NationStates Jolt Archive

[...]
Jean Rasczak: All right, let's sum up. This year in history, we talked about the failure of democracy. How the social scientists of the 21st Century brought our world to the brink of chaos. We talked about the veterans, how they took control and imposed the stability that has lasted for generations since. We talked about the rights and privileges between those who served in the armed forces and those who haven't, therefore called citizens and civilians.
[to a student]
Jean Rasczak: You. Why are only citizens allowed to vote?
Student: It's a reward. Something the federation gives you for doing federal service.
Jean Rasczak: No. Something given has no basis in value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived. [...]

>> Something given has no basis in value. <<

Only one's own achievement is something to be rightfully proud of? There are people who regulary decline accolade and laurel, claiming "I just did my job" or "I did what I was asked to do". On the other hand there are people who crave attention or laurel. Who collect awards, praise and thumbs-ups like there'll be no tomorrow.

I always considered most of the "rewards" or the laurels I received for my work (or other things) to be "hollow" or pointless. I take some pride in my work, but I take a lot of pride in doing a good job. Being satisfied with how my work went is laurel enough for me. I know very well when I did a good job and when I screwed up. No point in telling me. Maybe I'm just humble.

Or to arrogant, to proud to acknowledge that actually other people can judge the superior quality of my work or my deeds to a full extent?

I just watched this movie last night :)

A compliment is only a gift if it is a lie told just to be nice. If you receive an honest compliment for something you really did do then you earned it.

I think whether or not you value compliments depends on what you base your ego on. If you base it on your own opinion then it's just annoying when others try to tell you what you're worth. But if you base it on what others think about you then you do need to be told you're worth something.

I don't think the value of something can be measured in what price you paid for it. Three identical specimen of the same product are all worth the same even if you received one for free, paid $10 for the second and $50 for the third.

At least mention you are quoting a science fiction book.

I just watched this movie last night :)

Do yourself a favor and read the book then burn the movie.

Pride is not the only value one might have.
(Actually, it's one of the seven deadly sins, so perhaps it shouldn't be a value on the first place.)

At least mention you are quoting a science fiction book.

Never judge a book by its movie.

That was a terrible movie, never read the book.


Given things do have value (see gov't gift tax, inheritence tac, so on)

The item given has an intrinsic value to the giver and givee but also a market value based upon the willingness of the consumer to buy the item given.


Lets look at the quoted example: voting rights.

In that particular sci-fi universe, only the citizens (who have served in the military) are given particular rights over the civilians. The argument is that by exercising a vote which has force and therefore value, the exercisor must have earned the right to use that force. It was given, it was earned. The difference that arises is that if the vote has been earned, it has valu,e however, that vote would have just as much equal value if it was given to every civilian. The gift and the reward are weighted exaclty the same in that scenario even though the quote claims that the gift has no intrinsic value.

Another example in the real world would be the hypothetical ability to buy and sell votes. If every citizen of the United States (now citizen means citizen according to US laws, no sci-fi laws), was allowed to sell their particular vote to an interested party, then the votes given by constitutional right by the government would have a market value. Interested parties would buy the votes in an attempt to increase the potential success of thier particular issue or candidate.

Those two example should show that rewards and gifts maintain the same value for most issues and items, with the possible exception of intrinsic value to the recievee.

I can mudsurf further than anyone I know. :cool:

I can mudsurf further than anyone I know. :cool:

lies.

I have a Bay Laurel tree, so I can make my own laurels.

when you are voting,
you are submitting.

to someone's systim of rule over you.

and as if voting were the only way to participate in things that sometimes
overlap with democracy (community for instance. sharing information. other things)

if voting ever changed anything, they'd make it illegal

Get a fucking job.

At least mention you are quoting a science fiction book.

I just assumed everyone here knows the flick and/ or the source.

Get a fucking job.

Your input is appreciated.

Your input is appreciated.
Typical liberal. Bends over backwards when insulted.

Typical liberal. Bends over backwards when insulted.

For the sarcastically challenged (you), I believe that was Ulrichland's invitation to take your opinion (or lack thereof) somewhere else. A reasonable sentiment.

For the sarcastically challenged (you), I believe that was Ulrichland's invitation to take your opinion (or lack thereof) somewhere else. A reasonable sentiment.
Reasonable by your own idiotic, addleminded standards I guess?

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:_c5_h3BAaaaYrM:http://sourdoughjunction.com/images/81999-71783/sign_Dont_Feed_the_Troll.gif

>> Something given has no basis in value. <<


The interesting thing to me was that you are using two very different examples. In the quote, earning the right to vote was under discussion, and you are talking about earning praise.

Praise is only worth something to you, and if you know whether or not it was actually earned, you know exactly what it is worth.

The vote has a much more tangible worth, enough of them together can change the course a country takes for the immediate future.


However, I think the quote in question refers more to the fact that when the student said "the government gives you..." the right to vote, that this would have much less value than a vote you worked for and earned. I always read that as being less of a lecture on civic responsibility and more of one on personal self respect. Although I did think the whole serve then vote thing was a crock, and I would have appreciated the idea much more if the people doing the serving had the choice of non military service if they wanted. I understand what Heinlein was getting at, I just disagree with it.

Reasonable by your own idiotic, addleminded standards I guess?

Play nice.

Play nice.
Why?

I read Starship Troopers and loved it (even though I didn't agree with it, Heinlein has some pretty interesting ideas.) I then saw the movie, and loved it because I love awesome B movies like that.

The book was better. In the book the discussion went into more detail and the teacher and Lt. were two seperate characters. The teacher was a short colonel, think his name was Dubois, and Rico didn't shoot the Lt. at his request. Also, Rico's dad survived the attack on BA and joined.