2
2
0
I am sure a lot of you are aware of the movie "Starship Troopers" It is a comical movie about a futuristic earth and it's military in space.
What some might not know is that it is based on a military science fiction series in a magazine turned novel, and if you actually read it (or even pay attention to the movie) you will notice a lot of social commentary, philosophy, ideas on civic virture, suffarage, and all sorts of other things.
To get to the point, in this story, citizenship is not give simply for being born in a geographical area. It is earned by volunteer federal service of some kind. Full citizenship gives you the right to vote, hold public office, and make it easier to get a license to have children (which is required in this society, but a completely different topic!)
So the question is, what does everyone think of this idea of federal service for full citizenship? Is this a good idea? what would be the down side?
Personally I am for it.
What some might not know is that it is based on a military science fiction series in a magazine turned novel, and if you actually read it (or even pay attention to the movie) you will notice a lot of social commentary, philosophy, ideas on civic virture, suffarage, and all sorts of other things.
To get to the point, in this story, citizenship is not give simply for being born in a geographical area. It is earned by volunteer federal service of some kind. Full citizenship gives you the right to vote, hold public office, and make it easier to get a license to have children (which is required in this society, but a completely different topic!)
So the question is, what does everyone think of this idea of federal service for full citizenship? Is this a good idea? what would be the down side?
Personally I am for it.
Posted in these groups: 
Philosophy
Citizenship
Philosophy Citizenship
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
9
9
0
If I had my druthers, eliminate the "natural born citizen" category and require all persons wanting Citizenship would have to apply at the age of 18yrs. I don't necessarily think there needs to be a service obligation attached to it, but I would model the applicaiton process after the current naturalization process that we require of foreign born citizen.
(9)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I strongly agree with having to earn citizenship instead of it being a matter of birth. I disagree, however, with the method. It should be a matter of proving you are a valid contribution to our society.
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
SGT (Join to see), but who gets to decide what a "valid contribution" is? I would hesitate to go down that route, because it is the same path that the Nazi's used to determine that "undesirables" needed to be purged from society.
(2)
(0)
CPT Zachary Brooks
Sir, I agree with your point at the top. I would also say that you could waive the application process or speed it up by serving honorably in a military or similar capacity.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
LTC Paul Labrador I see your point, sir. I believe a lot of the "Nazi-style" could be eliminated by having a set of clear, unbiased guidelines.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I don't necessarily think that there's anything wrong with the idea of having to "earn" citizenship through some type of service, be it in the military, or peace corps, or other type. To have some type of skin in the game may lead to not only a more informed voter pool, but better, more responsive politicians. To restrict it to just military would not be fair to those who cannot or will not serve because of either physical or moral/religious differences, so having other types of service as a basis for citizenship would be critical'
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
I like the idea of citizenship as chosen and earned, rather than a consequence of where you were born or who your parents are. The basic rights, I believe are inherent in being human, but citizenship is not one of them.
but the other central idea in the book is that the Infantry is the noblest branch because they suffer the most. In the movie, the training for the Mobile infantry is extremely brutal, but one can imagine with futuristic medical technology, the brutality might not be senseless. In the book, they lose 4 recruits in the Canadian Rockies in an exercise that serves absolutely no purpose, and there's several other points where troops suffer for no reason other than to sacrifice. If suffering is what makes us noble, how much nobler are the Soviets, Chinese or Japanese soldiers?
Oh, and then Heinlen goes on about how lame we are today for having logistical support, and how much better it would be for everyone to multi-task. It's like he's philosophically against division of labor, without which even a stone-age tribe can't function well.
Overall, I liked the movie better. But do recommend the book as because it made me think, bothered me, and made me think about why it bothered me.
but the other central idea in the book is that the Infantry is the noblest branch because they suffer the most. In the movie, the training for the Mobile infantry is extremely brutal, but one can imagine with futuristic medical technology, the brutality might not be senseless. In the book, they lose 4 recruits in the Canadian Rockies in an exercise that serves absolutely no purpose, and there's several other points where troops suffer for no reason other than to sacrifice. If suffering is what makes us noble, how much nobler are the Soviets, Chinese or Japanese soldiers?
Oh, and then Heinlen goes on about how lame we are today for having logistical support, and how much better it would be for everyone to multi-task. It's like he's philosophically against division of labor, without which even a stone-age tribe can't function well.
Overall, I liked the movie better. But do recommend the book as because it made me think, bothered me, and made me think about why it bothered me.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google