------------------------------

Bundle: 568
Archive-Message-Number: 7128
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 94 09:25:00 CST
From: [-- REDACTED --] (David Johnson)
Subject: Traveller Background 4

Gentlesophonts:

Ah, Wednesday night was a good one!  But first let me make a point about tone
in my postings.  I guess it seems to some folks that I'm often 'bitching' in
my replies because most of what I say in response takes issue with whomever I'm
replying to.   Let me suggest that this is due to the fact that, in the
interest of bandwidth conservation, I seldom acknowledge something that I
agree with.  You can rest assured that if I only reply to 20%, or 50%, or 80%
of someone's ideas I probably agree with the bulk of what I *didn't* reply
to, even if most of what appears on TML takes issue with it.

Okay, on to Wednesday night's posts:
 
Ray_Pullar [-- REDACTED --] writes:
 
> David Johnson responds:
>  Only in the mind(?) of GDW . . . .
> 
> And in the TNE rulebook.

Good point.  I don't have the rule book.  :-)
  
> The Reformation Coalition is pro-democracy
> because it holds the Imperial system of government responsible for the
> destruction of interstellar civilisation.
> Hence they don't want to repeat the same mistakes.  Hence their attempt
> to construct a new and fundamentally different form of interstellar
> government.

Another good point but just because the RC doesn't want to be an aristocracy
doesn't mean they know 'how' to be a democracy.  This isn't a criticism, just
a fact that might lead to some interesting possibilities.  What happens
when disenfranchised groups (robots, cyborgs, former aristocrats?) start
clamoring for their share of the pie?
  
> And if you think about the history of the Traveller
> universe they may have a point.  There have been three human
> interstellar civilisations ruled using the Imperial system.  They have
> all collapsed eventually.

I don't know.  Eleven hundred years just for the Third Imperium kind of
overshadows our little 200+ year experiment here in America.

> As for the member worlds of the former Third Imperium having no
> democratic traditions - well, some of them were democracies

Yes, but the 'interstellar' culture was aristocratic.  Nothing got done
on an interstellar level outside of the aristocracy.  Even the megacorps
(which were run by aristocrats, remember) looked to the aristocracy and
the aristocracy's Navy to police commerce.
 
> I find it amusing that so many people have a rose-tinted view of the
> Third Imperium.  They seem to regard it as some kind of utopia.

Not me.  The non-eqalitarian aspect of the Imperium *always* bothered me.
The fact that there wasn't a truly egalitarian society anywhere in the
Imperium campaign was one of its greatest failings.

As for this discussion, I've left the CT/MT vs. TNE arguement behind long
ago.  I've been trying to just focus on the details of TNE.

> their thirst for power that brought the Imperium down and killed
> billions of sentient life forms.

Hmmm, I *guess* one *might* be able to blame the Virus on the aristocracy.(?)

> Allen Shock:
>  In all, the RC is a fairly organized governmental entity
> 
> David Johnson:
>  Okay, which means the Star Vikings are either all `bad' or all `good'
>  depending on how you see the RCES defining it's role.  There won't be
>  much variation in the ranks.
> 
> I think that this is a specious argument.  You're trying to force
> things into one absolute or another.  There's is no reason for this to
> be the case.  As a citizen of a newly emergent multi-nation government
> (the European Union) the idea that somehow all the member governments
> and their populations will be forced to think the same way strikes me
> as ridiculous.  It just isn't happening. 

If the RC is centralized and *effective* in foreign affairs then there isn't
much room for variation in the ranks.  A variety of opinions leads to a *lack*
of effective action.  The European Union in the former Yugoslavia hasn't
been effective at all.  Neither has the UN *anywhere*.  If the RCES is out
accomplishing things then generally it's operations from place to place
will be similar in nature - you won't have some Vikings doing 'good deeds'
and some doing 'bad deeds' and both coming back to the same company picnic.
 
> As for the
> development of interstellar commerce being incompatible with 'chicken
> stealing' - have you looked at the 19th century colonisation of
> Africa?  Plenty of 'chicken stealing' took place with the European
> colonists ripping off the native Africans every which way they could
> while they built (or rather extended and dominated) the local economy.
> And exports from Africa were used to fuel the economic development in
> Europe and in America.  Admittedly this is not a nice model for the
> activities of the RC which is intent on practicising 'enlightened
> selfishness'.

Exactly.  What the European colonial powers did wasn't trade at all.  It was
resources extraction.  This may very well be what the RC is doing.  But then
it's 'chicken stealing', and not 'enlightened development'.  That's not a 
criticism in my view but it is different than some other folks' view of the RC.
 
> I don't see how this is a
> problem.  The RC see themselves as the good guys.  Other people may see
> them as the bad guys.  Are they really good guys or bad guys?  It's up
> to you but I think that there is much evidence to support either view.
> Mabye they're neither.

I agree.  I guess I was trying to take issue with the proposition that the
RC were 'enlightened'.  Self-interest seldom has the long-term focus to
permit it to be 'enlightened'.  In general, what's 'good' for the RC when
it shows up at someone else's world won't be 'good' for the locals.  I
guess I'm still hooked on the 'Prime Directive'.  :-)
 
> Or mabye it's just the pragmatic recognition of the fact that a ruler
> with a contented population who will support him in a war is a tougher
> enemy than a ruler who is hated and who will not gain as much support.
> It is easier to rule when you've the cooperation of the
> ruled.  I don't think that the Coalition has the manpower and equipment
> to force itself on the surrounding worlds.

A good point.  But 'pragmatism' is not 'altruism'.  Certainly the RC believes
it can force itself on its neighbors - or least protect itself from eventual
retribution.
 
> David Johnson:
>  With a relatively stable, centralized
>  government in the RC this `good vik' - `bad vik' issue will have to be
>  resolved.
>
> I don't think so.  Remember IranGate?  Seems that government agencies
> and department's within agencies can have their own agendas, sometimes
> incompatible with the policy of the government.  Out in the wilds you
> are on your own.  Tough decisions must be made quickly.  RC personnel
> have to interpret the guidelines.  Is this guy a real TED who we should
> overthrow or is he not 'bad' enough?  Don't know.  Better check with
> headquarters.  Uh...they're only 8 weeks away by starship.

Well, yes.  But the 'Iran-contra' characters were eventually dealt with.  Such 
behavior has at least been criticized officially and is supposedly not
condoned - even if Ollie North may be a senator next year.  There may be
aberrations (even *Star Trek* has had rogue captains) but if the general
attitude of the RCES is 'benevolent' then Vikings who err on the side of
'malevolence' too often will be removed.  Again, the pattern will generally
be one way or the other.  The only way both 'benevolent' *and* 'malevolent'
vikings will be common is with a fragmented, decentralized RC.

> David Johnson:
>  Is this sort of like letting Exxon or Alcoa come into your country to
>  help you develop?  (Or William Penn buying Manhattan for a handfull of
>  beads?) Doesn't sound too benevolent to me.
> 
> But it creates lots of local jobs.  I assume that you think that the
> economic development offered by the Third Imperium to its' member
> worlds was unselfish and totally beneficial? 

Not at all.  Don't think for a minute that I'm trying to suggest that the
RC is somehow 'worse' than the Imperium.  In fact, in the context of TNE,
this sort of comparison is irrelevant.  My view though is basically different
from Allen Shock's in that I don't see the Star Vikings as such good guys.
They may be a helluva lot of fun to play, but they won't be winning any
Nobel Peace Prizes soon.  :-)
 
> You are still intent on forcing the RC to be either one thing or the
> other.  I don't see why it can't be both. Are you saying that this kind
> of conflict in goals doesn't exist in the activities of real world
> governments and their foreign policies?

They can't have both and be *effective*.  Certainly you have both sentiments
in the real world but in general self-interest dominates.  Look at the US,
which I like to believe is mostly a 'good' guy.  We still spend only a fraction
of our efforts in humanitarian pursuits.  We're much better at forging an
international coalition to kill Iraqis than to feed Somalis.  If humanitarians
were as influential in our government as are 'pragmatists' we would have
been just as *ineffective* in the Persian Gulf as we have been in Somalia.

This has been a great discussion - at least for me.  :-)  Some good points
to consider and debate.  Now if only we could expand it to the Regency and
the rest of TNE.

"In arguement, truth is discovered."
                 - Russian proverb

Peace,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

------------------------------