You mean like joining the Communist Party? Or the National Socialist Party?

What the bloody hell are you talking about?

And freeman, no you do not have my argument entirely correct. But I'll respond more later.

I understand the objections of this idea coming from the various quarters (people) on this thread, and I'll try, Danivon, to answer you a little more directly. Political issues and stances are not always easy to explain, are they? But I'll do my best...after I take the dog for a walk.

rickyp

You mean like joining the Communist Party? Or the National Socialist Party?

Hacker

What the bloody hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about your definition of the Heinlein "elite"

Hacker

a group constantly open to membership of anyone so long as they jump through the hoops; through which no one can be denied to jump, regardless of race, sex, orientation, family background, or any amount of ownership of property [or total lack thereof].

fits exactly with membership in the National Socialist Party.
a ruling elite in what was once a democracy...

rickyp wrote:Hacker

a group constantly open to membership of anyone so long as they jump through the hoops; through which no one can be denied to jump, regardless of race, sex, orientation, family background, or any amount of ownership of property [or total lack thereof].

fits exactly with membership in the National Socialist Party.
a ruling elite in what was once a democracy...

well, no, the Nazis tended not to let Jews in.

But the Communist Party were pretty open to all, and all you had to do was go through a few hoops to do, and anyone could. The CPSU's internal 'delegative democracy' meant that members did have votes on issues as well as on who would represent them at higher levels.

danivon

well, no, the Nazis tended not to let Jews in.

True.
Although even then you could bend the rules if you knew the right people in the Party.
As was the case with Erhard Milch who was a State Secretary in the Aviation Ministry in Nazi Germany.
( I offer this not as a debating point, only an illustration of how arbitrary things could be in an elitist organization.)

In 1935, Milch's ethnicity came into question because his father, Anton Milch, was a Jew. This prompted an investigation by the Gestapo that Göring squelched by producing an affidavit signed by Milch's mother stating that Anton was not really the father of Erhard and his siblings, and naming their true father as Karl Brauer, her uncle. These events and his being issued a German Blood Certificate prompted Hermann Göring to say famously "Wer Jude ist, bestimme ich" ("I decide who is a Jew")

Sorry I took so long on that walk, I meant to get right back to you and answer especially you Danivon since you said there was a question you had you thought I dodged (or didn't explain well enough, though I assure you it's the latter). [some "issues" and then internet problems when I got back...sorry...]

Anywho:

fits exactly with membership in the National Socialist Party.
a ruling elite in what was once a democracy...

If you say so, Ricky. And I might point out that the particular "democracy" to which you refer was chaotic and screwed up enough to be a perfect argument for Heinlein, in favor of his proposed form of government. You called the American republic "dysfunctional"; I think that if you were going to reserve that adjective for any democracy, go ahead and use it for the Weimar Republic. It never would have been able to turn into said fascist dictatorship had it not been a dysfunctional "democracy" from the start. That's right; Germans chose the NSDAP via universal suffrage elections---and not only from that, but from the kind of elections that you told me would be an ideal constitution for the United States in the other thread (remember when I granted you emergency powers to write us a new constitution? You gave us almost exactly the interwar Weimar constitution, buddy, just as it was when the German people elected Hitler, and is, believe it or not, now, with a few caveats.)

In short, your comparison to the NSDAP or the CPSU is ridiculous. I agree that Heilein is a bit right wingy, but he's no fascist.

Danivon is correct to a point about the USSR: as per a system designed by Lenin when he was in charge of the USSR, from the Communist seizure of power in October [November] 1917, until the democratic reforms of Glasnost, there was universal suffrage, both sexes, in the USSR/Soviet Russia. What Danivon is talking about is that the lower down-insiders, voted for the mid-level insiders, who voted for the higher-up insiders. So even though there was universal suffrage it was pretty meaningless: it was not until 1990 that Russians/Soviets went to the polls and voted for the members of the Supreme Soviet or the "president" of the RSFSR, Ukraine, etc. Most ironically, it's the exact same system by which shareholders of America's publicly-traded enterprises elect their boards of directors, whose job it is to look after shareholders. If there were 9 seats on the Minsk city council, the Communist Party of Minsk would nominate 9 communist candidates, all the people of Minsk would go to the polls, and vote "yes" or "no" to each candidate. Bullshit elections, basically, in both cases (USSR and U.S. corporations).

OK, let me try to explain this carefully. The "elite" as you put it can be joined by anybody. Now, Sassenach came up with a good point about how much of a "hurdle" there is for suffrage: too high and it becomes an elite, too low, and it becomes meaningless. I am in total agreement; not only that, I believe that the "hurdle" described in Starship Troopers was way too high: there was an immense attrition rate out of those who ended up actually finishing boot camp. Not only that, but I also discussed a third option for earning suffrage: two years in the Peace Corps, so that the military is not the only option. Am I taking crazy pills here (I know someone's going to use that against me as a quote!) or did I not say that like, several times? Maybe I left "babel fish" on by accident and it's translating my words in Chinese, and that's why nobody heard.

Now, Danivon, the question you said I didn't answer.

No, I'm also looking at who would be excluded. I asked you about that, and didn't really get much of an answer.

Nobody would be "excluded". If you came to the recruiting station in a wheelchair, or any handicap, they would have to find something for them to do for the government. Heinlein wasn't actually too specific about this, but this is MY version of things. I would not do things exactly as Heinlein proposed. See paragraph above about Heinlein's "attrition" rate of boot camp. See also about the Peace Corps, above. The people "excluded" from suffrage were the people who didn't feel like jumping through the hoops. I do not know about the UK or Canada, but in the United States, the rate at which Americans are participating in politics is declining. How long will it be before it happens, and too few people raise a finger in protest to stop it? You see what I am saying???

Danivon:

And what is to stop this apparently laudable and inevitable framework from being subverted?

What's to stop the current one? And:

doesn't that make it just as likely - if not more so - that sectional interests can capture government?

Um...haven't they already? PACs, corporations, special interests, etc.?

Have I explained your question? (not necessarily in a way you agree with, but at least answered it?)

My point, as freeman pointed out, is that I love democracy, HOWEVER, it is in trouble, and one day it may have to choose between an out-and-out dictatorship, or a meritocracy wherein suffrage is not universally given as a right at 18, but the option to jump through some hoops to earn it is. However, it is not militarily dominated, if it's done right (my suggestion about allowing other options as legitimately "earning" it). No, people who have been in the military are not superior to the average other voter necessarily. The concept is that you have to earn you right to vote, whether in the military or through some other means (i cannot reiterate enough: Heinlein's hurdle is too high and too idealistic. I believe I restated that for the umpteenth time just now). And again Heinlein said that the "citizens", the people who had earned their suffrage, were those who were OUT OF THE MILITARY ALREADY...e.g, NOT active duty!!!!!

Now I'll try to hit as many of Freeman's points, arguments against the idea, as possible without getting too lengthy (though I haven't done it in order. Feel free to point out anything I missed and I'll try to reply in a more timely manner this time.)

The military is a top-down, hierarchical, non-equal organization where one is not free to express one's views without restriction. You think a military-dominated society is going to have a lot of tolerance for diverse viewpoints?

How many people in the military do you know? My best friend was telling me about a bunch of his co workers in the Navy who more or less forced him, or conned him into rather, seeing Fahrenheit 9/11. He said personally, the movie pissed him off. But his friends he said had told him "dude, you have got to see this movie, it's so eye-opening and true!" I know a lot of people in the military, with very diverse viewpoints.

why would there to be any accountability to those persons not serving in the military since they have no vote?;

Because anyone who doesn't already have suffrage, is legally, constitutionally entitled to earn it if they want to. No one as I said can be barred, they have to find you something to do which takes effort on your part to do. So if your congressman or MP said "piss off, I don't listen to civilians" and it pissed you off enough, you could earn your suffrage and then run against the bastard yourself. Believe it or not, you can actually go to US congressmen for help with things regarding the federal government (we relied heavily on one of ours to help my father). In a meritocracy, would they tell him to piss off if he was a "civilian" (as is Heinlein's word for those w/o suffrage)? No, because it's not in the interests of the government to do that, as anyone they piss off could potentially be a citizen and run against them. Or might have a voter in the family somewhere or...you get the idea.

What if the military decided that women should not be allowed to join or at least the military took a much higher percentage of men? What if the military discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation? Owen mentioned the disabled, but how about those who have religious or other convictions against serving in the military? Is it fair or even desirable to restrict people with talent from serving or having a voice in government?

Perhaps a little bit paranoid. They wouldn't. 1) would hurt manpower IMMENSELY. There are a lot of women in the United States military at this point, and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars have involved them more and more directly toward combat roles (they kind of are, if unofficially, in combat as much as the men these days. This is far from the days of WWII.) There are people who are of many faiths in the United States military, Muslims, Christians, Jews, atheists, and so on.

Interestingly enough, did you know that our military became integrated (under Pres. Truman) a while BEFORE the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King jr and other activists of the era, and before Jim Crow Laws of mostly southern states were outlawed, school segregation and so forth? That did not make our military some sort of egalitarian/meritocracy overnight. But it did more than just get the ball rolling. And if they hadn't have integrated the armed forces at that time, or perhaps ever, I very much doubt we would have heard of anything called a Voting Rights Act in 1965, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Fair Housing Act, and the other civil rights legislation of about that time. In fact, we might still have Jim Crow with us today. If you doubt this, remember that the surviving members of the Tuskeegee Airmen (know who they are?) all got front-row seats at the 2009 inauguration of Barack Obama. Why? Because they made President Barack Obama possible.

Let's see what else:

Being in the military is not necessarily or tied to skill or any other trait. This is not like China which had an examination system that ensured quality of the bureaucracy that carried out rule.

You are DEAD wrong about that. Again, how many military personnel do you know freeman? They do have placement exams, promotion exams (to become a higher enlisted man, to become an NCO, not just to become an officer!) and so forth. My friend had to take a very, very extensive exam which, from what he described, was actually far more stringent than some universities would give you, concerning describing an entire computer system, and all the ways it could be broken in to, and how to respond and counter those hacking attempts. If I could remember everything you'd be impressed. Cousin John had to take a shitload of exams because he's working in the engine room, of a vessel with eight nuclear reactors in it. I did not see my other best friend because he literally studies all the time, and has the same sort of education (not to mention some hands-on stuff he could never, ever have gotten even if he was interning at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore) as any civilian PA but more experience. He started out as a field medic, for which there were obviously a shitload of exams, even though he was only a corporal or so at the time with the Army, serving in Iraq. There are no simple jobs inthe military these days. This is no longer Sergeant York seeing how many targets he can hit in target practice. Even "simpler" jobs in the military have exams. Even Matt said that yeah, there are the occasional "dumb ass Private" (DAP) as he would see from time to time when stationed in Germany. But the bulk of the US Military is, believe it or not, very highly trained, and the "stupid" ones rarely get to the lower-middle.

Marking someone as being in the military as bring superior merely because of that is identity politics with no real difference between marking someone as being superior based on race or gender.

You'll forgive me if I find this particular point not wanting for any semblance of ignorance. I never said they were personally "superior" in character, racially, sexually, etc (and to me, character comes down to it when *I* vote). But they have taken personal risks, to to life, limb and mind; to ensure our safety. Sounds old fashioned? I do not care one wit. But I know I sleep better at night knowing your average navy seal or other servicemen could kill one of our enemies---who would not think twice of killing a civilian like me by blowing himself up in a crowded mall or crashing a plane into the office building in which I work---with their bare hands, if there was not, say, a toothpick lying around somewhere. P.S., see my opinion about the OTHER OPTIONS. The point is, you have to earn suffrage rather than just having it land in your lap. That's it.

But you say that on "average" people who have been in the military will be better.

No, I did not.

Individual rights that come into conflict with the greater good...may not be permitted;

Um, you heard of the Patriot Act, buddy? The one that passed the US Senate 98 to 1? And the wiretapping bill while W was president and Pelosi (who cheerfully rammed the whole thing through the House for him) was Speaker? How many of our rights have already been given the axe by "democratic" politicians?

Your arguments, while at least well-organized, are themselves based just in the same kind of conjecture you have accused me of. Let me know if I didn't hit them all.

This system is not without its own flaws, I already admitted that. I'm not talking about a utopia of the future. Maybe it would be, maybe it wouldn't. Right now I am pleased to have democracy. But I am displeased that it may have to be discarded one day because of the people who are, quite frankly, @#$! it up by exploiting its own flaws.

My father was in the army (radar operator at an air base in Korea during the Korean War), one brother in the navy and another in the army, and a niece was in the navy; I was in the National Guard but Fort Knox decided my vision was not good enough. Good enough for me to state a basic difference between civilian and military life ?

Taking a bunch of exams in the military is not the same thing as what China did in setting up a extremely competitive examination to find talent to man its bureaucracy. A high score on the ASVAB is not quite the same thing. The Chinese system was a meritocratic way to staff government; surely you're not arguing that military exams are a way to select for excellence in running the government

Anyway, although you have praised the military and that has kind of complicated the argument, it appears your main point is simply that the sacrifice required for military life will cause people to care more about voting and governance. Why? People have died to have the right to rule themselves; that does not mean that once getting the chance to vote they will exercise it wisely. (A car is a pretty concrete thing to sacrifice for and maintain and there are continuing benefits to doing so; each vote has an extremely small actual impact and otherwise it is an abstract concern) And even if people cared more about their vote it if they earned it that doesn't matter-- we have an inherent right to sovereignty , no matter how small , and we don 't have to earn it.

hacker

I think that if you were going to reserve that adjective for any democracy, go ahead and use it for the Weimar Republic. It never would have been able to turn into said fascist dictatorship had it not been a dysfunctional "democracy" from the start

The Weimar failed to function yes. And Hitler did rise to share power because of initial electoral success. But having gained power he eliminated democracy... And put in place a system where only membership in one party, an elite, mattered.Your model.
Blaming democracy for the elimination of democracy is circular reasoning.
Democracy is not perfect. But it is a good, self correcting system of governance if respected and protected. In the modern liberal democracies, governance protected more and more people as the franchise increased.
The reason that civil rights expanded in the US had little to nothing to do with the military. Truman forced segregation upon the military against virulent opposition from many of the white commanders. He did so because the majority of whites in enough states with sufficient electoral votes, , together with the votes from blacks, wanted an end to racial discrimination and segregation.
Given the top down military decision making, with a limited elite making decisions, it would never have happened.
(Similarly the US army is one of the last western armies to allow open service by gays and lesbians...That was also forced upon a recalcitrant and backwards military leadership.)
(By the way, The Tuskegee Airmen were a segregated unit. In WWII your army was an apartheid institution. Hardly a beacon of freedom.)

JimHackerMP wrote:Sorry I took so long on that walk, I meant to get right back to you and answer especially you Danivon since you said there was a question you had you thought I dodged (or didn't explain well enough, though I assure you it's the latter). [some "issues" and then internet problems when I got back...sorry...]

No problem.

[/quote]Danivon is correct to a point about the USSR: as per a system designed by Lenin when he was in charge of the USSR, from the Communist seizure of power in October [November] 1917, until the democratic reforms of Glasnost, there was universal suffrage, both sexes, in the USSR/Soviet Russia. What Danivon is talking about is that the lower down-insiders, voted for the mid-level insiders, who voted for the higher-up insiders. So even though there was universal suffrage it was pretty meaningless: it was not until 1990 that Russians/Soviets went to the polls and voted for the members of the Supreme Soviet or the "president" of the RSFSR, Ukraine, etc. Most ironically, it's the exact same system by which shareholders of America's publicly-traded enterprises elect their boards of directors, whose job it is to look after shareholders. If there were 9 seats on the Minsk city council, the Communist Party of Minsk would nominate 9 communist candidates, all the people of Minsk would go to the polls, and vote "yes" or "no" to each candidate. Bullshit elections, basically, in both cases (USSR and U.S. corporations).[/quote]well... yes. But the internal structures of the CPSU were originally democratic: low level branches would elect delegates to the next level up in the heirarchy, and would be able to mandate their delegates to vote a certain way (which is not how US corporations work).

OK, let me try to explain this carefully. The "elite" as you put it can be joined by anybody. Now, Sassenach came up with a good point about how much of a "hurdle" there is for suffrage: too high and it becomes an elite, too low, and it becomes meaningless. I am in total agreement; not only that, I believe that the "hurdle" described in Starship Troopers was way too high: there was an immense attrition rate out of those who ended up actually finishing boot camp. Not only that, but I also discussed a third option for earning suffrage: two years in the Peace Corps, so that the military is not the only option. Am I taking crazy pills here (I know someone's going to use that against me as a quote!) or did I not say that like, several times? Maybe I left "babel fish" on by accident and it's translating my words in Chinese, and that's why nobody heard.

But there is a hurdle, and the real question is who sets it, who can change it and who applies it. We have a simple hurdle (be a citizen over 18), but that also means that it is very clear and easy to apply.

Now, Danivon, the question you said I didn't answer.

No, I'm also looking at who would be excluded. I asked you about that, and didn't really get much of an answer.

Nobody would be "excluded". If you came to the recruiting station in a wheelchair, or any handicap, they would have to find something for them to do for the government. Heinlein wasn't actually too specific about this, but this is MY version of things. I would not do things exactly as Heinlein proposed. See paragraph above about Heinlein's "attrition" rate of boot camp. See also about the Peace Corps, above. The people "excluded" from suffrage were the people who didn't feel like jumping through the hoops.

So what stops everyone turning up to the recruitment stations and applying? And won't that mean that the government would need to tax at a rate that allows it to pay at least a minimal salary for all that do turn up, or perhaps to apply some form of criteria to qualify? You have said it can't be meaninglessly low, and while you don't agree it should be as high as in the ST boot camps (although they were training for a pretty hardcore combat situation, so in that context it made sense to not accept wheezy fat kids), that means it will be set somewhere in between.

And yes, you say that there may be other jobs that can be done, like Peace Corps work, or perhaps menial government jobs etc etc. But again, are there some people who are physically incapable, while still being able to be functioning citizens in a democratic sense?

I do not know about the UK or Canada, but in the United States, the rate at which Americans are participating in politics is declining. How long will it be before it happens, and too few people raise a finger in protest to stop it? You see what I am saying???

Yes, I see what you are saying, and it seems to be that the cure is the same thing as the problem it's curing. The dwindling rate of participation reflects a lack of interest. There are all kinds of reasons behind it, but basically here is the thing. You already have a situation where in order to have a say, people have to jump through a hoop or two, and they are pretty easy: register to vote, and then do it. And not that many people do.

So I'm not really clear what the benefit is of adding more hoops.

Danivon:

And what is to stop this apparently laudable and inevitable framework from being subverted?

What's to stop the current one? And:

Well, you seem to think that your idea is not only the likely successor, but apparently that's because it is preferable. So let's reframe the question:

In what ways is this framework less likely to be subverted than universal suffrage?

doesn't that make it just as likely - if not more so - that sectional interests can capture government?

Um...haven't they already? PACs, corporations, special interests, etc.?

So again, how is your idea making it less likely for power to be captured? Does it make it harder, and if so how?

Have I explained your question? (not necessarily in a way you agree with, but at least answered it?)

Not really, you've just asked questions back. I'm trying to see how your idea compares to our current democratic systems. I know what we have now is imperfect, but I see your idea as being less perfect; ie worse. What can you do to convince me that it is more perfect?

My point, as freeman pointed out, is that I love democracy, HOWEVER, it is in trouble, and one day it may have to choose between an out-and-out dictatorship, or a meritocracy wherein suffrage is not universally given as a right at 18, but the option to jump through some hoops to earn it is.

However, it is not militarily dominated, if it's done right (my suggestion about allowing other options as legitimately "earning" it). No, people who have been in the military are not superior to the average other voter necessarily. The concept is that you have to earn you right to vote, whether in the military or through some other means (i cannot reiterate enough: Heinlein's hurdle is too high and too idealistic. I believe I restated that for the umpteenth time just now). And again Heinlein said that the "citizens", the people who had earned their suffrage, were those who were OUT OF THE MILITARY ALREADY...e.g, NOT active duty!!!!!

Yes, I know that it is for ex-military (or ex-public servants, or ex-Peace Corps or whatever), but the point still stands. And Freeman made it best:

freeman wrote:The military is a top-down, hierarchical, non-equal organization where one is not free to express one's views without restriction. You think a military-dominated society is going to have a lot of tolerance for diverse viewpoints?

Even if we accept that it is not serving military, it is still ex-military, and as you know and are making a point of, being in the military does change people. But the main purpose of basic training is to do just that: change a person into a soldier. A soldier does as he is ordered, and unless the orders are clearly bad will not stop to question them. They will accept orders from above, quickly and directly. And if they don't they expect discipline. Totally necessary in combat, to automatically obey an order to attack (or defend) when it may look like a threat to life. Because if people can't do that, battles won't get won.

But that does not easily slip away, and even after leaving the military, it leaves an impression. The bulk of soldiers are not officers, and are trained to respect and obey officers. They may dissent when it comes to obviously bad officers, but not that often. And in post-military life, who is going to be able to garner the votes of former soldiers easily? Former officers, that's who.

Because anyone who doesn't already have suffrage, is legally, constitutionally entitled to earn it if they want to. No one as I said can be barred, they have to find you something to do which takes effort on your part to do. So if your congressman or MP said "piss off, I don't listen to civilians" and it pissed you off enough, you could earn your suffrage and then run against the bastard yourself. Believe it or not, you can actually go to US congressmen for help with things regarding the federal government (we relied heavily on one of ours to help my father). In a meritocracy, would they tell him to piss off if he was a "civilian" (as is Heinlein's word for those w/o suffrage)? No, because it's not in the interests of the government to do that, as anyone they piss off could potentially be a citizen and run against them. Or might have a voter in the family somewhere or...you get the idea.

Hmm. There is some supposition here. You accept that it can't be so easy as to be meaningless to qualify as a voter, but I don't get a clear view of what the criteria are. Sure, a "civilian" may be able to become a "citizen", but maybe not all. Will some 80-yr old guy find it easy to?

What if the military decided that women should not be allowed to join or at least the military took a much higher percentage of men? What if the military discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation? Owen mentioned the disabled, but how about those who have religious or other convictions against serving in the military? Is it fair or even desirable to restrict people with talent from serving or having a voice in government?

Perhaps a little bit paranoid. They wouldn't. 1) would hurt manpower IMMENSELY. There are a lot of women in the United States military at this point, and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars have involved them more and more directly toward combat roles (they kind of are, if unofficially, in combat as much as the men these days. This is far from the days of WWII.) There are people who are of many faiths in the United States military, Muslims, Christians, Jews, atheists, and so on.

But, if you need to serve in order to be a citizen, that may well mean the military is over-subscribed with volunteers, and who gets to set the means by which you limit the numbers?

Interestingly enough, did you know that our military became integrated (under Pres. Truman) a while BEFORE the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King jr and other activists of the era, and before Jim Crow Laws of mostly southern states were outlawed, school segregation and so forth? That did not make our military some sort of egalitarian/meritocracy overnight. But it did more than just get the ball rolling. And if they hadn't have integrated the armed forces at that time, or perhaps ever, I very much doubt we would have heard of anything called a Voting Rights Act in 1965, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Fair Housing Act, and the other civil rights legislation of about that time. In fact, we might still have Jim Crow with us today. If you doubt this, remember that the surviving members of the Tuskeegee Airmen (know who they are?) all got front-row seats at the 2009 inauguration of Barack Obama. Why? Because they made President Barack Obama possible.

Let's see what else:

And Truman's changes were a result of what? Universal suffrage electing a government that changed the laws and/or its policies.

There were civil rights activists before the 1950s, by the way. They even had some successes over the years, but clearly not as big as those after WWII. And it was lobbying from civil rights activists, Asa Philip Randolph and others, that was in part responsible for Truman's executive order.

Randolph was not a soldier, he was a trade unionist. And he started with lobbying for desegregation of industries, particularly the government contracted defence industries, before moving on to campaigning for a more equal military. I could argue that the desegregation of the forces was only possible because of the success of the movement for get the Fair Employment Act in 1941.

Of course Randolph was a socialist, so not many Americans will have heard of his leadership in civil rights. Far less palatable than a pastor.

This system is not without its own flaws, I already admitted that. I'm not talking about a utopia of the future. Maybe it would be, maybe it wouldn't. Right now I am pleased to have democracy. But I am displeased that it may have to be discarded one day because of the people who are, quite frankly, @#$! it up by exploiting its own flaws.

Sure, but I still don't see how the system you propose to 'save' democracy is any less flawed. Or is not itself a step towards the thing you fear is the end-result of democracy: autocracy.

Well I've tried to answer them, Danivon; perhaps you did not like the answer you got? Sorry, that's answering another question with a question.

This is one of those rare times I just give up on trying to convince someone of something. I really meant to sort of "float it" as a "thought" so to speak, but I've had difficulty explaining myself on this one, nor did I anticipate the reaction I got. I'm sure you realize I'm not the most articulate person on Redscape (through no fault of my own I assure you and certainly not for lack of trying). I have a feeling I could at least make better arguments if I could focus a bit better, and from this it seems I can't do it like I used to. Not saying that I would be able to run circles around any argument, but I did used to be better at this (debating, etc.)

OK so you think my (and Heinlein's) idea is shitty. So be it. It really does not bother me one whit whether everybody agrees with me or not. I do not see in his idea a military dictatorship. You've all raised some valid objections of course, but I certainly disagree with many of them. Maybe we ought to leave it at that?

At least no one's outright called me an idiot. It's stayed pretty respectful so far, thankfully.

Yeah probably a good time to stop; everyone has put forward their views and sometimes discussions can just turn into clashes of ego after a while. And while the discussion was at times tense it had value.

But but..this is a Redscape thread. Endlessly repeating the same points over 23 pages is what we do here.

I like Hacker's threads, I must admit. Typically I disagree with him but at least he always keeps it civil, and usually he attempts to address the bigger picture, even if some of his views are a little naive. I'm not sure such a sensitive soul is wholly suited to the tone of debate we tend to experience round here but I hope he sticks around.

Well, thank you. I intend to stick around, actually.

And since I know so little about democracy...let's get a little pragmatic...or perhaps I should say a helluva lot more pragmatic...

Since it is practically changing gears, here, I'll post a totally different thread.

Well it was interesting but I do agree we are not getting anywhere. I think it it is clear what we all think on the subject, if not why in full detail.

I agree that democracy can fail. But so can any system, so it is a question of what is better despite the failings.