Take the anti-Bush argument elsewhere please. This is one of the few threads to not be dragged into a partisan flamewar. Perspectives on this issue are legion and if you really want to argue it I'm sure it will be welcomed on the US thread..

I don't really agree. Verhoeven was trying to make a statement, just as he did in Robocop. And the statement was 180 degrees opposite of Heinlein's intent. The problem, of course, is that the statement was disguised with ray guns, creepy aliens and naked girls, to attract the 15 to 25 crowd.

willis wrote: "We are going to abruptly move from a government where compromise rules to a government where majority rules. And Liberals are going to be the majority that rules." Actually, we have been steadily moving there for a long time. The last vestiges of the Republic have been left in place to protect the sensibilities of you and I and people like us who prefer the Republic to a bread and circuses democracy. willis wrote: "This makes me uneasy because I am a Libertarian and I don't want to live in a majoritarian country because I am not a member of the new Liberal majority" It's already that way, sadly. And to make it worse, the tyranny of the majority has discovered how to use the provisions of the constitution that were intended to protect the minority to further their tyranny.

chemist, I don't think willis comments were about Bush. They were about some of the problems related to the fact that our country is now in the midst of a long trend of "judicial legislation". At least, that is how I interpreted what willis said. That said, while I responded to him, I think I pushed things back toward Heinlein by addressing the libertarian aspects of his commentary.

Along the vein that Mike has tried to mine: So, was Heilien pushing an Athenian-esque state? One in which freedoms were extended to all, but only 'full citizens' had the ability to choose what were 'rights' or 'freedoms' since they were the ones willing to kill and die for them? THe interludes of Time Enough for Love lead me to believe that to be true(especially the ones about false pacifists turning around and raising the Jolly Roger when it suits their purposes and the one about Roman mothers and shields). It kinda fits within a very simplistic definition of libertarianism: free enterprise, human rights, small government, unimpeachable individual rights(no draft even though being at war with the Bugs, and an all volunteer military). Okay, excoriate at liesure..

Another view was in his Libertarian book, "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress". He had the character Bernardo De La Paz, the leader of the revolution, suggest that the legislature should only have the government do things if they, personally, were willing to pay for it, that they shouldn't compell people to pay for government. So you could live tax free by not voting. That book was very different in flavor from "Starship Troopers". Much more libertarian and without Leninist overtones at all. I preferred the Lunar society in TMIAHM to the terrestrial society in ST. The ST world was much to disciplined. But I still think you need a government with the power to tax. I just am having problems trying to figure out how to keep the government from growing and growing.

Okay, accuse me of being picky, but Mistress not having lenninst overtones? I have to disagree. A central committee basically run only be the head revolutionaires(Mike the comp, Dr.Le Paz, the Tech-guy(I forgot his name, major faux-pas)). All yammer-heads were tossed out. Basically, only those who agreed or belonged to the revolution were able to be in the nascent government. I could be wrong, but that sounds rather like a replay of the Red October and the birth of the USSR to me. ST more a novella than a novel(differing lengths), and so it's hard to extract or extrapolate a whole lot from it. Willis, I also think a theme is recurrent in both: a government doing things only by action of the populace(in ST the war against the bugs and a say in what to do about it going to those who will do something other than talk about it; Mistress in the natural resources and day-to-day operations aspect)..

Good point, chemist.

Mike_Golf: "Verhoeven was trying to make a statement, just as he did in Robocop. And the statement was 180 degrees opposite of Heinlein's intent." What was the statement he was trying to make in the film, as you see it? I really never saw anything more than " ray guns, creepy aliens and naked girls," which will "attract the 15 to 25 crowd" and make the investors some money. Nothing wrong with that, but I assume you implied some deeper philosophical or political meaning.

What was the statement he was trying to make in the film, as you see it? I really never saw anything more than " ray guns, creepy aliens and naked girls," which will "attract the 15 to 25 crowd" and make the investors some money. ************************************************* No, that was the producer's vision. Once it had those elements Verhoven could do what he wanted and he immediately deepsixed the Leninist fantasy elements that Heinlein put in. By the way, Heinlein was also trying to make money. The Bakunist, hippydippy, and Leninist motifs in "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", "Strangers In A Strange Land", and "Starship Troopers" were his exploring ideas for amusement or self education. He did not consistently advocate any of those ideas. Mostly he was an agnostic anarchist according to his personal statements in many interviews and essays. Of course, that's not counting his subconscious motivations. I'm not certain what those were and I refuse to speculate because of lack of data. I have trouble figuring out my own subconscious motivations, let alone those of others.