'Imperial Culture' (non-canonista)

[combatmedic]

I'm not sure why Astromancer brought up the United States.

Are you going for 'Yanks in Spaaaaace!', Astromancer?

(Nothing wrong with Yanks in Spaaace, if that's what you like. I dislike it it, for my own part. YMMV)

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

Of course, an Imperial Bill of Rights would set off those same alarm bells, Hans.

Not if it enumerated the rights the Imperium was not allowed to infringe rather than the rights the Imperium intended to force the member worlds to grant their people.

Well, except IYTU, of course. ;-)


Hans

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

This is what threw me, Hans.

You said that the Imperial Bill of Rights was very similar to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I must confess that I've never spent much thought about how it is implemented in the Imperium. I just have a vague notion that there's considerable cultural baggage that can be traced back to the Terran Confederation and its antecedents. Is there anything in particular about the Declaration that you consider antithetical to the Imperium? What exactly is the problem?


Hans

[combatmedic]

Have you read H. Beam Piper's short story, 'A Slave is a Slave'?


SPOILER WARNING........................................... ...









































































The Empire doesn't interfere much with the internal affairs of member worlds.It bans atomic weapons, controls hyperspace travel, and seems to play a role in regulating commerce. It does impose a slavery ban, but such things as the rights of freedmen and the actual abolition of slavery are left up to the member worlds.


I think that Marc Miller probably used Piper's Terro-Human Future history as one of his major sources of inspiration.

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

The wording of the document is all wrong for a state like the Imperium, IMO.

I never said the wording was identical.

It doesn't make a simple, limited, negative statement like 'The United Nations will not interfere with X, Y,and Z'. Instead, it's a positive, and very broad, statement of 'UNIVERSAL' rights.

Are there any of those rights you feel the Imperium would disagree with? "No way do aliens have the right not to be discriminated against!" "Women equal with men? You got to be kiidding me!" "Educating the lower classes is a no no!"

Several of them are, in fact, mentioned either explicitly or implicitly as existing in the Imperium. Imperial nobles have no special priviledges before the law. Equal rights for aliens. No gender distinction in military careers. No chattel slavery.

An early bit shows the Imperium subsidizing elementary education, but I'm not adverse to considering that a boo-boo (It would be nice to find an explanation that worked, though).

The TC may indeed have have something like the Declaration, being as the TC was a successor to the UN. It's pretty clear that the TC, at least by the end, was as corrupt and worthless as the real world's UN is now.

That doesn't invalidate the rights it sponsored.

I suspect the military men who put an end to the TC and created the Rule of Man abrogated various clauses of any such document, though. They may have simply ditched it entirely, as it would be essentially unenforcable and ill-suited to the sort of regime they were creating.

Just tear up the whole document? You don't think there are parts those military men (and women ;-) ) would consider worth while preserving?


Hans

[combatmedic]

Are you arguing or discussing?
If you are arguing, you need to present your Imperial Bill of Rights for consideration. Anything less is grossly unfair, as you can move the goalposts again and again until you 'win.' You wrote that it was 'just like' the UDHR, in 'broad strokes' with 'some modifications.' That's too vague for anyone to have a clear idea of what you meant, but it does indicate a strong similarity in the two documents.

Now, back in discussion mode-

IYTU, the Imperium may be essentially a secular liberal state with 'Western/democratic values.'

IMTU, the Imperium is not like that. It rules the space among worlds, not the worlds themselves. It is essentially a hegemonic, monarchial, aristocratic regime with no pretensions of 'democracy.' It doesn't do much of anything for the rights or welfare of 'citizens of the Imperium', at least not in any direct manner. Slavery is officially banned, but that ban doesn't prevent things like the 'fortunate servitude' among the Irhardre race. The Imperium is concerned mainly with controlling and protecting interstellar commerce, and not so much with abstract notions of 'rights.'


That pragmatic attitude is somewhat modified, IMTU, by the Church. Even so, the member worlds would not, as you pointed out, wish to accede to a busy-body Imperium. The Church's moral influence is largely just that- moral.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

In any case I really can't believe "keeping it private". Any social group that wields a lot of potential influence by definition will inevitably use that influence for it's own purposes. In fact any social group period.

Many church groups did have and use influence. I mentioned the ministers who tried to pressure Lincoln. There seem to have been limits. Amorphus, ill-defined, but limits.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

In any case I really can't believe "keeping it private". Any social group that wields a lot of potential influence by definition will inevitably use that influence for it's own purposes. In fact any social group period.

Private as in "I'm not going to rub your nose in what I do in my off hours." FDR didn't dwell on his faith. Lincoln brought up God only in formal speeches, and then stayed nondenominational (at least in 19th century terms).

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Oh, you mean, "people at the top". I missed that. Yes I would half agree with that; they would try to separate it from their office at least officially.

That is kind of what I had in mind when I posited that an Emperor who believed in a given religion would attend services using one of his lower ranking titles in the manner in which he sometimes attends the Moot.

That would make sense as an act of humility before one's God.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

Astromancer-


I suggest that you read more about Hamilton. He attacked Jefferson for T.J.s irreligion. Hamilton wanted a more Christian, not less Christian, nation. He proposed the creation of a Christian Constitutional Society.

In tooth and nail political in-fighting Hamilton attacked Jefferson for personal irreligion. Neither Hamilton nor Washington, both Christians, ever objected to Jefferson's saying the United States wasn't a Christian Nation. And Hamilton was Washington's editor/speech writer-polisher when Washington declared that America wasn't based on religion and the Jews and Mohammedans could be just as good Americans as anyone else. Hamilton said nothing about that.

Hamilton didn't object to Jefferson's saying America wasn't a Christian nation. He objected to both Slavery and a government which he saw as too decentralised to hold the nation together. Different issues.

I could easily see a "Decentralise the Empire to protect our freedoms" faction fighting a "Centralise the Empire so it's strong enough to protect our freedoms" faction. The in-fighting would be epic and nasty.