A country that cannot find citizens willing to defend it does not deserve to exist. That much is frighteningly true. It takes a really bad country to be nasty enough that the citizens are unwilling to defend it. Yet conscription is terrible when forced on the people. I would really rather have 10'000 solid troops at my back, than 100'000 who may or may not run away when the shit hits the fan. Others will beg to differ, of course.
Heinlein's suggestion of the idea of conscription as a way to citizenship is interesting, though rather simplistic. Should people wish to wield supreme power (in the form of voting), they need to serve their term in service. Yet the service of some will invariably be less grueling that that of others. Some will be in the line of duty during times of war, and others will be cooling their heels in the boot camps when bullets refrain from flying.
People who have served their nation are in no way "better" than those who did not. Perhaps they were cowardly, scheming or brave enough to serve, but that does not ensure that they know how to pick good national leaders. Basically, one would be putting supreme power in the hands of sheep.
That was an interesting suggestion in the story, that the nation's fiercest are being funneled into federal service, and turned into sheep. Sheep at the beck and call of their superiors, and ultimately the national leaders. Is this a good rite of citizenship? Do we really want to have a bunch of broken, obedient voters, and a cadre of independent thinkers who are unable to vote?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment