Jeff,
I read Vassilakos Freedom of Speech article in the Nov/Dec magazine. Thus far I've found it to be very well thought out and many excellent illustrations and quotes from Traveller (and -esque sources).
The section where he writes about the Imperium needing to quash rebellions quickly brings to memory the CoDominium books from Pournelle, specifically the post-collapse period starting with the Mote in God's Eye. That book opens with much of the same - the Empire putting down, ruthlessly with nukes and such, planets that have rebelled (the revolt on New Chicago). The question that Vassilakos poses is a valid one I think - can, or would, the Imperium root out rebellious planets in the same way the 2nd Empire did.
Throughout the article the question remains - how does/would the Imperium work if there were more democratic planets that chafed under the Imperial feudal / monarchial rule? The Imperium works, in some ways, like a confederation, with the central government taking a hands-off approach to the various member systems - even allowing them to do some pretty crappy things to their citizens. However they do have some red lines that all planetary governments must adhere too. So if the match of freedom were to be struck in multiple places, would it be from the nobility lusting for more power, or the people looking to throw off the yoke of the oppressive Imperium?
I like that he had a good bit on Piper's Space Vikings, and I agree with the point that the theory behind feudal governments following the process as laid out (kings to barons to knights to the people for armies) doesn't actually work out that like. Most people are usually happy to pay for soldiers to do all the fighting and not have to take to the fields themselves. I think people have been like that for quite some time!
The argument about distance and control has bedeviled a lot of rulers, just like it would the Imperium. The game pre-supposes at times the nobility is like Norris, but we also see the Rebellion of MT that was the hallmark of a naked power grab. I think both forms can / would exist - the question always comes down to the character of the person who is ruling in the Emperor's name in a far-away land. Rome managed to do it, and England did a similar job of managing far-flung colonies. Distances were not as great for China, though I do agree the point about the entrenched bureaucracy and civil service to do much of the actual ruling - regardless of the games played in the palace.
In the closing the mentioning of advances in technology making it harder for peoples to rebel (i.e. your references towards modern-day China) and the relevance to the game. I think, much like a modern day repressive government, they tend to become infatuated by their control, and the sheer amount of data being pulled in means that automation and scripts and such have to look at nearly all the data. Bored or disinterested people will tend to start ignoring the alerts that come across. Even those who are bully boys in the secret police and enjoy their job far too much start to become innured to the system. I'm currently reading Delarue's Gestapo history book and I find some of the things to be relevant to monitoring large populations like the Imperium would. The key difference though is that the Imperium is made up of so many different worlds with differing governing structures. The Nazi's may not have been able to maintain their Empire after the death of Hitler simply because the system was structured to be one of personal loyalty, and everyone below was constantly fighting others for power, influence and getting to be best boy in Hitler's eyes. It's amazing just how much this mindset held Germany back (as well as made it hell for for their people and so many others).
I think the conclusion from the article would be that we don't know how it would turn out. The Imperium as it stands in the game is one possible outcome. The Nobles books from the various versions also outline a sort of technocratic feudalism, but perhaps one that is not truly sustainable in reality. Much like the examples cited in the article, the theory that is on paper tends to fail when placed in contact with the reality that is people and civilizations. The supposition that it's probably best to play in a non-tyranical Imperium is probably for the best. I'm not sure how many players, as the author puts it, would truly understand some of the points being made because they have not experienced them. Lots of Traveller players seem relatively well-versed in history, but even then whether or not the are truly aware of these things beyond the words on the page is something none of probably know - though the number of people postulating cracking planets with near-C ships running in to them does seem to be indicative of, well, mass destruction creativity at least.
Thank you very much for continuing to publish the 'zine and to authors like Vassilakos for sharing. It's a credit to our gaming community!
