3 ms·

The book is very clear that everyone, regardless of ability, has a right to perform the term of service necessary for the franchise, and that all have complete

The book is very clear that everyone, regardless of ability, has a right to perform the term of service necessary for the franchise, and that all have complete freedom of speech. There are many sloppy criticisms of the book, none of which have bothered to actually understand it.

watwut 5y ago
Convinced pacifists and those unwilling to become part of their army don't get to vote. Everybody who votes is expected to spend enough time in military to be shaped and molded by them. Plus, the book is clear on superiority of soldiers when it comes to making state and political decisions. That are fairly fascist ideas, very straightforwardly. Besides, my point is about people who quote it. This book quotes are never used for anything else except ideas like this.
- chernevik 5y ago
  Never mind the people who quote it, such as you know them. The book is available on its own, to any who will give it a few hours. Like most of its critics, you don't know what the book says. Soldiers aren't considered superior, they don't even get to vote until they retire. It posits a voting requirement, in the individual's willingness to sacrifice themselves for the good of all, not the subordination of all civil institutions to the State. Note that the book's extensive moral philosophizing talks about the collective and general good, but _not_ the importance of the State. It is largely silent about what civil society and its institutions look like. There is no suggestion of a totalitarian thought control apparatus, and indeed the book notes the risk that the electorate will panic and screw up defense policy. And again, it notes that all persons, franchised or not, have the right to free speech, which is hardly typical of a fascist society. Further, the book is a thought experiment. Heinlein never wrote another book of the kind, and wrote a number that most would consider positively subversive.
  - watwut 5y ago
    > It posits a voting requirement, in the individual's willingness to sacrifice themselves for the good of all No. It requires being soldiers and equates being soldiers to individual willingness to sacrifice himself for the good. Unwuestioningly assuming those are the same ... and also that self sacrifice should be requires. Those are fascist ideas, really. And here you are defending them, equating the system describe by the book with what book defends. Because, the book is written from the point on view of fan and contain no other point of view.
    - chernevik 5y ago
      That is neither an accurate description of the book, nor my comment, nor fascism.

watwut 5y ago

Convinced pacifists and those unwilling to become part of their army don't get to vote. Everybody who votes is expected to spend enough time in military to be shaped and molded by them. Plus, the book is clear on superiority of soldiers when it comes to making state and political decisions. That are fairly fascist ideas, very straightforwardly. Besides, my point is about people who quote it. This book quotes are never used for anything else except ideas like this.

chernevik 5y ago
Never mind the people who quote it, such as you know them. The book is available on its own, to any who will give it a few hours. Like most of its critics, you don't know what the book says. Soldiers aren't considered superior, they don't even get to vote until they retire. It posits a voting requirement, in the individual's willingness to sacrifice themselves for the good of all, not the subordination of all civil institutions to the State. Note that the book's extensive moral philosophizing talks about the collective and general good, but _not_ the importance of the State. It is largely silent about what civil society and its institutions look like. There is no suggestion of a totalitarian thought control apparatus, and indeed the book notes the risk that the electorate will panic and screw up defense policy. And again, it notes that all persons, franchised or not, have the right to free speech, which is hardly typical of a fascist society. Further, the book is a thought experiment. Heinlein never wrote another book of the kind, and wrote a number that most would consider positively subversive.
- watwut 5y ago
  > It posits a voting requirement, in the individual's willingness to sacrifice themselves for the good of all No. It requires being soldiers and equates being soldiers to individual willingness to sacrifice himself for the good. Unwuestioningly assuming those are the same ... and also that self sacrifice should be requires. Those are fascist ideas, really. And here you are defending them, equating the system describe by the book with what book defends. Because, the book is written from the point on view of fan and contain no other point of view.
  - chernevik 5y ago
    That is neither an accurate description of the book, nor my comment, nor fascism.