My take on the UNSC:
The UN are the good guys, in a universe without good guys. I don't care what
the UN is like now, or what anyone else has to say about them, no sane person
can deny that the fundamental principles of the UN are 100% laudable.
Forgetting the bureaucracy and inefficiency, the UN has done a lot of good in
the world. I like to think of the UNSC as being the fighting arm of the one
true representation of a UNITED humanity. Forget how unlikely it may or may
not be, as far as I am concerned, by 2183 the UN works and works well.
Throughout the timeline of the First Xeno War, they have acted as the force
that has gelled humanity together in the face of a greater threat. They have
also done a large amount of the fighting. Even before then, they were the guys
who prevented the Second and Third solar wars spreading into the core
systems - an act that doubtless saved countless millions of lives.
With regard to the UNSC themselves - I have to agree with those who said
the
UNSC is an independant, non-national force. If you look on one of the
great starmaps you can find on the net (I forget the page), you will see a
largish area marked "core systems". This area has a UN logo next to it. This
is the area in which the UNSC train. As for money, the UN can make cash
through taxation on space travel in the core systems, occasionally through
sanctions on major powers, through commercial means (they probably mine
asteroids for metals and suchlike). I also believe that the UNSC is a very
powerful force. As mentioned above, I'm sure that they actually take on the
brunt of the fighting against the Kra'Vak, and have the power to oppose all
the other
nations. Their ships LOOK high-tech. Their marines use the latest
technology (hardsuits and IPWs for everyone).
I don't know if I'm just whimsically minded, but I like the idea of a human
force that is genuinely in it for the whole of mankind, not merely allied to
some small fraction of it. Jon Tuffley is very explicit when he says that his
universe has no good guys. But I hope he can make one exception.
> Matthew Smith wrote:
> My take on the UNSC:
They have
> also done a large amount of the fighting. Even before then, they were
A friend of wrote up an alternate history for his champions campaign. The
--- Matthew Smith <matt@smithdom.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
> My take on the UNSC:
The problem with this is that, if true, UNSC would not be tolerated by other
powers. If UNSC is kept afloat by voluntary contributions by other major
powers, they would not tolerate any interference in their "internal affairs"
by UNSC. If they are to be "the good guys" who don't take sides but "fight the
good fight" they must have independent means of support. If they don't, UNSC
can only be a talking forum or the puppet of the major powers, carrying out
whatever policies they can all agree on. That would be essentially limited to
fighting piracy in space, providing neutral meeting places, perhaps some sort
of diplomatic courier service, but not much else. Even space exploration is
likely to be limited to the major powers, since they all are likely to have
interest in seizing whatever resources are found for themselves.
Another possibility is that UNSC serves to facilitate international trade in
space and serves as an international banker ("the ultimate offshore bank")
used by Tuffleyverse's megacorporations which don't want to be dependent on
national banking systems. The fees for providing this sort of service may also
be the UNSC's main source of funding (less fickle than voluntary
contributions) and the megacorps' interest in preserving UNSC (interest which
crosses the national boundaries in this case) is the main thing that keeps
UNSC in existence.
G'day guys,
Maybe the UNSC is funded the same way the Men in Black are....;P
Beth
> At 08:17 14/03/01 -0800, you wrote:
Speaking as a UN player, I just like to say the UNSC aren't evil, just
pragmatic;)
Speaking as a realist, it's hard to tell the difference sometimes.
------Original Message------
From: Matthew Smith <matt@smithdom.freeserve.co.uk>
> My take on the UNSC:
Only if the only thing they have in common with the current UN is the name.
> the UN is like now, or what anyone else has to say about them, no
> At 11:10 14/03/01 -0500, you wrote:
That easy I'm the one you can trust:)
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
The human rights of the UN charter are only guranteed if the granting of them
does not interfere with the interests of the UN.
Its in the charter, look it up. And then tell
me again how wonderful the UN is.
Bye for now,
Remember, according to GZG canon, the UN bans all fighting within the inner
colonies. This means that every power is going to have to put it major
shipyards, etc. in this area in order to protect them. The money problem is
solved by having the UN "rent" space above earth and the other colonies it is
task to protect in order to fund itself.
> Absender: john_t_leary@yahoo.com
> The human rights of the UN charter are only
Could you please quote verse and chapter?
The declaration of Human rights can be found at:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
I presume that you refer to Article 29: "(3) These rights and freedoms may in
no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United
Nations."
The "purposes and principles" are defined in the UN charter. The "purposes" is
not the same as "interests".
Also there is Article 30 of the declaration of human rights "Nothing in this
Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any
right to engage in any activity or to perform
any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth
herein."
The UN charter can be found at
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html
Chapter 1/Article 1 defines the purposes and article 2 the principles.
What is your problem with those?
Greetings Karl Heinz
> On 14 Mar 2001, at 23:57, Corey Burger wrote:
> Remember, according to GZG canon, the UN bans all fighting within the
Ah, but how does it enforce that ban?
> The money problem is solved by having the UN "rent" space above
And what gives the UN the rights to that space in order to rent it out? If the
NAC parks something in a geostationary orbit above North America it's not
going to pay somebody else for the privilege of doing so.
In a message dated 3/15/01 6:29:05 AM Central Standard Time,
steve@pugh.net writes:
> And what gives the UN the rights to that space in order to rent it
It will if it has treaty obligations to do so.
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment here...
> Matthew Smith wrote:
IMO there's no such thing. There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys,
there's only you and me and we just disagree...
> I don't care what the UN is like now, or what anyone else has to say
...and the laudable ends justify the means?
> With regard to the UNSC themselves - I have to agree with those who
A nation by any other name is still a nation. They have to own some land,
space station(s), and/or bits of rock in the solar system that aren't
part of any other nation. Granted they're not going to have a large,
contiguous landmass on any of the major planets (unless there are such things
as "UN colonies"), but they're going to perform the same functions as any
other nation, i.e. "...establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide
for the common defense, promote the general
welfare...."
> As for money, the UN can make cash through taxation on space travel in
The first is a form of piracy, and the second is a form of blackmail, both of
which try to hide behind a thin veil of legitimacy.:)
> Absender: Rick@esr.com
legitimacy.:)
Which you could argue is true for any form of taxes, dues and tariffs, even if
established by democratic means. So where is the problem with the UN taxing
something?
Greetings
> KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
> even if established by democratic means. So where is the problem with
Yes, it's no different than any other government -- that's the point I
was trying to make. The UN (as described in this future universe) is like
any other government -- neither better nor worse than the NAC, ESU, FSE,
etc.
> ----- Original Message -----
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 5:25 AM
Subject: RE: [FT] UNSC (emotional rant)
<Snip>
> The first is a form of piracy, and the second is a form of blackmail,
And this is different from most governments, how?
> The first is a form of piracy, and the second is a form of blackmail,
> which is different from other governments how?
I can vote for or against my representatives and persuade others of my
political inclination to do likewise. I can call my representative or senator
and have a reasonable chance they'll take action; even if they don't, we're
from the same culture and I'll know that my issue was
understood. If the Evil UN becomes an effective one-world government,
they'll have power without accountability.
> --- Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
Why would NAC and other powers agree on something like that in the first
place? What's in it for them? There has to be some kind of quid pro quo here.
So far we've seen plenty of examples of what major powers might be doing for
the UNSC, but what is the UNSC doing for the major powers that they can't do
themselves?
> -----Original Message-----
Laserlight,
Not all Governments allow you to vote for or against the people who make the
laws. Take the USA where I live for example. Even though we pay lip service to
"democratic methods" we are not close ourselves. Look at our last presenential
election. The man with the popular vote lost. How can that be?
Many times Senators or Congressmen who are from States I do not live in are
Chairmen in Committees that kill bills I want to see move forward or push
bills forward I do not want and I did not vote for them nor do I have a say in
their being placed in a place of power over my life.
Another example? My City and County both can enact Taxes on my land without my
say. They hide these Taxes behind words like "assessment", "easement", or
"levy". "Taxation without representation?" All the time here in the good ol'
US of A
Last Example? The American Court system has started to be used to "make law"
rather then "interpret law". Again, in most cases these are Judges appointed
not voted in. And in the case of the US Supreme Court they are in for life.
It is not that hard for me to see the UNSC/UN to be something like
what Jon has created in his background. Many times the people in power do not
ask the masses what they want, but do what is in the interest of those in
power.
But again it goes back to sovreignty. If I want to do business with another
foreign country, I have to do it by their laws and regulations, and I don't
have any vote or say so in how they are set up or structured. If the UN were
to become it's own nation, it can set the rules and regulations as it sees fit
like any other nation. The question becomes whether other powers would
recognize it's right to rule and abide by such. Who's to say whether some
charismatic
secretary-general in the future won't pull together a power block to
extend the UN's authority by convincing enough voters of the benefits, real or
imagined? History is full of treaties where such powers have been granted to
other nations. Some have turned out good and some not
so....
Funny thing is, most totalitarian or authoritarian governments don't start out
that way. They start as benevolent democracies, republics or monarchies that
slowly erode citizen rights and freedoms until it's too late.
Chuck
> ----------
From: Casquilho, Daniel Daniel.Casquilho@disney.com
> Not all Governments allow you to vote for or against the people
<snip>
> Last Example? The American Court system has started to be used to
No disagreement with any of that, and I agree the UN is like that now
and more so when it has its own revenue stream and troops--but how
likely is it that having "power without accountability" will make the UN a
benevolent force?
The other problem with the UN as opposed to a nationstate is, you can emigrate
from your country if you see it heading downhill and enacting laws you can't
live with. Your emigration may be illegal, expensive and
risky--but it can be done. How do you emigrate from the UN?
(answer, effective effective ca AD2210--move to Alarish).
I think I'm tending to see the same arguments over and over.
I had a comment written up, decided that I'd see somebody else say it, perhaps
before mine made it through the process. Not quite, but close enough that
there was no need. Now, I'm starting to get tired of my own argument, repeated
ad nauseam with very little variation in the wording.
Have we agreed to disagree yet?
--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> From: Casquilho, Daniel Daniel.Casquilho@disney.com
> The other problem with the UN as opposed to a
Answer, effective immediately: move to North Korea.
> No disagreement with any of that, and I agree the UN is like
Oh, I do not see the UNSC/UN as a "good guy" or benevolent
force at all. I just see them as another power players in a large game. I
agree with Jon when he said there is no "Good Guy" in his future setting.
> Have we agreed to disagree yet?
I am ready to drop this and move on.
In a message dated 3/15/01 11:39:35 AM Central Standard Time,
> Daniel.Casquilho@disney.com writes:
> Not all Governments allow you to vote for or against the people
I would note that we are nOT a democracy but a Republic under the umbrella of
the constitution, a document which founded this nation in all reality. The
last election did indeed have a minority president elected. He is not the
first to be so elected. Truman was one, a third party candidate meant that a
majority of voters voted for someone other than Harry S. Yet he was the
constitutionally elected president of the US as is Dubya. Mind you, I voted
for Gore but in a state that went to Bush, so Dubya, minority president or not
is indeed the constitutionally elected president of this republic (not
democracy at all).
In a message dated 3/15/01 11:39:35 AM Central Standard Time,
> Daniel.Casquilho@disney.com writes:
> Another example? My City and County both can enact Taxes on my land
> [quoted text omitted]
Cities and counties raise taxes on property via legally enacted structures,
the mayor, city council, County Supervisors whatever are all duly elected and
their ordnances are subject to approval by the voters voting them in or out of
office. Perfectly representative.
In a message dated 3/15/01 12:09:56 PM Central Standard Time,
> laserlight@quixnet.net writes:
> >Last Example? The American Court system has started to be used to
Again, the court has done nothing unconstitutional at all. And if the states
or Congress decide it is acting against the best interests of the people,
Constitutional ammendment is perfectly possible.
In a message dated 3/15/01 12:36:28 PM Central Standard Time,
> Daniel.Casquilho@disney.com writes:
> ?
Absolutely! No good guy, but the one function which the UN performs (and
apparently with the acquiescence of all parties involved most of the time) is
keep the planet from being the scene of absolute war. A very commendable
function even if the agent of that function is less than perfect. I think that
is why the nations largely cooperate in keeping their fleet and orbital
installations away from terra - a fear of mutual destruction that the UN
keeps at bay.
Popeyesays,
Thanks for your input on my post. But as The Beast said earlier, let's just
agree to disagree and move on.
> > No disagreement with any of that, and I agree the UN is like
Why is everyone so cynical all the time? Are we really in a world where cynics
are the only true realists? Is it impossible to believe that somewhere,
sometime in the future, a power may exist that is not totally corrupted by
bureaucracy and personal or political gain? I'm not saying the UN is or will
be perfect, but if you read the canon, the UNSC was CREATED to be a benevolent
force. It's the whole point of their existance, at least
until the Kra'Vak show up - at which point they become something perhaps
even better - the force that is able to finally unite humanity (although
that may well be attributed more the KVs themselves).
And what on earth is wrong with taxes? Nobody likes them, but they really are
necessary. Here in the UK right now the NHS is suffering badly and no
one is willing to raise taxes to support them - they're afraid of losing
votes. If taxes were raised by 1p in every £ it would provide around £2bn
more to help the NHS. My family can afford that and are more than willing to
pay. Why does everyone seem to hate the idea?? In the same vein, why shouldn't
the UN levy taxes to support an initiative that is keeping billions of human
beings safe from war?
> "Parrott, Charles P" wrote:
> Funny thing is, most totalitarian or authoritarian governments don't
Totalitarian or authoritarian regimes form suddenly, because the
previous form of government has obviously failed, and the would-be
dictator has "The Answer".
Yes, Hitler won a fair election. The election was fair because the Nazi thugs
that beat up and intimidated voters were no more (or less) brutal than the
thugs of any of the other party, and then Hitler managed to disband or defang
all of the groups of thugs (including the brownshirts).
The global depression after the crash of 1929 is hard to imagine for those of
us who are fortunate enough to have not experienced it. The western
parliamentary democracies were able to weather the storm, as they were long
established, but the nascent democracies had insufficient time to convince
their electorates that they had the best answer in the long run.
The Soviet regime came into power suddenly because the Czar, while a
--- Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
> "Parrott, Charles P" wrote:
While I partially agree with the first part of this (I would put "failed" in
quotation marks), I disagree with the second.
The one time Hitler ran for office (for the presidency) he lost to Hindenburg,
and by a fairly wide margin at that. He became the Chancellor entirely through
backroom deals, rather than thanks to his electoral showing or his party's
popularity (the Nazis never won outright majority of seats in the Reichstag,
even in rigged elections). The oft-quoted "even Hitler
was elected" statement is pure myth. It's also not true that the various
parties' thugs had "equality of opportunity". For one thing, the moderate
leftist, rightist, and centrist parties did not engage in such tactics, only
the extreme left and right (the Communists and the Nazis) ones did, and even
then the German law enforcement tended to deal with Nazi thugs more leniently
than with Communist ones. Concerning the "brownshirt" disbandment, the SA
continued in existence until the end of 3rd Reich, although its leadership was
purged after Hitler became concerned its agenda was not the same as his, with
the gap being plugged by Himmler's SS.
Godwin's Law !!!!!!!!!!!
'nuff said
> --- "Mike J." <pmj6@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
> Better yet, why should I vote at all.
In Australia they make it easy for you.... its an offense no to vote and
they'll hunt you down;)
Beth
[quoted original message omitted]
> Matthew Smith wrote:
> Why is everyone so cynical all the time? Are we really in a world
Yes
> Is it impossible to believe that
Not *totally* corrupted, maybe... but then again, most of the other
power blocks probably aren't *totally* corrupted either :-/
> I'm not saying the UN is or will be perfect, but if you read the
Neither the UNSC nor the KV manage to unite the GZGverse humanity -
read the FB2 timeline continuation, 2193 entry. Together they manage to
thoroughly disrupt the other major human powers, but that's it :-/
Regards,
Good point, back to GZG stuff....
:)
> ----------
> --- "Mark A. Siefert" <siefertma@wi.rr.com> wrote:
Actually, the focus of democratic government is protecting individuals from
having their lives, liberty and property taken by other individuals.
> >I'm not saying the
Nothing prevents you from being an individual thinker. It's all about what the
Earth's (and Humanity's) future. There are only two options: Earth the United,
or Earth the Eternal Battlefield. Since the costs of war have become
unacceptable, and thanks to economic globalization, both of which make some
sort of global governance increasingly necessary, we are seeing an inexorable,
although uneven, progress away from the latter and toward the former.
> > And what on earth is wrong with taxes?
I take it you'd replace the slogan "No Taxation Without Representation" with
"No Taxation, Period"?
It's simple, really: if you don't want to pay taxes, first stop using the
things they pay for. Taxes are levied by ourselves (through our elected
representatives) on ourselves. They are as voluntary as they can be.
> >Nobody likes them, but they really are necessary.
Really? Have you ever tried it?
> > Here in the UK right now the NHS is suffering
I have yet to see one society where property rights are absolute.
> > Why does everyone seem to hate the idea?? In the
Once again, I don't see any extortion in a democratically elected government
levying taxes. If you don't like what they do you should elect someone else,
pure and simple.
> --- "Mark A. Siefert" <siefertma@wi.rr.com> wrote:
Well, then, why don't you run for office yourself?
> Mark A. Siefert wrote:
> > Not really I'm afraid. As with all
I don't know much about the American system of government, but I can tell you
that in the UK you don't totally lose your representation just because you
voted for the loser. That's why they have debates in parliament. If you have
an issue to raise, you can raise it with your local MP who will then raise it
in parliament and something will, if it is a sensible and justified issue, be
done about it. I think in the US the senate works in much the same
way. Democratic government - with taxes and everything else - may not be
perfect, but it is the best solution. There is no better alternative -
unless you would like to suggest one?
> doing for the UNSC, but what is the UNSC doing for the
They are protecting the core systems. Something the major powers don't trust
each other to do.
> Not all Governments allow you to vote for or against the people
You forget that the President was never intended to be elected by popular
votes. The United States was orginally formed as a governement representing
the states, and the man that most of the states wanted was elected. The United
States is not, nor has it ever been, nor was ever intended to be a true
democracy. The intent was to allow the people only to elect their
representative. Even senators were chosen by the states with whatever method
the states determined. Even the name of the country should give away the basis
of its government, we are the United STATES of America, NOT the United PEOPLES
of America.
Anyway, to the original topic, I still don't see the UNSC as a government, but
more like the only way the four powers could keep fighting their wars without
destroying humanity. They don't trust each other to protect teh core worlds,
so they charge the UN with doing it. That way, they can fight their wars, and
home sweet home is none the less for wear.
Its easy to fight a war, when the destruction is occuring many light years
away.
George
From: "Beth Fulton" <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au>
> >Better yet, why should I vote at all.
She's not joking, BTW.
> The fine is a whopping $5 US though...
I thought it was $20 AUD...or am I so far behind the exchange rates $20 AUD is
$5US?? Oh boy there goes me getting any geohex terrain this millenium!
When I checked it was about a$2.09:us$1.00
---
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable The Full Thrust Ship
Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---
[quoted original message omitted]
***
I thought it was $20 AUD...or am I so far behind the exchange rates $20 AUD is
$5US?? Oh boy there goes me getting any geohex terrain this millenium!
***
Nah, there's just a little surcharge for those off the mainland... ;->=
> Matthew Smith wrote:
Heh. <putting on Devil's Advocate hat>
With the discussion of the value/evil of taxation, etc.,
I'd thought I'd throw some fuel on the fire. Those who believe in a benevolent
goverment that can
use taxes to help people are at around +2,+2.
Thos who distrust the government and believe that
taxation is theft are around -2,-2
In the spring 1980 issue of DESTINIES, Jerry Pournelle published an articled
called THE PROPER STUDY OF MANKIND. It had an appendix that had a facinating
classification system for political organizations. It had two variables.
(Pournelle makes clear that he didn't think then nor does he think now that
these two are all there is to political theory. But they have the property of
mapping every major political philosophy into one unique place)
R ^ A: Max Stirner, Ayn Rand
a +2 | B: Various Libertarians
t A | E C: Welfare Liberals
i +1 | D D: Socialists
o B | C E: Communists
n 0<----------+---------> F: Classical Anarchists
a | H G: American "counter culture"
l -1 G | I H: Various Conservatives
i | J I: Fascists
s -2 F | J: Nazis
m v
-2 -1 0 +1 +2
Statism
VARIABLE ONE: "Statism" This is the attitude towards the State. Is the
government an object of idolatry, a postitive good, a necessary evil, or
unmitigated evil?
Put this on the X axis, with umitigated evil at -2,
and object of idolatry at +2.
(Anarchists would be at -2. Reactionary monarchists would
be at +2. American political parties would cluster around
0. Both Communists and Fascists are from +1 to +2.
Both American Conservatism and US Welfare Liberalism
are from 0 to +1. Don't be fooled into thinking that
Conservatives are anti-statits, they may want to dismantle
the Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, but they would strengthen the
police and army.
Ideological libertarians are from -2 to 0)
VARIABLE TWO: "Rationalism" This is the attitude towards planned social
progress. It maps the belief that society has "problems" and these can be
"solved". Put this on the Y axis, with "all social problems
have findable solutions" at +2, and with
"problems, what problems?" at -2.
(Fascism is at about -1, since they appeal to
"the greatness of the nation" or volk, and to
the fuhrer-prinzip. Communism belongs up around
+2, since they have all the answers to social ills.
Welfare liberals are from +1 to +2 ("all crime
is caused by poverty thus when we end poverty we'll end crime...")
Note that this arrangement does explain some political anomolies. Pournelle
gives an example of
> "Mark A. Siefert" wrote:
From: "Beth Fulton" <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au>
> I thought it was $20 AUD...or am I so far behind the exchange rates
$10 AusD - at least, last time I looked. Due to a screw-up with the
rolls, when
[quoted original message omitted]
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 21:06:04 -0800 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> Didn't we kill this thread?
Oh NO! An UNDEAD Thread. Dr.Frankenstring is at it again!!! Get out the mob of
angry peasants! We have a monster and it's creator to corral!
Sorry, sold a bunch of D&D 1st and 2nd edition today in the local hobby
shop flea market and had some DM/GM withdrawal to deal with...
Actually, I am not sorry, that was a polite little white lie. I grinned the
whole time I was typing!
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 08:56:48 +1100 "Alan and Carmel Brain" <snip>
> $10 AusD - at least, last time I looked. Due to a screw-up with the
Funny, Democrats and college students got multiple votes in Saint Louis last
Election... <grin>
Didn't we kill this thread?
From - Mon Mar 19 14:44:53 2001
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA08324;
Sat, 17 Mar 2001 20:38:06 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id
f2I2bB631810;
Sat, 17 Mar 2001 18:37:11 -0800 (PST)
(envelope-from owner-gzg-l)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Sat, 17 Mar
2001 18:37:09 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f2I2b8Y31789
for gzg-l-outgoing; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 18:37:08 -0800 (PST)
(envelope-from owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU)
X-Authentication-Warning: scotch.csua.berkeley.edu: majordom set sender
to owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU using -f
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:F+gjtNLH543jQYobYWmCutgv8M3peHu9@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52] (may be forged))
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
f2I2b6b31784
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 18:37:06
-0800 (PST)
(envelope-from owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU)
Received: from mail06.toast.net (webmail.toast.net [206.244.185.51])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
f2I2b6H19433
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 18:37:06 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from chanfaunce@toast.net)
Received: from toast.net (unverified [205.133.8.197]) by mail06.toast.net
(Vircom SMTPRS 4.5.186) with ESMTP id <B0000360457@mail06.toast.net>
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>;
Sat, 17 Mar 2001 21:25:45 -0500
Message-ID: <3AB448C1.45F785B6@toast.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 21:33:55 -0800
From: Chan Faunce <chanfaunce@toast.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [GZGECC] Gallery, AARs posted
References: <OF4AF4DB76.C69D2ED0-ON86256A12.00571A4E@uneb.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00001a2e
Status: RO
Content-Length: 758
Lines: 34
> devans@uneb.edu wrote:
> Could I get id's on a couple of ship figs? The bottom left of the
Scratch-built Psi-Corps mothership by Aaron Newman
> the middle of the second, please.
Raider Battlewagon from AoG
> I'm afraid to ask about the one
Scratch-built EF Breaching pod by Aaron Newman
I have been sitting quietly...listening to this thread...and now I feel the
need to reveal some thoughts...
A) UN/Taxes
Well...NO government can operate in a vacuum...(ie: no income, with lots of
out-go...) I strongly beleve that there are some things that
governments are perfectly suited for: Common defense, Health of its populous,
Safety standards, ect.
What does this mean? The UN in order to have an impressive fleet, must
also
have impressive taxes/donations/ect. Maybe it's own research
labs/shipyards/ect.
I did have a rather strange conversation reciently with a man who was for "no
governments". He felt that all of our problems were directly related to
governments. (ie: wars -- fought between governments...ect) Now before
you can say "CHAOS!" He explained that his idea was the humble insurance
companies. Example: If someone was making an unsafe product -- say
cars --
then that company should pay much higher insurance rates than normal...until
they got tired of the higher preniums and made better ones. Ya
know...he never did get around to explaining who would do the rate setting...
B) UN/Territory
Where does it get territory? Three sources that I can think of: 1) Treaties
with the big four. (probably some kind of "diplomatic
one-ups-man-ship")
2) Base grants by the poor nations. (Just think -- granting the UN
basing rights in your boarders will give you a powerfull military you don't
have to pay for, and it will make your billigerant neighbors think twice
before causing trouble for you...and you make a little cash for your poor
economy on the side.)
3) Exploration/claiming unused/unknown territory. (Not every
floating piece of matter in the core area will have a member nation's flag on
it...)
C) UN/goodguy
1) why not? In a setting where everyone is out for themselves, shouldn't there
be someone to look after those who can't? After all, the "big four" are
outnumbered in the UN by everyone else. (Last I heard the UN had 167 or so
members...knock some off of that for the various timeline changes, and the
total still stands over 100 vs just 4.) Just because the "big four" were
bigger wouldn't mean that they would always get their way in the UN.
2) This is Science Fiction! (Emphasis on the word fiction) Fiction means that
some or all of the material is made up. (ie: having some or no similarity to
reality.) That means that Jon and company can say what they like. (basing some
of it on real bits adds flavor and interest.)
3) The differances noted on the list between the UN of 2001 and
2183/ect.
Yes these are some big changes...but it does seem concievable over a period of
2 centuries. You know -- the UN making changes slowly over a long
period. It would be more UNbelievable for there to be no differances.
4) The only constant in life is: "Change" Anyone who resists it will get run
over... You have two choices: Try to adapt to whats happening or upcoming, or
sit there and do nothing. If your strategy is already flexible, you might not
have to do anything...but very few strategies are flexible enough. (This also
applies to biology...ask Beth [our resident expert] on this.)
D) UN/Strength
Its my opinion that the UNSC has to be a formidable force...otherwise the
"Core Systems" agreement would be totally ignored by the "big four". The only
thing a bully truly respects is a strong force against him. Then he's nice
because he has to be. Just how strong? Now there is a good question. Probably
strong enough to take out one of the big four by itself...that would put them
on par with the "big four".
Lastly...what really annoys me most is when peaple say something like: "That
(something) is BAD/annoying now, and will always be so." "That change
never
happens..." This is a blind/sad way to build a futurehistory. The
future holds so much uncertanty. Especially when one is trying to create a fun
game and something about reality is in the way of that fun game...
Besides...in reality...noone wants to be on a constant war footing. There
would be huge gaps of...(dare I say it?)...peace. Yes the dreaded "P" word of
generals and admirals alike...
> Absender: Hosford.Donald@acd.net
At the risk of reviving this thread that was done to death some time
ago...
Nice thoughts.
Some points...
> I strongly beleve that there are some things that governments are
humble insurance companies. Example: If someone was making an
> unsafe product -- say cars -- then that company should pay much
higher preniums and made better ones. Ya know...he
> never did get around to explaining who would do the rate setting...
Now, the latter point is easy - the insurance companies themselves. In
an open market, that should ensure fair rates: too high rates and nobody
will ensure their stuff with them, too low rates and the insurance company
will go under because it can't match its obligations.
But the problems don't end there: who defines what damages to pay for an
accident? Ok, material damages (say, if your car is broken) that can
be defined. But, say, broken bones? Should you just pay the cost of treatment?
Lost income? punitive damages? Here's a field for lawyers,
courts, law-givers and, hence, government. And somebody has to force the
insurance company to pay out. And you have to keep competition open by
preventing cartels in the insurance business.
I also wonder how the 'Insurance Company' model should work for
defence, road-building, police, schools, etc. and whether that guy would
want to live in a place where all those are left to market forces.
Plus, a lot of the problems he attributes to 'governments' exist even without
them. Wars, for example.
> C) UN/goodguy
for the various timeline changes, and the total still stands over > 100 vs
just 4.)
The GZG history has reduced nations rather more drastically than that, but
yes, it should still hold in terms of numbers of nations, population
and economy.
> Just because the "big four" were bigger wouldn't mean that they >
would always get their way in the UN.
And indeed, it seems likely that the big four would rarely agree with each
other, which, depending on the GZG UN constitution would either paralyse it or
give it considerable freedom of action. The latter assumption makes for a more
interesting UN.
> 2) This is Science Fiction! (Emphasis on the word fiction)
Well said!
> D) UN/Strength
Depends on how you view the politics in the GZG universe. Are the nations
aggressive bullies (say, like Hitler or Saddam)? Or are they more normal
governments who will grab advantages offered, but who also see the value of
cooperating on many topics and are willing to compromise some interests if the
overall deal is sweet enough?
In the latter case, it may be enough if the UN is strong enough to tip the
balance in a 2 vs. 2 confrontation.
> Besides...in reality...noone wants to be on a constant war footing.
...and of wargamers
;-)
Karl Heinz
> --- Donald Hosford <Hosford.Donald@acd.net> wrote:
> A) UN/Taxes
> What does this mean? The UN in order to have an
OK, I'll buy this.
> B) UN/Territory
"Sir, we have to give the UN something. The FSE just granted them an annual
contribution of umpteen million Francs a year. If we don't give them some
Marks, the FSE will have too much influence over UN decisions."
> 2) Base grants by the poor nations. (Just think
I buy this, but see below.
> C) UN/goodguy
No--why should there be? Jon Tuffley had made the
pronouncement on-list, ex cathedra, "There are no good
guys" in his timeline.
> outnumbered in the UN by everyone else. (Last I
Actually, there are less than 20 governments representing the entire territory
of Terra. Nations that actually have turf on Terra include:
ESU NAC NSL FSE ScanFed PAU IF Netherlands Switzerland Indonesian Commonwealth
OU Japan Romanov Hegemony.
Plus the non-canonical IAS.
That's exactally 14 UN members, plus off-planet
members.
> D) UN/Strength
No. All they have to be is strong enough to tip the balance. IE: ESU attacks a
NAC territory in Sol System. NAC by themselves are stalemated with ESU, but
with UN firepower, all of a sudden the ESU is outgunned enough to make a
difference.
> Besides...in reality...noone wants to be on a
word of > generals and admirals alike...
"Peace is a theoretical ideal deduced from the fact that there have been
pauses between wars."
--Jerry Pournelle
Peace is a condition in which no civilian pays any attention to military
casualties which do not achieve
page-one, lead-story prominence-unless that civilian
is a close relative of one of the casualties. But, if there ever was a time in
history when peace meant that there was no fighting going on, I have been
unable to find out about it.
--Robert Heinlein
In the US, there have been 10 years in our entire history in which the US
Armed Forces have not been somewhere shooting someone, teaching people to
shoot each other, or deployed to some country to threaten to do so.
In article <14kNbi-1T9iC0C@fwd02.sul.t-online.com>, KH.Ranitzsch@t-
online.de writes
> Now, the latter point is easy - the insurance companies themselves.
<Snip>
> I also wonder how the 'Insurance Company' model should work for
LOL!
Think about Lloyds of London. Question answered I suspect.
Cheers
> --- KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
I have a vague memory of a science fiction novel whose premise was exactly
this. The insurance companies had "taken over" and WERE the government. It was
quite a boring world because the insurance company group that ran everything
was ruthlessly conservative. It's title was something like "Preferred Risk" or
something like that. I think Frederick Pohl and Lester Del Rey were the
authors. I don't remember it as a super great book, but the premise was
interesting. I may be misremembering it, it's been a long time.