What does Sup Forums think of the Starship Troopers government concept?

What does Sup Forums think of the Starship Troopers government concept?
It's called a Stratocracy
The basis for the system of only permitting military personnel and veterans to be citizens with the right to vote.

As described in the book
>Throughout history men have labored to place the sovereign franchise in hands that would guard it well and use it wisely, for the benefit of all. An early attempt was absolute monarchy, passionately defended as the "divine right of kings."
>Sometimes attempts were made to select a wise monarch, rather than leave it up to God, as when the Swedes picked a Frenchman, General Bernadotte, to rule them. The objection to this is that the supply of Bernadottes is limited.
>Historic examples ranged from absolute monarch to utter anarch; mankind has tried thousands of ways and many more have been proposed, some weird in the extreme such as the antlike communism urged by Plato under the misleading title The Republic. But the intent has always been moralistic: to provide stable and benevolent government.
>All systems seek to achieve this by limiting franchise to those who are believed to have the wisdom to use it justly. I repeat "all systems"' even the so-called "unlimited democracies" excluded from franchise not less than one quarter of their populations by age, birth, poll tax, criminal record, or other.
...
>The sovereign franchise has been bestowed by all sorts of rules-place of birth, family of birth, race, sex, property, education, age, religion, et cetera. All these systems worked and none of them well. All were regarded as tyrannical by many, all eventually collapsed or were overthrown.

>Now here we are with still another system... and our system works quite well. Many complain but none rebel; personal freedom for all is greatest in history, laws are few, taxes are low, living standards are as high as productivity permits, crime is at its lowest ebb. Why? Not because our voters are smarter than other people; we've disposed of that argument.
...
>The ruling nobles of many another system were a small group fully aware of their grave power. Furthermore, our franchised citizens are not everywhere a small fraction; you know or should know that the percentage of citizens among adults ranges from over eighty per cent on Iskander to less than three per cent in some Terran nations - yet government is much the same everywhere. Nor are the voters picked men; they bring no special wisdom, talent, or training to their sovereign tasks. So what difference is there between our voters and wielders of franchise in the past? We have had enough guesses; I'll state the obvious: Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage.
>And that is the one practical difference.
>He may fail in wisdom, he may lapse in civic virtue. But his average performance is enormously better than that of any other class of rulers in history.
...
>Bear in mind that this is science, not wishful thinking; the universe is what it is, not what we want it to be. To vote is to wield authority; it is the supreme authority from which all other authority derives - such as mine to make your lives miserable once a day. Force, if you will! - the franchise is force, naked and raw, the Power of the Rods and the Ax. Whether it is exerted by ten men or ten billion, political authority is force.

I've always said I personally wouldn't mind not having the right to vote until experiencing what the cost of freedom is. We've raised a society of degenerates who hold the illusion of safety. A lot of this degeneracy would be curbed at a young age if people knew they had to go to boot camp at age 16.

>denies most women the right to vote
>limits people that buy elections (Soros types)
>gives a real reason to serve outside of gibs
>gives ability to military to vote in leadership that avoids pointless wars
>rids of undermining of military conflicts like in Vietnam

A wise society gives leadership to a deserving aristocracy. The basis on which you choose these aristocrats is not the same for every society.The key concepts for your aristocracy to succeed or fail are 1. The aristocrat's personal interests must be furthered by the success of the state, and must suffer if the state suffers, ie accountability. 2. The way the aristocrat achieves his status and privilege must be the most important thing contributing to the overall success or failure of the society.

If you are a feudal society in a hostile warlike world, then loyalty is a good choice, because it's the one thing that will keep you all alive.

If you are a libertarian agrarian farming society, then landowning white males are a good choice because they have the most invested in the society.

If you are a galactic federation constantly at war on all sides against hostile alien menaces, then military service is a great choice.

Memes aside, absofuckinglutly. I’ve been saying this for a month.

No property qualification, which is the stronger influence on having a stake in the society. Military as sole source of political power would lead to extensive brainwashing of recruits by those in power to keep it. Meet [[[General Jew]]] your new commander, user

>denies most women the right to vote
i read the book last week. everyone has the right to serve, will not be turned away, and some job will be found for them even despite lack of any useful ability. women uniquely hold the most prestigious positions of pilot.

obviously we would need to eliminate the Heebs before implementing any kind of new type of government
this is a given

Didn't read the entire thread, but here are the problems I've found:

Women are soldiers in Starship Troopers. Women should not be in the military, be allowed to vote, or to be jurors on a court trial.

Minorities should not be allowed to vote.

Other than that, if the military was white and didn't allow women, I'd say it would be okay. You definitely wouldn't be going to war over some political bullshit.

God I hate ignorant millennials. That form of government came from the fucking Romans you idiot.

>women drive the ships
>women drivers
Nobody has ever said that Heinlein was perfect.

>The story takes place in the early 21st century against a background of an overpopulated Earth with a violent, dysfunctional society. Elderly billionaire Johann Sebastian Bach Smith is being kept alive through medical support and decides to have his brain transplanted into a new body. He advertises an offer of a million dollars for the donation of a body from a brain-dead patient. Smith omits to place any restriction on the sex of the donor, so when his beautiful young female secretary, Eunice Branca, is murdered, her body is used. He changes his name to Joan Eunice Smith, with the first name given "the two-syllable pronunciation" Jo-Ann to mimic the sound of his original name.

>After Smith awakens after the transplant, he discovers he can communicate with Eunice's personality. They agree not to reveal her existence, fearing that they would be judged insane and locked up. Smith's identity is unsuccessfully challenged by his descendants, who hope to inherit his fortune. Smith and Eunice decide to have a baby together and so they (Joan and Eunice) are artificially inseminated using Smith's sperm from the sperm bank. Joan explores her new sexuality at length. She goes to visit Eunice's widower, Joe Branca, to help reconcile him to what has happened.

>Joan marries her lawyer, Jake Salomon, and moves her household and friends onto a boat. Jake has a massive rupture of a large blood vessel in his brain and dies, but his personality is saved and joins Smith and Eunice in Joan's head. She (Joan, Eunice and Jake) emigrates to the moon to find a better future for her child. Once there, her body starts to reject her (Smith's) transplanted brain. She dies during childbirth.

I agree with the concept of earned citizenship 100%.

People should by all means have basic rights whether they are citizens or not, children raised within a nation should have equal access to educational institutions and Healthcare ect.

But the citizenship. Or voting rights and the right to engage in capitalist enterprise and to own property should be earned.

How it is earned is another question. Military service conferring citizenship only makes sense in a militaristic culture.

My society would have a series of exams where only the top 100000 applications are accepted every year.

This limits the ruling class (citizens) and makes entry into the ruling class a pure meritocracy.

Bump

True but most women don't have desire to engage in conflict and avoid service, not to say there isn't women that wont serve but given they don't have different qualifications to serve like easier PT standards there shouldn't be many women serving by simple virtue of most women aren't as physically capable as a man.

Women aren't in the "military", at least not in any significant number. They usually end up on ships, where mathematical skills are more important than strength and level headedness.
Besides, everyone gets the same entry test.

but women hate math, that's why they all think they're paid less when really they just work less.

I can see an argument for it in a time of massive warfare, but it's not an ideal system.

good think we're always at war then

^^^ this is so true. It depends on the values of the society, what should qualify citizenship.

That's why in our age wich values equality and cultural marxism above all else, everyone can vote and there is even a push for adolescents to vote to avoid being ageist.

I can conceive of a future where each race is only given a certain number of votes or where American blacks are given 2 votes because of "muh slavery" if a society valued reperations above all else that would come to pass.

For me personally I value knowledge above all, and experience second. Hard work is also a core value so I would conceive a system whereby upon graduation from and improved elementary school, young adolescents would be sent to work camps or military training camps for 4 years or so to train them in the value of hard work. After passing the camp they would go on to receive extensive University education in the natural sciences and philosophy as well as some non degenerate art, such as classical music and calligraphy.

Upon graduation they would face the citizenship exams wich would require both the boot-camp/military training and the scholarship degree as well as a certain age (maybe 30 like the Spartans).

Then citizenship could be granted and along with citizenship would be granted a portion of land as in this ideal state the citizens own all the land. NOT the government and NOT Multinational corporations or foreign investors.

So what happens to the free residents who do not meet the top percentage granted citizenship? Well they are part of the renting and working class.

They are allowed to sit at the citizenship exams next year or they can engage in capitalist enterprise.

>The basis for the system of only permitting military personnel and veterans to be citizens with the right to vote.
except if you read the book you'd know that it wasn't solely military personnel. Work gangs and other dangerous,but needed jobs were a large part of it. The whole system of grueling, punishing and deadly jobs was meant as a test of competency and character. Only those with the proper qualities would make it through and become citizens simply because they put the needs of society above their own.

To clarify woman and men as all races and disabled people would have to go through the same tests. Although the boot camp would be segregated.

Also upon turning 60 or 70 years old the citizen would be stripped of citizenship and forced to retire. They would lose the land that they got so that the next citizens Can care for it.

There would be a strong pension. Or retirement plan for former citizens and they could still run for office perhaps.

Sounds sweet. I wanna live in that world.

Pure meritocracy is impossible without an incorruptible totalitarian state and soldiers love wars.

it gets better, the recruiters would actively try and dissuade you from joining up as a means of getting the people who really wanted to be there. It didn't matter who you are, where you came from or if you had any disabilities; once you signed up the state would find something for you to do in order to attempt earning your place in society

seriously, you could be a cripple in a wheelchair and they'd have you clearing minefields in it or doing some other equally dangerous work

If you're a cripple in a wheelchair, they'd probably cut off your legs and have you sit at the reception desk to the sign-up building, telling all the guys coming in about how "service made me the man I am today!"

Its a multi cultural dystopia

Unironic perfection.

in the film it's multi-racial but clearly one culture

...

Ethnically diverse =/= multicultural

The book talks about why intellectuals make a shit-poor excuse for a ruling class. Ability to take a test vs willingness to die for one's nation.

Para bellum.

Right-wing Utopian masturbation.

Holy shit maybe that’s why they’re in a forever war with bugs

It's hardly utopian but at least it functions and provides a good quality of life

War is the only thing that keeps society healthy.

The problem with this though is then good people will actually have to die for the nation.

A perpetual state or threat of war as seen in Sparta or south Korea would be required. And this is not a desirable thing, sure people like fighting in wars. But they sure don't like dying in then unless they believe in Valhalla, then it's a necessity.

But you get my point. Eliminating unecessary war and death has been something many people have been working towards for thousands of years.

Sure, a state under perpetual threat may be stronger... but it's no fun to live in such a situation.

I agree that test taking is not a predictor of societal competence or critical thinking. I wish there was. Iq tests any either. I know more then a few autists who have high iq.

It really is a complex problem but the one clear thing to me is that meritocracy is a value worth striving for.

As opposed to equality and universal democracy.

Maybe not even war as modern warfare may be too lethal (unless you favor a high loss rate in your future elite). Expansion, exploration, new frontieres. That is the point. It gives the best and brightest of our species a chance to shine, an opportunity to be useful. What we currently see is a society eroded by stunting the ambitions of our most valuable members for the sake of stability.

But there is currently nowhere else to expand without war unless we step beyond this planet.