Excellent point. While I understand the sentiment behind the "citizen republic", actually limiting the vote to the military is a terrible idea, as you have so well pointed out.
The system as described limits the franchise to veterans only upon completion of their tour, not the active military, which is an important distinction.
My primary issue with your piece is that it melds the book and movie depictions of citizen republic together. Considering that the movie is intentionally antagonistic to the theses of the book, the mangled mashup depicted here is easy to criticize.
In the book, the MI is not co-ed, active military cannot vote ("if they let the Roughnecks vote, the idiots might vote not to make a drop"), and retirees are not recalled for service. Critiques of Heinlein's citizen republic must be aimed at his proposal where "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." Pointing out that service in the US military is often not difficult or that officers are liberals (which is due more to their college education than their commissions) do not refute him. He takes pains to emphasize that citizens are not smarter, more self-disciplined, more virtuous, or trained to vote well, so pointing these facts out again does not refute him.
Your two actual criticisms, who would volunteer and veterans voting for veterans benefits, are reasonable and should have been the root of your argument. Although to be frank, I fail to see how veterans voting for veterans benefits is any different in principle than an unlimited democracy voting bestowing itself outlandish benefits that it cannot afford or the elderly voting to expand Social Security.
It's totally unfair to base an argument about the ideas of a book, by citing a movie that was made by people who not only hated said book, but admitted they had never read said book.
The underclass, single woman, and probably people too old or too young shouldn't vote.
Rather than just say this we try to come up with some "inclusive" way of restricting the franchise (anyone can volunteer!). Anyone that would join the mobile infantry would be insane (Rico's dad is right) and you wouldn't want those people calling the shots, even if the criticism of current democracy is correct.
Excellent point. While I understand the sentiment behind the "citizen republic", actually limiting the vote to the military is a terrible idea, as you have so well pointed out.
Perhaps the right to vote should be limited to land ownership?
The system as described limits the franchise to veterans only upon completion of their tour, not the active military, which is an important distinction.
What happens if the country is at peace for multiple decades? Where would they even tour?
"digging tunnels on Luna, or playing human guinea pig for new diseases through sheer lack of talent . . . field testing survival equipment on Titan"
More seriously, a military doesn't need to be at war to have somewhere to station and train its personnel.
Them it becomes a bureaucracy; the kind of bureaucracy this article warns about.
My primary issue with your piece is that it melds the book and movie depictions of citizen republic together. Considering that the movie is intentionally antagonistic to the theses of the book, the mangled mashup depicted here is easy to criticize.
In the book, the MI is not co-ed, active military cannot vote ("if they let the Roughnecks vote, the idiots might vote not to make a drop"), and retirees are not recalled for service. Critiques of Heinlein's citizen republic must be aimed at his proposal where "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." Pointing out that service in the US military is often not difficult or that officers are liberals (which is due more to their college education than their commissions) do not refute him. He takes pains to emphasize that citizens are not smarter, more self-disciplined, more virtuous, or trained to vote well, so pointing these facts out again does not refute him.
Your two actual criticisms, who would volunteer and veterans voting for veterans benefits, are reasonable and should have been the root of your argument. Although to be frank, I fail to see how veterans voting for veterans benefits is any different in principle than an unlimited democracy voting bestowing itself outlandish benefits that it cannot afford or the elderly voting to expand Social Security.
nice+
It's totally unfair to base an argument about the ideas of a book, by citing a movie that was made by people who not only hated said book, but admitted they had never read said book.
The underclass, single woman, and probably people too old or too young shouldn't vote.
Rather than just say this we try to come up with some "inclusive" way of restricting the franchise (anyone can volunteer!). Anyone that would join the mobile infantry would be insane (Rico's dad is right) and you wouldn't want those people calling the shots, even if the criticism of current democracy is correct.
You know that Johnny's dad joins the Mobile Infantry at the end of the book, right?