These chapters start to get into the meat of how Federation society is different from ours. Corporal punishment is used, with effectiveness, in both the military and among civilians/citizens (to both adults and minors). Adults with responsibility for minors can be compelled to share in their punishment, not merely be held responsible for any restitution owed. While the people (both civilians and citizens) of the federation share many ideals with those who founded western civilization, they don't share their philosophies. We will get further glimpses of this as the book progresses, so I won't go into more detail on this bit unless someone wants to discuss it specifically, but suffice it to say that while the philosophy presented in the book seems to be more grounded in reality than that of our current society, the results of implementing this philosophy, as shown in the book, are likely a fair bit more utopian than would occur if they were implemented in our society.
As an aside, I think this is the first time we get any hard numbers on exactly how difficult M I training is, and what portion of recruits actually manage to get through it, which sheds some light on roughly what portion of the populace are Citizens vs. civilians. Over 90% of those who started at Camp Arthur Currie with Johnny failed to graduate, with almost 1% of those being due to death, and an unknown number more due to other casualties. Now, transfers are mentioned and there are other modes of service which likely have higher (or lower) rates of retention than M I, and at least some people fail to show up to even start their service, but this would certainly an estimated bound for the portion of the populace of the federation which have citizenship in the lower quadrant (the other services are supposed to be equally difficult, if more or less selective, after all.)
This leads us to an accusation frequently leveled against Heinlen, this book, and the Federation: "That's Fascist". It's fairly easy to see why those raised in a modern, libertine society would take offense at one which institutes corporal punishment for a variety of crimes, and permits the 'right' to vote and run for office to anything less than "the entire law-abiding adult population" (particularly when the author takes efforts to justify the logic of such a society, and portrays it as downright utopian compared to our own.) To those raised on the ideal of "Universal Suffrage*" and a belief that corporal punishment is abusive, a society where such punishments are meted out by schools, parents, and the government, and where that government is made up entirely of former members of the military, and whose civilian laws are superseded by military law when and where the military has jurisdiction, would seem Fascist without question (insert Orwell quote about 'Fascism' being a useless term.
To bring up a fairly current, relevant comparison, let's suppose that the Federation took over the US government in 2020. How do you think Antifa and BLM would have been treated? This question is not (entirely) rhetorical, but I'll give my opinion all the same. The riots would have been swiftly broken up, and those participants who could be apprehended would be swiftly brought before the court. In general, minors would receive sentences of (public) corporal punishment, along with their parents/legal guardians. Those adults who had 'merely' caused property damage would also receive corporal punishment and likely be required to provide some form of restitution, and I imagine some would receive prison sentences if the court felt further rehabilitation was necessary. Those who committed violence against civilians would receive more severe sentences of corporal punishment, and in more severe cases, would be hanged. Those who committed violence against police or military would receive short, swift trials, and the majority, being unable to provide reasonable justification for their actions, or mitigating circumstances, would receive sentences of death. I'll leave it up to discussion if this would be better or worse (generally) than our current system, or whether I or Heinlen have left out some detail which would change the outcomes discussed.
*I think this is possibly the most damaging element of modern western political theory/philosophy. Heinlen equates voting to violence, though I cannot find in my text the most succinct quotation that covers this. Allowing anyone, merely by virtue of their residence and age, to enact violence on the level of a state is a recipe for disaster, as we have seen over the past decades.
These chapters start to get into the meat of how Federation society is different from ours. Corporal punishment is used, with effectiveness, in both the military and among civilians/citizens (to both adults and minors). Adults with responsibility for minors can be compelled to share in their punishment, not merely be held responsible for any restitution owed. While the people (both civilians and citizens) of the federation share many ideals with those who founded western civilization, they don't share their philosophies. We will get further glimpses of this as the book progresses, so I won't go into more detail on this bit unless someone wants to discuss it specifically, but suffice it to say that while the philosophy presented in the book seems to be more grounded in reality than that of our current society, the results of implementing this philosophy, as shown in the book, are likely a fair bit more utopian than would occur if they were implemented in our society.
As an aside, I think this is the first time we get any hard numbers on exactly how difficult M I training is, and what portion of recruits actually manage to get through it, which sheds some light on roughly what portion of the populace are Citizens vs. civilians. Over 90% of those who started at Camp Arthur Currie with Johnny failed to graduate, with almost 1% of those being due to death, and an unknown number more due to other casualties. Now, transfers are mentioned and there are other modes of service which likely have higher (or lower) rates of retention than M I, and at least some people fail to show up to even start their service, but this would certainly an estimated bound for the portion of the populace of the federation which have citizenship in the lower quadrant (the other services are supposed to be equally difficult, if more or less selective, after all.)
This leads us to an accusation frequently leveled against Heinlen, this book, and the Federation: "That's Fascist". It's fairly easy to see why those raised in a modern, libertine society would take offense at one which institutes corporal punishment for a variety of crimes, and permits the 'right' to vote and run for office to anything less than "the entire law-abiding adult population" (particularly when the author takes efforts to justify the logic of such a society, and portrays it as downright utopian compared to our own.) To those raised on the ideal of "Universal Suffrage*" and a belief that corporal punishment is abusive, a society where such punishments are meted out by schools, parents, and the government, and where that government is made up entirely of former members of the military, and whose civilian laws are superseded by military law when and where the military has jurisdiction, would seem Fascist without question (insert Orwell quote about 'Fascism' being a useless term.
To bring up a fairly current, relevant comparison, let's suppose that the Federation took over the US government in 2020. How do you think Antifa and BLM would have been treated? This question is not (entirely) rhetorical, but I'll give my opinion all the same. The riots would have been swiftly broken up, and those participants who could be apprehended would be swiftly brought before the court. In general, minors would receive sentences of (public) corporal punishment, along with their parents/legal guardians. Those adults who had 'merely' caused property damage would also receive corporal punishment and likely be required to provide some form of restitution, and I imagine some would receive prison sentences if the court felt further rehabilitation was necessary. Those who committed violence against civilians would receive more severe sentences of corporal punishment, and in more severe cases, would be hanged. Those who committed violence against police or military would receive short, swift trials, and the majority, being unable to provide reasonable justification for their actions, or mitigating circumstances, would receive sentences of death. I'll leave it up to discussion if this would be better or worse (generally) than our current system, or whether I or Heinlen have left out some detail which would change the outcomes discussed.
*I think this is possibly the most damaging element of modern western political theory/philosophy. Heinlen equates voting to violence, though I cannot find in my text the most succinct quotation that covers this. Allowing anyone, merely by virtue of their residence and age, to enact violence on the level of a state is a recipe for disaster, as we have seen over the past decades.