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

Bundle: 567
Archive-Message-Number: 7120
From: Ray_Pullar [-- REDACTED --]
Subject: Re: The RC government
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 94 15:35:32 WET DST

David Johnson:
> Yes, but the federal government has specific powers granted to it by the
> Constitution - particularly taxation and a military; they're *not* `granted'
> by the individual States.  A better example would be the European Union, which
> has no powers except those granted by the member nations.  And excuse me if I
> offend some European sensibilities, but, from this side of the Pond, it
> looks pretty fragmented.
> 

Don't worry, from this side it looks pretty fragmented too.  I think
that the European Union is going through the trauma of birth at the moment
and that once this has passed it will become a far more cohesive
entity.  To compare it with the U.S. of today is a little unfair - the U.S.
has had it's federal system for almost 300 years!  And it has gone through
its' own share of trauma's such as the Civil War.  I also thought that the
original 13 colonies that founded the U.S. had to ratify the Constitution.
Their representatives all met to write it and then the state assemblies
approved it.  Only once this had happened did it become binding (please
feel free to correct me - my knowledge of American history is shakey).
The Civil War itself was an argument (conducted with cannons) about the
authority of the federal government over the individual member states.
In Europe, we've just gone through a similar process with The Treaty
of Maastricht which defines the powers of the European government.
Arguments about the extent of the powers of the new government are
still continuing even though the treaty has been ratified.  But I
expect that 300 years from now, the European Union will be much more
united than it is now.

So I think it's fair to say that the RC government is in the same
position as the U.S. federal government just after the Revolution.
Things are still up in the air as to the final form of the Constitution
and the shape of the government.  And that is how it is described in
Path of Tears.

David Johnson:
> Well, actually, there's Africa, South Asia, Latin America, Central Asia.
> Eastern Europe, *North* America.  I can't seem to bring to mind *anyplace*
> where the locals are glad they were overrun by the `benevolent civilizers'.
> 

True, but then it was just as true of the Third Imperium.  How many worlds
that were 'invited' to join the Third Imperium really wanted to?  The
discontent of the member worlds of the Imperium didn't seem to pose any
threat to its' survival - why should it threaten the RC?

David Johnson:
> So I ask, where does the idea that `Jane Everybody' has just as much say as
> `Peter Plutocrat' come from?

Uh...books?

David Johnson:
> May be, but the Star Vikings, at least as they've been described, don't
> seem to be interested in markets at all.  I again refer y'all to Beam's
> novel.  Lucas Trask, the Space Viking of the title, was one of the few to
> realize that he'd be better off `trading' with the worlds of the `wilds' than
> he'd be `chicken stealing'.  It's kind of like that story about teaching the
> starving man how to fish; and yet the Star Vikings who are `recovering' lost
> technology are still looking for that free hand out.
> 

Your view of the RC suffers from the fact that you haven't read Path of Tears.
They don't just engage in 'chicken stealing'.  As Allen has already stated
the RC don't steal high-tech gear off people who are using it correctly i.e.
for benevolent purposes (such as keeping their communities alive).  They
do steal it off people who are using it incorrectly i.e. oppressing their
communities.  Plus the RC also puts back - it doesn't just take.  It supplies
technical knowledge, trained personnel and tools to help people reconstruct.
This doesn't sound like 'chicken stealing' to me.

David Johnson:
> The key point to remember is that with a strong, central government the RC is
> either going to be `altruisitc developers' or `chicken stealers' - there's
> no room for both.
> 

Hmm...the U.S. donates millions of dollars in aid to Third World development
programs *and* it invades and occupies small Third World nation states like
Vietnam, Granada and Panama.  Is the U.S. government an 'altruistic
developer', a 'chicken stealer' or both?


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