David Johnson writes:
>My good friend Hans Rancke [email removed] writes:
>
>>Regina's change from TL 10 to TL 12, and it was
>>suggested that that was merely a correction of a typo.
>
>It wasn't a typo. The TL 10 listing for Regina also appears in *Book 6:
>Scouts* and *Book 7: Merchant Prince*.
What does that have to do with it? If an authoritaive source makes a misprint,
that misprint can make it's way into a lot of secondary publications that
rely on the primary source. Then the primary source is reprinted and the
typo corrected; all without the original source being updated. And if it
wasn't a misprint we're back to my old question: Why did it take Regina
many centuries to reach TL 10 when they advanced two TLs from 1107 to 1110?
>Similarly, migration in the Regency can be expected to be from low-pop
>worlds to high-pop worlds.
It might make for migration from rural areas on low-pop worlds to urban areas
on the same worlds (always providing that such planets had urban areas). The
classic SF theme is from overcrowded planets to frontier planets. And the
only colonization project we have any knowledge of (The Forboldn Project,
mentioned in _Kinunir_) has people transported to the Spinward Marches from
the Core.
>>The size of a unified economy, yes. But do you really think that the Mexican
>>economy is the more stable because of the size of the population of the US?
>
>To some extent, yes. I'm not sure what you mean by `unified'. Do you mean
>`isolated' instead?
An economy so tied together as to actively compensate for fluctuations in
production. A large country is less suceptible to a bad harvest because
the governing forces can transport food from areas not affected to areas
affected. If the same population was a number of isolated economies, the
very same harvest would cause some of these countries disaster despite
the total number of people involved being the same.
>>There are scores of low-population worlds with a high-tech classification
>>that they couldn't _possibly_ maintain on their own population base.
>
>Yes, yes. I thought we'd already agreed that these anomalies don't fit our
>understanding of tech level as measuring technological capability?
It fits my understanding perfectly. Some outsider brings in (or some local
imports) the machinery needed to produce some kind of high-tech stuff from
local raw materials. As long as the factory is functioning that planet is
effectively of the equivalent tech level - even if the factory has to
be maintained with imported spare parts.
>Technocracy: government by technicians, specifically management of society
> by technical experts.
>
>This refers to the *nature* of authority. It defines the ruling class.
>What is meant by `technicians' and `technical' experts though?
>
>Technical: having special, usually practical knowledge, especially of a
> mechanical or scientific subject.
So far so good.
>This is the first of several definitions. Of particular interest is the
>sixth definition:
>
>Technical: (6) resulting chiefly from internal market factors rather than
>external influences.
>
>This suggests a technocracy is a government where authority is exercised by
>a class with specialized knowledge. This knowledge is somehow practical,
>scientific and related to market forces.
Here's the fallacy. Nothing in the definition requires the expertise to be
economic. Sure, it _could_ be - if economy is accepted as a science with
an associated technology. Focussing on the sixth most common meaning on a
word to the exclusion of all other meanings seems very specious. I'd be
happier if you could include some of the more common meanings too. The
definition of technocracy didn't say "see _Technical_ (6)", did it? Any
society managed by technical experts would seem to fit.
>A technocracy ties political power (government) to economic power (industry,
>the `practice of technology').
Not at all. A society whhere political power is tied to economic power might
well be a technocracy, but to conclude that a technocracy has to be such a
society is a complete fallacy. Of course, a government that is a technocracy
must tie political power to some kind of technological expertise.
>This is something much more sophisiticated than mere government by engineers
>and scientists. It takes much more than just engineers and scientists to
>successfully run industry and an industrial economy.
If economics is a science, then a technician can run an economy. If it's not
a science then someone who can run an economy can't be merely a technocrat
(By definition). However, a mere government by engineers and scientists is
enough to satisfy the definition and is therefor a technocracy. You won't
prove your point by narrowing your definitions down to a point where the
only thing that fits is your concept. Stick with the broad definitions.
>In contemporary market economies much of the political framework that
>permits the industrial economy to function is provide by democratically
>established governments that exist external to the economic system.
Why does it have to be democratically established? Any sort of government,
however established, that allows free market economics is sufficient.
>Nevetheless, any technocracy needs a political framework to permit the
>functioning of the industrial economy. To meet the requirements of a
>technocracy this framework must arise from *within* the market place.
A complete red herring. To meet the requirements of a technocracy, the
leaders of the society must be chosen for their technical expertise.
Nothing more, nothing less.
>Hans writes:
>
>>The whole world economy, for example, is
>>based on negotiations between sovereign nations. Sovereign nations have no
>>external governmental entity to provide any legal framework.
>
>Nation-states *are* the `external government entities'. They are not actors
>*within* the industrial economy.
Of course they are. Why would one country impose trade restrictions against
another except at the instigation of its economic sector? The negotiations
that takes place between nation-states may take place at the political
level, but it's roots are in the economic sector. If General Motors didn't
give a hoot in hell about Japanese cars on the American market, do you
think the President would? However, that wasn't quite my point. One of the
prime functions of a government is to be a superior force that can enforce
laws. Sovereign nations don't have any government themselves. That's what
the 'sovereign' means. (In the last half century the nations of the world
have been trying to bootstrap some sort of system superior to the individual
nations. I doubt anyone will argue that they've succeeded yet. When they
do, they won't be sovereign anymore). So any deal struck between sovereign
nations are examples of deals made without government intervention
(government of those nations, was what I meant). If those deals are economic
in nature they are examples of economic deals done without government
intervention.
>Exactly (except for the part about "without a government"). It is clear
>from all of these examples that some sort of framework is needed.
No. It is clear that most nations today think that some sort of framework
is desirable. But history is full of examples of economic deals struck
between people who had nothing but the good faith of their opponent (and
his hoped-for desire to continue trading) to ensure the fullfillment of
the deal. In fact, unless two nations have an undertaking to protect each
other's traders even against their own, no deal between traders of
different nationalities has anything more to protect them.
>There are no agreements between, say, a Kazakh oil field and an Australian
>drilling corporation, that are not enforced by some governmental entity
>that exists *external* to the marketplace.
Insofar as most governments frown on non-government-sanctioned force you're
quite right. They can't be _enforced_. But you can still make agreements.
And in the old days some merchants could, indeed, enforce their deals. The
Honourable East India Company is an extreme example, but any armed merchant-
man could do it in the absence of an _opposing_ government. So you might
actually say that one only needs government help to enforce agreements if
there are governments around.
>>Of course one can have market systems without government supervision. Well,
>>you may need a government to make sure noone shoots at you while you're
>>manufacturing or trading, but what more do you need?
>
>You need someone to print currency,
Promisory notes backed by the issuing company.
>to establish procedures to guarrantee control of investments and access to
>profits,
I don't quite know what you mean by "control of investments and access to
profits", but any procedures can be established by negotiations between
the individual companies.
>to control monetary supplies and rates or exchange, etc.
Control in what way, and why can this not be done by negotiation?
>In capitalist market economies governmental entities external to the market
>perform these functions.
They do so today, but they are not necessary. Convenient, maybe.
>Let's take for example this idea of a `technocractic lord' `selling' shares
>in her enterprise to a `technocractic vassal' in exchange for financial
>capital. Under a capitalist system the goverment prints that money and
>guarrantees its value.
This is what the do today (and it's a piss-poor system), but they didn't do
so before they left the gold standard. Before that money was backed by real
value. There is no reason why a company can't issue it's own money, backed
by it's own ressources. In fact, that's what they do every time they write
a check. A bank note is nothing more than a promisory note. So is a check.
>In a technocracy the lord and vassal must come to some agreement themselves
>as to just what that `financial capital' is worth because the vassal
>(shareholder) doesn't have any `money' to `give' to the lord (chairman).
So what does the 'vassal' bring to the deal? And if he dosen't bring anything
does that mean that you agree with me? (And why did you use the example of
Sacnoth industrialists buying Gram industries as an example of why a feudal
technocracy was vulnerable to a stronger economic entity?)
>In essence, money is nothing more than a promise guarranteed by the
>government.
Right. But in earlier times many banks issued their own notes. Just because
governments today dosen't allow that dosen't mean that it can't be done. A
market economy dosen't _need_ a government to provide money.
>I think that's enough for now. I hope I've made some progress in explaining
>what, IMHO, a feudal technocracy is. To recap:
>
>1. The nature of authority: authority is exercised by those possessing
> specialized knowledge related to the practice of technology as manifest
> in an industrial economy.
Like how to run a factory?
> 2. Politcal power and thus the framework for the industrial economy must
> arise from *within* the industrial economy.
Like the man who owns the factory decides who get to run it?
> 3. Feudal principles will be used to establish the framework through a
> system of well-defined relationships between the actors in the market.
Like the man who gets to run the factory is under a specific obligation to
the liege-lord who made him manager. I agree completely.
>Remember, it's feudal *technocracy*, not technocratic feudalism.
What's the difference? Or rather, what do you think is the difference?
>I see this `evidence of ownership' as being analogous to the feudal title
>granted by an aristocractic lord to his vassal tenants.
Why, so do I!
>Ownership of a portion of industry in a technocracy (a block of shares) is
>the same as *tenancy* under the feudal system.
There's a small, but important difference between ownership and tenancy that
makes it impossible to equate the two. (Hint: with ownership you own, with
tenancy you don't).
>In a technocracy where there is no governmental entity external to the
>industrial economy to print, manage and guarranty currency the shareholders
>must have a well-defined and continuous relationship with the technocractic
>lord in order to guarranty the value of and access to that capital.
Leaving aside that you can have technocracy with or without a government and
that you can have money with or without government and government with or
without currency (I use 'currency' as 'government-backed' money here)...
hmmm... leaving that aside there's not much left of that argument...
>>Fealty is loyalty. How is the provision of money equivalent to loyalty?
>
>In a technocracy there is no external entity to provide `money'.
I can't keep repeating myself each time this comes up, so from now on
please insert your own 'Fallacy!' comment after every occurrence.
>What serves as currency in a technocratic system must be arranged through
>agreement by the participants.
Not 'must be'. 'Can be'. One company could put out money backed by its
products, another money backed by its. Or they could use some rare metal.
Or government-backed money. There are lots of possibilities.
>One might call the shareholders portion of this agreement `loyalty'.
So the socalled shareholders does not provide any goods or capital? This
begins to resemble my notions more and more.
>The key is that the system requires inter-dependent relationships between
>the actors - `lord' and `vassal'.
Absolutely right. Otherwise it's not a feudal arrangement. But by now you
can drop the quotes around lord and vassal. If the vassal dosen't buy the
'share' then he is a vassal and his lord a lord.
>The Chairman is the technocratic lord. An aristocratic lord had a duty to
>his vassals to provide coordinated security services.
That's true enough. _In addition_ to giving out the fief in exchange for
the loyalty of the vassal the lord also assumed the duty to protect his
vassal.
>A technocractic lord (Chairman) has a duty to her vassals (shareholders)
>to provide coordinated profit services.
That makes sense. In addition to giving them their fiefs she also assumes
the duty to protect them financially. A good analogy. Of course, the
crucial part of the feudal relationship is the providing of the fiefs,
since lots of other systems require the leader to protect the followers.
In fact, I can't think of any that dosen't.
>Focus on the `duty' rather than the more nebulous `loyalty'.
Not a good idea. In a feudal relationship both sides have duties to the
other part, so you can't say who's the lord and who's the vassal from
that.
>A block of the corporate enterprise is held in `tenancy' in exchange for
>the `service' required to guarranty the access to and value of financial
>capital.
This is pure gibberish. Oh, sorry! I mean, I don't understand a word you're
saying here. Could you put it in layman's terms?
Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
[email removed]
- ------------
"I used to argue the matter at first, but I'm wiser now. Facts
are stubborn things, but not half so stubborn as fallacies."
- Stella Maynard in "Anne of the Island"