8 ms·

Federal Service was not necessarily military. The point was that it had to be grueling, something that you had to endure (self-sacrifice). Although yes, if they

Federal Service was not necessarily military. The point was that it had to be grueling, something that you had to endure (self-sacrifice). Although yes, if they needed you to (possibly) sacrifice yourself by joining the armed forces, then that's what you got. You could list preferences, but the choice was ultimately not up to you what kind of service you'd perform. As for the responsibility aspect, that's exactly addressed in the book as well: >Sally answered, "Uh, service men are disciplined, sir." >Major Reid was gentle with him. "Sorry. An appealing theory not backed up by facts. You and I are not permitted to vote as long as we remain in the Service, nor is it verifiable that military discipline makes a man self-disciplined once he is out; the crime rate of veterans is much like that of civilians. And you have forgotten that in peacetime most veterans come from non-combatant auxiliary services and have not been subjected to the full rigors of military discipline; they have merely been harried, overworked, and endangered — yet their votes count." As for the military dictatorship, just as in the previous paragraph: you could not vote (or be voted for) as long as you are in Service. The Federation was a Stratocracy (of veterans), not a Military Dictatorship.

notahacker 8y ago
The point was that you had to unquestioningly obey the government's orders for a minimum period of time and could be permanently denied the franchise for the smallest act of independent thought which upset superior officers during that period. As you point out yourself, the book freely acknowledges that the people who had completed their service may not have accepted significantly more risk and weren't on average better people afterwards. (Henlein backtracked in the face of criticism of the book and a shift in his own view and later claimed that his service was mostly non military, but this is unambiguously contradicted by the text of the original book)
- watwut 8y ago
  I like starship troopers as entertainment, but the way people take political lessons from it is scary. I used to believe that politics of book should not matter because people are clear in difference between reality and fiction, but this book convinced me otherwise.
  - jammygit 8y ago
    "the way people take political lessons from it is scary. I used to believe that politics of book should not matter because people are clear in difference between reality and fiction, but this book convinced me otherwise." The genre is one of speculating about the future of the human condition. Playing with political theory is an interesting part of it and provokes interesting conversations in threads like this one. That's the best part of good science fiction or political writing. It isn't just about future technology.
    - watwut 8y ago
      It is still fiction with little grounding in history, political science or psychology. It is not science and not based on data. It is also single guy story where groups of citizens who are in opposition to system don't get to play the role. You can't take lessons from it, because author is speculating so it projects right politics and is fun rather then accurate. Just like one will not build ship based on sci-fi tech.
- pdonis 8y ago
  > The point was that you had to unquestioningly obey the government's orders for a minimum period of time and could be permanently denied the franchise for the smallest act of independent thought which upset superior officers during that period. You are clearly not reading the novel very carefully. Only one person is shown being discharged from the Mobile Infantry (which, as I pointed out in another post upthread, is not where everyone who volunteers for service ends up, only a small fraction do) in the novel. That is Hedrick, who is court martialed and sentenced to 10 lashes and a bad conduct discharge. But what does he do that leads to that? Is it that he struck a superior officer? That's the "on paper" offense, but it's made clear in the novel that if he had just kept his mouth shut in front of Captain Frenkel, he wouldn't have been court martialed. Is it that he did not unquestioningly obey orders? No, all that got him was a swat from Sergeant Zim. If he'd left it at that, nothing more would have happened. The actual thing that got him court martialed and discharged was his failure to think independently. He failed to comprehend what was happening when Zim brought him to see the captain, and nobody brought up the fact that he had hit Zim, and the captain made every effort to not have that stated explicitly, so that he would not have to take official notice of it. If Hedrick had been able to think independently, he would have realized that nobody wanted to discharge him, and since he also didn't want to be discharged, it was perfectly clear what he should have done: accept administrative punishment and leave it at that. But, as Captain Frenkel says to Zim when they're discussing it afterwards, Hedrick was stupid; that's what got him discharged. And just to drive home the point further, look at what happens to Rico when he makes a serious mistake during training (which in real combat would have got teammates killed) and is brought before the regimental commander (i.e., even higher rank than Captain Frenkel). He realizes what's going on and keeps his mouth shut, and is given administrative punishment and that's the end of it.
  - notahacker 8y ago
    I'm not sure that book defining "stupid" as "reluctance to keep ones mouth shut about what had actually happened" and the context that even the officer privately conceded fault in his own management of the situation and thought the punishment system draconian strengthens the case for such service being a good idea as a minimum franchise requirement.
watwut 8y ago
I am more talking about reality then opinions of book characters. The part about not voting while in service does not oppose anything I said. First, you must not be strongly anti military. Second, you have to be indoctrinated and adopt military values and habits. Practically, such widespread militarization of civil life was one of factors in Germany in Hitlers reach for power. (See Richard J Evans and his Coming of Third Reich book). The military values in civil service and life played role and not for the better. Of course military discipline does not imply responsible decision making and such stereotype is even unheard of for real world soldiers. Neither does going through something grueling. Lastly, beyond doing something grueling, military service often requires you to inflict grueling on others and you are forced to make peace with that.

notahacker 8y ago

The point was that you had to unquestioningly obey the government's orders for a minimum period of time and could be permanently denied the franchise for the smallest act of independent thought which upset superior officers during that period. As you point out yourself, the book freely acknowledges that the people who had completed their service may not have accepted significantly more risk and weren't on average better people afterwards. (Henlein backtracked in the face of criticism of the book and a shift in his own view and later claimed that his service was mostly non military, but this is unambiguously contradicted by the text of the original book)

watwut 8y ago
I like starship troopers as entertainment, but the way people take political lessons from it is scary. I used to believe that politics of book should not matter because people are clear in difference between reality and fiction, but this book convinced me otherwise.
- jammygit 8y ago
  "the way people take political lessons from it is scary. I used to believe that politics of book should not matter because people are clear in difference between reality and fiction, but this book convinced me otherwise." The genre is one of speculating about the future of the human condition. Playing with political theory is an interesting part of it and provokes interesting conversations in threads like this one. That's the best part of good science fiction or political writing. It isn't just about future technology.
  - watwut 8y ago
    It is still fiction with little grounding in history, political science or psychology. It is not science and not based on data. It is also single guy story where groups of citizens who are in opposition to system don't get to play the role. You can't take lessons from it, because author is speculating so it projects right politics and is fun rather then accurate. Just like one will not build ship based on sci-fi tech.
pdonis 8y ago
> The point was that you had to unquestioningly obey the government's orders for a minimum period of time and could be permanently denied the franchise for the smallest act of independent thought which upset superior officers during that period. You are clearly not reading the novel very carefully. Only one person is shown being discharged from the Mobile Infantry (which, as I pointed out in another post upthread, is not where everyone who volunteers for service ends up, only a small fraction do) in the novel. That is Hedrick, who is court martialed and sentenced to 10 lashes and a bad conduct discharge. But what does he do that leads to that? Is it that he struck a superior officer? That's the "on paper" offense, but it's made clear in the novel that if he had just kept his mouth shut in front of Captain Frenkel, he wouldn't have been court martialed. Is it that he did not unquestioningly obey orders? No, all that got him was a swat from Sergeant Zim. If he'd left it at that, nothing more would have happened. The actual thing that got him court martialed and discharged was his failure to think independently. He failed to comprehend what was happening when Zim brought him to see the captain, and nobody brought up the fact that he had hit Zim, and the captain made every effort to not have that stated explicitly, so that he would not have to take official notice of it. If Hedrick had been able to think independently, he would have realized that nobody wanted to discharge him, and since he also didn't want to be discharged, it was perfectly clear what he should have done: accept administrative punishment and leave it at that. But, as Captain Frenkel says to Zim when they're discussing it afterwards, Hedrick was stupid; that's what got him discharged. And just to drive home the point further, look at what happens to Rico when he makes a serious mistake during training (which in real combat would have got teammates killed) and is brought before the regimental commander (i.e., even higher rank than Captain Frenkel). He realizes what's going on and keeps his mouth shut, and is given administrative punishment and that's the end of it.
- notahacker 8y ago
  I'm not sure that book defining "stupid" as "reluctance to keep ones mouth shut about what had actually happened" and the context that even the officer privately conceded fault in his own management of the situation and thought the punishment system draconian strengthens the case for such service being a good idea as a minimum franchise requirement.

watwut 8y ago

I am more talking about reality then opinions of book characters. The part about not voting while in service does not oppose anything I said. First, you must not be strongly anti military. Second, you have to be indoctrinated and adopt military values and habits. Practically, such widespread militarization of civil life was one of factors in Germany in Hitlers reach for power. (See Richard J Evans and his Coming of Third Reich book). The military values in civil service and life played role and not for the better. Of course military discipline does not imply responsible decision making and such stereotype is even unheard of for real world soldiers. Neither does going through something grueling. Lastly, beyond doing something grueling, military service often requires you to inflict grueling on others and you are forced to make peace with that.