Scams and Frauds in the Imperium

[CordwainerFish]

India has entered the chat

 

[phavoc]

Scarcity driving up cost does not pass the "trivial for a TL9 culture" test.

With the maneuver drive and fusion power asteroid mining and effectively unlimited quantities of elements become available.

Here is the real world we have identified several asteroids that contain enough gold, platinum, copper, rare earths etc to completely devalue those materials to worthless - if they could be refined at minimal cost. TL9 grants space industry minimal costs to do this. The trick would be for the mining companies to limit the supply rather than crash the value - which is something the megacorporations must be doing otherwise the Imperium would be post scarcity.

Hrm... that brings up the idea of 'salting' a planetoid with what initial surveys reveal to make it a rich find. But since your tech is somewhat limited, your Psyche-class asteroid may turn out be more iron-nickel than platinum-gold-iridium. Higher tech sensors might spot a fake more easily, so there's a potential tech limitation window there for pulling a fast one.

 

[actionman]

Damn good question. However, it is better to ask WHY, in post enlightenment era civilizations did the hereditary, absolute monarchs and the claim to such positions disappear. There is only one example of a absolute dictator passing to a son and that is a tiny country that is protected from total implosion/explosion by a super power next door.

The answer is that once people realized that the monarch didn't rule by divine right they lost their power.

Well, Brunei is still technically an absolute monarchy, but that doesn't matter for the discussion.

In my super-simpflied Simple Jacktionman opinion, the absolute monarchs disappeared because:

1. Their governance was generally incompetent and irresponsible to the point where so many people were suffering so much that enough of them were willing to revolt and try something new. Sometimes it was better, sometimes it wasn't.

2. Enlightenment ideas, such as the idea that rulers can only rule with the consent of the ruled, were pushed as a huge psyop, which contributed to people not wanting to support the monarch.

3. The power differential between the monarch and his forces and the people favored the people. Irl, the people could concentrate and overwhelm the forces loyal to the monarch if enough of them were willing to stand fast in the face of grapeshot. If they didn't do that, they could stop work, burn the factories and fields, yell arrrr, and wave tricolors while partially disrobed.


But in a Charted Space / Third Imperium context, the conditions are different.


1. The governance that affects people's lives happens at the planetary government level. When people are suffering too much for too long, they revolt against their planetary government, not the distant monarch or his planetary representative. If the world's Imperial fiefholder is known to be responsible for the poor governance that's causing the population to suffer, or if he's the face of something like draining all the resources for a distant Imperial war, or if an Imperial megacorporation does the same, then the Imperial fiefholder would have the same problems that a rl monarch would have (balancing his requirements against the possibility of the population revolting). If the planetary government opposes the population, then it becomes nothing more than more pro-Imperial forces.

2. Enlightenment ideas haven't been practiced outside of the Solomani Sphere for centuries, or millenia in some regions. Admirals, commanders, dictators, kings, theocrats, reavers, and supreme managers, they rule because they have to power to do so. They're all the same to Eneri and Iphigenia Six-Pack. IMO, this is profound. I doubt very much that human rights or the rights of the individual exist in the Third Imperium the way they do irl (not available in all areas).

3. The power differential favors whoever can field the most powerful interstellar navy, and this favors a person or organization with vast fortunes, a massive interstellar-tech industrial base, and a unified determined will. Masses of ordinary people don't matter anymore. They can't reach or in any way overcome a fleet in orbit. No matter how much they sacrifice, they can't win. Even if they force all Imperial forces out of their star system, they just wait for the inevitable counterattack. If the people stop working, it doesn't matter because the Imperium has 9,999 other planets to logistically support the Imperial Navy while it smashes planetary revolts one by one. Planetary revolts can and do succeed in the Third Imperium, but they can't overthrow the Imperium because the forces a planetary revolt can bring to bear can't reach or do anything against the vast bulk of the Imperial feudal power structure.

4. Lack of ethnic/cultural unity or filia. I doubt very much the world populations of the Imperium give that much of a damn about each other. I doubt there would be all that much outrage, no matter what Imperial forces did to put down a revolt, assuming other worlds even find out what happened. I highly doubt that Imperial Navy gunnery officers or Imperial Marines from one world or numerous worlds would hesitate to fire on the revolting masses of another world. This is important because it removes one of the last checks against overwhelming unlimited state violence.

5. No external pressure on the Imperial government to mitigate its violence. No other empire would care, even if they found out, and they couldn't do anything if they did. There would be no threat of military action or trade embargo.

 

[actionman]

There are plenty of other viable philosophies that do not draw from Western roots. China is an obvious one - while modern China does have some western influences, at its core it's still Confucian and meritocratic. Britain and Japan have retained figurehead monarchs... Japan transitioned theirs into a ceremonial post in the medieval period. (Then did the same with the Shogun)

If anything, the Japanese Emperor's divine status ENHANCED them moving them away from the grubby reality of power and politics. The British monarch has headed in the same direction, although they're technically God's representative on Earth, not divine as such. I guess they're a lot like how the Shogun became, in that regard.

I'm also hearing a bit of a confusion about absolute monarchs and the Enlightenment. A lot of people get those in the wrong order... the Enlightenment came first, with the theory of absolute Monarchy developing from Enlightenment thought. The Enlightenment is generally taken to start in the 17th Century, Absolute Monarchism is more of an 18th Century thing. Medieval monarchs may well have been Tyrants on occasion, but they ruled with their aristocracy and commons, not in spite of them. Trying to do so is what got Charles I executed in 1649.

For that matter, primogeniture wasn't generally used until surprisingly late in the medieval period. There was a general trend for the eldest son to be the heir, but typically whichever one was able to garner the most support from the barons was usually the next king. Sometimes they even avoided a civil war (but actually not often).

Good post, excellent contribution.

 

[rinku]

Thanks. It's been a minute, but I did few history units at Uni and Early Modern was a focus. I'm pretty solid for Europe from 1600 to 1800

 

[Condottiere]

I kinda suspect it depends on what sticks to the wall.

Absolutism wasn't a viable long term solution for the Middle Kingdom, and Confucianism was deliberately selected as it fit the ruling philosophy of whatever Emperor at that time adopted and promoted it. It worked out, and until Mao, guided Chinese society and politics.

Can't recall exactly why the Japanese Emperor, at that time, adopted Buddhism, but integrated it together with their Shinto nature religion.

And, of course, Constantine and Christianity.

Generally speaking, monarchs are meant to be the chief sacred priest, probably something that started all the way in Mesopotamia.

 

[MarcusIII]

In my super-simpflied Simple Jacktionman opinion, the absolute monarchs disappeared because:

I still don't think it is possible for the 3I to hold it together. Too many ways it can unravel over that long time period. Especially for a population that has all the information of thousands of civilizations at their fingertips

 

[MarcusIII]

Generally speaking, monarchs are meant to be the chief sacred priest, probably something that started all the way in Mesopotamia.

Right, which is why they disappear once the people realize rule by divine right is bogus.

 

[MarcusIII]

Good post, excellent contribution.

Except all those listed, once the population was "enlightened, no longer had absolute monarchs. Also the enlightenment was AFTER absolute monarchs had existed.

 

[Condottiere]

It's a balance.

The monarch remains head of state, but becomes apolitical, which allows the executive and legislative process to play out, while maintaining some form of national stability.

 

[MarcusIII]

It's a balance.

The monarch remains head of state, but becomes apolitical, which allows the executive and legislative process to play out, while maintaining some form of national stability.

Right. Many of these currently exist and operate fine. Which is why the 3I would have fallen.

 

[Condottiere]

Technically, it might have, multiple times.

One pop theory is that empires have an expiry date of around two and a half centuries, and that's on Terran timelags.

There's either a regeneration, or a coup, that would allow a superficial continuation, which would disguise the change.

 

[MarcusIII]

One pop theory is that empires have an expiry date of around two and a half centuries

Naw, basic history has many examples that lasted far longer than that. Without it being a superficial continuation. The best known example being Egypt.

 

[Condottiere]

You have dynasties, and distinctive periods of foreign rule.

 

[MarcusIII]

You have dynasties, and distinctive periods of foreign rule.

Mostly not. Most were always local rule. Even the Byzantine empire was by people from the Empire for 1,000 years

 

[Condottiere]

You could consider Byzantine a successor state.

Though, when the break up actually happened is somewhat vague, considering the number of times a reunification was attempted.

Definitely, the Fourth Crusade heralded the last phase of it's history, in Twelve Oh Three Anno Domini, and the Turks conquered Constantinople in Fourteen Fifty Three.