One thing that has struck me from our various blogs and discussions about the Luna revolution is that we have said it was a revolutionary's dream plot and how they would love to be able to play things out while simultaneously expressing the belief that the entire endeavor was forced upon the population. Therefore is Heinlein trying to say that revolutionaries, although often having the people's interests at heart, do not actually represent the population? Although he may have not focused on this implication it is consistent with his notion of the pitfalls of democracy and what happens when "busybodies" get involved. Although Heinlein does not have a blindingly in your face main point as Wells did, his main point that he wanted to home in on seemed to be that democracies could not be trusted.
One odd thing that we did not discuss in class was Mannie's quick transformation from "I'll go to this rally thing just to help a friend" to "sure, I'll lead a revolution". Despite the general Loonie pioneering background, and latent dislike for he authority, he seemed to give no long term thought at all to the revolution. To give no long term thought to what would happen seems incredibly outrageous and to give only an evenings thought before committing oneself and his family seems at odds with the family concept. Also, as a computer programmer, he should think what might happen at the end of the program (the revolution) however, he does not and leaves all of the thinking to the others and simply concentrates on the logistics of the campaign.