This statement kind of ruined this article for me. For the talk of political realism, I felt that we stepped into structural idealism right near the end, which I feel is kind of self-defeating. This may not have been your intent, but I feel that it ought to be addressed.
One of the particular reasons why Formalism and Starship Troopers is interesting to me is that they oppose childish structural idealism, the belief that there is an ideal structure, in their respective ways. Such structural idealism tends to be the work of reddit "theorycels" and has continuous produced systems that definitively don't work, whereas ones absent of such character have been able to succeed.
Formalism opposes structural idealism in that, as a DIY ideology, it posits no aim until after the system has taken account and formalized it's operations as they exist. Formalism, explicitly, is the demand for the system to prepare itself for refactoring by making it's impersonal inner workings available for some agent-will (likely a king) to deal with. Because of this quality, Formalism is an autistic engineer's wet dream; I would know, because I am one. Whether Formalism works out or not depends mainly on how well a formal-dictator avoids intellectual excesses, especially concerning theoreticals.
Starship Troopers opposes structural idealism in two parts: the holding up of the soldier in spite of his intellectual capacity and the acknowledgement of the competition in creating strong ecosystems. In admitting the sacrificial soldier to be superior than the structured intellect in producing working systems, this suggests that personality and vitality are way more important than some grand calculus, whereas by acknowledging a lack of competition as weakness that leads into decay and atrophy, ideal edifices are demonstrated to be ultimately temporal.
The only structure that could be posited to be ideal is one which can continuously revitalize itself, which is one of deobfuscated competition. I feel that Yarvin's patchwork concept kind of deals with this moreso than starship troopers, which I would describe as unrealistic in it's desire towards universalism. I would imagine that the end of the starship troopers universe would be military fracturing based on citizen-interests. The Mormon colonists plotline, kind of already suggests this.
When people ask what my politics are, I point to "Starship Troopers" and say, "Whatever this is." No other work has influenced my political thinking as much as "Starship Troopers" did.
The most striking part of "Starship Troopers" is that there's nothing controversial about anything he says. At least it shouldn't be. Yet realists are the radicals in civil society, because civil society demands we deny reality to a certain extent. For example, violence truly is the supreme authority, yet we must pretend as though we don't solve our problems through violence so we maintain order. I can't how many people throw a fit when you tell them that every law has behind it an implied threat of death. The response is usually something to the effect of, "Why can't you just follow the law?" Leaving aside the fact some people in society are allowed to flagrantly flout the law, the question implies that refusing to follow the law has deadly consequences.
I think the most salient lesson for the West, the Anglosphere more broadly, is that democracy has no future. Only a Singapore or UAE-style government could keep this all together. I say could, because I don't see their government or even that of Switzerland as something which can be implemented at the size and scale of the U.S. or even UK. There are some people who simply won't go along with it and will need to be brutally suppressed, but I don't think we have the stomach for that. Still, I think mass democracy is very clearly a failure, most of us just don't realize it.
I do want to object to the Terran Federation being described as a stratocracy. From what I can tell, the military doesn't run the government, it's just that the government is comprised predominantly of veterans. The Federation is more like a timocratic republic, given its emphasis on virtues like honor and selflessness. The description of the Federation as a military government is a misconception peddled by those who disagree with Heinlein's ideas, so pains should be taken to underscore the fact that it's not a military government. The fact that voting is a thing kind of gives it away, but people can be dense.
Starship Troopers is a little close to the Prussian model that ended so badly. Military types that believe conflict is good for a society tend to go looking for conflicts and will create them even where it's unnecessary. That's fine in pre-industrial Cabinet War, but not fine in post industrial Total War.
Personally, I think that democracy is fine if we could just limit the franchise more. Ages 25-65 only. Men Only. Married parents able to vote on behalf of their children (perhaps this is a way women could get a vote). Ideally your median voter is a married father in his 30s with three kids and not on welfare. Unlike today where it's a 55 year old woman.
I look at democracy and the problems are basically the underclass and single women. You take them out and the system would work reasonable well. Some narrower system of franchise beyond that would be subject to abuse and bias.
Womenās eggs make them the trust fund sex. It insulated them from most harsh conditions that men must face. This tends to make them foolish in the same way that trust fund kids are foolish.
Military service do not preclude ethnic and familial nepotism. Nor corruption.
Athens never see the elections as ādemocraticā, but āoligarchicā as only the rich could fund elections and sponsor popular candidates. Lottery was democratic and allowed for a broad range of experience and ideas in the government. Only ten generals can be elected as the confidence of the army was needed.
Machiavelli was a classical republican. He divided the men into the Great and the Plebeians. The Great are more clever, spirited, ruthless than the Plebs who he saw as milder, more lawful, more respectable of authority and norms. The Great are driven to oppress, the Plebs driven to not be oppressed. For this reason, Machiavelli named the Plebs as the Guard of Liberty. To keep the Great accountable, the Plebs need legal institutions of army to train them, the tribunate to protect them from unfair laws and imprisonment and bad rulers, the popular jury to try the Great and officials independently of normal courts.
I agree the mandate of heaven is somewhat formalist, but east asian societies for whatever reason seem to have been able to do without less formalist political formulas, unlike all other societies.
"But is it the ideal system?"
This statement kind of ruined this article for me. For the talk of political realism, I felt that we stepped into structural idealism right near the end, which I feel is kind of self-defeating. This may not have been your intent, but I feel that it ought to be addressed.
One of the particular reasons why Formalism and Starship Troopers is interesting to me is that they oppose childish structural idealism, the belief that there is an ideal structure, in their respective ways. Such structural idealism tends to be the work of reddit "theorycels" and has continuous produced systems that definitively don't work, whereas ones absent of such character have been able to succeed.
Formalism opposes structural idealism in that, as a DIY ideology, it posits no aim until after the system has taken account and formalized it's operations as they exist. Formalism, explicitly, is the demand for the system to prepare itself for refactoring by making it's impersonal inner workings available for some agent-will (likely a king) to deal with. Because of this quality, Formalism is an autistic engineer's wet dream; I would know, because I am one. Whether Formalism works out or not depends mainly on how well a formal-dictator avoids intellectual excesses, especially concerning theoreticals.
Starship Troopers opposes structural idealism in two parts: the holding up of the soldier in spite of his intellectual capacity and the acknowledgement of the competition in creating strong ecosystems. In admitting the sacrificial soldier to be superior than the structured intellect in producing working systems, this suggests that personality and vitality are way more important than some grand calculus, whereas by acknowledging a lack of competition as weakness that leads into decay and atrophy, ideal edifices are demonstrated to be ultimately temporal.
The only structure that could be posited to be ideal is one which can continuously revitalize itself, which is one of deobfuscated competition. I feel that Yarvin's patchwork concept kind of deals with this moreso than starship troopers, which I would describe as unrealistic in it's desire towards universalism. I would imagine that the end of the starship troopers universe would be military fracturing based on citizen-interests. The Mormon colonists plotline, kind of already suggests this.
When people ask what my politics are, I point to "Starship Troopers" and say, "Whatever this is." No other work has influenced my political thinking as much as "Starship Troopers" did.
The most striking part of "Starship Troopers" is that there's nothing controversial about anything he says. At least it shouldn't be. Yet realists are the radicals in civil society, because civil society demands we deny reality to a certain extent. For example, violence truly is the supreme authority, yet we must pretend as though we don't solve our problems through violence so we maintain order. I can't how many people throw a fit when you tell them that every law has behind it an implied threat of death. The response is usually something to the effect of, "Why can't you just follow the law?" Leaving aside the fact some people in society are allowed to flagrantly flout the law, the question implies that refusing to follow the law has deadly consequences.
I think the most salient lesson for the West, the Anglosphere more broadly, is that democracy has no future. Only a Singapore or UAE-style government could keep this all together. I say could, because I don't see their government or even that of Switzerland as something which can be implemented at the size and scale of the U.S. or even UK. There are some people who simply won't go along with it and will need to be brutally suppressed, but I don't think we have the stomach for that. Still, I think mass democracy is very clearly a failure, most of us just don't realize it.
I do want to object to the Terran Federation being described as a stratocracy. From what I can tell, the military doesn't run the government, it's just that the government is comprised predominantly of veterans. The Federation is more like a timocratic republic, given its emphasis on virtues like honor and selflessness. The description of the Federation as a military government is a misconception peddled by those who disagree with Heinlein's ideas, so pains should be taken to underscore the fact that it's not a military government. The fact that voting is a thing kind of gives it away, but people can be dense.
Great and comprehensive article.
Starship Troopers is a little close to the Prussian model that ended so badly. Military types that believe conflict is good for a society tend to go looking for conflicts and will create them even where it's unnecessary. That's fine in pre-industrial Cabinet War, but not fine in post industrial Total War.
Personally, I think that democracy is fine if we could just limit the franchise more. Ages 25-65 only. Men Only. Married parents able to vote on behalf of their children (perhaps this is a way women could get a vote). Ideally your median voter is a married father in his 30s with three kids and not on welfare. Unlike today where it's a 55 year old woman.
I look at democracy and the problems are basically the underclass and single women. You take them out and the system would work reasonable well. Some narrower system of franchise beyond that would be subject to abuse and bias.
Impressive analysis. Was Heinlein influenced by Schmitt?
Womenās eggs make them the trust fund sex. It insulated them from most harsh conditions that men must face. This tends to make them foolish in the same way that trust fund kids are foolish.
Military service do not preclude ethnic and familial nepotism. Nor corruption.
Athens never see the elections as ādemocraticā, but āoligarchicā as only the rich could fund elections and sponsor popular candidates. Lottery was democratic and allowed for a broad range of experience and ideas in the government. Only ten generals can be elected as the confidence of the army was needed.
Machiavelli was a classical republican. He divided the men into the Great and the Plebeians. The Great are more clever, spirited, ruthless than the Plebs who he saw as milder, more lawful, more respectable of authority and norms. The Great are driven to oppress, the Plebs driven to not be oppressed. For this reason, Machiavelli named the Plebs as the Guard of Liberty. To keep the Great accountable, the Plebs need legal institutions of army to train them, the tribunate to protect them from unfair laws and imprisonment and bad rulers, the popular jury to try the Great and officials independently of normal courts.
> Private property is downstream from the ability to defend private property.
On the other hand, military power is downstream from how large an army the nation is economically able to maintain.
Interesting. I'm still very skeptical of the idea of formalist both from a normative sense and a 'likely to happen' sense.
I don't think the gulf monarchies are really formalist, though perhaps moreso than we are. One of the House of Saud's justifications for its rule is as custodian of the two holy mosques. While the ruler of the UAE has said that āFemale leadership and empowerment is at the core of any national success" https://www.thenationalnews.com/uae/government/sheikh-mohamed-bin-zayed-reminds-the-nation-of-women-s-service-and-sacrifice-1.989809.
I agree the mandate of heaven is somewhat formalist, but east asian societies for whatever reason seem to have been able to do without less formalist political formulas, unlike all other societies.