Private Mars Rocket II

Second, the fundamental problem with restricting the vote to only "those who contribute" (however defined) is that you risk creating a permanent underclass of non-voters. Permanent underclasses tend to get pissy after a while - ask the French or Russian aristocracy how that played out.

Quite true. But note the safety feature in the Starship Troopers Terran Federation ... anyone who was reasonably competent and determined could do public service and gain the vote. Very few persons would at the same time be both competent and determined enough to be dangerous revolutionaries and be too incompetent and weak-willed to gain the vote. This is distinctly unlike Tsarist Russia or Ancien Regime France, in which the path to social advancement was very steep.

Third, at the start of the 19th century, pretty much everywhere, US or Europe, that had a vote restricted it to "those who contribute," defined in various ways. The political history of the 19th and 20th century is the expansion of that right to vote.

Which does not, however, mean that the trend is irreversable. If you look at history on a larger scale than one or two centuries, you will see a cycle rather than a straight progression, note http://jordan179.livejournal.com/122756.html, but where POLITICS is concerned (technology, on the other hand, has a "ratchet" effect and thus tends ever upward, see http://jordan179.livejournal.com/164904.html.

The main problem I see with Heinlein's proposal is that -- while in the world as seen by Johnny Rico the veteran class did not take advantage of their voting status to pass laws unfavorable to the non-civilian class, in reality the veteran class would tend to do so. This would probably include making it ever more difficult to attain veteran status, especially for those not connected to existing veterans -- I can see several ways this could be done.

In the long run this would bring about exactly the state of affairs you contemplate: there would be an underclass, including many competent and determined people, growing ever more discontent and ripe for revolution.

From:

An appeal to authority when an article you wrote *is* the authority isn't exactly convincing, especially when it would take hours to rip your original thesis apart before we could deal with the _wrong_ you've slipped in here.

But I thought this piece was a peach:

"Very few persons would at the same time be both competent and determined enough to be dangerous revolutionaries and be too incompetent and weak-willed to gain the vote."

From:

An appeal to authority when an article you wrote *is* the authority isn't exactly convincing ...

I wasn't appealing to an authority: I never claimed that I was right because of the other articles I wrote. I merely pointed to them.

You referenced my point that

Very few persons would at the same time be both competent and determined enough to be dangerous revolutionaries and be too incompetent and weak-willed to gain the vote

Yes, and what was the point that you wanted to make? Are you arguing that this statement is logically flawed, and if so, in what way? How would this be untrue, postulating Heinlein's proposed system?

From:

The statement contains no flaws in _logic_.

Which is yet another example of how logic can be abused in the wrong hands.

A completely logical statement based on a set of false assumptions is just as wrong as saying something completely illogical.

You've got at least 2 glaring false assumptions in that statement.

From: (Anonymous)

The statement contains no flaws in _logic_.

Which is yet another example of how logic can be abused in the wrong hands.

Those who Disagree With You. Yes, well, there should be a law against Disagreement With You, but unfortunately there isn't, yet, so you'll just have to use logic right back, at least until you are declared God-King of the Universe ...

A completely logical statement based on a set of false assumptions is just as wrong as saying something completely illogical.

Indeed true!

You've got at least 2 glaring false assumptions in that statement.

Well, I pointed out one flaw in the system, namely that the Federation would probably in time change so as to turn the Veterans into a caste, by making it harder for those not connected to Veterans to pass through Service. This would, obviously, decrease the dynamic stability of the social system, since there would now be more and more competent and determined people stuck on the outside of the system.

Which other problems did you notice? I can see three other problems, but they aren't fatal flaws.

The first is that, even if the system was still run fairly, some ambitious people might lack the necessary ability at subordinating themselves to pass through the Service, which would leave them dissatisfied on the outside, ready to provide leadership to a rebel movement.

The second is that one need not be competent or determined enough to become a Veteran to make a dangerous rebel. Real history is crowded with dupes, fellow-travelers and fools who have aided rebel movements, the most obvious current case being the suicide bombers.

Finally, there would be a certain amount of random friction in the system, such that by chance an otherwise competent and determined person might wash out of Basic Training. We see this possibly happen once or twice in the novel.

I don't think that the three-named flaws are fatal, though, as long as the path to becoming a Veteran isn't TOO steep. This is because there needs to be more than just a few competent leaders and fanatical followers to make a credible rebel movement, there would need to be at least a sizable minority of them to make more than a nuisance.

From:

Sorry, that was me.

From:

I would have never guessed...

From:

I don't think that the three-named flaws are fatal

Oh good. That's settled then.

Sheesh.

From:

Well, they're not "fatal," in the sense of "inevitably bringing down the Federation," until the fairness of the Service system breaks down. Which, note, I consider to be inevitable, and ultimately fatal.

From:

Your system only works if there's a defined standard of "fair" upon which all the participants agree. Without that your entire argument is nothing but a thought experiment.

For example: I believe that universal single-payer healthcare is the only fair way to deliver healthcare in an advanced industrial society. You don't. Anything less is unfair and not acceptable.

Likewise, I, and I expect MANY others believe that anything that sets an arbitrary criteria for franchise is unfair and therefore unacceptable. I don't care which side of the divide I'd find myself.

From:

Very few persons would at the same time be both competent and determined enough to be dangerous revolutionaries and be too incompetent and weak-willed to gain the vote

It's an assertion, based on two assumptions. The first assumption is that Rico, et. al. allocate the vote in some fair manner. They could unfairly say "people born in area X" aren't allowed to serve in the military.

The second assumption is that our revolutionary only cares about their vote. Their is a long history of wealthy and privileged people using their wealth and privilege to gain benefits for the under-privileged.

From:

Very few persons would at the same time be both competent and determined enough to be dangerous revolutionaries and be too incompetent and weak-willed to gain the vote.

It's an assertion, based on two assumptions. The first assumption is that Rico, et. al. allocate the vote in some fair manner. They could unfairly say "people born in area X" aren't allowed to serve in the military.

Indeed. Which is precisely what I meant when I said that the system only remains stable as long as it stays reasonably fair, and that there would be a constant temptation among the Veterans to turn themselves from a meritocracy into a closed caste. You can see something similar happening in the declining decades of Chinese dynasties.

Incidentally, it's not the "military" per se, it's the "Service," which includes many merely para-military branches.

The second assumption is that our revolutionary only cares about their vote. Their is a long history of wealthy and privileged people using their wealth and privilege to gain benefits for the under-privileged.

Indeed, but in that case (if the system hasn't yet become unfair) what he would be driven to do is become a Veteran and put forth the argument to the other Veterans, meaning that he would go through the same psychologically-transformative process that the other Veterans did before him. Note also that in the Federation as it had developed so far in the book, the non-voters weren't yet "under-privileged," save in lacking the vote. Though I think that the system would have eventually oppressed them -- and I think that Heinlein believed this too, he hints at it at one point in the book.

From:

I wasn't actually planning to state them, but yes, those were the two I was thinking about.

And, as you point out, there is a huge bank of historical data, from biblical times onwards, of the rich and privileged giving it all up for loftier social goals.

From:

Yes. The question is whether or not the Federation's system would work better than the alternatives (where "better" means remain reasonably fair and stable longer). I can't really come to a conclusion on that one, because I haven't seen it tried since at least medieval/Renaissance times. I would note that every time it has been tried, it has usually led first to oligarchy, then tyranny (under the successful rebel leader).

The period until the tyranny was usually culturally brilliant, though.

From:

Oh, you want to talk about just how the Federation would decline into the Empire?

A long hard war comes, one whose fighting is vital to the survival of humanity. But the population has already become a bit decadent owing to the cultural brilliance and economic productivity of generations of liberal, free-market democracy, and most of the people don't want to fight in that war. Nevertheless, the Federation wins, because enough of the people remain aware of the larger realities.

After the war, the Veterans resent the Civilians, because they remember how many of their comrades died keeping the Civilians alive and free. It doesn't help matters that a lot of the Civilians profited on war contracts, or that many of the Civilians still regard the Veterans as fools who heeded a call to unnecessary war. Maybe the Civilians consider themselves more cultured and superior than those roughneck ex-soldiers.

Sentiment grows among the Veterans for legislation which disfavors the Civilians in some manner beyond merely denying them the vote. Of course, now that the war is over, plenty of Civilians join the Service to get the vote to prevent this. The Veterans see with disgust that they are going to be outvoted by the new, spoiled pseudo-Veterans, who shirked the war but now want the Veterans to share the fruits of victory.

So the Veterans start to make it hard on anyone trying to complete their Service. Maybe it even starts as a rationally-based raising of standards, because they remember being caught at the start of the war with too many blind caterpillar-hair-counters and not enough real fighting soldiers. In any case, more and more aspirants to the vote wash out of the Service.

Of course, friends and family of the Veterans have an edge. First of all, they know what to expect in basic training; it's part of their culture, they've probably been playing games as children which toughened them up for the ordeal. Secondly, such friends and family tend to sympathize with the Veterans, and the Veterans return the favor. Think of real-world Basic Training, and reflect on the advantage of coming from a military family. And the vote's not at stake there!

From:

Sounds shockingly like the mid-to-late Roman Empire.

From:

Yes, well, I love that analogy. Please feel free to substitute a Chinese Dynasty losing the Mandate of Heaven, if you so desire! ;-)

From:

So you get a situation in which some people, for reasons not purely based on competence and determination, are more likely to complete their Federal Service than are others. This process, once started, is likely to accelerate with time, as countless examples demonstrate that friends and relatives of Veterans are likely to complete their Service, while those who aren't so connected are probably just suffering a humiliating ordeal for nothing.

Meritocracy hardens into a genuine class system. As the steepness of the class boundary increases, more and more one has to actually be family of a Veteran to be likely to complete Service. Eventually, this rule is formalized. We know this is possible because this is exactly how knighthood developed in the Dark Ages -- originally, a "knight" was merely a servant of any social origin whom a warlord chose to arm; eventually, belonging to the gentry was the normal main qualification for aspiring to knighthood.

Once the Veterans have secured their power, and closed the door to entry by all but the most favored new aspirants, they can and eventually will exploit this power. Numerous professions will be closed to those who are not Veterans. Those who are Veterans will enjoy special social privileges, economic advantages, perhaps even limiting the right to bear certain arms to, and exempting themselves from taxation. (Again, this is exactly what happened in the European Middle Ages).

Of course, once this happens, the system is no longer dynamically stable. Increasingly, competent and determined people are on the outside, and are suffering all sorts of legal disabilities for their non-Veteran status. Rebellion, and even revolution, becomes ever more practical. Violent conflict becomes inevitable.

At this point, one of two things happens. Either the revolution succeeds, and its leader becomes Tyrant, or the revolution fails because the Veteran class finds its own competent leader, and that leader becomes Emperor.

And the Terran Federation is replaced by either the Terran People's Democratic Republic, or the Terran Empire.

From: (Anonymous)

Your flaw would be you think that it takes alot of people to overthrow an existing government, when in reality it takes only a couple with the skill to persuade others to act on their behalf creating a growing army of followers who will eventually overthrow the existing government despite not even knowing why they are doing it.

From:

I had to do a spit take when I saw that.

I also wondered what his contribution had been to give him an opinion on the subject....

From:

Rand? Well, he's a manly man who pays his taxes and votes (the right way).

From:

Some of this is reminding me of Ann Coulter's screed about women having the vote taken away from them because they voted the wrong way. ;)

From:

baron-waste.livejournal.com

Your argument reads like, “It can't work because it can't work, is why it can't work.” I'm sure you had more than that in mind, but that's what came across.

No one in the 18th century ever imagined that every high-school illiterate hypnotized by TV would be able to vote in national elections, that bread and circuses could be distributed at ever-increasing public expense by vote-buying politicians. Only those who had a vested interest in the community - specifically landowners - were allowed to vote. This also had the effect of preventing “professional politicians” like Ted Kennedy, who never worked a day in his life yet lived a millionaire's lifestyle, all at taxpayer expense. On the contrary, old Dan'l Webster was a working farmer - or at any rate, owned a working farm. That was his source of income; he felt no desire or need to grub money from the public till.

As with so many things, the War Between the States changed all that; the Reconstruction chicanery with post-war elections had repercussions thereafter. The unqualified would hereafter vote; their vote would be increasingly depended upon by professional vote-buyers.

From:

"ever-increasing public expense" - have your taxes gone up or down in the last 50 years?

Just wondering.

From:

In the last 50 years, they've gone down. In the last century, however, they've gone catastrophically up. The break-point was the period of the World Wars and Great Depression, when democracy nearly died.

From:

In the last 50 years, they've gone down

Good. So we agree.

The rest of the hyperbole was pretty content free and didn't add anything.

From:

Few if any of the Founding Fathers imagined that horseless carriages were possible, let alone powered flight. Times change, and a system of government that worked for a low-tech agrarian society may not work for a high-tech urban one.

No, I argue that it won't work because it failed to work repeatedly throughout history.

From: