Book Club time... Starship Troopers by Heinlein

[MisterWilson]

So I just finished this EXCELLENT book this weekend and it really got me thinking about the method of government described in the book, versus what we have today.

Specifically, a Meritocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy), or "system of government or other organization where in appointments are made and responsibilities assigned to individuals based upon demonstrated talent and ability (merit)".


Now here's my question: Once upon a time, America was a meritocracy. You had to own property to vote and in a way, this showed that you were most likely a productive citizen and capable of making reasonable decisions in electing good representatives. Where did this change?

I'm not referring to the Black/Women's suffrage Amendments, but the doing away with the requirement to be a productive citizen in order to vote -- what changed that? And why?

[Gutshot John]

It's a great book but literature by its nature, sci-fi in particular, tends to be somewhat utopian and therefore impossible. I similarly love Ayn Rand but for many reasons her ideas cannot be realistically implemented.

There are aspects mentioned in the book that I think are interesting but could never be successfully integrated into our society anymore than they ever were integrated historically. IIRC Heinlein didn't require "productive" citizenship such as a landed elite, his utopia required "government service" to the state to be fully vested with civil rights. Some served in the military, others just served where their abilities permitted but such service was a "right", subsequent suffrage was therefore a duty not a privilege.

In Heinlein's case he assumes a separation between economic wealth and political power (citizenship) based on merit and service in order to make a benevolent ruling class. Having "dabbled" in political history there are too many flawed assumptions there.

We remain a meritocracy for the most part but there will always be rich and poor. I've known plenty of rich kids without merit and plenty of poor kids with it in spades. Ultimately the best system of government is one that takes into account its peoples' real flaws rather than relying on their virtue. I prefer universal suffrage to the alternative.

I wouldn't mind seeing the return of corporal punishment rather than prisons but some might argue that's a bit draconian.

[MisterWilson]

It's a great book but literature by its nature, sci-fi in particular, tends to be somewhat utopian and therefore impossible. I similarly love Ayn Rand but for many reasons her ideas cannot be realistically implemented.

There are aspects mentioned in the book that I think are interesting but could never be successfully integrated into our society anymore than they ever were integrated historically. IIRC Heinlein didn't require "productive" citizenship such as a landed elite, his utopia required "government service" to the state to be fully vested with civil rights. Some served in the military, others just served where their abilities permitted but such service was a "right", subsequent suffrage was therefore a duty not a privilege.

In Heinlein's case he assumes a separation between economic wealth and political power (citizenship) based on merit and service in order to make a benevolent ruling class. Having "dabbled" in political history there are too many flawed assumptions there.

We remain a meritocracy for the most part but there will always be rich and poor. I've known plenty of rich kids without merit and plenty of poor kids with it in spades. Ultimately the best system of government is one that takes into account its peoples' real flaws rather than relying on their virtue. I prefer universal suffrage to the alternative.

I wouldn't mind seeing the return of corporal punishment rather than prisons but some might argue that's a bit draconian.

But our founding fathers did not, and instead required land ownership. Why do you suppose that was?

Also, is it truly a meritocracy when nearly anyone with a pulse (and some without) can cast a ballot?

[Abraxas]

It's a great book but literature by its nature, sci-fi in particular, tends to be somewhat utopian and therefore impossible. I similarly love Ayn Rand but for many reasons her ideas cannot be realistically implemented.


I agree with what you say for some of her suggestions, but I think that with Atlas Shrugged, she makes some very accurate points and assumptions about human nature and the reward system. As in, you work and get your rewards taken you stop working.

[Gutshot John]

But our founding fathers did not, and instead required land ownership. Why do you suppose that was?

Honestly mostly because of slavery (and economic power) but land ownership was hardly a universal requirement. In fact 18th century forms of "universal" suffrage was indeed practiced in many colonies/states...if you exclude women and blacks. It was far less common the farther south you moved. Property requirements to vote were not universal.


Also, is it truly a meritocracy when nearly anyone with a pulse (and some without) can cast a ballot?

In my experience most people still don't vote. The richer, more educated you are, the more likely you are to vote. I think most statistics would bear that out.

Once someone decides one class or group of society can't vote, the criteria become arbitrary and may be applied capriciously based on who's in power. If government can deny suffrage to one, it can deny it to others, the differences become just a matter of detail.

[Gutshot John]

As in, you work and get your rewards taken you stop working.

I agree but broadly speaking that's not so much a system of government as a recognition of human nature.

The whole artistic/business community going on strike is more of what I'm talking about even though I'd love to see it happen.

[Abraxas]

broadly speaking that's not so much a system of government as a recognition of human nature.


I agree I was just saying that she while her ideas may not take everything into account, she was incredibly perceptive in that book(the only one of hers that I am familiar with)



In my experience most people still don't vote. The richer, more educated you are, the more likely you are to vote. I think most statistics would bear that out.

Once someone decides one class or group of society can't vote, the criteria become arbitrary and may be applied capriciously based on who's in power. If government can deny suffrage to one, it can deny it to others, the differences become just a matter of detail.

While I dont really find flaw with this statement I do not agree with universal suffrage. I do know many that did vote, but were no where near being qualified to do so. They even admit to not knowing anything but just wanting to vote. However, given what so many intelligent people that I know, that would meet any reasonable requirement to vote that I can think of, base their vote on, and the quality of the average candidate, I am not sure if requirements would accomplish anything. But it does make for a good topic of discussion;).

[A-Bear680]

But our founding fathers did not, and instead required land ownership. Why do you suppose that was?

Also, is it truly a meritocracy when nearly anyone with a pulse (and some without) can cast a ballot?

Land ( as in farm , grazing , forest , mines , etc) or real estate?
Just curious.

[Gentoo]

Relevant for these times:


As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

As to the question of "where did this change?" by Mister Wilson, the short answer would be southern Democrats who concocted various sorts of jim crow and other laws designed to deny the vote to newly freed blacks. While not the only reason, this is definitely the one that went too far and broke the camels back.

[Shamdawg]

The fact that citizens merit a vote in the most free and powerful democracy on the planet, simply by the fact of their birth within its borders has always seemed to simple to me. I am also a fan of the book Starship Troopers (the movie did not do the book justice). I believe that a term of military service or government service (for the less military oriented) would be an ideal path for earning citizenship. If citizenship and by extension voting rights were earned, its possible that voter turnout could improve. With improved voter turnout, we could also hope to elect better politicians. "A lot of What ifs" but that is what this post is all about.