TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote: Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:23 amI have no problem with that idea in principle, so long as allowances are made for legitimate reasons. Otherwise, it’s unjust. I never served in the military, but I’m now in my late 60s. So if we converted over to a literal interpretation of this system, I’d lose my rights. I’m not down with that. I’m happy to stand guard with a rifle at the state's border or something like that, but there’s no way I could attempt, let alone finish a boot camp. Nor would I want to at this stage of my life, even if I could. I’m well past the age of putting up with some kid in a Smokey the Bear hat chewing me out for walking to the mess hall. Homey don’t do 4:00 a.m. reveilles unless it’s to go fishing.

Also, you have to make room for legitimate objectors of conscience by providing an alternative means of service for those who have legitimate religious or other philosophical objections to military service.....sort of an "internal peace corps" or something like it, if you will. They’d still be serving, but in a different capacity.

srothstein wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:25 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote: Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:23 amI have no problem with that idea in principle, so long as allowances are made for legitimate reasons. Otherwise, it’s unjust. I never served in the military, but I’m now in my late 60s. So if we converted over to a literal interpretation of this system, I’d lose my rights. I’m not down with that. I’m happy to stand guard with a rifle at the state's border or something like that, but there’s no way I could attempt, let alone finish a boot camp. Nor would I want to at this stage of my life, even if I could. I’m well past the age of putting up with some kid in a Smokey the Bear hat chewing me out for walking to the mess hall. Homey don’t do 4:00 a.m. reveilles unless it’s to go fishing.

Also, you have to make room for legitimate objectors of conscience by providing an alternative means of service for those who have legitimate religious or other philosophical objections to military service.....sort of an "internal peace corps" or something like it, if you will. They’d still be serving, but in a different capacity.

TAM, the book very carefully explained both that the term "federal service" was not equivalent to military service. It also explained why the system developed and why it continued. The system started after a rebellion against a tyrant and was only vets because the vets knew they could trust each other. Since it was a rebellion that started with secret members, trust was important. It continued because it worked. Later Heinlein explained that the psychologists found that the system worked because it only allowed people to vote who had proven that at least one time, they could put the good of society over their own personal good.

If you look at our society today, people voting for their own good instead of society's is one of the biggest problems I see in our country today. I am not advocating for Heinlein's society but I have trouble arguing against it too.