From: kasprj@isaac.its.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak)
Subject: Re: Industrial feudalism?
Reply-To: kasprj@rpi.edu
Organization: The Big Wedge 
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 15:20:05 GMT

In article <ig25.727829955@fg70>, ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig) writes:
|> One key problem interfering with a society's success which has
|> hereditary transfer of power ist that there is no easy way of getting
|> rid of the duds, which education alone cannot do.
|> [good example: Kaiser Bill II]

 Yes, an hereditary aristocracy has such dangers. But if you replace it with
another form of government, you're only trading it for different dangers. A
democratic republic, for example, has the danger of the people making a bad 
decision as to what is best for the country, and electing a leader who will
harm the country. A benevolent dictatorship has the danger of the dictator 
turning malevolent. And so forth. 
 
 The people who set up the government in the Mote universe knew, and chose to
accept, the dangers inherent in this system of government, just as the modern
Western democracies choose to accept the dangers of their own system.

|> Another problem I see is that governing takes it out of people.
|> Usually, people in top positions of power are not much good after a
|> decade or so.  This is both because they tend to lose their working
|> ability with time, and because from time to time fresh ideas are needed.

 This is a matter of opinion. On the other hand, there are people who say 
that replacing the leaders every decade or so is a bad idea, because it takes
that long for them to get used to the complicated process of government, and
only after years of working within the system does one become a truly effective
leader.
 
 The problem is, neither of these points of view is objectively provable. There
is no exact science of government. The arguments of the long-termers and the 
short-termers both have merit. You have to decide which is the lesser of two
evils and live with the consequences.

|> To me, assigning a
|> "sector" to somebody like Rob Blaine's father, in which he obviously is
|> supreme military commander ("done some good work pacifying his sector",
|> quotation from Mote) sounds like a blueprint for rebellion to me.
 
 The possibility of rebellion exists when the Emperor is weak and the local
lords are strong (see Asimov's _Foundation_). That is not the case in the 
Mote universe. Recall that the Empire, at the time of _Mote_, is still in the
process of reclaiming the lost worlds of the previous, fallen empire. It's 
relatively young, as empires go, and the majority of the people from the 
nobility to the commoners are supportive of a unified Empire. They see it as
in their own best interest to support the Emperor and not seek power on their
own. 
 
 In several decades or centuries, after the old worlds have been reunited for
a few generations (and barring the absence of an external threat like the 
Moties; I haven't read _The Gripping Hand_ yet), the Empire could conceivably 
reach a situation like that in _Foundation_ or _Dune_, where a strong local 
leader could challenge the authority of the Empire. But in the time of _Mote_,
there's little to be gained from it.
 
|> Counting on ideology alone to keep someone in that postition loyal seems
|> a risky to me, much better to assign the job to some commander who'll
|> be on his next position a couple of years from then.
 
 You can make this argument. But again, the counter-argument has equal force:
how can you count on someone doing an effective job in a given position when
they know it's only temporary? Whichever side you choose, you accept its 
limitations.
------------------------------------------------------------------
     __  Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
 ___/  | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
/____ *|          he who refuses to do nonsense  
     \_|          is doomed to talk arithmetic.
      ====  e-mail: kasprj@rpi.edu or kasprzak@mts.rpi.edu 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science