[RANGERAIRBORNE]

"In "Starship Troopers" military service was required to be franchised. I don't believe it was necessary to be considered a *citizen*, only to be able to vote..."

That seems like a distinction without a difference. The fact that a good many people fail to vote does not mean that the RIGHT to vote is not one of the perquisites of "citizenship".

Also, remember that Heinlein wrote STARSHIP TROOPERS for a juvenile audience- the details of libertarian philosophy were incidental to the action- adventure story. This particular scheme never struck me as being well thought-out, anyway- and I read this book when I was 12 years old!

[Tuor]

I viewed it the other way around: that the action-adventure story was the surface stuff and the libertarianism was the real meat of it. Of course, I read it while I was an adult. Of course, you're right in that it was a Young Adult book.

The distinction, to my mind, if we're going to dice words (which I have a bad tendency to do) is that you can be a citizen insofar as you receive certain protections from the State and are attached to it in various ways, without necessarily being able to vote. It is sort of like having a chocolate cake without any frosting: good, but not as good as it ought to be.

On a practical level, I agree with those who say that restricting enfranchisement in such a manner is against the intent of the Founding Fathers. I don't agree with the idea. However, there *are* certain positive aspects to doing such a thing; sadly, they would be greatly overshadowed by the injustice inherent in such a system.

Tuor

[Tokhtamish]

Also that in Starship Troopers wars were fought the way they are now. With relatively small elite units backed up by massive firepower on call and some very high tech communications. Not by masses of conscript riflemen.