Good point about the South and Central Americas John. There should probably be
a regional parliament in (at a guess) Sao Paulo Brazil for South and Central
America. Any idea what the total pop of Central and South America is? Canada
Plus US today is about 300 Million. UK
is what... about 40-50 Million? Central America I'll hazard a guess
at 350 Million. So that makes UK a small voting block.
Let's project this into 2183. Low Growth rates plus wars will mean (at a
guess): Canada: 70 Million (0.4% growth per annum) USA: 425 Million Central
America: 1.3 Billion (assumes very conservative and slowing growth from an
intial estimate of 350 Billion) UK: 125 Million
Albion/Avalon (never get the name right!): 65 Million
Other off Earth holdings (at a guess): Total population 80 Million.
So an estimate of total NAC population not counting any arcologies or Terran
system occupancies would be around 2 Billion people, of
which the 'British' from the UK make up 125 Million - or about
1/16th. Clearly, in a consitutional monarchy, the Central American
component would dominate. It is more than 50% all on its own, and any time it
voted as a block, the NAC would be following IT'S lead.
/************************************************
Adrian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
errr.... I don't think so! I'll address some thoughts on the matter to your
ideas below. You Torontonians really do live in another
world... (grin).
> >> But what would we (Canada) really stand to gain by subsuming our
Probably we wanted to bail out the States because they represent 75% of our
trade and with their economy in ruins, ours would be too. But we didn't have
the HP to do it. And rather than being benevolent,
the Brits acted pragmatically - because they got a chance to re-annex
the US and its resources and personel base but similarly they asked a price of
Canada to help them out in helping out their neighbour. This
semi-cynical view seems more in line with the GZGverse. What do we
have to gain? Getting our #1 trade and defence partner back on its feet, and
in the meanwhile having a strong friend defend us from
other predators - and we have a lot in common historically with them
anyway. Maybe we're so sick of our own politicians and their feeble attempts
at dealing with Quebec that the Crown seems like strength and stability in
perilous times.
> Early next century, the Quebecois vote for seccession from Canada in a
As a corollary of that, the Mohawks and other Native People immediately vote
to secede from Quebec and rejoin either Canada or Nunavut or to form separate
enclaves (depending on the group). Canada deems their basic right to do so
inalienable, whereas Quebec views itself as indivisible and rejects the
validity of these claims. At first, protests break out, then an ongoing
geurilla war backed (it is thought) by US Native Peoples and by Canadian
sympathizers.
but retains the Canadian dollar as its currency,
> enacts a national defense agreement with Canada,
** No, due to the conflicts brewing up with the Natives. AND Canada's defence
establishment being stretched too thin and Quebec's desire to (like any
nation) have its own army.
and guarentees free
> passage to Canadians through Quebec territory, primarily so that the
** I'll buy this one. Although Quebec lets you hold only one passport, unlike
many other areas if I understand things.
The markets both
> internationally and within Canada react at first with great
That's hopeful. More likely $0.40 or lower.
causing the beginnings of a recession in both Canada and Quebec.
> Both nations move quickly to prevent economic meltdown, and issue a
I believe both would like to do this, but I suspect the Markets would be
skeptical and growing problems with Native populations would exacerbate it. I
further suspect, from US comments, they wouldn't be happy about this
fragmentation or the potential for collapse.
The
> US, Canada, Mexico and the newly independant Quebec enter into
I don't believe that. I don't think Clinton will be impeached, but I think
he'll leave under the taint of a Censure from a last minute deal, and I think
we'll have Republicans in office again. I think if you think people will vote
for Al Gore, you are smoking more cheap narcotics than Al seems to be....
> France tries to influence the EU to put pressure on Canada through
Britain's influence in EU matters is questionable given its tendencies to
remain aloof and buck EU trends. Germany tends to be occupied with the
situations of its neighbourhood, and they aren't likely to calm down. I don't
see this set of events as likely.
> The economic situation in Canada and Quebec stabilizes, particularly
This might be the end result, but I believe you'll have Civil War between
Quebec and the Indians and a few nasty incidents or attrocities could well
drag Canada into it. The odds of this whole thing ever being resolved in our
lifetimes is low, and the odds of the Natives and other folks who don't like
the agreed upon resolution (if one can be reached) getting upset and doing
something about it is moderate. I think this is unlikely and a very popular
but unlikely Canadian fantasy.
Much more likely, especially given the Quebec election results, where Jean
Charest won more votes than Mr.Turncoat Bouchard, is that Bouchard will not
hold a referendum (he won't hold one unless he can win and I think the
election showed he won't today), Quebec will continue to whinge and complain
(with some justice) about the state of things while no one in English or
French Canada will take the steps required to decisively end the situation one
wy or the other due to the risks of political suicide. Likely our
Grandchildren will be dealing with, and the drag this places on all our
economies will merely slow Canadian growth and palsy our future prospects.
Resolution of this issue is almost more science fiction-ish than any
of the PSBs I've heard this month.
> >Additionally, the breakup casts the entire Canadian union into doubt.
> >Relations between Quebec and the U.S. also quickly sour, with Quebec
Quebec has, strangely, a better relationship with the US than with the rest of
Canada much of the time. Why this is has to do with the vigourous Quebec
business community who share a lot of commonality with US counterparts. Even
if the US Gov't says it won't be happy about an independent Quebec, they've
agreed to stay out of Canadian matters and will have to come to terms with
Quebec, and Quebec will make it easy because they want to establish
independent economy to remove dependence on English Canada. It's strange, but
it seems to be the way things are heading if you take a close look.
> Relations between Quebec and the US stabilize after Quebec joins
If we can reach a peaceful solution, or a stable one at any rate, without
getting the UN involved due to seccession wars with the Indians and Innuit,
and a few die hard Ontarians who are ready to go down and lay burning tires on
the bridges at the drop of a hat (I know some...), this makes sense. Something
tells me it would take a long way to reach this state.
> >The Maritime Provinces (which have already petitioned for U.S.
Unlikely. California, New York, Texas, and a few other rich high pop states
run Congress. They would as soon dilute their power as amputate their noses.
From their perspective, what does putting pressure on Quebec do for them? They
don't care (as they aren't dependent on the St.Laurence for trade and they
don't really care for the Northern low pop states anyway) and they don't
kowtow to interests of the National Government. They represent their
constituents and maintain their own autocratic power base.
Amid the wrangling over
> >whose fault the continueing breakup is, the Plains provinces follow
Now the praries could join the US. But they'd probably just form an
independent area composed of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and maybe if
they weren't too looney, BC.
> When certain groups in the Maritime provinces suggest that they be
That's more like it.
The Canadian federal government had no interest in
> seeing more of the country lost, and in a rare moment of
Doesn't solve the shortage of resources due to poor luck and depletion and
therefore the employment shortage which is their real problem though.
The area
> was seeing an increase in its economy through an influx of high
There is something being done here, but when they compete with the likes of
Calgary, Manitoba, or Vancouver, that's a tough sell.
A consortium of major shipping companies in the
> US and Canada awarded the contract to build the new central East Coast
Hmmm. There must be somebody on the US Eastern seaboard who'd challenge this
assertion.
and the subsequent influx of
> economic development has side benefits for the entire maritime region.
> >After a few more years, Ontario, its economy battered from isolation,
Maybe at some point, maybe with UN help, the situation with the natives and
Gaspe dwellers in Quebec would have been dealt with and stability returned.
But you'd have a Canada composed of two small territories, the prairies, BC,
Ontario, and the Maritimes. You'd have Nunavut occupying areas in the old NWT
and Yukon, areas of Northern Ontario, and Northern Quebec. You'd have the
Gaspe probably joining the Maritimes. Once all this was settled, and the
Mohawks and such given self gov't, then maybe you'd have a stable situation.
> >Tensions between the newly-enlarged U.S. and Quebec continue, now
Meanwhile,
> >regional differences in the U.S. are exacerbated by the ongoing
I doubt it. We've clung to this albatross for a long time.
The Official Language Act
> >(making American-English the sole language of the land) is finally
And perhaps secessionist movement from some States.
Canada and the other North American states watch as the US devolves
> into civil war. Mediation efforts by Canadian diplomats, experienced
When? Are you living in the same debt-ridden troubled country I am?
Or does living so far from Quebec and Ottawa give you a special distance to
view this from? Or has the glow from Toronto obscured the darker truths? (I'm
only poking fun, but the questions are real).
in Canada offer to
> help, but are soundly rejected by the US Federal Government - itself
That sounds more like us. And a lot of US gov't situations too.
> >Thus, when the Second American Civil War rips the continent apart a
If the civil war affects Seattle, it'll affect Vancouver almost automatically.
The survivors were left with driving need for a
> >unifying cultural and political influence to unite the shattered
Britain has that opportunity and largely seems to fight EU policy and
initiatives. Or have things changed there recently?
> When the Second American Civil War rips the country apart along
We'd probably kick the UN into intervention or do so ourselves with British
assistance (and other nations who owe the US)
The Canadian
> government calls up the entire military reserve, begins a program of
Large.... ummm.... well, I guess to a Canadian... I think our southern
neighbours wouldn't think they were too huge.
The German
> government allows its forces to help with resettling the massive
This presumes Europe is stable enough for Germany to spare the force. or had
you only in mind the German Kampfgruppe in Manitoba?
> The Civil War destroys much of the US infrastructure, with several
I think they'd have got it beforehand, but maybe not. People are stubborn.
By this time, the British and Canadian governments have
> assembled a large military force in staging areas along the border,
Large relative to the battered survivors in the USA. not really large compared
to Pre war force formations.
What about the repatriation of US troops from foreign deployments? Almost
automatic for Milgov.
The rest of my feedback will be in another mail.
/************************************************
and
> these forces immediately begin to deploy into the US. Joint British
But a bunch of Combat Veterans. That would be nasty. And they know the
terrain. And its far warmer than Brits or Canucks prefer.
The fresh foreign
> troops, landing in large numbers with new equipment and massive air
I don't know. Maybe.
Within weeks, British and Canadian
> troops have deployed through almost all of the US, begin restoring
Neither we nor the British have enough troops even with callups to manage
this. Maybe with significant US help. or UN help.
The areas destroyed
> by nuclear weapons and suffering from fallout are given special
Makes sense.
> >Despite opposition from France and a Germany that sees opportunity
Hmmm. Yes. There would be some repayment, although some memories are short.
All the survivors may be gone by then.
This
> >sentiment doesn't last long once the true scale of the necessary
Good point, its rehabilitate or be irrelevant and kicked out eventually
> Despite initial opposition from France, Spain and Italy who see an
That'd be new.
The UK, however, with the strongest ties to the US
> and long historical positive relationship with its former colony,
That's not bad at all.:)
> >The Mainstream Culture movement in the American Remnants fastens on
If history is any guideline, many would settle in Canada.
> The conflict between the UK and the rest of Europe over the
And this would sell in Quebec? Especially an Independent Quebec? It would be
even more polarized than current day Quebec as many moderates would have moved
to Canada.
> Quebec and the largely Hispanic areas in the former US are at first
Similar assurances exist in Canada or could, but that doesn't seem to be
enough for some elements in Quebec.
- seeing the advantages of being part of a large
> protected market framework in a world dominated by large trading
They'd be able to negotiate market deals even if they didn't join the NAC.
> The New Anglian Confederation, as it quickly comes to be known, is
It's an attempt to explain the GZGverse, look how hard a sell the EU had....
and it has problems with French Pride, British Nationalism, and Norwegian and
Dutch law. I'll be convinced of your scenario when I see it.... (I don't think
it is viable).
Much of the US is organized under the direct administration
> of Canadian, UK or US military forces who organize civilian
What happened to the civil gov't of Canada? The military wouldn't have this
capability in Canada. The Military will not organize elections in Canada nor
the UK ever again I suspect.
> THE NEW ANGLIAN CONFEDERATION
I think a lot of the Irish must have buggered of to somewhere like the colony
of Tir'Na'Nog to continue their Irish independence. Someone pointed out and
justly so that they are more likely to join with the EU than the English....
> Executive Body:
Sounds British.... and possibly what would have originally been in place. Or
perhaps the Prime Minister is elected.... like in Canada?
> Legislative Body:
You seem to be avoiding the tendency towards direct-er democracy we
can see in Canada and the US today.
> Confederation Membership:
I think they'd amalgamate the Yukon and NWT.
Quebec joins on its
> own. A widespread debate begins within the UK as to how it will
And Ireland, a newly independent Scotland, and the fiercely nationalistic
Wales would as soon jump into deep space in a pair of boxers as put themselves
under English again...
> Confederation Areas of Government
That would be the Auditor General?
> The member "states" (ie Canada, New England, Scotland) have control
I don't think resources. We've already argued they are the ultimate strategic
resource in the future.
> Language, Cultural and Religious Rights in the Confederation
Expensive.
> Each of the NAC member states/regions is encouraged to follow this
Do you have NAC wide rights? Or are you subject to different laws and rights
in different areas? This would be problematic I think. Esp given the
differences between a law system based on the Napoleonic seigneurial system
and one based on an English or US system. How do you resolve these
differences?
> All founding members of the NAC remember the results of
What about letting small groups form independent enclaves? What are the
provisions for leaving the NAC if you want to?
Big Question: How does the UN figure in? How has the alterations in UN mandate
affected its role? How do new UN rules and new UN proclamations affect the way
the NAC is constituted? What might these be?
> The New Anglian Armed Forces
They should not be so. They should be a tool of government, not a part of it.
That implies they control things rather than are controlled.
> At this point I'm going to stop - though I've more ideas, I want to
I loved (whoever's) solution: retaining member character. You end up with cool
stuff like The 151st Light Infantry (The King's Own Memphis Rifles).
> The next "chapter" beyond that would be entitled "The NAC Off Earth"
Hmmm. Based on population, not as much as it should. I can see the colonies
being constantly trodden under the will of the larger south american populace
(and the on earth populace for sure) and I can see small rebellions as a
result.
> I hope those who've taken the time to actually read through all this
Nice approach. Better than the last one (which was also a novel effort). Seems
a bit utopian at parts and sells short the conflict that will occur as Canada
disintegrates and makes the reassembly a little too pat. Seems to me we'll see
civil war here if some of your scenario plays out. But your long term picture
of the NAC isn't that far from my own.
My $20.00 (since I've been working on this rant for a long time).
Tom.
/************************************************
George,Eugene spake thusly upon matters weighty:
Funny, sometimes up here you here the same sentiment minus East of the
Rockies....
(I didn't say it, I just repeated it....)
> There ain't nothing in the US East of the Rockies worth mentioning!
Each
> > area
/************************************************
Oh dear. I kind of knew I should have sent my commentary as a separate
response to Jonathan Jarred's from a couple of days ago. Thomas' responses are
half directed at things Jonathan said, and half directed at things I said. And
my comments were responses to his original post, and were supposed to be taken
in context WITH his comments. Too confusing, I guess.
Some of my commentary is potentially quite unlikely given the *present*
situation here in good ole Canada - but that wasn't really the point.
If
you read his original post - I think it was vastly more unlikely (and, I
believe, written with a certain degree of tongue-in-cheek... as was
mine, though it grew into a "real" commentary).
Remember too, that much of this "story" takes place several decades from now.
Yes there are enormous problems to deal with in the Quebec issue, particularly
in regart to the First Nations peoples. This isn't, however, a forum for a
really deep debate on Candian politics in the 21st century. What I wrote was,
as I pointed out in another posting, rather utopian and convenient. I fully
admit to taking "artistic liberty" with "reality". But to be quite honest,
much of the GZG future timeline is rather unlikely
- we're collectively writing a story, so fiction is ok.
<snip the massive text that followed>
OK - let's agree on a set of basic assumptions here. Unless we want to
rewrite the complete GZG background, we work with several limitation. The US
has a civil war. The Canadians and Brits intervene. They join together and
form the NAC.
Done deal.
Now, as to the detailed particulars...
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
OK, so we don't go there. That isn't really the point, though. The
Canadian and British forces aren't INVADING the United States - that's
patently rediculous. I figured that the Canadians and Brits end up fighting A
BIT, and those they fight are remnants of one or two of the factions that
fought the civil war and aren't ready to give up yet. Much more like what we
do in Bosnia (like when the Canadian and French forces
fought the Croatians - small battle in the grand scheme of things,
though not to the guys on the ground at the time...) than, say, the Gulf War.
> Neither we nor the British have enough troops even with callups to
Hang on a second! First, this is taking place several decades from now. The
Canadians fielded an army of over a million troops, plus the third largest
Navy, plus the fourth or fifth largest airforce in the Second World War. With
a total population of what, 9 million? Canada can do PLENTY when it has to.
What do you think would happen if the US disolved into
civil war and started tossing nukes around - that we'd sit around for
two or three years and hope nothing happens to us, with our three regular
brigades strung out with one guy every ten kilometres along the border with
his snow shoes and a slingshot? Come on?? Our military is structured to
turn into 3 or 4 divisions in four months NOW - what is going to happen
over the next three decades? Is it reasonable to think that we might get a
government sometime between now and 2020 that, unlike the present one,
actually knows one end of a rifle from the other? Second, we aren't INVADING
the US in the timeline. They were going to send a combined force of maybe one
division into central Africa a year ago to help distribute aid and restore
order. Over an area bigger than Texas with MILLIONS of
displaced refugees. It isn't always sheer numbers - but how you apply
those numbers. You can do a LOT in an area if you are the only guy on the
block that is confident, armed to the teeth and well organized. Like after
a years-long civil war. Third - IT'S A STORY...
> Uhhh. . . The Canadians can put a division on the ground if they called
Yes, we have a small military. Our regular army has three brigades, and
some of the divisional assets needed to form a division - but not all.
Our reserves are organized into (I forget exactly) about 6 or 7 brigades. With
brigade headquarters, etc etc etc. Toronto alone has an organized brigade,
with regiments of armoured, infantry, artillery, logistics troops, etc.
However, our total reserves only number around 18,000 nation-wide, I
think. The Canadian reserve structure is designed to be the cadre of a massive
callup for a general war in Europe - very Cold-War. Remember, our big
contribution to NATO was a single heavy mechanized brigade based in Germany
and a whole bunch of reinforcements. We were set up with the idea that the
brigade in Germany would fight initially (and at it's peak in the late '70's
and early '80's, the Canadian Brigade in Germany regularly won "Best
Brigade" in NATO - they were very good), and be immediately reinforced
with the other regular brigades shipped over. The reserves were designed to
form 2 or 3 more divisions quickly, with a mass recruitment and training
program.
We've never structured our military for power projection, only collective
defense. Projecting power has never been a national interest.
Incedentally, on a per-population basis, our military (total about 80 or
90,000 including reserves and regulars) equates to a 900,000 strong
military in the US - given that the US has not quite ten times our
population. It isn't that bad if you look at it this way - very
comparable
to many other countries on a per-population basis.
And then they would be straining to
> deploy it--it wouldn't have the logistical tail to sustain long-term
We couldn't do it. At all. We'd be completely reliant on US logistic support.
When the Canadian government decided to lead a deployment into central Africa
to help displaced refugees a year or so ago, they started chartering Russian
heavy lift transport aircraft. They were considering
hiring Russion RO-RO ships to transport our heavy equipment. On the
other hand, so did the US during the Gulf conflice...
The Brits...well, they
> deployed a division to Desert Storm with massive US logistical help,
We aren't going to fight them. This isn't about how Canada and Britain would
invade the US *today*, it's about how Canada and Britain intervene in the US,
after being invited in by the remaining US government (which presumably would
control much of this force). After a long civil war, I imagine the US military
wouldn't look much like this.
I'd bet there are States of the union with larger
> Air Forces than Canada--I know Texas has about as more tanks than the
The US Marine Corps Reserve has more air power than Canada. That really isn't
the point, though.
> John M. Atkinson wrote:
> Uhhh. . . The Canadians can put a division on the ground if they
A funny side note, but up until the early eighties Texas had their own
National Guard Airborne brigade, (the 30th). I often wonder what would happen
if states got into fights with eachother. A common fantasy is the
RhodeIsalnd/Conenecticut hegemnoy vs the People's Republic of
Massachusetts. They have a mech division (about two thirds complete) and a
USAR inf battalion or two, a helicopter battalion (hueys), plus the better
part of a Marine rifle regiment (reserve) and a few SF teams.
However, CT has a pair of inf battalions with two arty brigades (including
one from RI), an engineer brigade (w/ RI) and an A10 squadron and a
chinook sqaudron. RI has an SF company, a ranger company, a reserve Seal team
(Half RI, half Mass) an MP brigade, and a cavalry squadron including a company
of Cobras and a squadron of c130s to do all the specops insertions. Of course
if we call in the active duty posts, then you are talking Groton and a couple
of Trident missle subs and a slew of 688s and a Seawolf on trials, os that's
pretty mucha wrap.
In fact when I draw up training operations I usually use that scenario....
> Of course, I don't buy a serious civil war in the US to begin with.
But
> that's a different rant. Our military is not a very political one,
agreed.
Hell, Georgia has the 24th Mechanized infantry Division, The Ranger Battalion,
etc, etc..
Michael Wikan Game Design Slave Zero Accolade, Inc.
http://www.slavezero.com
mwikan@accolade.com wikan@sprintmail.com "We sleep safely in our beds because
rough men stand ready in the night to
visit violence on those who would do us harm."-George Orwell
> -----Original Message-----
But
> > that's a different rant. Our military is not a very political one,
> A funny side note, but up until the early eighties Texas had their own
hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
I've had the same kind of thoughts, though from a distance, myself. You know,
the Governor of one state doesn't like what the Governor of the state over is
doing, calls out the National Guard, etc... I've always wondered how far a
State Governor could go.
Up here in the frigid north, our meek reserves are under Federal control
the whole time - they can be called out to give aid to the civil power,
but
never at the order of our Provincial governments - though they can (and
have) asked for Federal military aid.
> On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:
> Someone's also never looked at a map of South Carolina. South
Like he said though, there would be plenty of American help. After all this
was the premise for the British and Canadian intervention in the first place.
The Americans called for them.
> Uhhh. . . The Canadians can put a division on the ground if they
Canada fielded a very large force (*much* more than a division) in WWII, with
a far smaller population, a less developed economy, and less wealth in
general.
> deploy it--it wouldn't have the logistical tail to sustain long-term
Isn't the whole point that the American military government invited
intervention? The B and C should not have to fight the entire US military.
> Of course, I don't buy a serious civil war in the US to begin with.
But
> that's a different rant. Our military is not a very political one,
That's definitely true. I have trouble seeing any western democracy suddenly
having a serious civil war or coup. Except maybe France. Of course, I also
have trouble seeing European refugees forming a fake Roman Empire in space
based on a previous fake Roman Empire. <g>
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> > and Canadian landings in Georgia and South Carolina are fiercely
Someone's also never looked at a map of South Carolina. South Carolinians
whipped Bastard Tarleton and his English friends hollow
using the swamps to hide in--this is Guerilla Country par excellance.
You're not going to overrun it easily.
> Neither we nor the British have enough troops even with callups to
Uhhh... The Canadians can put a division on the ground if they called up every
reservist they have. And then they would be straining to
deploy it--it wouldn't have the logistical tail to sustain long-term
operations removed from it's base of supply. The Brits...well, they deployed a
division to Desert Storm with massive US logistical help, but this required
every functioning tank in their inventory. Ooops. How you'll deal with 10
Regular Army Divisions, 3 USMC Divisons, 8 National Guard Divisions, 15
Enhanced Brigades, 1 USMCR Division, et al. is going to be interesting. I'd
bet there are States of the union with larger
Air Forces than Canada--I know Texas has about as more tanks than the UK
sent to Desert Storm.
Of course, I don't buy a serious civil war in the US to begin with. But that's
a different rant. Our military is not a very political one, and hasn't been
since the Society of Cincinnatus.
> Adrian Johnson wrote:
> I've had the same kind of thoughts, though from a distance, myself.
You
> know, the Governor of one state doesn't like what the Governor of the
The legal answer is "His State's Borders". Assuming the Federal Government
doesn't need us at the time (Supreme Court case in 1990
settled this--Federal orders take priority over state), then the
National Guard can be deployed on the Governor's orders anywhere in his state.
Unfortunately for him, this means he has to pay us out of State funds. Most
states can't afford to do this for an extended period of time (Drill pay,
Annual Training, and Federal mobilizations, we get paid out of the same funds
teh Real Army is), so it kind of limits what he can do other than in a real
emergency.
> Chen-Song Qin wrote:
But
> > that's a different rant. Our military is not a very political one,
This is my reply to Thomas' part 2 of his reply to my original post on this
subject...
> these forces immediately begin to deploy into the US. Joint British
Maybe they are worn out, have low morale, little ammo, little equipment left,
etc etc. It all depends on how we write the story. In the end, we should be
able to create a justification for this.
I wanted to have some conflict between the Brit/Can forces and somebody
-
purely for "dramatic" reasons. As I've said in other posts, we wouldn't be
invading the US - we were invited in. A small amount of conflict makes
it more interesting. We could always rewrite the situation so that it is
impossible for the Brit/Can forces to intervene. But that isn't what
happened. We *know* they did, 'cause the history books say so!:)
<snip>
> Within weeks, British and Canadian
What about in 30 years? After a long ugly conflict across our southern
border - would we be sitting around hoping that it doesn't spill this
way? When Canadian assets would be of strategic value for the combatants (ie
one side capturing water in Alberta and BC to destroy the agricultural
industry
in California, dependant on imported water...) - would we not have to
provide protection for ourselves. What about the millions of refugees that
would flood across the border. When enough came over, some US leader might
decide that Canadian territory is all-of-a-sudden looking good.
Manifest destiny rears up again?
Canada put 45% of our military-age male population in uniform during
WW2. Over a million people, out of a total pop of what, nine million? Twelve
million?
Who's to say we won't have a much bigger military in 30 years - or that
we wouldn't start building it up after watching what happens in the US...
Also, we wouldn't be invading the US. Helping the people there restore order,
provide humanitarian relief, etc etc. We get invited in by the US
itself - or at least some factions there.
Think about Somalia - the Airborne Battle Group we sent took over a HUGE
area and very successfully calmed it down, organized aid distribution, built
schools and medical clinics, helped organize a local police, etc etc.
With only around a thousand troops - in a VERY militarized area. The
Airborne was WAY better than their potential "enemies", and though surely
greatly outnumbered, was able to organize in a way the locals weren't. Our
troops deploying into the US would represent, in many cases, the only
heavily armed fully-equipped force in an area. And they could lead the
way with food shipments, medical care, etc. After a long civil war, the
population would really only care about peace - having the fighting stop
and having some security. The Canadian and British forces might have to
fight - but once they demonstrated that they were (a) not going to take
any abuse and are good at fighting, and (b) really only interested in helping
out by providing security and civil aid - they probably wouldn't have to
fight much. If it were done right, we wouldn't need a lot of troops in any
given area - just enough to be able to show some muscle - as long as we
had the ability to back them up with something powerful. This is how the force
in Somalia worked. Same in Bosnia. Mostly successful, with some relatively
small incidents of conflict. We forced an end to the fighting in Bosnia by
sticking troops in the middle and saying "if you mess with us and keep
fighting, we'll bomb you into the stone age". The real job of the British and
Canadian forces would be to act as an "impartial" sword over
the heads of the combatants - to provide an atmosphere of security for
the general population so that they could, with help, reorganize themselves.
<snip>
<snip a big bit about Quebec - lots of discussion about that in other
posts>
> The New Anglian Confederation, as it quickly comes to be known, is
OK. How do you suggest it happened. (I use past tense 'cause we know the
NAC starts off with that membership - unless I'm mis-remembering the
official timeline in the GZG books... I've been trying to think of the "how"
and "why" to the story, given the "reality" of the official history)
> Much of the US is organized under the direct administration
What do you mean? The civil gov't of Canada were the ones who sent our
military into the US to help out. I was suggesting that the Brit/Can
forces who go into the US take over control of the areas they are in for a
short period of time - like the UN did in Cambodia - just long enough to
organize decent elections and then let the Cambodians run themselves. Our
military forces don't do the same thing in Canada - I was just referring
to
the parts of the US that Brit/Can troops move into, the ones that are
disorganized because of the fighting. This happens for only enough time to
help the locals set up administration for themselves.
> THE NEW ANGLIAN CONFEDERATION
I included the Irish 'cause I was sure I just read somewhere about the Irish
and the Commonwealth starting tentative discussions about Ireland rejoining.
> Executive Body:
The Prime Minister in Canada isn't elected as such. We vote for our local MPs
by political party. The party leader of the party with the most seats in the
House of Commons is by tradition asked to become the Prime Minister and form
the government. Party leadership is determined solely by the members of the
political party itself. I believe that if the PM were to
die in mid-term, the deputy-PM would temporarily take over until the
party could organize a leadership convention, and the new leader would not
need to call an election until the end of the term of government. Whoever was
elected leader of the party at that convention would by default become the PM
(unless they weren't a member of parliament, in which case a backbencher in a
solidly held riding would be asked to resign, and the party leader would run
for a Commons seat there). This happened when Jean Cretian
became leader of the Liberals - he didn't have a seat in the Commons for
some weeks. And Kim Campbell, the PM before Cretien, became PM by virtue of a
leadership convention, not a general election.
Someone else has suggested that the NAC Council (or whatever we decide to
call it) be more akin to the House of Lords in the UK - which from a
story point of view is interesting.
> Legislative Body:
Yes - quite on purpose. While I personally like the idea of more direct
democracy in the world I live in - I think it is more interesting if we
give the NAC a slightly more authoritarian perspecive. I don't like the idea
of the NAC becoming some kind of "perfect" capitalist liberal
democracy - but again, this is solely from a story point of view. The
"direct" democracy happens at the local level, but it would be really
difficult to run a light-years' spanning society as a direct democracy.
I
hypothesized some democracy - we get to elect our reps for the NAC
council
- but other than that, the NAC council is seen as this kind of distant
high place, maybe full of Lords and other Important People... I wanted there
to
be some feeling of distance from the general populace - particularly if
we
bring back the nobility in areas other than the UK - "Duke of Memphis'
Own..."
I think a situation like this would become even more likely when the
capital of the NAC moves off-Earth.
<snip>
> And Ireland, a newly independent Scotland, and the fiercely
They wouldn't be under English anything - the idea goes that they'd be
partners with equal status, like the Canadians and Americans, etc (equal in
the sense that they are all independent founding members of the NAC).
They'd run their own local issues - especially things like cultural
stuff -
and the bigger foreign trade and political affairs type issues would be run by
the joint NAC government. As I pointed out, kind of like a combination
of the EU and NATO - of which they are already part...
Besides, everybody knows that the Scots really run the UK anyway...:)
<snip>
> The member "states" (ie Canada, New England, Scotland) have control
That makes sense - but remember what happened when Trudeau created the
National Energy Policy - we practically had a revolution in Alberta.
People have a tendancy to want to have some control over what gets dug up out
of their backyards. Can you imagine the tensions that would occur if the NAC
government on Albion (which planet is the Capital???? I forget the name) tried
to tell Albertan oil producers what to do with their oil. We have a hard
enough time doing it now in Canada, let alone when you're talking an
interplanetary administrative area. I figure the NAC Council would generate
resource policy and guidelines, but a lot of the specifics would be determined
locally. The NAC government would need some control,
perhaps even a lot - but there would need to be some balance between
central control for strategic reasons and "local" concerns.
> Language, Cultural and Religious Rights in the Confederation
Absolutely. Cost of providing services in more than one language vs. possible
costs of social conflict and disintegration over
language/cultural
issues. I'm suggesting that if they agree from the very beginning that those
costs are a necessary part of doing business and aren't open to negotiation,
people will get used to the idea and get on with things. It would be
convenient to think that the entire population of South America will learn
English when the NAC takes over, and same for the Hispanic pop'n
in the US (many of whom do speak English already) - but I like the idea
of
a somewhat multi-lingual-tolerant society in which these various groups
are at least partially accounted for. We know that the main language of
business, government, the military, etc will be English - but still...
Just imagine the Queen's Own Royal Buenos Aires Dragoons charging into battle
in their Challenger MK XII Grav Tanks, singing God Save the Queen in
Spanish... :)
> Do you have NAC wide rights? Or are you subject to different laws and
Same way there are presently different "rights" in different states in the US
or in different countries in the EU. There would be an overall system of law
governing the whole NAC (which might be rather broadly defined), but may have
various local interpretations. You'd think that Criminal Law in the US would
be consistent from state to state, but it isn't. There are
Federal statues and local ones - but with the US Constitution and the US
Supreme Court as the final arbiter of your rights, or lack thereof.
> All founding members of the NAC remember the results of
Independent enclaves? Sure, why not. As long as they followed the basic
tenets of the NAC-wide laws/rights. This might work similarly to how
the system of Native Law is developing on Canadian First Nations lands.
Assault is still assault on a reservation, but they may provide a very
different form of "punishment" for the crime - we've seen this sort of
resolution a few times recently, with a judge providing a "sentence" based on
local elders' recommendations.
Leaving the NAC? Well...Harrumph! Why would anyone want to? :-)
> Big Question:
Too big to tackle here (I don't have time tonight) - I'll try later
'cause these are important, good questions.
> The New Anglian Armed Forces
I agree - didn't mean to imply that. The NAC armed forces would very
much be subordinate to the civilian leadership. What I meant was that they
were part of the government in the same way that the Canadian Armed Forces are
part of "the government" - the Department of National Defense is the
largest government department (I believe); certainly it has one of the largest
budgets of any government department, and the 'Forces are all Federal
employees.
> At this point I'm going to stop - though I've more ideas, I want to
I really liked this alot, also. I figure there would be some basic
standards for the various parts of the Armed Forces to attain - but that
character from unit to unit may be quite different. Over time, things like
tactical doctrine would homogenize - it would have to or units from
different areas would have a difficult time operating together - but
things like the national character represented in regimental traditions, etc
would stay.
<snip>
Thanks for taking the time to read it through and give me some thoughtful
responses!
> Adrian Johnson wrote:
If
> you read his original post - I think it was vastly more unlikely (and,
Not particularly. I was trying to come up with some plausible explanation for
the NAC (which I don't find very plausible in the first place). Besides, I
left out the fact that I believe the an independent Quebec would result in a
war between the US and Quebec within 30 years (again relating to issues along
the St.Lawrence Seaway and the generally insane character of Quebecois(sp?)
politics.
> John M. Atkinson wrote:
Actually, I expect the French to fight like lions the next time they go
up against the Germans (in keeping with their on-again-off-again record
-- Napolean whups the Germanies, Prussia whups France, France fights
gallantly but stupidly in WWI, France rolls over in WWII...) They're due for
another 'up' cycle.
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> > > Uhhh. . . The Canadians can put a division on the ground if they
... and it was a lot less costly per man. Unless you plan to put out poorly
supplied (relative to today), poorly equipped (bolt action rifle, no GPS, 1
radio per section, foot transport) troops with no training (no time to train
them in the scenarios I've seen discussed). And our people aren't (as of
today) too happy about taxes, privation, and sacrifices.... so I'm not sure
this would be as easy of undertaking. The days of mobilizing a nation for
anything short of a war of survival seem to be pretty much over.
> > > deploy it--it wouldn't have the logistical tail to sustain
How
> > > you'll deal with 10 Regular Army Divisions, 3 USMC Divisons, 8
New York Air National Gaurd.
/************************************************
Adrian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> > Within weeks, British and Canadian
Manifest
> destiny rears up again?
Sure, we'd build up. A defensive force. That's not an intervention force. We'd
be stretched thin to secure our southern border, its so big. And add to which,
if we wanted to intervene, we'd STILL need to defend that border, so in effect
we'd be stretched even tighter than we are now. My argument, if anything,
applies moreso.
> Canada put 45% of our military-age male population in uniform during
Twelve
> million?
We probably would. But we CANNOT (without hooching our standard of living) put
45% or even 15% of our population under arms today. These people tend to be
drawn from your productive classes, and we
already have a burden in this country from non-producers and debts
that mean we'd have difficulty supporting a general callup from the ranks of
the working. OTOH, It is FAR more expensive to field an individual soldier
these days, and will only get moreso in the future... if you don't want to
field guys who've had three weeks of training and have bolt action rifles...
and I think the economics of the rest of the GZGverse bring this out. I think
that our military won't be big enough to accomplish much without the
significant aide of remaining US military forces.
> Also, we wouldn't be invading the US. Helping the people there
I guess my point is we may provide them the force to tip the scales, and some
know how in some areas, but we aren't going to be doing this without them or
against them.
> Think about Somalia - the Airborne Battle Group we sent took over a
An area with a far different geography, culture, and really not that much
population. AND they had logistics assistance from US military airlift
command.
The
> Airborne was WAY better than their potential "enemies", and though
Our
> troops deploying into the US would represent, in many cases, the only
Hmm. Unless you count every crackpot and gun nut. (Who don't have that much in
the way of armour, but small arms there is no shortage). And I don't think we
could enforce law in even one city like Chicago or LA. Look at the size of
their PEACETIME police forces. Look at what happened in LA during the riots.
No way even 5,000 will control this easily. And to field 5,000 foot sloggers,
the army would need at least 25,000 to 40,000 people commited.
And what about all the National Gaurd armouries that would have been looted?
There'd be armour near as good as ours present. Plus we don't have the airlift
capability to move our heavy armour easily, to the interior US, anymore than
the Brits do.
And they could lead the way
> with food shipments, medical care, etc. After a long civil war, the
Hmmm. I think history shows that is region dependent. I think you might be
right in some places in the US. In others, I have my doubts.
The Canadian and British forces might have to
> fight - but once they demonstrated that they were (a) not going to
This might be true.
If it were done right, we wouldn't need a lot of troops in any
> given area - just enough to be able to show some muscle - as long as
And HOPE we never run up against a renegade state governor with his national
gaurd. For example, I know the NY NG has more helicopters, I believe also
fighters, and a larger potential pool of recruits than all of Canada. And an
economy that is better in shape, and a less distributed area to control.
This is how the force
> in Somalia worked. Same in Bosnia.
Perhaps it would be the same. But neither of those was originally a 300
million person state with the worlds most advanced and probably numerous stock
of weapons up to and including nuclear
inter-continental devices and the culture that the US has. I'm not
sure the comparison isn't grapefruits and grapes.... but no one has tried it
so its hard to know. IMHO, I think your suggestion, although interesting,
won't be viable. Of course, as you pointed out, you are only trying to justify
the history we know about.... (grin).
Mostly successful, with some
> relatively small incidents of conflict. We forced an end to the
At which point the renegade US commander of strategic missile assets (if he
doesn't like the look of us) says "Who'll be in the stone age buddy?"
A lot in our scenario depends on 0) If we're asked in or not, and by who 1)
The level of cohesion in the US military that remains
2) No one seeing the Canadian/British intervention as a takeover
3) No one really standing up to the Brits or Canucks with a force that can
stop them dead
I think, in order to avoid 2 and 3, we'd need to ALWAYS be preceded or
escorted by members of the US Federal Gov't, whatever is left of it. We'd have
to assume for 0 that we were asked in by the remains of the legitimate
government, and that the strategic nuclear assets had either been disabled or
that the first step was assaults with US Gov't sanction to capture these
sites. And we'd have to ensure the loyalty of the subsurface nuclear fleet. We
can't have a Georgian
U-boat commander sailing up the St. Lawrence with a Boomer and
slagging Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto... (although the last might be an
improvement).
> >It's an attempt to explain the GZGverse, look how hard a sell the EU
I'll post an alternative view shortly, which will in some particulars coincide
with what you have posted, but I hope address some of what I see as the
defficiencies. Do you mind if I integrate the ideas out of your stuff that I
like?
> >What happened to the civil gov't of Canada? The military wouldn't
That's what I had thought, but I got a different impression from what you had
written.
I was suggesting that the Brit/Can
> forces who go into the US take over control of the areas they are in
Our
> military forces don't do the same thing in Canada - I was just
I see. I understand too, which is a better trick.:)
> >I think a lot of the Irish must have buggered of to somewhere like
Interesting. But I can't see the Irish putting themselves under Crown control
again. Maybe trade with them, yes.
> >Sounds British .... and possibly what would have originally been in
Has it EVER happened any other way? Or if so, in the last 50 years? When most
Canadians vote, they vote for their prime minister in their heads, if not in
actuality. The hue and cry for the Crown selecting someone else would be vast.
Party leadership is determined solely by the
> members of the political party itself.
Before the elections though.
I believe that if the PM were to
> die in mid-term, the deputy-PM would temporarily take over until the
Except if he wanted the vote of confidence. That is correct.
Whoever was
> elected leader of the party at that convention would by default become
Who is he? Jean Chretien (I believe)....
> Someone else has suggested that the NAC Council (or whatever we decide
Hmmm. How so?
> >You seem to be avoiding the tendency towards direct-er democracy we
Or at all for that matter....:)
> hypothesized some democracy - we get to elect our reps for the NAC
Own..."
Sure, but I think they have to be strongly limited by a Constitution (like the
House of WInton in Weber's books). Otherwise the US would never sign on and
many Canadians would have reservations. Does the UK of today even have a
Constitution?
> I think a situation like this would become even more likely when the
Yes, well. That's the least likely thing I've seen Jon do.
> >And Ireland, a newly independent Scotland, and the fiercely
That doesn't really matter. If they had to take their lead in foreign policy
and military matters (which drags in trade and other things) from the Crown,
they'd resent it. Or many of them would anyway. You
probably can't appreciate the level of anti-monarchist or
anti-english sentiment in these societies. It's not everyone, and no
one (well a few nutbars) would go to war over it, but it exists.
> They'd run their own local issues - especially things like cultural
And the Crown is (yes or no?) supreme authority? Or is the King just a
figurehead? The latter would be more palitable to the mass of those who don't
like monarchs. OTOH, that might lead to the King being turfed period.
> Besides, everybody knows that the Scots really run the UK anyway... :)
Heh. Only the banks.... and the places that make Scotch.....
> >> The member "states" (ie Canada, New England, Scotland) have control
Yep. Provincialism rears its ugly head. I lived there for a while and boy did
the NEP screw the Albertan coffers. And make them resent
Ottawa. But for any star nation, this would be a must - a national
level input into the control of resources. To avoid tension, you'd have to let
the entrepeneurs have a free hand (that generates revenue) but you'd have to
follow strategic reserve policies like the US does fairly aggressively.
> People have a tendancy to want to have some control over what gets dug
That's because that is the wrong approach. What they do is sponsor a lot of
government exploitation of resources and control any newly discovered ones.
They make a point to offer the Albertans some bones any time they need to
affect oil distribution. If you give them a bone, they'll go along with a lot.
We
> have a hard enough time doing it now in Canada, let alone when you're
Sure. But not strategic decisions like "We're embargo'ing the ESU". Or "No
Japanese Corporation shall own more than a 25% share of a Canadian Resource
Extraction cartel".
The NAC government would need some control,
> perhaps even a lot - but there would need to be some balance between
Yep.
> Absolutely. Cost of providing services in more than one language vs.
This too may be utopian. I think it'll be very hard to convince most folk of
this. Some for fiscal reasons, others because they can't
stand the other folks - bigots and provincial rednecks. Look at the
great flightless bird that national bilingualism is in Canada. The UK and the
US don't officially have this. You're suggesting
Tri-lingualism for all. Wow.
It
> would be convenient to think that the entire population of South
How about: All gov't stuff is English. But in local areas, it is translated
into ANY language where more than 20% of a consituency speaks that language as
a first language. That way you've got one common language for the country, but
each area can support its own linguistic minorities to give them a sense of
inclusion.
> Just imagine the Queen's Own Royal Buenos Aires Dragoons charging into
That is an image and a half.
> >Do you have NAC wide rights? Or are you subject to different laws and
> >rights in different areas? This would be problematic I think. Esp
And Federal Law takes precedence in some areas. And in others, bitter fights
break out. Sounds like the GZGverse all right.
The NAC Constitution.... what does it say? Do you have the right to bear arms?
The right to freedom of expression? Is there such a document?
> >What about letting small groups form independent enclaves?
based
> on local elders' recommendations.
Duck the question! (chicken).
> >> The New Anglian Armed Forces
To be correct, they are part of the Civil Service, that works for the
governement. They are not, in fact, part of the government. The gov't is
entirely composed of elected officials. (And maybe a few appointed types). The
Civil Service works for them. Although oft times it forgets this...
> Thanks for taking the time to read it through and give me some
Just trying to arrive at the most *potentially* possible scenario where we
don't have too many 'leaps of faith' or steps outside the character of the
participants (while still fitting Jon's view of the world).
Tom.
/************************************************
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> I take it this is in response to the Free Republic of Deseret remark?
I
> look at it this way. Mormons have tended (in the past) to be highly
I think, in terms of how they would react, you are right. I also think they
might end up being forced (by embargo, etc) to join the
NAC but I've already suggested the idea of semi-autonomous enclaves.
This might well be one of those. They'd have to obey the broad sweep of NAC
policy about things like Human Rights, Legal Rights in Criminal Prosecutions,
and pay some taxes to the NAC, but they'd be otherwise locally autonimous.
Tom.
/************************************************
Adrian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> OK - let's agree on a set of basic assumptions here. Unless we want
The
> US has a civil war. The Canadians and Brits intervene. They join
Agreed in entirety. If I'm objecting to things, it is in the hope of coming up
with plausible explanations, not of changing what we have to work with.
> OK, so we don't go there. That isn't really the point, though. The
Much
> more like what we do in Bosnia (like when the Canadian and French
Except I think it would be "US forces, with Canadian and British
reinforcements, engage seperatist elements in Georgia... or wherever". That
would point to us supporting the US in operations to secure their country.
> >> Neither we nor the British have enough troops even with callups to
I hate to say it, but NOT RELEVANT. Or not very anyway. The character of
Canada in the 1930's and 1940's is not the character of Canada today. Nor is
fielding a force at all the same. And we keep shrinking our force despite
committing it globally quite often. This is unlikely to change as much as your
scenario suggests. But I don't
think that renders history un-explicable, it just requires a more
moderate eye.
What do you think would happen if the US disolved into
> civil war and started tossing nukes around - that we'd sit around for
Not that you'd hold a border that way in the modern age anyway since we'd be
vulnerable to seacost attacks, envelopments on land and in
the air....
Come on?? Our military is structured to
> turn into 3 or 4 divisions in four months NOW - what is going to
It is, and it is not. On paper, some of that theory exists. In practice, that
is not expected to work I believe. We don't have the
materials chain to make this work - we don't have the stockpiles of
IFVs, arms, electronics, commo, etc. nor the tranport capabilities to make
this a reality in that time frame. And our huge surplus of officers which is
supposed to make this happen are inexperienced (for the most part) in large
scale operations and we just don't have the capabilities of the US Army. In
WWII, we bled for two to three years including at least one HUGE disaster so
we could reach a decent level of operational capability. And that was in a
shooting war. And the level you needed to reach was not as high as the bar
today.
Is it reasonable to think that we might get a
> government sometime between now and 2020 that, unlike the present one,
Umm. Possible? Yes. Likely.... I dunno. We aren't much like that here. And
even when a Defence Minister writes a good white paper, he gets reined in by
the all powerful Finance Minister.
Second, we aren't
> INVADING the US in the timeline.
Not entirely, although some of what you've wrote intentionally or otherwise
reads that way (at least to me). Or at least it suggests a greater level of
capability than I think we can muster.
They were going to send a combined force
> of maybe one division into central Africa a year ago to help
And you'll note this did not tranpire. They have contingency plans to invade
the US I think.... but it won't happen either. And for a thousand reasons, not
just one. The point is, the military is asked many times to plan for a thing
and they always do it to the max. Even if they never get what they plan for.
Plan for a division, and you might get two battalions.
It isn't always sheer numbers - but how you apply
> those numbers. You can do a LOT in an area if you are the only guy on
This is a point that needs brought out more then.
Third - IT'S A STORY...
It is. But it's also a colaborative effort to put together a
semi-plausible NAC.
> However, our total reserves only number around 18,000 nation-wide, I
Maybe less so today than a couple of years back.
. We were set up with the idea that the
> brigade in Germany would fight initially (and at it's peak in the late
Immediately has an interesting context when viewed in light of *shipping*
stuff across the Atlantic.
> We've never structured our military for power projection, only
Which is perhaps some of the point I was getting at.
> Incedentally, on a per-population basis, our military (total about 80
We have 1 Flag rank officer for every 1,000 men. The nearest NATO competitor
is somewhere like Belgium with 1 Flag rank for every 27,000 men. I think our
land forces may be in correct proportion to our size (not our spending
though...), but the real issue in control of Canada and the US is geography.
We have too darn much to cover.
> We couldn't do it. At all. We'd be completely reliant on US logistic
... to assist the US..... do we see the problem here? (I think so)
When the Canadian government decided to lead a deployment into
> central Africa to help displaced refugees a year or so ago, they
Yes, OTOH, the US has a military airlift command which can at least
deploy a lot of its RDF to a troublespot. We have a few C-130s. I
don't think we could deploy even a light brigade and support it.
> We aren't going to fight them. This isn't about how Canada and
The issue here I guess is: The US is beaten down enough it thinks it needs
help, and we posit that it is beaten down enough from this war that it joins
the NAC. Yet it is not beaten down enough, and does not have powerful enough
seperatist groups or enemies that we can't help them out effectively. That
seems interesting to me.
/************************************************
Thomas spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Quebecois. in english it is Quebeckers. Chretien pronounces this
Kaybeckers to the Anglos of Ontario Backwoods.
> currently, if you want to move cargo from the north atlantic (usa,
this
> will become one of the main arteries of world ocean trade. this has to
Very cool. This justifies Halifax and Vancouver as more powerful centres of
commerce, and may justify giving Canada a tad more economic and military
horsepower to help out the States.
> a house of lords made up in this way would be relatively stable - it
Is there any accountability or recall? This is a Senate problem today.
> the problem here is one of differing sizes. england has a much larger
Well, maybe. Or maybe Ireland, Scotland and Wales Join together.
> > All founding members of the NAC remember the results of
Sorry, that won't work in something modern invented to include Canada,
England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, South and Central America, and the USA. Too
many of us know about Consitutions and wouldn't be happy living in a place
without one.
> i think avalon would gain member-state rights, with its own palace,
Avalon, on behalf of all the outworld colonies (till others get big enough to
separate from this block).
/************************************************
> On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> ... and it was a lot less costly per man. Unless you plan to put out
But we actually have a lot more money now too. But the real problem is
probably going to be conscription, which will have to be implemented to build
a large army.
Chen-Song spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> But we actually have a lot more money now too. But the real problem
We have a debt load per head already equivalent to a third world nation. We're
making progress on our deficit, but that is only the annual debt INCREASE. And
war is EXPENSIVE. Where do you think income tax comes from? Previous war
costs. So... we start in the whole, it costs way more to field a force (not
only in gross terms, but proportionately on a per man or machine basis), and
we already are sadled with a debt.
And yes, trying to make conscription fly would be another case like being put
in a sack of wildcats and put in a shower. Far to painful for contemplation.
/************************************************
G'day,
> Uhhh. . . The Canadians can put a division on the ground if they called
Not to get picky here John (especially since I haven't really been following
the thread), but the only reason the US has such a sizeable force is their
economy. Now if I remember correctly the whole US civil war thing (in GZG
universe) occurs because their economy collapses. And as nothing works in a
vaccuum, I think you just might find that the US military at the
time of the civil war is going to be a shadow of its former self -
because, at the very least, its hamstrung by the lack of technical and
logistical support that a healthy US economy would be able to provide. As as
example, I can refer you to one of Australia's northern neighbours, Malaysia,
which recently had (and probably still is having) trouble maintaining and
supporting its frontline fighter aircraft (Mig29s), because its economy
(weakened throught the Asian financial crisis) is effectively unable to pay
for it.
> Of course, I don't buy a serious civil war in the US to begin with.
But
> that's a different rant. Our military is not a very political one, and
They don't have to be if they haven't been paid for a couple of
months....
Anyway, just some food for thought,
Beth
> On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> We have a debt load per head already equivalent to a third world
Heh heh. Or we can do it the American way, and say "screw social
services." Which would not be well-accepted, except for a minority of
people.
> And yes, trying to make conscription fly would be another case
Also it would decrease the overall quality of the military by a *lot*. Look at
the French military, for example. <g>
G'day John,
> And the hardware just goes away if economy collapses? US maintains a
Maybe I'm having difficulty here because we have a different view of the
definition of economic collapse. In my view (which I don't expect anyone
else to accept) economic collapse is just that - there is no money left
regardless of how much padding you had there before. As for the hardware
disappearing, going on the little I do know about maintenance and resource use
and exhaustion, that hardware is going to turn to crap and all your useables
are going to disappear damn smart if you don't have the
infrastructure there to replace/repair it. How much of the supoort base
for the US military is from private enterprise? Who makes the components, when
you get down to it who grows the food? If the economy goes in this day and
age, just about everything goes with it unfortunately (well at least that's
how I read it). Admittedly, there could/will be some surviving forces
using cannabalised parts etc. But its not going to be on a scale comparable to
what's there today - alternatively if they do persist with the scale of
today then its not going to last very long.
> That was the Society of Cincinnatus. A large group of officers owed
OK I was obviously displaying my ignorance of US history and for that I
apologise. However, I still think then when the army hasn't been paid for a
few months that it may well decide to get involved with domestic politics
or just plain bugger-off (excuse the expression). And I personally
wouldn't want to have to count on another George Washington turning up to save
the nation's collective butt.
Anyway, that's just my wandering thoughts.
Have fun,
Beth
> Beth Fulton wrote:
> Not to get picky here John (especially since I haven't really been
And the hardware just goes away if economy collapses? US maintains a
vanishingly small army in relation to it's GNP--there is a HELL of a lot
of padding in our Federal budget.
> >Of course, I don't buy a serious civil war in the US to begin with.
But
> >that's a different rant. Our military is not a very political one,
That was the Society of Cincinnatus. A large group of officers owed several
years backpay after our Revolution, ready to Coup and install General
Washington as a king. And it got shut down by one man (Granted, Lieutenant
General George Washington was a HELL of one man) making one speech. And it
just went home. And that was the last time any element of our Army interfered
in domestic politics.
Of course, one could argue that the Army does have political
viewpoints--I doubt that the timing of a certain courtmartial is
coincidental[1], but overt participation in domestic politics would definitely
be difficult to sell.
> On Sun, 13 Dec 1998, Adrian Johnson wrote:
same as in the uk.
> Someone else has suggested that the NAC Council (or whatever we decide
that was me. i agree strongly with what you say later on; given that the NAC
is the fusion of the USA and the UK, the arguably the two countries with the
strongest democratic traditions on earth, it will be some
wonderful democracy. this is likely, but it is no fun - oligarchies are
much better from a gaming point of view!
> >> While the official spoken language of the Monarchy
> >
well, not that expensive. probably cheaper than maintaining a battleship.
also, there have been big advances in mechanised translation recently -
see below for what altavista's babelfish translator did to god save the
queen. things can only get better - the time may come when most of the
translating can be done automatically, only requiring human intervention for
the hardest bits.
> Just imagine the Queen's Own Royal Buenos Aires Dragoons charging into
the lyrics to which, incidentally, are now on my website:
users.ox.ac.uk/~univ0938/gzg/dsr.html
ah, the joys of babelfish! note that the translation is far from perfect
-
when taken back into english, it is a total mess:
choicest of Thy in warehouse In her it is satisfied to spill;
is beyond words.
Tom
> On Sun, 13 Dec 1998, Adrian Johnson wrote:
same as in the uk.
> Someone else has suggested that the NAC Council (or whatever we decide
that was me. i agree strongly with what you say later on; given that the NAC
is the fusion of the USA and the UK, the arguably the two countries with the
strongest democratic traditions on earth, it will be some
wonderful democracy. this is likely, but it is no fun - oligarchies are
much better from a gaming point of view!
> >> While the official spoken language of the Monarchy
> >
well, not that expensive. probably cheaper than maintaining a battleship.
also, there have been big advances in mechanised translation recently -
see below for what altavista's babelfish translator did to god save the
queen. things can only get better - the time may come when most of the
translating can be done automatically, only requiring human intervention for
the hardest bits.
> Just imagine the Queen's Own Royal Buenos Aires Dragoons charging into
the lyrics to which, incidentally, are now on my website:
users.ox.ac.uk/~univ0938/gzg/dsr.html
ah, the joys of babelfish! note that the translation is far from perfect
-
when taken back into english, it is a total mess:
choicest of Thy in warehouse In her it is satisfied to spill;
is beyond words.
Tom
> >
Actually, the PM does need to be elected in his constituency. If he fails
there though, another member of the party would just hand over his contituency
to the PM. The said MP will be out of a job, but he'll usually be considered
later for patronage positions. (i.e. senate:()
> On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
under the RL UK HoL system, none at all. well, sort of. in principle, the
monarch could deelevate someone from the peerage, but i don't think it
happens. there is something called the parliament act, which limits the power
of the HoL: for a start, the HoL can't stop a bill, just send it back to the
HoC (house of commons) to be revised. furthermore, if the HoC sends a bill up
to the HoL three times in one session, it overrides the HoL and the bill goes
through.
since i propose the HoL to be the sole NAC legislative body, this is a
problem. the peers are appointed by the monarch on the advice of the state
government (ie, chosen by the state government - the monarch will never
do something original), so maybe if the state government dislikes what the
peer is doing, it passes a motion to get rid of him, and the monarch obliges?
this would have to be made quite tricky and unusual, otherwise the HoL would
lose much of its character. i'd say the proceedure exists but is seldom used.
> > > This is enshrined in the NAC Constitution
i'm not so sure. does the EU have a constitution? what about NATO? the EU has
the treaties of Rome and Maastricht, but much of it has been defined in other
treaties, directives, agreements, etc. i suppose when i say 'no constitution'
i mean 'no single written constitution'. i think the nac
'constitution' should be made up of the Anglo-American agreement which
invited britain in after ACW2, the Anglo-Canadian treaty, the Treaty of
Oahu, the Cheyenne Proclaimation, the Governance Act, the Parliament Act, etc.
things are clear, but there is no single piece of paper at the root.
besides, remember that most states will still have their own constitutions. i
am sure the constitution of New England is highly regarded by its citizens,
and the constitution of the Southern Confederacy ("article 1: all citizens
have the right to bear arms") equally so. if the NAC is more along the lines
of a confederation rather than a single superstate, as has been suggested,
this seems quite tolerable.
> > i think avalon would gain member-state rights, with its own palace,
that's another idea. yes, the outworld colonies could be part of the Kingdom
of Albion, much like Guadeloupe and Martinique are overseas counties of
France. of course, a few would be dependencies of Albion, some dependencies of
the UK or Canada, and some dependencies of the Crown,
just to keep things badly organised :-).
Tom
Thomas spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
Why not use parliament as is? They pass bills up to HoL? Actually, it strikes
me you'd need to do something to deal with the various levels
of concerns (local, state, area, planet, or whole-NAC). I'll think on
this.
> > > > This is enshrined in the NAC Constitution
Not a country. It includes countries. Like the UN.
what about NATO?
Same.
the EU
> has the treaties of Rome and Maastricht, but much of it has been
That's painful. A joint consitution would be far better solution. It would
enshrine your personal basic rights and responsiblities to the state. It would
define the relationships between member states, and the methods of common
governance.
> besides, remember that most states will still have their own
I don't think so. I don't think the NAC is the EU. I don't think it is a
strictly economic union. And if it must make military, political, and social
decisions, fundamental rights and rules of how to govern must exist across the
board. Otherwise it becomes administratively to complex and dies under its own
administrivia and bureaucratica.
> > > i think avalon would gain member-state rights, with its own
Wow, I don't think the NAC could field the fleets and military we see in FB if
it was that unorganized. And I'm not sure any other colonies are big enough to
merit independent status. But it is something for me to think about. Thanks
for the ideas.
> Tom
/************************************************
<snip>
> besides, remember that most states will still have their own
Poor abused bears.
They've been taking it on the chin for centuries now - you figure we'd
have got past it.
> On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
how about this, then. currently (in the uk), the legislature is bicameral:
there is the house of commons and the house of lords. the nac is the same, but
rather than once house of commons there are half a dozen, one in each state.
there is still only one house of lords. one way of looking at this is to think
of each state being bicameral, but having a shared upper house. it neatly ties
together the state and confederate governments.
the organisation of each state varies. in the uk, there are four countries
(england, scotland, wales, ulster/ireland), divided into counties and
parishes. in new england, there are provinces and counties. in the southern
confederacy, there are states (georgia, alabama, etc) and municipalities. it's
subtly different everywhere. assimilate diversity!
> > > > > This is enshrined in the NAC Constitution
this brings us back to a devate over the nature of the NAC. some see it as
a single superstate, like a USA++. i (and one or two others) do not - i
see it as a collection of semi-autonomous states, very much like the EU.
thus, i would ask: at what point in its history will the EU become a single
state (deviating from the GZGverse and assuming it continues to integrate)?
there is a continuum between single state (eg mexico) and association (eg UN).
the UK is a bit down from mexico (remember, we have devolution
now),
then the USA (state assemblies everywhere), then the EU (moving towards
single-state). i think the NAC is more EUish than mexicoish.
> > i think the nac
absolutely! a single constitution might be an optimal solution. i think a
world with few optimal solutions in place is more interesting! not to
mention more likely - can you imagine a constitution with which both the
british and the alabamans are happy? there is no such document!
> It
the EU has the convention on human rights. the UK has the human rights act.
> It would define the relationships between member states, and
the EU has the treaties of rome and maastricht. the UK has the act of union
and the parliament act. these things do not require a single constitution.
> > besides, remember that most states will still have their own
if the
> > NAC is more along the lines of a confederation rather than a single
nor is the EU, not by a long chalk!
> And if it must make military,
absolutely. but i don't think this requires a single constitution. the UK
doesn't have one, and it has been a world leader in making military, political
and social decisions for a long time.
> > > > i think avalon would gain member-state rights,
the uk is composed of two kingdoms, england and scotland. wales is a
principality of england. ulster's status is unclear. the falklands, gibraltar
and a bunch of other things are dependent territories. the isles of man,
jersey, guernsey and sark are odd dependencies. for instance, they have their
own legislatures, each different, they issue their own stamps and currency
(well, they mint their own 10p coins, etc, which have a
non-standard design). they have different tax and banking laws. and,
until 1984 (iirc), canada was governed under an act of parliament. and yet the
uk has been perfectly capable of fielding the world's larget navy (once upon a
time) and a fairly decent army. complexity and inconsistency of organisation
is not the same as disorganisation!
and we need to get this straight - it's Albion, not Avalon! even i keep
getting this wrong! damn gzg :-)!
> And I'm not sure any other colonies
probably not. most would be part of the kingdom of albion, some would be ruled
as dependencies of one of the states.
Tom
<snip>
> the EU
And this follows the direction we see in some countries now. Just as the
States in the US have a Constitution which provides for much of the law in
the state while collectively they are part of the US Constitution - so
we could apply this one step higher. State constitution (or Provincial Acts
for those of us not in the US), "federal" constitution for bits of the NAC
like Canada which joined as complete countries, and the NAC constitution.
I think there would have to be some kind of single document - would be a
nightmare otherwise.
Problem - what about areas that join the NAC as a country, ie Canada,
and areas that join the NAC not as a country, such as the various bits of the
US that aren't controlled by the residual US government after the US civil
war. I figure that when the Brit/Can forces help stop the war, the bits
that were not under the control of the Federal Government wouldn't have come
back under the control of the Federal Gov't. They were enemies, after
all - hence the war. If the intervention by Brit/Can forces was to help
the Federal Gov't regain its territories, they would really have been helping
the US Government win it's Civil War militarily. I think the
Brit/Can forces would arrive, help implement a peace agreement to stop
the
fighting, but in a more impartial way - like peacekeepers, and then the
various bits of the US would join the new NAC individually. If this
happens, then you have different levels of law in the various founding parts
of the NAC. Quebec, UK, Canada have "national" level law. So does the bits of
the US still working under the US Constitution. The other bits of the US don't
have "national" level law, unless they declared themselves
countries and wrote something. SO - does the NAC constitution provide
the extra law necessary to bring each area up to the same status, or maybe as
part of the agreement to join the NAC an area has to have its legal codes
cover certain areas, etc.?????
> I don't think so. I don't think the NAC is the EU. I don't think it
Yes!
Thomas spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> > > what about NATO?
But the EU and NATO don't have the level of integration of military that the
NAC does. You have a consistent NAC fleet, not a NAC fleet made up of ships
from the members based on their own requirements. This suggests a level of
integration beyond what the EU or NATO represents. There is, no doubt, other
anecdotal evidence to point to this conclusion.
> there is a continuum between single state (eg mexico) and association
I think the NAC would be like the EU if it had its act far more together.
Which doesn't look a lot different from the superstate in some ways, but looks
profoundly otherwise in other ways.
How would one HoL keep up with the load from multiple parliaments?
Here's why I ask: In Canada, the PM and the Commons Legislate and the Senate
is a check (good or bad, I refuse to debate). So the Senate sees ALL
legislation AFAIK. Now try this with 1 HoL and n Parliaments in the lands of
the NAC and you have a very overrun HoL. But you daren't dispatch the HoL or
some other house from being a check on
the Parliament - one house can do scary things without checks.
> > That's painful. A joint consitution would be far better solution.
I don't kow about that. That presumes that as humans we don't share certain
common views on what an inalienable right is and on how we'd like to be
governed. I'm pretty sure you'd find that everyone would like a say in their
governance, rights to safety and prosperity and the like. That's how I see the
NAC constitution. It doesn't replace other laws, it just provides a framework
they MUST work within.
> > It
> > state.
Sure, and does the UK have to harmonize with the EU? Probably not because it
is an economic union only. Once you talk about defence, politics, linked
ecomonics, and social issues, you then start to require some level of
harmonization. I heard some of the Scandinavian countries are being dissed for
having too many social programs because that in some way should be harmonized
under EU (details are sketchy in my recollection). And Canada has repeatedly
changed its policies under NAFTA pressures with the US.
> > It would define the relationships between member states, and
I believe it is a virtual requirement for the level of integrated state
suggested by the NAC and by their fleets and armies. And I think the only
reason England has gotten away with some of the stuff in its legal system
(traditional basis rather than basis in law) is because it is Britain and has
always been so.
> nor is the EU, not by a long chalk!
Hmm. Well, I'll admit ignorance, but I think the EU you speak of is an utterly
transitory state to a higher level of superstate. It doesn't mean well all be
living in conformia, but you can bet that in the long run well certainly share
(or you will in the case of the EU) many things with our neighbours, and then
hopefully in the long run with all of mankind. (That's not anytime soon).
> > And if it must make military,
> > to govern must exist across the board.
Hmmm. You certainly envision what I would see as a ramshackle NAC that will
fall apart. Why stay in a union that doesn't really do all that much to hold
you together like ascribing common rights and law? I can be in a trade
relationship and defence treaties without giving over my sovereignty to a
foreign King.
> > Wow, I don't think the NAC could field the fleets and military we
But it DOES translate to inefficiency. Your view is an alternate one that is
supportable if one has a belief that the NAC would hold together with that
light of a set of bindings.
> and we need to get this straight - it's Albion, not Avalon! even i
I thought it was... but everyone was calling it Avalon. Camelot would have
been easier.
Anyway, this just underlines the fact their are two views of the NAC. I think
we should look at all the things we know about it (from army and navy
organization, to fictional blurbs, to timelines) and see if one view or the
other predominates.
Tom.
/************************************************
<snip>
> how about this, then. currently (in the uk), the legislature is
<snip>
> this brings us back to a devate over the nature of the NAC. some see it
I agree here. I see the NAC as a collection of semi-autonomous states,
each with a separate internal system. The overall government would have a very
limited set of responsibilities: Foreign affairs and the military, Foreign
Trade, the strategic parts of resource management, Monetary Policy
(particularly in relation to foreign trade), maybe inter-state relations
(between the member bits of the NAC), the NAC Supreme Court (though this would
obviously not be part of the legislative or executive brances of the NAC
gov't), and some kind of "universal" rights system.
Everything else would be run by the various "states" - though the NAC
gov't might make recommendations for basic standards for things like health
care, education, etc.
Each "state" would have its own internal system of governance, with a
parliament of some kind, etc. I'm not sure that I like the idea of having one
"commons" in each state, but only one "Lords" for the whole NAC. The NAC gov't
and the "states'" governments would have separate responsibilities, and should
not be connected like this. There should be, as there are in Canada and the
US, completely separate legislature systems.
The NAC legislature could be made up of members who are directly elected,
could have members who are appointed by the states' legislatures or perhaps
elected by the states' legislatures to represent that state, or perhaps are
appointed by the crown as directed by the states' legislatures. I'd like
to see a combination system, to account for differences in population -
so each state gets a basic number of seats, and then a variable number beyond
that depending on population (the more people, the more seats). Perhaps some
of the seats are appointed and some elected. This would allow appointed Lords,
but still give the population some feeling of controlling their destiny by
being able to vote for some part of the assembly.
Maybe there's a House of Lords above the Legislature. You could have the
Legislature made up of members elected directly, and then the Lords made up of
"Lords" who are appointed by the crown after advisement by the states'
governments.
Anyway - just a couple of thoughts...
<snip>
> the EU has the treaties of rome and maastricht. the UK has the act of
<snip>
> absolutely. but i don't think this requires a single constitution. the
But what's wrong with a constitution? If you were starting a new country from
scratch, would you want one with a complex system of
unwritten-but-agreed-upon traditions and a variety of acts, or one with
a single written document that sets out all the basic rules? There is lots of
character in the way the UK works itself, and yes the UK has been a world
leader for a long time. So has the US, with a written constitution that is, at
it's heart, a simple document. So why not pick the simpler of the two.
> <snip>
Well, here's a go for how the US might join -
While many groups of people in the US may fight with one another, they all
think that they are in the right, and for many of them there could still be
residual Pro-US constitutional idealism.
So effectively you could have several regions of the fractured US all
claiming to be the legitimate US - it's eveyone else that's wrong
Let's imagine washington D.C. gets nuked- (of all the cities to get
wasted in a US civil war, I can't shake the feeling that D.C. is first on many
people's lists.) suddenly the well-defined Federal Govt is effectively
gone. In the resulting power vacuum, each of the several warring regions then
recreates a 'federal' govt created in part from the various local members of
the former federal govt, and based on their interpretation of how the US govt
'should' work. This is a time for revisionist thinking to 'fix' what was
broken previously, of course no one agrees on what was broken. With all the
introduced changes and hostilities, recombination is
greatly impeded. Instead of the various 'baby-feds' recombining into a
cohesive govt body, they are all doing their own thing for a while. So at
one time you have 3-4 groups in the US each claiming to be the US
federal
govt. - At this point the southeast states throw their hands up in
disgust and give up the pretext of the US being 'UNITED'. They rename
themselves
the Confederate States of America (or just the Confederacy) - they never
really accepted the outcome of the first civil war, anyway.
Anyone remember the Shattered Imperium?
As things begin to settle down (with the assistance of the UK and Canada,
The various portions groups enter the NAC under their Mini-nation guise
-
thus leading to the Nation-states that have been discussed previously.
Note that as time passes, lots of the anomisity dies down and the
Nation-states of the Former US work to iron out many of their
difficulties and differences. So the differences between 'national
constitutions'
within the former US are not as great as when the NAC was founded - and
referring to the USA almost means something again.
> <snip>
<SNIP>
I also agree. But as some think of the NAC as USA++, Others are
thinking
UK++. I don't know that either really fit the need.
> <snip>
I definately think there should be a constitution for the NAC - maybe
not
for England - they can continue with 'a complex system of
unwritten-but-agreed-upon traditions and a variety of acts'
(CSUBAUT&VA),
but regardless of how war-torn the US is, I can't see them joining a new
Governmental system without knowing what's going on with it. Besides, the
UK achieved its CSUBAUT&VA over centuries of political evolution - The
NAC
is a new creation -though admittedly some older vestiges were retained.
If there is anything that 200 years of Used-car salesmen and lawyers
have
taught the US, it's get the terms spelled out up front -though some
ignore that advice too <sigh>.
It was written that:
> I don't kow about that. That presumes that as humans we don't share
these are non-controversial rights - but when you get Americans of a
certain type talking about rights, they start yammering about the right to
own lots and lots of artillery - pardon, the "right" to bear arms, and
want to tie this into safety, etc etc. ("Yes, I can only be safe in my own
home if I own a big handgun that my 3-year old will blow his brains out
with!")
Most of the rest of the world doesn't think this way (thank god) so our
universal NAC rights have hit a snag...unless all the gun nuts kill themselves
off in the 2nd ACW...This is without mixing religion into things.
An NAC-wide basic bill of rights would have to have provision for 'local
amendments that do not contravene the aforementioned Rights of all NAC
subjects'. This way the gun nuts could keep their artillery in administrations
that had a majority of gun nuts, while the rest of the citizenry in other
regions wouldn't bother with 'rights' like this. At the same time, if an NAC
region tried to introduce new amendments that did break the NAC Rights, they'd
be stopped.
Adrian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Problem - what about areas that join the NAC as a country, ie Canada,
1. I think the NAC has to have some provision for Protectorates -
areas under termporary NAC high level administration until such time as it can
once again be turned over to local administration.
2. I think the NAC SuperConstitution would cover:
A) Relationship between NAC states - governance, trade, dispute
resulution
B) Basic rights of all NAC citizens - a NAC supreme court, basic
human rights, fundamental laws on things like murder, treason, etc.
C) Stipulations on areas left to member states - local matters,
anything not covered in NAC SupCons such as education, social programs, local
municipal and regional laws, and the like
D) Relationships between the NAC and other outside states -
diplomatic relations, military, trade, dispute resolution
E) How to enter/leave the NAC
This would leave a lot of territory for local municipal, regional, and even
area (not country, since the NAC is a country, but this is the term I'm using
for the larger US fragments, Canada, etc) governments with their own laws. The
only final rule is that the NAC SupCons has precedence in its areas of
jurisdiction, where it conflicts with local laws.
This allows places like the UK to retain Major Arcana as their basis for
government, and the US to retain the consitution with the enshrined right to
have bear arms (poor bloody bears!). And for the Canadians to have a
Constitution which enshrines Hockey as a sacrosanct national pastime.
:) Tom.
/************************************************
On Thursday, 17 December 1998 03:03, Brian Burger
> [SMTP:burger00@camosun.bc.ca] wrote:
Non scripta non est. There is a great deal gained by the creation of a written
constitution. The only thing really lost is the ability for a government to
conveniently ignore or change bits of it. This is easier if the parts that
they are changing are not written down. Always get agreements in writing.
> these are non-controversial rights
Are they? What does the 'right to safety' mean? Safe from what? What does the
'right to prosperity' mean? What is prosperity? How are rights protected when
there isn't a list of them written down anywhere?
> - but when you get Americans of a
Must refrain from commenting...must refrain from commenting.. Aah, screw it.
> - pardon, the "right" to bear arms, and
My, how... *open minded* we are. You have a problem with others thinking or
acting differently? Or do you just prefer to personally insult them by calling
then 'nuts'?
> Most of the rest of the world doesn't think this way (thank god)
Most of the world's governments don't think this way. Most of the world's
government s couldn't give a damn about the 'rights' of their citizens. Most
of the world's governments think that 'rights' flow from the government to the
governed, when it is power that flows from the people to the government.
> so our
True. Mainly because most people have no concept of the difference between
'rights' and 'powers'.
> <unless all the gun nuts kill
Again with the personal attacks.
> An NAC-wide basic bill of rights would have to have provision for
What is the difference between 'citizen' and 'subject'?
> This way the gun nuts could keep their artillery in
Again with the personal attacks. How civilized.
vargr1 UPP-8D9B85
---------------------------- Omnia dicta fortiora, si dicta latina.
I respectfully request that the USA be absolved of all responsibility for John
M. Atkinson. Accidents will happen.
The_Beast
P.S. I'll get back to you about Mr.Moody.
Alla-y'all shaddap and take it all off line!
> ----------
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> As for prosperity, what nation believes this? Since a Canadian wrote
No the right to prosperity is the right (I think) that you Yanks have
in your Constitution - the right to pursue wealth through endeavour.
You (I believe) call this the right to be free. Or at least it is subsumed
under that (life liberty and happiness).
> > > - but when you get Americans of a
Now, John, you'd deny there are folks in the US who'd want to own 155mm
howitzers? You'd deny that the FBI and ATF regularly capture folks with 60mm
Mortars,.50 BHMGs, and the like? Are these used to hunt ducks? or deer? or
modern animals like the flying squirrel? (to steal a joke from the SImpsons)
> > My, how ... *open minded* we are. You have a problem with others
I'm not sure if you characterize the original point correctly. But definitely
the presence of guns in a household increases the likelihood of those guns
being used in either a crime of passion or in an accident. This is obvious and
a known fact. And there are plenty of bits of anecdotal evidence to suggest
that kids are good at
getting around even convoluted gun security in households - witness
that shooting a few months back - the ambush outside the school. The
kid compromised the security on the firearms and stole them. (Now, he was 14
or so, so perhaps you'd say an adult). The point being that guns are
potentially dangerous around the house.
After all, how
> many people own power tools which could cut your three year old in
Power tools are dangerous too. As dangerous as guns? Probably not. Is a sword
as dangerous as a pistol? No. If you think so, I'll give you a sword, me the
pistol, and we'll complete the demonstration. Are both dangerous, yes. Do
power tools have a function other than hurting people, yes. Do guns? I've
heard of people using them as hammers, but that's just plain dumb.
We probably all drive cars, which items kill more people per year
> in the US than firearms kill people in the US, Canada, and UK
True, but the car fills a niche in our society - it transports us
from A to B. It CAN be a lethal weapon, but that isn't its only purpose. Now,
with guns, if someone said they hunt with them, I might buy that. But other
than that, plus a few ISU shooters who punch paper targets with.22s, the
purpose of a gun is defence or offense
against other human beings - in short - to hurt someone. It doesn't
transport you like a car. It doesn't build you something like a power tool, it
isn't multi purpose like a knife. A gun was originally designed to be a
military weapon and even when used to hunt its ultimate purpose is to inflict
damage on something at a distance. So you clearly cannot equate in every
particular cars, guns, and power tools.
BTW - I am a shooter. And I am soon to be a gun owner. And I am
Canadian. I don't think I NEED to own a gun. And I don't delude myself that
maybe sometime a firearm in my possession (even if secured) might be involved
in a tradgedy. Nor do I delude myself that
such a firearm would keep me safe from some gov't misdeeds - as the
gov't has tanks, trained soldiers, and nasty big weapons. Nor do I
believe my police cannot protect me - protection is not 100%, but
chances are if I've got my gun stored legally so the kids can't get at it, I
won't be able to access it quickly in a home invasion. Nor will I have it with
me in my car or out at the mall. The police are my best bet. And some crisis
reaction training. I enjoy target shooting, but I don't think there is a
necessity to allow the populace to possess firearms, and I do see some risks
inherent in them. My support for them isn't based on a utopian view of guns as
democratizing (look at the old west - gangs of baddies roamed around
and the fast gun won - hardly an argument for perfect democracy), nor
of some cock-eyed justification that says they are the same as cars
or power tools. In truth, they are a weapon. But I enjoy shooting them. And I
prefer a government and a society that lets me take some risks (calculated
ones within reasonable bounds) as a form of
personal freedom - they let me drive a car (which can kill someone or
me), they let me own a gun (same), they let me eat fatty foods (which will
kill me and cost medicare money), and they let me drink (both of the above
risks). They TRUST me to make good judgements and accept the risks attached.
They punish me if I screw up. That's the way it
should be - I can't condone a society where a government thinks it
should be your big brother since they do it SO badly.
But I don't try to make guns what they aren't. Or forget what they
are...
> Ah, now we've got all persons who have a religion (apparently
By you maybe. I think there are some gun nuts, and some religious
right gun nuts. Just as I am sure there are anti-gun nuts and
atheist left gun nuts and anti-gun nuts. The world has lots of fringe
groups. I don't think Brian was saying the world or the US was exclusively
composed of them, though they get a lot of press.
This becomes a truly confusing little political manifesto if
> one takes into account that secular humanism is as much based on
:)
> > >This way the gun nuts could keep their artillery in
Et tu Brute? Yours may be veiled in nicer language, but it amounts to the same
thing...
> He's also switching back from citizen to subject. Very important
I believe this distinction has some importance. You have no
"inalienable" rights - except to die. It's the one thing any living
person does. Otherwise, every "right" can be taken away from you. But maybe as
a society we should try to create these things called rights for our citizens,
and since the rights spring from the society (because they do not exist in
nature), the society must place some sort of a judgment on how they affect the
large mass of us.
Being a citizen is not a priveledge. Being a citizen is a responsibility. As
is being in governance over same.
> I think we can write this drek off as the ranting of a confused
Hmmm. John, your expertise in matters of engineering is undoubted. Your
expertise in matters of diplomacy or analysis may be contested. Your ability
to attribute (on the sparse evidence of a single email) any point of view or
any mental condition to another person casts some aspersions on the validity
of your assessments.
No one piece of mail can convey a persons entire world view, and it lacks any
context. I'd think you and Dan must be kind of tired with
all your excercise - jumping the gun, leaping to conclusions, etc.
(now lets all just ease off here. Nothing here merits an international
incident, and if it does we should take it off list. This is a civilized
forum. It is also a forum for gaming.)
Tom.
/************************************************
> On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
<all junk snipped>
One thing to keep in mind during this rant.. What is Jon was raised in the
states? US would have helped Canada, and the UK during there Civil War..
Kind of changes the scope of these..
I guess I should avoid writing email late at night - I did not intend to
offend everyone w/ the 'gun-nuts' comments, merely to point out that
different regions of what will, in the GZGverse become the NAC, have different
ideas of what constitutes an 'inalienable right'.
I'll leave commenting on the long future history posts until later, in the
future...I can't unpost what I posted last night, but I am embarrased at
it - I was way too short, did not intend to devolve into what might be
seen as personal attacks, and threw some other comments in there that are, in
the light of day, greatly beneath me.
Part of the post was, however, exceedingly tongue-in-cheek, although on
re-reading I should have phrased it differently. All references to
'artillery' should have read 'guns/sidearms/whatever'.
The switch from using 'citizen' to using 'subject' later in the post was
not meant to be significant - I sometimes regard them as synonyms;
obviously other people do not.
In closing, mea cupla, and I'll stay off the Future Hist posts late at night
or when I'm writing in a hurry from now on.
Apologetically,
Just be exact: the constitution does not guarantee a right to "pursue
happiness", it is the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution of the
U.S. states in its preamble that it's purpose (among others) is to "promote
the general welfare". Not to contribute to an international misuderstanding,
but to refer you to the correct documents.
Moody, Danny M. wrote, in response so a drooling idiodicy by Mr.Burger:
> > these are non-controversial rights
What
> does the 'right to prosperity' mean? What is prosperity? How are
I've never heard of a right to safety. It flies in the face of the known fact
that 100% of humans die. You have to die of something. It's a fundamental law
of nature.
As for prosperity, what nation believes this? Since a Canadian wrote it, I
assume that's a claim that all Canadians are either rich or at least
comfortably middle class. Refutation is left as an exercise for the reader.
> > - but when you get Americans of a
Yes, of course a hunting rifle is indistinguisable from a 155mm howitzer. Only
if you're blind, deaf, and stupid as well.
> > - pardon, the "right" to bear arms, and
He's implying everyone who owns a firearm is a lunatic. An objective comment
would be that everyone who owns a firearm and fails to secure it properly with
small children in the house, probably shouldn't have bred in the first place.
Thus we place the onus on safety and security of firearms, rather than on an
inanimate piece of metal. After all, how many people own power tools which
could cut your three year old in half? We probably all drive cars, which items
kill more people per year in the US than firearms kill people in the US,
Canada, and UK combined, yet we don't condemn those who own them, simply those
who use them in an unsafe, reckless, or homicidal manner.
> ><unless all the gun nuts kill
Ah, now we've got all persons who have a religion (apparently including
Buddists and Hindus?) lumpin in with all gun-owners, who are all
"nuts". This becomes a truly confusing little political manifesto if one takes
into account that secular humanism is as much based on unwavering faith in
certain premises as is Judaism or Christianity, and could really be considered
as much a religion as anything else. We're all nuts, so we all should be able
to get along.
> >This way the gun nuts could keep their artillery in
He's also switching back from citizen to subject. Very important
distinction--one is a subject of a monarch, or one is a citizen of a
nation.
I think we can write this drek off as the ranting of a confused Canadian,
presumably their villiage idiot, who should be kept off international forums
until such time as he can express himself in a rational manner.
On Thursday, 17 December 1998 13:00, Thomas Barclay
> [SMTP:Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca] wrote:
> No the right to prosperity is the right (I think) that you Yanks have
Nope. 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness' is from the Declaration of
Independence.
> > Yes, of course a hunting rifle is indistinguisable from a 155mm
I prefer the 105mm myself. I have a friend that owns a Sherman tank, complete
with main gun and MGs. They are all operational, and perfectly legal.
> You'd deny that the FBI and ATF regularly capture
Regularly? No. Most of the press hype is directed to so-called assault
weapons, which are semi-auto look-a-likes to current issue military
weapons.
> Are these used to
Except that people *do* own such weapons, legally, and very, very, very rarely
are they ever used in the commission of a crime. Ever been to
Knob Creek? Tons-o-people who legally own these weapons, bring them
together, and have fun shooting at paper targets, tin cans, etc. No one gets
hurt at these events, even with all that firepower gathered there.
> I'm not sure if you characterize the original point correctly. But
This 'fact' is no such thing - except in the way that if cars did not
exist, we wouldn't have car accidents.
> After all, how
Sometimes, people are dumb, but most people are not. Danger varies according
to circumstances and the most important factor is the person involved. There
is no 'one size fits all' solution. This, I believe, is one of the basis for a
free society. If *I* do things that please me, as long as they do not hurt
you, you cannot stop me from doing them. If I do them, then, and only then,
can I be punished.
> We probably all drive cars, which items kill more people per year
Guns have many uses, from hunting, to punching holes in paper targets, to
shooting people. Swords and knives also have such uses.
> BTW - I am a shooter. And I am soon to be a gun owner.
What do you shoot?
> And I am Canadian. I don't think I NEED to own a gun.
Since when is NEED a basis for denying anyone something in a free society? You
don't NEED cars either, nor computers, not the Internet.
> And I don't delude
All controlled by people who may or may not agree with the government.
> Nor do I
Again, since when is NEED a basis for denying anyone something in a free
society? I cannot understand this 'one size fits all' attitude. Because *you*
see no need to allow the populace to possess firearms, this justifies not
allowing them to have them?
> and I do see some risks inherent in
Checked the crime rate of the 'Wild West?' Much less than today....
> nor
Neither do most people. Most gun owners included.
> > > >This way the gun nuts could keep their artillery in
Not even close. He called me a 'gun nut', many times. I questioned the
civility of his statements and responded to his arguments (such as they were).
In neither did I ever insult him nor call him names. I could even say 'He
stared it', but since I didn't insult him in return, I won't.
> > He's also switching back from citizen to subject. Very important
This is another debate entirely.
> But maybe as a society we should try to create these things called
True, as well as provide for the limitation of those, whether as individuals,
groups, or 'governments' to limit their ability to infringe upon those rights.
> Being a citizen is not a priveledge. Being a citizen is a
True.
> No one piece of mail can convey a persons entire world view, and it
Where did 'I jump the gun' or 'leap to conclusions'? I was insulted by a post,
and expressed my displeasure with said post.
> (now lets all just ease off here. Nothing here merits an
True. However, this is not the first time that such post expressing views
similar to Brian's have been posted. This time, I decided not to
just 'let them go.' I figure a little bit of mental self-defense goes a
long way.
ObFT:
With the unification of the UK, Canada, and the US under the Crown, I do
believe that the NAC government would *not* allow the average subject to own
any type of firearm (except, maybe single shot.22 cal rifles), crossbow, or
sword. The Crown has a long history of keeping its subjects unarmed.
I also see this law being regularly violated, sometimes with a
'wink-and-a-nod' from the local constabulary, especially on frontier
planets.
vargr1 UPP-8D9B85
---------------------------- Omnia dicta fortiora, si dicta latina.
On Thursday, 17 December 1998 13:49, Brian Burger
> [SMTP:burger00@camosun.bc.ca] wrote:
Very, very true. Look at the separatist movement in Scotland (of all places).
You will run into this problem whenever you have a government composed of many
separate, distinct cultural groups. There are two ways to handle it:
1- Allow the areas to have some freedom, and take the risk that they
people may start to identify with their region more strongly than with the
larger state. This leads to breakaways, rebellions, and successions.
or
2- Crack down on the cultural regions by imposing a standard set
governmental values and do not let the locals deviate from it. Downside of
this is that this also encourages breakaways, rebellions, and successions.
Every other approach is merely a combination of the two, with different
proportions.
> I'll leave commenting on the long future history posts until later, in
Please stay part of the conversation. The future history stuff is great fun.
> Part of the post was, however, exceedingly tongue-in-cheek, although
Amongst other things. Unfortunately, what may be comedy to one is tragedy to
others. I remember the displeasure that many UKers expressed about some of the
jokes made about Diana's death. Having spent a large part of my life outside
the US (in the UK amongst others), I could understand that.
> The switch from using 'citizen' to using 'subject' later in the post
They are not.
> In closing, mea cupla, and I'll stay off the Future Hist posts late at
Apology accepted, Sir. You truly are a gentleman and a scholar. I look forward
to future discussions with you.
vargr1 UPP-8D9B85
---------------------------- Omnia dicta fortiora, si dicta latina.
> On Thursday, 17 December 1998 16:23, Los [SMTP:los@cris.com] wrote:
ObFT:
Does this mean we can discuss surface bombardments from orbital ships again?
Cool.
vargr1 UPP-8D9B85
---------------------------- Omnia dicta fortiora, si dicta latina.
[quoted original message omitted]
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> No the right to prosperity is the right (I think) that you Yanks have
Yeah I think it's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (which I get
from playing with GZG minis)
> (now lets all just ease off here. Nothing here merits an
Yeah this one's getting old, we should already be on to the next contentious
argument that every other BBS and military mailing list is roiling over, which
is....IRAQ.
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
In light of Mr. Burger's follow-up post, let me also tender apologies
for posting in the "heat of the moment" and making some statements that were
somewhat out of line. I intend only to correct a few mistakes of
fact in this forum--anyone who wishes to debate gun control or any
aspect thereof is encouraged to contact me via e-mail rather than on the
list.
> > As for prosperity, what nation believes this? Since a Canadian
Not in my pocket copy of the Constitution.
> You (I believe) call this the right to be free. Or at least it is
Oh, the "inalienable rights of man" "Life, Libertry and the Pursuit of
Happiness". Lovely poetry, but not legally binding. See, those are in our
Declaration of Independance. Which isn't part of the
Constitution--that term, in US parlance, refers to a seperate document
entirely.
> hurting people, yes. Do guns? I've heard of people using them as
I have shot off several thousand rounds of ammunition, which I derived
pleasure from (I like shooting) without yet injuring anyone in any way shape
or form. One can shoot at targets or at animals.
> secured) might be involved in a tradgedy. Nor do I delude myself that
I've never indicated I did--besides, a revolutionary good enough to
suceed should be able to arm himself from his enemy's arsenals.
> Sorry, but I have to ask; is the John D AtkinSON the same one who
Nice catch--other people use this computor, and I forgot to fiddle with
the Options to switch the identities.
John M. Atkinson
> Moody, Danny M. wrote:
> Does this mean we can discuss surface bombardments from orbital ships
This current fracas does illustrate one point about orbital bombardment: If
your target doesn't have serious aerospace defenses, then it's a great way to
give the impression that you are "Serious" or "Doing Something" or "Sending a
Message" without putting a lot of troops at risk, and without any hope in hell
of accomplishing whatever you are claiming to be doing. So we'll see a lot of
politicians who will call for orbital bombardment to solve every sort of
interplanetary problem, whether spacepower is an apropriate tool for the
problem at hand. Looks great on ISN, doesn't have a lot of inconvenient body
bags to justify, and makes the constituents get that warm and fuzzy feeling
that you are "Getting tough". Given current trends, orbital bombardment will
be advocated as a solution for everything from genocidal alien attack too
offensive body odor.
In a message dated 98-12-17 14:01:06 EST, you write:
<< > > > - but when you get Americans of a
> > > certain type talking about rights, they start yammering about the
Now, John, you'd deny there are folks in the US who'd want to own 155mm
howitzers? You'd deny that the FBI and ATF regularly capture folks with 60mm
Mortars,.50 BHMGs, and the like? Are these used to hunt ducks? or deer? or
modern animals like the flying squirrel? (to steal a joke from the SImpsons)
>>
Well, to start with, I'd *love* to own a 155mm howitzer. And as a matter of
fact there *are* people who do own artillery here in the US. It isn't illegal
you know, you just have to have the right licences from the BATF. Oh, and be
able to afford both the licence and the armandaleg the piece costs. I'm not
sure why anyone would be worked up over the private ownership of artillery
anyway. It isn't as if you can mug someone with a multi-ton piece of
equipment, and if you were lobbing shells randomly into downtown, the neigbors
would notice and call the authorities. Even the toughest 'hoods have the crazy
old lady with the cats that reports everything.
:-) Heck, in most juristictions discharging a pidly lil .22 is against
the law. Just imagine the noise pollution fine for yanking the lanyard on a
WW2
surplus Long Tom. :-)
Anyway, don't pull the old "why do you *need* a X". The answer's simple. Cuz
theyre fun. Why do you feel the need to have vast deposits of toxic metals
littering your home? Why does anyone need a Dodge Viper? As long as you're not
a fruitloop (or maybe even if you are, no one around here is quite sane after
all) I can't see why you shouldn't have any weapon you'd like, assuming you
can store them and their munitions safely. Excluding NBC weapons of course.
And if anyone claims I''m a hypocrite for banning them, then they're idiots
because they can't tell the multi orders of magnitude differences between a
howitzer and anthrax. Anyway (again) this is incredibly off topic and anyone
foolish enough to participate in a gun control debate on the 'Net (except in
the proper fora) ought to have their heads smacked several times. This
includes myself. And for the idiot who had to be so smug about the
Neandrathols that live in the States that he incited a guncontrol debate on
the list ought to be stomped on. I mean, come on anyone whos even been lurking
out there in Netland for more than a week knows that start a flame war you
only need to mention gun control. Sheesh.
> Brian Burger wrote:
> these are non-controversial rights - but when you get Americans of a
You mean like the "right" to defend yourself against the individual's two
greatest enemies: Criminals and The State... as if there is really a
difference.
> Most of the rest of the world doesn't think this way (thank god) so
That's because the rest of the world respects freedom the same way most people
respect dog shit. America is, or at least it was supposed to be, the first
society that put the freedoms of the individual first. Most
of the population of this dirty little mud-ball still believe the notion
that the government is always right, even when they are slaughtering this
week's political or ethnic scapegoat. Europe is perhaps the best example. The
Old World still believes that they are loyal surfs (or "subject") to the local
lord of the manor (i.e. bureaucrats, ministries, kings, prime ministers,
dictators), whom they count on them for
protection (i.e. censorship, state controlled economies, jack-booted
border guards, GUN CONTROL!!!). Feudalism didn't die, it just got
re-named "social democracy."
> Brian Burger wrote:
> In closing, mea cupla, and I'll stay off the Future Hist posts late at
> Apologetically,
Secondly, I apologize for the incivility of my last post. It's just that the
initial post REALLY touched a few of my buttons.
> these are non-controversial rights - but when you get Americans of a
Sure there is. The State is a lot more dangerous. Otherwise, no. (Disagree?
Try not paying your taxes some time. People who take your money by force or
threat or force are called what? Either robbers or IRS agents).
If I recall correctly, there are European countries that require universal
military service; in some cases, reserve service members are required to have
their weapons at home. Switzerland, I think, and perhaps Israel? What
is the incidence of accidental firearm-related deaths there? Whatever
it
is, it isn't high enough that the anti-gun nuts normally point to it and
say, "See, in Switzerland they have the same thing, and three-year-olds
blow their brains out with depressing regularity." It is my assumption,
therefore, that Americans have as many incidents as we do (and I have no idea
how many that "many" is) because people can get a gun without getting the
training in how to use it.
Of course, if you want to have a gun to prevent government control, you may
want to avoid having government regulations on who can get a gun and who
can't. I don't, however, see the NAC as permitting unrestricted purchasing of
weapons. Therefore I think it may be a reasonable compromise that the NAC
permit weapons to people who have completed certified training.
I think we established a few weeks ago that political diatribes are unwelcome
on the list. It is dissapointing to see them rear their ugly head again.
On Wed, 30 Dec 1998 16:13:53 -1000, "Jared E Noble"
> <JNOBLE2@mail.aai.arco.com> wrote:
> Could be please be careful about what we start around here? I believe
Agreed! The last thing the Net needs is another gun control debate. It's a non
winner. Those who want gun control will never convince those who don't want it
and vice versa. There are plenty of other fora for this debate, this is not
the place.
Now, I DO think discussing whether gun control would be adapted by the NAC or
not is valid, however I'm just not sure it can be discussed without it
devolving into an "is too!" "is not!" level of argument.
Umm, guys?
Could be please be careful about what we start around here? I believe we are
all pretty much rational adults who can hold a reasoned conversation
-
but let's not drag out another name-calling gun-control debate online,
OK?
A point was made that having the current British style weapon restrictions
would not go over with a great many Americans, and that some guaranteed right
would need to exist in this area. I agree. Mark has now shared with us some
eloquent <?> thoughts that many Americans share on the matter, as well as a
wry commentary on the status of personal freedom in European politics.
Mark, I think there are several Europeans on the list that have demonstrated
that they do not fall into the category of thinking themselves 'serfs', any
more that many of us Americans. Derogatory comments about Europeans in general
are not a good way to get your point across. Please beware ofgeneralities that
could lead to a flame war. For what it is worth, I agree with you about gun
control and many other issues (I have read your homepage).
For those on either side of the ideological camp interested in a
thought-provoking, well-reasoned article (with a pro-gun viewpoint), I
heartily recommend "Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun: What Bearing Weapons
Teaches About the Good Life" by Eric S. Raymond (quite a prominent member
of the Open-source software movement, BTW) The article can be found at
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html
Anyway, I don't want to stifle conversation. I believe that brian's post
is over a week old, maybe a bit more - and Brian quickly apologized for
phrasing his comments in a way that got others riled...I thought the
resultant feud had died - please leave it there...
Jared Noble
"Mark A. Siefert" <cthulhu@csd.uwm.edu> on 12/30/98 02:30:31 PM
Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
cc: (bcc: Jared E Noble/AAI/ARCO)
Subject: Re: [FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, and the
structure
> Brian Burger wrote:
> these are non-controversial rights - but when you get Americans of a
You mean like the "right" to defend yourself against the individual's two
greatest enemies: Criminals and The State... as if there is really a
difference.
> Most of the rest of the world doesn't think this way (thank god) so
That's because the rest of the world respects freedom the same way most people
respect dog shit. America is, or at least it was supposed to be, the first
society that put the freedoms of the individual first. Most
of the population of this dirty little mud-ball still believe the notion
that the government is always right, even when they are slaughtering this
week's political or ethnic scapegoat. Europe is perhaps the best example. The
Old World still believes that they are loyal surfs (or "subject") to the local
lord of the manor (i.e. bureaucrats, ministries, kings, prime ministers,
dictators), whom they count on them for
protection (i.e. censorship, state controlled economies, jack-booted
border guards, GUN CONTROL!!!). Feudalism didn't die, it just got
re-named "social democracy."
> Laserlight wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> Of course, if you want to have a gun to prevent government control,
I would tend to disagree with the 'reasonable compromise'. It is entirely too
reasonable. In the future, the past is the guide! Only the rich, powerful, and
'important' people will be allowed the possession of firearms. The only others
that possess firearms will
be the personal guard/bodyguards of the rich, powerful, and 'important'.
Any other concept is just a way to pass the time!
Bye for now,
> Could be please be careful about what we start around here? I believe
I am sorry but I am not rational nor an adult. I am a
homicidal/sucidal 14 year old CANADIAN Manic in command of an
intergaltic battlefleet! So there! Aaron Davis
http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/castle/8274/index.html
Mark spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> That's because the rest of the world respects freedom the same
Actually, although this logic is appealing, and based off a certain set of
moral principles (such as the belief that rights are an inherent property of
the individual and power flows from the individual to the state not vice
versa), there are some issues with
this line of thought - one that springs to mind is the assumption
that society is in fact a collection of individuals solely, nothing more
nothing less.
I suspect the truth is far more complex than this simple viewpoint: Society
and our interaction with it is something more than the sum of the parts. Our
relationships to each other through society have more of a synergistic element
and there are more complex mechanics at work other than mere individuals
working together in some sort of collective individual isolation. And just as
societies are more complex and contain aspects outside of the individuals they
encompass, they provide benefits that the individual receives as a
participating member which the indivdual (if such a truly mythic beast as an
autonomous independent individual actually exists) himself or herself would
not have were it not for the existence of this complex aggregate entity known
as a society.
I think debating fundamental ideology is ludicrous - it is obvious
many of us on the list are rooted in the "rightness" of our culture's world
view. Small wonder Mr.Tuffley suggests the GZG universe has no singular
villains and no singular white knights. It is, in that sense, only a
macrocosmic representation of our own differences made manifest.
BTW, Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year to the list!
/************************************************
> therubydragon@mail.geocities.com wrote:
I guess that puts me in my place!
Now, Just where am I? Was I? Should I be?
Commadore Lord Brian William Kesington XIII, Royal New Tasmanian Navy,
on loan to the Free Cal-Tex after completing the briefing of the
senate panel investigating the threat that the 'Forge Worlds'
presented to humanity, stopped and looked. Around the bridge of
the FCT SDN 'Trial by Combat', recently launched and undergoing trials, the
crew was intent on the exercise that lay before them.
...
Been there, Done that...
What, Yes my Lord! Change sides, Yes Lord! Spikey things, Sha'VasKu? No, not
them. Not the Sea Anename, Anenomeee, Anonohme... you know, the fishy things
from a while back. No, not them!
You must mean the Kra'Vak then! OK! I can do Kra'Vak!
Be creatively distructive, I can do that!
New ships, new shapes, same attitude. I can do that!
Happy new year and good gaming.
Bye for now,
> I am sorry but I am not rational nor an adult. I am a
Truly. 14 year old precludes both rationality and adult. I'm in favor
of the barrel theory on child-rearing. Keep the child in a barrel and
feed him through the bunghole[1]. When he reaches puberty, drive in the bung.
Homicidal and Suicidal tendencies are a reasonable response to being 14.
Canadian, I decline to comment on.
John Leary <john_t_leary@pronetusa.net> pens in:
> Commadore Lord Brian William Kesington XIII, Royal New Tasmanian
Ah, yes, the 'Trial By Combat'. She was a good targ-, er, I mean, ship.
;-)
Kommandant Kochte on loan to the Eurasian Solar Union Star Navy
Komarov-class SDN "Soveremeny"
> Remember, milk mustaches come in chocolate, too wrote:
> Ah, yes, the 'Trial By Combat'. She was a good targ-, er, I mean,
I am willing to accept comments on my performance in the scenario, but I feel
the design is valid and very useful in a campaign setting.
:-)
Bye for now,
> John L. writes:
> Ah, yes, the 'Trial By Combat'. She was a good targ-, er, I mean,
Jus' for the record, I never ever said anything negative about your
ship design. Dismayed that you had *p-torps* on it ;-P, but never
said anything negative.
> Bye the way, how did the 'Forge worlds' work out?
We departed the system with a wealth of knowledge. We damaged/destroyed
most of their smaller ships, took out one of their larger worlds. But
ultimately they took the system. They still had a metric ton of fighters left,
whereas we had nuthin'. Now I'm sure a couple of 'them' will jump
in here and body-slam us verbally. ;-)
Best get their licks in now, 'cause the next time they won't be so lucky. The
VINSON MASSIF is still a viable fighting vessel. And *will* take them
out...
:-)
Mk
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Truly. 14 year old precludes both rationality and adult. I'm in
Oh quoter of Heinlein...... such a policy might well yield the end of the
species.
> Canadian, I decline to comment on.
Ah, the man gains Wisdom with Age.... (grin). Seriously, I think being
Canadian might make one a little unbalanced due to crystalization of water in
the brain cells due to extreme frigid temperature.
/************************************************
> Canadian, I decline to comment on.
Thas'okay. I'm thankful you Canadians are there. You're keeping
the polar bears out of our backyards. :-)
M 'hate the cold, hate the cold!' k
> > Truly. 14 year old precludes both rationality and adult. I'm in
I am. And given some of the specimens whelped in the past few years, it seems
to deserve that end.:)
> > Canadian, I decline to comment on.
Well, someone's got to live there. Otherwise where would we get... we get...
hrm... well, what is Canada for?
:)
> John M. Atkinson wrote:
...snip...JTL
Otherwise where would we get... we
> get. . . hrm. . . well, what is Canada for?
On Mon, 04 Jan 1999 23:49:11 -0500, "John M. Atkinson"
> <john.m.atkinson@erols.com> wrote:
> Well, someone's got to live there. Otherwise where would we get. . .
we
> get. . . hrm. . . well, what is Canada for?
Well, we supplied the uranium for your atom bombs!