One cannot overthrow a planetary government, or even mining colonies or whatever, without causing short or long-term disruptions to output.
The quote from Dune of "the spice must flow" is apt here - except one should substitute 'trade' for 'spice'. The Imperium allows worlds a great deal of latitude, as well as individuals and corporations, to do all sorts of things against each other and 3rd parties - so long as trade and the economy are not affected. Which is an interesting dichotomy as certain activities will naturally affect economics at all kinds of levels. One cannot overthrow a planetary government, or even mining colonies or whatever, without causing short or long-term disruptions to output. I don't think it's very reasonable to assume that Party B overthrows (violently, as it's Traveller) on Day 1 and on Day 2 everything is back to normal.
Agreed.
SuSAG is probably not going to work with Interstellar Arms to wipe out an LSP manufacturing facility just to get a corner on the market. The RPG Shadowrun has a background where actively taking down opposing corps is the norm, however I've not really gotten that impression from Traveller over the decades.
Something worth examining is the complex web of relationships that would be affected by an Imperial megacorp using paramilitary force to achieve its goals.
- All megacorps have significant investments by powerful noble families.
- Sector and subsector dukes may be related to these families, and may find themselves on either side or both sides of such a conflict.
- Powerful people can get very mad about this sort of thing, and sooner or later somebody will say to the subsector duke or the sector duke, "you handle this or I'll handle it."
- If the people involved are dumb enough to let the conflict get to the point where it comes to the Emperor's attention, the Emperor will say something to the effect of "don't make me come back there".
- The conflict can be resolved several ways:
- Somebody takes the loss and somebody gets away with it, and whoever took the loss is mad.
- The conflict degenerates into tit for tat sabotage and paramilitary violence and everybody's mad.
- A duke or the Emperor enforces a resolution, which may or may not leave people mad, but nobody gets what they want.
- A duke or the Emperor enforces a resolution that is relatively fair and just. Everyone is shocked and decides to leave it alone before something bad happens.
Three out of four of these possibilities are very likely to lead to bitter long-term grudges between powerful megacorporations, nobles, and noble families.
To prevent conflicts from degenerating into full scale wars or constant cycles of violence, there are probably agreed upon traditions or protocols or Forms of Kanly or whatever for this kind of thing. As long as people stay within those boundaries, things stay relatively stable. If someone foolishly violates those boundaries, by hiring a band of wandering space losers to do something incredibly destructive for example, then the appropriate duke will have every right to exact a heavy price on the violator, and the violator won't really be able to complain.
So one would (or could/should) assume that these sorts of things MAY happen, they probably aren't all that common.
Reasonable, and the incidents are probably rather mild and the true perpetrators are probably well hidden. Only the fall guys suffer the consequences.
Some sort of social stability has to be present in order for this to occur.
Agreed, and I think this is frequently overlooked by writers who focus on drama and adventure rather than plausibility. In cyberpunk style settings where corporations lord their wealth and power over the impoverished groveling masses, who's buying their products? There has to be some social and economic stability, or populations start to crash because people don't feel safe enough to have families, economies start to crash because it's not safe enough for people to go to work, businesses struggle to stay profitable while enduring waves of robbery and theft, families and communities start forming gangs, at first for self-protection and then to gain resources at the expense of others, and the situation becomes a downward spiral.
At some point every authoritarian regime has fallen - either to outsiders or to internal conflict as repression tends to beget rampant corruption.
Thoughts:
- At some point every regime has fallen, authoritarian or not.
- Does repression beget corruption, or are those who are corrupt willing to repress?