|
In the novel Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein, only veterans are allowed to vote. Heinlein believed that veterans would vote more wisely than non-veterans because they understand discipline and sacrifice, which would lead to better governance. But selectorate theory tells me that this would be a terrible idea. Only 7% of Americans are veterans and therefore only 7% of the American population would have a vote in Heinlein's Utopia. Since voter turnout in elections is never 100% and a candidate needs a majority of the vote to win, you're talking about presidents winning elections with just 1 or 2% of the population's support. This is what political scientists call a small-coalition regime. In a small-coalition regime, the ruler is incentivized to run a regime oriented towards private rewards. He looks after the interests of that 2% at the expense of everybody else, because he only needs that 2% of people supporting him to stay in power. This will lead to a neglect of public goods. The country will have worse roads, worse education systems, worse healthcare, etc. The people will actually be worse off. What's more, the veterans themselves won't have it so good either. A feature of small-coalition regimes is that the members of the coalition are always looking to expel members and reduce the size of the coalition, so that the surviving members can have larger fractions of the pie for themselves. So what I imagine would happen is that, over time, the ruler would pass laws narrowing what "veteran" means. He might pass laws saying that only veterans who served a minimum number of years can vote. Or maybe only veterans above a certain rank (eg anyone below captain cannot vote). Or maybe only veterans who served in combat roles. Whatever, the idea is to reduce the number of people who are eligible to vote, thereby reducing the size of the winning coalition. The smaller the coalition, the easier it is for the ruler to hold on to power. What Heinlein's Utopia will be is what Bruce Bueno de Mesquita calls a junta regime. Small coalition, small selectorate. These kinds of regimes are very unstable. Junta leaders face coup d'etats far more often than dictators or democratic leaders. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) Kurzon fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Sep 25, 2022 |
#
¿
Sep 25, 2022 12:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
A.o.D. posted:Good morning. How are you doing today? I need a hug. Open your arms wide for me.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2022 16:32
|
|
|
Sacrist65 posted:Starship Troopers the movie is the best possible rebuke to the ideas in Starship Troopers the book.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2022 17:06
|
|
|
Hyrax Attack! posted:Yeah that’s a huge issue for some Native tribes with casinos as every person who gets kicked off their membership rolls means a bigger piece of the pie. Which is awful as people can lose housing they’ve been in for decades. In large-coalition regimes, otherwise known as democracies, the leaders are incentivized to deliver public rewards. Public rewards are things which are enjoyed by everyone, such as good roads, good public education, civil liberties, etc. Public rewards have the effect of making the economy grow. Democracies tend to be more prosperous than autocracies. Past a certain threshold, members of the coalition in a large-coalition system actually want bring in new members to the coalition, because will put even more pressure on the government to govern responsibly, further growing the economy. Although everyone gets a smaller fraction of the pie, the pie grows larger, so everyone actually ends up with more. Do you think Native casinos could exist in that state? That they could become a large coalition system where the members actually want to be inclusive?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2022 21:15
|
|
|
I'm reviving this thread with the encouragement of TheWeedNumber. I abandoned it because it had turned into a geek discussion about sci fi whereas I was looking for a political discussion. Particularly, I wanted to know how veterans felt about this issue, regarding Henlein's view that military veterans are a special breed of men that deserve elevated political privileges. I watched this video on YouTube about Robert Heinlein: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaWMe5nC9SA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8AyxQ-J1no Heinlein, if not an outright fascist, was definitely a pretty authoritarian guy. The video says that Heinlein felt that America was in a state of moral decay because it had lost sight of the values of discipline and sacrifice, and that since military men by virtue of their service understand discipline and sacrifice, they are best suited to rule. Heinlein served in the Navy. The video itself points out that the WW2 governments of Japan, Germany, Spain, and Italy prove that military rule is in fact not ideal, which Heinlein ignores. At the start of this thread, I gave a scientific explanation of why Heinlein's vision of rule-by-veterans would fail based on selectorate theory developed by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita. I posted the same thing in a different thread, but I wanted to know how you veterans feel about this. In a broader context, I also want to address to psychological bugbears that plague too many people. Firstly, lots of people believe in "zero-sum thinking", which means that for someone to have more, someone else must have less. Secondly, a lot of people have a strong need to feel like they're part of a privileged group that receives more than others, and that they dislike egalitarianism if they would have objectively more material wealth in an egalitarian society (this was true of white southerners before the Civil War, who supported slavery even though it actually depressed their own quality of life).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2023 17:26
|
|
|
bulletsponge13 posted:Going off the posts, no. bulletsponge13 posted:ST says outright the Veterans has no moral, ethical, or intelligence value more than the civilian- it insinuates the correct point that by and large, Civilians are better than the Veteran. Heinlein says it's that veterans understand discipline and sacrifice. That's what matters, not intelligence or ethics.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2023 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
bulletsponge13 posted:I loving love the book. I'm all about discussing it; but I want to discuss it, not a YT takedown. I can get my own electronic copy easily enough, thanks. I think Heinlein's idea that service makes you wiser somehow would be better if applied to leaders, not voters. Selectorate theory tells me that it is bad to disenfranchise people for any reason, whether it be lack of military service or poor education. Leaders are another matter. I in fact think people should be barred from running in elections if they lack education or have a criminal history. If only veterans can serve as leaders, that's OK because as long as they must depend on a broad support base to stay in office, they are incentivized to deliver good public policy. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Kurzon fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Feb 14, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2023 14:34
|
|