Starship Troopers Scene Citizens vs Civilians 

Take the shopping cart pill, anon

But do you understand it? Do you believe it?

My theory, which has yet to be disproven, is you can tell what area, demographics, and general income solely by the monitoring "the shopping cart" test

@@_Cato_ Trump lost

@@adisharr We'll see who loses in the end ;)

Man this whole movie hit different as an adult. I was so caught up in how hot Carmen looked, how cool seeing these bugs were, how awesome and crazy it was to see all this gore. “But do you understand it”…now working as a project manager, one of my old managers had pounded that phrase into me so that I can provide more value at my job. It’s sure one thing to be able to memorize and recite something, but it’s another thing to understand something and what it means to you.

I don't think he was insulting him. He is a teacher, teaching young adults about politics and their crazy political system. Why would young people feel invested in the political system? They're at school, most will never be citizens and those that will, will have to wait decades to finish their citizen based job to vote. Citizenship in this universe is a closed club. And if you're young, lets me honest, you care about fucking not working your arse to vote in a few decades. Most would choose civilian life over citizenship.

@@kincaidwolf5184 I agree with you that most would choose civilian life as that is what actually happens. However I can't let slide several errors you made. People don't wait decades to finish their citizen based job to vote, but only 2 years. CItizenship in this universe is also not a closed club, more like the opposite. Anyone can apply for citizenship and I mean ANYONE, that is not a closed club by definition.

Fun fact: that interaction is also 'the exact words of the text', as in the original book.

​@@kincaidwolf5184Federal Service, both in the book and the film, is only a two year commitment. Any longer than that is entirely the individual's choice.

History class. There's a lot more of it in the future!

@@RevSyd, underrated comment. Très drôle.

They're actors. If they can play Lady Macbeth or Richard III, they can play teenagers.

It's not HS, watch it or read the book

They party hard in the future and it shows in their faces.

But the truth of the matter is that most people pursue the ones that aren't that into them while ignoring and avoiding the ones who do. That's a part of life and a part of growing up. Rico pretty much found his career because he fell in love with a girl who didn't love him the way he wanted. I would've liked to see how things go for these two characters in future films or adaptations.

SuperBrianMak True, true. Too bad she died. I bet those two would've took those bugz to Hell and back. That other chick???? Who cares... XD

+7th Angel Yep! Like just about every James Bond movie!

Dinoman217 True true! Diz would've made a great Bond girl....

7th Angel Absolutely!

the red hair was all he needed to know to back up that statement.

she spat cum back in his face. that said..you probably grew to realize this over the past decade

Today 11 years later we know she used the AI

Sam Fisher himself!

I couldn't agree more......He has survived both thyroid and prostate cancer.

@@MegaSammy70 goodness i didn't know that 😳 truly legit tough

He could, but he wouldn't. He's a gentleman, a very decent man with a hard looking exterior.

"See you at the pah-ty, Richter!"

Rico is the main character of the propaganda film this movie is meant to be parodying so it makes sense

funnily enough, Spinoza is being obscured. but Aristotle is in full view. Take that as you will

Spinoza, following Aristotle, said that there were three types of government: rule by one (monarchy), rule by few, (aristocracy) and rule by the many (democracy). Aristotle, like Spinoza, thought *democracy* was the best kind of government. Both give the same argument for this. It is simple: each kind of government will vacillate over time between better and worse versions. So, over time, a democratic state will become better and worse versions of democracy, and an authoritarian state will become better and worse versions of authoritarianism. Aristotle then pointed out the obvious: the worst democracies are WAAAAYYYYY better than the worst authoritarian states. So, he said, we should always choose democracy. Spinoza give the EXACT SAME argument in favor of democracy over aristocracy and monarchy.

It's shit like that that totally plays into the notion of deeper meaning in plain sight and it's nice that they gave Michael Ironsides a great character to inhabit.

@@Aristotle2000 Democracy is two wolves and a sheep arguing about what's for dinner. It's the worst form of government ever.

​@@suspiciouswatermelon7639 Majority rules. Democracy is the fairest outcome when taking into account the desires of a general population and, in its best form, addresses those desires as practically as possible.

@Ivan Ivanoff So you have no way to rebut the quote and depend on an assertion based on age rather than a factual logical argument. How typical.....

​@Ivan Ivanoff Hmm, interesting take. There are those who deserve freedom though, precisely then ones who would do something worthy with it. Not a majority, but ones that make the most difference ultimately.

@Ivan Ivanoff Sounds reasonable. Your wording is peculiar - do you have that from some source or do you come up with that?

@Ivan Ivanoff Yes, that's what I meant! Yet another seemingly important figure I have never heard about. Conan the Barbarian, uh? So much good stuff behind pop culture.

@Ivan Ivanoff What would you recommend reading from him?

lol that cracked me up

No it's not red pill it's the clear pill which stands for neutrality

I believe the term is a Chad centrist

The film is satire.

@@MerleUnchained And the satire is pretty shit if you give it a second thought. The quote of citizen vs civilian is hardly satire in and of itself as it was paraphrased from the book which was very serious.

Why not both? Threesome is accepted in some culture. And if you're citizen,you have previlege to fck as many woman as you want.

We always want the one we can't have.

Yes, you can turn down Denise Richards because she married Charlie Sheen and probably has more STDs that the Best Little Whore House in Texas, and her mental facilities are a little screwed up if she still married Charlie Sheen even after she knew about his bad boy image. Diz would be faithful forever.

Sheeet. Denise is hot no denying that but Dizzy has got it all. I like a tough woman and Dizzy is the real deal. She is naturally beautiful and tough as nails. Denise got the Disney princess thing going on but I want the girl who hasn't been pampered all her life and can be beautiful without needing to be wrapped in silk and jewels.

@@nomadjensen8276 Carmen is an officer and a "crazy" pilot who sliced up the brain bug 🐛 she can get down when she has to.

You probably don't.

@@enekaitzteixeira70I0 he said he did

A Christmas gift from your parents has no value? You must have been a fun kid growing up.

@@tomboysupremacist Yet he probably doesn't.

@@enekaitzteixeira70I0 we have nothing to go on besides his word therefore the only conclusion based on evidence is that he does

It’s brutal honesty.

Verhoeven was a hack who couldnt even bother himself to read the full book.

Verhoeven didn't even read the book. He assumed it was a fascist-gushing novel, then made a movie satirizing how he thought it was written.

The scene is so fascist you dont need to change it

@@skepticmonkey6923 lmao. strong claim there. oh wait. I forgot. everything that isnt current day progressive is fascist

Your trippin. Denise Richards was so fine!!!

Dina Meyer anyday everyday for me. Thank youu!!!!

Both of them are hot, but Denise is more celestial, Dina is more primordial.@@brianb1684

It's sad when respect is conflated with deference.

There is something called INITIAL RESPECT, its the base level we have for a stranger where we give them just enough time (15 - 30 seconds) to make their first impression, this is usually under great scrutiny. Initial respect is not given its inherent, and has minimal value, usually just enough that it stops the average reasonable person from walking around beating the shit out of other people for no reason.

@@Spartan536 I disagree. Respect is earned. Just because someone doesn't respect another human being doesn't mean it's a prelude to a fist fight.

@@RedReaper303 I thinking by initial respect he means more of a common curtosey. Than a respect in its true form.

@@RedReaper303 Respect is earned, but he's OBVIOUSLY talking about a different kind of respect, which is the granted minimum level of trust, cordiality and politeness that is presumed among social individuals. The other kind of respect, which is what you're reffering to, closer to high regard and admiration, does in fact need to be earned. But without the first one, we wouldn't even be able to get to the point of achieving the second, because we would lack the basis to built a relationship on. So yeah, a basic level of respect should be given, even tho it's also true that respect is earned, because we're talking about two different meanings. And btw, the phrase quoted by the OP is just dumb and mistaken.

The movie makes fun of the book, essentially and exposes it for a fascist fantasy.

@@IZn0g0uDatAll I don’t think this movie was advance and self-aware enough to make fun of anything. It was a product of its time, dumb yet gorgeously produced with best CGI and practical effects possible at the time with young and beautiful and barely able to act cast. The sequels were even worse. While the book was a military dystopia about a journey of a super soldier.

​@@Badchi i’m baffled you can even doubt the movie is satirical. It’s not even remotely subtle in doing so. I mean you see a guy with a missing limb saying “mobile infantry made me the man i am” and you think it’s not satirical?

@@IZn0g0uDatAll You said it yourself, not even remotely subtle. It’s obvious, plain and intellectually light-weight. All attempts at being ironic and satirical are made so that they can be easy digested by a mediocre viewer. I know it has gathered a cult following over the years and in some aspect rightfully so. But smart isn’t among them.

@@Badchi i think it’s quite clever. The fact that it’s based on Heinlein makes it even more funny. I don’t know many movies that expose the ugly truth behind their source material in such a sarcastic way.

The whole film then goes on to critically satire pretty much everything behind this logic. It questions the actual value of the sacrifices, portrays how it leads naive youth to become the tools for a cynical leadership (which is btw a military junta in the movie), etc. It's also a criticism of how easily we're duped. A large part of the movie is after all played completely straight, like a genuine scifi-action flick. And then in the end it brings out the nazi uniforms, child soldiers, torture of prisoners and all the stuff that you as the audience were cheering for.

Oh, so you're a nut. Never mind then.

Go and check the facts - especially about our Justice minister whose son is also an Antifa member - before you call me Nuts.

I have.

Absolutely correct and bang on. I feel sorry for you that your country is in that state, I'm sorry for France aswell, and Austria who elected a left wing leader over the right wing one, I wouldn't want a too right wing Government, a centre right one would be the best I say.

I shorten it to Heinleinism, but your sounds more "political"

I used to prefer Denise when I was a kid but then I grew up. Diz is a force of sexual nature

Not to mention she was hot AF.

You mean Michael Ironside?

The line was probably made up in 1951 by Elmer T. Peterson and attributed to an 18th century Scottish monarchist, Lord Alexander Fraser Tytler. It was published in The Daily Oklahoman.

Sounds like a paraphrase of Alexis de Toqueville - "The American experiment will endure until the people learn that they can vote themselves largess from the pubic treasury."

@@R3dp055um @R3dp055um Also not from de Toqueville, as no one has found it, or anything like it, in his known writings. The earliest provable appearance is the one I cited.

And what if I deem you do not contribute enough to 'earn' your rights? Hmm?

@@ItsDeffoScott depends on your level of authority, but supposing its high, I'd better just work a bit harder and DO MY PART!

In the book they were. The bugs actively attacked human colonies that had no previous knowledge of the bugs

True. The right to vote should be based on merit. How come some ignorant parasitic bum's vote is equal to a tax-paying patriot's?

The bugs were intended as an allegory for communism.

MisterCharlton it’s an accurate and effective allegory.

bruh the whole movie is a big satire mocking the original written source material, because it straight up promotes fascism.

@@gibdopaminepls There is nothing fascistic about _Starship Troopers_. That some people are drawn to claiming it "promotes fascism" is due to the social climate categorizing any dissident view as "fascism."

I think it’s less dissenting view, at least in this case, and more confusing fascism with authoritarianism. The fact that the sky marshal stepped down is enough to show that it isn’t fascist, since fascism makes the leader untouchable.

It's scary that you're taking what he's saying at face value. I don't think you really understand what Starship Troopers is about.

@@classicsmajor9699 - Verhoven admits to never reading the book. He took the book at not even face value and thought he was saterizing facisim. Wrong.

Wrong. Politics are lies and and a cover up game, it's bullshit. No reason to vote, makes 0 difference.

@@classicsmajor9699 I doubt you've even read it.

No Name finally!

Nah, Aladdin was the boyfriend from Full House.

@@crumbb_m This is the guy who did the singing parts. His name is Brad Kane.

Denise Richards? Yeah, she couldn't act her way out of a paper bag, but she was gorgeous.

She was good in this one.@@Michael-cf9cj

are you a dipshit? The whole film was a mockery of american imperialism.

@@sor715 The film makers were the dipshits that had no idea what they were mocking anyway, as they tried to mock the system that the book actually promotes by being serious about it.

Like right now, since 23rd of Feb, in Ukraine......

Violence is not strength and compassion is not weakness. Should be use violence to stop those who would use violence to hurt those weaker than them? If necessary. Should violence ever be used against someone weaker than you. No.

@@geoffreysorkin5774 "Should be use violence to stop those who would use violence to hurt those weaker than them? If necessary. Should violence ever be used against someone weaker than you. No." Massive contradiction. If violence is necessary, then it does not matter if the events necessitating violence are made by those "weaker" than you. Violence is either necessary or it is not. Pick one.

It makes perfect sense even described in this abbreviated manner. In the book, it is stated so well, only someone with every intention of living behind the shield provided by others would be against it.

Well, social scientists are bringing the world to the edge of chaos just like Ironside said.

@@Michael-cf9cj In the book it's also pretty clear that civic duty encompassed far more than military service and the military itself was beholden to the civic government. Also, Heinlein himself lived off of both the welfare state and nepotism within the military. He became a naval officer thanks to family connections.

@@jmin15 I haven't read much on Heinlein. I knew he was a navy officer and went to Anapolis. But on a quick search, his admittance into the academy was delayed due to nepotism. His brother was there at the time and the navy discouraged relatives attending simultaneously. However, only the elite get into Anapolis regardless of family connections. If you haven't met the requirements, you don't get in. Being in the military is NOT living off the welfare state. It is true in the book that civic duty involved more than military service and the military was beholden to the civic government. However, every single person involved in the civic government had served their time doing whatever civic duty was required of them. That was the entire point.

@@Michael-cf9cj personally i believe that anyone seeking elected office should be required to have served a full 4 or 6 year contract in the military with an honorable discharge

Do you see republicans saying age 25 voting st same time military participation drops? How long until “everyone gets the right to vote at 25, but those who join the military get the right immediately after 16.” Lol

***** seen this film?

***** ah ok. its a good watch anyhoo.

Im sorry to hear that.

HUNDmiau Lolbertarianism is cringe.

So, only the army is allowed to vote? Great, that's called militarism, and history teaches us that only ends in corruption, overlords, overall misery and chaos preceed by a very short time period of forced "glory" of the state by basically plundering and looting it's own people (masqueradin them into enemies of the state) and those nation they conquer. In the end they fall into rebellion or an alliance of enemies. But perhaps is not that, then you are talking about the premise that violence solves everything. That is also false. History teaches us that violence and fear doesn't work to repress anything, on the contrary. As much violence you apply to repress something, that something becomes more violent in response creating what is known as spiral of violence. Violence is just a tool, that can and must be applied when needed, but if you used to everything, it falls. Diplomacy, for example, as solved many more problems in history than violence, and still people consider it useless. If you consider those who risk their lifes are allowed to vote, then by firefighters aren't allowed to vote? Why miners aren't either? Or engineers? Or workers? Or colonists, as this is a SciFy? All of them risk their lifes in a selfless way to serve a society. As a matter of fact, what happens with the army lawyers? Or engineers? Or archivists, secretaries? Or Biowarfare investigators? All of them go into frontline? I doubt that. And in time of peace, the army basically don't do anything but sitting on their asses, while those who mention above risks their lifes all the time, and in wartime, even more. And yet they aren't allowed to vote? How is that fair?

@@Veridiano02 great argument. Not being sarcastic like legit great argument there. And I would agree, diplomacy has helped in history, especially near the end of the Cold War. But history has also shown that violence is necessary in cases where your country and its future is attacked or threatened like the 300 Spartans when Persia threatened them or when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor violence should be a final option

There’s is a video on basic Bros and it highly how basic Bros use South Park avatars as their profile pics. Lmao of course you’d say “this is my philosophy “ lmao

Absolutely agree. And expanding Heinlein's point, I think that's why women shouldn't have be able to vote about foreign matters that can lead to war, if they will not be subjected to mass conscription in case of some full-scale war. Realistically only men will be subjected to it, and they will be the only ones who will be forced to pay with their lives for other's political decisions, and their own too obviously. Or, as an alternative, all women should be subjected to conscription too, but it's unrealistic because women themselves overwhelmingly are against it (despite wanting "equality") and because women simply perform worse as they're generally weaker than men - and Ukraine War shown this in detail. I follow a famous ukr soldier on YT (Valeriy Markus), and during summer counteroffensive they had to walk 40-50 km/day on their feet. They needed physical strength, endurance, fast reaction. And I'm not even talking about things like trench warfare, that is even more horrible and physically demanding

Nope.

@@imcallingjapan2178 Yep.

@@CryosisOfficial I see we found another illietare treating satire as a manual. Please, take your own advice and don't vote until you earn it.

@@Mish844 I love how you tried to call me illiterate while spelling it wrong. Peak irony.

@@CryosisOfficial From a perspective of someone who cannot comprehend existence of people not writing in english as their first language, typo might seem seem like a crime. In fact, even then it's an overstatement cuse it's a, well, typo. And given how unable you are to tell the difference between satire and manual/endorsement, which is actually criteria for illiteracy, at least as far as media literacy goes, I don't think you'd be able to tell what's ironic, even if it kicked you in the face. Feel free to stop spreading your stupidity any moment. Someone might think that bugs are allegory for ppl with your ability to read media. And we don't want that, right?

Agreed. It bugs me how people equate the society in Heinleins book to fascism. The society as described by Heinlein was incredibly free in my opinion. There was never any coercion.

I read somewhere that it was more a parody of the book than any attempt to follow the plot or even show its message accurately.

@@Michael-cf9cj Well, he failed at that, it's looking better and better as democracy is crumbling

@@Ansonidak I'm pretty sure all the aliens felt pretty coerced when humans invaded their planet to exterminate them. That's the point of fascism: it can be very fulfilling and rewarding... for the in-group. But it can only do that at the expense of an enemy's suffering.

@@16tonw8 There's only one group of people on the planet that have an out-group preference.

Read the book during my basic training, put a lot of things in perspective.

When the film came out in cinemas in 1997, there was no way I would have gone to see it if it took itself any more seriously.

Carthage was in Northern Africa.

it's just the way the clip was ripped from the dvd

i mean, it's true. why else would a government seek to disarm its civilian population to maintain its power?

@@killer13324 What the fuck are you talking about?

@@TheLordOfAcre simply that the statement is true and why it's true

​​@@killer13324Well I didn't say anything about it being false, but sure, be my guest I guess.

​@@killer13324 It's the old and traditional definition of authority. Governance is based on coercion. Some don't like it, but a measure of it is indeed needed. How much is up for debate.

That's the point

Yes? Thats the whole idea. Heinleins book was straight up fascist propaganda. The director was an outspoken enemy of fascism, thats why the director made it a parody of heinleins book, showing how the fascist propaganda machine works before showing us how it all falls apart and how the philosophy of Heinlein is deeply rooted in idocy and hatred.

@@HUNDmiau in what why is it fascist propaganda?

@@HUNDmiau where's the fascism, buffoon?

@@HUNDmiau No it wasn't. You can't possibly have read it.

You know damn well those colleges will not accept that. They will be crying about toxic masculinity all day

This movie's entire premise is making fun of this.

@@Connor8609 Only a blue pilled normie would think that. LMAO

@@Feroce the book was somewhat of libertarian and more traditional.

@@Connor8609 Yet even the losers trying to make fun of it, ultimately prove its value.

@@TheRisingEagle93 lmao but it was are you that ignorant

You….. you realize it’s satire, do you? Please tell me you do.

@@IZn0g0uDatAll They don't, the sad truth about this movie is its appeal amongst alt right meatheads.

The scene is a different take on the same information. Remember that in a society as subjective as ours, the same piece of information can be viewed from n number of angles. Personally, I found both the book and the movie had made valuable points, and both lacked something of what the other had. For me the movie warned about the society in which everything is by the book and too much significance is given to one aspect, and the book spoke about an almost idealistic dystopia, making many good points about men who were stoics in many aspects. But I wouldn't want to live in a society like the book described, honestly. I see many good points in it, but I feel like ultimately, it would be wrong and lacking. But both touch philosophies, and philosophy is a field in which you're supposed to find 600 lies before you get a glimmer of the truth.

An intentional blasphemy, and well deserved.

It doesnt suprise me that Hollywood in bordeline communist california would twist that around to this

boo-hooo, how dare they

Service guarantees friendship

Untrue, when faced with violence people only protect that which has been earned and fought for, with either blood, sweat, tears, or time.

@@stormbreaker170 what does violence have to do with anything?

Everything, you wanting a law to​ be respected, you use violenceandforce.@Lazyguy22

@@stormbreaker170 you'll have to retcon a lot of history in order to make that statement true

Think of all the republican voters in America who are now forced to do things the democrat way because they lost the vote. Or the labour voters in Britain who wish the conservatives had lost the last election, but are now forced to live under a government they didn't want. Or those who wanted Britain to stay in the EU but are now forced to give up that idea.

This isn't fascism

@@leonrussell9607 go and read the novel. It's good.

Is it really satire? For satire its dropping truth bombs like hell. You obviously have not read the book.

@@jeezed2950 It was intended to be, and apparently Michael Ironside objected to the right-wing bent of the script until Verhoeven assured him that the intent was to satirize the "right wing". At least that's all according to an IMDB blurb I read. Considering the far left bent of Hollywood, I grok it to be quite likely, though. I think the intent may have backfired quite a bit. Fuck 'em all. Still a dope film, whichever political direction you Martian cannibals lean.

it's not satire, it's an attempted hit piece on Heinlein that went horribly wrong. Either the director didn't understand the source material or he didn't care, and just wanted to slander Heinlein. You must have never read the book

@@undeadquixote79 it's based of an actual book which isn't satire and he's Literally repeating lines from there. The movie makers tried to satirize it but good parts of the book eventually came out anyway.

@@gabbar51ngh Plus what's wrong with dedicating yourself to military service just to get something extra out of society. I see if you're a undocumented immigrant and you're trying to gain US citizenship then we will work with you by paying a back fees, learning English, learning American civics and we will fast forward your citizenship 4 years down the line if you join our armed services.

+Sphere723 Well no where in this movie does it say that military service is mandatory however, Rico's parents wanted him to be a civilian, so we can assume until the bug attack being a citizen wasn't that desired, and that the military government was generally doing a good job at keeping the civilians satisfied. Only when a war for our specie's survival broke out did we need to encourage more people to sign up. In addition, it eats up budgets if you aren't doing anything with that army, but if the army was colonizing new planets, and expanding using it's military forces, that's hardly a waste. It's not a case of everyone (or a majority) joining the army, it's a case of the army ethos becoming a part of everyone's life.

I think you should think long and hard before promoting a nationalist mindset which led to millions upon millions of deaths in the wars of the 19th and 20th century. Governments should be about preserving the welfare of the people they represent and not the other way around.

The movie didn't say that you had to be a citizen to have children, just that it was easier to get a permit to have them if you were one. Which is not much different from the child laws China enforced.

The nations of Switzerland and Israel post Yom Kippur War and Six Day War would disagree with you. Israel was saved from it's neighboring Arab enemies invading because they had military service, Switzerland too from Austria, Singapore learned their lesson after WWII.

Until they removed them. That was a fairly unique example of self-correction in governmental overreach, but the idea was so unnatural and impractical to enforce that nature actually prevailed.

Nonsense. She didn't lie to Johnny. She didn't hide that she wasn't as into him as he was into her. Once they were so far apart that their relationship made no sense, she didn't string him along...she ended it and tried to be amicable. When Xander (sp?) showed interest but she wasn't sure, she didn't use him for personal gain.

I think if America did adopt a Starship Troopers like political system, everything would fix itself, but remember that system was only implemented (according to the novel) after you had teens assaulting/killing people in the streets and only through the actions of Veterans was society saved. We're pretty far from that right now.

***** I'll take it you didn't read the book.

Yeah man, I read the book, I'm well aware of the differences. All of my comments which you so vehemently gave your opinion on were in reference to the literary work. The majority of the "Failure of Democracy" points were from an early chapter in book. I don't think you really got the point of what I or the original poster were talking about, and I don't think you read the book.

Well... Two years later, what say you now, The_Scientist?

Captain Lackwit it is time

In the book it is Carthage in english and german as far as I know. Fun Fact in german he talks about Washington in the movie.

Thank you Red for the answer and the fun fact ! If I remember correctly, the German version of the film is different, because of the censorship in this country (due to their past). A German friend told me that the dialogue on democracy is totally different, but I've never seen the movie in German, I do not know if it's true.

I mean you are wrong. Its only ever used as a last resort. United Nations is a testament to how diplomacy has solved more problems than force. NATO is a good example. The European Union is another good example. Peace and stability is how humans prosper.

@@Maul3rX NATO is only effective because of the fear of that last resort. Without the threat of violence explicit or implied authority has no power. The fact that it's a last resort (as it should be) doesn't change the fact it's the fundamental basis of the authority. Another example being if you don't pay your taxes you'll be jailed. Imprisonment being a form of violence

@@katakisLives Funny how that fear prevents force from even happening. Some say thats a good thing. Taxes are an important part of society. It allows it to function. Pays for all of the services you enjoy. Like roads. Police. Firefighters. EMS. Social security. If someone doesnt pay their taxes, then they dont deserve to participate in society.

@@Maul3rX the fear of the force wouldn't exist though if the threat wasn't real. I wasn't making an anti tax libertarian point I was just using that as an example of the threat being used as the ultimate basis of authority. 99 percent of the time the violence is never needed but the genuine threat has to be there otherwise the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

@@katakisLives How can you say 99% of the time violence isnt needed, and then support violence solves more problems. Like come on dude.

BRO

+aperturesciencegames Plenty of right-wingers think the book was a great formula for a good society.

Serendra Hardu Including the whole "subjects to citizens, earn your place!" stuff, which boggles me, because most of whom support it probably wouldn't qualify lol

If you know anything about the movie, you would know the directior admitted in a rolling stone interview he didn't read the damn book.

The point was to entertain people, and it did that. You miss the point of movies so fucking hard that i'm laughing right now.

TheUndeclaredWinner As if we can't watch movies to have thought provoking questions or enjoy satire? But yeah no, I just enjoy movies wrong :PPP

So Heinlein was a fascist?

No he was not this movie they didn’t read the book you can only vote becomes a political job if you prove that you are willing to put your life and body on the line for the whole group. You don’t have to join the military you can join the science job as a test subject. Working on dangerous projects

As opposed to a enlightened/benevolent populist, where everything is a popularity contest

@@rgama1173 Well, the former is non-existent. The latter is prevalent.

@@Foxstab both are undesirable, as both would bring ruin

Shit yes it still does

Underrated commment.

A citizen has skin the in the game. A civilian is just along for the ride.

You don't know what fascism is.

@@MMDelta9 and you don't know what sarcasm is.

Maybe in this society school lasts that long? Can't remember if their ages are mentioned

well, after the fifth industrial revolution there isn't that much to do.

How he did not even read the book

Totally agree.

@@Michael-cf9cj it’s used to be only people who own land could vote

@@lorddiethorn Yes, and then it became all white males, then all white people, and eventually everyone. And we've seen the quality of our politicians go dramatically down. It's not fair to limit suffrage by conditions that are beyond a person's control, like race or gender. You'd think age would fall into the same category, but it only makes sense not to let children vote. But limiting suffrage to those who have volunteered and earned it? That's brilliant.

But who decides who gets the right to vote and who doesnt? The goverment. There is a clear interest conflict there.