Re: 'Imperial Culture' (non-canonista)
 

I thought that 'argue' and 'discuss' were synonyms, Let's see what Merriam-Webster has to say. Hmm... Discuss implies a sifting of possibilities especially by presenting considerations pro and con, while argue implies the offering of reasons or evidence in support of convictions already held. So I must be arguing.

I can point out that an objection doesn't rule out my rather vague notion on the subject, yes.

I can't help that. That's how vague my own notion is. I blush to confess that I've never even read the entire Declaration through from end to end (just skimmed it)[*], much less considered each individual right's applicability in the context of the Imperium.

[*] I really ought to do that, and I will. Tomorrow or perhaps the day after...

Yes, it does. I'm quite prepared to belive that not every single one of those rights would apply to the Imperium, but I think most of them would. A lot of them. Quite a few of them.

If I did go through the list of rights in the Declaration, there would, I believe, be some that were taken seriously in the Imperium, some that weren't taken seriously, and some that had been deliberately removed (which is, of course, another way of taking them seriously). I believe the first two categories would comprise the bulk of them.

Discussing (i.e. sifting possibilities) other people's personal TUs seems like a poor use of my time, I'm afraid. That is selfish of me, I know, but that's how it is. (Not that I'm a complete dog in the manger about it; I'm always willing to help out with specific problems if I can think of anything).

Now, if you want to discuss the Imperial Bill of Rights in my TU, you're more than welcome, but I don't expect other people to be any more interested in my TU than I am in theirs. But if you want to, say, point out rights from the Declaration that you think would be missing from the IBoR, I'd certainly accept your help and be grateful for it.

I recognize the quote, of course (IIRC it's 'between' and not 'among'), but what does that actually mean? For all practical purposes there is no such thing as the space between worlds, unless you're referring to the space between world surfaces and jump limits (which is, incidentally, explicitly ruled by the member worlds). Ninetynine point I don't know how many decimals of the Imperial population live and work inside space ruled by member worlds.

You can have rights under other systems than democratic ones, as a bunch of barons taught King John at Runnymede.


Hans

Re: 'Imperial Culture' (non-canonista)
 

I don't remember the book report.

Re: 'Imperial Culture' (non-canonista)
 

The thing is the Emperor is severely limited by custom and time lag. It is hard to picture a Caligula appearing in the default present. Quite likely during the Civil Wars but not during the Strephon period. If the Emperor is to scornful of custom the bureaucracy will simply clog the system with the encouragement of the nobility. Furthermore the most important decisions are taken by the frontier Dukes.

The Emperors main power would probably be in the appointment of important civil and military officers especially the High Nobility, and in the allotment of resources. These things he cannot do without the cooperation of the Moot. After all the 3I is both a Vilani Empire and a Solomani Empire and the Vilani have known how to conduct office wars when Solomani were chasing mastodons.

Re: 'Imperial Culture' (non-canonista)
 

Post #150.


Hans

Re: 'Imperial Culture' (non-canonista)
 

This fits what I've been saying all along, Jason. He's an autocrat with very broad powers, limited mainly by custom and practical concerns. He's not what we would call a 'constitutional monarch', although the Imperium does have a constiution, only part of which is written law.

YMMV

Re: 'Imperial Culture' (non-canonista)
 

Sheesh! Mrs Roosevelt was batty! Or is that an "attack on her reputation"?

By the way if "Everyone has a right to recognition as a person" what happens to those who are not considered a "one"?

Re: 'Imperial Culture' (non-canonista)
 

...And the Imperium doesn't control the internal affairs of world governments, so ninety-nine and however many decimals of the citiens of the Imperium have only a limited, distant interaction with the Imperium government.
:)


As for what the space among worlds means, I take it to include all of Jump Space, deep space staions, Imperial bases, and- crucially so- all the Imperial starports.

The Imperium doesn't directly govern trillions of people, which would probably be an impossible task. It controls the commerce of thousands of worlds, and that commerce is what really matters. The trade must flow!

YMMV

Re: 'Imperial Culture' (non-canonista)
 

Maybe she was a little batty, but she was not a crook- which is more than can be said for most UN officials.

I should add that her 'battiness' was mostly over-enthusiasm to do good, and a certain excess of optimism that led her into quixotic ventures like the UDHR.

Re: 'Imperial Culture' (non-canonista)
 

In point of fact, unlike you, I don't consider the TC Jacobinical. I do consider it rather like the US or more likely a combo of the US and the EU. However I picture it as a Greek Tragedy. It grows more and more oligarchial as the war goes on.

Re: 'Imperial Culture' (non-canonista)
 

Oh, I don't think it was 'Jacobinical' for the whole two centuries! Jacobins never stay in power that long.

The global elite ran the TC for nearly two centuries, but of course factions came and went. The fear of the Vilani, and the ways that fear could be leveraged into political power of financial gain for people in positions of power, were recurrent factors in the history of the TC.

As for the US and the EU, keep in mind that there was no Security Council in the TC. There's really nothing to guarantee that a bunch of white liberal secularists are calling the shots. This is something I think many leftists here and in Euro-Disneyland forget when they call for greater 'global democracy.'

Fun times. :)