America Reinstituting the Draft

[Wolf]

All of which are probably correct. We do not praise the fault of Heinlein's proposed system, merely the philosophical justification that he wished to create. Is there a way to make sure that the people making the decisions for society actually deserve to do so without resorting to Heinlein's militaristic methods?

[Edric O]

All people deserve to make decisions for society, because all people are part of society. "Society" is not an independent, separate entity. It's made up of people. This is an obvious fact that for some reason doesn't seem to be too often understood. For example, you hear some people talking about "the individual" and "society" as if they were separate things. They are not. Society is composed of individuals. Whatever is good for one individual is also good for society as a whole (as long as it doesn't do any harm to other individuals).

Any man has the right to make decisions for society because those decisions also affect himself - as part of that society. If only SOME people make decisions for society, then those people are practically enslaving everyone else. And even when the master is kind and compassionate, that still doesn't justify slavery.

[Wolf]

I understand that, but what right does an individual have to make decisions for others?

[Anathema]

A society is an independant entity, made up from people. Every nation has the right to govern itself.

Look at the abominable situation in Chechnya. If we were to say that the Chechnyan and Russian people are not seperate entities, then it is only right that the Russians get to overvote the Chechnyans and do whatever they want to them.

[Wolf]

I'm going to make a stab at refuting Edric's points. I most likely will fail.

1. We do not assume that professional soldiers are more compassionate than the common man. Further, not even 1% of the civil service members in Heinlein's "military" were soldiers; only the MI and the Navy actually engaged in combat. After reading the book, you are left with the distinct impression that most people joining the military do average civilian jobs, but under sufficient danger to earn them the franchise.

2. A minority is not necessarily put in power. All residents are allowed to enter into civil service. Therefore, it is possible, and even likely, that a majority of the people will enter civil service. Further, you are not "in power" while you serve in the military. You must be a discharged civil service member in order to even vote.

3. True. It does become a more militaristic culture. However, unlike Sparta, no one is forced to serve in the civil service, and even if they do, it is rare that they will have to enter into actual military training and combat.

4. They are, and they have places in the civil services.

5. The minority question has already been addressed, but, again, I would like to ask, if a man has the right to make decisions for himself, what then gives him the right to make decisions for others?

[Edric O]

A society is an independant entity, made up from people. Every nation has the right to govern itself.

Look at the abominable situation in Chechnya. If we were to say that the Chechnyan and Russian people are not seperate entities, then it is only right that the Russians get to overvote the Chechnyans and do whatever they want to them.

You're saying that a society is an independent entity from other societies, which is perfectly true. I was saying that a society is not an independent entity from the individuals who make up that society.

In other words, of course the Chechnyan people is independent from the Russian people. But the Chechnyan people is not independent from individual Chechnyans.

[Edric O]

Now, Wolfwiz, let's take a look at your arguments... ;)

1. We do not assume that professional soldiers are more compassionate than the common man. Further, not even 1% of the civil service members in Heinlein's "military" were soldiers; only the MI and the Navy actually engaged in combat. After reading the book, you are left with the distinct impression that most people joining the military do average civilian jobs, but under sufficient danger to earn them the franchise.

That doesn't change anything. You still assume that anyone who joins the civil service does so out of love for his fellow man, which is blatantly false. Also, the society Heinlein describes is in a state of perpetual war, so there is no shortage of dangerous jobs. But if you wanted to create those dangerous jobs in peacetime, you would have to construct the danger artificially - thus exposing people to unnecessary danger - which is unbelievably stupid.

2. A minority is not necessarily put in power. All residents are allowed to enter into civil service. Therefore, it is possible, and even likely, that a majority of the people will enter civil service. Further, you are not "in power" while you serve in the military. You must be a discharged civil service member in order to even vote.

If the majority of people enter civil service, who is left to do all the OTHER jobs? Or is the whole country run by the military?

And it doesn't matter when you are in power. As long as you are in power and others aren't, you have power over those other people and you will be corrupted by it.

3. True. It does become a more militaristic culture. However, unlike Sparta, no one is forced to serve in the civil service, and even if they do, it is rare that they will have to enter into actual military training and combat.

No one is forced to serve in the civil service... but if you don't serve, you have no political power and you may as well be a slave.

And anyway, if the civil service only means doing average jobs with increased risk, what makes you think the civil service people are better rulers than the average man?

4. They are, and they have places in the civil services.

See all my other points then.

5. The minority question has already been addressed, but, again, I would like to ask, if a man has the right to make decisions for himself, what then gives him the right to make decisions for others?

I understand that, but what right does an individual have to make decisions for others?

If you want to live in a society (in other words, live with other people and interact with them), then you cannot avoid making decisions for other people and having other people make decisions for you. This is how any society works. ALL your decisions affect others in some way.

If you want absolute independence, that is your right, but then don't expect to enjoy the benefits of society without giving anything back. Go and live as a hermit.

Furthermore, keep in mind that the concept of "individual rights" is in itself a product of society. In order to have ANY individual rights, you need society to protect them. There are no such things as "natural rights", because "nature" doesn't protect your rights. If you're all alone in the middle of the jungle, you think a tiger is going to care about your "right to life"?

You have rights only because society protects those rights. Some self-styled "individualists" like to believe that they don't need other people, but unfortunetaly for them, they are caught up in a childish fantasy.

[Wolf]

So... I am still a bit unsure about why human beings have the right to make decisions for others. Are you saying that we do not have any inherent right to do so, but since we do it anyway out of necessity, we might as well? Or, are you saying that if we interact with society in a constructive way, we have earned the right to make decisions for that part of society? I really don't mind your attacks on the arguments of individualists, because I'm quite a sociable person, but, isn't this just a different version of the Heinleinian democracy? Don't want to join the army? Fine, you don't have to, but you can't vote. Don't want to be in society? Fine, you don't have to, but you can't enjoy its benefits.

And, before I forget, time to advance the Big Five. :)

1. I'm not assuming anything about the people who join the army other than the decision to join itself. For whatever reason, they have put themselves in a position of risk where they will accomplush tasks for society. The only assumption there is what society wants, and we can debate that 'till we're blue in the face for any form of government. Further, I think you're bang-on right about the need a Heinleinian society has for danger. Perpetual conflict.

2. Just because the majority of people have been in the civil service does not mean they all serve at the same time, Edric. They only serve for a minimum of two years, I believe, and then go back into society and do work. So, to be honest, the majority of society there has the franchise (while the people in active civil service actually do not -- they are unable to vote -- but at least they will have it upon their discharge). This is much like as it is now, really. I cannot simply walk up to a voting booth and cast my vote; I have to register. And when was the last time the majority of a population voted?

3. The civil service people put their lives in risk to accomplish tasks for the betterment of society. Whether or not you agree with what exactly is the betterment of society, that's pretty much what people do, regardless of what motivates them.

4. Done.

5. Addressed in the Intro. I know, I'm out of order. My apologies.

[Edric O]

Ok, I'll put the 5 points back in order by replying to your intro at the end of this post.

1. I'm not assuming anything about the people who join the army other than the decision to join itself. For whatever reason, they have put themselves in a position of risk where they will accomplush tasks for society. The only assumption there is what society wants, and we can debate that 'till we're blue in the face for any form of government. Further, I think you're bang-on right about the need a Heinleinian society has for danger. Perpetual conflict.

That need for perpetual conflict alone is enough to make a Heinleinian society unworkable. But while keeping this in mind, let's discuss the other issues anyway.

Tell me, why are people who have "put themselves in a position of risk where they will accomplush tasks for society" any better at making decisions for society than any other people? After all, the original argument was that people who join the civil service are people who care for their fellow man. That argument has been demolished. So I don't see your point...

2. Just because the majority of people have been in the civil service does not mean they all serve at the same time, Edric. They only serve for a minimum of two years, I believe, and then go back into society and do work. So, to be honest, the majority of society there has the franchise (while the people in active civil service actually do not -- they are unable to vote -- but at least they will have it upon their discharge). This is much like as it is now, really. I cannot simply walk up to a voting booth and cast my vote; I have to register. And when was the last time the majority of a population voted?

Well in that case, what's the point of setting up a Heinleinian society in the first place? If there are no significant differences from our current democratic society, what's the use of going through all that trouble? Just let everyone vote and you'll achieve the exact same results.

3. The civil service people put their lives in risk to accomplish tasks for the betterment of society. Whether or not you agree with what exactly is the betterment of society, that's pretty much what people do, regardless of what motivates them.

The Heinleinian argument is based on motivation. Without the motivation issue, you don't have an argument, since you have no reason to believe that members of the civil service are any better/compassionate/competent/whatever than the average man. See point 1 of our discussion.

5. Addressed in the Intro.

So... I am still a bit unsure about why human beings have the right to make decisions for others. Are you saying that we do not have any inherent right to do so, but since we do it anyway out of necessity, we might as well? Or, are you saying that if we interact with society in a constructive way, we have earned the right to make decisions for that part of society? I really don't mind your attacks on the arguments of individualists, because I'm quite a sociable person, but, isn't this just a different version of the Heinleinian democracy? Don't want to join the army? Fine, you don't have to, but you can't vote. Don't want to be in society? Fine, you don't have to, but you can't enjoy its benefits.

Technically, human beings don't have an "inherent right" to anything. Rights are a product of human society. And a very good product, I might add. But the point is that the "right to make decisions for others" must exist out of necessity. Without it, you can't have any kind of society. And without society, you can't have any rights. So in order to enjoy human rights (and all the other benefits of society), you have to give something back - in the form of accepting the fact that your decisions will influence others and other people's decisions will influence you.

I suppose you could draw a parallel between this argument and the one put forth by Heinlein, except for one thing: I'm saying you must accept society in order to enjoy the benefits of society. Heinlein is saying you must join the army in order to enjoy the benefits of society, which doesn't make sense. It would make sense if he said you must join the army in order to enjoy the benefits of the army - and I'm talking about natural benefits here, not benefits that he artificially associates with military service (like the right to vote).

[Wolf]

I agree with your assessment of the perpetual conflict, that would make pretty much any society unworkable for the long term. But... because I won't let you get away with anything without a fight, here goes.

1. Well, the original argument was that people who join the army voluntarily put themselves in danger for the betterment of society. I make no statement about whether or not they actually care for their fellow man, I do, however, make the statement that these people are, in fact, sacrificing time from the prime of their lives and putting their very lvies in danger for the lives of other people. For whatever reason this is done, the fact that people were willing to do it in the first place is what is sought. The argument has not yet been demolished, and it would be presumptuous to say otherwise.

2. The difference is that all registered voters are more likely to vote than all registered voters in a universal democracy. I also did not say there were any significant differences, I believe you said that. I did mean to say, however, that, by the numbers, a smiliar situation exists. However, the people who have voted are 1) more likely to vote, 2) more likely to vote based on the issues at hand, and 3) are not as likely to appeal to the mass consumerization of politics.

3. I pretty much agree with you on the motivation issue. But, I'm going to try to argue anyway that if you cannot control motivation in a Heinleinian society, you cannot control it in a universal democracy, either. The Heinleinian society is no different from a universal democracy in that the path to enfranchisement is much more difficult than it is in a universal democracy. I cannot vote magically upon turning 18, I must register, confirm my identity, etc. In the Heinleinian society, anyone can join civil service, and, therefore, anyone can be enfranchised. No minority group is singled out from it. So, the motivation issue remains pertinent in that, with a harder path-to-enfranchisement, it is more likely that only the people really interested in voting will actually work to get their votes. This being said, the book is inaccurate in its description of the society of a military unit; the people should be much more political than they are represented. But, this is a point for a later time. So, it is not so much motivation that is controlled as it is interest-in-the-vote. Also, the argument that psychotics are favored by this system is not legitimate. One, even today, we weed psychotics out of the military through training. We want individuals who are competent, dependable, and consistent-minded specialists to fight. Further, since it is rare that anyone in the civil services actually fights, psychotics wouldn't be that favored anyway.

5. Agreed. Done.