I don't think so..but it is an interesting idea in Starship Troopers. Discuss

9/5/2006 12:17:49 AM

the only football should be arena football

9/5/2006 12:18:33 AM

I have no problem with the starship troopers vision of the future



[Edited on September 5, 2006 at 8:42 PM. Reason : deleted upon request; NSFW.]

9/5/2006 12:36:20 AM

Would you like to know more?

9/5/2006 12:39:50 AM

to bad denise richards wasnt in the shower

9/5/2006 1:16:07 AM

^a liberal conspiracy, no doubt. or is that conservative? i forget which one hates sex

9/5/2006 1:46:48 AM

conservatives hate public displays of sex
liberals hate heterosexual sex

9/5/2006 1:53:35 AM

HEY guys, look at all the breeders. [/scorn]

9/5/2006 2:03:29 AM

I don't really agree with that concept in particular, but I did think that the movie's only redeeming quality was its portrayal of a successful and decent pseudo-fascist government.

9/5/2006 2:29:40 AM

and it was directed by the same guy who made Showgirls!

9/5/2006 2:50:26 AM

Quote :

"liberals hate heterosexual sex"

i don't know about the other liberals out there. . . but i love me some heterosexual sex.

9/5/2006 3:17:05 AM

i love public displays of heterosexual sex, so i don't know where i stand

9/5/2006 3:53:00 AM

Quote :

"Should only people who serve in the military vote? "

Sure, might as well throw in a "only people in the military pay taxes" in that clause while you are at it.

9/5/2006 7:19:13 AM

The movie was a big tub of shit.

The book was pretty good, although transparently pro-military.

Anyway, I kind of agree with the idea that people should have to serve in some capacity before they are allowed to vote, but something about mandatory conscription bothers me (speaking as a libertarian).

9/5/2006 7:44:09 AM

This is horrible, this idea.

9/5/2006 8:09:34 AM

A good country does not have a large enough military in which a critical mass of citizens can serve. Therefore, it is better to make it something less selective, such as all land owners or anyone willing to pay $100 or everyone that has slept with Paris Hilton.

9/5/2006 8:51:11 AM

Or people that pay an income tax.

9/5/2006 9:03:36 AM

It's been awhile since I read the book, but the system of government which Asimov (or was it someone else?) describes is much more involved than simply asking "should only people who serve in the military vote?".

There were many many more stipulations than that, plus the government isn't nearly as 'fascist' as it appears to be in the movie.

9/5/2006 11:46:07 AM

How would you describe it?

9/5/2006 12:42:47 PM

Quote :

"to bad denise richards wasnt in the shower"

9/5/2006 12:52:08 PM

that movie was awesome

and they lived in a facists world no doubt.

9/5/2006 1:35:31 PM

Quote :

"Asimov (or was it someone else?) "

Robert A. Heinlein, not Asimov

9/5/2006 1:37:34 PM

Quote :

"jbtilley: Sure, might as well throw in a "only people in the military pay taxes" in that clause while you are at it."

9/5/2006 1:45:38 PM

No. Under absolutely no circumstances. Period.

9/5/2006 3:32:32 PM

i believe the same thing

but can we give a good reason why...

should rights just so easily be "given"

i don't know

9/5/2006 3:35:58 PM

hmm only people in the military vote....i'm just gonna go ahead and say COMPLETELY HORRIBLE IDEA.

plus, that shit just ain't baller

9/5/2006 3:49:09 PM

^^ There is a difference between having rights and having political control, or the right to take away the rights of others.

9/5/2006 4:00:21 PM

Fate control is a bitch.

And so are militocracies.

[Edited on September 5, 2006 at 4:08 PM. Reason : that was dumbheaded]

9/5/2006 4:07:42 PM

id have no problem with requiring some sort of service (non-military included) to vote

9/5/2006 4:10:06 PM

Quote :

"nastoute: i believe the same thing but can we give a good reason why... should rights just so easily be "given" i don't know"

The governed ought to have an a priori right to elect the governors. I pretty much end it there. Unless the United States kicks all non-servicemembers out of the country, this becomes an unequivocal example of the tyranny of the majority...

9/5/2006 4:21:26 PM

traditionally, people actively serving in the military don't vote, especially for President because it is a conflict of interest. Though this has changed recently as parties struggle to get every last vote.

But no, that's a horrible idea. The only benefit could be increased military recruitment and lower per soldier cost.

9/5/2006 4:27:18 PM

Well the idea in the book was that anyone could serve and once their service was up they became a citizen. Once a citizen they could vote, hold office, etc...

I guess the premise was it created better citizens because you actually had to work to get there.

9/5/2006 6:15:36 PM

fleet does the flying, army does the dying

9/5/2006 6:21:20 PM

^^ We could do that, or we could just make people work for their survival. I suspect either would work fine.

9/5/2006 10:14:42 PM

Quote :

"traditionally, people actively serving in the military don't vote, especially for President because it is a conflict of interest. Though this has changed recently as parties struggle to get every last vote."

I guess things have changed considerably. In the '96 election I got my absentee ballot the day after the elections were already called. It gave me the impression that they really didn't count the absentee ballots at all. I figured that they just counted all the ballots at the polls, determined the winner, and figured that the winners won by a large enough margin to effectively negate any absentee ballots.

9/6/2006 7:52:46 AM

^ Yep.

But they do wait if the election is close.

9/6/2006 8:47:38 AM