The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:46 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Starship Troopers
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2004 2:38 am 
One of my favorite books if you must know. I have re-read it 12 or 13 times. For those who have not read it yet (you should) it is nothing like the Frankenstein version the movie ended up as. The focus of the story is on the History and Moral Philosophy discussions and their applications. There is a lot in there to make you think.

So, any thoughts? This thread is completely open for all discussion on anything relating to Starship Troopers.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2004 2:50 am 
Ok. :)


What are 'rights'?
Are they 'god' given? Earned? Guaranteed by ... who? More importantly, how?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:00 am 
I think anything that could be said about "rights" can be constructed as a subcategory of ethics.

After a fashion, a right could be seen as basically being the ability to be in a certain state or to commit a certain action with the understanding that is it unethical to infringe on that ability. Or something similiar.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2004 11:31 am 
Gerald wrote:
I think anything that could be said about "rights" can be constructed as a subcategory of ethics.

After a fashion, a right could be seen as basically being the ability to be in a certain state or to commit a certain action with the understanding that is it unethical to infringe on that ability. Or something similiar.


Rights, in the context of the book, might be strained into an ethics mode. However, it's much more practical IMO to get it into discussion of a social contract.

That is - What do I have to give up, what do I get, and how are these enforced?

Note that some of the things you'll have to give up are (in reference to both the book's postulated society and the setting it was written in) prejudice by race (if not by personal history or sex) and many of the happier liberal viewpoints regarding no corporal punishment.

What you gain, (according to the book, which is where this should all be focused!) is a functioning society which provides for its members with minimal restrictions on those who participate in it.

Would it be this clean in a real-world trial? Umm... doubt it. But it's theoretically no worse than many systems at work today, and better IMO than others.

-John


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2004 12:09 pm 
Prejudice by race? I didn't see that anywhere in the book.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2004 12:24 pm 
Madcat wrote:
Prejudice by race? I didn't see that anywhere in the book.

Eggzactly my point, especially since at the beginning of the book the primary character is revealed to be from Buenos Aires, and the very end reveals him to be a native Tagalog speaker. Tagalog is one of the major languages in the Philippeans.

And Starship Troopers was written in 1959...

-John


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:43 am 
Discarnate wrote:
What you gain, (according to the book, which is where this should all be focused!) is a functioning society which provides for its members with minimal restrictions on those who participate in it.

-John


Gain? So your postulate is that we don't have "a functioning society which provides for its members with minimal restrictions"?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:36 pm 
Pronto wrote:
Gain? So your postulate is that we don't have "a functioning society which provides for its members with minimal restrictions"?


Two things, really - yes, it is a functional society. However, it is not a society with minimal restrictions. Assuming that we're looking at the US for a moment (And yes, Pronto, I knwo yer a Canadian, but I'd rather speak with what I knwo...), we see any number of completely extraneous restrictions. Gun control, drug laws, federal income taxes, property taxes, sexuality laws the list goes on and on.

All of these are restrictions that serve no viable purpose within a society. They're all implmented as a way for the people in power to justify their existance and the budgets they present for us yearly. Stripping the federal government down to it's absolute basics - national defense and regulation of interstate trade - would slash the American budget dramatically. But that's all besire the point.


Anyway...back to the track of the thread. Heinlein was on the right track with his system of government. People who are unwilling to serve for their contry have no right to a voice in running it.

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." -John F. Kennedy.

What right does some punk college kid have to say 'This is good' and 'This is bad,' when he's done nothing for the State? When his parents probably pay his taxes? When he hasn't shown any iota of willingness to put himself on the line and sacrifice himself upon the altar of service and duty?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:14 pm 
Revelations wrote:
Pronto wrote:
Gain? So your postulate is that we don't have "a functioning society which provides for its members with minimal restrictions"?


Two things, really - yes, it is a functional society. However, it is not a society with minimal restrictions. Assuming that we're looking at the US for a moment (And yes, Pronto, I knwo yer a Canadian, but I'd rather speak with what I knwo...), we see any number of completely extraneous restrictions. Gun control, drug laws, federal income taxes, property taxes, sexuality laws the list goes on and on.

All of these are restrictions that serve no viable purpose within a society. They're all implmented as a way for the people in power to justify their existance and the budgets they present for us yearly. Stripping the federal government down to it's absolute basics - national defense and regulation of interstate trade - would slash the American budget dramatically. But that's all besire the point.


Anyway...back to the track of the thread. Heinlein was on the right track with his system of government. People who are unwilling to serve for their contry have no right to a voice in running it.

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." -John F. Kennedy.

What right does some punk college kid have to say 'This is good' and 'This is bad,' when he's done nothing for the State? When his parents probably pay his taxes? When he hasn't shown any iota of willingness to put himself on the line and sacrifice himself upon the altar of service and duty?


Point...But on the other hand, the purpose of a democratic government (in theory) is to serve the people, not the other way around.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:33 pm 
Err...no?

The purpose of a democratic government is not to serve the people. People serve the government. In theory, you're supposed to be making a massive sacrifice in order to assume elected office. It's supposed to be a burden of service.

A government should concern itself solely with national defense and foreign policy. Including proactive defense, if need be. Other than that, it should have no role whatsoever in society. No welfare, no road maintainence, nothing of the sort. The only 'service' the government should have is providing everyone within it's society a single basic right - the opportunity to suceed. No guarantees, no help, no hinderance. You have a chance to succeed. What you do with it is completely up to you. Nothing more, nothing less.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:48 pm 
Screw you, Revelation. A government and its role are whatever we make of them. You want a governement that's stripped down to the army and a few diplomats, good for you, vote in that direction. If you find no politicians to hold that position, become a politician.

But you have no call telling me that if I want my government to handle welfare, road maintenance, police, ecology, and, why not, girls in pink tutu dancing in the streets, I'm wrong and shouldn't be allowed to vote.

And while we're at it, why should we be ready to "sacrifice ourselves"? Plenty of other ways to serve a country than marching into a dump I can't locate on an atlas to get shot by people I never met in a war I don't approve of.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:50 pm 
Hey! No fair impersonating me!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:57 pm 
Me or him?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:58 pm 
Revelations wrote:
Err...no?

The purpose of a democratic government is not to serve the people. People serve the government. In theory, you're supposed to be making a massive sacrifice in order to assume elected office. It's supposed to be a burden of service.


If a government isn't good for the governed, then what's the justification for its existence?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:20 pm 
Pronto wrote:
Discarnate wrote:
What you gain, (according to the book, which is where this should all be focused!) is a functioning society which provides for its members with minimal restrictions on those who participate in it.

Gain? So your postulate is that we don't have "a functioning society which provides for its members with minimal restrictions"?

Actually, the predicate mentioned in the book is that society flat-out failed. This is the follow-on to the failed systems.

Do I think that the events in the book are likely? Ummmm - no. However, they do give an entertaining backdrop to some interesting BLAM.

-John


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:24 pm 
sun tzu wrote:
Revelations wrote:
Err...no?

The purpose of a democratic government is not to serve the people. People serve the government. In theory, you're supposed to be making a massive sacrifice in order to assume elected office. It's supposed to be a burden of service.

If a government isn't good for the governed, then what's the justification for its existence?

Excellent point. The best justification ATM is that those in power wish to maintain that power, and that there is SOME degree of checks and balances in place to prevent them from utterly squishing the peons - that's thee and me, filks.

Beyond that? I dunno, except to think that it's probably not gonna be very pretty or pleasant at all.

-John


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:25 am 
sun tzu wrote:
If a government isn't good for the governed, then what's the justification for its existence?


How is it not good for the governed? Minimal interference in people's lives, and ensuring that their right to pursue happiness is not infringed by foreign powers.

Anh Minh wrote:
Screw you, Revelation. A government and its role are whatever we make of them. You want a governement that's stripped down to the army and a few diplomats, good for you, vote in that direction. If you find no politicians to hold that position, become a politician.

But you have no call telling me that if I want my government to handle welfare, road maintenance, police, ecology, and, why not, girls in pink tutu dancing in the streets, I'm wrong and shouldn't be allowed to vote.

And while we're at it, why should we be ready to "sacrifice ourselves"? Plenty of other ways to serve a country than marching into a dump I can't locate on an atlas to get shot by people I never met in a war I don't approve of.


Actually, I thought that was the entire purpose of this forum. You know, to express my philosophical opinion on the basis of government. Which I will reiterate - a government that serves the people is a government that is, unfortunately, prone to corruption and bloating as it expands it's various 'services' - I never asked for social security or medicare, yet I get taxed for it anyway.

Anyway, it is my belief that people, as a majority, do not deserve any political rights whatsoever. Of course, one of the civil rights I support, though, is the unmitigated right of free speech - so, feel free to disagree with me as loudly and as rudely as you desire. It sure as hell don't bother me, I like watching people froth at the mouth.

And as to the sacrifice bit? Well, yes, you can serve your country as a teacher or a scientist or whatever, but you never offered to perform the ultimate sacrifice in the name of your country - i.e. put your life on the line. Of course, I may be a bit biased in this matter, since in the sociopolitical system I envision, there would be a very minimal need for government at all.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:22 am 
Revelations wrote:
sun tzu wrote:
If a government isn't good for the governed, then what's the justification for its existence?


How is it not good for the governed? Minimal interference in people's lives, and ensuring that their right to pursue happiness is not infringed by foreign powers.


I'd want a little government interference, if it means I can get an education despite my parents' poverty. The problem with the libertarian POV is that some of those social programs are really nice things to have.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:29 am 
Rev: you're right, I didn't. It's not called for, and it's not in my temperament to volunteer for that kind of things. I find it funny, though, that you protest taxes more than you do the draft.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:46 am 
As a crrent military member, allow me to inform you that I take considerable pride in doing my job to the best of my ability to preserve that freedom in one very fundamental way. no one else HAS to serve. Anyone able to keep themselves out of too much trouble is free to serve, if able. (criminals not welcome)

There are three major functions of government, and foriegn defence is just one of them. It is also neccisary to protect the people from eachother, and provide for them. Government is a tool, and like any tool, only as useful as the way we use it.

Law enforcement and Fire protection are excellent examples of government service. No-one has a chance to succeed if they are picked up and enslaved by the local warlord or Mob boss, just because it's too much trouble for the government to intervene.

Public education is another important service. it ensures everyone should have the basic education they need in life. Not just the kids whose parents are wealthy enough to send them to a private school. Again, everyone gets the opportunity (in theory) to succeed. not just those in power.



Back to the subject, I've read the book and seen the movie. Two (almost) completely different stories. there were a number of ideals presented in that book, Government was just one of them. And I did not get the impression the author was trying to say it was perfect. Rico and his buddies did get assaulted outside the bar by people who didn't really care for the system.

More importantly, the book focused heavily on Infantry. Given some pre-Korean war attitude, those points make a lot of sence. it's never good enough just to think you can bomb your enemies into submision, eventually, it comes down to someone walking around on the streets with a gun. (yes, I know the book came some time after the Korean war) Infantry will never become obsolete. but it will continue to evolve.

Lastly, I don't think the book ever could've translated very well into a movie. It's just too hard to tell a story about charecters when they all put on powered armor and become indistinguishable from eachother. I still think they did a better job on Starship Troopers than that travesty they made of Last of the Mohicans.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 3:14 am 
Locus Cosecant wrote:
I'd want a little government interference, if it means I can get an education despite my parents' poverty. The problem with the libertarian POV is that some of those social programs are really nice things to have.


Social programs that, to me, are completely useless - if you didn't get taxed that however many percent that the government takes out for your tax bracket (10% if it's the US poverty line), you could use that money to educate your kids. Also see the last paragrph in this post.

And yes, I know libertarianism's imperfect. However, I think that the current system is even moreso. Feel free to disagree, that's kinda the entire point here.

Anh Minh wrote:
Rev: you're right, I didn't. It's not called for, and it's not in my temperament to volunteer for that kind of things. I find it funny, though, that you protest taxes more than you do the draft.


...and when did the draft come into this, Anh? I don't support either one of them. A modern military force requires too much training and motivation in order to function with conscript forces.

Travellar wrote:
As a crrent military member, allow me to inform you that I take considerable pride in doing my job to the best of my ability to preserve that freedom in one very fundamental way. no one else HAS to serve. Anyone able to keep themselves out of too much trouble is free to serve, if able. (criminals not welcome)


Cool, which branch? Other than that, though, what's the relevance of that paragraph to the discussion? At no point was conscription mentioned, except maybe in my previous paragraph... Other than that, nice to know you're volunteering to serve,

Quote:
There are three major functions of government, and foriegn defence is just one of them. It is also neccisary to protect the people from eachother, and provide for them. Government is a tool, and like any tool, only as useful as the way we use it.


Three major functions? There should only really be one - everything else can be taken care of on the internal, community level, rather than at the level of the government.

A community cannot be responsible for defense the borders, beyond their own 'home' range borders. The government should be resposible for defending national borders, no more and no less.

Quote:
Law enforcement and Fire protection are excellent examples of government service. No-one has a chance to succeed if they are picked up and enslaved by the local warlord or Mob boss, just because it's too much trouble for the government to intervene.


Fire protection? Volunteer firefighters come to mind...they seem to work quite well where I'm from. Then again, I'm mostly from rural areas, where your neighbors are the people you can trust.

And...well, law enforcement is one of those problematic subjects - I believe in mandating that everyone receives weapons training and goes about armed, except for so-called conscienteous or philosophical objectors. If they want to go abouts without weapons, the feel free, I'm not going to force them to.

This mostly eliminates the need for a set police force. And as for the laws themselves? Have judges elected from the community by direct vote - their rulings to be based on common sense, with their terms of service limited to, say, a year at most. No set lawbooks, no legal loopholes to exploit.

Quote:
Public education is another important service. it ensures everyone should have the basic education they need in life. Not just the kids whose parents are wealthy enough to send them to a private school. Again, everyone gets the opportunity (in theory) to succeed. not just those in power.


Looking at the status of the modern American public education system, and having experienced both public and private schools, I note that I could have mastered everything I was taught in public school in less than two years, not the four years I was there before I transfered to a private school that actually, ya know, required me to do homework, rather than study for standardized testing.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 5:57 am 
Revelations wrote:
sun tzu wrote:
If a government isn't good for the governed, then what's the justification for its existence?



How is it not good for the governed? Minimal interference in people's lives, and ensuring that their right to pursue happiness is not infringed by foreign powers.

To clarify: You had just said
Quote:
Anyway...back to the track of the thread. Heinlein was on the right track with his system of government. People who are unwilling to serve for their contry have no right to a voice in running it.

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." -John F. Kennedy.

What right does some punk college kid have to say 'This is good' and 'This is bad,' when he's done nothing for the State? When his parents probably pay his taxes? When he hasn't shown any iota of willingness to put himself on the line and sacrifice himself upon the altar of service and duty?

to which I replied
Quote:
Point...But on the other hand, the purpose of a democratic government (in theory) is to serve the people, not the other way around.

and to which you had replied
Quote:
Err...no?

The purpose of a democratic government is not to serve the people. People serve the government. In theory, you're supposed to be making a massive sacrifice in order to assume elected office. It's supposed to be a burden of service.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:39 am 
Revelations wrote:
Social programs that, to me, are completely useless - if you didn't get taxed that however many percent that the government takes out for your tax bracket (10% if it's the US poverty line), you could use that money to educate your kids.

But if your family is poverty-stricken, that 10% doesn't go very far, especially once you pay off the local water baron, and the tolls charged by RoadsCo. The government has more non-defensive programs than just education, and you're going to start having to pay for those, too. Before, the wealthy paid for a lot of that stuff. Now, the poor are locked into a nigh-inescapable cycle of poverty, as they are unable to get their children even basic education.

Quote:
Looking at the status of the modern American public education system, and having experienced both public and private schools, I note that I could have mastered everything I was taught in public school in less than two years, not the four years I was there before I transfered to a private school that actually, ya know, required me to do homework, rather than study for standardized testing.


Let me point out that if you privatize all education, the quality of private schools will, on average, drop dramatically. If they have no incredibly cheap competition in public schools, they have no urgent need to present high quality as a selling point. If private schools right now tried to make a profit without offering better services than public schools, they'd get no customers, because their tuition would be far more than government-subsidized public schools. If the government stops offering education, such a low-budget, low-value enterprise could become profitable.

However, it's likely that, since the educators will no longer, even in theory, be primarily concerned with students' welfare, any school which approaches affordable for the lower middle-class would be considerably worse than current public schooling. You complain about teaching to standardized tests? Fair enough. But these schools won't even have that imperfect measurement to keep them honest. It's like a deregulated sausage-house; you're not sure just how much dead rat you're getting.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:49 am 
The American public school system may be terrible, but here, I think that out of the top twenty high school, one, maybe two, are private.

Re: the draft. What Sun Tzu said. And the bit about putting your life on the line. And the Heinlein reference.

Quote:
Fire protection? Volunteer firefighters come to mind...they seem to work quite well where I'm from. Then again, I'm mostly from rural areas, where your neighbors are the people you can trust.


Want to send all-volunteer firefighters into chemical plants?

Quote:
And...well, law enforcement is one of those problematic subjects - I believe in mandating that everyone receives weapons training and goes about armed, except for so-called conscienteous or philosophical objectors. If they want to go abouts without weapons, the feel free, I'm not going to force them to.

Yay mafias!

Quote:
This mostly eliminates the need for a set police force. And as for the laws themselves? Have judges elected from the community by direct vote - their rulings to be based on common sense, with their terms of service limited to, say, a year at most. No set lawbooks, no legal loopholes to exploit.

Yay corruption and oppression of minorities!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:06 pm 
United States Navy.

To clarify what I said about my pride in no-one beign forced to serve, the discussion to that point had bordered dangerously close on the concept of having to serve to be able to vote.

FireDepartments: I grew up in Central Illinois, and currently live in San Diego. I doubt many rural comunities would be able to support a full time fire department, and I doubt a volenteer service could adaquately provide for larger concentrated urban areas. Either way, it's still neccisary to purchase and maintain the equipment they use. (Fire Engines anyone?)

Schools: yup, some schools are better than others. Some teach as well as they can, others barely manage to teach to standards. But what public schools do provide is a difference between that level of education, and no education. (Don't get me started on home schooling. While it works well for some, I cannot see three generations of home schooling staying competitive)

As for many federalized services, some of them have grown out of a recognition that there are sometimes problems states and comunities cannotor will not handle by themselves. (KKK, Mob, Civil rights) At the inception of our nation, even the army was to be made of state militias. Our Civil war demonstrated clearly the need for a federalised army. So did the Mexican/American wars.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:07 pm 
there is no post here. You're imagining things. go about your business.


Last edited by Travellar on Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:50 pm 
Crazy double vision! I see the same post twice! 8O

It must be a sign.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:54 pm 
Yep. A sign of a doubleclick. *wry grin*

-John


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:22 pm 
Anh Minh wrote:
The American public school system may be terrible, but here, I think that out of the top twenty high school, one, maybe two, are private.


And...that's wherever you are. Which, from that statement, I interpret as 'not in the US.' Since I happen to be from America, I'll just continue to use examples that I'm familiar with.

Quote:
Re: the draft. What Sun Tzu said. And the bit about putting your life on the line. And the Heinlein reference.


...and how do any of those count as wanting a draft? People have the choice of serving the government or not. I know plenty of people who have, I know plenty of people who wouldn't touch the government with a twenty-foot pole.

Quote:
Want to send all-volunteer firefighters into chemical plants?


Why not? If I were a firefighter and I had the training, I'd go ahead willingly. It's what I signed up to do, after all.

Quote:
Yay mafias!


Err...how?

Quote:
Yay corruption and oppression of minorities!


And again, do explain more fully than a six-word answer, please.

Travellar wrote:
United States Navy.


Cool - also USN, current stationed at NNPTC.

Quote:
To clarify what I said about my pride in no-one beign forced to serve, the discussion to that point had bordered dangerously close on the concept of having to serve to be able to vote.


Ah, but that's generally the point - A display of willingness to sacrifice the self for the greater good should be one of the key requirements to be able to vote.

I'm a firm believer in earning your priviliges, with a voice in the government being one of them - civili rights are basic and unalienable, but political rights aren't rights - they're responsiblities, and if you fail in them the privilige of voting should be taken away.

Quote:
FireDepartments: I grew up in Central Illinois, and currently live in San Diego. I doubt many rural comunities would be able to support a full time fire department, and I doubt a volenteer service could adaquately provide for larger concentrated urban areas. Either way, it's still neccisary to purchase and maintain the equipment they use. (Fire Engines anyone?)


Get the community to do it, then - if the community wants adequate fire protection, they'll scrape up the money eventually, or they'll go without.

Quote:
Schools: yup, some schools are better than others. Some teach as well as they can, others barely manage to teach to standards. But what public schools do provide is a difference between that level of education, and no education. (Don't get me started on home schooling. While it works well for some, I cannot see three generations of home schooling staying competitive)


All the public schools I've been in, and listening to my friends talk about the ones they've stayed in, do not teach anything at all. The information in the textbooks if oft-wrong, slanted, biased, or altered, the courses are designed to give even the lowest-scorer a passing grade, and you can sue the school to get your grades changed from an F to an A. I don't remember the specifics of that case, google for it if you want.

Quote:
As for many federalized services, some of them have grown out of a recognition that there are sometimes problems states and comunities cannotor will not handle by themselves. (KKK, Mob, Civil rights) At the inception of our nation, even the army was to be made of state militias. Our Civil war demonstrated clearly the need for a federalised army. So did the Mexican/American wars.


And, out of curiosity, are the KKK and Mobs a problem, assuming that you've got communities with any sense of self-worth/capability of protecting themselves? So there's a crossburning. Personally, I loathe them, but yaknow, it's their right of political expression, as long as they do it on their own private property, or even public property.

The moment they step onto my land to do it, well, time to drive'm off my land in whatever way I so choose, and since I have 'Trespassers will be shot with no warning' signs posted, it looks like I'd be hauling them off in bodybags. Same with the Mob/Mafia/whatever - they come onto my land and demand protection money, they'll get it - in the form of small elad pellets at high speed.

And what about civil rights? How the federal government was forced to slam it into the face of the southern states? That, no offense and all, was a side effect of the way the US developed with a tradition of slavery. And, being that, was a one-time-only societal event.

And there would be a federalized military - it'd be about the entirety of the government. Responsible for maintaining the national borders, and nothing else.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2004 12:17 am 
The public schools where I came from were quite capable of teaching students well. (Some where better than others, I'll admit) One of the key factors was that there were more advanced levels of math or language classes available, so it wasn't always teaching to the lowest level. Foriegn languages at a conversational level and Calculus go a bit beyond just trying to teach a standard.

Service to recieve voting rights, My fear there is that it would allow (this)society to drift towards a certain militantism. I'll be the first to say that there are a lot of people I'd like to tell to put up or shut up, but I don't think military service is a wise pre-requiset. We may just need to agree to disagree on this one though...

Where's NNPTC? better yet, What's NNPTC?

Get the comunity to do it... That's basicly the level Fire protection is taken care of on. But a local Government is still a Government.


The KKK refrence was more historical than current. At the height of the civil rights movement, the KKK was so pervasive in southern society that no local police force could or would root them out. The problem at the time wasn't "oh, they're burning crosses, how offensive", it was lynching people. On a larger scale, some states wouldn't even bother to try upholding peoples civil rights. Or would deliberately oppose them. Federal agencies such as the FBI and the US Marshals were required. If you want to say that states should be freee to do whatever they want, fine. But I'll draw a line against that argument when it comes to a multi-caste society where some members may be murdered at will by others.

Which pretty much sums up where the corruption and oppression arguments come from. On a comunity only level, what's to stop a criminal orginization from exploiting every member of a comunity once they've bought off the local police force and filled it's ranks with thier own people.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group