Heinlein was a libertarian, and no such thing. Between the lines of the book, you can catch glimpses of a world where the government basically doesn't exist.
People forget when the book was written, and how progressive it was for its time.
Literally every one of Heinlein's greats have that same problem.
In Starship Troopers:
Women became starship captains.
A Filipino (whose native tongue was Tagalog) faced zero racial bias, and became an officer.
In 1959, the publication date:
The military wasn't integrated. There were no non-white officers.
Women weren't soldiers, let alone commanders of naval vessels. And nurses were only officers in the medical corps.
You can see the same things with Stranger in a Strange Land, Farnham's Freehold, and The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. His at the time progressiveness is at the beginning (or precedes) the shift of public acceptance. All of the issues they present (sexual liberation, nontraditional relationships, acceptance of blacks as equals, polyamorous marriage, absolute requirement of consent on several levels, and basic welfare) predate the drive for these in society as a whole.
We moved because people like him moved us.
"Heinlein was a fascist" is a braindead take. Starship Troopers was on the Marine Commandant's reading list since its publication until just a few years ago for a reason. It's an introspective study of why soldiers fight.
See this is the kind of insane take you can only get from having actually read some of these depraved, perverse works. Other more decent human beings in this thread understand that under no circumstances should you ever expose yourself or your loved ones to literature that might have a variable impact on their audiences, that might cause them to question the very basis of the lives they lead! After all, that's what we have the media for, to inform us as to what our opinions should be on a subject, that they our betters can discern very clearly and direct us appropriately.