What's the difference between the stereotype disabled vet you've outlined and Starship Troopers? I'm pretty much arguing for Starship Troopers here.

Here's where I think you're wrong, and weirdly statist:

The state exists to serve society by providing necessary services such as defense, law and order, and protect rights. It's a tool, and not the source of societal worth. A housewife or soldier serves society.

Neither chooses to free ride, both perform a completely necessary societal function, both are essential for the continued existence of the state.

To me that gives them both the same moral right to have a say in how the state serves them, regardless of their lack of earning, as a taxpayer. Time is money.

You're alternately arguing that contributions have to be financial, or even worse, that one's worth to the state determines their right to influence the state, despite the state only being a tool of society and not the other way around.

What's the difference between the stereotype disabled vet you've outlined and Starship Troopers? I'm pretty much arguing for Starship Troopers here.

Here's where I think you're wrong, and weirdly statist:

The state exists to serve society by providing necessary services such as defense, law and order, and protect rights. It's a tool, and not the source of societal worth. A housewife or soldier serves society.

Neither chooses to free ride, both perform a completely necessary societal function, both are essential for the continued existence of the state.

To me that gives them both the same moral right to have a say in how the state serves them, regardless of their lack of earning, as a taxpayer. Time is money.

What's the difference between the stereotype disabled vet you've outlined and Starship Troopers?