about you, but if I had a choice between having a roof and having an army, I'd go for the roof. I can live with an invasion, I cannot live with being exposed to the elements. In fact, if there were no rooves in all America, I'd think an invasion would be just what we needed.


Also, Orat, I don't think we're debating the exact system in Starship Troopers, just the concept of manditory military membership for citizen status.

I think Orat is correct in the terms of this debate and the fantasy political system that Heinlien invented in starship troopers, and his visions of equality and freedom as well that go along with the philosophy- in his system, everyone has an equal right to serve, provided they also have the mental werewithal to make the decision, even the physically disabled were allowed to serve if you recall, and they had to be provided an avenue to serve. This meant gays, women and the infirm had to be given the right to serve, and that there were no discrimination in any way in the service. If you recall, there was no segregation between sexes etc in boot camp or units.

So in some elements, I am all for it. As long as the system isn't set up to limit freedoms, but instead increase freedoms, this is a good thing.

Er...CR, you've been in the military. Mlitary service requires the restriction of many personal freedoms. As a soldier, one is no longer permitted to even leave if they wish, unless their years of commitment have expired. Such a system would limit freedoms for everyone (everyone wishing to vote, that is).

CruisingRam:

Actually men and women were quite segregated in the book. The movie was the complete opposite, but in the book, for instance, pilots were almost always females and MI were always males. And aboardships the males and females were scarcely allowed to see eachother much less mix.

I'd modify your first sentence to "defend" rather than "fighting".

When someone joins the military, there's no way of knowing for sure if you will have to defend the nation. You may train and be ready for action, but it may never come. But the act of joining the military means you are prepared to act if you are called upon to do so. That means you are willing to give something back to the nation itself - your life, a limb, maybe some friends.

If someone is willing to sacrifice for an ideal or an organization, then I think that's solid proof that they actually care.

Those people who would never, ever join the military (that is, they would never actually consider defending the nation) are, in my opinion, less of a full citizen. It's like having friends; some friends will help you move, other friends will help you move bodies. Who do you trust more?

Also, economics tells us that that which is free is less valuable. If you must earn the right to vote, then you're more likely to take that right seriously.