I lost track of who wrote this:
>>They are citizens, engaged in the ultimate duty of citizenship -
>>protecting the existence
>>of their society by risking their own lives in its defence.
>Sonja (I think) replied:
>....and without any way to object to decisions made previously that >put
>them in that spot in the first place.
Has anyone read Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers recently? His concept
of a Veteran's Republic is really interesting. For those who haven't read
it,
(No big spoilers, but I'll put in some spoiler space anyway, for Starship
Troopers, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and Stranger in a Strange Land)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The concept is that only those that have served their government are allowed
to participate in that government. Under that system, if you enlist in the
military and you decide to leave, they just let you go. The only things
that you are losing is your opportunity to become a voting member of society
and to run for office.
If I recall correctly, the service didn't necessarily have to be military in
nature; you could earn citizenship rights by mopping floors for the
government for three years, if that's what they needed you to do and that's
what you were skilled at doing.
Heinlein actually presented several different kinds of governments in
various novels and short stories. In "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," the
new "provisional government" is basically Libertarian. The Martian
religious system Michael brings to Earth could arguably said to be
Communist, in a hippy, free-love, non-totalitarian sort of a way. Heinlein
seems to make arguments for the merits of each of these systems in the books
that describe them. I also remember a short story that seemed pro-monarchy,
but I don't remember the title. The underlying common thread that he weaves
through all of these seems to be that the government, whatever form it takes
should serve the people, not the other way around.
If we assume that a government is serving its people, then military service,
even conscription, is not "slavery." In this scenario, conscription is, at
worst, forcing you to serve yourself.
When a government doesn't serve its people, then those people are all pretty
much enslaved whether they are conscripted or not.
I had a bunch of other, really elegant arguments to support this, but I'd
rather watch everyone else pick this apart first...
Reggie Bautista
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
