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

Bundle: 569
Archive-Message-Number: 7147
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 94 14:42:40 CST
From: [-- REDACTED --] (David Johnson)
Subject: Traveller Background 5

Gentlesophonts:

From Thursday night:
 
Catie Helm [-- REDACTED --] writes:

> Uh, er...guys...it was the Dutch who traded 24 Tollars worth of junk 
> jewellry to the Iraquois for the rights to the island of Mahattan,
> in 1625.  William Penn was granted, by the English Crown, the new 
> world colony of Pennsylvania

Oops!  Guess my credibility has gone to pieces!  :-)

 
Chris Bertani [-- REDACTED --] writes:
 
> David Johnson writes:
> > So I ask, where does the idea that `Jane Everybody' has just as much say as
> > `Peter Plutocrat' come from?
> 
> 	Hivers?

Hmmmm, interesting point.  Do you mean to suggest that the Hivers have
`encouraged' a democratic culture in the Reformation Coalition?  Overtly or
more subtly?
 
 
Ray_Pullar [-- REDACTED --] writes:

> that the European Union is going through the trauma of birth at the moment

Etc.,

> expect that 300 years from now, the European Union will be much more
> united than it is now.

Sounds like we should move over to "alt.politics.comparative"!  :-)

Seriously though, I agree with your point and didn't mean to compare the
contemporary US with the EU except to illustrate, WRT the Reformation
Coalition, exactly the point that a new, fragmented government isn't going
to be as effective in it's foreign affairs as an established, centralized
one.

> 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.

Okay, but *then* I don't feel it's realistic to expect that the RCES (or any
other body of the RC) is going to function effectively - there is going to
be a lot of second-guessing, rescoping and retrenching going on back home.
The early US under the Articles of Confederation and during the first several
decades under the Constitution was not much of an international player at
all - much like the EU today.  NASA is another good example today - when
there is no consensus there is very little action.  Twenty-five years after
the Apollo moon landings NASA doesn't even have regular, reliable access
to low-earth orbit.

> discontent of the member worlds of the Imperium didn't seem to pose any
> threat to its' survival - why should it threaten the RC?

'Cause the the Imperium had a much bigger, TL15 stick?  A single battalion of
Imperial Marines could pretty much cow any but the highest pop and tech
worlds.

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

Well, okay.  I'm sure Boris Yeltsin could get his hands on a copy of the
US Constitution if he tried.  Do you suppose he could just wave it in front
of Rutskoi and Zhironovsky and they'd become `democrats'?  I guess what I
should have asked is "how has the idea that `Jane Everybody' has just as
much say as `Peter Plutocrat' become widely held among the citizens of the
Coalition (or the Regency) - especially among `Peter' and his chums?"

> Your view of the RC suffers from the fact that you haven't read Path of Tears.

This is probably the case.  But keep in mind that just because GDW writes
something in a sourcebook doesn't mean it makes sense or is consitent with
any sort of realistic situation.  Just because they describe a fragmented,
`coalition' government as being an effective `international' agent doesn't
mean Italy and Brazil are going to become world-class players next week.

Then again, in a 2D universe (here we go again) anything might be possible. :-)

> the RC don't steal high-tech gear off people who are using it correctly i.e.

Etc.,

> This doesn't sound like 'chicken stealing' to me.

Me neither.  The Coalition may not be `chicken stealers' at all.  *My*
point was that, with the sort of stable, centralized government that
was claimed for the Coalition (and this may also be at issue it appears now)
I didn't see it as realistic that the RCES could be *both* the `chicken
stealers' that some say are suggested by *Survival Margin* (I haven't read
*it* either!) and the `peace corps' that has been suggested by others.  Sure,
both elements may exist, but with a stable, central government one or the
other *will* predominate.  *I* don't know whether the Coalition government is
stable and centralized or not.  But *if* it is, then the general attitude
of the RCES will be *either* benevolent *or* malevolent - but again, *I*
don't know which.  I do know it won't be both - unless the government is
*unstable* and fragmented.  What about not having read *Path of Tears* draws
into question the validity of this arguement?  (Except that if `GDW says
it's so' then logic is irrelevant?)

Should we take a poll?  Those of you who have read *Path of Tears*: is the
Coalition government stable and central, unstable and fragmented, or somewhere
in between?  And if it's stable and central, is the RCES the `chicken
stealing Star Vikings' or the `exploring Peace Corps'?

> Vietnam, Granada and Panama.  Is the U.S. government an 'altruistic
> developer', a 'chicken stealer' or both?

More like an `800 pound gorilla'.  :-)  But this illustrates my point well.
The *annual* US foreign aid budget is dwarfed by just the cost of either the 
Grenada or Panama incursions.  (`Millions of dollars' sounds like a lot to
folks like me, but in the realm of US military operations it's `chicken feed'
if you'll pardon the pun.)  The US is sort of too big for `chicken stealing'
but we do insist on `getting our way' regardless of what folks think else-
where.  Both `altruistic' and these `pragmatist' attitudes exist in our
government but clearly the `pragmatist' attitude is dominant.  And because 
we're stable and centralized that `pragmatist' view is generally effective
in achieving its ends.
 
> I'm not sure from reading Path of Tears to what extent the RC
> tries to force a One True Way on the worlds it integrates.  The
> Federalist faction seems to believe in promoting diversity of
> cultures/political systems within the Coalition while the
> Feudal Technocrats seem to want to squeeze everyone they re-contact
> into their mould.  At the moment there is no clear indication which
> faction will come to dominate the Coalition. 

This seems to suggest that the Coalition government might *not* be stable
and centralized.  If this is the case, each bloc may be able to `protect' 
RCES groups which carry out each's particular `mission'.  This would
allow both the `good viks' and the `bad viks' to exist and in relatively
equal strengths but overall RCES effectiveness might then suffer because
the separate groups might often find themselves at odds and working at
cross purposes.  This, IMHO, sound like a *more* interesting setting
that a stable government with either a `benevolent' or `malevolent' RCES.
With all those guns and `take charge' types around though the Coalition
might even be heading for a `rebellion' (civil war) of its own!  This setting,
while not very original, might be still more fun to adventure in.

> of Lucan's territory).  Obviously the Virus has been busily at work
> there for the last 70 years building...something.  No doubt that
> something will be unleashed on an unsuspecting Universe in the near
> future.  I would expect the RC and the Regency to put aside their
> differences and fight this common enemy (anyone remember Fred
> Saberhagen's Berserkers?).

Good guess.  Or something equally `original' like, "I am Lucan of Virus.
You will be assimilated.  Resistance is futile . . . ."  The orcs are
coming, the orcs are coming . . . .  :-)

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

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