Nature Of Federal Service Robert Heinlein example essay topic

The Concept of Earning One's Citizenship Citizenship is defined as a being a citizen or a person owing allegiance to and entitled to the protection of a sovereign state. Citizen preferred for one owing allegiance to a state in which sovereign power is retained by the people and sharing in the political rights of those people. The concept of which in one of its earliest was given to us by the Romans, who had just began to understand the importance of a populace contributing to the decisions of its own fate. Modern American citizenship as we know it today was defined for us in the constitution of this nation by the founding fathers. Citizenship as they had envisioned it even back then was not free, but came with a price. A citizen was expected to carry out certain civic duties and responsibilities such as the defense of the republic, participating in state and local government, and voting on affairs of the nation as a whole.

Benjamin Franklin once said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Given all the communication technology; receiving and sending information has never been easier, however civic involvement is at one if its lowest points in the past 100 years. Eleanor Roosevelt once wrote of her husband, that Theodore Roosevelt taught by precept and example that men owed something at all times, whether in peace or in war, for the privilege of citizenship and that the burden rest equally on rich and poor. He said that, no matter what conditions existed, the blame lay no more heavily on the politician and his machine controlling city, state, or nation, than on the shoulders of the average citizen who concerned himself so little with his government that he allowed men to stay in power in spite of his dissatisfaction because he was too indifferent to exert himself to get better men in office. In order to maintain such a jewel of democracy, a new superior breed of citizen is required, one that has stepped forward and reached out to carry the torch of freedom and guard it from those that would seek to extinguish it. He or she must wear his or her citizenship like a badge of honor.

For citizenship to be so greatly prized it must be earned. One should have to make great sacrifices in order to be awarded the status quo of a class that steers and maintains the republic for the greater good of the nation for which it stands. The current system of populace participation is severely handicapped by lack of involvement and voter apathy. In the 2000 presidential election 129.5 million people were eligible to vote, however of that number only 85.5% decided it would be a good idea to vote. Unfortunately statistics on the number of people who were informed voters are not available. Often those that do vote complain of a lack of choice, or having to choose the lesser of two evils.

Are we really doing our democracy a favor by voting for the candidates that we dislike the least? When is the last time a candidate ran for office that actually enamored the masses? An individual that had the experience, had made the sacrifices, had the true interest of the nation; where is he or she? To represent and lead this previously mentioned group of "super citizens", we should have a worthy leader. The headlines and the news channels are full of stories of the corrupt and the hypocritical. The leaders that we now elect to office are often pursuing their own interest or being corrupted by the decadent political machine that administers our nation.

They make decisions without weighing the cost on the nation and its peoples, having for the most part made little if any sacrifice to obtain the position to which they have been elected. Most American elected officials come from privileged backgrounds, and have little if any idea of the concept "doing without". They have always had their will, be it material or other. They lack the discipline and moral fortitude to be entrusted with our resources and futures. A leader must be drawn from the ranks of those that have chosen him to lead them otherwise one is faced with a monarchy, or in worst-case scenario, a tyranny! It stands to reason that in order give direction; one must also be able to follow direction.

In order to fully appreciate and intelligently manage resources one should understand and participate in the labors that have generated those resources. Should we not then draw said ideal leader from this pool of "super citizens", and should not the greater majority of this group be fit to lead if called upon to do so? How does one go about creating a new and worthy "Civil class" that can be relied upon to decide the fate of the nation? For starters this group must not be exclusive of race, sex, age, creed, or religion. It is vitally important that any member of society equal to his or her peers may be allowed to undertake the endeavor of obtaining a citizenship, and that any subject that be governed by this body be eligible unless he or she has proven to society that they are unfit to be a productive member of it. By being proven unfit it is meant that those who have committed serious crimes or deemed to not have insufficient mental capacity be excluded solely because such actions and traits are counter productive to society and its stewardship.

Another important point is those that have decided not to seek citizenship, be allowed to continue their lives without fear of retribution or any other repercussions. The point is that "subjects" of the nation make the decision of their own free will and not be coerced into chasing that which they do not desire. Once it is determined one is fit to pursue a position as a member of the "citizen class" if he or she chooses to do so. What qualifies as a creditable venture in order to prove he or she has the desire, the interest of the nation, and the qualities to fulfill such a role?

In the many relationships we create in our lifetime it can be observed that typically we sacrifice for those we love. Therefore would it not be desirable for a citizen to love his or her nation and be willing to make a sacrifice for it? There is but one thing that we all rich or poor posses from birth, and that is our life and the time which we posses it. Would it be unreasonable to ask from each individual that they be willing spend a period of their life working for the common good of the nation and to sacrifice their life for their country if need be? I myself spent 8 years in the United States Air Force, and am a more responsible and civic minded due mainly to my experiences from my term of service.

While Military service may not be for everybody, some type of service must be accomplished. Preferably a tasking that incorporates some degree of risk so as to make the "pledge" seriously contemplate his or her desire to obtain citizenship. The tasking should also provide a product to the nation. Some good examples of worthwhile federal service besides military service, would be police officers, firemen, ambulance and aid workers to name a few. Ideally these services would also instill discipline and a sense of duty in the individual.

The task should fit the aptitude of the individual seeking a "voting franchise", and be rewarded accordingly is respect to the difficulty or risk associated with the task. I t would make no sense to waste the talents or enthusiasm of a bright and capable individual with the menial task of foot soldier when he or she posses the skill to be a pilot or emergency technician. Accordingly would it be fair to say that both fire rescue and logistical support are equal in their risk and therefore should be rewarded equally? No, the fire rescue task is more likely to injure or kill the individual.

Both services are necessary and both seek to obtain the same goal of completing a requirement so that he or she might earn the right to vote and carry out the affairs of a citizen. The only way of balancing this inequity remains to arbitrate the length or term of service. Perhaps the fireman's term of service should be two years whereas the logistical support member's term should be three. I believe that all the terms of required service should at least be two years and no longer than four or five years, with the exception being those certain tasks having extremely high risk attached and therefore span only a year in length. Any longer than five years and we would run the risk of greatly discouraging prospective candidates.

During this term of service, candidates should be kept in a structured environment much like the current military environment that shapes the many young people that enlist into the armed services. While completing his or her term of service that individual would continue his or her education on subjects that would help them later with their civil duties and make them a better citizen as a result. An aspirant should be held responsible for his or her conduct and any serious misconduct resulting in discharge from service. Anybody that failed to complete his or her term of service would be ineligible for citizenship, and depending on the nature of failure; ineligible to repeat his or her service requirement. Why should citizenship be regulated to only those who complete a term of federal service? It would ensure that every man or woman who was a voter or officeholder is a person who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service the he or she places the welfare of the group ahead of personal interest and advantage. "we ensure that all who wield [sovereign franchise] accept the ultimate in social responsibility-we require each person who wishes to exert control over the state to wager his or her own life-and lose it, if need be-to save the state".

Isn't this just like the Nazis and having to join the Nazi party in order to get ahead? No, membership to the Nazi party was relegated to just those that agreed to the doctrine of the National Socialists and were of a specific race. Application for sovereign franchise would be open to all who sought it (as long as they were mentally competent to understand their decision and had not committed serious crimes against society) and those that obtained it would be free to express their own ideas and concerns. It is likely that the ideas and concerns of these individuals would be of greater value because they had put forth so much effort in order to voice them, rather than spewing out random thoughts on a whim without any real contemplation or sacrifice. What would keep the military from taking control? This is a good point, because many times in human history where the military has been involved in affairs of government it has often seized control for the worse resulting tyrannies and dictatorships.

Perhaps it would be best to remove the rights of citizenship and the ability to hold office from those in the military until they had been discharged. Education during federal service would most likely assist in discouraging military coups, along with limiting the military in it role. The military should only be used as a tool or instrument of the government, and not a participating member therein. Would this system usurp control from the state and local governments? The possibility exist, however it is the nature of the federal system that power is not centralized in one location but instead spread across the nation so as to administer to the needs of it people in respect to their regional needs. I do not propose to change our system of government but to merely suggest that participation in it should have a price of earnest.

We Americans cherish our freedom but do not have the good sense to honor the tools that maintain and exercise our freedom. Yet we cry the loudest when we feel that our freedoms are being stolen. Citizenship is no longer cherished by us as it was by our forefathers. It has come to be taken for granted, and this oversight will cost us dearly if actions are not taken to correct it. Politics have eroded from individuals seeking justice and control in their lives, to people seeking power and fortune.

I do not seek to strop people of their rights but rather to bring back civic pride and push people to achieve and give back to the communities in which they live. Once an Item is earned it is not so quickly dismissed. Eugene Burdick and Arthur J. Brod beck "American Voting Behavior" Free Press, 1959 While this book is outdated it does provide the groundwork for understanding the fundamentals of American voters. The authors seek to make public the numerous finding of the then published four major studies undertaken to study voter behaviors. An attempt is made to classify the numerous patterns and interpret them. Charles Van Doren "A History Of Knowledge" Ballantine Book,'s 1991 A "History of Knowledge" sums up the basic principles that make up today's western civilization, such as theories of democracy, economics, and math.

It covers the great thinkers of our time that have helped shape our world, and world in which they lived so the reader can see what might have caused the ideas to be formed. The book starts with ancient cultures such as Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Incas; and goes through the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans, and ends finaly with the great thinkers of the last century. While this book will be a source for this paper, It is also one I will be maki gf a special effort to read in its entirety. James Gifford "The nature of federal service in Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers" vers. 1.0 1996 Online.

Internet. Available web 4 Oct. 2002 This Paper explores and attempts to more clearly define the nature of federal service Robert Heinlein wrote about in 'Starship Troopers". He does a great job of proving that even remarks that Heinlein made about his own book are incorrect. There is a great deal of controversy as to whether the 'Starship Troopers" was a Fascist statement or not. This paper does not judge that but rather recovers facts from the book, so as to let oneself come ones own conclusion.

Robert A. Heinlein "Starship Troopers" G... P. Putnam's Sons, 1959 Starship Troopers is a fictional work about the future; when anybody who wants to participate in civil affairs must be a citizen, and the only way to achieve this is mandatory federal service. It goes into great detail about the working of this future society and how the right to vote must be earned. Heinlein wrote this book in response to his anger over the Soviet Union's breaking of the Nuclear Weapons Test Ban Treaty. Frederick c.

Mosher "Democracy and the Public Service" Oxford University Press 1968 The scope of this book is to tie in "protected" non-electoral public service with being responsive to the public, and operating in a manner compatible with a democratic society. It explains how public service is the last industry to grow and take advantage of the increasing knowledge of every generation of workers' and changing advances in regards to technological, and social concepts. Noteworthy: this book looks at the problem from both the publics and the public servants point of view. Eleanor Roosevelt "Good Citizenship: The Purpose of Education" Pictorial Review, April 1930: 4, 94, 97 Reprinted Online. Internet. Available web 4 Oct. 2002 Eleanor writes to us about the problems she saw already manifesting in the civil populace of her time.

She provides us with insights and lessons from her husband and his political career. Her ideas and concerns are not that far removed from the quotes that evolved in the hearts and minds of our countries great theologists. B olie Williams IV "Robert A. Heinlein" 7 August 2001 Online. Internet.

Available 4 Oct. 2002.