Not only, as Loach said, did plenty of non-citizens do just fine for themselves, but even the characters who defend the system in the book never actually say that it’s a good system. What’s-his-name the drill instructor defends the system on the basis that it works, it’s stable, and it’s self-perpetuating, and goes out of his way to avoid saying that it’s good.
Love that movie!
But, it doesn’t. No democracy in human history has self-destructed in that way. Nor by the “Tytler Cycle,” neither.
Heinlein campaigned for Upton Sinclair in the 20’s and early 30’s. Do you think Heinlein was still a socialist in the 50’s and 60’s?
In the real world, the system would be corrupt. Sure, anybody would have the right to enlist in the Service, but who would control who passes through the other end? It would be easy for an elite to manipulate the system to ensure that “undesirables” either flunk out or are killed in service while easing the way through for the “right sort”.
Showgirl Troopers — would be great movie.
I wonder if more words have been posted on just this message board about this book/film than RAH typed in total for all his works?
Are you actually citing your own paper and not disclosing that fact?
What kind of “appeal to authority” would that be? 
In an argument against quotes from Wikipedia, not much. Certainly the distilled wisdom of the blogosphere is all that’s needed.
Does that count as “my post is my cite”?
Not just his own paper, but his own paper “published” on his own blog.
Note to self: don’t tell Jonathan Chance my real identity.
Seems to me that Amateur Barbarian has been intentionally vague about his real life identity, presumably for privacy reasons. Maybe he has slipped up in the past and made it possible to figure out, but I wouldn’t have expected a mod to come right out and make an explicit connection.
If you were paying attention, AB went by his real name for quite a bit here. It’s not a big secret who he is. A quick search reveals all. 
A sketchy one.
You had very little choice about what service you got (gee, that sounds like, you know, actual armed forces!), but you had the choice to sign up or not.
If you didn’t sign up, no problemo: you wouldn’t have the right to vote or run but - how many people in our universal-vote countries never do either anyway? If you don’t care, just don’t sign up. And if you signed up, they would find something for you to be able to serve in even if you were a blind, deaf quadriplegic (ISTR the actual sentence was something about “counting the legs of millipedes”, but I don’t have my copy handy).
If I remember correctly (I don’t own a copy of the book), it was the hairs on a caterpillar.
It’s a valid concern, possibly tempered by the knowledge that everyone in the government (elected officials, anyway) has undergone their own term of federal service, for what it’s worth.
You had one other significant choice. In most circumstances you had the option of quitting at any time. They could order you to be a nuclear missile launcher but you had the option of refusing to accept the job. The downside was that you were kicked out of the service and never had a chance to rejoin.
THe “voting themselves the treasury” model isn’t old enough to judge. There are still people alive throughout the developed world that lived before the social welfare state that made governing so expensive.
We won’t really know how this all shakes out until the most leveraged social democracies face fiscal reckoning. Italy will probably be the first real test, with a debt to GDP ratio of 126%. If Italy successfully deals with their fiscal problems, that’s a good sign. If they blame everyone but themselves and elect a super nationalist government, hold on to your butts.
My link above was in no way an attempt to ‘cite from authority,’ and for the record, the paper was formally published more than once and has circulated in the Heinlein studies field for nearly thirty years now. It’s been rewritten and updated a couple of times; the version that’s there is an updated offprint, posted for convenience of those who cite the paper. It’s cited a few hundred places that I know of, including peer-reviewed journals (and Wikipedia, for that matter).
I linked it because it is the only option to citing the entire book when a debate about ST begins; that was much of the reason it was originally written. If anyone knows of an alternative summary of the contents specific to Federal Service, by all means let me (and all of us) know.
First, if this discussion is only about an earned franchise vs. a freely-granted one, there’s little need to drag Heinlein into it. He never really said all that much on the topic and it’s split between a highly debatable book and some off-the-cuff natterings twenty years later. They are at best gasoline on the fire for serious debate of the topic.
If the discussion is about the nature of government in ST, it’s practically over before it begins. Heinlein said almost nothing about the government - if it adds up to a half page of the book, I’d be surprised. The discussions/arguments/pontifications thus become a great deal more about what the participant thinks than about what Heinlein said or might have thought.
If the discussion is about ‘the nature of Federal Service,’ it invariably goes off the rails from the earliest exchanges as (again) the very little that Heinlein said gets mashed up with the participant’s impressions and recollections - often years or decades after having last read the book - and the endless sermonizing on the topic by APAhacks, fanzine writers, blog writers and the collective mind of WP. The argument loses much if any connection to the book and becomes about what one writer or another thought about it years later - and the mush and fog just get deeper as the discussion gets more and more meta and disconnected from its roots.
So if you’re going to argue about ‘the nature of Federal Service’ with any honesty, you have to go back to a fresh recollection of what the book actually says. You can go find your own old ratty paperback and highlight every passage related to government in one color, and every passage related to Federal Service in another, and then study those passage a while, and then… find yourself pretty much forced to agree that RAH said very little on either topic and a lot of what you think you remember as being his words are actually from your own later musings or readings - or the collateral layers of musings and readings of the last fifty years.
Or… you can skim a paper, long vetted and accepted by the authorities in the field (and possibly older than some of the participants here) that lists all those passages for you, feeling free to skip over any analysis or conclusions, and still have the essential information all lined up for you. And if you’re going to argue honestly, you’re going to have to construct your argument from, or at least accounting for, every single one of those passages. It is very unlikely, but I suppose possible, that you will find some way to make Heinlein’s 1980 comments stand up. No one has yet, and that list includes some of the most respected names in lit, sf and Heinlein studies.
(Or… you can turn to the webz, and draw on the deep well of fuzzy and biased thinking that comes from fifty years of someone taking one or two sentences from the book, mixing in their own political biases while riding the hobbyhorse of the moment, and then sermonizing for a few thousand words, all the while ignoring that they probably took the sentences out of context, mashed together comments from different, even opposing characters, and dismissed other quotes that completely contradict their sermon. The WP entry is the very distillation of this nth-generation re-re-re-sermonizing.)
I stopped caring very much after about twenty years of the argument, from fanzines into forums into professional realms. But when the argument starts, I do feel a small tug of obligation to keep it on arguing about what Heinlein said… not about what the nth generation of blogger thinks about what the n-1’th generations thought about it.
I was cautious in throwing it into the mix; no, I did not claim authorship but I did not say otherwise, either. I did not throw it out as a cite to any authority but the words of the book itself, which too many energetic participants in these debates haven’t read for years and will not turn to except to look up the one passage they want to hang their argument on. Putting all the relevant passages in one fairly short location is my self-amusing sop to hoping to read an intelligent, grounded discussion of the topic, and not the n-thousandth “bury everyone with collected opinions”-fest.
My identity here is not a secret, but I do work to keep it separated from my professional endeavors, just as nearly all the regular participants do. BIG tip of the hat to JC (with whom I’ve had a number of back-channel discussions of Heinlein) who I think greatly overstepped the line here, and I would even if this didn’t involve me directly at all.
Done here unless anyone has a specific question (that preferably steers around the whole identity issue).