Nuts and bolts of the Imperium (gov't - how it works)

It should be noted that not only can the Imperium demand that no rights, priveledges, immunities, etc - be abridged, it also specifically notes that any sophant who pledges fealty directly to the Imperium, is also entitled to the same protections as a citizen of the Imperium.

Again, if it were strictly a Citizen's right only that the Warrant of Restoration referred to, it would not have added that extra bit.

Now, as for those who break the laws - one would have to be naive to believe that all those who hold the reins of power observe all of the legalities involved. Just as equally bad on the opposite spectrum, the belief that all politicians and political leaders are corrupt.

Putting this in perspective? Rome started out with civic virtue that governed how as a whole, its society would deal with various issues including survival oriented tasks like defending themselves from neighboring tribes bent on conquest. Over time, Rome amassed quite the empire, but the moment it started to lose its civic virtue, it began to fragment from within, and fell prey to forces from without. The same would hold true against the Third Imperium.

So - are there injustices - sure. Are they openly practiced? Seems to me that it was almost impossible to locate the missing individuals in that adventure where the senator was wrongly imprisoned. What was missing from that is "What was the aftermath of it in general?"

What I think has to occur - especially when you consider the history as portrayed by the material in Milieu 0 is this. The Sylean culture had its own laws, its own institutions, and its own pride it its culture, call it a form of civic virtue. The Sylean confederation then battled another empire - possibly for its own right to exist, much as Rome and Carthage battled. Then, comes the magical day where The First Emperor is crowned. This process occurs without a coup being required, without military coersion (sp?) and the people accept the new change in direction for their government. I found it hard to believe that they would have been so "cool" with the change if anything they originally that they valued, was taken away.

That Warrant of Restoration seemed largely to be based on Sylean Common law much as American Law was based on the Commonwealth laws of England prior to American breaking away. If that was the case? One would have to wonder at why the pared down rights of Imperial Citizens is less than what the Sylean Government originally espoused. My gut feeling is simply this:

Certain universal crimes such as murder are frowned upon and in theory, are protected rights for the citizens to not have to endure. Ditto with other crimes (See the crimes section in T5 for example). But certain "things" had to be universal for a universal recognition of "Citizenship" to occur.

Now, can a region/world choose to follow a religious dictatorship without running afoul of the certain basic citizen's rights? I suspect the answer is yes. If the Imperial government remains above the issue of "religious rights" (perhaps to avoid religious based wars?) - then what happens on such a world, stays on that world (to paraphrase what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas).

For now, I'm seriously hoping that somewhere, some place, someone has come across more specific "rights, protections, immunities, or privileges" that are alluded to in T4 material. I seriously doubt there would be anything in MegaTraveller, nor Classic Traveller - which leaves T4, T20, T5, and Mongoose Traveller. I don't have the funds to invest in all of the MgT material, and I never did like D20, let alone T20. That leaves me the hope that either Marc will expand a bit with T5, or that T4 or MgT have it. GURPS Traveller certainly doesn't have it. In fact? GURPS TRAVELLER: NOBLES was one huge disappointment in my eyes. :(

So, on that note, I hope someone has good news for me on that front... :)
Sigtrygg said:
. . . it is obvious that the lofty goals of the articles have been ignored for a long time - arrest and imprisonment with no trial, abduction and imprisonment of political opponents; go into the other adventures and you have megacorporations completely ignoring Imperial citizen rights. . . .
Back when the Soviet Union still existed, someone pointed out that the Soviet Constitution actually guaranteed a lot more civil rights and individual liberties than the US Constitution.* But as pretty much everyone is aware, the Soviet Union was never an exemplar of individual liberty, except on paper.

And much as the US likes to boast about individual freedom, its record falls short of its written ideals. (And even the written ideals were repugnant on the matter of slavery, until the Reconstruction Amendments.) After the end of slavery, we had a century of segregation backed by law. We had expropriation, extermination, and oppression of Native Americans. We had the Chinese Exclusion Act. We had the internment of people of Japanese ancestry. We have police brutality, mostly on the basis of skin color. We have the Muslim travel ban. We have religious bigotry. Sure, we're better than the Soviet Union, but not as good as our Constitution.

Another shortcoming of the US is that even where the government is good about individual rights, corporations are often left free to infringe individual rights, because the government often doesn't dare infringe corporate rights for the benefit of individuals. I would expect that this would be an even bigger problem in the decentralized Imperium.

I'm less familiar with the UK's record on civil rights. My impression is that it does really well today, but its historic record is not pretty. Two examples I know about were the famines imposed on Ireland and India. In the Irish Great Famine, about a million Irish starved and another million emigrated due to huge food exports demanded by British landlords and the resulting dependence on the potato monoculture. Between two million and three million people died in the Bengal famine of 1943, caused primarily by British demand for food to feed its armies, and that was one of many famines caused by British colonial rule, estimated at 60 million total in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. (The complaints of British colonies in North America are pretty small stuff compared to those of Ireland and India.) Present day UK is pretty good about civil rights, but former colonies would have a different opinion of the British Empire.

* The near-absolute gun freedom practiced in the US is an exception. Only a handful of countries in history have recognized an individual right to own guns by default.
steve98052 said:
Another shortcoming of the US is that even where the government is good about individual rights, corporations are often left free to infringe individual rights, because the government often doesn't dare infringe corporate rights for the benefit of individuals. I would expect that this would be an even bigger problem in the decentralized Imperium.

I wonder what Citizens United would look like in the Third Imperium...
Anyone who is part of "The Establishment", or related to someone thereof, is likely to have their full rights defended, if only because they can affrd advocates who understand the law and how to use it as leverage o a cudgel.

The bourgeoisie will expect their rights to be protected, and may mention some classics as to how their taxes pay civil service salaries.

Where it gets interesting is how justice serves the proletariat.