Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > Roleplaying in General

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-21-2013, 06:43 PM   #1
Agemegos
 
Agemegos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
Default Rule by judges

I'm writing up a description of a planet that is occupied by eight colonies (states). The colonies vehemently insist on their mutual independence and several sovereignties, but in practice they co-operate very closely.

There is a Heads of Government meeting every year, and councils of ministers and committees of senior bureaucrats meet from time to time to co-ordinate actions and harmonise policy, and there is constant contact between the bureaucracies at various levels. There are even a few technocratic "joint agencies" for such things as space traffic control, radio frequency allocation, standards &c. There are no restrictions or controls on movement of people, goods, or services between the colonies, and the e.g. health, welfare, and tax systems interoperate.

Legislation is negotiated between the ministers of the several colonies, established as treaties, and subject to ratification by the legislatures of the several colonies.

The sole institution that actual spans the planet is a judicial organ, which settles disputes arising under the treaties, tortious actions between colonies and persons other than their citizens, international equitable matters, etc. The international courts' writs run everywhere, but there is no international enforcement agency. If a government refuses to comply with an international writ the matter requires political solution.


So what do I put for this under "form of government"? "Balkanised"? "Confederation"? "Kritearchy"? "Dikocracy"?
__________________

Decay is inherent in all composite things.
Nod head. Get treat.
Agemegos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 07:13 PM   #2
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Rule by judges

Not sure how interoperating tax systems work absent a single government. Other than that, sounds like a balkanized world unless the court has extremely strong force of custom.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 07:34 PM   #3
Agemegos
 
Agemegos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
Default Re: Rule by judges

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Not sure how interoperating tax systems work absent a single government.
The Council of Finance Ministers harmonises tax reforms so that each colony charges the same sorts of taxes at about the same levels on its own residents and activities in its territory. In effect the colonies form a cartel to prevent one another from bidding low tax rates to attract mobile taxpayers. Each colony collects and keeps its own revenues.

Quote:
Other than that, sounds like a balkanized world unless the court has extremely strong force of custom.
The colonies share a strong dike and substantially a political consensus: more so than the states of the EU. Imagine eight copies of Canada in different climates, with multilateral relations like those between Australia and New Zealand.
__________________

Decay is inherent in all composite things.
Nod head. Get treat.
Agemegos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 07:54 PM   #4
William
 
William's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Upper Peninsula of Michigan
Default Re: Rule by judges

My classics major buddy leans toward dikocracy.

I see nothing wrong with calling the planet a de jure multipolar society, and a de facto dikocracy. Given my own nation's experience with the Articles of Confederation, I would fully expect the planet to eventually experience tension between expedience and custom to the extent that the international comity breaks down and the planet must either formally constitutionalize, or move toward a more de facto multipolar system. On the other hand, "eventually" could be a very long time. Europe might be taking baby steps toward it for centuries.
William is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 08:54 PM   #5
Agemegos
 
Agemegos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
Default Re: Rule by judges

Quote:
Originally Posted by William View Post
My classics major buddy leans toward dikocracy.

I see nothing wrong with calling the planet a de jure multipolar society, and a de facto dikocracy.

Quote:
Given my own nation's experience with the Articles of Confederation, I would fully expect the planet to eventually experience tension between expedience and custom to the extent that the international comity breaks down and the planet must either formally constitutionalize, or move toward a more de facto multipolar system. On the other hand, "eventually" could be a very long time. Europe might be taking baby steps toward it for centuries.
Quite. The larger interstellar setting gives this planet and incentive to present itself and unique privilege of presenting itself as de jure eight separate colonies. In every other case only a single state with sovereignty over an entire world gets to be a First Class Colony. This planet was in a strong enough economico-politico-military position at a crucial time a bit than a century ago that its colonies could say "that rule is fine for everyone else, but we come in as eight colonies not one, and we get first-class privileges anyway, or else you can try to build a federation and empire without us" and make it stick. But they strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel, because the problems of running the kind of world that the People want without a world government are worse than the advantages of having eight votes when the Senate votes by tale.

There is practically no external military threat; that relaxes some of the problems that the Continental Congress faced. And centuries of high-tech communications and travel have alloyed a world-wide range of views and attitudes that varies a great deal more with colonies than between colonies. Eight is a small enough group that they could iron out agreements on tariffs and visas ("let's just not have any!") and billing one another for their citizens getting treated in our hospitals ("why bother?"). So the problems aren't as severe as they might be. But no, this isn't supposed to be a good arrangement.
__________________

Decay is inherent in all composite things.
Nod head. Get treat.
Agemegos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 10:52 PM   #6
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Default Re: Rule by judges

A league of theoretically equal entities without a central authority, but with a common framework for dealing with issues, is classically an amphictyony. Though I first encountered the word in C. J. Cherryh's The Pride of Chanur, I think.

Does the judiciary, whatever you call it, have the power of compulsory process? That is, can they order you to show up and explain yourself, and punish you with outlawry or the like if you stay away? If so, then there is a single state, if an ultraminimal one, and I would also call the whole setup a federation. At the federal level you might call it an ultraminarchy (an ugly coinage, but the most natural derivative of current libertarian terms for that sort of thing), but that implies nothing about the way things work within the member states.

You could also call it a united states.

Bill Stoddard
whswhs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 11:30 PM   #7
Agemegos
 
Agemegos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
Default Re: Rule by judges

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
A league of theoretically equal entities without a central authority, but with a common framework for dealing with issues, is classically an amphictyony. Though I first encountered the word in C. J. Cherryh's The Pride of Chanur, I think.
Ah! Good suggestion! I'm familiar with the word from studying classical Greek history at high school. The Great Amphictiony maintain the shrine at Delphi, became politically important in the Fifth Century BC, and named the Amphictionic War that gave Philip of Macedon his military entré into Greece.

Quote:
Does the judiciary, whatever you call it, have the power of compulsory process? That is, can they order you to show up and explain yourself, and punish you with outlawry or the like if you stay away?
Yes, but not independently. An international court can issue you with a summons, and if you fail to appear issue a bench warrant for your arrest and refer it to the attorney-general of the state you are in (or any state, really). The A-G could — normally ought to — send state bailiffs to arrest you and deliver you to the issuing court. If the A-G in question drags his or her feet the court could send him of her a writ of mandamus, and if he or she failed to act on that there would be a political crisis.

Quote:
If so, then there is a single state, if an ultraminimal one, and I would also call the whole setup a federation. At the federal level you might call it an ultraminarchy (an ugly coinage, but the most natural derivative of current libertarian terms for that sort of thing), but that implies nothing about the way things work within the member states.
Just so. The member states are bureaucratic technocracies with parliamentary oversight. Not minarchist at all.

Quote:
You could also call it a united states.
The suggestion that the colonies involved were united or federated rather than co-operating would be politically offensive, in-universe.
__________________

Decay is inherent in all composite things.
Nod head. Get treat.
Agemegos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 12:09 AM   #8
Hans Rancke-Madsen
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Default Re: Rule by judges

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brett View Post
The suggestion that the colonies involved were united or federated rather than co-operating would be politically offensive, in-universe.
Then coin a word for that: The Cooperacy.


Hans
Hans Rancke-Madsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 06:00 AM   #9
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Default Re: Rule by judges

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brett View Post
AYes, but not independently. An international court can issue you with a summons, and if you fail to appear issue a bench warrant for your arrest and refer it to the attorney-general of the state you are in (or any state, really). The A-G could — normally ought to — send state bailiffs to arrest you and deliver you to the issuing court. If the A-G in question drags his or her feet the court could send him of her a writ of mandamus, and if he or she failed to act on that there would be a political crisis.
I learned about writs of mandamus a year ago, when Carol was doing her large honors project on Marbury v. Madison. The power to issue them seems to have been capable of engendering political crises in the early United States, and if John Marshall had not been clever the Supreme Court might have faced some explosive fallout.

Bill Stoddard
whswhs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 06:15 AM   #10
Agemegos
 
Agemegos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
Default Re: Rule by judges

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
I learned about writs of mandamus a year ago
I took a course in administrative law as part of my training as a bureaucrat, and they were mentioned there.
__________________

Decay is inherent in all composite things.
Nod head. Get treat.
Agemegos is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
flat black

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.