Re: A much more potent terrorost weapon than a rocket

some deleted

This is one of your best pieces of work, Jerry. You should keep it as THE definitive work on delusional self-righteous self-worth. You're a legend in your own mind, buddy, but I'll still buy you a beer if you show up at LDRS2004. ;-)

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

Can someone put in a request to Bablefish for Jerry to English (and perhaps English to Jerry) translations. Or perhaps Rinkworks!

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

But if you are wrong and I am merely humble and accurate, that makes you the wack job.

Jerry

Heinlein's fascist fantasy would be FAR worse than what we have now! Besides being elistist, it assumes that the people exist to serve the state, rather than the state existing to serve the people.

How many would they start out with? If you have to delete two existing laws before you can make a new one, how do you make a new one if there aren't enough left to delete?

David -

Really?! I must have missed that line in "Mistress" - I'll have to re-read it tonight. I've said for years we need a process where old laws are stricken from the books almost as fast as they can pass new ones - lest we be drowned in a morass of overlapping and/or obsolete regulation (ooops! too late).

I'll be mildly embarassed if I find I borrowed THAT idea from Robert, too...

-- Scott Schuckert

Have you read any of Heinleins' novels, Ray...? I find them *far* from the "elitist, fascist" portrayal you've put forth.

Is there really anything inherently wrong with asking people that want to have a say in how government is run, to do something to indicate their willingness to put their own self-interest aside?

Notice, the "Troopers" society has a great deal of personal freedom

- characters can say and do pretty much whatever they want. (Except for the criminals, of course...)

The only difference is - if you want a shot at running the machinery, you have to be a cog first. ;-)

In fact, the only 'coersion' done in Troopers was intended to send potential volunteers *away*... as a measure of their committment.

I never saw that part - what chapter is it in? Although their 'Two-House' system is intriguing... one house passes laws *only if* they can get a two-thirds majority, and the second house can repeal laws if they can get *at least* a one-third minority.

It's not being denied - only limited. We place limits on that basic civil right already... it's called the Voting Age. ;-)

You could, but you'd be wrong.

I went back and checked, and I'm mistaken (in detail, not concept). Here's the quote from the book, where the Professor is addressing the new council of Luna:

"I note one proposal to make this Congress a two-house body. Excellent--the more impediments to legislation the better. But, instead of following tradition, I suggest one house of legislators, another whose single duty is to repeal laws. Let the legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority... while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a mere one-third minority. Preposterous? Think about it. If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third is it not likely that you would be better off without it?"

There were other 'interesting' suggestions in there as well, but that's one I've always liked...

David Erbas-White

You're absolutely right, and the quote is in fact much more like what I had in mind. And here I'd believed I'd thought of it myself. Doh!

-- Scott Schuckert

Excellent! I always figure if I'm wrong it at least shows I'm thinking.

Just to be clear, I intended to imply the current concept of "civil right" - which (to me) means there are some things people must be allowed to do, or the society is "bad".

What example(s) did you have in mind?

I have NO PROBLEM with people volunteering their time or money to do something for others. I think people have a moral obligation to do so. What I am strongly opposed to is forcing or coercing anyone into it. To me, that's no different than the liberals who think we all should be forced to pay for their pet causes.

I also don't like the idea of the government deciding which type of public service is acceptable.

Or to drive them out before their term is complete. :-)

And denying the vote to people under the age of 18 is different how...? You're forcing those kids to submit to other peoples' ideas until they reach an age mandated by 'The People'. Same with mental competence - no vote if you can't pass a government-approved "sanity" test.

The ONLY difference between Heinleins' limits to voting and current limits is that you have to demonstrate your ability to behave in a manner other than obvious self-interest. Doing a relatively brief period of service to the citizenry is used to show that you can be trusted with the responsibility of being a voting citizen.

The movie didn't even do THAT much. Heck - they didn't even put the MI in powered-armour suits! Soldiers were nothing more than cannon-fodder.

I'll bet that Heinlein is *still* doing cartwheels in his grave over that one... :-)

Examples, please...? :-)

Like feeding the poor...? You don't think that spending two years working on a farm could be a public service?

You mean... like what's being done now, in the guise of religious training...? ;-)

How? If you don't do the job you're assigned, you lose your citizenship. Buying your way into a different job would be the same as resigning your term, and thus the same outcome.

(Nice little thought-experiment, isn't it...?)