Uh, I really like this "For us, the Living"

Although it would be easy to confuse with Rand's "We the Living."
This is the best I have ever seen anyone present a manifesto thinly veiled as a novel. Even if there are many things I disagree with, I like this execution and explanation even better than Rand, Tepper and Butler, my three other philosophical novelist favorites.
The best part so far is the new law for declaration of war. It's even better than the modest proposal I devised a few years ago. My idea was that any congressman who votes in favor of declaring war must be willing to send a son, daughter or other family member into the war. I was thinking about that today and thought that this would require every candidate for a legislative position must, as a qualification for the office, have such a person in mind. So, for example, to run for congress, besides having the age and citizenship requirements, you must also submit the identity of your nearest relative, preferably a direct offspring, who is at the time eligible for conscription. Thus, in the event that you must vote about declaration of war, if you vote in favor, you must be willing to send this young person right away. If, however, you are unwilling or unable to offer kin or any other approved relation for this person, a provision in the law also gives you the option of being able to hold your office but forfeit the right to vote in favor of a war. You can still vote against or withhold your ballot.

I think Heinlein's proposal is equally good and less complicated. War declaring policy stays the same for events in which the country itself is attacked. But if the motion is on the offensive, the people must vote directly on it. And the only people eligible are those who are eligible for the service. All who vote in favor are then automatically the first drafted. The ballot even informs them of where to report the next day. All who don't vote are next, and those who vote against are after that. I thought it was brilliant. Though, at the time Heinlein wrote this, it must have been before the advent of servicewomen because the section on this law had the characters discussing the exclusion of women in the vote.

What I think differs most between his idea and mine is that he took the concept a step further than I did. I thought of it in the context of a system in place, still leaving the decision with the legislature but adding a direct personal sacrifice. It also draws on the value of family and relational ties. The direct vote approach, on the other hand stays with individuals, and may be more reflective on the ways Americans think. It would be more impactful for one of us to volunteer himself than his child, so perhaps the effort to avoid unnecessary war would be more effective that way.

Another extremely socially disruptive law motion would be to protect minorities as well as young people. But that may defeat the purpose of choice.