I think the book had a total of two and a half chapters of action (though one of those could easily have made three chapters) out of 14. From what I've read of Heinlen he very much prefers to write character and idea driven stories, with 'action' only included as necessary.

One particular aspect of Johnny's growth that I liked (and would have loved to see more of) is his growth from unproven replacement in Rasczaks Roughnecks to leader of Rico's Roughnecks. This is one area where I think the movie conveys the emotion of the situation a bit better (as it takes a bit longer between the introduction of Rasczak (who is combined with Mr. Dubois in the movie) and the Roughnecks, Rasczak's death, and Rico assuming command.) Another action chapter showing how Rasczak ran the Roughnecks in combat, and some time showing him interacting with the troops would have gone a long way toward helping the reader empathize with Johnny and he comrades (though perhaps Heinlen intended to show an aloof yet still beloved leader, as opposed to the more personally invested ones we see elsewhere in the book.)

Looking at their system of government, and then our (the US) military, I'm not certain implementing such a system here would result in a society anywhere near as utopian as The Federation, but I also admit that our military doesn't operate the same way theirs does (notably, their training and operations seem to be much more... pragmatic than ours, and they don't allow civilians to become commissioned officers directly.) I generally support restricting the right to vote/hold office to those with some 'stake' in the system, and I think using some sort of (virtually unrestricted) volunteer service as the 'stake' is an elegant way of getting around the tendency to create an underclass that will never obtain full citizenship, but I'm concerned that implementing such a system with our current military/government would simply accelerate our slide into totalitarianism. I don't see any easy way to save Western society, just a long hard slog through the culture (if that's even possible at this point) or a brutal overthrow of the current system (which could easily give us a worse system afterward. In fact, I think that's what happened following most violent conflicts in the western world since at least the 1800s.)

I know I said in the last thread that I didn't have much more I wanted to cover, but you definitely prompted a couple more (or more complete) thoughts out of me with this (and I've not been getting enough opportunity to discuss political theory/philosophy lately.) I'm looking forward to the next book, whatever is chosen.

In this case the 'N-word' is 'Netflix'.

That last chapter felt like it could have been three chapters (or two and an epilogue), it even had a couple good points to make breaks. That said I really enjoyed getting a look at a larger scale military operation (though still small enough that we could get an interesting play-by-play from Johnny, instead of an after-action summary.)

I think Heinlen might be a little optimistic about the performance of the Federation's form of government, but I can't see how it would be any worse than what we have now.

I'm not sure I have any additional thoughts on the lecture chapter I hadn't covered previously, but I certainly liked the bits at the end as Johnny was getting out of OCS (the discussion with the commandant, the superstition and tradition around the pips, the types of characters going through OCS.)

It's a hypothetical

Satanism. This one was huge. “There may be satanic rituals taking place in your neighborhood! Stay tuned, stay informed.”

This frankly just seems the like the elite immunizing the populace against accusations that they themselves engage in rituals/practices that the populace would find morally/spiritually abhorrent.

I'm simply phrasing things in such a way to point out the failures inherent in rule two. Also I don't have any kids (yet) so a situation in which the government tries to take them from me is purely hypothetical.

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.

I am fortunate to never have had a direct interaction with them myself, but I know several people personally who have, (none of the interactions were pleasant) and am aware of some worse cases (Look up Drake Pardo for a recent, egregious example.) I understand the--I hesitate to say 'need', given the frequent abuses we see, so I'll go with 'benefit'--of protecting the young, old, and incapable from abuse at the hands those that are supposed to be caring for them. But the government has as much, if not more potential to abuse these people than their natural caretakers. Just take a look at the results of the foster care system and tell me if that is a better alternative, on average, than even the caretakers whom these children are being taken away from.

I am appalled at the abuses performed by 'social workers' in the name of 'protecting children, the elderly, and the infirm' (moreso of late), but I am even more appalled that the institutions and individuals within the government so rarely step in and actually stop such abuses from happening. In the case of Drake Pardo I mentioned above, there was a court ruling that the actions taken by CPS were illegal and that Drake should be returned to his parents. CPS refused to comply and it was months before Drake was reunited with his parents. Frankly, it surprises me that more parents, when faced with such abuses at the hands of the state, don't take matters into their own hands rather than wait for court cases to resolve while their children are kept wards of the state.

I'm pretty sure that qualifies as kidnapping, and even if they somehow made it legal, would still be unconstitutional "Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law", therefore still kidnapping. I'm not sure about the PRC, but I believe in most states that using lethal force to attempt to stop a kidnapping is legal.

Only people who have completed a term of service are eligible to vote/hold office. That's what the book means when it talks about 'Franchise'. Most people are content with the freedoms civilians have and never even try to enter the service (I don't remember if the book ever gives a breakdown regarding what exact portion of the federation are 'citizens' vs. 'civilians', but I think it's implied to be single or low double digit percentages who are citizens and entitled to vote.)

Also, I don't think it's right to say they shrug off training deaths as 'nothing'. They had the whole regiment (I think that's the right term), including officers, spend 13 days looking for their bodies, had them buried with full military honors, and I believe (technically) posthumously granted them Citizenship, or at least actual ranks, not just 'Cadet such-and-such'.

I covered this in more detail in my top-level post on this thread, but Heinlen is trying to portray that value is (at least partially) on what something costs someone. The training is harsh, and even sometimes lethal, not only because it must be in order to be effective (or at least is made more effective by that risk), but also because the soldiers will value what they gain through it much more because of that risk.

Escapism is only appropriate in so far as what you are trying to escape from is limited in scope (either temporary, localized to a small area/group, or both) as it allows you to mentally remove yourself from stress and come back and deal with it when you are in a better frame of mind. Indulging in escapism otherwise is harmful. I'm not saying this to lecture you, but to point out that there are a lot of major issues right now that aren't simply going to go away.

I think the Kübler-Ross model of grief has some relevance here (though it's not perfect.) People are grieving for the loss of the world they were brought up in (or realizing that it was a lie, depending on how you look at it). 'Most' seem to be in the Denial and Bargaining stages, professing that the government is just trying to protect us and if we'd all just wear our masks and get the shot this will be over and we can go back to normal. Pretty much everyone here I'd imagine is somewhere in the Anger and/or Depression stages. We're (justifiably) angry at our governments betraying their founding/professed principles, and/or feeling there is nothing we can do against this assault on our freedoms. None of these reactions is dealing with the problem in a healthy way (at least on their own.), and I'd argue in this case that simple Acceptance isn't healthy or right either.

What we need to do is start actively working toward fixing these issues. And I'm not talking about donating to causes, or voting for politicians (we saw in the last election how effective that is.) Lobbying your local and state politicians to actively oppose these totalitarian/marxist mandates and policies, punish the people and organizations pushing/enacting them, and enact laws and policies to expand and protect personal freedom and traditional values; Preparing yourself/your family to be independent from the existing system pushing enacting marxist values and policies, and attacking the values and people that built the western world; Educating your friends/family about what's been going on. These are the types of things that need to be done (among others) if we want to reverse the takeover of our society by marxists.

The succinct demolition of the labor theory of value in this section is positively one of my favorite bits of 'preaching' in any work. I just love that some guy writing a short novel is able to destroy such a core tenet of marxism in such a short example (even with the dressing up he gives it) that it wouldn't even meet length requirements for a middle school paper. Dubois has a lot of great bits throughout the book but that and the bit in the second chapter about 'violence has settled more things than anything else in history' really stick with me.

Across these chapters (and the whole book really), Heinlen is trying to get across that the value of a thing is based on not only what it gets you, but also what you have to give up for it. The training the M I cadets go through seems needlessly harsh both to the troopers and (I'd imagine) the readers. Requiring cadets to go through two day-long marches with no food or shelter provided? Live bullets in training exercises? Dropping cadets naked in the wilderness with no supervision for survival training? These actions seem barbaric to a civilian, but they have add value both in what they cost the cadets, and the effectiveness of the lessons they teach.

One other thing I'd like to mention that I haven't seen anyone cover in this discussion (though I believe someone brought it up in the previous one) is the point made about the purpose of war not being to kill your enemy, but to make them do what you want. I think this is often something that is forgotten by both civilians and officials in modern times, both in the sense of not enacting policies conducive of accomplishing the given goals of a war, being unwilling to commit to the actions that will accomplish those goals.

The gameplay itself is good, as are the environments and (somewhat unexpectedly) the writing for a lot of the stuff that isn't the main quests, so I doubt Gearbox made any less than they expected on it, but as long as Pitchford owns the studio I can't imagine the series improving on the plot/writing. If they hadn't managed to hit it big with the first two games the studio would be shuttered by now, as basically everything else they've worked on (as far as I'm aware) has been a moderate success at best.

3 was worse. They practically flanderized every existing character. Even the Pre-Sequel was better on the writing front, and that game killed the studio (2K/Gearbox Australia).

Funny thing is I actually know some 'Quirky Black Nerds', except to my knowledge none of them are 'Black', they're all either African or Caribbean.

Can they afford it? Over the 'short' term, certainly. They're like one of the 5 largest banks in the world. Unless none of their major competitors start pushing vaccine mandates/otherwise ostracizing the unvaxxed it won't hurt them any more than it hurts anyone else.

Realize that over the past ~18 months we have seen an unprecedented increase in totalitarianism across the globe, as the elite attempt to restructure the government, social, and economic systems in a way that ensures they maintain control as the traditional means people have used to find meaning and happiness collapse after decades of marxist subversion. Based on their actions and statements it appears that they have a genuine belief that they don't need driven, capable individuals to maintain power and keep the system running, but a 'diverse' collective of sycophants.

So yes, I think they will be pushing a vaccine mandate, and worse down the line, as soon as they think they can get away with it.

It's not just masks. Below are two relatively current articles about covid policy at J. P. Morgan. Of note they're considering mandating the shot for all employees (which now that Pfizer has a non EUA approval for adults I expect will be forthcoming from a lot of places) and are requiring twice weekly testing only for employees without the shot (which makes no sense given that you can still catch/transmit covid even if you have the shot). This is not just theatre for the benefit of the 'screeching retards', they are implementing policies that will be pushing people out, and they will be implementing more onerous policies in the future, I guarantee that.

https://fortune.com/2021/06/24/jpmorgan-chase-covid-vaccine-employees-mandate-office/ https://www.businessinsider.com/jpmorgan-chase-us-mask-mandate-indoors-2021-8?op=1

What is? The assertion that Wall Street/Big Banks are treating the unvaccinated (or those that refuse to share their status) as second class citizens? Go look at their policies. They're either publicly available or have been leaked, and the two mentioned in the article certainly are putting additional restrictions on the unvaccinated.

I'm curious how those numbers compare to the general population, as I believe the majority of the population is vitamin D deficient, so that might not be related.

The only Aussie with the balls to do so is in prison in New Zealand.

The book covers that later, and I don't want to spoil too much, but effectively Citizens self select for an attribute that minimizes the risk from that (as to serve in government you must also be a citizen.)

Does it say in these chapters, or a later one, that the skinnies were supporting the bugs? I didn't recall that from my first reading. In fact I had thought that the book made a point of the bugs being so different from humans in how they thought (perfect communists: a hivemind not afraid to sacrifice 'individuals' for the benefit of the whole) that it would be impossible for them to have peaceful diplomatic relations with a hominid race (though I will confess this might very well be a misconception based on the massive number of 'bug' races that exist in sci-fi.)

Having just read "A Stranger in a Strange Land'' (also by Heinlen, about the same year) I have to agree. While Stranger has a very retro-futuristic feel to it (language, technology, culture, etc. all very clearly come out of the '60s) Troopers, at least in part due to its influence on modern sci-fi, hardly feels dated at all.

I don't think the book mentions (directly) where Johnny went to school (though it does mention his heritage at the end), but suffice it to say 'Rico' probably isn't considered foreign there.

Also, civilians in The Federation have nearly identical rights to citizens (the book elaborates on this more later.) The only distinctions between civilians and citizens are citizens have completed the required (2+ year) term of service in the duties assigned (as stated in chapter 2), and are allowed the privilege of voting and serving in government. And as mentioned in the chapter, literally the only thing that can prevent you from serving a term other than your own choice not to do so, is being ruled mentally unfit to comprehend the oath (which some of the jobs mentioned in chapter 2 and throughout the book indicate is a very low bar, not some sort of onerous literacy test.) In fact, I'd imagine if one of the skinnies from chapter 1 showed up at a recruiting station and indicated they wanted to serve, I don't think they could be turned away.

(For others that have read the book before, please note that I am trying to avoid spoiling anything for those that haven't.)

I'm not sure what gives you the idea that The Federation is a dystopia. I think The Federation of Starship Troopers has some things in common with that of Star Trek, in that Earth itself is peaceful and prosperous, and most of the interesting stuff happens out on the frontier. As Johnny's father says when he's trying to discourage his enlistment:

If there were a war, I'll be the first to cheer you on -- and to put the business on a war footing. But there isn't, and praise God there never will be again. We've outgrown wars. This planet is now peaceful and happy and we enjoy good enough relations with other planets.

They don't do much fighting or have much need for an active military, and what conflicts there are seem to be relatively minor incursions of the type we see in chapter 1. So I think you're right that enlistment in service (not the military, per-se, as lots of the jobs they list in ch. 2 and throughout the book are non-military in nature) is used as a social/virtue signal in many cases.

(For others that have read the book before, please note that I am trying to avoid spoiling anything for those that haven't.)