OK. I know it wouldn't work but why?

>>9626976
>muh feefees

>>9626976
A system that thrives on rugged individualism would probably fail by not being able to make effective use of all of the people who aren't rugged or individualistic. What happens to all of the regular nobodies in Starship Troopers? People who aren't hardcore enough for civil service don't vote and are implied to be happy enough without it, but how society works on their end isn't elaborated on at all really.

It's a book written for young adults about the benefits of individualism over collectivism though, only modern memelords have started touting it as a fascist manifesto or something else equally retarded. It's not meant to be in-depth on that front.

>>9627010
the book explains that the civil service is a massively sprawling organization. I believe the specific examples used are something like even if you're blind and only have one leg they will find some kind of job you can do and put you to work.

>>9628118
This. They give every human an equality of opportunity, even to the debilitation of the Federation itself. The opportunity is just fucking hard.

>>9627010
I don't know about the individualistic part.
In the book the whole system is presented as really collectivist. Maybe that's where it's flaw is. It assumes that everyone who chooses to join the army does it out of honor and feeling of obligation and that anyone who chose not to join the army wisely understood that if they didn't feel invested enough in the future of the state to risk their life for it they didn't really need the right to vote. In reality:
a) all of the really crazy and dangerous assholes that actually have the potential to fuck things up big time would be ambitious enough to risk their life to get to power
b) vaguely related to the above - a lot of scumbags that can't adjust to society would choose to join the army because in their case it would be the easy way out.
c) a lot of dumb assholes too dim to fear for their life much less understand anything about politics would join just so they can feel superior to other people
d) vaguely related to the above - the majority of people would feel discriminated against if they were deprived of a certain right on any grounds regardless of whether they really wanted it or not.
That is just on a cursory glance.

I guess Heinlein's philosophical musings can be seen as rugged individualism from a certain point of view, but individualism would suggest a conflict between the individual and community. With Heinlein there is no such thing. He is always all like "Hey guys, how about my perfect scenario where everything is perfect and plays out perfectly."

>>9628361
Alot of people are jerks already. It's not like giving a jerk a gun and telling him it's okay to kill people makes him a rugged individual.

>>9628361
Again, the whole civil service isn't solely warfighters. In any contemporary army (let alone high-tech future army) a minority of soldiers will actually be holding rifles and fighting. Most of them will be doing support/supply/logistics/admin roles.
Moreover they do a psych battery to weed out the psychos.
Your post reads like the standard progressive's misconception of the military.
The main problem I could see arising in Heinlein's system is discrimination against people in joining the service. Say you hold known fringe/unpopular politics. The recruiter could fail you from qualifying for service on trumped up horseshit which would then result in your being disenfranchised. If this became systemic you could end up with a festering oppressed underclass.

Every Heinlein book I read is basically the main character being manly as fuck and then he meets a woman as fuck who is basically his equal but it's surprising because she's a woman and then they fuck because they are both awesome.
Except the one where he becomes a woman, then it's pretty much him talking about how he's still manly as a woman. Beyond Good and Evil?
Heinlein isn't about philosophy, it's not about politics, it's about being excellent as a person.
In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, basically the moon people are all Heinlein super people, they routinely kill anyone who fucks up or hits on women they aren't supposed to hit on because of the environment. It's a group of competent, healthy people who don't tolerate shit.
There's a reason why the military recommends Starship Troopers, it's a book all about a group of people being not shit and killing aliens and feeling great about it. In a Heinlein book, you're either a "Man" who is busy trying to fuck a hot woman and kill evil aliens or you're offscreen dying like a bitch.
I remember this part in Puppet Master, I think it was, and Heinlein is talking about how the main heroine doesn't have a problem being naked in this new future where they have to all be naked all the time because they need to protect against the mind controlling aliens that latch onto your neck. There's a general in the room, he's described the same way, then the MC comes along and does the same thing. No one isn't a man in Heinlein, even when they aren't men.

>>9629651
>Your post reads like the standard progressive's misconception of the military.
In what way? Even if we remove the focus from "risking your life" the points still stand. Yours if fine too. It's not like there is just one problem with the system. It just fails to take into consideration human nature at all.

>>9631462
Not him, but in the way you're assuming that the military is an automatic "easy out" for any psychopath society produces. Even ancient militaries used to emphasise highly collectivistic attitudes.

Most societies have always understood military service... well, as SERVICE. An act that might enrich or enable the individual, but that was of great worth to society as a whole. Usually the reasoning for that enrichment is because people have viewed it as a right in return for putting oneself in danger for the good of the collective. Starship Troopers is, in essence, a retread of a very, very old idea.

For instance, in the Roman Republic before the Marian reforms having property was a requirement for military service, because the reasoning was that only people with a vested interest in the state were able to properly serve the state. Roman democracy was also based on personal wealth, with the same reasoning. Serving in military positions was also the first step to becoming a Novus Homo, a self-made man who rises in politics without family connections. In Greek democracy, you have the Hoplite middle class who have influence, because they are the military backbone of the city state.

In short, your assessment is based completely on progressive, liberal, vaguely socialist Western values. You are presenting problems that don't exist in real life militaries and using them as grounds to condemn a system that has already existed succesfully. Frankly, it looks like you're grabbing for reasons to condemn the system because you dislike it for political reasons, because your arguments rest on the assumption of total incompetence on part of the system you're criticizing.

>>9631513
Why are you assuming that I am trying to start a fight? I am not "condemning" anything. Just trying to figure out why a system that looks fine on paper wouldn't actually work so perfectly. I mean, do you actually think it would work as presented in the book?

What I wrote were just some random guesses and I didn't claim they were more than that.

I am not talking about any "psychopaths" or such. Just people who cannot conform to society in general. Nor am I particularly attached to this or any other argument but since you took offense at it I do admit that this would only be an issue at all in an integrated liberal society like the modern one. But those "progressive, liberal, vaguely socialist Western values" didn't arise out of nowhere. They are not a fiction of your liberal spooks. They always existed but only became an issue with the advance of globalization. Aren't you the one who dismisses something for meme reasons?

As for the Roman Republic didn't it fall precisely because it promoted personal ambition through its system of military merit?