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)
0
0
0
Not just no, but HELL NO.
What's being advocated for here is to give the U.S. government the power to disenfranchise all citizens and then re-enfranchise only those who are deemed worthy by arbitrary criteria. Am I the only one who sees the lunacy in this and the sheer unmatched potential for abuse and tyranny? What happens when federal service isn't deemed enough? When you give the federal government the power to set goal posts, you inherently give them the power to move them. I'm not being hyperbolic when I say this would be the death of our nation and of the freedoms we cherish.
What's being advocated for here is to give the U.S. government the power to disenfranchise all citizens and then re-enfranchise only those who are deemed worthy by arbitrary criteria. Am I the only one who sees the lunacy in this and the sheer unmatched potential for abuse and tyranny? What happens when federal service isn't deemed enough? When you give the federal government the power to set goal posts, you inherently give them the power to move them. I'm not being hyperbolic when I say this would be the death of our nation and of the freedoms we cherish.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I think it would be a good idea, maybe it would force mankind to be nicer to one another, might bring back the worlds humanity.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I am against the concept but I am hoping for a rediscovery of individual freedom and limited government. If people want the government to coddle them and the trend toward such continues, then by all means those of authority then should earn it.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I recall a certain line from the movie Starship Troopers - "Join the Mobile Infantry and save the Galaxy. Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?" other countries have mandatory service requirements, if you're foreign born and not a citizen, then serve the entire period of the MSO, thats right all eight years, no IRR or ING, you go AWOL trying to get kicked out, there's a ticket with your name on it taking you back to your country of origin.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
As a side note, I searched for this topic for 5 minutes to make sure it wasn't already addressed, and of course after finding nothing, and posting it, there are two "Similar Discussions" shown on the right that cover the same topic in a slightly different matter.
Apparently the search algorithm needs some adjustment.
Apparently the search algorithm needs some adjustment.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Only if corporations can be given citizenship and broader powers to lobby and otherwise buy off politicians.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
There is no doubt voter turn out, especially in local elections, is an issue. I can't see a fiscal reward as an incentive. Keeping the government from screwing you over should be incentive enough. Citizen ignorance and complacency is leading us down the toilet. People bag on the French/France, but they do one thing right: Hold their government accountable. As it should be, the people protest and the government yields.
(1)
(0)
SGT Chris Birkinbine
Completely agree with you. Fiscal reward is just another route to corruption, which we already have enough of. One argument I have heard for maintaining the electoral college is that it balances out the uneducated vote. That is, should we have a purely popular vote system, the country is now subject to majority mentality, which while sounds awesome, can quickly turn hairy when you start to look at the average citizens knowledge of political issues.
Intelligence aside, it is unfortunate that most people do not base their opinions on anything other than feelings.
Earning your right to vote through some form of federal service or otherwise, can make it a popular vote with out (potentially) falling victim to this particular issue. What do you think on that subject?
Intelligence aside, it is unfortunate that most people do not base their opinions on anything other than feelings.
Earning your right to vote through some form of federal service or otherwise, can make it a popular vote with out (potentially) falling victim to this particular issue. What do you think on that subject?
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I believe our representative democracy is one of the fairest means to govern. Lobbyists and special interest groups have skewed the power of the vote quite a bit. The system wasn't intended to experience those forces.
Education is the key to fixing the voter, combined with mandatory voting we could witness some powerful changes in the political system.
There is merit to your idea, but I'm concerned it would merely segregate the country. Worst case, the voting class uses it's power to only further itself (the way money is used now).
Education is the key to fixing the voter, combined with mandatory voting we could witness some powerful changes in the political system.
There is merit to your idea, but I'm concerned it would merely segregate the country. Worst case, the voting class uses it's power to only further itself (the way money is used now).
(3)
(0)
SGT Chris Birkinbine
True, but a compulsory system of any kind breeds contempt. If you make it mandatory for people to vote, I think they would vote less their conscious, and more randomly because they HAVE to vote.
This idea ( I can not take credit for it as my own) makes voting a privilege you earn, so that only people who care to vote go out of their way to earn it.
It is my opinion that if you don't care enough to vote, then it doesn't matter if your government represents you. It is no different then it is now when people don't vote. The difference is any the furthering of ones self happens legally, and the only thing not stopping it is everyone elses lack of caring. In which case, there is no problem.
This idea ( I can not take credit for it as my own) makes voting a privilege you earn, so that only people who care to vote go out of their way to earn it.
It is my opinion that if you don't care enough to vote, then it doesn't matter if your government represents you. It is no different then it is now when people don't vote. The difference is any the furthering of ones self happens legally, and the only thing not stopping it is everyone elses lack of caring. In which case, there is no problem.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google