It's a bit like dunking on libertarian idiots on facebook, but refusing to engage with Richard Epstein[1]. Sure, it's a thing one can do, and it's good for laughs from time to time, but ultimately, engaging with a weaker version of an idea betrays a weakness in the interlocutor, not the subject.
___
No, the movie was written before someone noticed some superficial similarities and suggested seeking the rights to the book for marketing purposes. Veerhoeven read less than half of the book, sure, and thought it was advocating fascism and incorporated some cosmetic elements from that portion of the book into the film, but the book wasn't the basis of the film, even in a hostile response kind of way, just a bystander that got dragged into a canned rant by a ranter who didn’t read it before deciding it was promoting what he was already ranting about, an all too familiar phenomenon to anyone who has spent much time in lightly moderated online discussion groups, if not the most familiar origin story for a licensed film “adaptation” of a book.
Source? The Wikipedia article states that the screenwriter was a fan of the book.