The Limited democracy?

[singo]

Just a thought, does anybody belive in the 'Limited Democracy' outlined in R.A.Heinlien's book Starship Troopers, whereby only those who have served a voluntary term of sevice have the right to vote. I personnaly think this would be a good idea as only those willing to defend their country with their lives should be allowed to run it and this would mean they would not misuse their vote as they have earned the right to it and can be trusted to behave responsibly (for the most part) towards the society they have risked their life for.

[Frattimonde]

Just a thought, does anybody belive in the 'Limited Democracy' outlined in R.A.Heinlien's book Starship Troopers, whereby only those who have served a voluntary term of sevice have the right to vote. I personnaly think this would be a good idea as only those willing to defend their country with their lives should be allowed to run it and this would mean they would not misuse their vote as they have earned the right to it and can be trusted to behave responsibly (for the most part) towards the society they have risked their life for.
I don´t think that the hoplite system would work nowadays.
I myself think that Idea seems just to facistic to last.

[Whiteknight]

Actually, that's leading more towards the Communist way of thinking, as they are having a small group of people 'running' the country. If that happened, there would be major uproar and it would go against all of our beliefs. I am against it, personally. Then again, I'd like it if people had to have at least high school diplomas to vote, preferably college or university. that way, most people like that will read the news or at least see a bit of what both candidates are offering.

[singo]

Ok it seems ill have to justify my argument, to vote is to wield ultimate power, the power to tell a country what to do, ultimate power for no responsibility (all a person must do is be above the voting age) is the system at the moment, I just do not think that people that have done nothing to prove they love their country should be able to tell the country what to do.

go on, read the book, or at least the bit covering the "History and Moral Philosophy" lessons. they end, (if i remembeer correctly) "No society, so constituted, can endure"

ill post the relavent bits (breaking god knows how many copyright laws in the process) as soon as i can.

[OboeGuru]

Serving in the military does not make you any better of a voter than the average joe on the street.

As for that being the only way to "prove they love the country" ... umm... *cough* it's hard not to insult you 5 ways to Sunday for that comment, Singo. Don't get me wrong, I love America, but I flat out REFUSE to server in the military in its present state. That is, where it can be ordered to go fight a war at the whim of the President, without a proper investigation into the reason for military involvement. For all we know, a President could send an army out to France because the French President looked at our President funny or sneezed/coughed in the direction of his brand-new Armani suit.

Now I fully beg the question, "what makes those involved in the military any better a voter than the average joe on the street?"
The answer: Nothing. Nil. Naught. Zip. Zilch. Goose-Egg. ...You get the picture, absolutely jack.
The fact is, a person involved in the military may have the courage and love to die for his country, but does that mean he cares one jot about the way it's being run or the issues facing the government? Absolutely not. Sure, maybe the higher-ranking officials do, but that's a gross minority. Many of those in military service aren't the brightest folk around, that's why they're in the military instead of in college. Whereas the mid-to-higher-tier college students have had subtantial instruction in the ways of our political system and its history, so they are the ones who are most capable of stepping back and evaluating a candidate's stance on issues and what effect that stance would have on the country in the short- and long-term. The lower-tier college students are the ones who don't normally vote anyways, if memory serves, so I'm just going to ignore those blockheads. The college students are many times more likely to understand what effect a candidate's economic plans are going to have on the economy.

This 'limited democracy' concept counts a bit more like Facism that Communism to me. Not like that makes it any better. Worse, in fact. Next thing you know, we wouldn't be waving to the President when we extend our hands towards him as he passes by.

[Battlecruiser]

Serving in the military does not make you any better of a voter than the average joe on the street.

As for that being the only way to "prove they love the country" ... umm... *cough* it's hard not to insult you 5 ways to Sunday for that comment, Singo. Don't get me wrong, I love America, but I flat out REFUSE to server in the military in its present state. That is, where it can be ordered to go fight a war at the whim of the President, without a proper investigation into the reason for military involvement. For all we know, a President could send an army out to France because the French President looked at our President funny or sneezed/coughed in the direction of his brand-new Armani suit.

Now I fully beg the question, "what makes those involved in the military any better a voter than the average joe on the street?"
The answer: Nothing. Nil. Naught. Zip. Zilch. Goose-Egg. ...You get the picture, absolutely jack.
The fact is, a person involved in the military may have the courage and love to die for his country, but does that mean he cares one jot about the way it's being run or the issues facing the government? Absolutely not. Sure, maybe the higher-ranking officials do, but that's a gross minority. Many of those in military service aren't the brightest folk around, that's why they're in the military instead of in college. Whereas the mid-to-higher-tier college students have had subtantial instruction in the ways of our political system and its history, so they are the ones who are most capable of stepping back and evaluating a candidate's stance on issues and what effect that stance would have on the country in the short- and long-term. The lower-tier college students are the ones who don't normally vote anyways, if memory serves, so I'm just going to ignore those blockheads. The college students are many times more likely to understand what effect a candidate's economic plans are going to have on the economy.

This 'limited democracy' concept counts a bit more like Facism that Communism to me. Not like that makes it any better. Worse, in fact. Next thing you know, we wouldn't be waving to the President when we extend our hands towards him as he passes by.

I agree 100% percent. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[singo]

Gaahhh my mistake, it is pgs 99-105 and they are not the right ones.
Just go to your local library tomorrow and read the book, it explains it better than i could and would spark many more interesting debates on these forums aswell. (Cruel and unusual punishment and the rights of man)

[KesTrel]

How about we learn first to appoint leaders on there ability to lead people. Their integrity and true love for their country because they love and wish to improve the lifes of those in that nation.

Rather then the bias of a political party. Rather then bias of a religon.
Why dont we take out the material benifits of leadership, always the oppertunist.


Furthermore there are certin individuals who cannot serve in the millitary for one physcial disability or another. This dosent make them incompitant. There are also individuals who are very intelligent, who realize that voilence is not the solution, rather the problem. I rather die, then murder. This dose infact, not indicate that I do not have love for a nation. I have respect for another humans right to exsist, no matter what choices they make. ( Certin times it will be nessicary in these times to intervine to protect the choices of certin individuals, however at present time the millitary is a tool for other such endevors. )

[xjudicator]

OboeGuru, I disagree with your statement, that those in the military don't have more of an opinion than the average joe. I believe that they would have a more weathered opinion than the average joe. If for say they were drafted or don't agree with where their leader(s) are sending them then they would be able to vote on what they have experienced. Also, they are closer than the average to the intimate gov't and would generally know somewhat more about what is going on.

[SiegeTank]

More weathered... I doubt it. Until quite recently, I used to believe that perhaps it would be a good idea to, as Whiteknight already stated, introduce some sort of barrier so that only educated people could vote. Either a certain level of education - high school, college, figure something out - or a certain test to determine whether or not you have the intellectual capabilities to vote for the people that are going to run the country for four years.

After quite recently, however, I found out that all belief that people higher than college have at least some common sense is silly. In fact, it would be quite dangerous to allow only college graduates to vote, as there would be fewer people to vote so the individual vote has much more impact. And trust me on this, college graduates are NOT more intelligent than your average joe. Indeed, you'd expect a certain level of intelligence, maturity and ability to think independantly. Well forget it. It isn't anymore present in people that have passed college than in anyone that hasn't. And I strongly suspect that people in university are no better. I am very much disappointed in intelligence of the people that are supposed to be the 10% most knowledgeable in my country. My country isn't the USA, mind you, but I really doubt very much it makes a difference.

Now as for people passing a test, there is the problem of the test itself. The chance that the test would somehow not be biased to include questions that would be easier to answer by those that set it up are in my opinion so high that it's not worth the risk of trying. In fact, I suspect that such a test would more or less automatically have the same effect as the college-graduate measure would have. And once again, those people aren't any better than the average Joe.

Then, military personnel. Firstly, there aren't that many people who served to have a fair representation. Perhaps it would work in a society where so many soldiers are needed that it's fairly for everyone to do a tour of duty, but that is not the case now. I'm against this system not only because of the limited amount of soldiers, but also because I don't think soldiers have any more of a good opinion on how a state should be ran than anybody else. Nobody has yet been able to provide to me a good reason why the military would be better at running a country than civilians are. Most miltiary dictatorships I've seen so far seem to directly contradict that notion anyway. They tend to be pretty shitty places with pretty shitty laws and pretty shitty punishments for really silly offences like speaking your mind about what's going on. No thank you, I don't think the military is the right choice for running a country.

Then what about this limited democracy thing? First of all, it should be noted that "limited democracy" is a contradictio in terminis, but whatever, let's ignore that for a second. I still think that it's a good idea to do something about the unlimited stupidity people show when voting at times, but at this point, about the only person I trust with running the country is myself - and I have a feeling that the rest of the people don't exactly agree with making me dictator. So for the moment, I think the democracy we have will have to do, as there is no viable alternative and there won't be one for some time either I'm afraid.

[Battlecruiser]

OboeGuru, I disagree with your statement, that those in the military don't have more of an opinion than the average joe. I believe that they would have a more weathered opinion than the average joe. If for say they were drafted or don't agree with where their leader(s) are sending them then they would be able to vote on what they have experienced. Also, they are closer than the average to the intimate gov't and would generally know somewhat more about what is going on.

Joining the military is one way of showing love to your country. There are many other ways to. Even simple things such as hanging an American flag outside your doorshows patriotism. What about being a good citizen? Not causing trouble and helping others. That is helping your country. That is why I don't think soldiers deserve the right to vote more than anyone else who is loyal to their country. Also loyal doesn't have to mean agreeing with what your leader says. You can disagree and protest it too, as long as what your saying is for the better of your country and you do it in a peaceful way.

[xjudicator]

SiegeTank, the military isn't running the country any more than we are. This isn't becoming a dictatorship! The military has the same right to vote as us citizens (afterall, they are citizens) and they would have more knowledge than most, not because of education, but by experience.

[OboeGuru]

Those involved in the military don't gain any knowledge of government by experience.

SHow me how the military as a whole is exposed to all the poitics of Washington. Good luck.

The military carry out orders handed down from officer to officer, the fighting men just receive the orders from their C.O., they don't go to the Commander-in-Chief's office to hear orders from him personally, they don't take part in the politics involved with developing strategies, they are only only involved to the extent that they carry out orders. It's not their place to know the reason for doing whatever, so they generally aren't told much more than a sound-byte explanation, the politics behind it are known the the higher C.O.s only.

By education, I'm sure I have more knowledge about American government than some portion of our military's recruits.

My point is that lower military personnel, the bulk of military personnel, don't know any more than the average joe on the issues that really matter, like economics. I would agree that those in the military would have more knowledge on matters of Defense, but is Defense ever a major political issue. No. Has it ever? Probably. Is it for any significant length of time? No. So the knowledge gained by "experience" is more or less entirely useless. Another point worth mentioning is that issues regarding Defense are often in the form of "Send/Keep troops in? Yes or No?" Wow, like the average joe doesn't have a valid, important opinion on that. It's their tax dollars that help pay for military action. A "more weathered opinion" hardly equates to a more important opinion. They have experienced no more than the average joe the effects of economic policy, moral dilemmas, and many other things.

We've had only one President elected from the military, and that was Dwight D. Eisenhower. Just that one man. Let that show the real importance of the military to the government.

- - - - -

SeigeTank, you bring up a very good point, the college grads, in truth, probably don't have have that much more knowledge than the average joe, or at least any more knowledge that they use with any regularity. The College grad is far more likely to appreciate the intricacies of vaios economic policies and such, but since they don't use that knowledge with any regularity, that knowledge quickly falls to the dust and decay of human memory.

Right now, I can say with some amount of confidence, that I understand the effect of Bush's half-assed $1 million deficit more than a fair portion of the citizens of these fine United States of America, just because I have economics lessons (somewhat) fresh in my brain.

[singo]

Hmm.... THAT one went down like a lead balloon.

Fairly obviously the military would have to be reformed

Possibly weeding out not just the unfit during basic training but also the irresponsible.

Still, looking at the way society is going i think it has to be worth a try. but maybe today is not the best time to start

[SiegeTank]

You know, the way the military is run and the way a democracy is supposed to be run are incompatible to a very fundamental degree.

In a military, you cannot have the average GI Joe questioning every order he's been handed from above. You can't win a fight if people start thinking for themselves all the time: people have to, to a certain extent, obey unquestioningly because if they don't, then the other side whose soldiers do is going to win by sheer determination and willingness to fight.

In a democracy, you will want your average citizen Joe to question just about everything that the government tells him is good for him. For every law, every decision, every electionary promise and every campaign, you want your citizens to ask "oh yeah?" and wonder if what they are being told is really the best thing for the country. In a properly functioning democracy, citizens aren't apathetic drones that clutter together in masses to get their information spoon-fed to them by their rulers. They are supposed to be independant, critical individuals who think for themselves and align themselves with whom they think is best suited to rule the country for the next term - and if no such person is available, they will run for office themselves.

Of course, these two are extremes, but I'm hoping you're getting the difference here. Whereas soldiers require drilling and loyalty to the higher ranks, citizens of a democracy require almost the direct opposite of that. I don't think there is a viable way to cross this gap and have soldiers rule all without ending up in a rigid fascist dictatorship posing as a democracy like the one Heinlein seems to envision.