Replies

I realize this argument has been going on for a few hours now, but we keep coming back to the same point. Obviously, we are not necessarily advocating a system like that in Heinlein’s book. What we are all desiring is that our electorate be more conscious and responsible. Why do you think the progressives are always attempting to push us closer and closer to a democracy and away from a Republic?

But, since we are discussing this particular text, and you seem to have such an aversion to this theme of citizenship through service, let me again remind you of the basic premise. People were not civilians unless they chose to be. Citizenship could be attained. The right to vote could be attained. If you disliked paying taxes without having a say in it, you would have the right to gain your franchise. The law, in the book, stated that if you couldn’t make the grade for the military but insisted on doing your part, they would assign you to some sort of menial or clerical work, and you’d still attain your franchise. The point is you had a choice. What you continue to label as slavery or despotism is neither. As one of the other posters said, even hardened soldiers had the option of quitting, even seconds before a drop into combat. There was no force used, no coercion. No soldier wanted a man next to him that didn’t want to be there.

So, if you lived in that system and wanted to have a say in the taxes you pay, you would sign up and forever hold valuable the franchise you held when you finished your service. If not, you would live, work, and pay taxes for the workings of the government, all the while knowing that it was your choice to remain a civilian.

In 2010 America, I’d love to refuse to pay my taxes as well, especially since a person who pays none (and yet likely gets a “refund”) has as much say as I do. So how much more worthwhile is your vote in our reality, seeing as how nearly half the population pays nothing and yet can dictate who will set tax policies on you?