A Conservative view of Government.

[Theodarzna]

The autistic screeching is not the moving part. Is why they are not choosing to move, are they risk adverse, are they bounded by family,etc? They are making decisions based on a different set of priorities, once again not choosing money does not make a decisition less utility maximising. And while I agree that assumptions are bad you are not really providing any criticism.

Not choosing money makes the neo-liberal approach very difficult when the only value of humans is as a material resource for profit and GDP growth. Economists of a peculiar stripe and technocrats of that stripe often reduce domestic political debates to narrow economic issues. This preoccupation views human beings as “resources” and treats them like inanimate objects. Human beings are thought of mainly as or entirely as economic in their motivations and that therefore the business of America is business, even if it takes the federal leviathan to conduct it or regulate it.

That was my entire original point that started this awkward thing via you. Did you not understand my original words?

[minteK917]

Calling heinlein an anarchist is a joke. The man was an authoritiarian through and through. Read startship troopers, he literally argues to limit the franchise (and the freedom to have children) to military service. The core of anarchist thought is against hierarchy. Anyone in favor of a system that promotes it is not an anarchist. Heinlein, the ancaps, ayn rand are not anarchists.

You realize his book is pretty much satire, even the movie they made out of it did not get that. They made a satire out of a satire lol.

[Endus]

Calling heinlein an anarchist is a joke. The man was an authoritiarian through and through. Read startship troopers, he literally argues to limit the franchise (and the freedom to have children) to military service. The core of anarchist thought is against hierarchy. Anyone in favor of a system that promotes it is not an anarchist. Heinlein, the ancaps, ayn rand are not anarchists.

If all you've read from Heinlein is Starship Troopers, I can see why you'd think that. Try reading, like, literally anything else the man wrote. Starship Troopers is the exception, not the rule. Heinlein was a science fiction writer, and a lot of his stories explore theoreticals he doesn't personally believe in. For instance, he wrote another book which had, as a major plot point, a discussion of exactly why incest is "bad", and if you removed those biological reasons, would it still be "bad". That doesn't mean Heinlein was pro-incest, it means he was exploring the nature of the taboo and how much of it is emotional rather than rational.

Hell, just read Moon is a Harsh Mistress, which is where the concept of rational anarchism comes from.

[Glorious Leader]

If all you've read from Heinlein is Starship Troopers, I can see why you'd think that. Try reading, like, literally anything else the man wrote. Starship Troopers is the exception, not the rule.

Hell, read Moon is a Harsh Mistress, which is where the concept of rational anarchism comes from.

Ive read almost all his work. Starship troopers is his.most politicial of works and its essentially a long tract sharing his political views. In fact the teacher, the retired vet who twaches highschool is basically a mouth piece for his politics.

If i had to pick the novel i remembered most it would be stranger ina strange land and even that novel is filled with authoritarian bullshit like his claim (and jubal harshaw is the heinlein mouth peace he cant help resist that) that if a woman was raped she deserved it. He was and remained all his life deeply authoritarian

[mauserr]

The thing to remember if you really want to do look more like then you must look more like the do you want and especially if the do you more want has decided to use even more go then you are presently doing look more like.

[Glorious Leader]

You realize his book is pretty much satire, even the movie they made out of it did not get that. They made a satire out of a satire lol.

It really wasnt actually. The movie was more satirical, the book had no plot and was basically a long form essay for him to spew his politics. Theirs an excellent essay on heinlein by michael moorcock called starship stormtroopers that illustrates the inherent authoratarinism and militarism in some science fiction.

[Endus]

Ive read almost all his work. Starship troopers is his.most politicial of works and its essentially a long tract sharing his political views. In fact the teacher, the retired vet who twaches highschool is basically a mouth piece for his politics.

This is just flat-out wrong. Moon is a Harsh Mistress is far more political; it's a political drama, not a military one.

If i had to pick the novel i remembered most it would be stranger ina strange land and even that novel is filled with authoritarian bullshit like his claim (and jubal harshaw is the heinlein mouth peace he cant help resist that) that if a woman was raped she deserved it. He was and remained all his life deeply authoritarian

Yeah, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Here's a quote from Moon is a Harsh Mistress;

there used to be, dirtside, a legal defenses called "diminished capacity" and "not guilty by reason on insanity." These concepts would bewilder a Loonie. In Luna City a man would necessarily be of diminished mental capacity to even think about rape; to carry one out would be the strongest possible proof of insanity - but among Loonies such mental disorders would not gain a rapist any sympathy. loonies do not psychoanalyze a rapist; they kill him. Now. Fast. Brutally.

And if it's been a while, I'll remind you that the Loonies are the "good guys", the anti-authoritarian rebels.

The comment in Stranger in a Strange Land wasn't even by Jubal Harshaw. It was by Jill.

If you think Heinlein was "authoritarian", you haven't read his works. Almost all his works are deeply opposed to authoritarian positions. About the only exception is Starship Troopers.

[Glorious Leader]

This is just flat-out wrong. Moon is a Harsh Mistress is far more political; it's a political drama, not a military one.



Yeah, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Here's a quote from Moon is a Harsh Mistress;

there used to be, dirtside, a legal defenses called "diminished capacity" and "not guilty by reason on insanity." These concepts would bewilder a Loonie. In Luna City a man would necessarily be of diminished mental capacity to even think about rape; to carry one out would be the strongest possible proof of insanity - but among Loonies such mental disorders would not gain a rapist any sympathy. loonies do not psychoanalyze a rapist; they kill him. Now. Fast. Brutally.

And if it's been a while, I'll remind you that the Loonies are the "good guys", the anti-authoritarian rebels.

The comment in Stranger in a Strange Land wasn't even by Jubal Harshaw. It was by Jill.

If you think Heinlein was "authoritarian", you haven't read his works. Almost all his works are deeply opposed to authoritarian positions. About the only exception is Starship Troopers.

Starship troopers doesnt even have a fucking plot. Whole god damn chapters are dedicated to espousing politicial views which are all authoritarian and militarist. How you can call a man deeply against authority when he advocates for the express granting of the franchise only to enlisted men and woman is beyond the fucking pale.

Michael moorcock wrote an essay about the inherent militarism in science fiction and he cites heinlein as a perfect. The man supported the war in vietnam ffs. He was deeply auhoritatian and militarist not a fucking anarchist.


http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/moorcock.html

If you read moorcocks essay you get the idea that heinlein like all the libertarians and mincarchsits and ancaps are realy not fucling anarchists. They are of course deep authoritarians in favor of most tyrannical of institutions above all others uber alles private property. How you can label those people.anarchists shows a deep and profound misunderstanding of their works and of actual anarchism.

I read heinlein as a teenager. When i got older i was sufficiently immunized to this nonsense to recognize for what it was. Patronizing, authoritarian and militarist.

[Endus]

Starship troopers doesnt even have a fucking plot. Whole god damn chapters are dedicated to espousing politicial views which are all authoritarian and militarist. How you can call a man deeply against authority when he advocates for the express granting of the franchise only to enlisted men and woman is beyond the fucking pale.

Because you're ignoring that what he was writing was speculative fiction, not a personal manifesto.

And yes, Starship Troopers has a "plot". That's just nonsense. And, to repeat, you're ignoring literally everything else the man wrote, to focus on some speculative stuff in one novel.

[Glorious Leader]

Because you're ignoring that what he was writing was speculative fiction, not a personal manifesto.

And yes, Starship Troopers has a "plot". That's just nonsense. And, to repeat, you're ignoring literally everything else the man wrote, to focus on some speculative stuff in one novel.

That is the most specious fucking reasoning ever. Speculstive fiction that doesnt express views is empty. Unless your arguing heinlein was lacking in substance your being disingenuous. Of course his woks reflect his views. Of course i can equally argue that the moon is a harsh mistress is ewually just speculative fiction and theirfor hes not an ansrchist because it doesnt actually reflect his views.

Ss has no plot, its more like how much of my politicial leanings can i interject into my novels. They always come with mouth pieces for his ideologiew including the retired colonel. It is of course a personal manifesto but if you like we can argue about his views outside of the novels as well.

Supported the vietnam war? Check
Paranoid anti communist? Check
Favored the john birch society (which he knew was fascist)? Check

The man was an authoritian militarist fascist and his views only hardened once he married his second wife ginny.

[Theodarzna]

It has no plot, its more like how much of my politicial leanings can i interject into my novels. They always come with mouth pieces for his ideologiew including the retired colonel. It is of course a personal manifesto but if you like we can argue about his views outside of the novels as well.

Supported the vietnam war? Check
Paranoid anti communist? Check
Favored the john birch society (which he knew was fascist)? Check

The man was an authoritian militarist fascist and his views only hardened once he married his second wife ginny.

The term Fascist gets thrown around way too freely. It has no precise definition and academics still debate what even constitutes Fascism.

[Glorious Leader]

The term Fascist gets thrown around way too freely. It has no precise definition and academics still debate what even constitutes Fascism.

Okay put it this way heinlein called them fascists but he still thought they were better than liberals and conservatives. He thought they were facsist.

[Endus]

That is the most specious fucking reasoning ever. Speculstive fiction that doesnt express views is empty. Unless your arguing heinlein was lacking in substance your being disingenuous. Of course his woks reflect his views.

All you're doing is demonstrating a complete failure to understand how speculative fiction works. Was Orwell a fascist for writing 1984, or was he using it to discuss fascism?

Ss has no plot, its more like how much of my politicial leanings can i interject into my novels.

Repeating this obvious lie isn't really helping you come off as a reasonable individual.

They always come with mouth pieces for his ideologiew including the retired colonel. It is of course a personal manifesto but if you like we can argue about his views outside of the novels as well.

Supported the vietnam war? Check
Paranoid anti communist? Check
Favored the john birch society (which he knew was fascist)? Check

The man was an authoritian militarist fascist and his views only hardened once he married his second wife ginny.

Pretty much nothing you've said here is even relevant. Neither supporting the Vietnam War nor being anti-communist in any way makes one "fascist" nor "authoritarian". The John Birch Society was libertarian, primarily. Sure, I don't agree with Heinlein on this stuff, but it doesn't back your claims.

And again, pretty much everything the man wrote but Starship Troopers is heavily anti-authoritarian. Even Starship Troopers doesn't really fit that bill the way you think. You, like many others, are confusing "military" with "authoritarian".

[Wells]

If all you've read from Heinlein is Starship Troopers, I can see why you'd think that. Try reading, like, literally anything else the man wrote. Starship Troopers is the exception, not the rule. Heinlein was a science fiction writer, and a lot of his stories explore theoreticals he doesn't personally believe in. For instance, he wrote another book which had, as a major plot point, a discussion of exactly why incest is "bad", and if you removed those biological reasons, would it still be "bad". That doesn't mean Heinlein was pro-incest, it means he was exploring the nature of the taboo and how much of it is emotional rather than rational.

Hell, just read Moon is a Harsh Mistress, which is where the concept of rational anarchism comes from.

One can also read Starship Troopers as an indictment of totalitarianism. Much like Fight Club, the critical subtlety is lost on most of its fans.

- - - Updated - - -

The term Fascist gets thrown around way too freely. It has no precise definition and academics still debate what even constitutes Fascism.

You could say this about literally any political movement. You're doing exactly this with "conservatism" in your own damn thread.

[Glorious Leader]

All you're doing is demonstrating a complete failure to understand how speculative fiction works. Was Orwell a fascist for writing 1984, or was he using it to discuss fascism?



Repeating this obvious lie isn't really helping you come off as a reasonable individual.



Pretty much nothing you've said here is even relevant. Neither supporting the Vietnam War nor being anti-communist in any way makes one "fascist" nor "authoritarian". The John Birch Society was libertarian, primarily. Sure, I don't agree with Heinlein on this stuff, but it doesn't back your claims.

And again, pretty much everything the man wrote but Starship Troopers is heavily anti-authoritarian. Even Starship Troopers doesn't really fit that bill the way you think. You, like many others, are confusing "military" with "authoritarian".

Orwell was expressly writing 1984 as a warning. Orwell also foihht for the socialists in the spanish civil war. NOTHING IN STARSHIP TROOPERS suggests heinlein was doing anything other than sharing his opinion. His politics are clear.

Now youre arguing that being in favor of.war and persecuting individuals in favor of dissident political values is not authoritarian (he was a mccarythite through and through). K. Thats of course what authoritarians do but whatever endus. I guess pinochet was really bernie sanders. What a fuckingnjoke. Heinlein called the birchers facsict but prefered them anyway.

Militarism is authoritarian. Even if werent it is still not anarchist. Heinlein is not an anarchist. Since we cant derive his political manifesto from speculative fiction all his work is invalid for this purpose. Its the most deconstructive post modern bullshit but whatever. Arguing is fucking fruitless when you wish to deny the obvious intent.

- - - Updated - - -

One can also read Starship Troopers as an indictment of totalitarianism. Much like Fight Club, the critical subtlety is lost on most of its fans.

- - - Updated - - -



You could say this about literally any political movement. You're doing exactly this with "conservatism" in your own damn thread.

It really isnt though. Nothing heinlein said suggested as much and nothing written in starship troopers suggests otherwise. Norman spinrad wrote an excellent novel called the iron dream which is an obvious mockery of the tendeny of scince fiction writers towards authoratarianism and militarism. Its a parallel universe where hitler becomew a science fiction writer and the iron dream is his book a retelling of how the nazis came to power. If you want to read a book thats actually a clever indictment of those ideologires i would start there. Also read that moorcock essay i linked earlier.

[Endus]

Orwell was expressly writing 1984 as a warning. Orwell also foihht for the socialists in the spanish civil war. NOTHING IN STARSHIP TROOPERS suggests heinlein was doing anything other than sharing his opinion. His politics are clear.

Again, you miss the critical point that fiction is not fact. All it suggests is that Heinlein was telling a story from a particular viewpoint. Not that it was HIS viewpoint.

Now youre arguing that being in favor of.war and persecuting individuals in favor of dissident political values is not authoritarian. K. Thats of course what authoritarians do but whatever endus. I guess pinochet was really bernie sanders. What a fuckingnjoke. Heinlein called the birchers facsict but prefered them anyway.

You clearly just don't understand what the word means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Please, take a moment to learn what "authoritarianism" is.

Militarism is authoritarian.

No. It isn't. See above.

Even if werent it is still not anarchist. Heinlein is not an anarchist.

Rational anarchist. Not the same thing as pure anarchy. Rational anarchy allows for voluntary service and the like. Which, again, you'd probably know if you'd read much Heinlein.

Since we cant derive his political manifesto from speculative all his work is invalid for this purpose. Its the most deconstructive post modern bullshit but whatevet. Arguing is fucking fruitless when you wish to deny the obvious intent.

If you're going to argue that Starship Troopers is his "political manifesto" because Heinlein wrote it, you're going to have to explain why his OTHER works, the vast majority of which promote individualism and even outright anarchism, somehow aren't political manifestos. They directly contradict your claims, and you're ignoring them for no justifiable reason whatsoever. You can't read Moon is a Harsh Mistress or any of the Lazarus Long novels and seriously think they're pushing fascism.

[Glorious Leader]

Again, you miss the critical point that fiction is not fact. All it suggests is that Heinlein was telling a story from a particular viewpoint. Not that it was HIS viewpoint.



You clearly just don't understand what the word means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Please, take a moment to learn what "authoritarianism" is.



No. It isn't. See above.



Rational anarchist. Not the same thing as pure anarchy. Rational anarchy allows for voluntary service and the like. Which, again, you'd probably know if you'd read much Heinlein.



If you're going to argue that Starship Troopers is his "political manifesto" because Heinlein wrote it, you're going to have to explain why his OTHER works, the vast majority of which promote individualism and even outright anarchism, somehow aren't political manifestos. They directly contradict your claims, and you're ignoring them for no justifiable reason whatsoever. You can't read Moon is a Harsh Mistress or any of the Lazarus Long novels and seriously think they're pushing fascism.

Adding the word rational before the word anarchist does not in fact change the meaning of the word anarchist in any sense pure or otherwise. In the same way that anarcho capitalist are not actually anarchists coopting the name doesnt actually make them anarchists.

At this point youre really just playing on semantics, which heinlein was also famous for. Voluntary service into a hierarchical organization IS NOT FUCKING ANARCHY. If it has hierarchy it is not anarchy. Rational anarchy is non anarchy. It coopts the Name anarchy but you may as well call it pink elephants. Its like arguing living in a society where you can sell yourself into fucking slavery voluntarily is anarchist. Its not. Its fucking authoritarian. Its a society marked by deep authoritarian leaders, the slave owners. Since heinleim was absolutely in favor of private property and the military (itself deeply hierarchical) it cannot be said to be anarchist OF ANY FUCKING FORM WHATSOEVER.

Since words have no more fucking meaning anymore ive decided to call myself a libertarian fascist. Yes i know those ideologies are in principle against each other but who.gives a shit. We have people calling themselves anarchist (apparently rational ones at that)advocating societies marked by militarism, authoritarianism and deeply entrenched hierarchical structures.

Again read michael moorcocks essay. Until you do im done.

[Endus]

Adding the word rational before the word anarchist does not in fact change the meaning of the word anarchist in any sense pure or otherwise.

Since it's a very specific form of anarchism, yes, it absolutely does.

At this point youre really just playing on semantics, which heinlein was also famous for. Voluntary service into a hierarchical organization IS NOT FUCKING ANARCHY. If it has hierarchy it is not anarchy. Rational anarchy is non anarchy. It coopts the Name anarchy but you may as well call it pink elephants. Its like arguing living in a society where you can sell yourself into fucking slavery voluntarily is anarchist. Its not. Its fucking authoritarian. Its a society marked by deep authoritarian leaders, the slave owners. Since heinleim was absolutely in favor of private property and the military (itself deeply hierarchical) it cannot be said to be anarchist OF ANY FUCKING FORM WHATSOEVER.

No, I'm just aware that he was a speculative fiction writer, and a lot of his work was hypothetical, to explore a given concept, not a manifesto pushing it.

[NED funded]

Not choosing money makes the neo-liberal approach very difficult when the only value of humans is as a material resource for profit and GDP growth. Economists of a peculiar stripe and technocrats of that stripe often reduce domestic political debates to narrow economic issues. This preoccupation views human beings as “resources” and treats them like inanimate objects. Human beings are thought of mainly as or entirely as economic in their motivations and that therefore the business of America is business, even if it takes the federal leviathan to conduct it or regulate it.

That was my entire original point that started this awkward thing via you. Did you not understand my original words?

And then you went on how humans were not rational. It got off topic, but I kinda liked the discussion so I just followed.

[xChurch]

Corporations derive their power and their existence to a fairly powerful government. It is notable that in the age of smaller and weaker states going farther back in history the modern corporation was a different animal.

How exactly do you expect to go back to such a time? Seems like at its core conservatism wants to go back to a rosy past that never really existed, and I'm at a loss for how we could have a small more personal government without basically giving up on any meaningful progress for our species.