[Discussion regarding 2300 and other Traveller-related rulesets are
welcome on the TML -- James]
Greetings, Traveller mailing list! I've been lurking here for quite a
while in anticipation of someday getting back into Traveller, and now
I am (as a ref, no less), and I have some questions to throw out for
discussion.
Foundations: just what are they? The Adventurer's Guide states (or
implies) that nationalism declines significantly as a result of the
Twilight War and foundations arise as sources of group identity. (For
the non-2300 people, a foundation, as far as I can tell, is a
semi-private organization, like a corporation or a union.) That's
fine and dandy, but then, in the list of major wars fought over the
last 300 years, all belligerents are COUNTRIES, not a single
foundation. So what gives? If people come to think of themselves as
members of no one nation, they must be members of SOME group, namely,
foundations.
Agree so far? To be pedantic, every individual must be a member of
some "tribe", for self-defense (or effective aggression, for that
matter) and for social care. By "social care", I mean that
nonproductive members of society must still be taken care of, since a
certain fraction of any self-supporting society will be nonproductive.
Children, retirees, the ill, and the temporarily unemployed are
obvious examples.
So, to some extent, we've done away with the nation-state as the
provider of these services. Meaning foundations must have the ability
to go head-to-head with national gov'ts in times of conflict, and must
have the economic resources to provide care for its nonproductive
members. (Military ability can also be stated in terms of economics,
because weapons can almost always be bought SOMEWHERE.) Where does
that economic ability come from? Taxes.
So, what's necessary for a decent tax base? Essentially, a GNP
(and/or citizens with a taxable income). My economics is getting a
little shaky here. So let's pick a foundation-like 20th-century
organization: IBM or Nippon Telephone & Telegraph. These guys provide
day-care, pensions, education for employees. In some cases, housing
(witness the "mill villages" of early 20th-century textile
corporations). Health care. Insurance (same thing). Company stores.
All kinds of nifty things. And what pays for all this is PROFITS.
(Or gross income.) But the question in my mind is: can (semi-)private
organizations support the additional burden of a navy and troops? The
chronically unemployed? Drugs? Permanently (semi-)disabled citizens
(mental retardation, cancer, what else)? Any opinions on this?
Suppose the foundation is truly viable, providing some service to the
universe in general and using its income to care for its citizens. Do
national governments still regard those people as citizens of that
government? If so, they would still be subject to that gov't's taxes.
(No, I do NOT believe national governments will, out of the goodness
of their hearts, refrain from taxing those individuals who claim not
to be citizens. The only reason national gov'ts today don't tax each
other's citizens is because everybody has got the military ability to
prevent that kind of behavior (or has the right allies).)
So, we have the slow growth of foundations as social/political bodies,
and the need for the foundations to tax their citizens (even
indirectly, as in profit-sharing (wherein costs of "government" are
deducted from profits BEFORE they are distributed to "employees"))
coming into conflict w/the national gov'ts taxing the same people.
(Go back over those parentheses; I know they're confusing. :) )
Agree so far? If so, where are the dadgum
foundation-vs.-national-gov't wars? Do I have to modify some of the
last 300 years' history?
John.