Re: Feudal Technocracy

David Johnson [email removed] writes:

>From Thurday night, Alistair Langsford [email removed] writes:

>>     After all, given Traveller's method for
>>     classifying governments, the same government could be classified
>>     different ways depending on which aspects of it are seen to be
>>     most apparent by the typical traveller.
>
>Yes, this is true but focusing here doesn't really allow for much discussion
>does it?

I suppose so.  Alistair is right, though.

>>     To me your kieretsu description seems like it -also- fits the
>>     description of a Corporate Government.
>
>Maybe except the key difference as I see it is that in a corporate system
>there is no bond between employer and employee.  The employer may sever the
>relationship (in effect remove your `citizenship') at will.  This is why
>corporate systems only occur at low population levels.

Give the gent a prize!  This gets at the difference between "feudal" and
non-"feudal" government.  (My understanding of why company/corporate rule
is a low population feature is a bit different, but I went over that in
my last post.)

>we can see that *all* government types, except those where a *single*
>individual is able to exert *direct*, personal control over the others
>(i.e., very small groups), are inherently *democratic* in the source of
>of authority.  Even the most oppressive totalitiarian theocracy requires
>*some* degree of consent from the populace in order to function.

"Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word *democratic* that
 I wasn't previously aware of."  :)
I get the thesis here, that power is ultimately derived from the masses.
But I don't know that I could possibly call an oppressive authoritarian
government "democratic".

  Steve Bonneville
  [email removed]