Can someone explain to me why a Star-Ship Troopers world would be a bad thing? Everyone is equal if you do your duty, you get your special benefits if you work and serve, only the strongest and smartest move on and up.
No race bullshit
Why is this a bad thing?
They live a life of conditioned responses just like the insects they are fighting. There's no allowance for independent will or individual liberty. It isn't the worst conceivable way of life, but it lacks the freedom that has been the ideal for the last few hundred years.
>Heinlein writes an incredible book
>Commie Dutch cuck tries to make a movie mocking everything the book stands for, painting that society as warlike and Nazi-like
>People are still fascinated by it and don't see it as a mockery, since Heinlein's ideas are so fucking based
It's like poetry.
Limited suffrage is the way to go.
Voting is a privilege to be earned, not a right to be squandered.
When I first watched the movie in the theatre, I was 10 years old or so. And I did not see anything bad about it. I thought it was perfectly rational to have only veterans vote in elections and be citizens.
It was only later that liberal indoctrination made me rethink my position and now I believe that every alcoholic Muslim rapist and bleeding hard liberal green party anti-militarist rapefugee supporter needs to have the vote.
Well in the film they still use retarded strategy and tactics, but its a film - what do you expect.
I wouldn't mind Michael Ironside stumping people and calling women cucks for wanting to vote but not do military service.
How are they right?
The West had limited suffrage throughout the 19th century and beyond and it has worked just fine. It doesn't lead to a loss of freedom.
Universal suffrage on the other hand is a modern experiment (for instance, implemented in the USA from 1965 onwards) and I would argue it has already failed in Africa (see Rhodesia and South Africa) and it will eventually fail in the West too.
People shouldn't get to vote if they don't have a stake in the country. There are rights to living in a society but also duties.
Giving the vote to every selfish, spoiled welfare leech only results in the treasury getting looted for gibmedats.
It was a good movie. The book was okay but the technical details made it a bit boring.
Saw it at a young age and really liked it. Was too stupid to realize until later that it was a bunch of people in their 30s playing teens, so I was all "man wtf why am I not as cool and confident as these guys?" in high school.
I read it. The exposition passages by the professor of military philosophy had interesting ideas, but the world the characters lived in still seemed very constrained, there were a few options available but the entirety of the efforts of the people seemed to be for the intergalactic war. Maybe the fact that it was wartime means that they were still fighting for their freedom and had to deal with that, but the way the corps the protagonist was a part of operated still made it seem that humans were reduced to nodes in an abstract system. The compartmentalized communication system and the methodology for searching was a pretty prominent example of the similarities between the people and the insects they were fighting, jumping over grids to search areas, having direct lines to people in the hierarchy (sergeant), and needing to adhere to that in order for the superorganism hivemind the humans formed when they participated in that system. There was order and social purpose but not much else to life.
what he meant to say was that conflict and struggle allow good values to propagate while luxury and comfort over an extended period of time causes narcissism, taking things for granted and generally destructive behavior
>ywn fuck dizzie in your barracks
>ywn be interrupted by your CO
>ywn be told to hurry up and go on to genocide bugs
That's the real question.
Heinlein argues that voters must have put the collective good of society before themselves (ie by serving in the military and possibly getting eaten by bugs/blasted by skinnies). Others (the founding fathers) argued that only propertied citizens should vote because only those citizens have any stake in the well-being of the nation. Personally, I believe that citizens who receive welfare should be ineligible to vote.
The question of just how much stake in the nation one needs in order to vote is up for debate, but I think we can all agree that voting rights should not be given to those who have no stake whatsoever. If people who have nothing to lose (in the short term) from the mismanagement of a nation can vote, then they will simply vote to give themselves as much as they can (welfare/bread and circuses).
It also homogenizes the culture when those with militaristic experience are the only ones with a public voice, which can stunt development. In the Cold War a whole lot was poured into R&D for the military industrial complex, a disproportionate amount, and that had a real impact on the rest of the areas of that civilization, since the resources were allocated as they were. The present stagnation can be tied to that, since now that Cold War method is the only conceivable way of operating a society, even though it's outdated and the cause that gave some justification for pouring all the productivity of the American culture into military development isn't there anymore. Cold War narratives still frame the present society, and that's limiting in ways that aren't visible.
I feel like this could be a fun thread. A design-your-political-system type of thing. Unfortunately, barring Trump ascending to God-Emperor, there is no way to democratically disenfranchise those who have no stake in our nation. The Pandora's box of universal suffrage has been opened and can never be closed peacefully.
You seem to have more of an issue with the atmosphere described in the book than with the ideas themselves. They are perfectly compatible with a free society like early 20th century USA.
This. Very well put.
That could work too. It's not draconian and it makes perfect sense.
It's a satire of social darwinism. ("fleet does the flying, infantry does the dying"). The funny thing about it is, it's really not satire in the sense it's exaggerated. It's exactly how it is.
The protagonist chose to join up because of underdeveloped motivations. At the end of the book he reflects on his naivete at the point of his joining up; he was caught up in vague ideals. The reward of getting a vote was one of his stated motivations at the outset, even though he hadn't assimilated the lessons from his veteran philosophy instructor, and didn't have any real idea as to what to do with that vote, or how to run a society. I don't know how much it was his real motivation, it seemed that the protagonist just felt the need to join up because it's what was there, even though he had the option to languish in relative comfort based on his parents' wealth, there didn't seem to be any viable options. The stratification of the military structure still meant that he was able to get into an officer class, and the social stratification there seemed insurmountable.
But at what IQ would be the standard? Because a lot of veterans would mos likely fail it.
Could it not be said that we all have a stake in the country being rn well (economic security, national security, etc.)?
Yes but the Cold War kids will wear off with the following generations, the same way imperialism wore off.
And while we did dump into RnD, the economy expanded significantly in the areas of consumer goods in west. Hell SE is economically strong because of it.
I'd say it's nearer the WWII era U.S., where the economy kept up the appearance of their traditional liberty, when really the economy was run by government planning. That was the point when FDR oversaw the transfer of a great deal of funds into the private sector, with contracts that made up the bulk of the economy, and put them to government purposes. It was a centrally planned economy when it came to the biggest industries (steel in particular). That to me is antithetical to a free society. It'd be pragmatically necessary when facing an enemy. The insect invaders seemed to be designed as archetypal unthinking-unstoppable-evil characters without any real depth, in order to make the world appear even more black and white. But humanity doesn't live in that kind of cartoonishly reductive world, even if those kinds of narratives fill the public opinion. That kind of wartime economy can be pragmatically necessary, but it isn't a sustainable model for human development, and going through prolonged phases like that end up having long term consequences that aren't in line with the original purpose. The philosophy instructor was a veteran himself, but he implied the need to not mentally march in lockstep with the dominant ideology, even if adhering to it is a pragmatic necessity. It's too easy to approach the world with a confirmation bias and read everything into that black-and-white thinking.
>Rico was unsure of why he joined up (in hindsight)
True, but his service taught him the important values that he had failed (along with everyone else) to internalize through his H&MP class. The values he learned from his time in the service are something that cannot be taught and are also the same values that make good voters. The whole point is that by serving the nation, future voters develop the good values that lead to good voting.
>social strata was biased in favor of soldiers/citizens over non-citizens
I'm not understanding what's wrong with this. Those who put their own well-being below the well-being of the whole nation are looked upon with admiration while those who choose to act selfishly (not necessarily wrongly or evilly) and put their own needs above the needs of the nation are not. This is what we have today, merely extrapolated. Soldiers, ship captains, cops and firemen are all lauded because their job is to put their well-being below that of the rest of the nation/ship. (obviously there are corrupt cops and such but the culture of rescue worker worship is still strong and was especially evident in the wake of 9/11).
>no viable options for Rico other than joining the military
1. It's his fault for having awful test scores so that the only thing open to him was K9 or MI.
2. His father guarantees him a job in the family business which is apparently quite successful.
>Ow Mister, that hurts my ass
Regumplican thinks Americans should be Spartans. OK, helot.
The need to have a limitless frontier and continuous expansion was implicit in the way the human society operated in the book, I remember a few passages where it's mentioned that the insects and the humans are both replicating consuming machines that work only towards the purpose of dominating the greatest extent of territory possible, rather than consolidating gains already made. I don't think the book was supposed to be about a society that was entirely good or bad, it was just presented as a possible society that could result from circumstances, it wasn't a designed society, it showed the way human development had occurred to be something that just was, some immutable fact that people born into it have to live with. It didn't depict some justified all-good human society, and they weren't entirely corrupt either, but there was a lot of unaddressed cultural forces that seemed to be sublimated in the minds of the present crop of humans. One of the main things I took from it was how much of yourself you have to give up in order to participate in a system or purpose that's bigger than you as an individual, and how easy it is to get caught up in that without being aware of what's at play in the circumstances you find yourself born into or participating in.
>Nigger thinks only military or paramilitary service = national well-being.
Uberdouche, encouraging the growth of critical minds is more important than teaching people how to obey. Very often the ruling classes need critique or replacement, not obeisance.
Go hump your hand some more.
So what was witht the Starship Troopers' world and its liberalism in regards to nudity?
I the first movie there's the scene where all the men and women shower together, then in the third one they all get naked together before getting in those dumb fucking robots.
I wouldn't necessarily say they're objectively good values, but they are reinforced by that kind of experience. The mindset developed by military veterans as voters isn't the only way to develop a society, but it seems that way if the entirety of public discourse is shaped by those who have had those values reinforced by that experience. You can debate on whether it's good or bad, but letting your worldview be determined by external circumstance in that way gives up some influence of the guiding by the internal will. Humans in that state can end up as conditioned minds that make decisions on reflex rather than on well-reasoned well-examined motivations.
The social stratification I was referring to was the difference between the officer class that the protagonist became a part of as opposed to the class that the sergeants and that ilk, not the difference between anyone in the service and civilians. I can't remember the terminology, but the protagonist had access to a different perspective than a lot of the other grunt-class types. Even though it can seem noble to work towards a national/social purpose as officers/etc do, it doesn't necessarily mean the purpose they work towards is valid and well-reasoned rather than being one developed by circumstance, which means that the role of the internal will is subjugated to the external chaotic world.
He had the chance to live in luxury based on his parents wealth, but there was no promise of purpose there. He went for the promise of purpose in public service, even though he had no clear idea as to what that purpose was, or why it was worth dedicating his life to. In doing that I'd say that he gave up his liberty without a purposeful motivation, even if it could result in something that seems noble or valid, it doesn't mean that he was justified from the outset.
Without some degree of planning mankind wouldn't have gotten to the Moon.
Free market capitalism still needs government to provide rule of law, some essential services and promote technological advances.
I don't see the lessons of the book in a negative light. Any free society has to guarantee basic individual needs and liberties, but it should also have some form of collective duties (taxes, laws) imposed on its citizens if it is to advance and mantain itself in time.
lol i was kidding. I think the book is great though. I havent read the ST book so cant compare.
You could say Forever War is good look into the fall of society when left unchecked
only good part coming from the 3rd movie
Maybe that was his motivation for not going with the family business, he didn't want to live as an extension of his family tradition and make his own name, but I think that was fallacious, he was just choosing to live as an extension of a different set of externally-defined circumstances.
Soldiers, ship captains, cops, and firemen can be lauded for their service in a local compartmentalized way, but can it be good if the overall society that they work towards is without a valid or specific purpose? Here's where I'd invoke the nazi overtones. Not necessarily regarding fascism or militaristic expansion or central planning, but just in terms of people participating in a purpose so beyond the individual scale that they can't see how their nuance fits into the grand scheme, or determine how their ordered local circumstances fit into the larger scheme of things which is complex to the point of chaos. That was the main horror of nazi Germany to me, how people can be made to participate in systems with corrupt purposes without being aware of it in their daily lives.
I haven't read the book (though I did play the early 1980s TRS-80 Color Computer game based on it). In the movie though it seemed like anyone with the most basic understanding of science could see it was a false flag event.
Because the idea that the military bureaucracy should have a complete monopoly on political power is beyond retarded.
It makes no more sense than giving, let's say, the Secretary of Agriculture veto power on who gets to run for national office.
>he gave up his liberty without a purposeful motivation
He made an irresponsible decision as an 18 year old who finally experienced his first chance to make his own decision. (His parents controlled him his entire childhood (made his dog stay outside, father was pissed that he didn't want to take over the family business).
>social stratification between officers and enlisted
One of the major themes in this book is how the military has been the same throughout human history and this motif constantly reappears to reinforce this theme. This social stratification had been present militaries since before Rome.
>I wouldn't necessarily say they're objectively good values
They're certainly better values than bread and circuses and national suicide via plebiscites.
>Humans in that state can end up as conditioned minds that make decisions on reflex rather than on well-reasoned well-examined motivations.
You act like (stupid/most) humans don't already live this existence in this manner. The conditioning is merely different. (Don't be racist, remember the 6 gorillion, the white man is keeping you down).
The idea that military service should be what grants the right to vote is an interesting one, but there are other ways to prove your hearts in the right place when it comes to what direction you want the country to be steered in. Simply being born and raised in the country goes a long way, but it's easy for peoples loyalty to erode along with their naivety if they feel that the society is locking them out of practical means of self betterment, and whether that's actually true or simply the product of their class's culture or outlook doesn't matter to them. But that's why we give so many benefits to our servicemen, so any one, born a citizen in any situation has a shot at a middle class lifestyle if they serve their time.
Anyway, even if service did guarantee a voter's properties were the betterment of the country, it doesn't mean the voter understands what he needs to vote for to have the intended result. If every voter used to be a serviceman in our current political system, without any change to wide spread understanding of law, economics, or history, there probably wouldn't be a world of difference besides a lot more flag waving and bald eagles in campaign ads.
But the movie is a parody of the book.
It was made by a Dutch leftist that wanted to mock everything the book stands for, and so he altered many things including the false flag thing which is not implyied on the books at any point.
The purpose was the survival of the human species. Humans were locked in a war to the death with the bugs (as were the skinnies eventually).
>Without some degree of planning mankind wouldn't have gotten to the Moon.
That's true, but the virtue of getting to the moon isn't lucid. Resources are finite. What was given up in order to allocate resources towards that endeavour, and why was the moon mission more valuable? There's that Ike quote near the end of his term about how many schoolhouses and hospitals have to be given up to fund the Cold War model of military deterrence. Considering how given in to that system he was through the previous decades, and the privileged (not in the tumblr way) experience he had, the special experience only afforded to those in his position, I find it pretty poignant.
It isn't necessarily negative, we're only afforded the insights from the experience of the protagonist, it's an incomplete image of the world being described. I think that the system shown in the book could only produce more of the same, it seemed to have no ideas for the future. What will happen to the military in the book once their enemy had been defeated, as it seemed to be when the book ended? That society will still have the institutions from the war carried over, and those influence the developing society in ways that aren't lucid, and the next generation will be born into a world affected by those circumstances that have nothing to do with their present. That's not necessarily negative, it's just what is. I find that living according to those pragmatic conditions to be unsatisfying, even if they're unavoidable when it comes to a society of mortal organisms that continues across intermingled generations. The kinds of institutions that shape the world in the book don't provide for the fullness of life of humans, but the institutions are all-encompassing in terms of how they shape that society.
It's easier to just think of the movie as having been inspired by the world in which the book takes place and not try to reconcile them anymore than that. If you really love the book, be happy the movie lead some who would have never heard of it to read it. I doubt the movie actually damaged the book in anyway. Are there people who read the book but after seeing the movie changed their opinion of the book? Probably not. Are there some who would have read the book but decided not to because of the movie? Maybe a few. Overall though, the attention the movie brought to the existence of the book probably more than doubled the number of people who actually read it. If it hadn't been for the very obscure 1982 video game, I never would have heard of the book without the movie.
She just needed a different uniform...
>benefits if you work and serve
who milks the cows?
who fixes the faucets?
who changes the oil?
why are they less than anyone else?
>reminder Starship Toppers was a Heinlein JUVENILE
full disclosure: I read and LOVED all of Heinlein's juveniles.
Generals have to effectively manage an immense organization or they get replaced. When Generals fuck up, people die.
Politicians have to do nothing besides debate, pitifully (ever watched C-SPAN?). When Politicians fuck up, they have to spend more money on ads to get re-elected.
But that's reductive, there's a whole lot of complexity when it comes to the carrying out of that purpose on the scale of individual experience. The bugs were an archetype of inhuman external circumstance to be coped with. The need to expand the human frontier until humans were omnipresent in the livable universe was the only viable option presented, and the protagonist reflected at one point on how this reduced humans to simple organisms vying for survival, which doesn't address the fullness of humanity and what it needs to thrive. I'm not saying that survival isn't a viable and necessary purpose, but the entirety of human life can't be reduced to that without consequences to the individuals who participate as nodes in that social system. Humans don't stop experiencing life in the vivid way that they do when presented with existential crises like invasion from space, and the complexity of the reality involved in working towards that simple purpose results in unseen consequences that aren't accounted for. The particular way that a society responds to an existential threat isn't necessarily the only possible way to deal with the circumstances, but once a particular system of coping is in place then it becomes increasingly entrenched as the only way for a society to be structured.
>Politicians have to run for office.
By pandering to the lowest common denominator, regardless of the expense to the nation.
A general has to be competend, or he's gone. A Politician can just buy more votes.
I'm not understanding the problem you're having with the human society. Are you saying that there was another viable option besides becoming stronger than the existential threat and ending that threat?
I'm saying that there could be other ways to allocate resources in order to become strong enough to surmount the threat, and those other options would come with their own ramfications for the humans that participate in that society, and the subordinate functions of the particular purpose the society is specializing towards. But once a certain method of dealing with the external circumstances is developed, it becomes entrenched mainly because it exists rather than because it was found to be the most virtuous and best possible method. It's a series of historical moments that are disconnected because of the different humans participating in the society at different moments in different capacities, instead of links in a continuous chain of valid purpose as it seems in the abstract. I'd say that that shifts the ratio of control over the life of the individuals in that society far more to being determined by external circumstances without much room for the internal will. I'm not saying there's a better way, that'd take a lot more information on the specifics, which aren't necessarily available to the individual perspective presented from the protagonist. I'm saying that giving up control to external circumstances like that becomes increasingly easy as the institutions that function as a reaction to external circumstances become more entrenched in a society due to the progression of time and the separation from the original conditions that caused society to be structured in the way that it was. That can be unsatisfying to the fullness of human experience, which would require some agency on the part of the internal will for the individuals in society.
I'm not necessarily saying there are other ways to deal with the particular circumstances, but being aware of how the social institutions that were set up for a purpose can be divorced from that purpose and have other limiting functions as time passes and times change and adapt to the existence of those continuing institutions is essential throughout the continuum of historical moments, even if you don't have the privilege of objective perspective outside of time and localized circumstances. Navigating that requires a particular kind of mindfulness that isn't readily available, and the influence of those issues are easily sublimated throughout the daily processes of an individual experience in a society.
Would people who join up solely for the purpose of getting their vote without having non-localized-by-individual-experience notions of how to best use that vote to do what's best for society be more virtuous? A vote becomes a class status symbol more than a sign of competence. The protagonist treated the vote as a vaguely defined carrot to be pursued at the outset of his military career, even though he didn't have well-defined notions of what was best to do with the vote. Even though he became more informed by experience as he progressed, I wouldn't say that it retroactively make his motivation valid, since he wasn't guided by that informed perspective from the outset. Being able to adhere to a particular purpose without being aware of the validity of it doesn't necessarily seem virtuous to me.
You really need to work on trimming the fat from your statements. Obfuscation is the refuge of the intellectually defunct Academician.
>I'm saying that there could be other ways to allocate resources in order to become strong enough to surmount the threat
>I'm not necessarily saying there are other ways to deal with the particular circumstances
>social institutions that were set up for a purpose can be divorced from that purpose and have other limiting functions as time passes and times change and adapt to the existence of those continuing institutions is essential throughout the continuum of historical moments
You are making the Bolshevik mistake of history being made by conscious vanguard movements. The human society in the book is 'good enough' under the circumstance of an existential war. Thus the institutions of that society serve their necessary function well, or at least well enough that they will not be replaced. When the circumstances that necessitated the adoption/creation of the social institutions (ie when the war is over) the institutions will change. Maybe the institutions/government won't change immediately, maybe they won't change peacefully, but they will change eventually to better accommodate the new circumstances and thus the cycle will begin again. That's the story of life. Organisms work 'well enough' to survive in their current circumstances and then the circumstances change, the organisms change.
I don't practice enough, these are unedited to keep up with 4chan's format, my thought process isn't as lucid as it has been, and it's been awhile since I've read the book. Thanks for trying to navigate through it.
My main issue is that society is made up of individuals who are hopelessly isolated from one another in their self-centered experience, and that participating in society requires some reductive delusory generalization, which are pragmatically useful, but break down once you get to the socially atomic level of the individual. The society that was exhibited in the book was useful for the historical moment when they were involved in war, and also useful pertaining to the particular local experience of the protagonist/those directly involved in the war. The biggest problems would come up after the book ends, once the military struggle ended. Maybe I'm just dissatisfied with having the past always dictate the conditions of the present, even though the purposes for the conditions of the past aren't in effect, other than a confirmation bias in the generation who adapted to those archaic conditions. I think that the more humans were in conflict with the insects (who were the paragon of being solely organisms without any demonstrated human sensitivity to abstracts or ideas), the more humanity was reduced to being solely organisms reacting to their environment, while losing touch with the other aspects that make people human and not just another benign organism. I know that in a lot of ways humans are simply another organism, but their self-awareness and sensitivity to ideas make them more than the insects, as the insects would willingly sacrifice themselves without a thought for self-preservation as depicted in the book. That capacity for self-awareness is what justifies the imperative to continue expanding into the frontier, but the conflict encountered by that expansion lessened the human sensitivity to their non-organism aspects.
>he thinks that when Rico says "who are all these kids" he means they're actually kids/child soldiers, not just referring to them as kids because they're young, fresh faced recruits