Service Guarantees Citizenship: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Fascism

Putting on a uniform doesn't turn one into a government drone. There's no way the US military would march in tyranny against the citizenry. Even China and Russia have to use Mongol units to kill their own people. The US is about freedom, and many of the troops in the US military are there in that cause. I was for instance, keeping the Russians out of western Europe. Just ask the Poles and Czechs which side of the iron curtain they wished they were on. For some it takes a loss of freedom to realize its worth. Service to the nation also helps, because we are the nation. So, to an ex military who served the cause of freedom, service for citizenship, as in the right to vote, doesn't sound like such a bad idea. Think about it. Do the filthy rich volunteer to die in the trenches? No its those that serve the good causes they believe in. Except the Germans of course.


Or you get rich people who skate like GW Bush. Who technically did his 'service'. But it was made damned sure he was at next to no risk, and maximum comfort, while doing it.
 
KmDubya said:
Personally I think if you are on welfare you should not get a vote. When you are capable of taking care of yourself then you can have a say in how things are run, till then shut up and be thankful.

Hmmm. I wonder what /Thomas Jefferson would say about this?

We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights. that among these are life liberty, an the pursuit of happiness../

Yet today, some people claim we are not equal and that our rights are not innate but rather originate from the government. They urge that we have no rights until we serve our government.They urge that poverty be adjudged a crime, and that the poor should be punished for their poverty. The advocates fail to understand rights, humanity, and freedom.
 
Starship Troopers is probably one of my favourite films, such an epic satire of Fascism in general. One of my favourite aspects of the film is how Americanized the whole planet is - large parts of the film takes place in Buenos Aires yet the vast majority of people are white. The few latino people there are very American in culture as well. The few scenes we get of other planets and Geneva imply that this isn't a phenomenon localised to Buenos Aires either.
 
Or you get rich people who skate like GW Bush. Who technically did his 'service'. But it was made damned sure he was at next to no risk, and maximum comfort, while doing it.

Military service doesn't become more valid as it gets muddier and bloodier. It's all very well to say that all arms exist to support the infantry, but the metaphor cuts both ways - a structure with no supports isn't good for much.
 
Through out Latin America, the ruling elites are white.

Well that just goes to show how little I know about South America. I should really do my research next time.

Still, I feel like he was making a point by turning that city into a place pretty much indistingishable from Genericsville, CA.
 
Afaik Buenos Aires has a lot fewer non-white people than other south american large cities (?). It doesn't have a black large minority like brazilian cities do, nor (afaik) loads of citizens with native or native-colonist ancestry?

At least going by Borges, the peon and gaucho were rare in the cities while more populous in the "Pampa" plains. And the ethnic minorities were european new immigrants, such as italians.
 
Argentinean people are mostly white: spanish, italians, irish, german... There are an indigenous basis like in any latin american country but it is much more diluted in Argentina. I would say the most prevalent is italian ancestry since the huge italian migration wave happened back in early 20th-century
 
Hmmm. I wonder what /Thomas Jefferson would say about this?



Yet today, some people claim we are not equal and that our rights are not innate but rather originate from the government. They urge that we have no rights until we serve our government.They urge that poverty be adjudged a crime, and that the poor should be punished for their poverty. The advocates fail to understand rights, humanity, and freedom.

I have no problem with people being on welfare having life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All of that doesn't require a vote in how the government is run.

Regardless in the book it requires military service, and has nothing to do with welfare. A poor person could volunteer the same as a rich person.

My point about limiting the vote was to perhaps get a better electorate involved in the whole process rather than the current popularity contest. Why should the people just along for the ride have as much of a say as the people pulling the sled? Eventually everyone ends up riding on the sled with no one pulling and you get nowhere.
 
The enemy in Starship Troopers were bugs, though. The film overall is sort of a gore-comedy. Not to be taken seriously, even to the point of using it to parallel actual crap going on in our own timeline, imo ^^
As in RoboCop and Total Recall, Verhoeven used Starship Troopers as vehicle to comment upon state control. The film is most certainly about a rollicking bug hunt. It is also most certainly about state control of the media, the glorification of war, and fascism generally.
 
Putting on a uniform doesn't turn one into a government drone. There's no way the US military would march in tyranny against the citizenry. Even China and Russia have to use Mongol units to kill their own people. The US is about freedom, and many of the troops in the US military are there in that cause. I was for instance, keeping the Russians out of western Europe. Just ask the Poles and Czechs which side of the iron curtain they wished they were on. For some it takes a loss of freedom to realize its worth. Service to the nation also helps, because we are the nation. So, to an ex military who served the cause of freedom, service for citizenship, as in the right to vote, doesn't sound like such a bad idea. Think about it. Do the filthy rich volunteer to die in the trenches? No its those that serve the good causes they believe in. Except the Germans of course.

Well the plot of the Siege is resolved by constitutionally-loyal government agents and troops who refuse to follow illegal orders. You should watch it since it has something to say about the injustice and immorality of state-sponsored extrajudicial murder.
 
I have no problem with people being on welfare having life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All of that doesn't require a vote in how the government is run.

Liberty certainly does. Probably life too, since no one will vote your best interests better than you.
 
As in RoboCop and Total Recall, Verhoeven used Starship Troopers as vehicle to comment upon state control. The film is most certainly about a rollicking bug hunt. It is also most certainly about state control of the media, the glorification of war, and fascism generally.

Imo, the film is so comedic that it would be about equally clean to examine fascism in Street Fighter2 :D
 
So no one gets to vote since everyone gets some form of welfare? Or everyone gets to vote since everyone pays some form of taxes?
 
I have no problem with people being on welfare having life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All of that doesn't require a vote in how the government is run.
Of course it does. The people who have traditionally not had a say in government have been slaves and (until some point in the 20th century) women. Well, I am a woman, but I'm no slave. I refuse to be anyone's compliant doormat, including the government's.

My point about limiting the vote was to perhaps get a better electorate involved in the whole process rather than the current popularity contest. Why should the people just along for the ride have as much of a say as the people pulling the sled? Eventually everyone ends up riding on the sled with no one pulling and you get nowhere.
And only poor people vote on the basis of popularity instead of on the basis of the issues, the party's platform, and whether the candidate can string a coherent sentence together?

Somehow, that fails to explain the number of wealthy people who support Trump and how he got so many billionaires among his cabinet and advisers.
 
The wealthy people who supported Trump made an informed decision. Most of them have benefited from their choice.
 
Should the mentally challenged be allowed to vote? That one has always been a bothersome one for me. Besides the obvious issue of just who or how that determination is made. My brain usually tells me that they don't really understand or know what is best, while my heart says that shouldn't matter.
 
Should the mentally challenged be allowed to vote? That one has always been a bothersome one for me. Besides the obvious issue of just who or how that determination is made. My brain usually tells me that they don't really understand or know what is best, while my heart says that shouldn't matter.
Define "mentally challenged." My father has the right to vote, even though he has dementia. All that is necessary is that he provide proof of identity and residence, and that if he wants, he can have someone to help him - formally known as a Friend of Incapacitated Elector - to do what is necessary - read him the ballot, mark the ballot as he directs, etc. The helper must also be an eligible voter and provide proof of ID and residence. There is a bit more paperwork to it, but it's a right that he has. When I worked for Elections Canada, I had to guide a few people through this process.
 
Should the mentally challenged be allowed to vote? That one has always been a bothersome one for me. Besides the obvious issue of just who or how that determination is made. My brain usually tells me that they don't really understand or know what is best, while my heart says that shouldn't matter.

A test of "understanding and knowing what is best" leads to most people not being able to vote.

A test of "does allowing them to vote cause harm to the democratic process?" is probably safest.
 
Top Bottom