Against the New Worlds Order

[marycatelli]

I was on this one.

The title's odd.  What it was about was whether planets would have single governments.

I mentioned in the introduction that there are aesthetic reasons to have a single government to clear clutter out of the way, but the panel concentrated on the centripedal and centrifugal forces.

How was it settled?  One colony?  All immigrants are seeking out this colony to join it?  That helps structure things.

Technology is important.  When the American Civil War broke out, a good number of European observors thought it would break up a country that was, after all, impractically large.

Some questions about why so many worlds are depicted as medievaloid.  I should have pointed out that the popular conception of the Middle Ages is that where civilization dropped.  Indeed, from his comments, a fellow panelist believed that conception.

The ability to pack up and go elsewhere is important.  Any unified movement that becomes a country hits fragmentation, if only in the form of children; a fellow panelist suggested contraception, except that would make the country extinct because you can't contracept the wrong-thinking out of existence.

Forms of government.  I pointed to Greece and the riots as evidence that maybe democracy is not so secure in the saddle as many people would like to believe it.  That too would have its impacts.

Comments

[izuko.livejournal.com]

Any world-wide government must trend towards tyranny. The farther removed power becomes from its source (the consent of the governed), the more it will attract those who wish not to be held accountable.

Thus, if you're doing dystopian, single-world governments are fine. Otherwise, nation-states and federations are the only logical choice.

[marycatelli]

You say that as if smallness of government were any protection.

[izuko.livejournal.com]

I believe they are. Not absolute protection, but the closer a government is to you, the easier it is to... influence.

[marycatelli]

You can influence it to tyranny as easily as away.

[izuko.livejournal.com]

And other people can influence it away from tyranny. If a government is "good," then it can be kept good by being closer to its people. Corruption can be voted out and government officials remember that a few pissed-off citizens have a much greater chance of agitating a significant part of the electorate.

And if the government is not good, then it's easier to get the torches and pitchforks.

[marycatelli]

Why on earth would they not break out the torches and pitchforks when -- because -- the government is good? Take a look at the riots in Europe over the notion that you can't maintain a welfare state on thin air.

The annoyed citizens are a grave danger, because they do "have a much greater chance of agitating a significant part of the electorate." Or, as Madison put it, one faction can enflame the entire population.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

[izuko.livejournal.com]

Why on earth would they not break out the torches and pitchforks when -- because -- the government is good? Take a look at the riots in Europe over the notion that you can't maintain a welfare state on thin air.

I don't consider that to be "good" government. But to answer your question, good government can be overthrown. But history has shown these governments to be unstable and prone to revolution. As you said, you can't maintain a welfare state on thin air. If you take that far enough, you get an Atlas Shrugged situation (though, rather than an intentional strike, the "peoples' government" might just eliminate the productive types... but the result is the same). Eventually the people will rise up and hit reset. On the other hand, truly good governments will be kept free of excessive corruption (wherever there is power, there will be corruption at some level). Thus the conversion rate from good to bad should be less than the conversion rate from bad to good. It's not a sea change, but an equilibrium shift.

The annoyed citizens are a grave danger, because they do "have a much greater chance of agitating a significant part of the electorate." Or, as Madison put it, one faction can enflame the entire population.

This is true, and a danger. However, think of a truly good government - one that has not begun to engage in vote-buying with the taxpayers money. This is unlikely to be prone to violent eruptions. If the government starts to make inappropriate laws, the smack can easily be laid down. Use the US as an example. Under federalism, how slowly did the government encroach? Sure, there was some growth, on a state-by-state basis, but for massive expansions of the welfare state, you needed post-Lincoln nationalism (hey, I'm a southerner... I have misgivings about Lincoln). It's easier to stir up the flames of which Madison speaks in a smaller political division.

In a good government, though, such flames are more likely to be stirred up over overreaching government, rather than hands-off government. Of course, that doesn't mean that this will always be the case, however, the tendency will be towards keeping government reigned in in truly good governments, and towards instability in corrupt governments.

What I'm talking about, though, isn't democracy, but rather federalism. Take the Tea Party as an example. How much more effective would things be if we still had a strong federalist system? In many states, the aims of the Tea Party would already be achieved. Government is easier to hold accountable when you have to convince fewer people to be pissed off.

[marycatelli]

Why would it not be good government? One would think that facing reality was the first necessity of good government and that's exactly what the rioters are objecting it.

And your "truly good government" will be shaken by mob passions for this victim or that one. The more so the smaller the populace is.

[noahdoyle.livejournal.com]

Medievaloid - good word. :)

Possible reasons for it jump to mind:

It's 'sustainable' - both in the environmental/ecological sense (well, sort of...), and that the tools to make the tools to make that civilization are rather readily accessible. When everything is wood, basic metals and textiles, it's not hard to make that and keep it going with a simple knowledge base. If shipping things between stars is expensive, it makes even more sense. Farm machinery is also self-reproducing.

It's Not Rome, It's Not London - the only other directions to take that sort of tech level (in popular thought) are the Glory That Was Rome and Dickensian London. Those don't seem to et quite as much attention.

No Guns - gives the protagonists an edge, for a while. Or something to be wary of letting loose.

Pageantry - King, Queens and their Courts. Those hold something for a lot of people that nothing else does. See John Wright on why Space Princesses are better than Space Senator's Daughters.

Ready-made Villains - corrupt monarchs, domineering churches, all the staple tropes are there in popular imagination.

[marycatelli]

On the other hand, the courts are more ancien regime in certain respects than medievaloid -- you don't have much trouble with rival nobles, who were often as powerful as the king in feudal systems. On the third hand, the courts tend not to have the formality of an ancien regime court. . . .