"Margin of Profit" introduces Nicholas van Rijn, owner of Solar Spice & Liquors;
"The Three-Cornered Wheel" introduces David Falkayn;
in "A Sun Invisible," Falkayn, working for SSL, hopes that he will come to old Nick's attention.
Thus, here is a mini-trilogy:
van Rijn;
Falkayn;
Falkayn working for van Rijn.
But, as we pull back further, the same process occurs on a larger scale:
"Wings of Victory" introduces the Ythrians;
"The Problem of Pain" introduces the planet later named Avalon;
"How To Be Ethnic In One Easy Lesson" introduces Adzel and the Polesotechnic League;
in "Margin of Profit," van Rijn represents the League;
"The Three-Cornered Wheel" introduces Falkayn on Ivanhoe;
"A Sun Invisible," as above;
"The Season of Forgiveness" is set on Ivanhoe;
there are four more installments about van Rijn;
in "The Trouble Twisters," van Rijn founds a trader team led by Falkayn and including Adzel.
Later:
van Rijn and the team operate both independently and together;
the League declines;
Falkayn leads the joint human-Ythrian colonization of Avalon.
And so on. And all that I have summarized is part of the bigger picture of the History of Technic Civilization. I will stop revisiting and re-summarizing the History when it stops seeming fresh to me.
19 comments:
A thought re: "How to Be Ethnic...."
This was taking place in the 25th Century and things were still "good" in the Commonwealth: ...a picture from within of Terran society when the Polesotechnic League was in its glory..." At the same time, Jimmy Ching, a young "middle-class" man in San Francisco, was "packing, open-carry" when he went to visit Adzel in San Jose.
Also, Old Nick's Chicago receptionist/bodyguard was likewise equipped.
This doesn't sound like a very "glorious"time to me.
To misquote Kris Kristofferson: "Freedom's just another word for not getting shot today..."
-kh
Kaor, Keith!
I disagree. Altho I, personally, don't feel a need to carry "heat," I believe in the RIGHT of law abiding citizen to carry weapons if they choose to do so. Also, I still believe it made perfect sense for Old Nick's receptionist to double as a bodyguard. Powerful men of great wealth do tend to have ENEMIES. Last, to paraphrase Robert Heinlein, an armed society is a POLITE society.
Sean
@ Sean, presumably choosing to do so is because of a (perceived/actual) need to do so.
IMHO needing a gun to feel or be safe is a sign of dysfunction, unless you're in a war, (possibly) a police officer, or if there are dangerous animals about..
Isn't one of the functions of LIMITED GOVERNMENT to keep our people from getting killed, or is it just to keep other governments from killing our people and it's OK if we do it to ourselves?
"Last, to paraphrase Robert Heinlein, an armed society is a POLITE society:"
Armed Societies:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/small-arms-survey-countries-with-the-most-guns-1.3392204
Americans have 88.8 handguns/100 people, while Switzerland has 45.7/100 and Canada has 30.8/100.
Are we Americans twice as polite as the Swiss and three times more so than the Canadians? More importantly (and seriously): are we/do we feel two or three times as SAFE as these folks?
The US (2017) gun-related homicide rate was 4.46/100.000, in Switzerland (2018) it was 0.15/100,000, and in Canada (2016)it was 0.61/100,000.
Looks like our gun ownership rate- and laws don't make us safer from getting killed by them...
-kh
Kaor, Keith!
Ideally, one of the functions of a limited state is NOT to govern too much. And that is one of our problems today, too much gov't.
But, the police cannot be everywhere and, alas, we often see them after a crime has been perpetrated. And that brings up another reason why I believe in the right of law abiding citizens to carry weapons if they so wished: SELF DEFENSE. We all have an absolute right to defend ourselves against unjust attacks. So, if someone gets attacked by a mugger, I have no problem with the victim defending himself by pulling out a gun. Ideally, he would not have to shoot, because the goon decided to take a hike.
Also, what GOOD is banning guns if criminals will not obey such a law? That would be to completely disarm the law abiding while the thugs remained armed.
As for the figures you cited, I am not sure how valid they are when you recall how vast the population of the US is compared to Canada and Switzerland. Also, it's my belief that many factors mostly unique to the US rather than the other countries, contributed to homicides.
My paraphrasing of Heinlein was based on the idea that if you know a man is armed, it would only be prudent not to get him mad at you. And vice versa, of course.
Sean
Very good.
"But, the police cannot be everywhere." Soon they will be:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/old/rant/panopticon-essay.html
(This was written in 2002.)
Not only the state but all sorts of private organizations too.
From my understanding, you don't "own" your biometric data in the US, so if you're in a public place without t an expectation of privacy), it can be captured and used.
Fair gun laws seem to work well in most of the places mentioned , like Switzerland, Canadam and European countries.
The figures I mentioned are not on an absolute number but a per capita basis, so our rate is ~30 x hire than Switerzerland and 7x higher than Canada. If you go by absolute population it would be interesting to compare the gun homicide rates of the Us with that of the evil EU...
Finally, I am interested if being (or the perception) of being armed acts as a deterrent to crime. It looks like it DOESN'T.(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/): In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not. In one, they found that a gun in the home was tied to a nearly fivefold increase in the odds of suicide. (More Americans die from gun suicides every year than gun homicides.) In another, published in 1998, they reported that guns at home were four times more likely to cause an accidental shooting, seven times more likely to be used in assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used in a suicide than they were to be used for self-defense. More than 30 peer-reviewed studies, focusing on individuals as well as populations, have been published that confirm what Kellermann's studies suggested: that guns are associated with an increased risk for violence and homicide. “There is really uniform data to support the statement that access to firearms is associated with an increased risk of firearm-related death and injury,” Wintemute concludes. A January 2017 study reported that when “stand your ground” was passed in Florida, the monthly homicide rate went up by nearly a quarter. And a 2012 study found that states that adopted these laws experienced an abrupt and sustained 8 percent increase in homicides relative to other states. Mark Hoekstra, a co-author of the 2012 paper and an economist at Texas A&M University, put it this way: “We found that making it easier to kill people resulted in more dead people.”
-kh
The logic is inescapable.
It is good that this level of discussion happens on an sf blog and that is all down to Poul Anderson.
Dangerous animals... what do you think human beings are? 8-). I've only once had an animal (a rhinoceros) try to kill me; humans have done it half a dozen times.
I don't find people carrying weapons particularly disturbing -- you see the odd gun on the hip here in Santa Fe, presumably there are more concealed.
For that matter I carry a fighting-knife myself(*) and have since my early teens.
Arms certainly are not the main factor in the frequency of homicides, which have declined by over 50% in the US over the last 30 years, as population rose and firearms became more numerous, both in absolute terms and relatively.
(*) everywhere that isn't behind a metal detector.
@ S.M. Firstly: I like your writing. Thanks for it.
Secondly: "....humans have done it half a dozen times..."
Could you elaborate?
Re: knives: I don't have a problem with them or most other types of personal weapons.
"Of course he has a knife, he always has a knife, we all have knives!
It's 1183 and we're barbarians!"
-Katherine Hepburn, The Lion in Winter, 1968
-kh
Kaor, Keith and Mr. Stirling!
Keith: I still disagree with you, because it comes down to a matter of principle: I believe in the absolute right of human beings to defend themselves from unjust attacks. And that necessarily means the right to have the MEANS of doing so, weapons (knives or guns).
And I repeat that CRIMINALS will not obey laws banning guns and other weapons by private persons. Why should they? Guns would enable them to terrorize or overcome all who are disarmed. And I still don't believe police can be everywhere, btw.
Mr. Stirling: I am GLAD you survived the half dozen times you were attacked, presumably by criminals since I don't think you were ever in the Canadian armed forces. As you said, humans are far more dangerous than mere animals!
Sean
Anonymous: "not recently", let's say, and leave it at that.
@ Sean: I also believe people should have the right to defend themselves.
The question is, with what an in what manner?
In Neil Stephenson's Snow Crash, a major character had a hydrogen bomb connected to him so that if his heart stopped; "KABLOOEY!"
Do you believe any types of weapons should be prohibited from private ownership?
If so, which ones and why?
In T G o E, Diana (who IMSM is under 18 Standard y,o.) carried a knife, perhaps similar to Mr. Stirling's. (I don't have a problem with that.) Would you allow her to carry a fully automatic assault-style Gauss rifle or the very powerful and sophisticated gun Mr. Stirling described in Stone Dogs that stopped the ghouloon.? If so, Would you put any restrictions on her to do so?
-kh
Kaor, Keith!
All human beings HAVE, not merely "should have" the right to defend themselves from unjust attacks.
I'm sorry, but the extreme and speculative example of someone wiring himself to a hydrogen bomb that explodes once his heart stops is too implausible to take seriously.
But, short of the too implausible example you gave above, I would set very few restrictions on the kinds of weapons adults of sound mind can carry. Yes, I remember how Diana Crowfeather carried a Tigery knife in case of need. And I would say "yes" to your other questions, because I would trust Flandry's daughter to use those sophisticated weapons only if she needed to.
And I do want to eventually reread Stirling's four Draka books!
Sean
FroSean & Keith:
Whenever the topic of Gun Control comes up I like to link to this essay.
https://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2007/01/brin-classics-jefferson-rifle.html
I wouldn't dismiss consideration of cases like the guy with the H-bomb.
Considering extreme cases forces us to ask "Where would we draw the line, or how do we gradually add restrictions as the possible harm gets more extreme?"
I have carried a Swiss Army Knife in my pocket for most of my life. It is useful for other things than killing someone. But if I had been on one of the 9/11 planes, it could have been useful for stabbing a hijacker if I had not been forced to put it in my non-carry-on luggage. Everyone having a knife, but no gun on such a plane would result in far fewer deaths.m Jim Baerg:
That should have been "From Jim Baerg:"
Kaor, Jim!
At least you agree we can carry knives, which is a start. But, as far as I'm concerned, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution settles the matter: all law abiding citizens can carry weapons, including guns. A vast body of case law, all the way up to the Supreme Court, has over and over reiterated that principle.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Jim!
Btw, when I went to Rome for the Holy Year in 2000 I was carrying my Swiss Army Knife. Nobody fussed about it either in Boston or the airport in Rome.
Of course, that was before 9/11! I never again carried my Swiss knife in later journeys, because it would have been confiscated.
Ad astra! Sean
"the Second Amendment to the US Constitution"
As David Brin points out somewhere in that essay, the "well ordered militia" phrase leave room for lots of restrictions if SCOTUS wanted to interpret it that way. You might want to read that essay for his suggestion on a reasonable compromise that would leave some class of guns always unrestricted.
Kaor, Jim!
But the States of the US already has thousands of laws regulating the use of guns and how and who can have them. Laws found constitutional by the courts.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment