Which, fun fact, there is some questionable evidence that we have classically misunderstood the story that they "followed a star". Rather, it seems to be a reference to astrology. There has been an argument that roughly around the time of Jesus, there were some astrological alignments that could have been interpreted as "a new Judean King has come", which would seem to justify this idea. Also, it never says "3 wise men", the number just got added at some point.

Finally, the entire story of Jesus' birth is a bit convoluted in the bible. The story says that they were attending the census of Quirinus(a Roman ruler of Judea), but then says that they had to flee the murderous zeal of King Herod. Unfortunately, King Herod was long gone when Quirinus was put in charge of the area. The Quirinus census was a real event known from other historical documents, but it occurred specifically because the area had transitioned from a vassal state(where Herod was allowed to be king) to a Roman governorship. The Romans would allow vassal states to simply pay them, but if the Romans were running the area they wanted good records and therefore required a census.

tl;dr: The authors of the biblical narrative of Jesus' birth seemed to have thrown in a lot of popular events in a haphazard order.

This sounds accurate. Also, older people in general drink less frequently because it's less fun and generally a social activity

The ironic thing about the debate is that there is a legitimate argument for low taxes that was proven by Andrew Mellon. He argued that high taxes encouraged tax fraud/abuse, and that lowering tax rates could increase overall tax revenue. The theory being that at lower rates, rich people have less incentive to engage in exotic accounting practices. He was proven correct when the US lowered taxes on the very rich and saw greater total tax receipts.

Unfortunately, neither the Republicans or Democrats will embrace this idea because it involves lowering tax rates on the rich AND the govt attempting to collect more taxes.

This theory is one reason that both Democrats and Republicans supported lowering the corporate tax rate from 30%. Trump didn't really understand or articulate the idea, but it was the underlying argument.

harder to eat it with your hands when the rice is on the outside.

I would just want to figure out if the issue was a personal one you had with audiobooks or just a problem with listening in a 2nd language

Have you tried an audiobook in your 1st language? Do you still have this problem?

Then you'd probably like the book?

Nope. Heinlein wrote this book as a commentary on nationalism. But, he used elements of this fictional universe to juxtapose them with existing systems to make the reader consider if one was better or worse.

This is a standard practice in fiction when the alternative universe is not dystopian or utopian.

Some people are Nazis and think the Nazis are right. When they watch JoJo Rabbit, they see their beliefs reflected in this part of the movie.

That doesn't mean that the intent of the director/author has anything to do with how people interpret their book.

No, and that was my original point.

The entire story is told from the perspective of a cock-sure young man who is slowly learning about the realities of the world. You can't interpret any of the narrator's promotion of the govt agenda as true advocacy.
It would be like watching JoJo Rabbit and thinking that the director was pro-Nazi because the protagonist is pro-Nazi

>Yeah, that is a problem, but I think the solution is better education and news reporting, not exclusion.

I am just saying it is a discussion worth having. Maybe your solution is better, maybe mine is better. But someone saying that voting rights shouldnt be automatic isn't necessarily evil or malicious. Once again, that is somewhat the point of Heinlein's writing style; perhaps you have never considered an alternative system.

First of all, I never said I had a problem with universal suffrage.

That being said, there are numerous reasons you might not want to allow every person in your country the right to vote.

• If you allow foreigners to vote, they might move in and vote to capitulate to their home country. Even Athens banned foreigners from voting for this specific reason.
• If you allow children to vote, they might vote poorly
• If you allow criminals to vote, they might vote to end the enforcement of crime
• If you allow the poor to vote, they might vote for something like communism
• If you allow slaves to vote, they might vote to end slavery(ignoring the morality of slavery)

Clearly, I dont support all of those reasons. Slavery should never be allowed in the first place. But, if you live in a society that has legal slavery, that is a very valid reason for not allowing universal suffrage. It is an interesting discussion to have regarding the meta-game of election politics.

I, for one, am a little troubled by the fact that the majority of people who vote in elections can't actually tell you the name of the candidates they are voting for in any office beneath POTUS. They just look for a D or R next to the name. I'd definitely be open to changes in the election system so that people were required to actually know something.

I apologize, I think this is coming off too hostile. My original point was simply that universal suffrage isnt some objectively good thing. You are absolutely free to believe whatever you want, but given the vast number of societies that have implemented non-universal suffrage(and not simply for discriminatory reasons), there must be some good arguments to be made.

My point was that you would probably like Heinlein despite the story saying that suffrage was based on civil service, but maybe you won't? Regardless, it isn't an idea that can be dismissed as political idealogue or conservative

You just said that everyone subject to the laws of govt should get to vote on that govt.

I'm trying to point out why alternative views should at least be entertained as something beyond "fascism"

So they get to vote?

No, you just said that foreigners who live here aren't foreigners. Apparently they get citizen status as soon as they came here?

So which is it? Can a foreigner be living in the USA?

I mean, they literally are?
So under your idea, a country could just send over enough people to swing the vote and then steal that territory from you?

This is the Texas problem

So, do you think foreigners who are living here should get to vote too?
As they are subject to the laws too?

But from a govt design perspective, why is that good?

Good for you? But universal suffrage isnt practiced hardly anywhere.

There is a reason you don't have an enumerated right to vote in the USA

As I told someone else, the service requirement is the only thing that he might be advocating for, but it is more of a two-tiered citizenship thing. If you don't serve(provide some service to your country), you get all protections you just dont get to vote. If you do serve, you get to vote.

It isn't exactly a novel idea.

But the gung-ho military stuff? He is definitely writing a lot of that in a way that the reader winds up questioning the positive attributes of 'nationalism' near the end. This is also one of his first books after writing a lot for magazines like Boys' Life, so it is very basic. He gets into a lot more stuff in his later books.

His other book basically advocates for a post-scarcity communist Utopia where space-Jesus comes down and dies for our sins so that we can all live in what is essentially equivalent to a hippy commune.

The entire book (Starship Troopers) is presented from the perspective of an 18yo who joined the military for glory.

Now, as for the civil service thing? He basically copied the dual-level citizenship of countries like Rome, where there was a difference between having voting rights and being protected. Heck, even some stock shares operate on a similar principle.
I don't think you could view that election system as fascist and that is just about the only thing in the book that isn't presented as a mistake.

He was repeatedly quoted as saying that he wasn't advocating for the ideas presented in his books, so I dont know if he would have cared.

It is important to remember that Heinlein believed in being a provocateur with his fiction. He repeatedly said that he wasn't advocating for the ideas in his books.

Example: In many of his books, he describes polygamy, polyamory, underage sexual partners, incest, homosexual relationships, and cannibalism(to leave off what happens in Starship Troopers). He may have liked some of these ideas and disliked others? But it is almost certain that he put some of these ideas just to get a reaction and to make people question cultural norms. He liked doing that.

Starship Troopers is mostly told via the perspective of a young man who joins the military somewhat randomly. A lot of his statements could be taken as the brash certainty of a young person wholly confident in their beliefs. For example, at one point there is a rapist who is just summarily executed. The protagonist basically says: "well, we all know there is nothing you can do to fix someone who is a rapist, so we should just kill them with minimal trial and get it over with".

However, the overall story is mostly about how these young people are used as cannon fodder and their lives are basically worthless to the military. In many ways it is a very heavy-handed takedown of the military-industrial complex.
It should be noted that "civil service" isn't just military. In fact, they make it very clear that he could have achieved his service requirement via numerous other less dangerous means.

but the law doesn't ban proxy assassinations of the type you are describing. If it did, then we wouldn't be able to take any action that might lead to an evil dictator being murdered by his own people.