Off-Topic Thread vol. 2

I miss Graelyn and his witty remarks.

Indeed, few could match his witty repartee.


History, Mr. Menkalinan. Also the present. There’s a symmetry at work: of the core powers, two, in the end, look inward, longing to be left alone forever, and two outward, longing to set the world aright.

Who is correct to feel how, is obscure. But it is inevitable that those who long above all to be left alone will tend to look at the outward-facing powers with worry and that the outward-facing powers will each watch its rival with mistrust.

Those who do not serve the Empire tend to watch it warily. It’s the same for the Federation. Mostly, those who believe in their causes, join them. Everyone else is probably going to be at least a little suspicious.

That’s all.

1 Like

I am sure all that is true but I tend to struggle with philosophical explanations and focus on the tangible, like extra-judicial mass deportations and the destruction of planetary colonies.

The Idic practice of Rebirth also means that scars left by events which one’s great-grandparents lived through (we’ve recently marked the 220th anniversary) perhaps remain fresher than in other communities, especially among our society’s leadership class.

I see… To be clear, this is maybe less philosophical and more political; the symmetry is probably a historical coincidence, not a function of the workings of the universe itself.

Like you, the inward-looking powers are generally wrestling with the scars left by earlier contacts. I’m not sure even Rebirth would sharpen the pain the Caldari feel over the loss of Caldari Prime any further, for example; they’re kinda raised on it. New souls might not have the memories, but they’re that much more easily shaped and etched for just that reason.

Although, come to that, a contest between sufferers over who’s in more pain seems like a pretty useless competition anyway.

I certainly didn’t mean to sound competitive. It’s just something I’ve observed, that Rebirth allows trauma to be passed on as well as more helpful lessons.

For that matter, I didn’t mean to sound dismissive either. My agricultural might’ve been showing a bit there, apologies.

The members of the Station Owners’ Council would agree.

If that is the people’s choice, then they can operate similar systems in the Federation. Not all democracies operate under the same rules and there are a myriad of member states that have developed their own style of governance depending on how they wish to be governed.

As for being tied to territory, that was one of the main reasons why the Yiona reforms broke up the existing colonial system to ensure that all parties in the Federation were effectively represented at the interstellar level, rather than existing as a peripheral entity orbiting the metropole.

I’m sure they would also agree it is far easier to control individuals on a space station than it is to control individuals on a planet.

Mmm, can they, though, or is representation in the Federation Senate based on a variety of locality-based terms and framings? Can a random group of say, Sansha cultists all put together a vote and put one of themselves into the Federal Senate, independent of any planetary or system representative that might already exist, on the grounds that someone who doesn’t believe in the Master can’t properly represent their interests?

I’m not saying they should be allowed to… only that the rules of the Senate would, so far as I’m aware, restrict membership to the elected representatives of location-specific polities.

Senators are elected to represent sub-Districts within the Federation, functioning as representatives of those constituencies. 903 subs exist, last time I checked. 62 Federal Districts in total, usually conforming to a Constellation in size but some of the more populated ones are split into two. Crux has three - Luminaire has it’s own District on account of it’s enormous population. In that respect, representation is given to territory on the basis that the population within said territory chooses whom represents them via the popular vote.

For your Sansha example, it is theoretically possible that a bunch of cultists could put together a vote at the Senatorial elections independent of local/District representation and win. But quite honestly, it’s a daft example - Sansha wouldn’t get anywhere close to winning Federal representation, least of all be of any concern to a Senator as to their ‘interests’.

When I said that ‘the people’ can operate similar systems within the Federation, it was implied that they can choose the political system of the member state they reside in should it better suit their society, as long as it complies with the obligations set forth in the Federal Charter. It’s not all representative democracies across the Federal member states, not even the Federation is completely representative (it’s classified as a Hybrid democracy). And there are more than a few that embrace their tribal heritage and incorporate that into the style of government that they wish to have.

The Minmatar Republic, for example, was from my understanding heavily influenced by the tribal nation-state of Rei-Tsaro on Gallentia when the Great Rebellion ended and reconstruction began.

I’m still learning about the finer aspects of democracy in the Federation, but it’s not an entirely unfamiliar concept to someone who grew up in the State.

1 Like

Right, but again, that’s all location-based representation, at the level of national government. Which is a stark contrast to the Tribal Council, where, for example, the residents of Huggar Station are represented by different Tribal Chiefs, depending on which Tribe they belong to, and remain represented by the same Chief, even if they move to the other side of the Republic.

If a Federal citizen moves from Luminaire, for example, to someplace on the edge of Black Rise, their Senate representation changes. They are no longer represented in the Senate by the person(s) who represented them while they lived in Luminaire.

1 Like

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.

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.