I am reading this book right now and am around three quarters of the way through.
One of the things that strikes me about what many people say about this book is that they found it very hard to believe that it was not meant as a deadpan satire, that the ideas presented here could not possibly be taken seriously. Quite frankly, for people to be so outright dismissive says to me they haven't really understood or thought about what Heinlein was saying here.
Now let me just say that I don't necessarily agree with the views expressed in this book but it does raise a lot of real questions that are not easily answered. He points out several problems with our current system that do exist and haven't gone away since this was written. It is not so obvious that our ways of raising children and organising society are so superior to that which he proposes and can be dismissed without second thought.
Heinlein's prescience at times was startling. He envisaged a late 20th century in which gangs of lawless youths would tyranise the streets and parks. I don't think we've quite reached the level that he depicts but we've certainly moved in that direction. The rise in youth lawlessness has paralleled a change in the way we bring up and disipline our children, with corporal punishment having been phased out and more liberal methods experimented with.
Some people have objected to Heinlein's ideas about restricting the right to vote (and full citizenship) to veterans because they are no better at thinking than anyone else. But Heinlein acknowledges this fact in the story. Indeed, he says that veterens may often be less intelligent than civillians. The point is that he is trying to balance power with responsibility. Only those who have demonstrated the ultimate sense of responbility to society (by being prepared to lay down their lives for it) earn the right to wield ultimate power. An interesting possibility this leaves open is that people might demonstrate such a sense of responsibility in other, non-militaristic ways.
Shell_Kracker said:
I personally find the 'fight to protect freedom' idea juvenile - because even seemingly posetive idealism turns into fanaticism - and one's own idea of what freedom is, is not definitive.
If someone is intent on taking away your freedom, you either fight to defend it or roll over and cede it. You (and everyone else) have freedom because we live in a society that is powerful enough to deter all those who would take it away. I don't see how anyone can believe they are entitled to freedom if the were not also willing to fight for it if it became necessary.
The problematic bit for me is this: I believe in fighting in defence and that if my country were being invaded everyone who enjoys the freedom that this society offers should be expected to contribute to it's defence. But on the other hand, it is hard to argue with the strategical doctrine that "attack is the best form of offence". This presents a real quandary for me because once you accept this, almost any form of pre-emptive attack can be justified on the grounds of self defence.
So, all in all, this is a deeply thought provoking book attempting to address problems that are more pertinent today than they were fifty years ago when this book was published. It should not be so glibly dismissed or ridiculed when we have so little grounds for faith in our solutions we've thus far found.
