Of course, if you're a Libertarian or an SF fan (or both), you know RAH. You know him as the story-teller who almost single-handedly created modern science fiction, and you have probably heard him praised as a Libertarian (the Moon is a Harsh Mistress), denounced as a jingoist warmonger (Starship Troopers), memorialized as a creator of the counter-culture (Stranger in a Strange Land), condemned as a racist (Farnham's Freehold), and read secretly as a sex maniac (I Will Fear No Evil)....
But before all that, before World War Two, before he met Ginny, Robert Heinlein was both an aspiring writer and a supporter of Sinclair Lewis, government control of the economy, and the American Social Credit Movement. His 1938 unpublished novel, For Us, The Living is a failure as a novel--nothing much happens and the plot, such as it is, becomes nothing more than a framework for Heinlein's social and political agenda to be explained.
If you're willing to suffer through it, however, you can find much that he later mined for his other stories, and gems like his description of Latin America's destruction of Manhattan Island.
And you can find (looking backward [sorry Edward Bellamy]) Heinlein's proposed 27th Amendment to the US Constitution:
By the way, the political economist delivering all these lectures is named Cathcart. Oh well, can't have everything.
While I'm at it, let's take a close look at what Heinlein thought about military interventionism by the US.
In 1950 he wrote a series of predictions about the future in an article entitled, "Where to?" He revisited these predictions in 1965 and again in 1980.
To be very clear, when Heinlein wrote about no pre-emptive wars, he was quite familiar with scenarios about WMDs. He had been writing about the terrors of nuclear war and nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists and rogue nations throughout the 1950s, and his assault on Manhattan scenario (mentioned above) shows a clear understanding of the lethality of bilogical and chemical attacks.
I'm not arguing that Heinlein's 27th Amendment would be practical in all aspects in today's world; obviously there are technological differences, BUT....
The principle that people who think the US should go to war ought to be directly responsible BOTH for that decision and for fighting that war is a true Libertarian principle: you don't have the right to coerce anybody else into that sort of sacrifice.
Think about it.
But before all that, before World War Two, before he met Ginny, Robert Heinlein was both an aspiring writer and a supporter of Sinclair Lewis, government control of the economy, and the American Social Credit Movement. His 1938 unpublished novel, For Us, The Living is a failure as a novel--nothing much happens and the plot, such as it is, becomes nothing more than a framework for Heinlein's social and political agenda to be explained.
If you're willing to suffer through it, however, you can find much that he later mined for his other stories, and gems like his description of Latin America's destruction of Manhattan Island.
And you can find (looking backward [sorry Edward Bellamy]) Heinlein's proposed 27th Amendment to the US Constitution:
"That's the war referendum amendment, isn't it?"
"Yes. Did the records tell you how it works?"
"Well, I gathered that it was an arrangement whereby the people had to vote on it before war could be declared."
"That is true as far as it goes. In effect the amendment states that, except in cases of invasion of the United States, Congress shall not have the power to declare war without submitting the matter to a referendum.... [details of the voting and tabulation process omitted] But the most amusing feature is the provison saying who shall vote in the matter?"
"Doesn't everybody?"
"No, only those persons vote who are eligible for military duty."
"Aren't women permitted to vote?"
"Yes and no. If the current laws make women eligible for combat duty, they vote. If not, they don't vote."
Perry whistled. "I'll bet that caused an uproar."
.... .... ....
"I haven't told you about the neatest feature of the amendment. As we have said, only those who could fight could vote. Those who voted to declare war automatically enlisted for the duration. The ballot even told them where to report the next morning. Those who didn't vote were in the next draft, and those who voted no the last draft."
Perry looked puzzled and slightly annoyed. "But that puts a premium on cowardice, doesn't it> If war is declared, they should all have to take the same chances. If I had my way, I would just reverse the scheme."
"Don't be hasty, Perry. Stop and think. Is it a premium on cowardice? Perhaps it is. But isn't it just as likely to be a premium on common judgement? Perhaps the war isn't worth fighting. I've studied history all my life and I can remeber but two or three wars that seemed to me to be worth fighting. I've studied history all my life and I can remember but two or three wars that seemed to me to be worth fighting, and I have my doubts about those. In any case, if a man takes the responsibility of voting to plunge a country into a situation that may destroy it and is bound to kill and maim a lot of citizens, shouldn't he have to accept the consequences of his decision by being in the first line of fighting? There is a stern justie about it. Under this rule not man could cast a vote that would send a fellow human being out to face poisonous gas and shots and burning rays without being ready to stand alongside him and suffer the same fate."
By the way, the political economist delivering all these lectures is named Cathcart. Oh well, can't have everything.
While I'm at it, let's take a close look at what Heinlein thought about military interventionism by the US.
In 1950 he wrote a series of predictions about the future in an article entitled, "Where to?" He revisited these predictions in 1965 and again in 1980.
1950: It is utter impossible that the United States will start a 'preventative war.' We will fight when attacked, either directly or in a territory we have guaranteed to defend.
1965: Since 1950 we have done so in several theaters and are doing so in Viet Nam as this is written. 'Preventive' or 'pre-emptive' war seems as unlikely as ever; no matter who is hin the White House....
1980: I am forced to revise the 1950 prediction to this extent: it is no longer certain that we will fight to repel attack on territory we have guaranteed to defend; our behavior both with respect to Viet Nam and to Taiwan is a clear warning to our NATO allies....
To be very clear, when Heinlein wrote about no pre-emptive wars, he was quite familiar with scenarios about WMDs. He had been writing about the terrors of nuclear war and nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists and rogue nations throughout the 1950s, and his assault on Manhattan scenario (mentioned above) shows a clear understanding of the lethality of bilogical and chemical attacks.
I'm not arguing that Heinlein's 27th Amendment would be practical in all aspects in today's world; obviously there are technological differences, BUT....
The principle that people who think the US should go to war ought to be directly responsible BOTH for that decision and for fighting that war is a true Libertarian principle: you don't have the right to coerce anybody else into that sort of sacrifice.
Think about it.
Comments
I see it as a disaster. The puppet masters will play the puppets right into the show.
I'm not sure I agree about the current younger generation. Students I see today in that range have been both cynical and overly protective of their own middle class butts for a few years now.
I was talking to someone yesterday who enlisted just to go to Iraq, leaving in a few weeks. "Dear God, why?!?" I asked. Same old responses... Need to fight the terrorists, troops need to be supported, fight for my country, they attacked us, we need to defend ourselves....
It was like he was reading bullet points from a pro-war slide show.
Told him I was a veteran, and I wouldn't want to be over there. It's a clusterf%$# at best. He stuck with it... wished him the best of luck and come home safely, left it at that.
But I have also worked with recruiters--and during a war the number of people talking shit is inversely proportional to the number of people actually willing to sit in a fighting position and have shit thrown at them.
In the secrecy of a voting booth, how many people would suddenly decide that discretion was the better part of valor if'n they had to show up and get their hair cut, a finger poked up their ass, and screamed into and out of bed the next morning....
You're a vet--you know as well as I do this stuff is NOT fun. Has to be done occasionarly but it's not fun.
Silly yes, but only slightly moreso than the Heinlien example.
Why not restrict voting entirely to taxpayers? Those who pay more taxes get more weight to their votes. They do, after all, contribute more to the public trust, why shouldn't they have more say in how it is spent?
That said, if you are truly interested in the idea that the people delegate sovereignty to the government, one of the delegations that has been most abused by our government is the use of force in military intervention. It becomes progressively more difficult to check the government's resort to arms as fewer and fewer people in the population are veterans or have their lives directly impacted by the conflict.
Ever read Larry Niven's essay on why it is so easy to start wars and so difficult to end them?
That aside... I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of anything compulsory. Telling people they have to do anything seems unamerican to me, with a dictatorial feel to it.
I do feel that something needs to be done... maybe a compulsory war vote might finally get people involved in politics. You'd have to allow the votes of parents of children eligible to go to war within a few years, since wars tend to not be swift.