Democracy doesn’t work.

wtfNeedSignUp said:
The Starship Troopers idea of voting with veteran status isn't that good when you think about it in real life. A one really good/bad war can create a decade long bias in people which will lead to bad decisions (with plenty of examples from history). Not to mention that the idea that only servicemen pay for war is only true in case of wars waged by privileged first world countries, or that the book seemed more to imply that the problem is humans beinf too afraid of potential wars rather than the opposite.
Click to expand...
As a serviceman or veteran you get to vote only for the president or whoever the commander in chief is while the legislative body that controls the finance is voted only by net-taxpayers (you have to be both a serviceman/veteran and a net-taxpayer if you want to vote for both). Should the executive voting bloc (veterans and servicemen) be up to some homosexual faggotry, the legislative voting bloc (net-taxpayers) can keep them in check and vice versa. If for example the president wants to be a jingoist war hawk that wants to set the world on fire because muh blood for the blood god and his voting bloc is on board, the legislative body (parliament, congress etc.) and their voting bloc can tell him to go fuck himself by not financing the war. In the end you as a net-taxpayer want the government to spend your money on something that benefits you than to waste it on a pointless war in a godforsaken shithole.

It's by far not the perfect system, but one I'd prefer it to the mess we have now in the civilised world.
 
In the novel Starship Troopers everyone has the exact same rights as they do now in Western countries except only people who have done public service can vote. They didnt have to join the military to be able to vote either. There were non-military positions people could volunteer for and the government had to take them. If people want to be able to vote by doing public service in the military or otherwise the government couldn't reject them. The government wasn't run by the military either. I might be remembering wrong but people who couldn't vote could run for elected offices, and the top active military officers weren't in charge of the government.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Fougaro
Fougaro said:
As a serviceman or veteran you get to vote only for the president or whoever the commander in chief is while the legislative body that controls the finance is voted only by net-taxpayers (you have to be both a serviceman/veteran and a net-taxpayer if you want to vote for both). Should the executive voting bloc (veterans and servicemen) be up to some homosexual faggotry, the legislative voting bloc (net-taxpayers) can keep them in check and vice versa. If for example the president wants to be a jingoist war hawk that wants to set the world on fire because muh blood for the blood god and his voting bloc is on board, the legislative body (parliament, congress etc.) and their voting bloc can tell him to go fuck himself by not financing the war. In the end you as a net-taxpayer want the government to spend your money on something that benefits you than to waste it on a pointless war in a godforsaken shithole.

It's by far not the perfect system, but one I'd prefer it to the mess we have now in the civilised world.
Click to expand...
The problem here is that creating a wide gulf between voters for different offices is that it could easily spiral to a cold war between the offices (or an actual war between the voters) where no shit would be done.
 
wtfNeedSignUp said:
The problem here is that creating a wide gulf between voters for different offices is that it could easily spiral to a cold war between the offices (or an actual war between the voters) where no shit would be done.
Click to expand...
I suppose you could make a similar argument against any system that practices separation of powers, though I think I understand your point. A potential "rift" between servicemen/veterans vs. net-taxpayers that in the worst-case scenario may paralyse the government is indeed a possibility. But it is a preferable risk to the fact where the two blocs are heads of the same hydra that every administration must appease through inflation, expansion and welfare entitlement in order to not end on the guillotines.
 
I don't know, we've been running this whole everyone can vote experiment for a relatively short time in civilizational terms. How's it going?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back