Hal
November 29th, 2006, 05:41 PM
Hello Folks,
I got into a discussion elsewhere about sleuthing the Third Imperium's military machine, and a statement was made that made me think that perhaps I should ask people their own views on what constitutes a "Sovereign world" in a Traveller universe.
Having initiated the thread, I will put down my thoughts and reasonings behind my thoughts. People are free to disagree or agree or point out hidden ramifications of points being raised in discussion. The more who participate, the more we can examine in better detail our presumptions about the Third Imperium.
Ok, here goes...
For me, it all begins prior to year zero in the Sylean confederation. From that seed, certain traditions were retained, as well as certain understandings of what did or did not work. After a near fatal encounter with a rival star faring kindom, the Third Imperium finds itself in a phoenix like rebirth from the ashes of a corrupt and ineffectual senate. Speculation is that each of the worlds in the Sylean confederation were there as a result of non-hostile conquests and thus had some history of diplomacy. As the Imperium grew, much of it without bloodshed, certain "isolated" communities were forcibly brought in - enticed as it were with the threat of a trade embargo, or perhaps an outright assault forcibly bringing the world under Imperial control. An example of a recent such undertaking would include Earth from the Rim War.
Each world by definition has the right to determine what kind of government it has exclusive of Imperial intervention. A democracy for example, can be subborned from within and replaced by a charasmatic dictator. As long as the Dictor respects the ground rules of Imperial control and pays his world's levy of taxation, the Imperials leave him alone. (funny how there doesn't seem to be any incidents in canon about worlds who have engaged in a tax revolt). In any event, certain standard foundational laws are required to be a part of each world's body of laws. These fundamental laws in general tend to be relatively light in burden, and the bulk of the worlds choose their own customs, enact their own laws, and can even determine on their own without Imperial oversight, which goods and/or services are forbidden/contraband. In addition, it appears that each world is permitted to engage in low grade warfare, providing that general Imperial guidelines are not violated.
Member worlds are NOT permitted to engage in succession from the Imperium without permission from said Imperium. How this permission is granted, I'm not entirely certain - although I seem to recall that at least ONE world has done so without reverting to civil war.
Member worlds are not permitted to cause damage that will impede effective trade flows throughout the Imperium. To that end, blanket bombardment of an enemy world, reducing its infrastructure to the stone age is a major no no.
Member worlds must obey Imperial Edits. However, those Edits tend to be of a certain generalized nature and either by custom or by laws unseen in canon, are restricted in capability and/or impact. That is not to say that they have little or no impact, but to say that they don't come at a pace of 1,000 edicts a day, taking control of trivial things such as how thick toilet paper has to be in the Subsector Duke's main resisdence.
There is/are limits to territoriality such that a fence marks the boundary between a world's domain and the domain of what amounts to "Imperial territory". What laws (ie law levels) are in effect on a spaceport's neutral ground I do not know. Suffice to state, it does not appear that the laws of the host world are in effect in a spaceports extraterritoriality region. In some ways, I suspect that a world can enact laws that limit how many of its citizens can access a starport. I suspect too that a world can withhold emmigration rights, thus keeping a population in thrall to its government rather than being able to migrate freely from world to world.
What is a crime on one world is not neccessarily a crime elsewhere. One might speculate that if a man commits murder on a single world, escapes to another, and has the blessings of the world's leader - such an individual will not face extradition proceedings (This could be an unwritten assumption that all worlds MUST honor an extradition request from the Imperial court, or perhaps worlds really are independent)
There are instances where it has stated in canon that the Imperium was limited in its activities relative to a given world. In one adventure, a Noble's son was arrested and sent to prison on a world. The Imperial Noble had no recourse but to accept it and try to spring his son from prison through clandestine means (adventurers naturally).
Striker states specifically, that roughly 30% of a world's military spending is spent towards Imperial procurements. The remaining 70% is spent at the world's discretion. In a monolithic Imperial universe, it would seem that the taxation rates should go the other way, where the LORDS OF THE UNIVERSE demand their just due and let the crumbs fall where it may (ok, so I exaggerate, but you know what I mean).
All of these things imply to me, that each world is considered a sovereign nation subject to limitations by their membership within a larger organization. In a way, using the United States analogy to a degree, each "state" has its own recognized areas of power, but each bows to "Federal Authority" where it has to. The difference is however, that New York for example, can't be run by a Dictatorship, Pennsylvania by a Religious Autocracy, New Jersey by a Mafia beuracracy, or Florida by a limited democracy where only mongoloids are allowed to vote. To that extent - each world is a sovereign government and is extended rights and priveledges as well as protections of some sort from the Abuses of the Imperium (until those rights are trampled perhaps?)
Comments?
flykiller
November 30th, 2006, 01:16 AM
imtu the imperium rules the space between the stars, i.e. every world is absolutely sovereign, but if they want to engage in interstellar relationships they can only do so through the Imperium, i.e. following its rules and using its starports. each world relates to the Imperium via a treaty, generally standard but often with specifications unique to each particular world.
mike wightman
November 30th, 2006, 02:17 AM
Hal, I agree with your post completely.
IMHO the Imperium is really the self interest group consisting of the Imperial family, megacorporarion board members, and lesser families of subsector duke rank and above - who all usually own significant shares in megacorporations.
They have a vested interest in maintaing trade and keeping up the flow of taxes, but the individual worlds can be left pretty much to their own devices.
Hal
November 30th, 2006, 04:03 AM
Ok, to play the devil's advocate to you two who have posted thus far - how can you change the reading of the Traveller rules to negate the prospect of worlds having Sovereign rights? In other words - explain how a world can have what ever government rating it sees fit to exercise, but had little or no control over its spending? One way I can think of off hand, is that by Imperial Decree, each world is mandated to send taxes to the Imperials as they see fit, but they in turn hand back to the individual worlds, the funds necessary to follow the decrees of the Imperials. This in turn keeps the entire Military Machine of the Imperium under ONE level of control - the Imperials. Can you see any other way?
Golan2072
November 30th, 2006, 05:07 AM
I'd say that most Imperial requirements from a world would be economical ones, especially when megacorps are considered. The world would be allowed to have their own economical system and regulations, and a local government could choose to tax or even nationalize local (planetary) corporations if it wants, but megacorp property would probably be a major "hands-off" area - Imperial regulations would limit the locals' ability to tax the Imperial megacorps, and would definitely protect them from local labor regulations, local pollution regulations and partial or full nationalization attemps by local governments. Other than that, while palnetary governments would be allowed to declared certain goods as contrabands, I'd say that interstellar import/export tarriffs would be regulated by the Imperium.
Remember that, as Sigg Oddra has noted, the Imperial government serves the interests of the Megacorps and of the Nobility (which are, essentially, one and the asme - most High Nobles hold significant megacorp shares).
flykiller
November 30th, 2006, 03:25 PM
explain how a world can have what ever government rating it sees fit to exercise, but had little or no control over its spending?imtu the imperium taxes interstellar trade, not worlds. at least, usually.
... how can you change the reading of the Traveller rules ...I'm the ref. (smile)
traveller is an RPG, and the rules there thrown together ad hoc to support an RPG. it's not like the copyright holders had any master plan that we have to decipher, rather it's a mess that we have to rationalize if we want a coherent background.
flykiller
November 30th, 2006, 03:32 PM
This in turn keeps the entire Military Machine of the Imperium under ONE level of control - the Imperials."the imperials" seems a bit vague. what, a baron can give an order to an admiral? and who are "the imperials"? a separate race or tribe? inductees? presidents and CEO's? admirals and dictators? where do they come from? answer that and the sovereignty issues begin to resolve themselves.
rogermccarthy
November 30th, 2006, 08:08 PM
Your example of an imperial noble's son having to be sprung from prison by adventurers presumably refers to Rescue on Ruie (IIRC JTAS 1 and one of the very first Traveller adventures published).
However despite being just one parsec from an imperial subsector capital Ruie is not an imperial world so this does not prove anything much.
If anything to get a RW analogy you would have to go back to the Achaemenid Persian empire, where cities, tribes and whole kingdoms were generally left to their own devices as long as they provided tribute and supplied military contingents to the the Great King via his satrap.
In the areas we know best (western Asia Minor, Egypt, Judaea and Bablylonia) subject states could be tyrannies (dictatorships), theocracies, democracies, oligarchies, monarchies or chieftainships - the Great King and his satraps appear to have cared little as long as the taxes and recruits kept coming in.
The reasons for this relatively loose structure appears to be communications - even with royal roads the frontier satrapies were months from the Great Kings court and it was simply not possible to impose direct rule on them all.
Subsitute imperium for Great King and the high nobility for the satraps and I'd say you have a fairly close analogy.
While milieu O material certainly does indicate that the Sylean Federation and Cleon's empire was relatively more interventionist, obviously at soem point it became clear that 11,000 worlds could not be micro-managed - so by the time the empire gets to the Spinward Marches, Gateway and The Solomani Rim (which are the only sectors we really know about canonically) it has accepted that a far more laissez faire attitude is required.
Alternatively the empire may well have been more centralised before the civil wars and the current system could in fact be the price of re-unification - with Arbellatra and her successors deciding that it was on balance better to give worlds effective autonomy than to have to reconquer each and every one.
However I suspect that the closer one gets to the core the more visible imperial institutions become and that in practice the worlds close to Capital are far more politically homogenous than their UWP's might suggest.
Plankowner
December 1st, 2006, 08:54 AM
alte, as I was reading your post about how the early Imperium was more centrist, I thought "bet the rebellion changed that!" Sure enough, in your next paragraph, you mention the same thing. It seems a very reasonable time for the "attitude shift" within the Imperium to a more hands off approach.
Perhaps one of the underlying factors of the Rebellion was the pressure and strain of the too-long communcations routes. Didn't one of the Frontier Wars end before Capital got instructions back to the front about what to do? The "Brushfire War" I think it got nicknamed. What was it the Third Frontier War? Is the timing of that war close to the time of the Rebellion? My feeble mind thinks it was just before the Rebellion...
Hal
December 2nd, 2006, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This in turn keeps the entire Military Machine of the Imperium under ONE level of control - the Imperials."the imperials" seems a bit vague. what, a baron can give an order to an admiral? and who are "the imperials"? a separate race or tribe? inductees? presidents and CEO's? admirals and dictators? where do they come from? answer that and the sovereignty issues begin to resolve themselves. </font>[/QUOTE]Therein lies a really GOOD question. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any given "Material" other than perhaps a few odds and ends "implications" spread throughout various portions of published adventures. Maybe someone knows of a reference in the OLDER JTAS issues? I know that there is one Electronic JTAS issue called Imperial Law: Before the Docks in the Third Imperium. In it, it speaks of identifying aspects of the Judicial system as well as how they apply against subjects of worlds versus how they are applied across the board. In general, an Imperial law supercedes local laws, but that Imperial laws are generally not expected to be too "confining" or too "detailed". Put another way? Slavery is outlawed on the Imperial level. Contractual wage slave however would not come under that edit.
Back to the original point: who are the Imperials? Going from bottom up...
Local citizens of a region - local government control
Regional citizens: (in case of balkinization) or world if the world is considered the next "size" of governmental level up.
Imperial Citizens: these are people directly in the employ of Nobility as staffers living on/in areas exempt from Local law. This includes lands ceded to Nobility as part of the world's membership into the Imperium as well as any recognized "Embassy" of the Imperium, or even starports while within the extrality zones.
All Imperial Nobility by definition are thereby considered "Imperials". Planetary Nobility however, are not.
That's about as close as I can define it within the "history" of the Third Imperium. For instance, if a member of the world Lunion is permitted off world and works in the household staff of a Baron at Strouden - is that person a citizen of Lunion? Is he considered an Imperial as long as he's a staff worker? What if he leaves the Baron's service, but doesn't go back home - but instead, always stays within the extrality zone? What if he becomes a crewman?
mike wightman
December 2nd, 2006, 04:48 AM
This begs the old question of who is and who isn't an Imperial citizen?
Are the people who live on the planets which make up the Imperium all citizens of the Imperium?
Or is it only the select few who are born into noble families, or earn citizenship through service?
Has anyone played around with the idea that only knights and above are actual citizens - everyone else still travels on the "passport" of their homeworld?
aramis
December 2nd, 2006, 06:57 PM
Yes. I've done so for most of my Refereeing time.
IMTU, 4+ years of qualified Imperial Service makes one a citizen, as does being an Imperial Noble's heir or spare. Anyone else is just a subject.
Citizens have the right of redress to the nobility. Subjects do not.
Subjects have the following Imperial rights:
</font> To be free of enslavement</font> To life, save when deprived by due process</font> to make missive to the offices and officers of the landed nobility</font> to enlist in the imperial military</font>
Citizens gain:
</font> all subject rights plus the following</font> The right to public trial</font> Right to travel within the Imperium</font> Right of address to their registered homeworld's landed noble</font> Right of review of any conviction by the Imperial Nobles</font> right of life save when sentenced to death for imperial crimes</font> right to own securities and shares in interplanetary ventures.</font>
The imperium reserves the following rights to itself, IMTU:
</font> to maintain imperial military forces.</font> to destroy or replace any anti-imperial member government</font> to enforce and protect citizen and subject rights.</font> to define those crimes to be enforced beyond 10 diameters and within extrality zones</font> to be the sole system of laws past 100 diameters of a world.</font> To regulate shipping and interstellar commerce</font> to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction on imperial subjects and citizens.</font> To determine and apply imperial taxes and tax authorities.</font> to create imperial nobles.</font>
Which leads to local sovereignty: It exists only outside these restrictions... No local law is enforceable past 100 diameters, and no local law may execute imperial citizens IMTU.
mike wightman
December 2nd, 2006, 07:24 PM
Do you allow Imperial citizens to hitch rides on IN and IISS ships?
Or does it depend upon their connections?
flykiller
December 2nd, 2006, 08:43 PM
Has anyone played around with the idea that only knights and above are actual citizens - everyone else still travels on the "passport" of their homeworld?yep. imtu only the nobility are imperial citizens, everyone else is a citizen of a world first and relates to the imperium via that world's status. those who serve in an imperial capacity such as the marines or scout service are members of that service and may be awarded benefits for having done so, but imperial citizenship is not one of them unless they are raised to the nobility.
basically, the imperium runs everything in the starports and past 100d. member worlds run their own affairs unless the sector duke determines an imperial interest is involved. taxes are collected not from worlds, but from interstellar trade. the imperium technically owns all jump-capable ships and technically any qualified imperial officer can commandeer any jump-capable vessel at any time in accordance with imperial law.
there are two levels of nobility, the nobles and the lords. the lords are appointed directly by the emperor and are members of his family or advisory staff. they are the archdukes and the dukes, and they appoint nobles and admirals and run the imperial military. the local nobility are confined mostly to their local worlds especially at high levels. local nobles are appointed by the dukes or their representatives and by membership treaty, and once appointed their commission tends to remain in the family.
Black Globe Generator
December 3rd, 2006, 01:46 AM
IMTU any sophont born on a world that is a member of the Imperium, or becomes a member of the Imperium during that sophont's lifetime, is an Imperial citizen.
The free movement of citizens as well as goods is an established dictum of the Third Imperium. Commerce includes both goods and services, with the latter represented by the sophonts who provide them. Imperial citizens may move freely among the member worlds of the Imperium, subject to local laws for trade and personal conduct.
Hal
December 3rd, 2006, 02:00 AM
ok - riddle me this: does a government have the right or ability to keep sophants from leaving their world? For example, I travel to another star system as a citizen of my world touring at theirs. Do they have the right to keep me from leaving their world?
Clarification: I don't mean do worlds/governments have the right to detain me in pursuit of justice or because I've broken local laws or what have you - I'm talking about a law abiding citizen who intends to just walk into a star port, get on a ship, and just plain "leave".
Pickles
December 3rd, 2006, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by Black Globe Generator:
Imperial citizens may move freely among the member worlds of the Imperium, subject to local laws for trade and personal conduct.That can be a pretty wide caveat. Local trade laws could easily include clauses making it difficult or impossible for offworlders to gain employment, for example, or they may impose entry restrictions on particular worlds (or even on anyone not from particular worlds).
Originally posted by Hal:
ok - riddle me this: does a government have the right or ability to keep sophants from leaving their world? Governments being the creators and final arbiters of "Rights", they most certainly do have the ability to prevent their own citizens from leaving their world - provided it is allowed for in their legal system. So it depends on the individual world in question, and the degree of freedom it allows its citizens. This cannot be abstracted to particular government types, either - plenty of modern democracies arbitrarily revoke their citizens' passports without having convicted or even charged them with any crime.
Black Globe Generator
December 3rd, 2006, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
Local trade laws could easily include clauses making it difficult or impossible for offworlders to gain employment, for example, or they may impose entry restrictions on particular worlds (or even on anyone not from particular worlds). The former yes, the latter no, IMTU of course - "open borders" are a part-and-parcel to being a member world.
flykiller
December 3rd, 2006, 02:19 AM
does a government have the right or ability to keep sophants from leaving their world?imtu, absolutely, if they feel the need, and if their treaty with the imperium doesn't prohibit such an action, and if an imperial interest isn't involved. they can also prohibit entry of people and/or goods with any specifications they like, except at the starport proper. but most worlds when they entered the imperium were appointed indigenous nobles with an interest in trade, so isolationism isn't very common.
flykiller
December 3rd, 2006, 02:32 AM
Governments being the creators and final arbiters of "Rights"well, factually, a right by definition exists before any government exists. a government may secure or suppress a right, but it cannot create one.
mike wightman
December 3rd, 2006, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by Hal:
ok - riddle me this: does a government have the right or ability to keep sophants from leaving their world? For example, I travel to another star system as a citizen of my world touring at theirs. Do they have the right to keep me from leaving their world?
Clarification: I don't mean do worlds/governments have the right to detain me in pursuit of justice or because I've broken local laws or what have you - I'm talking about a law abiding citizen who intends to just walk into a star port, get on a ship, and just plain "leave". I would say yes, some world governments would detain off-worlders just because they can, and they are xenophobic.
Such worlds would likely be red zoned by the Imperium though.
aramis
December 3rd, 2006, 02:52 AM
Sigg:
I allow Naval captains to sell berths to citizens at market value, when not on classified movement orders. Naval, Marine, Scout, and Army veterans can often take hops at Steerage rates (KCr4), space-A. Police, Science, Merchant, and Pirate personnel can often get low-berth rates. I assume the pirate career to be starmercs, and that mercs in licensed units count as imperial service while on contract to an imperial member world.
Territorial nobles can commandeer a ship; it must be the smallest ship with the needed jump rating available (unless the admiral offers bigger), and can fill the available space with retinue within reason. Once commandeered, the ship is in personal service until said noble is cashiered, or returns to his fief. The conditions of the commandeering must be explicit, must be in a missive sent to higher HQ, and the noble must be in person aboard, and the drawback is that the next layer up the Noble chain can deem it "unworthy" and order him to make reparitions and/or have the archduke remove him/her pending disenfranchisement. If the noble is willing to pay charter rates, it merely needs not be unlawful.
Honor & hereditary nobles can usually get steerage rates for self and several guests, or may commandeer at charter rates. Yes, this means Jo the Honor Duke can choose to comandeer a naval vessel... but he pays charter rates! Biggest thing a PC's ever taken this up on is a Gazelle... but once on target, the Skipper decided that intervention was in fact in line, and refunded the whole shebang, "For the good of the Imperium." (They rescued a subsector duke from a putsch.)
Any noble who abuses commandeering will be "relieved of duties" and is likely to lose title and citizenship both.
Icosahedron
December 3rd, 2006, 03:24 AM
I would define Imperials as those people whose first loyalty is to the Emperor rather than to the planetary government - If a planet attempted secession, whose side would you be on?
IMTU, which is non-canon, I have a Sheriff (Nottingham type, not Dodge City) appointed to each world as an 'advisor' to the local ruler(s). The Sheriff has a staff proportional to the world population and this will include an armed contingent and an 'intelligence' branch. My idea was based on Soviet 'advisors' in satellite states.
aramis
December 3rd, 2006, 03:32 AM
Note on CT sources: The CT adventure Exit Visa makes it clear that getting off-world is not only NOT a right, but a readily locally deniable privilege. This adventure is in the Traveller Book, and is set on an Imperial world; it appears in another publication on a different Imperial world.
Pickles
December 3rd, 2006, 04:31 AM
Originally posted by flykiller:
well, factually, a right by definition exists before any government exists.How so? Rights are artefacts of law, and as such are created by governments.
flykiller
December 3rd, 2006, 05:19 AM
Rights are artefacts of law, and as such are created by governments.no. by definition, rights exist before law. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights .... That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." etc. a "right" allowed or withheld by a government at its discretion is by definition not a right, but a priviledge.
mike wightman
December 3rd, 2006, 08:36 AM
Nature does not respect human rights ;)
Pickles
December 3rd, 2006, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Rights are artefacts of law, and as such are created by governments.no. by definition, rights exist before law. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights .... That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." etc. a "right" allowed or withheld by a government at its discretion is by definition not a right, but a priviledge. </font>[/QUOTE]My point, exactly. Rights, as defined by one particular government in one particular legal document. ;)
Black Globe Generator
December 3rd, 2006, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Aramis:
Note on CT sources: The CT adventure Exit Visa makes it clear that getting off-world is not only NOT a right, but a readily locally deniable privilege. This adventure is in the Traveller Book, and is set on an Imperial world; it appears in another publication on a different Imperial world. "Another publication" in this instance being The Traveller Adventure. (Odd that they put that same scenario into both, eh?)
To answer Hal's question above, no, a person may not necessarily just "walk onto a starship" just because s/he is an Imperial citizen - IMTU there are indeed regulations that must be followed, and sometimes negotiating them is a nightmare as shown in Exit Visa. (I have a variant of this that involves getting export permits for speculative cargo.)
However, the underlying principle is one of Imperial citizens moving freely between worlds - as Sigg Oddra noted, worlds that make this difficult or dangerous tend to end up as amber or red zones, which can kill any planetary economy dependent on trade. A planet may deny entry for a criminal record, for example, but any world that begins restricting Imperial citizens from a particular planet without due cause (like, say, a war in progress) or restricts access to Vargr who are Imperial citizens is most likely in violation of its member charter.
For me, the take-home message of Exit Visa is not that an Imperial citizen cannot be denied entry or exit without due cause - the scenario is about delays resulting from regulation, not the denial of rights of movement as a fundamental right of citizenship. Yer gonna get yer visa stamped at some point - the question is, can ya get it done in time...?
flykiller
December 3rd, 2006, 10:38 AM
Nature does not respect human rightsif you mean there are no natural consequences to ignoring rights, there most certainly are, in the sphere of human endeavor.
Rights, as defined by one particular government in one particular legal document.rights exist before any government, and thus have their own definition independent of any government. that a government document refers to them does not call them into existence, and that a government ignores or denies them does not negate them. "rights" that are granted or withheld by a government, at its discretion, are not rights at all, rather the word "rights" is being misused.
flykiller
December 3rd, 2006, 10:57 AM
However, the underlying principle is one of Imperial citizens moving freely between worlds - ....but the question isn't about simple transit, of some cargo hauler crew passing through. it's about immigration and emmigration. few worlds will have no interest in this, most will have their own history outside of the imperium and will have a major interest in controlling their borders, and it's hard to see any imperium successfully imposing a policy on 10,000 worlds that oppose it. if trade occurs and wars don't then the imperium has no particular reason to care what else goes on.
Black Globe Generator
December 3rd, 2006, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by flykiller:
but the question isn't about simple transit, of some cargo hauler crew passing through. it's about immigration and emmigration.It is? I missed the memo! :(
I didn't mean to take the thread (further) off-topic, but the discussion had moved on to what is an Imperial citizen, and I responded to that. I didn't (and don't) see anything about immigration and emigration looking back at the thread.
But if that's what we're talking about, okay, let's talk about it!
No, immigration and emigration may be controlled by the member worlds of the Imperium IMTU. Open borders for promoting interstellar trade in goods and services is not the same as an absence of immigration and emigration controls. Travelling between worlds, including a reasonable stay? Right of Imperial citizenship guaranteed by charter. Setting up permanent residence? Subject to local controls.
flykiller
December 3rd, 2006, 04:03 PM
I didn't (and don't) see anything about immigration and emigration looking back at the thread.the original question was, "does a government have the right or ability to keep sophants from leaving their world?" seems to me immigration and emigration are implied. why would a planetary government have the power to detain visitors at will but not control immigration or emigration?
No, immigration and emigration may be controlled by the member worlds of the Imperium IMTU. Open borders for promoting interstellar trade in goods and services is not the same as an absence of immigration and emigration controls. Travelling between worlds, including a reasonable stay? Right of Imperial citizenship guaranteed by charter. Setting up permanent residence? Subject to local controls.in every version of traveller I'm aware of, starports are not under local jurisdiction but imperial. people come and g according to imperial law. across the extrality line however is a whole 'nuther legal world. the original question was, "I'm talking about a law abiding citizen who intends to just walk into a star port, get on a ship, and just plain "leave"." sounds like exit controls to me.
rogermccarthy
December 3rd, 2006, 05:24 PM
Presumably Cleon's Warrant of Restitution in the Milieu 0 book continues to be the foundation of the Imperium:
Article I - 'the Imperium considers as citizens any recognised sentient creature native or naturalised by a member world of the Imperium...No immunity, protection, right, or privilege granted by the Imperium to a citizen may be abridged or denied by any member world'
Articles II-III deal with the Imperial succession, nobility and Moot.
Article IV supports free trade (but apparently only in the negative sense of forbidding piracy and smuggling - tariffs and outright bans on imports and exports don't rate a mention).
Article V standardises calendar, currency and measurements
Article VI prohibits slavery
Article VII defines the extra-territoriality of designated Imperial possessions
Article VIII reserves the power to unilaterally enact changes in any or all aspects of the relationship between itself and any member world or citizen.
So all sophonts within the Imperium are full citizens (not subjects) but are endowed with no 'inalienable rights' other than those granted by subsequent Imperial legislation.
This reflects a completely different concept of citizenship and rights than the Anglo-American liberal tradition and is far closer to the Roman/continental model where the state grants citizens rights rather than the other way around.
Exit Visa clearly establishes that there is no fundamental right to interstellar travel unless citizens have been specifically granted it by the Imperium (presumably this would cover Imperial nobles, officials and service members).
sgbrown
December 3rd, 2006, 05:29 PM
Re migration of people - remember this is an Empire not a democracy.
With that in mind here's a possible scenario:
The Empire has a vested interest in ensuring its citizens have the ability to move freely. As a result Imperial Citizens have the right of free (unrestricted ) passage. :rolleyes: But the majority of people on Imperial Worlds are not Imperial Citizens. Imperial Citizenship is a privilege much more akin to Roman Citizenship than to modern citizenship. {While most real world empires wanted their merchants and officials to be able to move about, they were often quite particular about NOT granting regular people the same opportunity.}
This is consistent with the Imperial Nobles having the right to a body guard and or to carry arms within reason even on high law level worlds. (Don't remember if this was "canon" or just a house rule I saw posted on the web - but it made sense to me.) This could also serve as a reason why so many travelers have military experience - that's how they earned citizenship and therefore the ability to travel.
Local sovereignty then becomes sovereignty over the common people - as long as you keep the taxes coming and don't mess with trade, the Nobles or Imp Citizens, how the local government works is up to the locals. In practice, the government can also mess with rank and file Imp Citizens to a certain degree without too much trouble. But if they've expressed a desire to move on, the local government would need a good reason to stop them from moving (ongoing investigation for a felony recognized as such under Imperial Law or some such thing.)
Not saying all TUs should be this way - just a possible way to address the sovereignty issues. ;)
Black Globe Generator
December 3rd, 2006, 05:42 PM
[moderator]No foul language on the public forums.
[ December 04, 2006, 02:06 AM: Message edited by: Sigg Oddra ]
Black Globe Generator
December 3rd, 2006, 05:47 PM
Part 1... Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I didn't (and don't) see anything about immigration and emigration looking back at the thread.the original question was, "does a government have the right or ability to keep sophants from leaving their world?" seems to me immigration and emigration are implied.</font>[/QUOTE]This is from Hal's reply at the top of page two, and the very next line is: Originally posted by Hal:
For example, I travel to another star system as a citizen of my world touring at theirs. Do they have the right to keep me from leaving their world?I don't get emigration from "touring," so I'd have to say that it had nothing to do with emigration and immigration - unless you have another post you want to reference?
Black Globe Generator
December 3rd, 2006, 05:55 PM
Part 2... Originally posted by flykiller:
in every version of traveller I'm aware of, starports are not under local jurisdiction but imperial.The only CT source that I'm familiar with on the subject is "Skyport Authority," JTAS 19:37-42, which implies but does not explicitly state that this is the case. In fact, at the time the article was published in 1983, there were other canon sources that depict starports run by private corporations contracted with planetary governments in the Imperium (e.g., the corporation Odin Yard and Dock in Tancred).
Is there another CT canon source you can point to that spells it out better than "Skyport Authority"?
Black Globe Generator
December 3rd, 2006, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by alte:
Presumably Cleon's Warrant of Restitution in the Milieu 0 book continues to be the foundation of the Imperium:
Article I - 'the Imperium considers as citizens any recognised sentient creature native or naturalised by a member world of the Imperium...No immunity, protection, right, or privilege granted by the Imperium to a citizen may be abridged or denied by any member world'I really need to pick up the M0 book one of these days - that's pretty interesting stuff.
From DGP for CT we have the following: "Emperor Cleon I defines Imperial citizenship as "any sentient life firm within the Imperial borders, regardless of its origins." Traveller's Digest 12:35 (quoted from Don McKinney's Traveller timeline, v. 2, p. 48). Originally posted by alte:
This reflects a completely different concept of citizenship and rights than the Anglo-American liberal tradition and is far closer to the Roman/continental model where the state grants citizens rights rather than the other way around.Agreed. Originally posted by alte:
Exit Visa clearly establishes that there is no fundamental right to interstellar travel unless citizens have been specifically granted it by the Imperium (presumably this would cover Imperial nobles, officials and service members). Whups, hang on a mo', you lost me there.
Exit Visa is about a crew that is held up because of a paperwork irregularity most likely resulting from a criminal act in the captain's past. We're into criminal law territory here, which takes a general discussion of the rights of citizenship off the table.
Also, nowhere does the adventure suggest that the Alell starport bureacrats are Imperials - only one of the thirty-three officials listed in the adventure is designated as an Imperial (the assistant consul). With all due respect, I think you're drawing inferences here that the adventure doesn't support.
atpollard
December 3rd, 2006, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by alte:
Article I - 'the Imperium considers as citizens any recognised sentient creature native or naturalised by a member world of the Imperium...No immunity, protection, right, or privilege granted by the Imperium to a citizen may be abridged or denied by any member world'And the Soviet Union and China were/are both ruled by democraticly elected officials . . . just ask anyone at the Information Ministry. Nuff said.
aramis
December 4th, 2006, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by Black Globe Generator:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aramis:
Exit Visa clearly establishes that there is no fundamental right to interstellar travel unless citizens have been specifically granted it by the Imperium (presumably this would cover Imperial nobles, officials and service members). Whups, hang on a mo', you lost me there.
Exit Visa is about a crew that is held up because of a paperwork irregularity most likely resulting from a criminal act in the captain's past. We're into criminal law territory here, which takes a general discussion of the rights of citizenship off the table.
Also, nowhere does the adventure suggest that the Alell starport bureacrats are Imperials - only one of the thirty-three officials listed in the adventure is designated as an Imperial (the assistant consul). With all due respect, I think you're drawing inferences here that the adventure doesn't support. </font>[/QUOTE]Exit Visa clearly makes out the starport as being Allel territory. Yes. They are under no obligation to let the captain go. They also essentially want the crew to prove themselves innocent.
It's probably best left to ProtoTraveller.
But remember also, my views of Exit Visa are based upon having NO later editions contributions, and no access to JTAS at the time.
Given TTB and Deluxe Traveller, with Adventure 0, Shadows, and Exit Visa, plus Supplement 4, one can very quickly come to some, shall we say, divergent, views of the Imperium.
I think the "every sophont is a citizen" is probably just about the worst thing any government can do... it means that you must treat even enemy combattants as citizens. Sure, it means you can foist them off as criminals, rather than POW's, but it's not a good thing. It precludes also "resident aliens"; the Aslan Ambassadore is, by that definition, is a Citizen.
One can not extricate, either, the link between citizenship, subjecthood, and sovereignty. If every sophont is an imperial citizen, just by being present, the implications for IMoJ interference become MUCH higher.
I've always used the "Every sophont is a protected being" but not the "Citizen" part.
rogermccarthy
December 4th, 2006, 08:56 AM
Good point on Exit Visa which I haven't read for a long time.
However IIRC the very similar scenario in the TTA is all about trying to export goods from one imperial world to another - and the fact that numberless hurdles are imposed by local bureaucrats to doing so does not mean that the Imperium does not have free trade (although it may suggest that Traveller writers have rather hazy ideas about what free trade actually is).
Aramis - it's not 'every sophont is a citizen' but 'any recognised sentient creature native or naturalised by a member world of the Imperium'
Obviously there is going to be a vast corpus of primary and secondary legislation defining those terms.
However what the evidence doesn't support is a Roman-style full citizen versus subject/provincial distinction.
The actual situation is probably closer to the honestiores/humiliores distinction that was applied after all free inhabitants of the empire were made citizens in 212 AD.
Honestiores were members of the senatorial and equestrian orders, direct state functionaries including soldiers and (eventually) Christian priests and bishops and were the only people in the later empire who had the sort of rights Roman citizens had previously enjoyed.
Everyone else - including the wealthy landowners or curiales who ran the cities but who couldn't afford to buy a seat in the senate or a post in the bureaucracy - was a humilioris who as the name suggested had very few rights indeed outside of their own city or community.
IMTU 'Imperials' is used both formally to describe inhabitants of the Imperium and informally to describe nobles, officials and servicemen with imperial commissions and warrants.
Under Article I these will have a whole range of additional rights compared to ordinary citizens including rights to unimpeded free movement in carrying out their duties, rights to bear arms, rights to have certain types of legal cases heard directly by Imperial rather than local courts etc.
How far these rights extend and their interpretation is down to you - obviously a high noble has different rights than a service noble, an active officer more than a reserve NCO etc.
There may also be a whole raft of special legislation pertaining to particular planets (Red Zones for instance) qualifying these rights.
rogermccarthy
December 4th, 2006, 09:46 AM
I do think there is a hang-up here about 'citizenship'.
For current Americans and Western Europeans 'citizenship' comes with a whole raft of associated baggage about equality, rights and freedoms.
These associations are however for the most part little more than a 200 years old and for most of the people living on planet earth now 'citizenship' means something much more limited and restrictive (if we were Chinese would we even be allowed to have this discussion?).
The Third Imperium is several orders of magnitude different to the 2006 USA or EU by pretty much every criterion you can possibly imagine.
So worrying about 'IMoJ interference' as if it is somehow analogous to current concerns about our own burgeoning security state rather misses the point .
The IMoJ is no more analagous to the FBI or Dept of Homeland Hecurity than Imperial citizens are to US or EU citizens.
The IMoJ is the agency of an interstellar empire encompassing 11,000 worlds and many different species and races separated by vast gulfs of time and distance.
Sure individual agents might well exceed their powers but a systematic imperium-wide threat to local autonomy is just something that is not going to happen (after all the 3rd Imperium has only to look at the 1st and probably 2nd Imperium to see exactly what eventually happens to an over-centralised and over-authoritarian interstellar state).
Jame
December 4th, 2006, 10:38 AM
I would expect that while all Imperial worlds that are not directly under Imperial control can generally direct their own internal affairs, they have the Sword of Damocles hanging over them in the form of Imperial Intervention. What this means is that the Imperium reserves the right to assume direct rule of any given planet given certain circumstances, i.e. the mass institution of slavery of all Vargr or of all Humans would cause the Imperium to come in, dissolve the planetary government and install an Imperial government of some sort.
kafka47
December 4th, 2006, 11:05 AM
Citizenship, within an Empire of which the Imperium is, has a very different meaning than being a citizen within a democracy or a republic. However, the Imperium is a hybrid creature, it takes from the past, as it has quite bluntly stated and built a new edifice. So, a way that I have looked at it IMTU…
There was a series of planets opt in the Imperial because a group of interests find that their interests are merged with the growing entity called the Third Imperium. The Sylan Federation was a highly centralized body which governed over a few worlds. Through war and diplomacy, they maintained their Federation. However, this confined them to a small number of worlds, especially, as they were surrounded by other powers. Defeating those powers, led them on the path to Empire and away from any notions of a republic or democracy. However, an Empire or more accurately an imperium does have distinct advantages.
The Imperium has the ability to redistribute resources of the whole in exchange for tribune and the maintenance of free trade between member-states. The tribune is used to pay for the resources of the whole. Naturally, as merchants find themselves able to get rich very quickly, with free trade. Notwithstanding, the merchants find themselves that free trade comes at the cost of conveying cargo only through Imperial agencies of the SPA and worlds protected via the Imperial Navy (often this task is subcontracted to various planetary navies who operate under the aegis of the Imperial Naval Command). The SPA does have the authority to tax but does so sparingly usually relying upon the volume of trade to pick up the slack. The Imperium also has a number of regulations that have to met, in doing so, further income is generated. All this income contributes to an ever increasing concentration of capital and also of redistribution back to improving infrastructure. Need a low interest loan, the Ministry of Finance would happily oblige, although, maybe it will offer its services through the world government…
And, lastly, the Imperium overlays a social structure for participation in Imperial Affairs, whereby all sophonts are grouped into classes which can perform different services for either their homeworld or the Imperium as a whole. These services that directly provide service for the Imperium then enrich the meaning of citizenship for those sophonts. Those that serve either those agencies within their homeworld’s domain or self-interest (i.e. Merchants) find themselves enjoying less rights.
However, once the obligations to the maintenance of the Imperium are met (support a common defence & pay tribune), individual worlds have right to determine how these citizens will behave on their homeworld, therefore, here are the real limits to Imperial citizenship. What the Imperium does do, it acts against the final court of last appeal for those who travel between the stars but it is just as willing to throw them to the wolves should it necessitate and facilitate local peace.
Hence the question of Imperial citizenship, is not a bundle of rights, Imperial citizenship is a collection of obligations in exchange for safety – therefore, feudalism.
Separation is generally not thought of, as the same ruling group of a particular world, also enjoys the privileges of enhanced Imperial citizenship. And, because, nobility can be awarded for merit, it keeps the lower order in line. Those who do not travel offworld would be inclined to think that there are no alternatives anyhow or they have a Panglossian vision. Furthermore, separation would be viewed as a threat to the safety of others, hence the Imperial Marines can be called in for regime change or diplomacy using Plasma Weapons with the troops would come Imperial Investment and hence calm any remaining passions…plus, it might be prudent to change the government code, giving in to some of the lower orders demand for change.
All other Interstellar Powers have different organizing principles which I cannot address.
rogermccarthy
December 4th, 2006, 12:47 PM
Also important to remember that for want of a better expression the Imperium is a top-down rather than bottom-up state.
Authority derives not from any federal constitution where speciofied aspects of sovereignty are delgated upwards to central institutions by the member worlds but from the person of the Emperor himself who in his Warrant of Restoration permitted local autonomy 'except where such local law or custom is in conflict with imperial law'.
What one really needs to visualise is an active but resource-limited central state represented by the high nobility, navy, IISS etc engaged in a constantly changing and dynamic interaction with an almost endless variety of local governments.
IMTU the closer to the capital the more direct power central Imperial institutions will have and the more homogenous society will appear to outsiders, but by the time you get to the frontier the Imperium becomes an increasingly nebulous concept, with the high nobles being pretty much left to their own devices and the relationship between them and individual worlds being more about influence than control.
For instance I can't imagine high population world close to Capital routinely being allowed to devastate themselves in nuclear wars between balkanised states, but out in the marches precisely this happens on Wypoc and comes close to happening on Aramanx.
Hal
December 5th, 2006, 03:01 AM
For what it is worth, when I asked the question about the rights of entry/exit from worlds - I specifically had EXIT VISA in mind. I also have a reason for asking it...
Sovereign rights is a prickly situation, and one that probably suffers a bit of a divergence in patterns of thought. What exactly IS sovereignity?
Let us take the definition of Visa from http://www.dictionary.com and see what the implications are from that word...
noun 1. an endorsement made by an authorized representative of one country upon a passport issued by another, permitting the passport holder entry into or transit through the country making the endorsement.
As can be seen by the above mentioned statement - a visa is a control that makes an effort to limit transit between one authority's control into/or out of anothers. That one could or even would inflict such a control on a citizen of an Imperial implies flat out, that there are two domains involved - that of the Imperial Domain, and that of the Planet's domain. What supports this is the fact of the Extrality line between the starport - which is by definition, an Imperial region/domain, and that of the world itself. But what I found interesting was a comment made earlier in this thread - that it is a formality designed to insure that bills are paid and that no crimes have been committed etc.
Why would any entity need to worry about those two issues if it can ask for someone to enforce the law against non-payment of bills and/or commission of crimes? That implies that you're concerned that the people escaping your jurisdiction can escape justice (so to speak) by leaving your jurisdiction. For example, if a man commits a crime on planet A, and Planet B is obligated by Imperial Treaty to remand the miscreant over to the custody of planet A - all is well and good right? But what happens if the laws of planet A conflict with Planet B, and in fact, planet B intends to circumvent the enforcement of laws they consider "unjust" by writing laws of their own that state anyone who commits an act that is legal on planet B but is considered to be illegal on planet A - has not committed a crime and is to be given sanctuary against any law enforcement of unjust laws from planet A.
Now what do you do?
From the reading I've done on the internet about current events, there is a law being enforced in the European Union that states that laws created in one nation have to be treated such that a person who breaks those laws in another nation, must be surrendered to the other member nation's court system. More specifically? A man made a statement during a taped lecture for his own students, that was placed on the internet regarding events of World War II. That lecture was then seen in a nation where his act was officially against the law. The nation sued to have that man in England, remanded to their custody for breaking a law he himself did not commit in their territory, nor did he authorize the tape to be disseminated elsewhere. I've not followed that incident as it wasn't maintained as an ongoing issue of interest for the blog in question (Note: this is an anectedote that I can't substantiate specifically, but it does point out the difficulty I am pointing to in the Traveller Imperium)
So, what precisely is that odd beast known as "sovereignity"? Some people want to define it as the rights or actions that cannot be infringed upon by another state. Certain "Rights" we used to recognize by the Treaty of Westphalia (sp?) such as a nation state's right to go to war, to enact and enforce its own laws and customs, etc - would appear to be what we think of when we think of Sovereignity no?
Question: can an Imperial State (planetary government) go to war with another Imperial State?
Question: can a single Imperial state create a law that is not enforceable in another Imeperial State?
Question: Can an Imperial State deprive a citizen of its life, liberty, and property that is in defiance of another, or contradictory to another's?
If you have to answer "yes" to any of those questions, then you have to also ask "What exactly does the word subject or citizen mean when talking about Imperial laws and/or rights?" Put another way? If the rights of an Imperial citizens supercedes the rights of a planetary entity or even national entity in the case of balkinized worlds - such rights superceded all other government forms such that a uniformity of law exists on ALL member worlds. The moment it can be proven that such a uniformity of law does not exist - and the Imperium tolerates this, it is proven that Imperial rights do not neccessarily supercede Planetary/regional rights.
And here lies the key to the entire argument about sovereign rights:
If the Imperium will not step in to violate planetary governmental rights or regional national rights (on balkinized worlds) - be it from lack of desire to intercede, or a custom not to intercede, or an outright treaty obligation and a self-imposed ban on intercession, is not the Imperium conferring soveriegn rights upon such planetary/national recognized entities?
Hal
December 5th, 2006, 03:38 AM
I'd like to respond to a point by point listing of the Warrant and see what people think on each of the issues raised...
Originally posted by alte:
Article I - 'the Imperium considers as citizens any recognised sentient creature native or naturalised by a member world of the Imperium...No immunity, protection, right, or privilege granted by the Imperium to a citizen may be abridged or denied by any member world'
There is the issue involved here in that one has to wonder what exactly was the intent to use the phrase "citizen". Also, there is no specific mention of what exactly are the rights or priveledges or protections in and of themselves. Either this is wiggle room for the GM or it is a semantical error along the lines of the difference between Imperial Citizens and World Citizens much along the lines of Roman subject and Roman Citizen. Subject and Citizens are not the same word although they have a closeness in meaning that can be confused. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth, were those born in England English Citizens, or were they English Subjects?
Originally posted by alte:
Articles II-III deal with the Imperial succession, nobility and Moot.
Articles II & III seem to be dealing with the Soveriegn rights that the Imperium takes for its own. It almost seems as though through these articles, that the Imperium is setting forth the rules by which it is run and will abide by.
Originally posted by alte:
Article IV supports free trade (but apparently only in the negative sense of forbidding piracy and smuggling - tariffs and outright bans on imports and exports don't rate a mention).
Oddly enough? One might consider that this article is intended to say "Hey, we don't care about reserving this sovereign right to ourselves, and anything we don't mention is the domain of each individual world's government (Sovereign).
Originally posted by alte:
Article V standardises calendar, currency and measurements
Just as Rome had to standardize certain things and aspects in order to make its subjects ROMAN, so too did the Imperium need to standardize certain aspects amongst its subject "nations" and/or Planets. One would have thought too, that there would have been an attempt to standardize LAWS as well - but this has not been the case. Put another way? If the laws enacted by a planet needed to be ratified by the Imperial Moot or the Emperor, then you could say that they are derived from the Emperor's authority. In practice, it is likely that some beaurocrat (sp?) between the planetary governments would rubber stamp the common every day stuff - but such an entity would be given a code of standards to apply in judgement so he knew which laws the Emperor himself would want to see personally before affixing his stamp of approval upon it. Instead however, each world is entitled to make its own laws providing they do not contravene those set forth by the Emperor.
Originally posted by alte:
Article VI prohibits slavery
This is ONE item that is uniform throughout all of the Imperium. No member world may violate this uniform law. This is what I refer to as a "romanizing" effect of the Imperium's laws being superceding against the local laws.
Originally posted by alte:
Article VII defines the extra-territoriality of designated Imperial possessions
Why is this article even neccessary? If ALL lands/locations within the Imperium are Imperial, and the Imperial government supercedes all other lesser governments within its territory, then it wouldn't even need to define any level of territoriality at all. It would be part of the Imperial Sovereign rights to just say "We define this thus, when we want to define it thus, and can change it any time we want". Clearly, the definition of such territoriality is neccessary to show where the planet/region owns sovereign rights over or against Imperial Sovereign rights. Boundaries are necessary only to delineate what belongs where.
Originally posted by alte:
Article VIII reserves the power to unilaterally enact changes in any or all aspects of the relationship between itself and any member world or citizen.
And herein lies the true statement of "Imperial Supremecy". The Imperium reserves the right to itself, to change things as it sees fit. However, as any sociologist will mention, there are written laws and then there are unwritten laws (customs) that control the actions of any given person or group of persons. What would happen if the Emperor enacted changes that were unpopular or even threatened what many worlds consider their "inalienable rights"? What if by means of this "surpremecy", lords and nobles of the Imperium begin their slide down the road of corruption to the point where member worlds no longer have the right to enact their own laws without approval from a Noble? What if the religious beliefs of one world is violated or insulted or even outlawed by the Imperial Nobles? In each instance, if it happens once or twice, that might be a case of "Hey, it happened to some other guy I don't even care about" and it gets no reaction other than a yawn. In other instances however, one could see where World Leaders discover that the yoke of Imperial might is too onerous and a rebellion is initiated.
Each GM's viewpoint on the Imperium makes it a "In My Traveller Universe" event making it diverge from OTU "reality" in some subtle manner. But only because - Marc Miller is the one who determines what is or is not Canon <g>. In addition, human's being imperfect creatures rather than GODS, can and will make mistakes where elements will contradict each other even in Canon.
Back to the issue of Sovereign rights. In Traveller Canon, worlds are permitted to go to war against each other providing that their war does not unduely hamper free trade. Wars of destruction against a broad civilian base will cause the Imperium to announce "You've violated the Imperial laws of war and are now facing Imperial Intervention" Traveller canon also states that Imperial Intervention has not be rigidly codified precisely so that they can leave it up to the judgement of the Imperial Powers that be, when they can intervene.
All things considered? I can see Traveller's Universe in the lens of two possibilities:
A rigid uniform culture and system of laws that apply to all members regardless of status on their own worlds
A loose confederate culture and system of laws that are few in number and not uniform across the board, allowing member worlds to pick their own poison (so to speak) as to what laws they will enact and enforce. Each world however, must acknowledge the Imperial overlords (a subculture to be sure!) as their masters and obey their dictates. (which I might add, includes paying a tribute or a tax).
Hal
December 5th, 2006, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by Black Globe Generator:
I don't get emigration from "touring," so I'd have to say that it had nothing to do with emigration and immigration - unless you have another post you want to reference?
As it turns out, I asked the question in that manner precisely to evoke debate on the topic. It is one thing to examine something specifically stated within a game world construct. It is another thing however, to make a statement without looking at its ramifications further down the road. For example, as was mentioned by flykiller - how can you demand control over non-citizens if you don't already have such control over your own citizens? That is an implication right there. Secondly? Suppose you commit a crime in one nation as a citizen of your own nation, and seek to exit your one nation to get to the safer haven? Case in point? The Emmigration of draft dodgers from the United States into Canada. The US initated a law stating that all eligible males of a certain age must submit to the draft (conscription). Some didn't like that law, and tried to escape it by finding refuge elsewhere. To do so, they needed to find a refuge where the laws of the United States did not apply, and where the nation in question would not hand them over to American Authorities at the request of said authorities. Control over one's own citizens is also required just for that example above. I'm sure you can think of others. ;)
sgbrown
December 5th, 2006, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Hal:
-clip- What supports this is the fact of the Extrality line between the starport - which is by definition, an Imperial region/domain, and that of the world itself. But what I found interesting was a comment made earlier in this thread - that it is a formality designed to insure that bills are paid and that no crimes have been committed etc.
Why would any entity need to worry about those two issues if it can ask for someone to enforce the law against non-payment of bills and/or commission of crimes? That implies that you're concerned that the people escaping your jurisdiction can escape justice (so to speak) by leaving your jurisdiction. For example, if a man commits a crime on planet A, and Planet B is obligated by Imperial Treaty to remand the miscreant over to the custody of planet A - all is well and good right? -clip-In general I agree with your assumption that the extrality line being there to prevent criminals and debt holders from skipping out implies a degree of soveriegnty. I also liked the complicating scenario's you listed.
For the sake of argument however let's assume the 3I is one big happy homogeneous family of worlds. Wouldn't an extrality line still be needed simply because of the implications of 10,000 plus worlds separated by weeks, months, and in some cases years of travel time? Let's say Joe Scumbag commits a crime, knows the local police are on to him so he hightails it to the starport to hop an outbound freighter. Where do the extradition papers go? Tracing this guy gets more and more difficult with each jump he makes - particularly if he can switch IDs once or twice in the process. Wouldn't catching him before he gets off world be a prudent measure?
kafka47
December 5th, 2006, 11:48 AM
Yes, every Referee will have their own Traveller Universe but when I create mine, I try to keep as close as I can to what is the OTU.
To your questions...
Question: can an Imperial State (planetary government) go to war with another Imperial State?
As these are not states in the proper sense of Westphilian entities but worlds. There could be isolated small wars between rival governments. Imperial institutions are there to see that things don't get out of hand. Hence, also the widespread use of Mercs to fight proxy wars over conflicts of interests. Wars would be fought over a single agreed upon objective and done often in secret and then a treaty hemmed out later. Naturally, on the frontiers, these are much looser conventions, as the worlds may not be claimed by the Imperium but "colonies" from a starting world.
Question: can a single Imperial state create a law that is not enforceable in another Imeperial State?Again only in the case of colony worlds. The Imperium would want to encourage settlement or discourage settlement. Ultimately, it is Imperial Institutions who decide who goes where and this is done through a process of intiating colonization or allowing a colony world to founded (usually the most inhospitable barren rocks who will call upon Imperial help).
Question: Can an Imperial State deprive a citizen of its life, liberty, and property that is in defiance of another, or contradictory to another's?Yes, because almost all laws regarding that are local. The world's government has that right. Again, using the Imperium as a Court of Final Appeal, a citizen of one durisdiction may request a hearing from Imperial authorities to way in. Here a test may be applied against Imperial Law, if it is consistant with a violation against Imperial Law ie Murder, then the local authorities can impose whatever sentence they see fit.
So worlds are not truly sovereign (which is the Westphalian understanding) in the sense that you took from the dictionary but interconnected through the rubric of Empire. Ironically, perhaps the world we beginning to live in now (post-Westphilian) is serving as model for governance that the Imperium exercises.
There is the issue involved here in that one has to wonder what exactly was the intent to use the phrase "citizen". Also, there is no specific mention of what exactly are the rights or priveledges or protections in and of themselves. Either this is wiggle room for the GM or it is a semantical error along the lines of the difference between Imperial Citizens and World Citizens much along the lines of Roman subject and Roman Citizen. Subject and Citizens are not the same word although they have a closeness in meaning that can be confused. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth, were those born in England English Citizens, or were they English Subjects?
The Imperium uses the term citizens but what they mean in substance is subjects.
Articles II & III seem to be dealing with the Soveriegn rights that the Imperium takes for its own. It almost seems as though through these articles, that the Imperium is setting forth the rules by which it is run and will abide by.That is the layering of a social structure that I eluded to in my original post. It also sets up some guidelines as a code of conduct as it sets a hierarchy of subjects and how authority is dealt with.
Why is this article even neccessary? If ALL lands/locations within the Imperium are Imperial, and the Imperial government supercedes all other lesser governments within its territory, then it wouldn't even need to define any level of territoriality at all. It would be part of the Imperial Sovereign rights to just say "We define this thus, when we want to define it thus, and can change it any time we want". Clearly, the definition of such territoriality is neccessary to show where the planet/region owns sovereign rights over or against Imperial Sovereign rights. Boundaries are necessary only to delineate what belongs where.This is basically the excuse to create fiefs, military bases and starports in whatever part of the system they see fit.
Oddly enough? One might consider that this article is intended to say "Hey, we don't care about reserving this sovereign right to ourselves, and anything we don't mention is the domain of each individual world's government (Sovereign).
You said it better and I am in complete agreement.
Just as Rome had to standardize certain things and aspects in order to make its subjects ROMAN, so too did the Imperium need to standardize certain aspects amongst its subject "nations" and/or Planets. One would have thought too, that there would have been an attempt to standardize LAWS as well - but this has not been the case. Put another way? If the laws enacted by a planet needed to be ratified by the Imperial Moot or the Emperor, then you could say that they are derived from the Emperor's authority. In practice, it is likely that some beaurocrat (sp?) between the planetary governments would rubber stamp the common every day stuff - but such an entity would be given a code of standards to apply in judgement so he knew which laws the Emperor himself would want to see personally before affixing his stamp of approval upon it. Instead however, each world is entitled to make its own laws providing they do not contravene those set forth by the Emperor.I agree with pretty well everything thing here. Just two cavets. Regulations were also set up to assure the dominance of Sylean corporation (the later Megacorps) and also to ensure standards ie a toaster build on Regina would not blow up on Terra. Useful especially when you are hunting for FGMP parts...
This is ONE item that is uniform throughout all of the Imperium. No member world may violate this uniform law. This is what I refer to as a "romanizing" effect of the Imperium's laws being superceding against the local laws.The abolishing of slavery also ensures that there can be no rivals to the Imperium by claiming ownership over its greatest assets - its people. In addition, sets out a moral & ethical stance that would draw people to the Imperium.
Hal
December 5th, 2006, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by SGB aka Newbee:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hal:
-clip- What supports this is the fact of the Extrality line between the starport - which is by definition, an Imperial region/domain, and that of the world itself. But what I found interesting was a comment made earlier in this thread - that it is a formality designed to insure that bills are paid and that no crimes have been committed etc.
Why would any entity need to worry about those two issues if it can ask for someone to enforce the law against non-payment of bills and/or commission of crimes? That implies that you're concerned that the people escaping your jurisdiction can escape justice (so to speak) by leaving your jurisdiction. For example, if a man commits a crime on planet A, and Planet B is obligated by Imperial Treaty to remand the miscreant over to the custody of planet A - all is well and good right? -clip-In general I agree with your assumption that the extrality line being there to prevent criminals and debt holders from skipping out implies a degree of soveriegnty. I also liked the complicating scenario's you listed.
For the sake of argument however let's assume the 3I is one big happy homogeneous family of worlds. Wouldn't an extrality line still be needed simply because of the implications of 10,000 plus worlds separated by weeks, months, and in some cases years of travel time? Let's say Joe Scumbag commits a crime, knows the local police are on to him so he hightails it to the starport to hop an outbound freighter. Where do the extradition papers go? Tracing this guy gets more and more difficult with each jump he makes - particularly if he can switch IDs once or twice in the process. Wouldn't catching him before he gets off world be a prudent measure? </font>[/QUOTE]So why not make it a security zone instead of an extrality zone? You can't get past the security zone until you pass security checks. These aren't VISA checks because you're a citizen of the world itself. Of course, if you end up on someone else's world - they may wonder why you don't have a valid visa no?
Remember, a Visa by definition is authorization to enter a region which the issuing authorities have control over. An exit visa would appear by definition, to be a set of papers authorizing you to leave a world for which you had a visa to enter earlier.
kafka47
December 5th, 2006, 12:27 PM
The externality line is where the Imperium has the right to dictate the law and thereby influence local law. A security zone is just to keep the two separate. The Imperium wants the situation to be like West Berlin...deep in the territory of DDR but not subject to the DDR's restrictions.
Hal
December 5th, 2006, 12:33 PM
In reading Kafka's response, I sort of got lost and am asking for clarifications:
Re: can worlds go to war.
It seems that the answer is yes - so clarification answer is yes?
Re: whether or not a world can make laws that are unenforcable on other worlds - I got lost in that one and need clarification. Clarifying question: can for example, a world make it a crime punishable by death, anyone who criticizes or mocks the religious head of faith (such as a pope?) Would another world in the Imperium be required to put to death, or offer up their own world's citizen who did in fact, mock a pope?
***EDIT***
By the by Kafta - this isn't to make you feel badly about what you wrote or how you wrote it. I know only too well that I may have one set of thoughts in mind when I type a passage or paragraph, only to see that what I wrote didn't impact on one of the readers precisely as I had intended. So, for what it is worth, I'm assuming that I'm too dense to understand precisely what you mean ;)
Hal
December 5th, 2006, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by kafka47:
The externality line is where the Imperium has the right to dictate the law and thereby influence local law. A security zone is just to keep the two separate. The Imperium wants the situation to be like West Berlin...deep in the territory of DDR but not subject to the DDR's restrictions. Um, now I'm confused. If the Starport's territory is considered to be Imperial Territory outright. Once you cross that line, you're now considered to be on the property of the world's government. Just as the Berlin wall was created to keep easy access to the other zone to a minimum, so too would a security zone. Once you cross from one zone to the other - the local laws no longer apply. An extrality line is nothing more than a boundary if you will. Just as there is some line that delineates United States soil from Canadian Soil, so too is there a line between what the Imperium says is the starport and thus Imperial territory, and the host world's territory.
kafka47
December 5th, 2006, 01:27 PM
Hal, no problem, just did not have time to do the proper edit job that I might do, say, if I were at home...
And, to answer your question...yes, two worlds can go to war against one another. But, as they do not want to really involve the Imperium to meddle in their affairs, they hire Mercs for specific jobs. ie. A mining concern has just been "nationalized" by another world. Mercs would be hired to get the nationals out, plant evidence that the claim should be returned or proper compensation be paid and provide security for the new "technical advisors".
A security zone for me, is nothing more than what is offered at airports. You have the right of transit, limited commerce (duty free) and possibly accomodation (travel hostel at Heathrow). Now, if we are dealing with something like a Starport that would be considerably larger than an airport more akin to a small city in its own right, it would take on possibly characteristics of an Export Processing Zone or West Berlin. Remember, the West did not want the wall but still had interfaces with the East that they had to abide by.
Icosahedron
December 5th, 2006, 03:47 PM
I see an entry and exit visa as being the same document. (IMTU, anyway) If a visitor is allowed to enter a world, he has an inalienable right to leave it - unless he commits a crime whilst there.
If such a crime is committed he has the right of appeal to the local Imperial representative, who will have guidelines available and will decide whether there is a case to be answered. In the case of murder, the Imp Rep will probably leave the traveller to face local justice, (provided it is seen to be 'just') but in the case of 'picking your nose in public', the Imp Rep will quietly escort the traveller off world to somewhere more sensible. As such, the Imperium has ultimate jurisdiction over travellers.
Residents of the world, however, are largely subject to local laws. They, too, will have a right of appeal to an Imp Rep, but only in serious cases. In this way, certain laws may be effectively unenforceable on a world, as they will be countermanded automatically by the Imperium (if cases come to the attention of the Imperium). In this way, the laws of the Imperial worlds gradually become homogenised and worlds lying closer to the core will have very similar frameworks, these becoming effectively the yardstick by which the laws of 'rogue states' may be measured.
The Extrality Line would define where local law and Central Law meet.
Effectively, there would be three legal frameworks: Imperial Law, which applies to all occupants of the Imperium, Central Law, which is the generally recognised yardstick of what 'should be', and local law, which is enforceable if its divergence from Central Law doesn't cause the Imperial representatives too many problems. Naturally, applying local law to visitors will stir up more trouble than applying it to residents.
Nothing to do with canon or Citizenship, but how does that sound?
flykiller
December 5th, 2006, 04:02 PM
Central Law, which is the generally recognised yardstick of what 'should be'sounds like a lot of work. this would put the imperium in the business of nation-building and squarely at odds with the majority of its member worlds, and that's a lot of hostile territory to hold. like the U.S. in Iraq times 11,000.
aramis
December 5th, 2006, 06:31 PM
The intertwining of entry and exit visas is a western idea.
Russian and later soviet internal passports required an exit visa from the region left and an entry visa from the region entered.
travlar
December 5th, 2006, 07:00 PM
I think that most places will let people (especially those making a temporary stay) come and go pretty unrestricted, even if just to keep from getting a red or amber zone classification.
Icosahedron
December 6th, 2006, 03:42 PM
sounds like a lot of work. This would put the imperium in the business of nation-building Empire-building, actually. smile.gif
Hard work maybe, but IMTU this is what the Imperium is for!
and squarely at odds with the majority of its member worlds, and that's a lot of hostile territory to hold.No, the majority of worlds already run by Central Law
like the U.S. in Iraq times 11,000.Ah, but you don't f*** with the Imperium IMTU. Any agro and the place gets levelled! They put enough resources in to get the job done right and they don't care what anyone else thinks. This ain't no namby-pamby democracy. Picture Hitler with WMDs and Ortillery.
There's no such thing as a power-vacuum; the Imperium goes in hard and stays in for enough generations for the dust to settle (radioactive dust if necessary).
You're much better off doing what the man in the black uniform tells you to do.
flykiller
December 6th, 2006, 04:03 PM
You're much better off doing what the man in the black uniform tells you to do.and where, exactly, does the man in the black uniform come from? where the wmd's and ortillery? "the imperium" is hardly an invading nation with its own base of support elsewhere, able to ignore what the locals think and believe. this version of the imperium would consist of the very worlds that it coerces. picture hitler with wmd's and ortillery, using them on germany. how long would that last? sounds about as stable as the soviet union.
atpollard
December 6th, 2006, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You're much better off doing what the man in the black uniform tells you to do.and where, exactly, does the man in the black uniform come from? where the wmd's and ortillery? "the imperium" is hardly an invading nation with its own base of support elsewhere, able to ignore what the locals think and believe. this version of the imperium would consist of the very worlds that it coerces. picture hitler with wmd's and ortillery, using them on germany. how long would that last? sounds about as stable as the soviet union. </font>[/QUOTE]Or Cuba. Oh wait, they are still in power arn't they. Oh well, on to the next analogy ...
Icosahedron
December 8th, 2006, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You're much better off doing what the man in the black uniform tells you to do.and where, exactly, does the man in the black uniform come from? where the wmd's and ortillery? "the imperium" is hardly an invading nation with its own base of support elsewhere, able to ignore what the locals think and believe. this version of the imperium would consist of the very worlds that it coerces. picture hitler with wmd's and ortillery, using them on germany. how long would that last? sounds about as stable as the soviet union. </font>[/QUOTE]Firstly, Flykiller, let me state that the example I gave was from MTU, which is non-canon and as I said, has no bearing on the OTU.
Secondly, let me state that I see little difference between the Imperium intervening to prevent wars or intervening to prevent amputations being carried out on graffiti artists. It's all 'nation-building' as you call it. If the Imperial representatives think something is wrong, they will act against it. It's just a matter of scale.
Now, my Imperium is a realm in which the core worlds view the Emperor as a Charismatic Dictator (analogy Germany or Mother Russia?) Coercion is not necessary here. (Armies of brown/blackshirts may have marched the streets stirring the public into a frenzy and weeding out opposition many centuries ago, but that - if it ever really happened - is ancient history and the core is long-since homogenised, ethnically or idealogically cleansed, call it what you will) Nearer the rim, newer conquests (satellite states?) have still to learn the 'correct' way of doing things and may require a little 'persuasion' at times. The core worlds, honoured to die in service to His Imperial Majesty, are more than capable of providing as many black uniforms and starships as prove necessary to expand the realm and bring in more taxes.
Perhaps Rome would be a better analogy. In the eternal city, the Emperor is a god. To the Armenian rebels he is a pain in the butt. However, that pain in the butt is in command of powerful legions and quite capable of mass crucifixions of local leaders.
Whether this situation is ultimately stable is of little consequence to the snapshot of time in which play takes place.
Bringer of light into the darkness, or evil regime of terror? Politics is in the eye of the beholder.
It works for me, and it keeps players in check. smile.gif
flykiller
December 8th, 2006, 04:14 PM
It works for me ....yes, there is always fiat, though I was hoping to appeal to something more if-then.
The core worlds, honoured to die in service to His Imperial Majesty, are more than capable of providing as many black uniforms and starships as prove necessary to expand the realm and bring in more taxes.yes, limitless selfless resources do eliminate any need for prioritization.
so, iytu the imperium is in fact an alien occupying power. this could work.
sgbrown
December 8th, 2006, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Icosahedron:
-clip-
Whether this situation is ultimately stable is of little consequence to the snapshot of time in which play takes place.
-clip-
smile.gif The bit about the snapshot in time is important. Even with empires or democracies - the reality of the power situation changes with time. What worked for the US in the early 1900's is probably not workable in the early 2000's (situation is different). To be successful the Imperium will have to learn from history and yet still deal with the reality of the politics at hand.
flykiller
December 8th, 2006, 09:45 PM
The bit about the snapshot in time is important.it is. if the imperium has lasted 1100 years then certain things have to be assumed about it, but if one takes only a moment in time of a non-standard approach to what the imperium is then many more game settings become possible.
Icosahedron
December 9th, 2006, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by flykiller:
so, iytu the imperium is in fact an alien occupying power. this could work. Alien in the American usage, yes, mine is a human galaxy. As the Empire expands and homogenises its conquests or annexations, they will gradually become new core worlds helping to bring other more distant worlds into the fold.
Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The bit about the snapshot in time is important.it is. if the imperium has lasted 1100 years then certain things have to be assumed about it, </font>[/QUOTE]The snapshot idea is a bit of a getout, but I think that my Imperium might be pseudo-stable if it continually expanded - like a shark continually swimming - if it survived its initial growth period so that the rim was wide enough that worlds can be continually annexed yet allow many generations of homogenisation to pass before they themselves have to support a putsch (sp?) it could last a long time. (China does all right, annexing one or two countries per century, and 'correcting' ideology for generations.)
But - if the Imperium expands too quickly, its troops may be unreliable, and if it expands too slowly its member worlds may turn on each other for lack of a common foe/purpose. A third danger is meeting up with another star empire.
My Imperium is not necessarily aggressively militaristic, however, things are seldom black-and-white. Many worlds could agree to annexation for the economic benefits then change their 'anomalous' laws gradually to fall in line with the majority, as in the EU today. Some of the population may be in favour of annexation and some may be against it. Lots of intrigue for the Imperial representatives (and players) to get mixed up in. smile.gif
It still comes back to the three tiers of Imperial Law, Central Law, and local law that we were originally discussing, and the concept of Citizenry. IMTU Citizens might be tenth generation members, perhaps? - more likely to say "I hear and obey, Majesty" than "Who does that creep think he is?"
Is that enough if - then for you? smile.gif
aramis
December 9th, 2006, 05:04 AM
The truth is that any government evolves over time... I can't see the early 3I being anywhere near the same approach to nobility nor governance as the late 3I ca.1050-1115... they are such vastly different scales and needs.
But again, sovereignty and subject/citizen/nobleman issues define particular views of the Imperium and it's role.
Most especially the role of Imperial Nobles. Are they virtual representation? Are they Governors-general, able to override local laws? Are they consuls for the imperium to the local world? How much pull does the subsector and sector moot have, and how much does the noble in said moot have?
All these decisions about nobles strongly shape the role of the 3I as a whole.
flykiller
December 9th, 2006, 05:12 AM
Is that enough if - then for you?nope. lots of if, not much then.
china, cited, seems unsupportive of such a fiat. china may be stable as a people and a culture, but as a nation it routinely cycles between centuries of grand stability and centuries of chaotic anarchy. it is filled with intrigues and esoteric power grabs, yet is only infrequent and often unsuccessful in its attempts to dominate nations at its borders. vietnam has defeated it twice, once after centuries of occupation. observe how japan, adjacent to china, has been independent of it for thousands of years. probably the real reason china is "introspective" is because there is so much more to be gained by seizing power internally than launching military actions externally - who wants to kill and educate the barbarians when there is so much more to be had at home? and who says the barbarians don't have something to offer themselves? notice how after 2000 years of confucianist culture the nation's captital was filled with protestors at tienamen square demanding to live the ideology of an upstart barbarian nation. yes, it was suppressed, but the rulers of that nation know that even after all this time they do not have their population's undivided loyalty, either as a culture or as a government.
all of this is driven by human nature and seems appropriate to any large polity. the imperium you describe has no room for human nature, but seems merely an artifice towards an end.
flykiller
December 9th, 2006, 05:20 AM
All these decisions about nobles strongly shape the role of the 3I as a whole.indeed. and the biggest decision of all is, where do these nobles come from? who are they? answer that and a whole bunch of other questions answer themselves.
alanb
December 9th, 2006, 05:33 AM
Originally posted by Aramis:
Most especially the role of Imperial Nobles. Are they virtual representation? Are they Governors-general, able to override local laws? Are they consuls for the imperium to the local world? How much pull does the subsector and sector moot have, and how much does the noble in said moot have?
All these decisions about nobles strongly shape the role of the 3I as a whole. This is correct.
Generally speaking, my answer is that the nobility are predominantly drawn from local elites. They rule the worlds, and the more powerful ones rule more than one world. And others control the megacorporations, the fleets, the armies and the bureaucray. And the major churches, and...
The idea is that you buy their loyalty by giving them fancy hats to wear, and giving them a stake in the status quo.
If they get out of line, you stomp them, of course. But that only works as long as only some of them rebel. If more than one Domain was to rebel, the Imperial government would have to strain to suppress them. Even a single sector rebellion can end up taking decades to suppress, like the Ilelish Revolt.
Incidentally, if the Imperial government wasn't nervous about other sectors and domains joining that revolt, they probably weren't paying attention. That could well have been a reason why they played their hand so carefully with Ilelish.
Back to the main point: how much clout does the individual noble have? That depends. If they are hereditary President of the Democratic Republic of Bigworld, lots. If they are Mayor of Southern Boondocks City, not lots. If, however, they are also the favourite nephew of the subsector duchess, the Mayor may well have comparable levels of unofficial clout.
I was, of course, referring to their local titles just then. The Hereditary President is probably an Imperial Marquis, or even a Count, and the Mayor may only be an Imperial Knight.
YMMV, IMTU<>YTU, etc.
Hal
December 9th, 2006, 06:10 AM
This perhaps may be a question that belongs in another thread, but since it has been raised here, let us pursue it further...
The Imperium as a charismatic Dictatorship sounds like an interesting premise. The Imperial nobility and "Where do they come from" is even more of an interesting question to pose. In light of the body of MEGATRAVELLER history, this next question should make a few people ponder <evil grin>
During the period of the Barracks Emperors, it became common for a wannabe Emperor to raise a fleet, march on Rome, er Sylea, and depose the old ruler and sit on the now vacant throne.
Supposedly, one Emperess decided that she would break the cycle and let the Moot choose the next ruler, but only after she raised a force of her own.
Using the snapshot of history, yet trying to avoid the "inevitability of history" in the form of "future knowledge" (ie, pretend you're alive in those times and the future is uncertain!)
a) how do you go about keeping more periods of "Barracks Emperors" from coming into being
b) how do you account for the fact that worlds present within the Imperium have not begun to acquire a uniform conformity across the board?
Put another way regards to b?
Would not worlds adopt a uniform code of law and uniform code of technology as they embrace the "Imperial Way"?
Just some thoughts <g>
Icosahedron
December 9th, 2006, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Hal:
Would not worlds adopt a uniform code of law and uniform code of technology as they embrace the "Imperial Way"?
This is exactly the point I was making when I mentioned 'Central Law'. Usually, conformance will be a natural process and can be allowed to happen naturally or by political expedience. Sometimes, probably quite rarely, they may need a little 'encouragement'. Actually, wasting worlds with WMDs is just a deterrent. Who says it ever happened? You can't believe everything you hear. ;)
Icosahedron
December 9th, 2006, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by flykiller:
[QUOTE]Is that enough if - then for you?nope. lots of if, not much then.
china, cited, seems unsupportive of such a fiat. china may be stable as a people and a culture, but as a nation it routinely cycles between centuries of grand stability and centuries of chaotic anarchy. it is filled with intrigues and esoteric power grabs, yet is only infrequent and often unsuccessful in its attempts to dominate nations at its borders. vietnam has defeated it twice, once after centuries of occupation. observe how japan, adjacent to china, has been independent of it for thousands of years. probably the real reason china is "introspective" is because there is so much more to be gained by seizing power internally than launching military actions externally - who wants to kill and educate the barbarians when there is so much more to be had at home? and who says the barbarians don't have something to offer themselves? notice how after 2000 years of confucianist culture the nation's captital was filled with protestors at tienamen square demanding to live the ideology of an upstart barbarian nation. yes, it was suppressed, but the rulers of that nation know that even after all this time they do not have their population's undivided loyalty, either as a culture or as a government.
Ok, so maybe China is not an ideal analogy, probably nothing is.
Japan though, is a powerful outside empire - they even invaded China. The USA is also a powerful outside 'empire'.
[QUOTE]
all of this is driven by human nature and seems appropriate to any large polity. the imperium you describe has no room for human nature, but seems merely an artifice towards an end. Apologies, but politics is not my forte and I'm neither qualified nor inclined to debate it. I'm a SF buff who likes RPGs. My empire, like that of Mr Lucas, serves to provide some structure to a series of yarns. If it succeeds in this, it is sufficient. I have neither the time nor interest to write a constitution for it. If there are internal inconsistencies, see Rule #1.
Rule #1: The GM is always right. smile.gif
FreeTrav
December 9th, 2006, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by alte:
Presumably Cleon's Warrant of Restitution in the Milieu 0 book continues to be the foundation of the Imperium:
Article IV supports free trade (but apparently only in the negative sense of forbidding piracy and smuggling - tariffs and outright bans on imports and exports don't rate a mention).I'd have to look up that text, but as I recall (I wrote it), there is (or at least was supposed to be) a prohibition on unequal treatment of trade goods based on source (provided that all sources under discussion were Imperial Member Worlds - you could discriminate against extra-Imperial worlds all you wanted) - IOW, you couldn't put a tariff on blue shalaps from the Donkeykong system if you were letting blue shalaps in with no tariff from the Poleposition system.
Article VI prohibits slaveryChattel slavery, not all slavery. Poorly-structured Indentures? That's fine. Peonage? Also fine. Bonded servitude as a penalty for a crime, or to clear a debt? Go right ahead. I seem to recall an article (JTAS?) about a world where damn near half the population voluntarily enslaved themselves collectively to the other half collectively, or something like that, and there was a debate as to whether it was a violation of VI Warrant. My take was that it wasn't.
