Understanding "MiaHM"

For the benefit of those seeking a better understanding of the Heinlein novel this site references in several of its discussions, here is a link critical of the novel. (As a linkrot safeguard, here also is the Google cached version and the Web Archive version.)

Heinlein is one of the premier authors of libertarian political fiction, and indeed of sci-fi in general. He has often been cited as one of the top 3 sci-fi authors of all time, along with Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov. Still, his political views (which are presented abundantly in Harsh Mistress) have earned him an extra heaping of criticism from those who disagree with such views.

In the review by Adam Roberts, he spends much time analyzing the book's political aspects, albeit from a decidedly British viewpoint. The two political views are, unfortunately, rather alien to each other, and as a result Mr. Roberts has some difficulty properly understanding some of the concepts.

Apparently, so do many of his fellow Brits; Heinlein has not been as popular over there as in the US. I think Mr. Robert's assessment that it's because of Heinlein's political views is probably correct.

Mr. Roberts quotes several other (presumably British) critics of "MiaHM" who view Heinlein's later works (especially MiaHM) as "papier-maché backdrops for lectures concerning the author's controversial views." While he immediately follows this up with praise for the novel, later on in his review he seems to criticise the novel for being too political and not more of a straightforward story.

Roberts' criticism of MiaHM begins with his chagrin at a Heinleinian trademark, TANSTAAFL:

The third section is called 'TANSTAAFL', Heinlein's irritating and much-repeated acronym for one of his key belief-values: 'there aint no such thing as a free lunch'.

In one part of the novel, the narrator, "Mannie" is explaining TANSTAAFL to Stu, who remarks that it is an "interesting philosophy." "Not philosophy--fact," Mannie replies. Indeed, TANSTAAFL is an economic fact, not just a "belief-value" as Roberts calls it. Nothing of value is free, though externalizing or hiding its costs may make it appear so to the beneficiary.

Roberts then illustrates the distinctly (or perhaps not so distinctly) British version of his cultural meme when he directly challenges Heinlein's utopian politics:

'Under what circumstances may the State justly place its welfare above that of a citizen?' asks one character, to receive the resounding narratorial reply that there are 'no circumstances under which the State is justified in placing its welfare ahead of mine' [The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, 82]. No amount of anti-social behaviour, of rape, murder, child-abuse, justifies societal response.

First of all, rape, murder, and child abuse are crimes against individuals, not against the State. If these threaten the welfare of the State, it's because some politician is afraid of being voted out of office next election for appearing too soft on crime.

Also, reflecting what I've noted is a common European mindset, Roberts confuses "societal response" with "State response." (Or assumes that they are synonyms.) This is a crucial distinction: on Luna, crime does receive a societal response, namely, from those involved in or witness to the crime, and/or from the decentralized, non-governmental judge & jury system. This response is simply not a State response, as there is no State per se to make and enforce laws. (Being a former penal colony, the Terran Authority leaves it to the colonists & former inmates to police themselves. The surprising result was more, not less civility.) It's very much akin to hiring a private security firm to guard your business rather than relying on gov't police.

Roberts continues:

It is not that his imagined society is soft on crime: punishment is swift and capital on Heinlein's Luna, but it is meted out by friends and family of victims rather than by the State. If a rapist and murderer can find himself a friendless, family-less victim, he can do what he likes.

He apparently skimmed past the part of the book where this is explained. First of all, victimizing an alone person does not mean you get away with your crime. If the victim is a woman, the perpetrator is likely to be shown to an airlock post-haste, sans his space suit. If the victim is a man and the crime is non-fatal, he may hire a judge & jury (paying whatever he can afford) to pass judgement. In the worst-case scenario where the victim is a man & he's murdered, with no one to pursue justice for him, the perpetrator undergoes an extreme ostracism, with people refusing to buy from or sell to him. Reputation plays a supreme role in Luna society, commerce, and interpersonal relationships. Many advocates of libertarian societies also stress the role of reputation, the same sort that helps us decide whether to buy a more expensive known brand or go with a cheaper but lesser-known alternative.

Roberts again illustrates the gulf not only between European and libertarian thought, but between European and American thought:

But murder is very far from the worst thing in Heinlein's fictional universe; that honour is reserved for taxation. [....] Such thinking only makes sense within a libertarian context, of course. A social democrat might argue that there are many worse things you can do to a human being than tax him or her: for example, you can torture and execute them (by way of positive oppression),

There are several economic views other than capitalism and socialism, but one way to neatly divide people into one camp or the other is to see whether they view taxation as a form of slavery. From an economic sense taxation is very much the equivalent of slavery, and most capitalists recognize this, even if they still regard it as a necessary evil. In that sense, "mainstream" (non-libertarian) capitalists are in the middle. Libertarians view taxation as evil but not always necessary. Socialists view taxation as necessary, but at most a mild irritant, hardly worthy of being called evil.

While Roberts' rather extreme examples of torture and execution may indeed be worse than taxation, it is much, much harder to do these things to a free man who can defend himself than to a slave indoctrinated to accept the authority of his torturers and executioners over him.

The gulf between European and libertarian/American might reach its widest when he continues,

and you can allowing them to starve, fall sick without treatment or grow old without support (by way of political sins of omission).

The very notion that an individual can "starve, fall sick without treatment or grow old without support" without the State's explicit intervention is alien and repulsive to many Americans and nearly all libertarians. Under socialism food, medical care and retirement are not just services provided by gov't but fundamental rights as essential as the right to breathe. We of a more free mindset realize that these services are better provided in a marketplace environment, but what's more, we maintain that no one has an inherent "right" to the labor, services, or products of another. Should everyone with a car have the "right" to "free" gas and auto repair services, paid for by society at large?

But in Heinlein's universe the weak are tended by members of their family, and if they have no family then -- frankly -- it's better for them to die.

Here Roberts seems to be repeating the old communist propaganda gross charicature portrayal of what life in capitalist societies is like--the homeless lead utterly miserable lives before dying of starvation. The reality, of course, is that the poor in this country have their own microwave ovens and refrigerators, and even the homeless need not fear starvation. Admittedly, Heinlein did not really touch upon the use of private services and charities, which just as in America, would fill in the gaps and provide even the destitute with food and a modicum of medical care. IMHO, I'm kind of glad he didn't; taking the space to do so would have made the story too much the "papier-maché backdrops for lectures" that Roberts earlier praised the book for not being.

By the same token, oppression by one individual (a murderer), by a group (a criminal gang) or by a government (a tyranny) is best avoided by arming everybody -- again, those strong enough to defend themselves will defend themselves, and those too weak to do so are better off dead.

And again, Roberts seems to completely miss the dynamics of Luna society, apparently blinded to it by the statist dire warnings and agitprop slogans such as "might makes right."

Roberts then goes on to analyze whether Heinlein's political commentary is complex and sophisticated, or oversimplified. The other critics he quotes take the latter view, which again, seems to create conflict with these same critics' views regarding Heinlein's stories being mere vehicles for his political views. Well, pick one, will you guys? Some simplification is necessary to keep the story flowing and to keep it from becoming a poli-sci textbook. I would suggest that if any of these critics wanted a poli-sci textbook, they should read one, rather than expecting to find one in a sci-fi story. Methinks Heinlein got the mixture of political theory and story fiction just about right.

Still later, Roberts expounds on the seeming improbability of a culture that treats women as matriarchs even with a 2-to-1 male/female ratio. He thinks it more likely that the most violent in the society would simply accumulate harems for themselves by force, leaving the majority of others without. Roberts yet again seems to forget or ignore other parts of the novel that provide reasonable explanations. In this case, the early history of Luna as a penal colony without guards to keep order meant that in order to survive you had to get along; assholes simply didn't last long. It's quite Darwinian: the violent get weeded out, while those who cooperate with each other and treat each other with respect, prosper.

Roberts has trouble not only understanding this, but believing it:

Above all, it is hard to swallow his ubiquitous assumption that a society based on the primacy of the family and a disregard of conventional laws and rules will end up like an idealised American small-town from the fifties, rather than ending up like -- say -- the Mafia.

It may surprise Roberts to learn that it is the "idealised American small-town from the fifties" which is the rule, and the Mafia family that is the exception.

In leaving the political aspects of the novel, Roberts then details two advantages enjoyed by Lunies, though he can't resist a parting shot at noting they are "without price," in seeming contradiction to the TANSTAAFL "mantra." The first is that Lunies have no immediate limits to population growth, in contrast to Earth (and specifically, Bombay) where people litter the ground. Aside from noting that expanding the lunar colonies does have costs in terms of construction and energy usage, nonetheless Luna still has plenty of open space left on it. In its early days (and even today in some areas), America likewise was big enough that overpopulation was not a real concern. Roberts wonders why the cheap burrowing technology used on Luna couldn't also alleviate overcrowding on Earth. Well perhaps it could, but who on Earth would want to live underground? On Luna, underground living is a necessity, what with space radiation and micrometeorites and all.

The second freedom (?) is the "freedom" from gravity, with the moon being only 1/6 G. This is not really a point of contention for Roberts, though he ties it in to Heinlein's "thematic obsession" with immortality:

but on the Moon, we are told, the reduced gravity means that people stay younger-looking for longer and die much older, living perhaps for ever. 'Nobody knows how long a person will live on Luna,' says O'Kelly, 'we haven't been there long enough … so far, no one born on Luna died of old age' [The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, 242]. People older than 120 are commonplace.

Personally, I took Mannie's comments above in a literary or figurative sense, not literal. Maybe that's making more of it than it's worth though.

Much of the rest of Roberts' critique is a fairly good comparison of MiaHM to various American wars. Although the battle for independence in many ways closely mirrored America's own against Britain 300 years earlier, Roberts also points out parallels to the Vietnam war, with the Lunies representing the agrarian Viet Cong, with their lower level of warfare technology and use of guerilla tactics and underground tunnels. Adam Roberts concludes his review with:

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress works much better as a primer of how a small nation of farmers can militarily defeat a large nation of technocrats than it does as a book about Libertarian ideology.

I think MiaHM does both jobs quite well, as both libertarian ideology and as a book of tactics for the budding revolutionist.