Busting A Myth

If there's one myth I'd like to bury, it's that Robert A. Heinlein is a Fascist.

(How did that idiot Sheila Jackson Lee get elected?)

Even if it kills me I will work to establish the Heinlein system as the government of the United States.

So what is the system Heinlein described in his novel Starship Troopers?  (Don't bother to see the movie, it wasn't a proper adaptation of the novel.)

Heinlein wrote the novel to be the part of the juvenile series of science fiction novels published by Scribners and as a response to pro-Soviet peace activism.  In the novel a young man grows from a naive high school student to a junior officer in the army. The narrative of the novel also serves as the framework for a series of lectures about the nature of man, morals, war, and government. The most controversial concept in the novel is that not everyone should be allowed to vote. In the place of universal suffrage Heinlein proposed the idea that the legal status of Citizen, who is a member of the sovereign class of the nation with the authority to vote, has to be earned.

Then as now there were people who clearly didn’t understand the concept of government.  Then as now there were those who sought to exploit the ignorance of the mere voter in order to obtain political power.  And worse to obtain power without restraint.  Heinlein had proposed the idea of earning the sovereign franchise as a filtering mechanism to prevent obvious fools, such as peace activists, from influencing government.

The idea of the restricted franchise isn't new.  In the Polis of Athens the franchise was restricted to property owning members of the tribe but there was no legal restraint on the state.  As history had shown this led to dysfunctions such as historic legal murder of Socrates.  It wasn't enough to restrict the powers of government but to restrict who could actually participate in the process of governing.  In practical effect to idiot proof the system.

So is it actually necessary to fully implement the system that Heinlein proposed?

The fact is that all forms of authority are based on knowledge and political authority is no exception.  But in the present system political authority is granted to any warm body without regard to their their actual state of knowledge.  As a result some warm bodies have traded their votes for a material object such as an IPad or a wad of cash.  Or worse, they've traded their votes for the warm and fuzzy feeling of having been compassionate.

The result is the present state of our nation. Those who lack knowledge or simple concern for consequences shouldn't have authority over another person, let alone the fate of a nation.

My solution to the problem is simply proper education in the obligations of citizenship.

The course would be similar to a driver education course as presently taught. The first part of the class covers The Constitution, the proper functions of each branch of government, the function of each clause and amendment, the duties of the citizen as a member of the sovereign authority of the nation, and what's expected to happen when the Federal Government enters the failure mode.

The second part of the course covers the function and use of the instrument of political authority, the personal weapon. This covers rifle marksmanship and maintenance.  Also covered is the basic organization and tactics of the citizen militia unit.

While the citizenship course won't be mandatory, completion and a passing grade will be required to exercise the authority to vote. 

Punishing a man for an act he didn't commit is unjust. Imprisoning a man for speaking the truth is tyrannical. Disarming the citizens, who're the sovereign authority of the nation, is treason.  To say anything more would require the extensive use of barracks language.  There's no such thing as "common sense gun control" those who are in favor of banning firearms are enemies of Humanity and should be treated in the Nuremberg style, from the neck until dead.  And there's no limit to what a Statist can do to a disarmed victim.