| ▲ | Der_Einzige 2 hours ago |
| Make voting be based on military eligibility. This is something Starship Troopers was sort of correct about. You can't be drafted in war time emergencies? You can't vote (also yes I do want women to be draftable) |
|
| ▲ | ecshafer an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| I think people should be able to get up to 3 votes: 1. Veteran 2. Property ownership 3. Having children. If you dont hit 1 of those criteria, you dont get a vote. You need skin in the game. Letting anyone vote is why “tax someone else, give me things” is such a popular platform. Politicians should have to hit maybe 2 out of 3. |
| |
| ▲ | afavour an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Property ownership seems like a pretty transparent way to disenfranchise the poor. In what way does a renter not have “skin in the game” compared to a homeowner? | |
| ▲ | ericmay an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The main issue off the top of my head with property ownership is how you define property. | |
| ▲ | telesilla an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Having children? Why not consider instead: teacher, healthcare professional, municipal worker, civil engineer, volunteer ...and all of the many other roles that make society. Being a parent isn't the only indicator of caring for others. | |
| ▲ | HansardExpert an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I am none of these. I'm in my late 50's and have been paying income tax since I was 16. Sure, rescind my voting rights ... I'd like all my 40+ years taxes back please then. | | | |
| ▲ | iwontberude an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | We already tried this in America and it’s not the flex you think it is. |
|
|
| ▲ | Waterluvian 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > This is something Starship Troopers was sort of correct about. It might also suggest further reflection is warranted. |
| |
| ▲ | ecshafer an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The movie was a satire, the novel was earnest. If you arent willing to sacrifice everything for democracy, then why should you have a voice? I am with Heinlein 100% here. | | |
| ▲ | gpm an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Having since read more about the author I'm pretty sure you're right the novel was earnest, but honestly it read as excellent satire when I didn't know it wasn't meant to be (and I read it prior to seeing the movie). Would recommend. | |
| ▲ | flir an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Then you're against democracy. Think about what the word means. |
| |
| ▲ | closewith an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In the movie. The book wholeheartedly endorsed service for citizenship. | | |
| ▲ | alexjplant 30 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It's worth noting that in the book "service" is heavily implied to be primarily military in nature yet Heinlein purported years after the fact that in the book's canon "95 percent" of citizen service was actually civil. I think it's debatable whether or not this was his intention all along or a retcon to fit his more, ahem, liberal worldview that emerged as he aged. I also loved Verhoeven's film adaptation but he straight up admitted that he didn't finish the book before making the film, which was itself based on a Neumeier (of "Robocop" fame) script called "Bug Hunt at Outpost 7" that bore only superficial resemblance to the book. He made the same mistake as many others in casting the book as fascist merely because of its militaristic elements when it's clearly not. On top of lacking many essential elements of fascism (a dictator, a directed economy, suppression of political dissent, etc) there are also several spots that veer into philosophical treatise to espouse the opposite. The flashback scene involving Rico's professor talking about how a society is obligated to raise its children correctly (and how it's society's failure if they end up delinquent) is a perfect example - "the system is the problem" hardly reads as far-right. This is all to say that I think Heinlein was more interested in exploring a concept of reciprocal responsibility between a citizenry and its government. The militaristic aspects of the novel as regards a distant, dehumanized enemy and the dominance of the fight over all other aspects of life are far more alarming in my opinion. |
| |
| ▲ | lokar an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Another in a long line of tech people not understanding science fiction | | |
| ▲ | iwontberude an hour ago | parent [-] | | Or policy. We have an embarrassing chap in these comments advocating for the equivalent of Jim Crow voting laws. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | lokar an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What about people with a medial disability? |
| |
| ▲ | lostlogin an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Are we talking one spurs?
Or dementia? Either way, they sound like they have leadership potential. | |
| ▲ | mjevans an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Should still count if you can be 'drafted' into an 'office job' right? | |
| ▲ | closewith an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The book does address that, in that the federal service is universally available (and even the blind, deaf, or crippled would spend their time performing some job, even if it eas "counting the hairs on a caterpillar by feel". |
|
|
| ▲ | landl0rd 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| You're right about military eligibility, but also that you shouldn't make calls for a nation which you will never see. Doubly so if one does not have children. No skin in the game, no alignment of incentives, no moral right to choose. Even moreso when you consider basically the whole generation relies on leeching off the young and have continued to capture an ever-increasing proportion of public spending across the western world despite owning an outsized proportion of both real estate and wealth overall. |
