I’ve read the biographies of RAH and I’ve always taken The Moon is a Harsh Mistress as closest as to his political ideals: that, yes, there is a role for government to structure, preserve, and protect a basic system, but within that system one should leave as much room for as many personal choices as possible. But RAH was not a blinders-wearing idealist. He didn’t think his view of the way the world ought to be was a particularly stable one. In fact, the very first page of TMisHM is the Loonies, having earned their freedom in a war that cost them a fair fraction fo their population, already voting it away. He knew what ought to be, and what is, are two very different things. And it was in acknowledging and trying to understand the conflict there that’s much of his genius.
I don’t think he had the slightest belief that his ideal view of what a Starship Troopers-style government would last very long, but that doesn’t mean he supported its eventual (and likely inevitable) end-state.
Also, I’m from Buenos Aries and I say, “Kill 'em All!”
