It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


"Service Guarantees Citizenship!"

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:50 PM
"Service Guarantees Citizenship!"

Is it time?
In the novel, "Starship Troopers", by Robert Heinlein, the writer made no qualms about his views of a possible Military Utopia.
That view was reflected in the movie adaptation as well, as per the following-

While still a one-armed teacher, (before returning to duty), Mr. RASCZAK explains to his class:
"Here in History and Moral Philosophy we've explored the decline of Democracy when social scientists brought the world to the brink of chaos, and how the veterans took control and imposed a stability that has lasted for generations"

Anybody that actually KNOWS a veteran, especially a wartime, seasoned, potentially "wizened" Veteran, knows that the media-induced image of all military leaders being idiotic, power-mad monsters, is not very accurate. At the very least, the description cannot be honestly painted across all of them.

So, is it possible that the key to the world's present situation should, once again, be taken out of the hands of the failed politicians, the mindless do-gooders, and the loudest mouths in the media? And be placed in the hands of men that actually understand the concepts of sacrifice, loyalty, honor and heroism?

Is it time for the Veterans to Take Control!?

[edit on 6-2-2009 by SumnerKagan]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:26 PM
haha no, no you didn't read the whole book and entirely miss the point he's making?

Maybe Stranger in a strange land will show where he's coming from, it's like reading Brave new world and suggesting we start a chemical based class system or 1984 and demanding we introduce cctv in the home!

He's is of course describing the insane system we're in today and how it will turn out, the system in the book is terrible and insane do you really want it as a goal for the future?

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:28 PM
Unfortunately, those same high-ranking individuals to whom veterans may owe loyalty and respect also understand propaganda, 'necessary deceit', compartmentalized unaccountability, and civilian motivational control: and aren't afraid to use them, when they deem it necessary.

US Army Center for Lessons Learned: Media is the Battlefield (2006)

Use the media as a "nonlethal fire.”

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:42 PM
Heinlein was not supportive of a Military "Utopia." I think that if he has realized that this world has plenty of everything for everyone but that it is just VERY badly managed, he would have arrived at the ideas I present in my book - called The Abundance Paradigm. Sadly, like most, he was unable to see past the scarcity paradigm we have been forced to live in throughout our history.

In fact, if he could have seen past the scarcity paradigm, it might have even occurred to him that we stand at a unique point in history. We are now capable of casting off our slavery to machines, creating abundance such that every one of the 6.5+ billion of us could live as the top Elite do now.

As for my book, I have been told that I cannot ask for anyone to give me their email addy via U2U so I can send the book for free.

So I won't ask. EDIT to add: No need now! See my sig!

[edit on 2/6/2009 by Amaterasu]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:59 PM
reply to post by Amaterasu

Actually I think Heinlein did explore the idea of non-scarcity economics, in his book For Us, The Living. Some interesting ideas there, especially the idea of a consolidated work-surplus 'Dividend', but not necessary practical.

As to Starship Troopers, I disagree with the previous poster, along the lines that Heinlein meant it as a wry commentary on the problems of a military-driven society. In fact, he introduces some interesting (and quite possibly valid) ideas in the book, that I'll point out:

- The concept that, in military service, everyone has learned to be able to place concern of their own well-being secondary to that of the larger group: hypothesized as a necessary attribute for a functioning Democracy.

- The idea of morality expressed through 'levels of survival instinct': An individual concerned only with their own survival acts with a limited moral outlook; this outlook is expanded when the individual acts with concern for their family's survival; further expanded when acting to the tribe or local community's well-being; and even moreso when acting in the interest of the nation, or larger group that the individual has not personally interacted with, but is connected to.

These ideas are controversial, and have often been labeled as leading to a 'fascist' ideology, but in my opinion they're well-expressed and certainly worth thinking about.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 02:22 PM
Well, first of all, my point was not that the writer was a supporter of this Utopian, Military society. What he did do, however, was create one that worked.
Also, if you have followed Heinlein's career, lectures and quotes, (particularly, The Pragmatics of Patriotism (1973), Heinlein's address at the U.S. Naval Academy (5 April 1973)), you will see that he does, in fact, believe, and has tried to create a sound understanding of many concepts he inserted into the culture of Starship Troopers.
He has taken Heroism, Patriotism, Morality, Honor and Survival, and broken them down to their simplest components and uses.
These concepts, among others that are sometimes considered to be possibly "fascist", are just faces placed on other terms that can be considered the foundations of a working society. For instance.

And, he applied the concepts to the foundation of the culture of Starship Troopers.

My point is not, specifically, what Heinlein's political views were. Or, even, what he believed to be a working government.

I was simply looking at the concepts involved in the novel, and asked if that is what we need now. Because, lets be honest. The lack of Heroism, Patriotism, Morality and Honor in our world, MUST be having some serious consequences at this point.

I think a complete, worldwide shift in perspective is needed right now.

And, is it possible for this to happen without it being forced upon us by the only agencies that have the power to accomplish it? The military powers of our world.

I'm not so much making a statement here, as I am asking a question of site-members. I am looking for the thoughts and feelings of you people.


[edit on 6-2-2009 by SumnerKagan]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 03:23 PM
reply to post by Ian McLean

I agree that there are "advantages" to a Military "Utopia" paradigm...but it's still a scarcity paradigm which requires making choices between oneself and others. In abundance, except on a social level, one does not need to make the choice.

See my sig for the book I wrote. It is a fun story, in a fictional framework, but describes living in abundance, as well as how to get there from here.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by Ian McLean

See my sig for the book I wrote. It is a fun story, in a fictional framework, but describes living in abundance, as well as how to get there from here.

OK. Sounds interesting.

I have to admit, that the idea of people having to prove themselves through "Service", before they are allowed to make decisions that could impact society as a "Citizen", does also have it's merits.

There are way too many Idealists sans experience or education, affecting the way our society works.

Everybody should be heard. Not everybody should be listened to.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by SumnerKagan]

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:56 PM
I am "Ex-Military". I have known military people, including high ranking officers.
They were not all the way they have been portrayed in the media.
Many were very honorable, honest men, with wisdom that is largely ignored by the politicians that are in charge.

I wonder what the results would be if an appeal were made to the heads of our military establishment, to help gain control back from the darker leaders. The ones that are running our world into the ground.

What if the Veterans did take control?

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:59 AM
It is time for the Veterans to Take Control!

And, no, Heinlein was not was not warning us against the military regime he detailed in Starship Troopers.
It is obvious that he found MANY merits with such a society, because he goes out of his way in the book, to point out the values and lessons, tools and experience that would accompany such a society.

A world that focuses upon actions, sacrifice and commitment.

Any person that lives this way already, can see the value in such a society.
But, I can see how it would be terrifying for spineless, yet outspoken types.

It s definitely a good way of separating the strong from the weak, on a "Darwinian" note.

Suddenly, the people that equate actions, strength and ability with complaining, whining, demanding everything for nothing and "weasling" their way through life, would find themselves with no impact on the world around them. As it should be.

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 02:07 AM
reply to post by SumnerKagan

Yes, Veterans sound good.

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:39 PM
I wonder if we ever have any high-level military officers, active or not, visiting this site.
If we did, I wonder what they would have to say about everything that is going on.

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:09 AM
i firmly believe in "citizenship through service". only vets should vote and/or hold office. too many people today are in a "take, take, take" mode. remember what jfk said "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." to me, a vet is anyone that serves their country. the old and infirm can do filing or "community service", but the able bodied must place themselves in a position where they might die to defend their country (peace of cake if there isnt a war going on).

some think this will lead to a military fascism, but i disagree as the military will not be able to vote or hold office. others say it will lead to nationalism, which i wonder is such a bad thing? a vet is less willing to go to war, but knows when war is called for (no iraq war, yes in afganistan). a vet would place the needs of the country above their own. being open to all, money or family line would no longer be an issue (a great leveling device so long as everyone starts as a private and through merit becomes an officer).

while the idea isnt fully fleshed out, and heinlein put it best in his book, i do support it. not to mention with all the talk of changing the 14A, i say go all the way.

citizenship through service!

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:59 PM
As a vet and a libertarian, at first glance this idea sets off all kinds of alarms for me. I am strictly opposed to a draft for this very reason, as our rights are inherent - not gifts.

With that being said, if the two philosophies could be effectively merged I think it would do no end of good for our society. You dont want to participate in government? Dont serve and become a citizen. You want to serve, and not become a citizen? Thats fine too. You want to become a citizen, but not serve? Well that can be arranged as well.
Read the phrase very carefully : "Service guarantees citizenship" never said that was the only way.

Also, I do not think a political scheme based around military service would in any way be indicative of a scarcity paradigm, any more than another, possibly quite less than most. At the lower levels in particular, your work is generally all about efficiency. "How fast can I get this done, the right way, the first time, so that I can sit down?"

As a final thought, it would be imperative that the option to not participate, as well as going back to the original ideas of freedoms-without-permission would need to be implemented.

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:43 AM
I think you are right,There are people that risk their lives and sometimes bleed for our country,and then their are fat slobs that sit on thier money, Now you already know who i think deserves to run the country.

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:50 AM
I am a veteran so i go with the idea.

I even liked the coed showers in the movie.

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:00 AM
reply to post by blood0fheroes

you said- "I am strictly opposed to a draft for this very reason, as our rights are inherent - not gifts."
i reply- there would be no draft. completely voluntary. your rights are not inherent. if they were, they would have existed all thru history, which they do not. they were created by the founding fathers, and defended by the blood of patriots.

you said- " You dont want to participate in government? Dont serve and become a citizen. You want to serve, and not become a citizen? Thats fine too. You want to become a citizen, but not serve? Well that can be arranged as well.
Read the phrase very carefully : "Service guarantees citizenship" never said that was the only way."
i reply- read the book. there is but one way to be a citizen, and that is thru service. just as service makes you a vet, so would would it make you a citizen, however you can choose not to vote and/or hold office (the only rights granted by being a citizen). no service, no citizenship. (all persons 18+ of sound mind and non-felon will be accepted. a job will be made for the lame and/or mentally retarded. you can quite anytime)

you said- " it would be imperative that the option to not participate, as well as going back to the original ideas of freedoms-without-permission would need to be implemented."
i reply- again, no one is forced to join and become a citizen. only those that wish to vote and/or hold office (in addition to the current perks like the g.i. bill) would join. i dont know what you mean by "freedoms-without-permission" means.

ive been thinking about this quite a lot lately so that i may have answers to any and all questions. if the idea that the 14A needs to be changed gathers steam, and actually becomes a viable situ, then i will do everything in my power to get this on the ballot as well.

ive already identified a few issues, like classifications. i suggest we go to citizen, resident/subject (tho i dont care for the subject name, the definition is valid), temporary resident, illegal resident. from lowest to highest in terms of rights, illegal residents have no rights. they must live for 5 years without altercation with the law in order to apply for temp resident (this is because most illegals are good people looking for a better life. if they can live for 5 years in the shadows, i would say we should give them a chance for legal status. this of course can be altered.) temp residents (visa holders, students, etc.) have the same rights they do now. residents are those born in the states and have all rights they currently do, except the right to vote and hold elected office. citizens have all rights.

the military would have to be changed. now an officer is someone that has a 4yr degree and completes ots. this means that the rich are more able to have perks that the poor dont and continues an elitist attitude. i suggest all persons join as enlisted, and after the 2 yr minimum can be suggested by their command for ots (all vets know an officer that couldnt man a latrine, and a sergeant that could command better than colonels. my system puts the best, hopefully, at the top). no active mil can vote, unless they have 10+ years of service.

as part of the out-going process, all mil must attend a u.s. history class, and a u.s. government class. this is to insure that not only are the voters willing to die for their country, but actually understand how it works and how it came to be.

im sure other issues will arise, but for now, i think this clarifies my thoughts. if you have questions tho, i will try to answer them quickly.

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:35 AM
reply to post by stormson

Since you were kind enough to structure your thoughts in paragraph, I do not see the need to specifically reference them here. I will simply refer to your points by paragraph number. I will however, also attempt to illustrate my thoughts with a little more clarity.

P1. - I've heard many arguments back and forth, debating the philosophical origin of rights. I personally believe that rights are inherent. They may be trampled, abused, or outright denied; however they still exist. The best argument as to why they are inherent, and not granted to each of us by any human authority I think is this: People can exist without governments. Governments cannot exist without people. I agree, these rights have been defended by many patriots over the years, however that does not mean that our rights were created by a piece of paper. The Constitution for the united States (more specifically the Bill of Rights) does not grant rights, it simply enumerates a few of the rights we possess that, above all other, shall not be infringed upon.

P2. - I have read the book, however I am not advocating using it's precepts as the standard. I am, however, advocating using its precepts as a beginning. The rough draft so to speak. There can be many ways to "earn" citizenship, and all should be welcome to try their hand at whichever avenue suits them to this end.

P3. - Agreed, no one is forced to become a citizen. As for "freedom-without-permission", this is a concept that I wasnt quite sure how to put into words. Basically, should one choose to not become a citizen, this should not prohibit them from enjoying their natural rights. (See P1) I.E. There should be no legislation engaged in making servants or slaves of those who choose not to participate in this society; who simply want to be left alone.

For the remainder of your post, I agree almost completely.

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:15 PM
reply to post by blood0fheroes

thank you for your reply. its good to have a civil discourse.

as for the origin of rights, i suppose we will have to disagree. in the end, i dont think the origin really matters, as we have them now, and must do our best to protect them.

as for alternate ways to gain citizenship, we must look to the purpose of citizenship restriction. what is the point? to me, this plan is to try to ensure that only the most patriotic, those that put the interest of the nation before their own, should be granted the ability to decide the direction of this country. by restricting it to military vets, those that are willing to die and have shown it, we at least know how far someone is willing to go. to that end, what do we really know about a vet. some are gung ho nationalists, some are free thinking (as i think you and i are) so we get a good mix. we also know that they know they are all equal, having gone through the trials and troubles of boot. we know that they know how to put something, in this case country, in the case of war the squad or other soldiers, before themselves. in contrast the average citizen puts their own interests before those of the country or fellow countrymen.

alternate methods of citizenship do not give us this knowledge. for example if civil service counted, like being a lawyer or politician, we dont have proof that the individual will place the country first. (perhaps a profession that demands sacrifice, like police or firefighters could be an exception?) what kind of service were you thinking of?

in my opinion it is the proof that someone knows how to place themselves second that is the crux of citizenship restriction.

refusing, or declining to be a citizen only means that you cant vote or hold public office. nothing else. no other right shall be removed from residents, and no other right shall be confered to a citizen. residents enjoy a blissful life without the burden of running the country. (if current voting turnout is an example, 40+ percent of the populace already enjoy this.) as for left alone, that come under the social contract. i think that if you use any form of civil service, you should pay taxes. if, however, you can be self sufficent on your own land, i dont think you should have to pay taxes. this is an all or nothing proposition tho. use so much as one civil service, you have to pay (i dont think you should lose your land over taxes for any reason tho, unless your not using it. a guy with four hundred acres doing nothing with it, but no money, should lose some if not most of it. if you only have 2 acres with a house, but no money, you should have to work it off in some fashion, but not lose your land.)

whatcha think?

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:04 AM
reply to post by stormson

By and large, I agree whole-heartedly with this concept. I agree that a veteran will have all the qualities mentioned, assuming we re-structure the enlistment and basic training process to reflect this; right now they just want bodies it seems.

As for alternate means of earning citizenship, I would recommend no more than two and no less than one other route where one is engaged in a public service for say a period of no less than six to ten years. Included in this would be something of a scorecard reflecting one's actions during this time frame. If you do not meet or exceed the prescribed standards for that job (subject to public approval and approval from existing higher government leadership) then the clock re-sets. I wouldnt want to make method easy, but I feel it would be important to have options. This would also allow those who choose military service the ability to move into the higher offices of government more quickly than those who do not; a swift deterrent to those who's only ambition is to exploit the people at large.

Again, I agree as to the nature of civilians (i think thats a better term) VS. citizens. As for removal of property, current eminent domain laws should be satisfactory. The governing body should be required to prove to a judge and jury why they need to take any portion of land from anyone who currently is the owner, as opposed to the notion that "we just dont want you to have it.

As for taxes, well, if we are going for a true Utopia; then why not get rid of money altogether? If you choose to be a part of the society in any fashion, then either you contribute to it, or you are denied those services.
I.e., a self-sufficient farmer or craftsman who only wishes to come to town to trade for goods, should only be required to help maintain the roads leading to and from origin and destination.

Ideally, contribution could be considered a combination of growing something, and/or building something. This way only those who are truly unable to contribute will receive welfare from the government, be it community or higher. Again, ideally, each community and each city would be required to have a common plot of land, for both recreation and agriculture which all able bodied people (to include government officers) tend to at a pre-determined time each week, rotationally, and also are able to spend leisure time with should they choose. Should someone decide they do not want to participate in maintaining this land then they are free to negotiate with another to fill in for them, for whatever price both parties deem agreeable.

The problem with ideas like these I think lies with the public becoming too dependent upon the government, and too little upon themselves and their neighbors. I think that a good check upon the assumed (real or not) superiority of the government should be balanced by all citizens and civilians being required to undergo training with the modern weaponry of the day. In this way, if government became tyrannical, those men and women who encompass it would know that they surely face armed revolt...not just a mediocre chance of it.

new topics

top topics


log in