Somewhere around 1982, one of my roommates ran a game which he called Balance of Power. Each player ran a country, directing its economy, military, intelligence and research efforts, and conducting diplomacy with the other players. What made it interesting is that you designed your own country, applying 100 points to buy ratings in 20 factors, such as Area, Population, Cultural Unity, Military Size, Military Skill, several natural resources, and so forth. You could put a 5 into every category, or you could improve some abilities at the expense of others. Bruce Glassco pointed out that extremes are more interesting than the average is--they don't make movies about the average shark, or archaeologist, or con artist; they make Jaws and Indiana Jones or The Sting. From that idea, a few of us decided to buy our countries with every rating being either a 10 or a zero. I designed Alarish, a nation with a 10 for Defensible Terrain, Science Skill, Military Skill, Government Legitimacy and other things, and a zero for Area, Coastline, Navy Size, Navy Skill, and so forth. My country was a tiny enclave of top notch scientists and commandos living in Himalayan mountains.
Around 1995, I started playing Full Thrust, a game of starship combat by Ground Zero Games. The official background had several major nations and their navies, but it was generally accepted by the publisher and the fans that players could either flesh out the existing nations or design their own. A lot of people did their own variants of Scotland or the Confederate States or such, which struck me as unimaginative. I decided to translate my Balance of Power country to the GZG universe. This led to the libertarian monarchy known as the Alarishi Empire, which controls a group of three M stars with no habitable planets, but lots of asteroids.
The Alarishi Empire has been described as an orbiting collection of experiments in social Darwinism. The Imperial government will generally let you start your own local government and run it however you like, as long as you pay your lease on time and refrain from blowing up your neighbors. If your local government and social system works, you'll thrive; if not, that's your problem, and the Imperial government feels no obligation to bail you out. Think of it as federalism on steroids.
The point of this is that it gives me a background for thinking about government in terms of "what is theoretically workable and just" rather than "what's politically possible given the mess we're in and all the history behind it." I'll be considering various issues from the point of view of "if I were making the rules, I'd say....". Comments are always welcome.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This reminds me somehow of an old friend I had who was not only a Bible scholar but an astrophysicist. He was always making me chuckle at drawing comparisons between science and theology. He might say about experimentation of government systems that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics will cause even the best of them to decline and to just eventually go down in chaos. And if I didn't quite "get that" he'd switch and say history and society and mankind are populated with sinners and we'll never really figure it all out with total success and harmony, lol.
A lot of libertarians imagine a certain form of theoretical world that there is little evidence to support has or ever will exist. Whether it is possible is difficult to say.
I suspect the world could be subdivided into two groups: Those who feel the rights derive from the individual and the state should only abridge those in very specific cases agreed to by the individuals at some point and those who feel that the collective has rights and that individual rights are granted by the collective society.
Where you fall on that issue has just about everything to do with your views on economics, politics, justice, legal process, foreign affairs, personal freedoms and the list goes on....
There will, I suspect, always be enough of an urge to form a hierarchical state that we'll not run any serious risk of getting a fully libertarian state. Among other things, a politician generally wants power, so he will not have incentive to reduce the power of his bureau.
Hey, Chris!
Walt Neill here. Glad to see you're still hale and hearty and remember good old BOP. Good times, eh? Drop me a line sometime.
Post a Comment