My concept of freedom is both individual and collective. A society is free if it is collectively self-determining - which requires a lot of control over would-be representatives. In a society without democracy, I would want to campaign for the right to vote and would not consider myself free if I were economically obliged to seek employment by an unregulated entrepreneur.
Nevertheless, I think that I have gained a clearer understanding of the merchant princes' concept of freedom. The League transcends and ignores planetary governments - and eventually causes so much chaos that an interstellar government is imposed by force.
10 comments:
The League is a government; that is, it enforces (occasionally by violence or threat) a set of rules.
What brings it down is its internal divisions.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: I think Anderson would mostly agree with you, about the League becoming a de facto interstellar gov't. He had in mind the analogy of the Hanseatic League, for example.
And as long as the League remained faithful to its founding ideals it worked.
Paul: But why should League factors, employees, entrepreneurs, etc., take any formal part in the politics of a planet they only plan to temporarily stay on? Esp. if the residents of that planet were not humans, and hence very likely had social and political arrangements not SUITABLE for humans. In that case, it makes sense to limit participation in local politics, to only as much as was needed for them to carry out their jobs.
Happy New Year! Sean
Sean,
Well, that's obvious but I'm talking about the many League employees who live on Earth, for example.
Paul.
Or indeed the Travers on Hermes which was where this discussion started.
Kaor, Paul!
As for League employees (human or not) on Earth, the same reasoning applies, esp. if they were not citizens of any of the member states of the Commonwealth. Any who really cared that much about politics would go thru the process of becoming naturalized. And I suspect many did not.
The Travers of Hermes is a more complex case. But I would again point out they were not taxed by the Grand Duchy, which makes me think the founders of the Duchy were going by the principle that it was taxpayers who should vote.
Last, even if it was pressure which eventually did so, the Travers did get the right to vote for and hold local municipal offices on Hermes. To me, that almost inevitably means the franchise would eventually extend to Duchy wide elections. Which I have no objection to if the means for achieving that were peaceful and non-violent. Which the Strang dictatorship shows was not the case.
The various Reform Acts of the 19th century UK, by both the Liberal and Conservative parties, extending that franchise shows that can be done in the real world without a dictatorship.
Happy New Year! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
This reminds me of Benjamin Constant’s distinction between the freedom of the ancients and the moderns: to the ancient Greeks, you were free if you were able to participate as a citizen in governing your free city, which was self-governing rather than being ruled by the Great King of Persia, a Spartan harmost, or the King of Macedon. You lacked freedom if you were an outright slave, or if your city was ruled by a tyrannos or an oligarchy which excluded you. To the moderns, freedom was a more personal matter, of a man being able to speak and act as he personally wished. There is some overlap between these conceptions of freedom.
Personally, I’m a modern, and while I believe that a democracy, or at least a society where the ordinary people have some collective influence on government, is likely to be freer than an undemocratic country, that is not invariably the case. A majority can be intolerant of minority rights, and monarchy or limited-franchise republic may generally respect the personal rights of ordinary people.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Kaor, Nicholas!
And I agree with these distinctions you made. Real world politics will always be more complex and nuanced than what simplistic or fanatical ideologues would like them to be.
And I bitterly resent how the Democrats are trying to force "legalization" of having foreigners or illegal immigrants voting in US elections on us. ONLY citizens should vote in American elections!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Don't they mean that the immigrants should become citizens before voting?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I am more welcoming of immigrants and applicants for asylum than Trump and Stephen Miller were, and than the Biden administration is in practice. I do think, though, that only American citizens should be able to vote in American elections. As it happens, Mona Charen (an anti-Trump conservative) had a column about the latest from New York City: the City Council has enacted that legal immigrants and Dreamers (persons brought illegally into the United States as minors), although not other illegal aliens, will be allowed to vote in local, and, IIRC, state elections, although not federal elections. Mrs. Charen, who is not a hardcore xenophobic, is against it, and so am I.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Kaor, Paul!
And Nicholas' comments, given above, expresses very clearly what I think. The Democrats are trying to force this further DEBASING of US politics on us. And not just in NYC, but also in states like Vermont. Such laws should be challenged and reversed!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment