[META] Governments in F&SF

[James Nicoll]

It belatedly occured to me that I could track the government types in the
novels I read to see if my impression that spec fic is all autocracy all
the time is actually supported by the data. Because I am lazy as fuck--thus
the reviewing pace only 45x the median for reviewers--I only went back
to the beginning of the year. However, I am planning on updating this
every month.

Caveats: It's only about 100 books and it is not a random sampling, since
"prince" or "princess" or "semi-divine President" in the blurbs will get
me to pass by a book in favour of something less 1300 AD. Nevertheless,
there was a pattern.

Definitions:

Not Applicable: For anthologies, non-fiction texts and other works that lack
a single dominant setting.

Unclear: For works where I could not figure out how government functions.

Anarchy: For works with no functioning governments

Pure democracy: For works where all inhabitants have a say in communal decisions

Representative democracy: For works where people select representatives to make
decisions on their behalf.

Oligarchy: For works where a small group of people govern without meaningful input
from the populace.

Autocracy: For works where a single person governs without meaningful input from
the populace.

Works are categorized using the time-honoured "I know it when I see it"
system. I will not be explaining how individual books were categorized
and for even greater clarity I will not be justifying why I categorized
books as I did. This isn't intended as a detailed study, but merely rough
statistics to provide me with perspective.

Government Types June

Total 22, Not Applicable 4 (18%), Unclear 4 (18%), Anarchy 0 (0%), Pure democracy 0
(0%), Representative democracy 6 (27%), Oligarchy 7 (32%), Autocracy 1 (5%)

Government Type 2022 TD

Total 129, Not Applicable 21 (16%), Unclear 8 (6%), Anarchy 4 (3%), Pure democracy
1 (1%), Representative democracy 37 (29%), Oligarchy 42 (33%), Autocracy 16 (12%)

Which is to say, representive democracy has a slight lead, while oligarchy has
a respectable second place position. Actual one-person rule is a distant
third.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

[Michael F. Stemper]

On 01/07/2022 09.43, James Nicoll wrote:
> It belatedly occured to me that I could track the government types in the
> novels I read to see if my impression that spec fic is all autocracy all
> the time is actually supported by the data.

I happen to be reading the Foundation "trilogy" at the moment. It
shows the big changes in society, which means that the type of
government changes as time goes by.

"The Psychohistorians": Takes place on Trantor in the declining
years of the Galactic Empire. Autocracy (even though the Emperor
isn't the autocrat).

"The Encyclopedists": The Board of the Encyclopedia Foundation
is running things. There's no sign that they're elected, so I'll
go with oligarchy.

"The Mayors": The Board is no longer relevant and the Mayor is
popularly elected, although the City Council can impeach him.
There are also political parties. Representative democracy.

"The Traders": There is no sign of government; in fact, we
never get within a parsec of Terminus.

"The Merchant Princes": Transition from (presumed) representative
democracy to plutocracy. (Yeah, I know it wasn't on James' list,
but it's a direct statement at the end of the story.

"The General": Has a scene early on with some guys in a smoke-
filled room, one of whom says "[...] We can afford to remember
here that _we_ are the government." Continuation of the above
plutocracy.

"The Mule": Starts with a hereditary mayor, ends with a warlord.
Autocracy.

"The Search by the Mule": Continuation of the above autocracy.

"The Search by the Foundation": I don't believe that there are
any specific statements, but it feels as if representative
democracy has been restored.


--
Michael F. Stemper
Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.

[James Nicoll]

In article <t9n6ec$2a810$1...@dont-email.me>,

Michael F. Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"The Merchant Princes": Transition from (presumed) representative
>democracy to plutocracy. (Yeah, I know it wasn't on James' list,
>but it's a direct statement at the end of the story.

Having the limited number of categories that I do, I would lump
plutocracies under oligarchies.

[Ahasuerus]

On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 12:32:53 PM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <t9n6ec$2a810$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Michael F. Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >"The Merchant Princes": Transition from (presumed) representative
> >democracy to plutocracy. (Yeah, I know it wasn't on James' list,
> >but it's a direct statement at the end of the story.
> Having the limited number of categories that I do, I would lump
> plutocracies under oligarchies.

How would you classify urban fantasies set in "our world with hidden
magic", which often feature "secret organizations which rule the night
world"? Or "Worm"?

[James Nicoll]

In article <360d764d-a2b5-465e...@googlegroups.com>,

For the first, generally Rep Dem. Not sure about Worm.

[Steve Coltrin]

begin fnord

jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:

> Having the limited number of categories that I do, I would lump
> plutocracies under oligarchies.

I think the Little Black Books would call it self-perpetuating
oligarchy, given that money always trickles up.

--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org Google Groups killfiled here
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press

[James Nicoll]

In article <m24k003...@kelutral.omcl.org>,

Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>begin fnord
>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>
>> Having the limited number of categories that I do, I would lump
>> plutocracies under oligarchies.
>
>I think the Little Black Books would call it self-perpetuating
>oligarchy, given that money always trickles up.
>

The LBBs were my starting point but I modified it with my enormous
sloth in mind.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

(Hal Heydt)
I think you can count Graydon Saunders _Commonweal_ books as
representative democracy. Also, highly recommend them.

I would class the world as "techno-magic" as there is magic, but
it has rules (lots of rules, actually) and there is active
experimentation, research and theory. Additionally, Saunders tends
not to hand you background on a platter.

[Steve Coltrin]

begin fnord
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:

> In article <m24k003...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>
>>I think the Little Black Books would call it self-perpetuating
>>oligarchy, given that money always trickles up.
>>
> The LBBs were my starting point but I modified it with my enormous
> sloth in mind.

Do you need a license for those? How much do they eat? Do they have to
be walked or can they be trained to use a litter box?

[Michael F. Stemper]

On 01/07/2022 13.59, Steve Coltrin wrote:
> begin fnord
> jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>> In article <m24k003...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
>> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:

>>> I think the Little Black Books would call it self-perpetuating
>>> oligarchy, given that money always trickles up.
>>>
>> The LBBs were my starting point but I modified it with my enormous
>> sloth in mind.
>
> Do you need a license for those? How much do they eat? Do they have to
> be walked or can they be trained to use a litter box?

They can be walked. But you need to have a lot of patience.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Isaiah 58:6-7

[Robert Carnegie]

What's the category for "computers / lizards /
Mycroft Holmes is secretly in charge after all"?
And what if that's only revealed in book three? ;-)

[Michael F. Stemper]

On 01/07/2022 11.32, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <t9n6ec$2a810$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Michael F. Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "The Merchant Princes": Transition from (presumed) representative
>> democracy to plutocracy. (Yeah, I know it wasn't on James' list,
>> but it's a direct statement at the end of the story.
>
> Having the limited number of categories that I do, I would lump
> plutocracies under oligarchies.

Personally, I don't think that I could tell one from the
other anyway.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Galatians 3:28

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <t9picm$2kj9j$2...@dont-email.me>,

Michael F. Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 01/07/2022 11.32, James Nicoll wrote:
>> In article <t9n6ec$2a810$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Michael F. Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "The Merchant Princes": Transition from (presumed) representative
>>> democracy to plutocracy. (Yeah, I know it wasn't on James' list,
>>> but it's a direct statement at the end of the story.
>>
>> Having the limited number of categories that I do, I would lump
>> plutocracies under oligarchies.
>
>Personally, I don't think that I could tell one from the
>other anyway.

(Hal Heydt)
It occurs to me to wonder how the Roman practice of the Senate
electing a dux bellorum as a limited time executive would fit in.

[Quadibloc]

Thinking about it, perhaps a "plutocracy" lets in new money, while
an oligarchy sticks to old money. So an oligarchy wouldn't let
Trump in, for example.

John Savard

[Andrew McDowell]

I always thought that a lot of the reaction against Trump was due to him being "new money" - or at least behaving as if he was, as I thought his Father was wealthy enough to afford a properly cultured upbringing if Trump had been promising material for it.

(More on topic, my pet peeve is inherited political power in technological societies, which I believe is implausible but all too common in SF. As far as I can see, James's analysis is not detailed enough to report on this).

[Wolffan]

On 02 Jul 2022, Andrew McDowell wrote
(in article<de5b20f8-4c0c-41fb...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 5:14:22 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 7:49:14 AM UTC-6, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> > > On 01/07/2022 11.32, James Nicoll wrote:
> >
> > > > Having the limited number of categories that I do, I would lump
> > > > plutocracies under oligarchies.
> >
> > > Personally, I don't think that I could tell one from the
> > > other anyway.
> > Thinking about it, perhaps a "plutocracy" lets in new money, while
> > an oligarchy sticks to old money. So an oligarchy wouldn't let
> > Trump in, for example.
> >
> > John Savard
> I always thought that a lot of the reaction against Trump was due to him
> being "new money" - or at least behaving as if he was, as I thought his
> Father was wealthy enough to afford a properly cultured upbringing if Trump
> had been promising material for it.
>
> (More on topic, my pet peeve is inherited political power in technological
> societies, which I believe is implausible

Oh, really? Hmm. I suppose that certain people named ‘Roosevelt’,
‘Bush’, ‘Kennedy' and ‘Clinton’, to name but four obvious examples,
didn’t get political power... in several cases in the same state and/or
congressional district, in large part because of who daddy/hubby was. And
then there’s ‘Gandhi’ and ‘Bhutto’, and, of course, ‘Kim’.
Unless you’d like to make the case that India, Pakistan, and North Korea
aren’t technological societies?

I won’t bother mentioning minor players named ‘Windsor’ and whatever
you call the current occupant of the Imperial Palace in Tokyo.

[James Nicoll]

In article <de5b20f8-4c0c-41fb...@googlegroups.com>,

Andrew McDowell <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote:
>
>(More on topic, my pet peeve is inherited political power in technological
>societies, which I believe is implausible but all too common in SF. As far as
>I can see, James's analysis is not detailed enough to report on this).

Happily, my system is too crude to force me to consider whether political
dynasties in democracies count as inherited power.

[James Nicoll]

In article <0001HW.2870BDCB04...@news.supernews.com>,

Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com> wrote:
>On 02 Jul 2022, Andrew McDowell wrote
>(in article<de5b20f8-4c0c-41fb...@googlegroups.com>):
>
>> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 5:14:22 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> > On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 7:49:14 AM UTC-6, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>> > > On 01/07/2022 11.32, James Nicoll wrote:
>> >
>> > > > Having the limited number of categories that I do, I would lump
>> > > > plutocracies under oligarchies.
>> >
>> > > Personally, I don't think that I could tell one from the
>> > > other anyway.
>> > Thinking about it, perhaps a "plutocracy" lets in new money, while
>> > an oligarchy sticks to old money. So an oligarchy wouldn't let
>> > Trump in, for example.
>> >
>> > John Savard
>> I always thought that a lot of the reaction against Trump was due to him
>> being "new money" - or at least behaving as if he was, as I thought his
>> Father was wealthy enough to afford a properly cultured upbringing if Trump
>> had been promising material for it.
>>
>> (More on topic, my pet peeve is inherited political power in technological
>> societies, which I believe is implausible
>
>Oh, really? Hmm. I suppose that certain people named ‘Roosevelt’,
>‘Bush’, ‘Kennedy' and ‘Clinton’, to name but four obvious examples,

In Canada, one has to wonder whether the market recognition of the Trudeau
surname was a net asset, a liability or a wash. I mean, it's not like Albertans
will ever forget the NEP.

(Yes, Justin won but what really happened was people really wanted Harper out,
and as soon as it became obvious which of the LPC or NDP had the lead, voters
flocked to that party. Could just as easily have been the NDP winning in 2015)

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 7/2/2022 9:29 AM, Andrew McDowell wrote:
> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 5:14:22 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 7:49:14 AM UTC-6, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>> On 01/07/2022 11.32, James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>>>> Having the limited number of categories that I do, I would lump
>>>> plutocracies under oligarchies.
>>
>>> Personally, I don't think that I could tell one from the
>>> other anyway.
>> Thinking about it, perhaps a "plutocracy" lets in new money, while
>> an oligarchy sticks to old money. So an oligarchy wouldn't let
>> Trump in, for example.
>>
>> John Savard
> I always thought that a lot of the reaction against Trump was due to him being "new money" - or at least behaving as if he was, as I thought his Father was wealthy enough to afford a properly cultured upbringing if Trump had been promising material for it.
>

The Trump family is not enamored of "properly cultured". Donald's
father was a con man and Donald himself is carrying on that family
tradition.


--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

[Andrew McDowell]

In democracies, members of a political dynasty are obliged to claim that they have risen to prominence through merit, and that they would do a better job of governing than their competitors. They do not inherit their position as of right, and obvious incompetence will end their careers. North Korea is being sufficiently badly run as to demonstrate why I think inherited positions are a problem in technological societies. In practice, the Queen has had the opportunity to exert some influence through her experience and personality, but she does not rule by exerting inherited power, or in fact by any other means. The current political makeup of the United Kingdom is markedly different from that of the Star Kingdom/Empire of Manticore.

[Ath]

On 03.07.22, jdni...@panix.com <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:

> It belatedly occured to me that I could track the government types in
> the novels I read to see if my impression that spec fic is all
> autocracy all the time is actually supported by the data. Because I
> am lazy as fuck--thus the reviewing pace only 45x the median for
> reviewers--I only went back to the beginning of the year. However, I
> am planning on updating this every month.

> Caveats: It's only about 100 books and it is not a random sampling,
> since "prince" or "princess" or "semi-divine President" in the blurbs
> will get me to pass by a book in favour of something less 1300 AD.
> Nevertheless, there was a pattern.

> Definitions:

Since this is Speculative Fiction, what about the ruler(s) is/are the
ones most suitable? With taking advice from the 2nd most suitable(s)?

Granted, even in SF it's unlikely to be plain old humans convincingly
managing to have the most suitable individual(s) rule, but does no
writer ever make it up? (Apart from me, of course. But I have no books
published.)

Oh dear, it occurs to me that "most suitable" could have different
definitions. What I have in mind is leaders who objectively make the
best available decision. Naturally suited to that post, and willing to
do it of course, with the idea of personal gain from it being completely
alien, never even a thought.

What would such a government be even called. Beyond wishful thinking of
course, which is allowed in SF. :)

--

Call me Mick, that's me online.

[James Nicoll]

In article <FxB+no1aczB@ATH>, Ath <A...@kruemel.org> wrote:
>On 03.07.22, jdni...@panix.com <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> It belatedly occured to me that I could track the government types in
>> the novels I read to see if my impression that spec fic is all
>> autocracy all the time is actually supported by the data. Because I
>> am lazy as fuck--thus the reviewing pace only 45x the median for
>> reviewers--I only went back to the beginning of the year. However, I
>> am planning on updating this every month.
>
>> Caveats: It's only about 100 books and it is not a random sampling,
>> since "prince" or "princess" or "semi-divine President" in the blurbs
>> will get me to pass by a book in favour of something less 1300 AD.
>> Nevertheless, there was a pattern.
>
>> Definitions:
>
>Since this is Speculative Fiction, what about the ruler(s) is/are the
>ones most suitable? With taking advice from the 2nd most suitable(s)?

I'd probably classify that as autocracy. SF and F autocracies tend to work
far more efficiently than real-world ones.

[Chris Buckley]

Sorry, it's a logical impossibility, which is not (ideally) allowed in
SF. (Note there are differences between physical and logical
impossibilities; the former is fine in SF.)

The core function of government at its root is to deal with the fact
that humans have different beliefs and different desires but must
interact. There can be no "objectively best available decision" -
philosophically, there is no "objectively" possible.

The best governments, IMO, are those that recognize this "fact" and
allow for humans to have different beliefs (and even express them!).
But I recognize that even this is not "objective" and other humans
disagree.

Chris

[Robert Carnegie]

_The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_ - on radio
anyway - presents an argument that someone who
wants to be in charge shouldn't be, and boils this
down to, "People are a problem." Then we are
introduced to a man who lives alone on an isolated
planet except for regular visits by people who ask him
to make decisions about important issues in one or
more galaxies... while he believes that the issues, and
his own past experiences, are not necessarily even real.

It's just crossed my mind that Zaphod Beeblebrox being
President of the Galaxy in the story - a different character
with apparently very selfish motives and little sense of
responsibility - may have given certain real people ideas.
But I suppose there are earlier examples... in Ancient
Roman history, for instance. With the writer making it up
as he went, Zaphod evidently ran as President to get access
to a new spaceship, and ultimately to visit the Ruler of the
Universe. The President represents the Emperor, who is
in time stasis at the point of his death and therefore holds
power without being able to exercise it, but in any case,
his function, if he knows it or not, is to hide the fact that
decisions are really made by the man on the isolated planet.

Isaac Asimov, 1955:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_(short_story)>
"the United States has converted to an "electronic democracy"
where the computer Multivac selects a single person to
answer a number of questions. Multivac will then use the
answers and other data to determine what the results of an
election would be, avoiding the need for an actual election to
be held." Political parties also may be gone, I don't recall.

Or in 1950:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evitable_Conflict>
The global administrative Machines decide everything
themselves. But they don't tell us. It would hurt
our feelings.

[Paul S Person]

You don't understand.

To be "old money" the family has to have been rich since, if not the
Big Bang, at least the founding of the Republic.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

[Andrew McDowell]

I do see that the term defined as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_money is exclusive, but there has very often been a way for new money to become more acceptable in the next generation. The UK comes close to formalising this process by having charities supported by royals and the honours system. One way for the second generation to fit in would be to go to exclusive schools where some of the pupils were real old money - both to make connections and to get inot the habit of behaving in the same way as old money. A glance at a chapter of Trump's "Art of the Deal" suggests that he was sent to New York Military Academy because he was something of a discipline problem. The US idea of private military schools is alien to me, and no doubt they have their own particular strengths, but I am going to guess that a school deemed suitable for sorting out discipline problems does not receive old money pupils unless they too are discipline problems.

[Jack Bohn]

Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Sunday, 3 July 2022 at 07:18:19 UTC+1, Ath wrote:
> > On 03.07.22, jdni...@panix.com <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It belatedly occured to me that I could track the government types in
> > > the novels I read to see if my impression that spec fic is all
> > > autocracy all the time is actually supported by the data. Because I
> > > am lazy as fuck--thus the reviewing pace only 45x the median for
> > > reviewers--I only went back to the beginning of the year. However, I
> > > am planning on updating this every month.
> >

> > Since this is Speculative Fiction, what about the ruler(s) is/are the
> > ones most suitable? With taking advice from the 2nd most suitable(s)?
> >
>

> Isaac Asimov, 1955:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_(short_story)>
> "the United States has converted to an "electronic democracy"
> where the computer Multivac selects a single person to
> answer a number of questions. Multivac will then use the
> answers and other data to determine what the results of an
> election would be, avoiding the need for an actual election to
> be held." Political parties also may be gone, I don't recall.
>
> Or in 1950:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evitable_Conflict>
> The global administrative Machines decide everything
> themselves. But they don't tell us. It would hurt
> our feelings.

I suspect this would have been classified as an oligarchy of those who interpret the oracle software*.
Unless the computer has direct connections to its own end effectors, in which case we probably move to no government, being pets.


*Oracle software copyright and trademark of Oracle Software.

--
-Jack

[Ahasuerus]

On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 12:42:59 PM UTC-4, mcdow...@sky.com wrote:
> I do see that the term defined as
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_money is exclusive, but there
> has very often been a way for new money to become more acceptable

> in the next generation. [snip]

The first hurdle is the phenomenon variously known as "rags to riches
to rags in three generations" or "Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three
generations" or "Fu bu guo san dai" in Chinese.

"Old money" families are families which have been financially
independent for 3+ generations and have presumably developed
techniques to avoid this fate. Anecdotal evidence suggests that
there are multiple ways to skin this particular cat and it stands to
reason that we will see even more ways in the future.

Have there been SF treatments of this topic? I can't think of
anything at the moment, but it feels like I am missing something
obvious. To clarify, I am talking about new ways of raising
children that ensure that they will remain frugal and retain
inherited financial independence as opposed to well known
tools like restrictive trust fund arrangements.

[peterw...@hotmail.com]

Robert Heinlein's novel _Glory Road_ had some aspects of what you describe.
Following some disaster in a technologically advanced culture, rather than
trying to devise a better system of government institutions a group of survivors
found a leader that had a good track record of making decisions and concentrated
on helping that person by providing them with more and better information. This
practice works well and, by the time the story is set, their has culture flourished into
a civilization spanning many galaxies in twenty universes. They regard their system
as purely empirical.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

[Chris Buckley]

It's a common theme in Asian fantasy to send potential heirs out into the
world and see what they do - in some novels it's done with erasing the
memory of the heir so they are really on their own. But that's in worlds
where violence and direct combat are important, and life is not strongly
valued.

_Norstralia_, Cordwainer Smith, is a big SF example where the home planet
of the monopoly life-preserving drug taxes all inhabitants at a 99.999...
rate so they are poor. If they want to emigrate they become fantastically
rich off-world, but can never return.

There's also the approach in novels like _The Dosadi Experiment_ where
the aristocracy of the Gowachin sends the minds of its heirs to
scarcity dominated Dosadi to learn how to take advantage of any
slight resource.

Chris

[Ath]

On 03.07.22, jdni...@panix.com <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <FxB+no1aczB@ATH>, Ath <A...@kruemel.org> wrote:
>> On 03.07.22, jdni...@panix.com <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:

>>> It belatedly occured to me that I could track the government types
>>> in the novels I read to see if my impression that spec fic is all
>>> autocracy all the time is actually supported by the data. Because I
>>> am lazy as fuck--thus the reviewing pace only 45x the median for
>>> reviewers--I only went back to the beginning of the year. However,
>>> I am planning on updating this every month.
>>
>>> Caveats: It's only about 100 books and it is not a random sampling,
>>> since "prince" or "princess" or "semi-divine President" in the
>>> blurbs will get me to pass by a book in favour of something less
>>> 1300 AD. Nevertheless, there was a pattern.
>>
>>> Definitions:
>>
>> Since this is Speculative Fiction, what about the ruler(s) is/are
>> the ones most suitable? With taking advice from the 2nd most
>> suitable(s)?

^ With taking advice from anyone worth listening to. Forgot that bit
(was a bit tired).

> I'd probably classify that as autocracy. SF and F autocracies tend to
> work far more efficiently than real-world ones.

Hm, but that word has such a negative connotation. What I have in mind
is good, sensible, and works, because it's really the most suitable,
competent, clear thinking (or even super-clear thinking) individual.
(Hey, it's SF.)

Maybe what you have in mind is a different character than what I have in
mind, while for either of us it fits the description. :)

[Ath]

On 04.07.22, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 3 July 2022 at 07:18:19 UTC+1, Ath wrote:

>> Since this is Speculative Fiction, what about the ruler(s) is/are
>> the ones most suitable? With taking advice from the 2nd most
>> suitable(s)?

>> What would such a government be even called. Beyond wishful thinking
>> of course, which is allowed in SF. :)

> _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_ - on radio anyway - presents an
> argument that someone who wants to be in charge shouldn't be, and
> boils this down to, "People are a problem." Then we are
> introduced to a man who lives alone on an isolated planet except for
> regular visits by people who ask him to make decisions about important
> issues in one or more galaxies... while he believes that the issues,
> and his own past experiences, are not necessarily even real.

Yes, I remember. :)

> It's just crossed my mind that Zaphod Beeblebrox being President of
> the Galaxy in the story - a different character with apparently very
> selfish motives and little sense of responsibility - may have given
> certain real people ideas.

Who, and what ideas?

> But I suppose there are earlier examples... in Ancient Roman history,
> for instance.

I am a bit lost.

> Isaac Asimov, 1955:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_(short_story)>
> "the United States has converted to an "electronic democracy"
> where the computer Multivac selects a single person to
> answer a number of questions. Multivac will then use the
> answers and other data to determine what the results of an
> election would be, avoiding the need for an actual election to
> be held." Political parties also may be gone, I don't recall.

I don't know that that would be the most suitable, though. :)

> Or in 1950: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evitable_Conflict>
> The global administrative Machines decide everything themselves. But
> they don't tell us. It would hurt our feelings.

Lol.

Reading that, it definitely doesn't have the most suitable individual
ruling. :)

[Ath]

On 04.07.22, peterw...@hotmail.com <peterw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 1:18:19 AM UTC-5, Ath wrote:

>> Since this is Speculative Fiction, what about the ruler(s) is/are
>> the ones most suitable? With taking advice from the 2nd most
>> suitable(s)?

>> What would such a government be even called. Beyond wishful thinking
>> of course, which is allowed in SF. :)
>>
> Robert Heinlein's novel _Glory Road_ had some aspects of what you
> describe. Following some disaster in a technologically advanced
> culture, rather than trying to devise a better system of government
> institutions a group of survivors found a leader that had a good
> track record of making decisions and concentrated on helping that
> person by providing them with more and better information. This
> practice works well and, by the time the story is set, their has
> culture flourished into a civilization spanning many galaxies in
> twenty universes. They regard their system as purely empirical.

Interesting. Empirical government (not Empire), seems a new word
applied to it.

Having just listened to Starship Troopers (I gave up on reading books,
but audiobooks are good for just the stories), I wouldn't trust Heinlein
to come up with a government I find credible, though. :)

[Ath]

You're funny. We're talking about SF, so it doesn't have to be humans,
or plain old humams like we have in the real world.

Objectively best -available- I put that word in there deliberately. Even
those I have in mind can only work with what's possible.

> The best governments, IMO, are those that recognize this "fact" and
> allow for humans to have different beliefs (and even express them!).

I have two settings in mind. (I can see 95% fading out here, stopping to
read. :P )

One's with humans, everyone can do magic (but the amount depends on the
brain power), and some have special talents that already make them
significantly different from what you find in the real world. And then
there's those with extra super brains who _know_ what's right. All the
available data, memories from even before they were born, knowledge of
human behaviour,... is present and slots into place.

Story doesn't start out with them being in charge, but it goes there,
making a home for anyone who'd be happy living there. (Not those folks
who'd just walk over others without concern.)

The other is not humans, everyone can do -some- magic, but what kind
varies between tribes, and gender (female, 2 types of neutrals, 2 types
of males, and an odd female type). Magic steered evolution towards
creating people who lack certain aspects you'd find in plain old humans.
(It's a complete shock to them when they find a family has been killed,
and some members abducted.)

There, everyone is in the place they're most competent and comfortable,
whether that's leading the whole tribe, or just their own family.
There's 10 different tribes that all have different instincts and needs.
The tribes don't have much to do with each other, some are friendly,
some don't get on. (Or get on like fire and water, hah.)

Story has them working together against a common enemy, even those that
don't normally get on. They might curse loudly, or watch silently and
make the occasional comment, depending on their temper, but they all
work towards the good of all people, and the competent ones know that
the other tribes have other instincts and needs, of course. (The rest at
worst needs a reminder.)

So I was wondering, what would those governments be called? Maybe
there's no word from our world, where we have governments for plain old
real people.

> But I recognize that even this is not "objective" and other humans
> disagree.

Well, made-up characters are what the author has in mind. Us readers are
those that agree or disagree that anything is good or bad.

[peterw...@hotmail.com]

Here is the relevant text from _Glory Road_:

Seven thousand years ago a notion was born for coping with political problems too big to handle. It was modest at first:
How could a planet be run without ruining it? This planet's people included expert cyberneticists but otherwise were hardly
farther along than we are; they were still burning the barn to get the rats and catching their thumbs in machinery. These
experimenters picked an outstanding ruler and tried to help him. Nobody knew why this bloke was so successful but
he was and that was enough; they weren't hipped on theory. They gave him cybernetic help, taping for him all crises in
their history, all known details, what was done, and the outcomes of each, all organized so that he could consult it almost
as you consult your memory. It worked. In time he was supervising the whole planet -- Center it was, with another name then.
He didn't rule it, he just untangled hard cases. They taped also everything this first "Emperor" did, good and bad, for guidance
of his successor. The Egg of the Phoenix is a cybernetic record of the experiences of two hundred and three "emperors" and
"empresses," most of whom "ruled" all the known universes. Like a foldbox, it is bigger inside than out. In use, it is more the
size of the Great Pyramid. Phoenix legends abound throughout the Universes: the creature that dies but is immortal, rising ever
young from its own ashes. The Egg is such a wonder, for it is far more than a taped library now; it is a print, right down to their
unique personalities, of all experience of all that line from His Wisdom IX through Her Wisdom CCIV, Mrs. Oscar Gordon.
. . .
The office is not hereditary. Star's ancestors include His Wisdom I and most of the other wisdoms -- but millions of others have
as much "royal" blood.
. . .
The heir has imprinted in him (her) the memories, the very personalities, of past emperors. He (She) becomes an
integration of them. Star-Plus. A supernova. Her Wisdom. The living personality is dominant but all that mob is there, too. Without
using the Egg, Star could recall experiences that happened to people dead many centuries. With the Egg -- herself hooked into the
cybernet -- she had seven thousand years of sharp, just-yesterday memories.
. . .
Peter Wezeman
anti=social Darwinist

[J. Clarke]

The Pak?

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 13:38:45 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:

>In article <FxB+no1aczB@ATH>, Ath <A...@kruemel.org> wrote:
>>On 03.07.22, jdni...@panix.com <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It belatedly occured to me that I could track the government types in
>>> the novels I read to see if my impression that spec fic is all
>>> autocracy all the time is actually supported by the data. Because I
>>> am lazy as fuck--thus the reviewing pace only 45x the median for
>>> reviewers--I only went back to the beginning of the year. However, I
>>> am planning on updating this every month.
>>
>>> Caveats: It's only about 100 books and it is not a random sampling,
>>> since "prince" or "princess" or "semi-divine President" in the blurbs
>>> will get me to pass by a book in favour of something less 1300 AD.
>>> Nevertheless, there was a pattern.
>>
>>> Definitions:
>>
>>Since this is Speculative Fiction, what about the ruler(s) is/are the
>>ones most suitable? With taking advice from the 2nd most suitable(s)?
>
>I'd probably classify that as autocracy. SF and F autocracies tend to work
>far more efficiently than real-world ones.

An autocracy could be wonderful _if_ the autocrat was intelligent,
competent, and humane. In the real world, not so much.

Right now the US is in a bit of turmoil because the composition of the
semi-oligarchy called "The Supreme Court" has changed and it is now
attempting to be legalistic rather than benevolent.

[Andrew McDowell]

One sort of idealised autocracy is Plato's vision of the Philosopher-King. Many arguments for government control and regulation view goverment as approaching the ability of the ideal Philosopher-King - Just, wise, and far from any conflict of interest.

But one of the things I like about Science Fiction is that it provide glimpses of fields of knowledge to a reader who may not have been familiar with them before - and there is a whole division of economics that doesn't get as much time in the spotlight as it deserves. That field is Public Choice Theory, and this attempts to study how political institutions are affected by the non-ideal behaviour of the people who run them. In the context of an ideal Philosopher-King it would show how the interests of that King are in conflict with the interests of his people. In the context of a bureaucracy it would show how the bureaucrats are often led by the incentives of the bureaucracy to put their efforts into directions which are not aligned with the stated goals of the organisation (and this includes bureaucrats who plan strategy and create incentives for others, so things can get pretty twisty).

Thinking of this sort of gritty view of people's real life behaviour, I am reminded of David Drake's RCN series. The realism here comes from rip-offs of real history, of the Roman Republic and of the British Admirality during the Napoleonic wars - but both of these are too far from modern societies to be completely convincing as windows onto today's world.

[Ath]

On 04.07.22, peterw...@hotmail.com <peterw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 6:18:26 PM UTC-5, Ath wrote:

>> Having just listened to Starship Troopers (I gave up on reading
>> books, but audiobooks are good for just the stories), I wouldn't
>> trust Heinlein to come up with a government I find credible, though.
>> :) --
> Here is the relevant text from _Glory Road_:

[...]

> . . . The heir has imprinted in him (her) the
> memories, the very personalities, of past emperors. He (She) becomes
> an integration of them. Star-Plus. A supernova. Her Wisdom. The
> living personality is dominant but all that mob is there, too.
> Without using the Egg, Star could recall experiences that happened to
> people dead many centuries. With the Egg -- herself hooked into the
> cybernet -- she had seven thousand years of sharp, just-yesterday
> memories.

Now that reminds me of the Abomination in Dune. Maybe because that was
more prominent, with Alia and Paul's Children, than the not-pregnant
intake of the poisonous Spice, where an adult gained (female) ancestral
memories.

Maybe I should trust the characters in the story to pick the best heir,
rather than expecting the worst. :)

[Ath]

On 04.07.22, Andrew McDowell <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 12:18:25 AM UTC+1, Ath wrote:
>> On 03.07.22, jdni...@panix.com <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> In article <FxB+no1aczB@ATH>, Ath <A...@kruemel.org> wrote:

>>>> Since this is Speculative Fiction, what about the ruler(s) is/are
>>>> the ones most suitable? With taking advice from the 2nd most
>>>> suitable(s)?
>> ^ With taking advice from anyone worth listening to. Forgot that bit
>> (was a bit tired).

>>> I'd probably classify that as autocracy. SF and F autocracies tend
>>> to work far more efficiently than real-world ones.

>> Hm, but that word has such a negative connotation. What I have in
>> mind is good, sensible, and works, because it's really the most
>> suitable, competent, clear thinking (or even super-clear thinking)
>> individual. (Hey, it's SF.)
>>
>> Maybe what you have in mind is a different character than what I
>> have in mind, while for either of us it fits the description. :)

> One sort of idealised autocracy is Plato's vision of the
> Philosopher-King. Many arguments for government control and
> regulation view goverment as approaching the ability of the ideal
> Philosopher-King - Just, wise, and far from any conflict of interest.

The description fits, but the words, philosopher and king, bring their
own ideas along that create an entirely different picture. :)

I see some dude on a throne with a distracted look on his face, thinking
theoretical thoughts, far detached from reality. Now _that_ wouldn't
make a good ruler at all. ;P

> But one of the things I like about Science Fiction is that it provide
> glimpses of fields of knowledge to a reader who may not have been
> familiar with them before - and there is a whole division of
> economics that doesn't get as much time in the spotlight as it
> deserves. That field is Public Choice Theory, and this attempts to
> study how political institutions are affected by the non-ideal
> behaviour of the people who run them.

Ah, real world, not ideal. (That's how much I could get from your text,
I keep reading it and getting lost, sorry. :) )

> In the context of an ideal Philosopher-King it would show how the
> interests of that King are in conflict with the interests of his
> people.

The ideal would be that there is no conflict there.

> In the context of a bureaucracy it would show how the bureaucrats are
> often led by the incentives of the bureaucracy to put their efforts
> into directions which are not aligned with the stated goals of the
> organisation (and this includes bureaucrats who plan strategy and
> create incentives for others, so things can get pretty twisty).

That sounds so very close to home. (I'm in Germany. German mills grind
slowly, they say about the bureaucracy here.)

> Thinking of this sort of gritty view of people's real life behaviour,
> I am reminded of David Drake's RCN series. The realism here comes
> from rip-offs of real history, of the Roman Republic and of the
> British Admirality during the Napoleonic wars - but both of these are
> too far from modern societies to be completely convincing as windows
> onto today's world.

Well, I'm not a fan of windows onto today's world. I did read one book
by David Drake, years ago, and didn't dislike it. I now put this series
on the list to look up as audiobooks. :)

[Ath]

On 04.07.22, J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 08:05:00 +0200, "Ath" <A...@kruemel.org> wrote:

>> Since this is Speculative Fiction, what about the ruler(s) is/are
>> the ones most suitable? With taking advice from the 2nd most
>> suitable(s)?

^Plus listening to any reasonable advice or info.

>> What would such a government be even called. Beyond wishful thinking
>> of course, which is allowed in SF. :)

> The Pak?

What's that? (Google didn't help.)

[Wolffan]

On 04 Jul 2022, Ath wrote
(in article <FxC0A2uLczB@ATH>):

Larry Niven’s Protectors. Pak Protectors are older hominids who have
partaken of the (ahem) Tree of Life and are very strong, very fast, quite
intelligent (in a very focused way) and very long-lived. Pak Protectors have
just one reason for being: Protect Their Family. (Hence the ‘very focused
way’ that they think.) Note that ‘Family’ is quite extensive to the
Pak. Very, very, VERY extensive. Some Pak Protectors (with their families, of
course) moved, in slower-than-light ships, from their homeworld (too many
Paks, too many Protectors with nuclear weapons and a focus on defending
_their_ families at all costs...) to Earth... and discovered that
Tree-of-Life doesn’t grow there. Oops. Thanks to handwave biology (biology
is not Niven’s strong suite) the Pak non-Protectors, no longer guarded from
mutations by the Protectors who are now dead, became humans... and, I think,
Gorillas and chimps. Other Pak went and created the Ringworld. Others stayed
home... for a while. When they came out and encountered mutated Protectorless
Pak, they were Not Happy. Hijinks occur. See further Protector, Ringworld,
assorted other Known Space stories.

The point is Pak Protectors recognize no government other than a group of
related Protectors taking care of their Family, which could be in the
millions. And young, non-Protector, Pak have zero voice in that government.
It’s a gerontocracy, and a very specialized gerontocracy at that.

[Tony Nance]

On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 7:18:21 AM UTC-4, Ath wrote:
> On 04.07.22, Andrew McDowell <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 12:18:25 AM UTC+1, Ath wrote:
> >> On 03.07.22, jdni...@panix.com <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>> In article <FxB+no1aczB@ATH>, Ath <A...@kruemel.org> wrote:
>

> >>>> < some snipping for brevity>

>
> That sounds so very close to home. (I'm in Germany. German mills grind
> slowly, they say about the bureaucracy here.)
>
> > Thinking of this sort of gritty view of people's real life behaviour,
> > I am reminded of David Drake's RCN series. The realism here comes
> > from rip-offs of real history, of the Roman Republic and of the
> > British Admirality during the Napoleonic wars - but both of these are
> > too far from modern societies to be completely convincing as windows
> > onto today's world.
>
> Well, I'm not a fan of windows onto today's world. I did read one book
> by David Drake, years ago, and didn't dislike it. I now put this series
> on the list to look up as audiobooks. :)
>

Drake's a pretty solid, consistent writer, and the RCN books make for
a pretty solid, consistent series. If you like the first 1-2, you'll probably
like the next several - I think it's not until book 11 or 12 that the protagonists
change.

Tony

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

Ancestral humans, according to Larry Niven in Protector and the
Ringworld books.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"I think man is the most interesting insect on earth, don't you?"
-- Marvin the Martian

[Michael F. Stemper]

On 03/07/2022 16.54, Ath wrote:
> On 03.07.22, jdni...@panix.com <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In article <FxB+no1aczB@ATH>, Ath <A...@kruemel.org> wrote:

>>> Since this is Speculative Fiction, what about the ruler(s) is/are
>>> the ones most suitable? With taking advice from the 2nd most
>>> suitable(s)?
> ^ With taking advice from anyone worth listening to. Forgot that bit
> (was a bit tired).
>
>> I'd probably classify that as autocracy. SF and F autocracies tend to
>> work far more efficiently than real-world ones.
>
> Hm, but that word has such a negative connotation. What I have in mind
> is good, sensible, and works, because it's really the most suitable,
> competent, clear thinking (or even super-clear thinking) individual.
> (Hey, it's SF.)

If I recall correctly, Golan Trevize in _Foundation's Edge_ had the
superpower of making the right decision. (This might be off, because
it's been fifteen years since I last read it.)

This is so impressive that both Foundations send him out to do research
and come up with the right answer to a specific question. They didn't
make him "ruler", though. More of a consultant.

--
Michael F. Stemper
If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much
more like prunes than rhubarb does.

[Michael F. Stemper]

On 03/07/2022 14.07, Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2022-07-03, Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> wrote:

>> The first hurdle is the phenomenon variously known as "rags to riches
>> to rags in three generations" or "Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three
>> generations" or "Fu bu guo san dai" in Chinese.

>> Have there been SF treatments of this topic? I can't think of
>> anything at the moment, but it feels like I am missing something
>> obvious. To clarify, I am talking about new ways of raising
>> children that ensure that they will remain frugal and retain
>> inherited financial independence as opposed to well known
>> tools like restrictive trust fund arrangements.
>
> It's a common theme in Asian fantasy to send potential heirs out into the
> world and see what they do - in some novels it's done with erasing the
> memory of the heir so they are really on their own. But that's in worlds
> where violence and direct combat are important, and life is not strongly
> valued.

In Dickson's "Call Him Lord", the heir presumptive to the throne
of the Galactic Empire is always sent out to a primitive world
to see how competent he is on his own.

The particular heir shown in the story doesn't do too well.


<http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?41572>


--
Michael F. Stemper
Deuteronomy 24:17

[Michael F. Stemper]

On 04/07/2022 08.18, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

> In Dickson's "Call Him Lord", the heir presumptive to the throne
> of the Galactic Empire is always sent out to a primitive world

This is ambiguous. The "primitive world" isn't something like in
_Tunnel in the Sky_; it's more like a low-tech, low-population
Earth.

--
Michael F. Stemper
The name of the story is "A Sound of Thunder".
It was written by Ray Bradbury. You're welcome.

[pete...@gmail.com]

I also recall that the Pak home world has been subject to endless wars as clans
try to acquire lebensraum for their own relations.

Pt

[Paul S Person]

On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 09:42:56 -0700 (PDT), Andrew McDowell

The film /Slaughterhouse Rulez/ (which is actually on-topic here, BTW)
deals with such a school.

There've been films about military schools too, some of them quite
interesting, although I don't recall any titles.

[Paul S Person]

It is simultaneously broadening access to firearms and painting large
targets on itself with other decisions. This may turn out to be an
unfortunate combination.

I can only hope that their security is up to par.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <rq36chhavga5a0o2a...@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> [SCOTUS --whh]

>It is simultaneously broadening access to firearms and painting large
>targets on itself with other decisions. This may turn out to be an
>unfortunate combination.
>
>I can only hope that their security is up to par.

(Hal Heydt)
The head of their security organization has asked the authorities
in Maryland to please enforce state and local laws against
picketing and demonstrations in front of private homes.
Specifically, the homes of those justices that live in Maryland.

One might suspect that this will ultimately end up in court and
could--in theory--be appealed to SCOTUS. Will the justices
whose homes are seeing this activity recuse themselves, as they
ought? Recent case history shows that they probably will not.
(*cough* Clarence Thomas *cough*.)

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <ac642b0e-ef15-4473...@googlegroups.com>,

pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Some Pak Protectors (with their families, of
>> course) moved, in slower-than-light ships, from their homeworld (too many
>> Paks, too many Protectors with nuclear weapons and a focus on defending
>> _their_ families at all costs...) to Earth... and discovered that
>> Tree-of-Life doesn’t grow there. Oops. Thanks to handwave biology (biology
>> is not Niven’s strong suite) the Pak non-Protectors, no longer guarded from
>> mutations by the Protectors who are now dead, became humans... and, I think,
>> Gorillas and chimps. Other Pak went and created the Ringworld. Others stayed
>> home... for a while. When they came out and encountered mutated Protectorless

(Hal Heydt)
The survivors of the "War of the Winners and Losers". (Generally
speaking, Pak on the losing side are exterminated.)

The Pak are, effectively, australopithecines. Gorillas and
chimps are unrelated (which has some real world...problems).

The Protectors on Earth put up towers with radition sources on
them to encourage mutations in the hope that the breeding
descendants would get smart enough to survive on their own when
all the existing Protectors eventually died off.

They also sent a message back the Pak home area detailing the
problem (not enough selenium in the soil for the Tree-of-Life
IIRC). At least I think it was selenium.

[Dimensional Traveler]

If one was of a somewhat cruel state of mind one would suggest the
protesters stay on the sidewalks and in the street while they march the
length of the entire block. So they can't be charged with picketing an
individual's home and to piss off all the real target's neighbors.
Military training relies a lot on the "if one of you bleeps up, you all
get punished" method and it works. *whistles innocently*

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

[Chris Buckley]

It's clear you didn't understand what I was saying. Once you have
individuals with different values, it is impossible for there to always
be an "objectively best available decision". There is no scale
on which "objectively" can be judged. (If you disagree, please define one.
Philosophers have tried for millenium to find one.) What you
want is a logical and philosophical impossibility.

At the risk of introducing politics into the discussion - the current
abortion debate is a good example. There is no "objectively best
available decision" possible. What the different sides value are too
different. There is no objective scale on which the decision can be based.

Chris

[Andrew McDowell]

When I run out of current podcasts, I listen to a librivox edition of Macaulay's History of England, some of which covers James II. Among the many ideas which he thought clever were schemes by which he claimed to dispense mercy and toleration. It so happened that almost all of those who benefitted were his political partisans, and regarded as threatening by most of the rest of society. I have been repeatedly reminded of this recently. We know the end of the story in the case of James II - he got kicked out in the Glorious Revolution, to be replaced by William of Orange, who is pretty much the hero of that history.

[Wolffan]

On 04 Jul 2022, Dorothy J Heydt wrote
(in article <rEICD...@kithrup.com>):

> In article<ac642b0e-ef15-4473...@googlegroups.com>,
> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Some Pak Protectors (with their families, of
> > > course) moved, in slower-than-light ships, from their homeworld (too many
> > > Paks, too many Protectors with nuclear weapons and a focus on defending
> > > _their_ families at all costs...) to Earth... and discovered that
> > > Tree-of-Life doesn’t grow there. Oops. Thanks to handwave biology
> > > (biology
> > > is not Niven’s strong suite) the Pak non-Protectors, no longer guarded
> > > from
> > > mutations by the Protectors who are now dead, became humans... and, I
> > > think,
> > > Gorillas and chimps. Other Pak went and created the Ringworld. Others
> > > stayed
> > > home... for a while. When they came out and encountered mutated
> > > Protectorless
> (Hal Heydt)
> The survivors of the "War of the Winners and Losers". (Generally
> speaking, Pak on the losing side are exterminated.)
>
> The Pak are, effectively, australopithecines. Gorillas and
> chimps are unrelated (which has some real world...problems).

it’s much worse than that. Protector says that Pak are Homo erectus or some
such. Protector also mentions feeding Tree-of-Life to assorted African
primates. And not just hominids, either.

“Plant tree-of-life all through Congo National Park. Organize the monkey
and chimpanzee protectors.”

”

Excerpt From: Larry Niven. “Protector.” Apple Books.

Why the hell it’d work on _monkeys_ is beyond me.

There’s also the “we’re all descended from food yeast” theme from
World of Ptavvs, also a Known Space book, and published 7 years before
Protector. In addition to biology, Niven had problems with continuity.

>
>
> The Protectors on Earth put up towers with radition sources on
> them to encourage mutations in the hope that the breeding
> descendants would get smart enough to survive on their own when
> all the existing Protectors eventually died off.
>
> They also sent a message back the Pak home area detailing the
> problem (not enough selenium in the soil for the Tree-of-Life
> IIRC). At least I think it was selenium.

Thalium.

“Oh, that’s no mystery. Though it had the protectors of Pak going crazy
for awhile. No wonder a small colony couldn’t solve it. There’s a virus
that lives in the root. It carries the genes for the change from breeder to
protector. It can’t live outside the root, so a protector has to eat more
root every so often. If there’s no thalium in the soil, the root still
grows, but it won’t support the virus.”

”

Excerpt From: Larry Niven. “Protector.” Apple Books.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Monday, 4 July 2022 at 00:18:25 UTC+1, Ath wrote:
> On 04.07.22, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_ - on radio anyway - presents an
> > argument that someone who wants to be in charge shouldn't be, and
> > boils this down to, "People are a problem." Then we are
> > introduced to a man who lives alone on an isolated planet except for
> > regular visits by people who ask him to make decisions about important
> > issues in one or more galaxies... while he believes that the issues,
> > and his own past experiences, are not necessarily even real.
>
> Yes, I remember. :)
>
> > It's just crossed my mind that Zaphod Beeblebrox being President of
> > the Galaxy in the story - a different character with apparently very
> > selfish motives and little sense of responsibility - may have given
> > certain real people ideas.
>
> Who, and what ideas?

For one - my British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson,
is pretty awful. And somehow he got the idea of
being Prime Minister. But not how to do it properly.

[Ahasuerus]

Well, "rite of passage" tests are not uncommon in SF -- see _Tunnel
in the Sky_, _Rite of Passage_, etc. However, I don't think they help
teach kids to be frugal or otherwise ensure their continuous
financial independence. Even if a rite of passage teaches them to
"work hard", it's possible to work hard and then spend all of your
money at the end of the day. Of course, there is always good old
"Protestant ethic", but that's not unique to SF.

Perhaps something to convince kids that possessions are increasingly
transitory in a fast-changing world? Proliferation of the (digital)
nomadic lifestyle?

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <326834b0-ffd5-4e11...@googlegroups.com>,

(Hal Heydt)
There's an example of a "Here's a million [currency units]. Learn
how to manage money." for a minor character in one of the Lensmen
books. I want to say GP. Kinnison winds up dancing with the
heiress in question and recalls that she got swindled out of a
fair chunk of the money but had earned it all back and more
besides.

[Wolffan]

On 02 Jul 2022, Andrew McDowell wrote
(in article<62bbe8ec-888b-4eea...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 6:54:27 PM UTC+1, Wolffan wrote:
> > On 02 Jul 2022, Andrew McDowell wrote
> > (in article<de5b20f8-4c0c-41fb...@googlegroups.com>):

> > > On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 5:14:22 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 7:49:14 AM UTC-6, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> > > > > On 01/07/2022 11.32, James Nicoll wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Having the limited number of categories that I do, I would lump
> > > > > > plutocracies under oligarchies.
> > > >
> > > > > Personally, I don't think that I could tell one from the
> > > > > other anyway.
> > > > Thinking about it, perhaps a "plutocracy" lets in new money, while
> > > > an oligarchy sticks to old money. So an oligarchy wouldn't let
> > > > Trump in, for example.
> > > >
> > > > John Savard
> > > I always thought that a lot of the reaction against Trump was due to him
> > > being "new money" - or at least behaving as if he was, as I thought his
> > > Father was wealthy enough to afford a properly cultured upbringing if Trump
> > > had been promising material for it.
> > >
> > > (More on topic, my pet peeve is inherited political power in technological
> > > societies, which I believe is implausible

> > Oh, really? Hmm. I suppose that certain people named ‘Roosevelt’,
> > ‘Bush’, ‘Kennedy' and ‘Clinton’, to name but four obvious
> > examples,
> > didn’t get political power... in several cases in the same state and/or
> > congressional district, in large part because of who daddy/hubby was. And
> > then there’s ‘Gandhi’ and ‘Bhutto’, and, of course, ‘Kim’.
> > Unless you’d like to make the case that India, Pakistan, and North Korea
> > aren’t technological societies?
> >
> > I won’t bother mentioning minor players named ‘Windsor’ and whatever
> > you call the current occupant of the Imperial Palace in Tokyo.

> > > but all too common in SF. As far as
> > > I can see, James's analysis is not detailed enough to report on this).
>

> In democracies, members of a political dynasty are obliged to claim that they
> have risen to prominence through merit, and that they would do a better job
> of governing than their competitors. They do not inherit their position as of
> right, and obvious incompetence will end their careers.

Ahem. GW Bush. Edward Kennedy. Note that GW Bush’s incompetence did for Jeb
Bush, who was pretty good. During Hurricane Katrina, Jeb deployed 5,00
National Guardsmen, even though the hurricane wasn’t headed for Florida;
the governors of Alabama and Louisiana, where the hurricane was headed for,
also deployed 5,000 Guardsmen. Total. 3,000 in one tate, 2,000 in the other.
Florida Fish & Wildlife agents were the first of the first responders into
southern Alabama, arriving a day before any Alabama LEOs. A friend of mine in
the Florida Guard was on his way to Atlanta to pick up hurricane relief
supplies the day of the hurricane; Jeb had got his boys mobilized and had
called up the governor of Georgia to arrange things well beforehand. But due
to GW, Jeb’s radioactive as Presidential timber... Ted Kennedy stayed on as
senator but his, and other Kennedy’s, presidential ambitions were fatally
holed after Chapaquidic. Remember Mary Jo!
> North Korea is being
> sufficiently badly run as to demonstrate why I think inherited positions are
> a problem in technological societies.

North Korea was being run badly even in the days of the Great Leader. What we
have is three generations of incompetents.
> In practice, the Queen has had the
> opportunity to exert some influence through her experience and personality,
> but she does not rule by exerting inherited power, or in fact by any other
> means. The current political makeup of the United Kingdom is markedly
> different from that of the Star Kingdom/Empire of Manticore.

HM Queen Liz is more popular than Boris the Clown (not a high bar) and has
ways of making royal displeasure known... and felt.

[J. Clarke]

Why am I flashing on Emperor Akihoto, who is known mostly for being
the Emperor and for his ichthyological research.

[J. Clarke]

So far they have mostly broadened access to firearms for people who
have failed to successfully kiss the butt of whatever bureaucrat
decides "need" in New York. Not sure that puts them particularly at
risk.

[J. Clarke]

On 4 Jul 2022 13:02:57 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh

<jai...@usually.sessile.org> wrote:

>On 4 Jul 2022 at 11:15:00 BST, ""Ath"" <A...@kruemel.org> wrote:
>
>> On 04.07.22, J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 08:05:00 +0200, "Ath" <A...@kruemel.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> Since this is Speculative Fiction, what about the ruler(s) is/are
>>>> the ones most suitable? With taking advice from the 2nd most
>>>> suitable(s)?
>> ^Plus listening to any reasonable advice or info.
>>
>>>> What would such a government be even called. Beyond wishful thinking
>>>> of course, which is allowed in SF. :)
>>
>>> The Pak?
>>
>> What's that? (Google didn't help.)
>
>Ancestral humans, according to Larry Niven in Protector and the
>Ringworld books.

Who have a "protector" life stage in which there is a huge increase in
intelligence and whose biologically imposed primary motivator is the
survival of their offspring.

[J. Clarke]

Yes, and it should be noted that prior to the evolution of humans,
non-protector Pak did not have enough intelligence to make more than
the simplest of their wishes known.

[Default User]

peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:


>. . . The heir has imprinted in him (her) the
>memories, the very personalities, of past emperors. He (She) becomes
>an integration of them. Star-Plus. A supernova. Her Wisdom. The
>living personality is dominant but all that mob is there, too.

I've snipped large portions to retain this bit. In a way, that's what
goes on in the Ancillary series. But different as well.

If you haven't read the series, this is a bit spoilery, but as it's a
fundamental part of the overall background, not much of one.

In that, the Emperor is in a fashion immortal and retains all the
memories and experiences from centuries. That fashion is a cadre of
clone bodies with implants that allow transferring thoughts and control
over even large distances (taking advantage of FTL technology).

In theory, it's all one mind always and forever, the Emperor present
across the breadth of the empire. Theory doesn't always work, and if an
individual can be conflicted over issues, so can a distributed entity.


Brian

[Ath]

Sounds promising. :) Thanks!

[Ath]

On 04.07.22, Michael F. Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/07/2022 16.54, Ath wrote:
>> On 03.07.22, jdni...@panix.com <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:

>>> I'd probably classify that as autocracy. SF and F autocracies tend
>>> to work far more efficiently than real-world ones.
>>
>> Hm, but that word has such a negative connotation. What I have in
>> mind is good, sensible, and works, because it's really the most
>> suitable, competent, clear thinking (or even super-clear thinking)
>> individual. (Hey, it's SF.)

> If I recall correctly, Golan Trevize in _Foundation's Edge_ had the
> superpower of making the right decision. (This might be off, because
> it's been fifteen years since I last read it.)

Sounds cool though!

> This is so impressive that both Foundations send him out to do
> research and come up with the right answer to a specific question.
> They didn't make him "ruler", though. More of a consultant.

Shame. Still interesting though. :)

> --
> Michael F. Stemper
> If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much
> more like prunes than rhubarb does.

Rotfl.

[Ath]

On 04.07.22, Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com> wrote:
> On 04 Jul 2022, Ath wrote (in article <FxC0A2uLczB@ATH>):
>> On 04.07.22, J. Clarke<jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 08:05:00 +0200, "Ath"<A...@kruemel.org> wrote:

>>>> Since this is Speculative Fiction, what about the ruler(s) is/are
>>>> the ones most suitable? With taking advice from the 2nd most
>>>> suitable(s)?
>> ^Plus listening to any reasonable advice or info.
>>
>>>> What would such a government be even called. Beyond wishful
>>>> thinking of course, which is allowed in SF. :)
>>
>>> The Pak?
>>
>> What's that? (Google didn't help.)

> Larry Niven?s Protectors. Pak Protectors are older hominids who have

> partaken of the (ahem) Tree of Life and are very strong, very fast,
> quite intelligent (in a very focused way) and very long-lived.

"ahem"? :)

[...]

> Not Happy. Hijinks occur. See further Protector, Ringworld, assorted
> other Known Space stories.

:) Now I want that as audiobooks too, but the online library let me down
again.

> The point is Pak Protectors recognize no government other than a
> group of related Protectors taking care of their Family, which could
> be in the millions. And young, non-Protector, Pak have zero voice in

> that government. It?s a gerontocracy, and a very specialized
> gerontocracy at that.

Ah.

I now suspect that that brief "The Pak?" was half in jest, or maybe a
SCNR <d&r>. :)

[Ath]

Oh. I think I may have missed the word 'real' in 'real people'. My mind
is so set on SF. :)

Or the plants on my balcony (in de.rec.garten).

Real politics? I see your point, and agree as far as one can within the
limited experience and exposition, living in a different country, but I
would not want to elaborate on the subject.

[Ath]

On 05.07.22, Chris Buckley <al...@sabir.com> wrote:
> On 2022-07-03, Ath <A...@kruemel.org> wrote:
>> On 03.07.22, Chris Buckley <al...@sabir.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-07-03, Ath <A...@kruemel.org> wrote:

>>>> Since this is Speculative Fiction, what about the ruler(s) is/are
>>>> the ones most suitable? With taking advice from the 2nd most
>>>> suitable(s)?

^and anyone with reasonable advice...

>>>> What would such a government be even called. Beyond wishful
>>>> thinking of course, which is allowed in SF. :)
>>
>>> Sorry, it's a logical impossibility, which is not (ideally) allowed
>>> in SF. (Note there are differences between physical and logical
>>> impossibilities; the former is fine in SF.)
>>
>>> The core function of government at its root is to deal with the
>>> fact that humans have different beliefs and different desires but
>>> must interact. There can be no "objectively best available
>>> decision" - philosophically, there is no "objectively" possible.
>>
>> You're funny. We're talking about SF, so it doesn't have to be
>> humans, or plain old humams like we have in the real world.
>>
>> Objectively best -available- I put that word in there deliberately.
>> Even those I have in mind can only work with what's possible.

> It's clear you didn't understand what I was saying.

Oh, I did. You are talking about real people. (And yet ignored the word
_available_ again.) I am talking about SF. It's well possible to make up
people and societies where my idea applies.

Of course you may not like a story set in such a setting, even think
it's stupid to write such, but I find I think that about most published
books I have read, and have given up on them. [*]

I wanted to read what one can't have in the real world, and when that
was not available, I wrote my own.

So when the subject arose here, having created the thus described
rulers, I wonder what those types of 'government' would be called.

> Once you have individuals with different values, it is impossible for
> there to always be an "objectively best available decision".

I did not say we have individuals with different values in the society I
have in mind. Maybe that is the core of your objection; you make up
something that is not in fact a part of the matter at hand, and then
claim it's impossible, because of what you added.

> There is no scale on which "objectively" can be judged. (If you
> disagree, please define one. Philosophers have tried for millenium to

> find one.) What youwant is a logical and philosophical impossibility.

I get the growing feeling that what you want is to curb creativity,
demanding settings to be strictly within your frame of mind, regarding
anything outside as impossibility, and therefore can't be done and
shouldn't be attempted.

Nevertheless, I have done it, and now merely wonder what term would
apply. :)


[*] Yay for audiobooks, where I'm not overly picky, because it doesn't
involve the labour of actually reading it. I can listen and play a game,
or watch the plants on my balcony grow at the same time.

[Michael F. Stemper]

Source:
<https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020640/quotes/?ref_=tt_trv_qu>

--
Michael F. Stemper
This sentence no verb.

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 22:05:55 -0400, J. Clarke

Recently, you mean.

Their re-interpretation of the 2nd Amendment did the real damage.

Hmmm ... perhaps they could treat /that/ precedent with the same
contempt they treated Roe v Wade.

At least we now know what they were promising when they promised to
honor precedent -- they meant they were ready, willing, and able to
trash it completely.

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 4 Jul 2022 17:44:56 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:

>In article <rq36chhavga5a0o2a...@4ax.com>,
>Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> [SCOTUS --whh]
>>It is simultaneously broadening access to firearms and painting large
>>targets on itself with other decisions. This may turn out to be an
>>unfortunate combination.
>>
>>I can only hope that their security is up to par.
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>The head of their security organization has asked the authorities
>in Maryland to please enforce state and local laws against
>picketing and demonstrations in front of private homes.
>Specifically, the homes of those justices that live in Maryland.

She is doing her job. Can't knock her for that.

One of the responses pointed out that the law cited might not be
constitutional. Something to do with the right to assemble and present
grievances. Another pointed out just /which/ level of State gummint
was responsible for enforcing it. (Or another; for some reason, I seem
to recall two States and two laws being involved here, but I'm
probably just confused.)

>One might suspect that this will ultimately end up in court and
>could--in theory--be appealed to SCOTUS. Will the justices
>whose homes are seeing this activity recuse themselves, as they
>ought? Recent case history shows that they probably will not.
>(*cough* Clarence Thomas *cough*.)

I used to think that some of the Justices were Conservative.

But now it is clear that Alt-Right would be the more apt description.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <25o8chds2oaehao80...@4ax.com>,

Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 4 Jul 2022 17:44:56 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <rq36chhavga5a0o2a...@4ax.com>,
>>Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>> [SCOTUS --whh]
>>>It is simultaneously broadening access to firearms and painting large
>>>targets on itself with other decisions. This may turn out to be an
>>>unfortunate combination.
>>>
>>>I can only hope that their security is up to par.
>>
>>(Hal Heydt)
>>The head of their security organization has asked the authorities
>>in Maryland to please enforce state and local laws against
>>picketing and demonstrations in front of private homes.
>>Specifically, the homes of those justices that live in Maryland.
>
>She is doing her job. Can't knock her for that.
>
>One of the responses pointed out that the law cited might not be
>constitutional. Something to do with the right to assemble and present
>grievances. Another pointed out just /which/ level of State gummint
>was responsible for enforcing it. (Or another; for some reason, I seem
>to recall two States and two laws being involved here, but I'm
>probably just confused.)

(Hal Heydt)
Both states (Maryland and Virginia) that have been asked to
curtail picketing the homes of justices have said that their laws
are possibly unconstitutional.

I'm reading that as the states don't want to deal with the
(potential) lawsuits and may--perhaps--feel that the justices
created the problem, so let them solve it.

>>One might suspect that this will ultimately end up in court and
>>could--in theory--be appealed to SCOTUS. Will the justices
>>whose homes are seeing this activity recuse themselves, as they
>>ought? Recent case history shows that they probably will not.
>>(*cough* Clarence Thomas *cough*.)
>
>I used to think that some of the Justices were Conservative.
>
>But now it is clear that Alt-Right would be the more apt description.

I'd class them as RWNJ.

[James Nicoll]

In article <rEK4z...@kithrup.com>,

Can the Justices not afford their own pistols? As long as they never
sleep, I don't see the issue.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

[Dimensional Traveler]

They have (effectively) ruled that any private citizen can own military
grade firearms and carry them wherever they want....

[Dimensional Traveler]

Their honored "precedents" are the laws at the time of the writing of
the Constitution. If it was legal or illegal then, it must remain so
forevermore. (If you think I'm exaggerating, part of Thomas' opinion
overturning RvW states that abortion can't be protected because it was
illegal in most of what became the United States when the Constitution
was written. THAT is the new "precedent".)

[Michael F. Stemper]

It's a rather ahistorical "precedent":
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Rise_of_anti-abortion_legislation>

"Connecticut was the first U.S. state to outlaw medicinal abortion after
quickening in 1821, followed by 10 of the 26 states creating similar
restrictions within 20 years."

--
Michael F. Stemper
Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <ta20e3$3p9gl$3...@dont-email.me>,

(Hal Heydt)
Hmmm... I'd like an Oerlikon. Or, perhaps, a GAU-8. Of course,
a Krupp-88 would be nice, too.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Take it up with Justice Thomas, he's the one who wrote it in the Dobbs
majority opinion.

[Michael F. Stemper]

Sorry; I wasn't trying to criticize you.


--
Michael F. Stemper
Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.

[Dimensional Traveler]

And my apologies if I'm snippy. I've been arguing this on multiple
fronts with people who blindly refuse to understand the repercussions of
what the current Supreme Court is doing.

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 14:43:41 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:

>It belatedly occured to me that I could track the government types in the
>novels I read to see if my impression that spec fic is all autocracy all
>the time is actually supported by the data. Because I am lazy as fuck--thus
>the reviewing pace only 45x the median for reviewers--I only went back
>to the beginning of the year. However, I am planning on updating this
>every month.
>
>Caveats: It's only about 100 books and it is not a random sampling, since
>"prince" or "princess" or "semi-divine President" in the blurbs will get
>me to pass by a book in favour of something less 1300 AD. Nevertheless,
>there was a pattern.
>
>Definitions:
>

>Not Applicable: For anthologies, non-fiction texts and other works that lack
>a single dominant setting.
>
>Unclear: For works where I could not figure out how government functions.
>
>Anarchy: For works with no functioning governments
>
>Pure democracy: For works where all inhabitants have a say in communal decisions
>
>Representative democracy: For works where people select representatives to make
>decisions on their behalf.
>
>Oligarchy: For works where a small group of people govern without meaningful input
>from the populace.
>
>Autocracy: For works where a single person governs without meaningful input from
>the populace.
>
>Works are categorized using the time-honoured "I know it when I see it"
>system. I will not be explaining how individual books were categorized
>and for even greater clarity I will not be justifying why I categorized
>books as I did. This isn't intended as a detailed study, but merely rough
>statistics to provide me with perspective.
>
>Government Types June
>
>Total 22, Not Applicable 4 (18%), Unclear 4 (18%), Anarchy 0 (0%), Pure democracy 0
>(0%), Representative democracy 6 (27%), Oligarchy 7 (32%), Autocracy 1 (5%)
>
>Government Type 2022 TD
>
>Total 129, Not Applicable 21 (16%), Unclear 8 (6%), Anarchy 4 (3%), Pure democracy
>1 (1%), Representative democracy 37 (29%), Oligarchy 42 (33%), Autocracy 16 (12%)
>
>Which is to say, representive democracy has a slight lead, while oligarchy has
>a respectable second place position. Actual one-person rule is a distant
>third.

So what would you consider The Man in the High Castle? By your
definitions autocracy though Nazi America was at least partly run from
Berlin though it seems to have more autonomy than Vichy France did.

My chief interest here is not really debate - it's more trying to
ensure I understand your terms.

[The Horny Goat]

On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 18:10:53 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:

>In article <0001HW.2870BDCB04...@news.supernews.com>,

>Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com> wrote:
>>On 02 Jul 2022, Andrew McDowell wrote
>>(in article<de5b20f8-4c0c-41fb...@googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 5:14:22 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> > On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 7:49:14 AM UTC-6, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>> > > On 01/07/2022 11.32, James Nicoll wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > > Having the limited number of categories that I do, I would lump
>>> > > > plutocracies under oligarchies.
>>> >
>>> > > Personally, I don't think that I could tell one from the
>>> > > other anyway.
>>> > Thinking about it, perhaps a "plutocracy" lets in new money, while
>>> > an oligarchy sticks to old money. So an oligarchy wouldn't let
>>> > Trump in, for example.
>>> >
>>> > John Savard
>>> I always thought that a lot of the reaction against Trump was due to him
>>> being "new money" - or at least behaving as if he was, as I thought his
>>> Father was wealthy enough to afford a properly cultured upbringing if Trump
>>> had been promising material for it.
>>>
>>> (More on topic, my pet peeve is inherited political power in technological
>>> societies, which I believe is implausible
>>
>>Oh, really? Hmm. I suppose that certain people named ‘Roosevelt’,
>>‘Bush’, ‘Kennedy' and ‘Clinton’, to name but four obvious examples,
>

>In Canada, one has to wonder whether the market recognition of the Trudeau
>surname was a net asset, a liability or a wash. I mean, it's not like Albertans
>will ever forget the NEP.
>
>(Yes, Justin won but what really happened was people really wanted Harper out,
>and as soon as it became obvious which of the LPC or NDP had the lead, voters
>flocked to that party. Could just as easily have been the NDP winning in 2015)

Ah but in Trudeau's world Alberta is a very small place not worth
anything but his contempt as opposed to NS/NB/PEI/NL who combined have
half the population of Alberta and at best a third of its economy -
and more importantly tend to vote his way.

Personally I consider Trudeau pere the worst prime minister in
Canadian history since in his 1982 constitution he (a) cemented
western Canada as second class citizens electorally in perpetuity IN
BOTH HOUSES and (b) changed the final say in Canadian jurisprudence
from the legislative to the judicial branch. And that (c)
'notwithstanding clause' was entirely out of Germany in an era Germans
would rather forget.

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 18:06:06 -0400, Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com>
wrote:

>Ahem. GW Bush. Edward Kennedy. Note that GW Bush’s incompetence did for Jeb
>Bush, who was pretty good. During Hurricane Katrina, Jeb deployed 5,00
>National Guardsmen, even though the hurricane wasn’t headed for Florida;
>the governors of Alabama and Louisiana, where the hurricane was headed for,
>also deployed 5,000 Guardsmen. Total. 3,000 in one tate, 2,000 in the other.
>Florida Fish & Wildlife agents were the first of the first responders into
>southern Alabama, arriving a day before any Alabama LEOs. A friend of mine in
>the Florida Guard was on his way to Atlanta to pick up hurricane relief
>supplies the day of the hurricane; Jeb had got his boys mobilized and had
>called up the governor of Georgia to arrange things well beforehand. But due
>to GW, Jeb’s radioactive as Presidential timber... Ted Kennedy stayed on as
>senator but his, and other Kennedy’s, presidential ambitions were fatally
>holed after Chapaquidic. Remember Mary Jo!

The fact I can spell Kopechne correctly more than 50 years later
without having to look it up should tell you something.

Bottom line is Teddy drove drunk, drove off the road into water,
abandoned his passenger to die - yup that definitely says things about
his suitability for presidential office even if he hadn't been
screwing her brains out and could prove it.

[The Horny Goat]

On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 21:48:15 -0700 (PDT), Andrew McDowell
<mcdow...@sky.com> wrote:

>Thinking of this sort of gritty view of people's real life behaviour, I am =
>reminded of David Drake's RCN series. The realism here comes from rip-offs =
>of real history, of the Roman Republic and of the British Admirality during=
> the Napoleonic wars - but both of these are too far from modern societies =
>to be completely convincing as windows onto today's world.

And large parts of Asimov's Foundation series aren't lifted directly
out of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire?

What is the story of Bel Riose (first half of Foundation + Empire) but
a retelling of Gibbon's Aetius?

[The Horny Goat]

On Sun, 03 Jul 2022 21:46:06 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>An autocracy could be wonderful _if_ the autocrat was intelligent,
>competent, and humane. In the real world, not so much.
>

I dunno - nobody lives forever - the Bible's story of King Solomon
and his succession crisis is one example. The story of Marcus Aurelius
and his son Commodus is another in the same vein.

[Default User]

An interesting case is that of the Murderbot stories. The various
systems are divided between the Corporate Rim and the Non-Corporate
Polities.

Of the latter, we only have much information on the Preservation
system. That's a peaceful, somewhat socialist system with considerable
personal freedom. It's governed by a sort of council. The groups we see
from other such seem to be fairly free and independent.

There are "raiders" that come from somewhere, but it's not clear where
are what the circumstances are. They are only memtioned, not seen.

The "Corporate Rim" is dominated the large companies that Wield
considerable power. At first, it almost seems like there is no
government, as the corporations can do things that would seem like they
would be illegal under most governements. Like launch armed attacks
against others. However, a closer look reveals that contracts are
apparently enforced in some fashion, and corpororations and even
non-corporate entities can sue companies. So there has to be some sort
of overarching authority.


Brian

[James Nicoll]

In article <ulg9chtcej0itl9pa...@4ax.com>,

Nazi America is probably an autocracy. Been a while since I read it
but I would expect ultimately one guy in Germany called the shots.

>My chief interest here is not really debate - it's more trying to
>ensure I understand your terms.

I think one thing I will discover is that this type is too coarse to
be really useful.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Humans seem to have trouble following rules and fitting in pigeon holes.
Always wanting to do things their own way. :P

[Andrew McDowell]

I'm not trying to pick holes in the RCN series, which I love, just pointing out a feature which appears to limit its utility for a particular purpose. Asimov's foundation is indeed well known to be another SF work strongly based on history, although most people link Bel Riose to Belisarius, not Aetius. I don't know of an SF work which is strongly based on public choice economics, but there is a very nice scene somewhere in the RCN series which shows that the "good guy" state, the Republic of Cinnabar, isn't perfect. In it an adversary says something like "I want to show the Cinnabar senate is a nest of ruthless liars," and our heroine grins to herself thinking something like "She and Daniel were the children of Senators. They had known from childhood that the Cinnabar Senate was a nest of ruthless liars".

[Michael F. Stemper]

On 05/07/2022 20.16, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <ulg9chtcej0itl9pa...@4ax.com>,
> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 14:43:41 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>> Nicoll) wrote:

>>> Total 129, Not Applicable 21 (16%), Unclear 8 (6%), Anarchy 4 (3%), Pure democracy
>>> 1 (1%), Representative democracy 37 (29%), Oligarchy 42 (33%), Autocracy 16 (12%)
>>>
>>> Which is to say, representive democracy has a slight lead, while oligarchy has
>>> a respectable second place position. Actual one-person rule is a distant
>>> third.

>> My chief interest here is not really debate - it's more trying to
>> ensure I understand your terms.
>
> I think one thing I will discover is that this type is too coarse to
> be really useful.

The only solution is to have a category for each example.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding;
Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.

[James Nicoll]

In article <ta41gb$1lme$2...@dont-email.me>,

Michael F. Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 05/07/2022 20.16, James Nicoll wrote:
>> In article <ulg9chtcej0itl9pa...@4ax.com>,
>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 14:43:41 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>>> Nicoll) wrote:
>
>>>> Total 129, Not Applicable 21 (16%), Unclear 8 (6%), Anarchy 4 (3%), Pure democracy
>>>> 1 (1%), Representative democracy 37 (29%), Oligarchy 42 (33%), Autocracy 16 (12%)
>>>>
>>>> Which is to say, representive democracy has a slight lead, while oligarchy has
>>>> a respectable second place position. Actual one-person rule is a distant
>>>> third.
>
>>> My chief interest here is not really debate - it's more trying to
>>> ensure I understand your terms.
>>
>> I think one thing I will discover is that this type is too coarse to
>> be really useful.
>
>The only solution is to have a category for each example.

That would not give me the information that I want.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 7/6/2022 6:25 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <ta41gb$1lme$2...@dont-email.me>,
> Michael F. Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 05/07/2022 20.16, James Nicoll wrote:
>>> In article <ulg9chtcej0itl9pa...@4ax.com>,
>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 14:43:41 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>>>> Nicoll) wrote:
>>
>>>>> Total 129, Not Applicable 21 (16%), Unclear 8 (6%), Anarchy 4 (3%), Pure democracy
>>>>> 1 (1%), Representative democracy 37 (29%), Oligarchy 42 (33%), Autocracy 16 (12%)
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is to say, representive democracy has a slight lead, while oligarchy has
>>>>> a respectable second place position. Actual one-person rule is a distant
>>>>> third.
>>
>>>> My chief interest here is not really debate - it's more trying to
>>>> ensure I understand your terms.
>>>
>>> I think one thing I will discover is that this type is too coarse to
>>> be really useful.
>>
>> The only solution is to have a category for each example.
>
> That would not give me the information that I want.

Welcome to reality. ;)

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 17:09:23 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)

That is possible, however, the one quoted did specify loud noise and
so on. The possible problem with /that/ is that "peacefully" (in
"peacefully assemble" is the opposite of "rioutously" or
"insurrectionally", not of "noisily".

Basically, I suspect this means that things would have to progress to
the point that "reading them the riot act" would be appropriate.
Chanting slogans and waving signs doesn't reach that level.

>>>One might suspect that this will ultimately end up in court and
>>>could--in theory--be appealed to SCOTUS. Will the justices
>>>whose homes are seeing this activity recuse themselves, as they
>>>ought? Recent case history shows that they probably will not.
>>>(*cough* Clarence Thomas *cough*.)
>>
>>I used to think that some of the Justices were Conservative.
>>
>>But now it is clear that Alt-Right would be the more apt description.
>
>I'd class them as RWNJ.

That's a good alternative, although alt-right-related lies are
beginning to creep into their footnotes and dissents.

Facts, it appears, are beginning to not matter.

[Paul S Person]

I hate to say it, but the repercussions are likely to get /very/
strange and /very/ obvious fairly quickly.

Our State (Washington) is already taking steps to handle the expected
flood of cases from Idaho. Among other actions.

The economic effects should not be overlooked either.

[James Nicoll]

In article <9jdbch1s1ro9r7ddl...@4ax.com>,

Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

Ectopic pregnancy related deaths alone should push American style pregnancy
up into the top ten causes of deaths for American subjects, despite almost
half the population being immune to it by virtue of never getting pregnant.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 7/5/2022 7:15 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 18:06:06 -0400, Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com>
> wrote:
>

>> Ahem. GW Bush. Edward Kennedy. Note that GW Bush’s incompetence did for Jeb

>> Bush, who was pretty good. During Hurricane Katrina, Jeb deployed 5,00

>> National Guardsmen, even though the hurricane wasn’t headed for Florida;

>> the governors of Alabama and Louisiana, where the hurricane was headed for,
>> also deployed 5,000 Guardsmen. Total. 3,000 in one tate, 2,000 in the other.
>> Florida Fish & Wildlife agents were the first of the first responders into
>> southern Alabama, arriving a day before any Alabama LEOs. A friend of mine in
>> the Florida Guard was on his way to Atlanta to pick up hurricane relief
>> supplies the day of the hurricane; Jeb had got his boys mobilized and had
>> called up the governor of Georgia to arrange things well beforehand. But due

>> to GW, Jeb’s radioactive as Presidential timber... Ted Kennedy stayed on as
>> senator but his, and other Kennedy’s, presidential ambitions were fatally

>> holed after Chapaquidic. Remember Mary Jo!
>
> The fact I can spell Kopechne correctly more than 50 years later
> without having to look it up should tell you something.
>
> Bottom line is Teddy drove drunk, drove off the road into water,
> abandoned his passenger to die - yup that definitely says things about
> his suitability for presidential office even if he hadn't been
> screwing her brains out and could prove it.

Wasn't she pregnant with Teddy's baby ?

Lynn

[Andrew McDowell]

I found my quote, and why I didn't find it earlier. I switched from Google to DuckDuckGo when Google Doodles began reminding me unnervingly of Cold War Radio Moscow talking points - celebrating the obscure achievements of people chosen for the underlying political message. But DuckDuckGo does not have the advantage of searching the Goggle Books collection, so Google is the way to go for searching for half-forgotten quotes. This tracks down to "The Road of Danger"

"...and I'm going to show the whole universe that the Cinnabar Senate is a gang of treacherous liars!"

Adele avoided a smile by effort of will. She and Daniel were the children of Cinnabar senators. They had known from infancy that the Senate was a gang of treacherous liars.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Only to those with open eyes. And assuming that they are not HOPING for
those very repercussions.

> Our State (Washington) is already taking steps to handle the expected
> flood of cases from Idaho. Among other actions.
>
> The economic effects should not be overlooked either.


--