Solo4114
Master Member
Oh, I'm not suggesting that the Verhoeven version is actually Starship Troopers. IT's got nothing to do with the Heinlein version, from what I understand (or at least precious little). I've not yet read the Heinlein novel, but my point was more that Verhoeven chose to emphasize the whole Nazi element in his film, which is a thing unto itself.
There are undeniably virtues to even a fascist society. Each form of government tried by humans has SOME benefits to it. The question then becomes whether those benefits are worth the price. Heinlein's society sounds like it emphasizes some of the positive elements of an idealized version of a society where some kind of government service is a prerequisite to political participation. It's an interesting notion, but I gather it doesn't explore the flipside of the issue, which is the ability for such a government to become corrupted, self-serving, and to degenerate into an oppressive regime that essentially engages in serfdom or slavery or some other form of tyranny.
Example:
Suppose in Heinlein's novel, military service alone qualifies you for the franchise. Suppose that eligibility for military service is restricted to only those physically capable specimens. End result: military dictatorship.
Now, dictatorship ITSELF can be "benign" in theory. It deprives people of their freedoms, but it also provides for people and guides them to a point of happiness, self-sufficiency, etc. The argument being what good are your liberties if you ain't around to use 'em (because you starved, destroyed yourselves, etc.)?
Actually, Frank Herbert deals with this in a pretty interesting way. He posits in God Emperor of Dune that humanity itself has a tendency to turn to individual leaders to solve its problems, be they messiahs, gods, dictators, or whathaveyou, people -- for all their desires of freedom of self-determination -- look to some other entity to save them, make it better, fix things, etc.
Ultimately, Leto II -- the titular God Emperor, realizes that this tendency in humanity makes them weak. Too weak to face the oncoming storm he sees due to his prescience. In order to mold humanity into a race of strong individuals instead of people who turn to some leader to save them, Leto does what Paul cannot -- he ruthlessly, brutally oppresses them. In the televised version of Children of Dune, Leto talks about how "We go forward, we go back." His statement being that, for all the progress humanity makes, it ultimately ends up undermining itself in large part because of its desire to place power in the hands of someone else.
To solve this problem, Leto does what Paul could not -- he brutally and ruthlessly oppresses humanity so that it can only progress if it struggles against him. He acts in such a monstrous fashion that humanity will, when he is dead, NEVER put power in the hands of any such individual, and will instead be self-reliant. Moreover, humanity will be put on a path of perpetual progress, rather than the "forward/back" path it had been on.
Not exactly fascism, but similar elements.
There are undeniably virtues to even a fascist society. Each form of government tried by humans has SOME benefits to it. The question then becomes whether those benefits are worth the price. Heinlein's society sounds like it emphasizes some of the positive elements of an idealized version of a society where some kind of government service is a prerequisite to political participation. It's an interesting notion, but I gather it doesn't explore the flipside of the issue, which is the ability for such a government to become corrupted, self-serving, and to degenerate into an oppressive regime that essentially engages in serfdom or slavery or some other form of tyranny.
Example:
Suppose in Heinlein's novel, military service alone qualifies you for the franchise. Suppose that eligibility for military service is restricted to only those physically capable specimens. End result: military dictatorship.
Now, dictatorship ITSELF can be "benign" in theory. It deprives people of their freedoms, but it also provides for people and guides them to a point of happiness, self-sufficiency, etc. The argument being what good are your liberties if you ain't around to use 'em (because you starved, destroyed yourselves, etc.)?
Actually, Frank Herbert deals with this in a pretty interesting way. He posits in God Emperor of Dune that humanity itself has a tendency to turn to individual leaders to solve its problems, be they messiahs, gods, dictators, or whathaveyou, people -- for all their desires of freedom of self-determination -- look to some other entity to save them, make it better, fix things, etc.
Ultimately, Leto II -- the titular God Emperor, realizes that this tendency in humanity makes them weak. Too weak to face the oncoming storm he sees due to his prescience. In order to mold humanity into a race of strong individuals instead of people who turn to some leader to save them, Leto does what Paul cannot -- he ruthlessly, brutally oppresses them. In the televised version of Children of Dune, Leto talks about how "We go forward, we go back." His statement being that, for all the progress humanity makes, it ultimately ends up undermining itself in large part because of its desire to place power in the hands of someone else.
To solve this problem, Leto does what Paul could not -- he brutally and ruthlessly oppresses humanity so that it can only progress if it struggles against him. He acts in such a monstrous fashion that humanity will, when he is dead, NEVER put power in the hands of any such individual, and will instead be self-reliant. Moreover, humanity will be put on a path of perpetual progress, rather than the "forward/back" path it had been on.
Not exactly fascism, but similar elements.
