Off-Topic Thread vol. 2

There is something intriguing in this.

A collection of Nation “citizens” trying to “settle” a system would be the same as a collection of the (Anti?) Empress’s loyal subjects trying to “settle” a system. It isn’t “settling” and it does not trigger an invitation to participate in elections.

However, we might imagine a terrible conflict affecting Nation. This conflict might disrupt the “hive mind” sufficiently for large numbers of Nation citizens to free themselves from slavery. Some of those former slaves might reach the Federation.

If these people recovered their former identities, their eventual integration into society would be indistinguishable from similar events in recent history, and there would be no “Sansha bloc.”

However, becoming a “citizen” of Nation might disrupt identity so badly that all previous associations are obliterated. The individual becomes “a Sansha.” It is then possible to imagine a sufficient number of “Sansha” settling together such that they gain the power, through direct, representative, or hybrid democracy, to choose their own local leaders, write their own local laws, operate their own local courts, and otherwise run their own local communities as they see fit (subject to constitutional controls). If the size of those communities grows large enough, they would attract the attention of federal political aspirants.

Of course there always remains the question of: “can the mind control be reestablished?”

Ordered liberty does not require the state (small “s”) to ignore obvious risks, and it would be reasonable for the naturalization of persons who escaped Nation slavery to include a period of quarantine - along with substantial ongoing oversight and verification.

However, it is “not impossible” to imagine a “Sansha” bloc in the Federation.

And this is why the Federation must be destroyed.

1 Like

Destruction is a potential risk of allowing Sansha refugees to establish themselves as a bloc, and so in this particular case Adversary Kim should not complain too loudly.

Not if the zones will get a properly established control. A net of local military dictatorships can ensure there will be no criminal spikes and will provide safety and comfort for people of former Federation.

I hate to quibble, but legalism is a side-effect of Jin-Mei genetic engineering. It is difficult to be the cluster’s most elegant, attractive, and refined ethnicity without developing certain personality quirks.

Elsewhere, you indicated despotism was not optimal. Do you distinguish between “despotism” and “military dictatorship?”

Tangentially, I was pointing out that by providing refuge to any large populations that managed to free themselves from Nation slavery, the present Federation would take on the risk of becoming “the former.” It is because of this risk I suggested Adversary Kim should not complain too loudly, because our incompetent willingness to take in the victims of slavery would set the stage a more effective form of government - a net of local military dictatorships, as it were.

Hmmm. If each of the local military dictatorships gave themselves a different name, and they all came together on agreed holidays to get drunk and beat each other silly while bragging about the size of the last fish they caught… Yes, I am beginning to see a very effective form of government, indeed!

Depending on the relative numbers that might even actually be brave.

I personally would hesitate to risk losing a HAC to corvettes. The ISK disparity there is just…

They’ve responded to 200 corvettes with 150+ HACs, 200+ Jackdaws, or half a dozen HAW dreads.

This last engagement, they lost 1.7b to our 1.0b, and half of that was 1 of our guys in a Raven (the other half was fitted corvettes, and a last round of t1 frigates like punishers and rifters).

But yes, they have lost Muninns, assault frigs, a Legion…

It’s about the same as asking you if you distinguish between anarchy and democracy.

You see, I’d put despotism somewhere on the lower shelves, somewhere among democracy and same anarchy, while military dictatorship belongs on the upper shelves among the most successful and desirable government forms.

There are two main differences between despotism and military dictatorship: first, despotism is more prone to ‘moronic’ governors, and second, military dictatorship is strictly regulated in comparison with despotism.

If you have despotism and you’re the head of despotic government, you can do anything you want without really any restraints. Full despotism gives you freedom for everything.

In comparison, if you are head of a military you don’t have freedom anymore, you have to Uphold the law and military Code of Honor. If you violate the law, your subordinate officer can arrest you and sieze your position under gunpoint, sending you for tribunal. As a result of tribunal either you will be executed for the violation, or if you will be found not guilty, the officer who arrested you will be executed for mutiny. It’s not like a petty tyrant could stay as a head of a military dictatorship for long.

Moreover, in despotism you have a serious problem about who will take a power after you. If you assign someone to become your sucessor, it’s about same as telling them: “Kill me and you get absolute power.” Which they actually might do… and if you don’t have sucessor, then after your death your country will dilapidate into chaos, anarchy, democracy and civil wars.

In a military dictatorship, when a ruler passes, he is immediately replaced by one of the officers, making the system quite stable. Just like in a military chain of command, if you cut out several chain rings they can be immediately replaced, even if you cut off the whole head of that chain: the military system is very reliable and stable to loss of personnel.

I understand the point that you are trying to make, but I do not see it as a fundamental flaw within the Federal system of governance that you are making it out to be (making an assumption there, feel free to correct if it is wrong).

You are correct, and if a citizen does move over to another area of space in a different District, they will be represented by someone different than their original senator. However, I wouldn’t posit that is necessarily a drawback to the Federal system. The sub-district would elect a Senator that is local to them, and therefore has a greater understanding of their needs and requirements when representing them in the Senate.

In respect to my earlier point that member states can be tailor-made to the cultural requirements of their inhabitants as long as they comply with the terms set out in the Federal Charter and other instruments of Federal law. The member states are what the average person in the Federation will be interacting with on a daily basis, not the Federal Senate.

Additionally, organisations exist to promote and safeguard the welfare of those that reside in the Federation which are not bound to territorial jurisdictions only. My own identity as a Caldari is represented across the Federation by pan-Federal groups, as are the Matari, Mannar et al.

It might not be a perfect system, the Gallente would be the first to admit that. Before I got a grasp and witnessed it in operation myself I held nothing but disdain for it. But it is ever-changing and driven by the desire for self-improvement which as a Caldari, I have nothing but respect for.

1 Like

If a Sansha Bloc existed at any time, it would have been during the days prior to the Grand Coalition against Nation.

I don’t feel that there would be much chance of it ever happening again. What we know of Nation and how they operate is fundamentally anathema to the Federation’s principles and firmly rejected by all that I know of in the Federation. This rejection has manifested in citizen’s, faced with the choice of mechanical enslavement, choosing to take their own lives as a means of preserving their own personal agency.

We also know from medical and psychological examinations of True Slaves that the mental conditioning (i.e. brainwashing) as well as the implantation process causes extreme damage to the individual that is all but irreversible, to the point that many choose to return to Nation or take their own lives. Outside of Nation, they are extremely unlikely to be able to take care of themselves, let alone form a functioning member state.

It is sad, it is unfortunate but that is the reality of the situation. The fate of True Slaves is barbarous, the damage done not only to them but to the families of those that were taken, unfathomable. Any ‘Sansha Bloc’ would rightfully be condemned in the Federation, just as they were in YC37/FC152.

1 Like

I do not anticipate a “loyal” Sansha bloc forming in the Federation. Individuals attempting to form such a bloc would be given free star-seeing rides in unmarked haulers. Tragically, safety equipment on the haulers would fail.

The bloc I describe is not a Sansha Bloc so much as a “Sansha” bloc - as in ‘quote’Sansha’unquote’. It would be a consequence of choosing the high road instead of the low on a moral dilemma.

Steps:

  1. A catastrophic conflict destroys Nation’s ability to maintain mind control over its population.

  2. A large number of True Slaves escape from slavery and reestablish individual identities. Their original identities were destroyed by the process of enslavement, and they now identify as (former) “Sansha.”

  3. A number of these refugees reach the Federation.

  4. Moral Dilemma. I am confident the Federation would not kill the refugees directly. I am less confident it would resit “Not In My Solar System” pressures to keep them out (killing them indirectly). However, it is possible leadership would rise to the challenge and settle the refugees in quarantine systems under watchful eyes.

  5. After some prolonged period of isolation and treatment, likely over the course of many, many years, a naturalization process becomes available to these “Sansha.”

  6. After still more time, naturalized “Sansha” settle in sufficient numbers to elect their own leaders, form their own courts, and run their own lives (subject to constitutional limitations). After still more time, their numbers may increase to a point where they register at the federal level and a “Sansha” bloc forms.

All of that is extremely unlikely, but it is “not impossible.”

In related news, I am glad we have cleared up whether or not “military dictators” are “despots.” Despite not being the same, neither military dictators nor despots would spend much time contemplating the moral dilemma at step 4.

Difference. Not flaw. I said we prefer our structure because we’re represented by our people. No matter where we are. Regardless of where I am in the Republic, I’m Stjörnauga, and I’m Sebiestor. Within my Tribe, my concerns are represented by the representative of the Stjörnauga. Within my nation, by the representative of the Sebiestor. That doesn’t change just because I move. My blood is always looking out for me, even at the national level.

All I said was that a system of government that allocates the power to speak for people by ‘where do you live?’ needs to control where people can live. Because when people move, who has power in their name changes. If everyone moved out of a certain district, the representative for that district would lose all influence in the Senate. Nobody’d care what he’s on about. So you have to protect your political power, and that means, you limit where people can go, and how freely they can settle new worlds.

3 Likes

Federal Citizens are represented by individuals that are elected by their peers, within areas that they have grown up in and would appreciate the needs and requirements of those specific areas. Within the Member State, either through elected representatives in a representative or hybrid democracy, or through directly making their opinions known through a direct democratic system (also hybrids, to a degree). Within the District through the apparatus of the Member State, or throughout the other means of redress such as involving the system governors, or through legal means such as the Courts.

They are represented by those that are chosen from within their ranks - which is how it should be. The Federation has a poor record in regards to certain areas exhibiting undue influence over the other areas, which is why the system was reformed to ensure that localities were able to take better charge of their own affairs. Better to have individuals that at least live amongst and are accountable to the people they represent, rather than reside light years away and be out of touch with the needs of the people on the ground.

Except that the Federation doesn’t control where people can live. Freedom of Movement is a fundamental aspect of the Federal Constitution - rights that are guaranteed to each and every citizen - they are more than welcome to leave a member state/District for another and still be entitled to receive the same assistance and representation.

Your point about higher authorities preventing movement to safeguard political power is… a non-issue in the Federation. Even for a small sub-district, their voice is still as valid as the largest. Their votes count just as equally as any other sub-District in the Federation, irrespective of population imbalances.

2 Likes

Indeed, Freedom of Movement and Freedom of Association are among the most defining features of federal constitutional systems. Top-level courts require an extremely compelling reason to allow anyone, up to and including the federal executive and legislative branches, to limit these freedoms. Any component jurisdiction that wants to constrain movement largely has a single option: to leave.

1 Like

So Federal citizens can go and settle on any world they like, plunk down a flag, and declare ‘THIS is Federation territory now’?

See, as a Sebiestor outside of the Republic, my interests before the Tribal Council are still seen to by my Chief. By the system you’ve described1, Federal citizens living outside the Federation… well, they’re just screwed in the Senate.

1. Incidentally, ‘within areas that they have grown up in and would appreciate the needs and requirements of those specific areas’? So if someone grows up in Luminaire, they can only ever represent Luminaire? That seems odd.

It’s been a considerable amount of time since we have seen new star systems accede to the Federal Charter and join the Federation. I will use the example of Solitude as that is the most recent one, I would believe.

Solitude was founded by those looking to settle the frontier, or by those seeking to leave the Federation for a land in which they could govern themselves. All sorts moved out to that region - not necessarily to expand Federal influence as many wanted nothing to do with it, but to find a place to call their own. It’s a story that isn’t unique to Solitude - many areas in the present-day Federation were settled that way through a mix of public and private enterprise.

Anyway, the Pirate Invasion of Solitude happened, the Federation Navy repulsed them. By popular vote, the settlements in Solitude agreed to the terms of the Charter and Constitution and formally joined the Federation with their member states. I’m simplifying the story, it is always more complicated than the briefest of descriptions, but telling the full story (which I wouldn’t know) would likely encompass several tomes.

In theory, yes - if the colony in question is founded outside of existing Federal borders and they eventually decide to request ascension to the Federation, it is entirely possible that the Federal Administration will consider their request and eventually seek to claim the system on the basis it’s inhabitants have chosen to join.

This is also the case within the Federation’s territory. There are plenty of unorganised territories and unpopulated areas that may fall under the jurisdiction of another member state or a District authority. If a colony is started in those areas and grows to the extent it can self-govern, the Fed fully supports the right of that colony to declare independence and establish itself as a member state through the ascension process.

If a Citizen is living outside of the Federation, but remains a citizen, they are likely registered to a member state. Therefore their representation in the Federal Senate would be the relevant Sub-District which represents that member state.

My point was that societies are likely to elect someone that would understand their circumstances, their cultures, way of life etc. The most likely individual would be someone who hails from that sub-district. That doesn’t mean an immigrant into the Sub couldn’t attain that position, but they would have to prove themselves, like all Senators do.

I wish Triss was still around to describe the system - she had a marvellous method which puts me comparably to shame.

1 Like

In addition, they would receive absentee ballots allowing them to participate in the selection of representatives for their registered district. Members of the military stationed outside of Federation territory make particular use of such ballots. As with all of the major powers, the interests of citizens living abroad are further represented by the executive branch, up to and including the Office of the President.

You are doing quite well sir, and probably deserve a fancy medal.

1 Like

Since memberstates are being discussed, as well as the ascension process…

I’d like to see someone actually sell me on the positives of undergoing the process, and how they outweigh the negatives, from two separate perspectives.

Firstly, from the perspective of a colonial director of a thriving, and well funded colonial setup and its adjacent infrastructures, such as that which I run in Eugales… What benefits of uplift and Ascension would be gained other than representation in GalFed affairs and voting/electoral rights. What protections would be levied to help offset the increased risk of targetting from say, the Serpentis, or Caldari State affiliated subgroups that may stand to gain from aggressive action, or other similar? What benefits would come from taxes paid to GalFed that would endear either myself, or those that are charged under my care, to want to undergo this process.

Secondly, from the perspective of a foreign diplomat, of which I also am, who is the primary liaison, contact, and representative between my homeworld, and much of the wider cluster, how could I be persuaded to convince those that entrusted me with such responsibility that trying to pursue that for my homeworld perhaps, would be worth while, and how would the benefits outweigh potential detriments similarly.

If any of your points in trying to convince me boil down to ‘or else,’ or imply coercive measures to push compliance, you’ll have already failed to convince me.

I’m open to any Gallente loyalist to bring their thoughts to the table on that.

I can think of no benefit (or mechanism) for capsuleer colonies becoming member states. Capsuleers are “regulated” by CONCORD, and CONCORD’s regulations are preemptive.

Since we have run through a civics lesson on the Federation, I’d like to see someone actually lay out the governmental functions of another faction.

In the Republic (which is no longer organized as a republic), each tribe has a “chief,” and each of the seven dominant tribes send five representatives to the Tribal Council. There is a “ceremonial” Head Of State and a separate prime minister.

Is the prime minister one of the thirty five representatives who has been elevated (and who must then be replaced); or do the 35 representatives cut out a step by choosing a Tribe to send a sixth person to the Council?

With respect to a single tribe, the chief would appear to serve as what we would call “executive.” The roles we understand for an “executive” include overseeing the federal agencies, spending money allocated by the legislature, enforcing laws written by the legislator and interpreted by the courts, managing foreign affairs, commanding the military, and attending tea parties.

Does each tribal chief perform all of these functions for their tribe?

Regarding the tribe’s own laws, is there a separate “legislative” body, or does the chief both create and enforce the tribal laws? If there is a separate legislative body, how are its members chosen? Do the laws passed by the 35 members of the Tribal Council preempt tribal laws when the two come into conflict; or, is it the other way around? Who determines the extent of the conflict and how it relates to the dispute being adjudicated?

For that matter, is there a separate “judicial” branch, or does the chief create, enforce, and interpret the tribal laws? If there is a separate judicial branch, how are judges selected? Does tribe’s judiciary (or chief) interpret both tribal laws and those passed by the Tribal Council? Presumably, the answer to conflict between the tribe and Council is the same as above, but what happens when there is a legal conflict between different tribes?

See now, this makes no sense to me. If the citizen moves around within the Federation, their representation changes, based on the theory that the representative will know the needs of the place, not the people, but if they’re outside the Federation, somehow their representative—who is nowhere near them—is supposed to understand and meet the needs of the people, even if they’re not in the place?

3 Likes