Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uiucdcs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!renner From: renner@uiucdcs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Re: Heinlein's arguments in _Starshi Message-ID: <36200179@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 25-Jan-85 13:20:00 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.36200179 Posted: Fri Jan 25 13:20:00 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 27-Jan-85 07:02:59 EST References: <187@ttidcc.UUCP> Lines: 30 Nf-ID: #R:ttidcc:-18700:uiucdcs:36200179:000:1433 Nf-From: uiucdcs!renner Jan 25 12:20:00 1985 > If I remember the book [Starship Troopers] correctly, it never comes > out and gives any justification for only allowing people to vote who > have served their time. The character who expounds this theory, the > 'civics' instructor, says that the true reason for this particular > system is that "it works satisfactorily." You are referring to Major Reid's lecture in Chapter 12. He does indeed state that the reason for *continuing* their system is that it works satisfactorily. But then he continues to explain *why* it works -- namely, that it balances responsibility and authority. Those who wish to vote, thereby controlling the lives of others, must first give up the right to control their own lives for a time. I should also mention that Major Reid's lecture is one place where it is stated that most "veterans" of Federal Service are not *military* veterans. > Of course, different people find different things satisfactory. Are > you seriously suggesting that the only people who should be allowed to > vote are those that share your political views? > -- (ark@alice) Hardly. I am suggesting that there should be *some* qualification to vote. And restricting the franchise to those who have demonstrated -- through difficult public service -- that they place the good of the group ahead of their personal good is the best qualification I can imagine. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner