-Poul Anderson, "Margin of Profit" IN Anderson, The Van Rijn Method (December, 2009), pp. 135-173 AT p. 146.
Maybe the League's status as a "supergovernment" explains why it is sometimes later referred to as if it had been a government:
"...the still more ancient, vanished glory of the Empire, or the League before it..."
-"A Tragedy of Errors," p. 522.
"'Sir, the League, the troubles, the Empire, its fall, the Long Night...every such thing - behind us. In space and time alike.'"
-Poul Anderson, "Starfog" IN Anderson, Flandry's Legacy (Riverdale, NY, June 2012), pp. 709-794 AT p. 722.
The League, although not a government, was the form of interstellar organization before the Empire.
Dominic Flandry:
"...would much rather have lived in the high and spacious days of the merchant princes, when no distance and no deed looked too vast for man, than in this twilight of empire."
-Poul Anderson, A Circus of Hells IN Young Flandry (Riverdale, NY, January 2010), pp. 193-365 AT CHAPTER TWO, p. 209.
21 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I noticed how Daven made no mention of the Solar Commonwealth. Not surprising, perhaps, given that I don't think it ruled much more than Earth and the Solar System. And its attempt at expanding, as seen in MIRKHEIM, was a failure.
Evocative, those reflections by Dominic Flandry!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The Solar Commonwealth is not mentioned because it was insignificant compared with the League which was a "supergovernment."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I agree.
Ad astra! Sean
The essential function of governments is to manage the 'violence function' -- internal order, external defense.
They may do other things, but that's 'gravy', as the saying goes. The violence function is what governments are -for-.(*)
I would note that in the absence of government, the standard way for an adult human male to die is to be killed by another human male; it's a bit less common for females, but still quite frequent.
Studies of remains from pre-State societies have shown that quite definitely; it's the 'state of nature'. Which turns out to have been nasty, brutish and short.
The League seems to have done a fair job at managing the essential function in its heyday.
(*) under the Roman Empire, about 75% of the Imperial government's revenues went to the military and military-related stuff like roads and bridges... which were useful to civilians too, but were built by and for the army.
Local governments under the Empire did some policing, and also a lot of other things -- building things like libraries and theaters, supporting orphans, subsidizing education, etc.
Mostly by competitive benefaction by the wealthy; that was a major source of status-competition. You gave your township X, the township put up a statue to you and an inscription, everyone was happy.
But the Imperial government was about the borders and suppressing the more large-scale types of disorder -- piracy, for example.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree! I simply cannot believe in Utopian fantasies about everybody being nice and gentle and peaceful. Such dreams clash violently with the brute facts of real life as we all see it every day.
Such peace as we have comes only from the existence of the State, in whatever form, and its monopoly of the use of violence. And its chief job is to keep the peace, internal and external.
However much I dislike Hobbes' autocratic, totalitarian view of the State he was right in saying that, without the State, life would be nasty, brutish, and short for most of us!
One of our biggest problems is how powerful, prosperous, successful nations like the US tries to do do so many of those "gravy" things that it gets in the way of carrying out the gov't's real job, keeping the peace, internal and external. Too often we forget how dangerous the world is and focus too much on butter, instead of guns.
Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, after they made their millions, were like that: competitive philanthropy. Such as the Carnegie Libraries.
While most of the Imperial income went to the military, the Roman Emperors still spent a lot adorning and improving Rome. Here I'm thinking of the baths, waterworks, forums, theaters, etc., built in Rome.
Ad astra! Sean
The 'gravy' is often very useful.
Some activities are inherently monopolies (or at least oligopolies) and so are best done (or at least overseen) by government. Transportation infrasctucture being an important example. The electric power grid might be considered another or simply an example of transportation infrastructure.
Also in practice the single payer model for health care works better than multiple separate insurance companies.
Jim: general agreement. Private railways have never worked all that well, for example, though better than leaving roads in private hands.
Single payer works well in the short to medium term -- much better than the abortion known as the NHS in Britain(*), and arguably better than the US system, which misallocates resources notably.
(Too many specialists and too few GP's, for instance, and not enough preventative care).
OTOH, there's some evidence it doesn't spur innovation enough.
(*) the British government not only -pays- for medical care, but also -runs- it. Health care by the equivalent of the Motor Vehicles Department. Shudder.
Kaor, Jim!
I only agree in part with what you said. Some things, like roads and bridges, are better built by the State, because they also have military functions. The US Interstate roads were built with the idea of making it easier to move troops and military materiel of all kinds.
And I share Stirling's distrust and skepticism for the single payer system.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: single payer has both positives and negatives.
In the short to medium term, it works better than the alternatives -- Canadian health care is, from the consumer's point of view, simpler, cheaper, less bureaucratic and overall better than American, for example.
And I've experienced both.
For example, my mother had a health emergency while in Arizona -- she and my father used to winter there in their later years.
And the private insurance company which they used to cover their winter stays suddenly refused to pay for her hospital care when she got sick.
Leaving I and my brothers to cough up more than $40,000 (this was in the late 80's) four four days of hospital and then put her on a plane to Canada despite her severe illness.
Once in Canada, an ambulance met us at the airport and everything was handled smoothly.
The episode still probably contributed to her death some years later.
I'd kill the executives of that 'insurance' company if I could. Burn their families alive in front of their eyes while they hung on a meathook dying by inches.
And I'm not speaking metaphorically; if they were still alive I'd do it in a shot right now, this minute, if I could figure out a method to get away with it.
My parents carefully paid the premiums, and then when it came time for -the company- to pay the promised support, they finked.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And I sympathize for you and your mother! While disagreeing with what you would do to the families of those insurance executives.
I have wondered if one reason for why "single payer" works fairly well in the short to medium term in Canada is because of how small the population is there, compared to the US. Only about 27,000,000--which is vastly less than the 330,000,000 plus down here. I simply don't see how we can avoid bureaucracy if the health care of so many millions are going to be somehow managed. To say nothing of things like trying to control the inevitable fraud and corruption.
Ad astra! Sean
I will note that healthcare is a provincial responsibility in Canada. If smaller population is really a factor in making it work, perhaps it should be a state responsibility in the US.
Nice one.
Kaor, Jim!
I basically agree, decentralize and privatize as much as possible. You can only centralize up to a point in the State before you drown in billion fold details and bureaucracy.
Ad astra! Sean
Decentralize and coordinate. We now have the communications tech to do it.
Kaor, Paul!
And that boils down to decentralizing "and" privatizing, reducing the powers amassed by the State, anywhere, since 1914.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Why privatize health? That can lead to insurance companies refusing to pay hospital bills. Jim's suggestion was that, in the US, health could be a state, instead of a federal, responsibility.
Paul.
Sean: the population isn't relevant because it's the per-capita income that's the controlling factor.
Canada gets better health results than the US, despite -spending- less than the US per-capita.
The way a single-payer system works is that the actual -health care- is provided by doctors, by joint practices, by organizations that own and run hospitals and so forth.
The only thing the government does is -pay them- after the service is rendered.
They send the bill to the government health plan, and the government sends them a check.
This is far less complex and bureaucratic than the US system, with its multiple insurance systems, public and private.
The costs are kept under control because the government(s) (it's managed at a provincial level, within guidelines set by the Federal government) is a monopoly -payer-.
So drug companies, doctors and so forth are negotiation with a single payer much bigger and more powerful than they are.
It's notable that doctors in Canada make fairly good livings... but they're not nearly as high up the income scale as US doctors are.
And Canadian hospitals, clinics and so forth are fully equipped -- but they don't go in for bells and whistles.
The level of -usage- of things like MRI machines is much higher, which keeps costs down. The number of GP's is higher versus specialists, and so forth.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
As you described it "single payer" sounds good, in theory. But what makes me have doubts it would work in the US is my strong suspicion DC would try to micro-manage and bureaucratize it to such an extent it would not work, mostly because of the passion the Democrats have for centralizing power in the national gov't.
Ad astra! Sean
"DC would try to micro-manage and bureaucratize it"
More so than Ottawa?
There is always wrangling between the various levels of government in Canada over various issues.
As Mr Stirling says about many things, "This is a condition to be managed, not a problem to be solved"
Jeez, Stirling, threatening multiple murders of innocents to address a wrongful death/contract law dispute?
"I'd kill the executives of that 'insurance' company if I could. Burn their families alive in front of their eyes while they hung on a meathook dying by inches.
And I'm not speaking metaphorically; if they were still alive I'd do it in a shot right now, this minute, if I could figure out a method to get away with it.
My parents carefully paid the premiums, and then when it came time for -the company- to pay the promised support, they finked."
I realize this is the internet, but Romans 12:17-19, perhaps?
Kaor, Jim and Dave!
Jim: Yes, even worse, IMO, than in Canada, if only because the US has a vastly population with vastly larger sums of moolah to toss around.
Dave: I hinted to Mr. Stirling that however understandable and justifiable was the fury he had for those insurance executives, their children and grandchildren were not guilty of their malfeasance. And your citing of Romans 12.17-19 was apt.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment