Which is his loss, because it's a great book. I really enjoyed Heinlein's exploration of what is needed to sustain a healthy democratic form of government.
It's been years since I've read it but iirc the difference between the book and movie is that in the book voting is limited to those who have done some form of public service- not necessarily military, and it's specified that regardless of your aptitudes, disabilities, etc. the government will find at least SOMETHING for you to do regardless of how hopeless your case is. Perhaps the point OP is trying to make is that that form of democracy is healthy in the sense that the only people leading it are those that, at the minimum, showed an interest in contributing to it.
Comments
Which is his loss, because it's a great book. I really enjoyed Heinlein's exploration of what is needed to sustain a healthy democratic form of government.
Are you saying that a story where voting is reserved for "some people" is what is needed for a democratic government?
It's been years since I've read it but iirc the difference between the book and movie is that in the book voting is limited to those who have done some form of public service- not necessarily military, and it's specified that regardless of your aptitudes, disabilities, etc. the government will find at least SOMETHING for you to do regardless of how hopeless your case is. Perhaps the point OP is trying to make is that that form of democracy is healthy in the sense that the only people leading it are those that, at the minimum, showed an interest in contributing to it.
Perhaps his idea was to remove the pro-violence influence of the likes of Cheney and Trump. War is not healthy for children and other living things.
... is this meant to be satire? You're familiar with the main storyline yes?
Sure, it's a satire of fascism, so the movie was lost on Americans and didn't do well in the box office there.