Shouldn't it be "Subjects" rather than "Citizens" of the Imperium?
- Thread starter samdx
- Start date
The British are technically subjects who answer to the crown, but most people these days think along the lines of citizens.
A serf by any other name can still be trampled into the mud by a powerful noble....What care is there for how the serving class name themselves, as long as the taxes are up to date?
Subject, servent or voting bloc, the only power is those who weild it.
Noblisee Oblige or Night of the Long Knives? Nero may fiddle and the Bastille may fall.
Damn, where's that coffee?!?!? This whole response sounds like one of my game's style of Psionic use - ethereal, high-minded, and difficult. Kinda like Dennis Miller calling for Football play-by-plays....
Gats'
Subject, servent or voting bloc, the only power is those who weild it.
Noblisee Oblige or Night of the Long Knives? Nero may fiddle and the Bastille may fall.
Damn, where's that coffee?!?!? This whole response sounds like one of my game's style of Psionic use - ethereal, high-minded, and difficult. Kinda like Dennis Miller calling for Football play-by-plays....
Gats'
Besides which, there is historical precedent. The Romans called their subjects citizens. Come to think of it, they called *some* of their subject citizens. The distinction was important, as being a Roman citizen conveyed certain rights that non-citizens did not have. (In theory, of course. I imagine any authoritarian system is going to have abuse problems.)
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by soloprobe:
Remember the government includes a deliberative body called the Moot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But isn't the moot just made up of nobles, ultimately appointed by the Emperor? It does not seem to weild much real power either.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Member worlds ELECT their own govenments...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not all governments are elected. Isn't the Imperiums's attitude towards local government just to take them as they are, whether religious dictatorship or republic?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mjwest:
Besides which, there is historical precedent. The Romans called their subjects citizens<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But Rome was originally a republic, which the Imperium has never been. "Roman citizen" was just a relic after Ceasar.
I'm not sure why I brought this up, it just seems inacurate. Maybe it comes from the habit of assuming the Imperium is similar to 21st century Western civilization. But, with the exception of a few powerless remnants, the whole fuedal structure is pretty abhorent to our current culture. I think the Imperium would be very different culturally when equality, for good or ill one of the central tenets of our civilization, is relegated to the dust heap of history.
Or we could just forget all of that, and just stick with "Citizens."
Remember the government includes a deliberative body called the Moot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But isn't the moot just made up of nobles, ultimately appointed by the Emperor? It does not seem to weild much real power either.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Member worlds ELECT their own govenments...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not all governments are elected. Isn't the Imperiums's attitude towards local government just to take them as they are, whether religious dictatorship or republic?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mjwest:
Besides which, there is historical precedent. The Romans called their subjects citizens<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But Rome was originally a republic, which the Imperium has never been. "Roman citizen" was just a relic after Ceasar.
I'm not sure why I brought this up, it just seems inacurate. Maybe it comes from the habit of assuming the Imperium is similar to 21st century Western civilization. But, with the exception of a few powerless remnants, the whole fuedal structure is pretty abhorent to our current culture. I think the Imperium would be very different culturally when equality, for good or ill one of the central tenets of our civilization, is relegated to the dust heap of history.
Or we could just forget all of that, and just stick with "Citizens."
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mjwest:
Come to think of it, they called *some* of their subject citizens. The distinction was important, as being a Roman citizen conveyed certain rights that non-citizens did not have.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is an interesting idea. IIRC, one of the later Emperors declared everyone a citizen, because they would be easier to tax. But in terms of Traveller, I have always assumed that there were nobles and peons. Is there a substrata, citizens, who lie in between? Maybe citizenship would be bestowed upon those in Imperial service, and citizenship allows people to travel freely between worlds. Perhaps they could also demand to be tried for local crimes before an Imperial tribunal or the local noble. That would be a powerful recruitment tool. I kind of like the idea; only a small portion of the people living in the Imperium would be "citizens", and these folks would monopolize interstellar trade and communication.
And these citizens would be a powerful base of support for the Imperium, not only because of their past service but because they also have a vested interest in protecting their privileges and the status quo. It also explains why so many people live on so many crappy worlds, when there is a rich paradise a few parsecs away. They can not leave, because they are not citizens.
[This message has been edited by samdx (edited 22 January 2002).]
Come to think of it, they called *some* of their subject citizens. The distinction was important, as being a Roman citizen conveyed certain rights that non-citizens did not have.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is an interesting idea. IIRC, one of the later Emperors declared everyone a citizen, because they would be easier to tax. But in terms of Traveller, I have always assumed that there were nobles and peons. Is there a substrata, citizens, who lie in between? Maybe citizenship would be bestowed upon those in Imperial service, and citizenship allows people to travel freely between worlds. Perhaps they could also demand to be tried for local crimes before an Imperial tribunal or the local noble. That would be a powerful recruitment tool. I kind of like the idea; only a small portion of the people living in the Imperium would be "citizens", and these folks would monopolize interstellar trade and communication.
And these citizens would be a powerful base of support for the Imperium, not only because of their past service but because they also have a vested interest in protecting their privileges and the status quo. It also explains why so many people live on so many crappy worlds, when there is a rich paradise a few parsecs away. They can not leave, because they are not citizens.
[This message has been edited by samdx (edited 22 January 2002).]
Once has to remember that citizenship and subjects are also relative terms. What rights do a citizenry have to exercise is often constrained by larger things. For instance, African-Americans were citizens of the South and the United States but did not get equal civil (citizen) rights until the 1960s. How are things in your Traveller Universe?
One more question, in one of their more brilliant moves the Supreme Court of Canada has awarded corporations to enjoy the same rights as citizens. How is it in your Traveller universe. For me the MegaCorps, are often a law onto themselves much like in the Canadian ruling.
One more question, in one of their more brilliant moves the Supreme Court of Canada has awarded corporations to enjoy the same rights as citizens. How is it in your Traveller universe. For me the MegaCorps, are often a law onto themselves much like in the Canadian ruling.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunter:
And now we take you back to our regularly scheduled Traveller discussion...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry, after you live in Utah for a little while, you forget how controversial that issue is.
Actually, this was pointed out to my by a very liberal professor in law school; she found it a little strange too.
Anyway, when I was talking above about the Imperium tolerating religious dictatorships, I do not think that is too far fetched!
[This message has been edited by samdx (edited 23 January 2002).]
And now we take you back to our regularly scheduled Traveller discussion...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry, after you live in Utah for a little while, you forget how controversial that issue is.
Anyway, when I was talking above about the Imperium tolerating religious dictatorships, I do not think that is too far fetched!
[This message has been edited by samdx (edited 23 January 2002).]
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
Oh I agree, the Imperium will allow any type of government from religious dictatorship, to facism, to true democracies. There are a few 'rights' for sophonts that must be adherd to, but for the most part the individual world govts are pretty much free to do as they please.
Hunter
Hunter
Sorry if the following is a bit academic, but for those non lawyers who seem to think that the idea of a corporation as a citizen is a new fangled liberal idea . . .
The idea that a corporation is a citizen is not new. The idea of the juristic person comes from Roman law and bodies corporate as 'persons' have existed in both Civilian legal systems(i.e Continental Europe) and Common Law systems (i.e. all legal systems that trace their origin from England)for centuries.
In England (and followed in the US, Canada and Australia/NZ) the case of Salomon v. A Salomon & Co [1897] AC 22 established that a company was a separate person in law with the same rights and duties as any other citizen. The reason for this is that only a full 'person' has the legal capacity to make a binding contract (if a corporation couldn't contract it would be pretty useless). It also established that it was separate from its directors for the purposes of bankruptcy - this is an essential feature of free commerce as 'real' people need to engage in entreprenurial activites with protection from creditors for the harsh risks of bankruptcy.
It is this serious commercial reason and not wishy washy liberalism that is the source of the company as person idea.
It is of course open to abuse (As a bankruptcy lawyer I deal with such abuse everyday!) - and as Kafka says the idea is pregnant with potential for hard nosed Sci Fi like Traveller.
[This message has been edited by Elliot (edited 24 January 2002).]
The idea that a corporation is a citizen is not new. The idea of the juristic person comes from Roman law and bodies corporate as 'persons' have existed in both Civilian legal systems(i.e Continental Europe) and Common Law systems (i.e. all legal systems that trace their origin from England)for centuries.
In England (and followed in the US, Canada and Australia/NZ) the case of Salomon v. A Salomon & Co [1897] AC 22 established that a company was a separate person in law with the same rights and duties as any other citizen. The reason for this is that only a full 'person' has the legal capacity to make a binding contract (if a corporation couldn't contract it would be pretty useless). It also established that it was separate from its directors for the purposes of bankruptcy - this is an essential feature of free commerce as 'real' people need to engage in entreprenurial activites with protection from creditors for the harsh risks of bankruptcy.
It is this serious commercial reason and not wishy washy liberalism that is the source of the company as person idea.
It is of course open to abuse (As a bankruptcy lawyer I deal with such abuse everyday!) - and as Kafka says the idea is pregnant with potential for hard nosed Sci Fi like Traveller.
[This message has been edited by Elliot (edited 24 January 2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elliot:
Sorry if the following is a bit academic, but for those non lawyers who seem to think that the idea of a corporation as a citizen is a new fangled liberal idea . . .
The idea that a corporation is a citizen is not new. The idea of the juristic person comes from Roman law and bodies corporate as 'persons' have existed in both Civilian legal systems(i.e Continental Europe) and Common Law systems (i.e. all legal systems that trace their origin from England)for centuries.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That a corporation is a legal person, sure. that they are an equal to a citizen is not. And in many western legal systems prior to the 20th century, many sophonts were not legal persons... the most important distinction of a legal person is right to trial and/or due process; secondarily to engage in binding contract...
IMTU, there has always been a citizen/subject distinction, at least since supp 4.
IMTU, subjects have very few rights: Freedom from chattle slavery; right to life (Except when convicted of capital crimes); right to engage in contracts.
Citizens get a few more over subjects: Freedom to travel between worlds (although not of need allowed on-world travel); the right to address (usually in writing) the Imperial noble of the world on which they reside; right to trial & counsel (although not of need trial by jury); and a right to appeal convictions to the worlds imperial noble; to defend self; to swear fealty.
Nobles gain a few more over citizens: Trial by jury of Nobles; Right of address to landed imperial nobles; right of presence in the moot; to defend others; to bear arms*.
Corporations, IMTU, are limited persons, whose personage is limited to those worlds under the "Authority" of their Noble "Sponsor" (The landed Imperial Noble who granted their charter). These rights are: To engage in contract; to hold assets; to due process, trial, and counsel; to travel world to world; to defend own assets.
Certain additional rights can be gained by specific corporate charter: To bear arms; to adress the moots and/or nobles; to govern a world; to swear fealty; to trial by jury; to trial by moot.
The citizen/subject debate is a long-standing one....
------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!
[This message has been edited by aramis (edited 27 January 2002).]
Sorry if the following is a bit academic, but for those non lawyers who seem to think that the idea of a corporation as a citizen is a new fangled liberal idea . . .
The idea that a corporation is a citizen is not new. The idea of the juristic person comes from Roman law and bodies corporate as 'persons' have existed in both Civilian legal systems(i.e Continental Europe) and Common Law systems (i.e. all legal systems that trace their origin from England)for centuries.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That a corporation is a legal person, sure. that they are an equal to a citizen is not. And in many western legal systems prior to the 20th century, many sophonts were not legal persons... the most important distinction of a legal person is right to trial and/or due process; secondarily to engage in binding contract...
IMTU, there has always been a citizen/subject distinction, at least since supp 4.
IMTU, subjects have very few rights: Freedom from chattle slavery; right to life (Except when convicted of capital crimes); right to engage in contracts.
Citizens get a few more over subjects: Freedom to travel between worlds (although not of need allowed on-world travel); the right to address (usually in writing) the Imperial noble of the world on which they reside; right to trial & counsel (although not of need trial by jury); and a right to appeal convictions to the worlds imperial noble; to defend self; to swear fealty.
Nobles gain a few more over citizens: Trial by jury of Nobles; Right of address to landed imperial nobles; right of presence in the moot; to defend others; to bear arms*.
Corporations, IMTU, are limited persons, whose personage is limited to those worlds under the "Authority" of their Noble "Sponsor" (The landed Imperial Noble who granted their charter). These rights are: To engage in contract; to hold assets; to due process, trial, and counsel; to travel world to world; to defend own assets.
Certain additional rights can be gained by specific corporate charter: To bear arms; to adress the moots and/or nobles; to govern a world; to swear fealty; to trial by jury; to trial by moot.
The citizen/subject debate is a long-standing one....
------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!
[This message has been edited by aramis (edited 27 January 2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aramis:
IMTU, there has always been a citizen/subject distinction, at least since supp 4. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What is it about supp. 4 that makes you think so? I can't recall anything else in canon that contemplates such a distinction. I like it though.
IMTU, there has always been a citizen/subject distinction, at least since supp 4. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What is it about supp. 4 that makes you think so? I can't recall anything else in canon that contemplates such a distinction. I like it though.
Howdy Folks:
I'm new, both to computing and to Traveller.
I don't know much official Traveller lore or history, so please forbare.
This is a great, thoughtful discussion about the rights and responsibilities of the various classes under various governments.
The "side line" discussions are also interesting.
I think it should be noted that there are other ways for corporations to be constituted such that they could engage in commerce without being granted "personhood" and there are historical examples.
Corporations were only granted "personhood" in the US by the Supreme Court in the eighteen hundreds. It's proported to have been done in strange circumstances. Somehow the Supreme's of the day used the fourteenth amendment, passed to protect former slaves, was used to justify it. It's out there on the web if you're interested.
One restraint on corporate power that still exists, is the fact that they still must apply for a charter from legislative bodies.
Thus it is possible for a legislative body to revoke this charter. It's used very rarely. I hear there's a movement in CA. to revoke some bigh corporation's charter.
There is an active, world wide, anti-corporate power movement out there that, for the most part, is not made up of riff raff or is violent. Nor is it mostly anti-capatalist. There are, after all, many ways to structure capatalism while retaining its benefits.
For absolute free marketeers, I offer to paraphrase Adam Smith ( wish I had the quote ) who said that under his system, the government would absolutely have too act to redistrabute wealth to protect against too much wealth being in the hands of too few people. I believe he also mentioned that the inevatible disparities in wealth between the very few would cause social upheaval bringing the whole system down.
The Enron situation is one in which the oversite function of constitutional government was abrigated. The congress exempted Enron from regulatory oversite. Is it any wonder that what happened did?
One problem that I see with granting corporations "personhood" is that the corporation then has fifth amendment rights. Thus malifactors posing as legitimat business pepple can have two sets of fifth amendment rights to use. ( I'm all for the fifth amendment for actual people. I don't think corporations should have it.)
I only post this to widen the perspectives being aired. I don't want to debate the merits of any of them, even though I'm a proponant of some of them. I do hope people look up some of the anti-globalization/anti-corporate web sites, but thus ends my pamphleteering.
The abortion issue is something that we certainly must avoid here. Granting good conscience to all, and move on.
My main issue is with feudalism itself. I don't think it would last long in any technolocically advanced society.
What brought down Feudalism in Europe was the twin discoveries of firarms and that serfs had trigger fingers, too.
A space faring society and technolically advanded polity would have this problem exacerbated by the plethora of ways to kill rulers and their confederates with ordinary appliences. Your manservent can toss the heater into the tub. Moreover, we've all just had a re-introduction to the notion that suicide attackers can use ordinary technology to kill.
The kinds of actions frequently attributed to future Feudal rulers of any rank, would spark murderous popular unrest. Truck bombs anyone. Not to mention driving an air raft into the royal procession. Baron Harkonnan's brutality to his subjects wouldn't be tolerated. He'd be killed.
Not can any universe predicated on being in any form of human future exist without various philosophies developing and spreading. These would range accfross the political spectrum, but democracy and/ or Republicism would inevitably spread giving organization, goals and ideals to the downtrodden and even to much of the middle classes. ( Books like "Robert's Rules of Order would inspire sedition! And I don't think it's possible to have a universe with humans in it that wouldn't develope these philosophies or write and publish things that can develope into full constitutional government.)
Also the kinds of commercial arrangements posited here are not capatalism, but mercantilism with all it's involved passthrokughs to various Nobles, Lords, minor setraps and other skimmers, would incite resentment in the higher middle classes too. If you know that your just as good or better than the lordling who got the contract because he's a lordling, you'd get get angry. And you wouldn't be alone.
You can have your universe start at this point, but you're then left with the problem of the unlikely hood of Feudalism evoloving alongside the vast technological and organizationsl tasks of attaining space flignt or of imposing it on another form of government. Remember, the historical flaw that brought Feudalism down was that it's loose organization couldn't stand up to evolving technological and social advances.
I know Traveller's imperium never was anyother form of government, but, with all the technological and social factors I've listed above, the most you'd likely have would be the situation that existed for Queen Victoria in the eighteen hundreds. She had lots of clout remaining, but had to deal with an increasingly reformed House of Commons.
Well, thank you all for listening. I look foward to the continuing discussion.
I'm new, both to computing and to Traveller.
I don't know much official Traveller lore or history, so please forbare.
This is a great, thoughtful discussion about the rights and responsibilities of the various classes under various governments.
The "side line" discussions are also interesting.
I think it should be noted that there are other ways for corporations to be constituted such that they could engage in commerce without being granted "personhood" and there are historical examples.
Corporations were only granted "personhood" in the US by the Supreme Court in the eighteen hundreds. It's proported to have been done in strange circumstances. Somehow the Supreme's of the day used the fourteenth amendment, passed to protect former slaves, was used to justify it. It's out there on the web if you're interested.
One restraint on corporate power that still exists, is the fact that they still must apply for a charter from legislative bodies.
Thus it is possible for a legislative body to revoke this charter. It's used very rarely. I hear there's a movement in CA. to revoke some bigh corporation's charter.
There is an active, world wide, anti-corporate power movement out there that, for the most part, is not made up of riff raff or is violent. Nor is it mostly anti-capatalist. There are, after all, many ways to structure capatalism while retaining its benefits.
For absolute free marketeers, I offer to paraphrase Adam Smith ( wish I had the quote ) who said that under his system, the government would absolutely have too act to redistrabute wealth to protect against too much wealth being in the hands of too few people. I believe he also mentioned that the inevatible disparities in wealth between the very few would cause social upheaval bringing the whole system down.
The Enron situation is one in which the oversite function of constitutional government was abrigated. The congress exempted Enron from regulatory oversite. Is it any wonder that what happened did?
One problem that I see with granting corporations "personhood" is that the corporation then has fifth amendment rights. Thus malifactors posing as legitimat business pepple can have two sets of fifth amendment rights to use. ( I'm all for the fifth amendment for actual people. I don't think corporations should have it.)
I only post this to widen the perspectives being aired. I don't want to debate the merits of any of them, even though I'm a proponant of some of them. I do hope people look up some of the anti-globalization/anti-corporate web sites, but thus ends my pamphleteering.
The abortion issue is something that we certainly must avoid here. Granting good conscience to all, and move on.
My main issue is with feudalism itself. I don't think it would last long in any technolocically advanced society.
What brought down Feudalism in Europe was the twin discoveries of firarms and that serfs had trigger fingers, too.
A space faring society and technolically advanded polity would have this problem exacerbated by the plethora of ways to kill rulers and their confederates with ordinary appliences. Your manservent can toss the heater into the tub. Moreover, we've all just had a re-introduction to the notion that suicide attackers can use ordinary technology to kill.
The kinds of actions frequently attributed to future Feudal rulers of any rank, would spark murderous popular unrest. Truck bombs anyone. Not to mention driving an air raft into the royal procession. Baron Harkonnan's brutality to his subjects wouldn't be tolerated. He'd be killed.
Not can any universe predicated on being in any form of human future exist without various philosophies developing and spreading. These would range accfross the political spectrum, but democracy and/ or Republicism would inevitably spread giving organization, goals and ideals to the downtrodden and even to much of the middle classes. ( Books like "Robert's Rules of Order would inspire sedition! And I don't think it's possible to have a universe with humans in it that wouldn't develope these philosophies or write and publish things that can develope into full constitutional government.)
Also the kinds of commercial arrangements posited here are not capatalism, but mercantilism with all it's involved passthrokughs to various Nobles, Lords, minor setraps and other skimmers, would incite resentment in the higher middle classes too. If you know that your just as good or better than the lordling who got the contract because he's a lordling, you'd get get angry. And you wouldn't be alone.
You can have your universe start at this point, but you're then left with the problem of the unlikely hood of Feudalism evoloving alongside the vast technological and organizationsl tasks of attaining space flignt or of imposing it on another form of government. Remember, the historical flaw that brought Feudalism down was that it's loose organization couldn't stand up to evolving technological and social advances.
I know Traveller's imperium never was anyother form of government, but, with all the technological and social factors I've listed above, the most you'd likely have would be the situation that existed for Queen Victoria in the eighteen hundreds. She had lots of clout remaining, but had to deal with an increasingly reformed House of Commons.
Well, thank you all for listening. I look foward to the continuing discussion.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by samdx:
What is it about supp. 4 that makes you think so? I can't recall anything else in canon that contemplates such a distinction. I like it though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We know (supp 4 tells us with its title) that the careers shown are in fact citizens' careers. CT tells us that military generated characters are citizens. Nowhere in CT does it say that "All sophonts in the Imperium are citizens"; it does state that all sophonts in the imperium are "protected beings". T4 later changed the wording somewhat.
And I borrowed the idea from My first Traveller Ref. Shed the credit/blame to where it is due: Richard Singleton. (Rick, CHS class of '84... if you happen to stumble on this, PLEASE drop me a note).
------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!
What is it about supp. 4 that makes you think so? I can't recall anything else in canon that contemplates such a distinction. I like it though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We know (supp 4 tells us with its title) that the careers shown are in fact citizens' careers. CT tells us that military generated characters are citizens. Nowhere in CT does it say that "All sophonts in the Imperium are citizens"; it does state that all sophonts in the imperium are "protected beings". T4 later changed the wording somewhat.
And I borrowed the idea from My first Traveller Ref. Shed the credit/blame to where it is due: Richard Singleton. (Rick, CHS class of '84... if you happen to stumble on this, PLEASE drop me a note).
------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!
Similar threads
