The method of "exploring" and the evidence presented in the book are both intellectually dishonest.
I'll have to concede this portion of your argument, as I'll have to admit I lack the academic background or knowledge to even attempt to refute your statements in this matter. I will say that many of "Mr. Dubois" arguments resonated with me, even when I was a young man, but that certainly doesn't mean he was right on this issue. Obviously, Heinlein was a conservative (at least at this point in his writing career. Its hard to consider some of his later books "conservative" by any stretch of the imagination!) so he champions the idea that his conservative views would produce a better society. I'm sure most people, left, right, or center, would tend to do the same thing.
My main criticism of the movie was not the poor acting or the lack of power armor, but rather that it pretty much ignored this discussion, in favor of presenting a sort of caricature of the Federation from the books. I don't want to turn this into too much of a political debate, though, as that would be both off topic and potentially inflammatory. Actually, was the issue of voting even addressed in the movies? Its been a while since I watched them and I don't recall if it was ever mentioned.
the effect of setting the Terran Federation against the Skinnies and Arachnids is to create a security threat without moral or philosophical tension.
I can see this, and I rather think this is the same reason the
Star Wars prequels introduced the drone armies of the Trade Federation. That situation avoided the moral quandary of the heroes of the movies slaughtering their opponents in job lots. They were only machines after all...
On the other hand, I don't see where this is particularly a flaw in the books. Heinlein wanted to present the protagonist with an irrefutably "evil" opponent specifically to avoid that very discussion. The the issues of the morality of war and genocide are certainly important, but they were not the issues that the author wanted to explore in this book. It certainly worked out in the movies, allowing for wholesale slaughter of the bad guys without moral or ethical consequences. ;)
The Terran Federation was built because civilians could not be trusted to run governments.
I might argue that the Federation was build not because civilians could not be trusted, but because not
everyone could be trusted. On the other hand, as the screening process was predominately military service, I can see your argument and as described it was certainly the ex-military who founded the government of the Federation.
Individual rights were considered an impediment to functioning society, which collapsed because people didn't hit their children enough and capital punishment became passe.
I don't see that the Federation curtailed individual rights to any great extent, other than making the right of political participation conditional. Was there any indication in the books that freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc. was in any way limited to non-voting citizens? If so, I don't recall it.
I would also argue that while corporal punishment was discussed in the classes as an example of what the previous society did wrong, I think what I really got out of the discussion was that the previous society collapsed not because people were not spanked, but because their was little attempt to hold individuals responsible for their actions.
The problem that is seldom seriously addressed is that the system is non voluntary.
On the contrary, I would consider it to be
entirely voluntary. After all, it was stated that
anyone could volunteer for "federal service" and would be assigned duties commensurate with their abilities. Admittedly, most of those were military in nature, but it was specifically stated that if people were unsuited physically or mentally for military service they were assigned other duties. They could wash out, but they could not be refused the chance to earn their citizenship.
Universal suffrage at least has the benefit of giving every taxpayer the option to exercise their rights, or not.
Again, every taxpayer in the Federation
did have the option to exercise their rights. All they needed to do was volunteer for "federal service" first.
That I read the book and have had these discussions at length?
I never said you didn't, but despite our divergent opinions I have too.
I certainly don't argue that the "Federation" system as presented in the books is a workable blueprint for a successful society, and as appealing as it is in some respects I'm not sure I would really want to live there. It does spark some interesting intellectual discussions, though. Thanks for keeping it civil. 8)
