Exotic Governmental/Legal Systems

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

Unless the PATermity of the heir didn’t matter.

If the sovereign is female, and can only be female, then the MATernity of the eldest daughter is all that matters.

To the *system* maybe, but not to the people running the departments. It's unstable in exactly the same way harems are, with the various fathers promoting the interests of their own daughters. It's also got a transition problem - a new queen and you immediately replace the department heads, which works fine as long as they are mostly ceremonial, but is a real mess if they actually do an important fraction of the work.

You'll note that the US Federal government still has problems after every presidential election, but got a lot more effective with the civil service act and knew better than to try to swap out the military officer corps with every election from the beginning.

[David Johnston2]

Nothing is illegal. However antisocial behaviour is considered be indicative of mental illness which may require institutionalization if one is deemed to be a threat to society. Thus state-appointed psychiatrists diagnose you and decide your disposition.

[tanksoldier]

a new queen and you immediately replace the department heads, which works fine as long as they are mostly ceremonial,

Not always. They marry the new queen.

However, we replace our equivalent ministers every 4-8 years in the US.

The system is sustained by the professional bureaucracy.

[Michael Cule]

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

The system is sustained by the professional bureaucracy.

All systems are sustained by the professional bureaucracy.

Sometimes the thought occurs to me: why not cut out the middle man?

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by malloyd

To the *system* maybe, but not to the people running the departments. It's unstable in exactly the same way harems are, with the various fathers promoting the interests of their own daughters. It's also got a transition problem - a new queen and you immediately replace the department heads, which works fine as long as they are mostly ceremonial, but is a real mess if they actually do an important fraction of the work.

It suffers from some of the same problems as harems, but often in a diminished form. Ibn Saud, the founder of saudi arabia, had 45 sons and more daughters. His most direct heirs have had large numbers of children, a few of them have had even more than him.

This just doesn't happen with a single mother, unless you're dealing with non-human biology. Particularly if that mother has duties other than producing heirs. So a lot of the opportunity for conniving is reduced.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by ericthered

It suffers from some of the same problems as harems, but often in a diminished form. Ibn Saud, the founder of saudi arabia, had 45 sons and more daughters. His most direct heirs have had large numbers of children, a few of them have had even more than him.

This just doesn't happen with a single mother, unless you're dealing with non-human biology. Particularly if that mother has duties other than producing heirs. So a lot of the opportunity for conniving is reduced.

In Ibn Saud's case a given wife was a kind of ambassador for the in-law tribe she came from.

[tanksoldier]

Originally Posted by Michael Cule

Sometimes the thought occurs to me: why not cut out the middle man?

...because then We the People would have no influence whatsoever on our government.

Ibn Saud's case a given wife was a kind of ambassador for the in-law tribe she came from

The husbands might perform a similar role for prominent families.

Also, with no way to tell who is the actual biological father of the heir all the husbands and all their families might treat her as their collective daughter... strengthening ties rather than weakening them.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Michael Cule

Sometimes the thought occurs to me: why not cut out the middle man?

Because there really are decisions that need to be made that are outside the domain of the profession.

Professional bureaucrats can do a fine job of making decisions about tactics or strategies, but decisions about ultimate goals more or less must be made on a non-rational (and hence non-professional) basis. And sometimes even within the scope of stuff you can apply reason to there are cases where there are multiple equally good options, or just not enough information to pick out the best one but "wait for more information" clearly isn't it. Sure you can have the same people who happen to also be the professional bureaucrats make those calls too, but in the moment they are making them, they aren't acting in that professional capacity and they *become* those middle men.

Yes in all the systems I've heard of the middle men do try to make some of them that *should* be left to the professionals, but that's a different problem.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by ericthered

It suffers from some of the same problems as harems, but often in a diminished form. Ibn Saud, the founder of saudi arabia, had 45 sons and more daughters. His most direct heirs have had large numbers of children, a few of them have had even more than him.

This just doesn't happen with a single mother, unless you're dealing with non-human biology. Particularly if that mother has duties other than producing heirs. So a lot of the opportunity for conniving is reduced.

It also raises the stakes, though, because there's no 'partial success' option. If the King fathers 50 kids, by 50 women, even if only one can inherit the crown it's at least possible that the other 49 might have high status and with that their mothers/other kin. You son might not be King but at least he might be Minister of Finance, or Count of Monte Zara. That's at least worth something.

(That assumes the family can work together, of course. It' not a guarantee but at least it's possible, and 'runner up' can mean something.)

But reverse the genders, at least with humans, and that option mostly evaporates. The Queen is unlikely to have 50 children by 50 fathers. Unless the number of consorts is limited to a handful, many if not most lose out. Game Over.

Which in turn means a huge incentive to neutralize rivals one way or another, since it's win/lose for most of the players.

In genetic terms, uncertainty over paternity can in theory produce shared interests among possible fathers, but it's not reliable, and it wouldn't have any political benefit. In fact, it's one more reason to cut the other rivals out of the picture ASAP, to monopolize the influence on the heir.

[Irish Wolf]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Because there really are decisions that need to be made that are outside the domain of the profession.

Professional bureaucrats can do a fine job of making decisions about tactics or strategies, but decisions about ultimate goals more or less must be made on a non-rational (and hence non-professional) basis. And sometimes even within the scope of stuff you can apply reason to there are cases where there are multiple equally good options, or just not enough information to pick out the best one but "wait for more information" clearly isn't it. Sure you can have the same people who happen to also be the professional bureaucrats make those calls too, but in the moment they are making them, they aren't acting in that professional capacity and they *become* those middle men.

Yes in all the systems I've heard of the middle men do try to make some of them that *should* be left to the professionals, but that's a different problem.

And the bureaucrats are necessary too, as one fictional example shows.

"How will the Empire maintain control without the bureacracy?"

"Fear will keep the local systems in line - fear of this battle station."

(And then on its second mission, said battle station was obliterated by an untrained farm kid flying a third-hand superannuated fighter craft, with the assistance of an astromech droid that was years overdue for software maintenance and a smuggler flying basically a collection of spare parts and duct tape...)