From:   IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca" 19-JUN-1994 21:08:01.37
To:     IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca"
CC:     
Subj:   TML biweekly: Msgs 8024-8035 V46#18

Return-path: <jamesp@engrg.uwo.ca>
Received: from engrg.uwo.ca (nova.engrg.uwo.ca)
 by delphi.com (PMDF V4.3-7 #6563) id <01HDQNVZMJDC8X250P@delphi.com>; Sun,
 19 Jun 1994 21:07:57 EDT
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 1994 21:00:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML biweekly: Msgs 8024-8035 V46#18
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Errors-to: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca
Reply-to: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Message-id: <9406200102.AA24677@engrg.uwo.ca>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Sun Jun 19 21:00:02 EDT
 1994
Precedence: bulk

TML biweekly    Sun Jun 19 21:00:02 EDT 1994    Volume 46 : Issue 18

Today's topics:

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 642  8025 15-Jun-1994 J Roberson       GURPS FF&S << Haven't got back robo-res
 642  8026 15-Jun-1994 Rodney W. Morri  The revival of the net.plot.book << The
 642  8027 16-Jun-1994 b.borich@genie.  TNE: Shall not Perish <<     <Thanks, B
 642  8028 16-Jun-1994 "Les Howie"      Missile Tactics << Roger Myhre <myhre@o
 642  8029 16-Jun-1994 L.T.Bryant       leaving << With  thanks to all on the l
 642  8030 16-Jun-1994 mgood@MIT.EDU    Traveller 73 Review, Product Release Da
 642  8031 16-Jun-1994 CHiggin@aol.com  JTAS index (2nd try) << From: b.borich@
 643  8032 16-Jun-1994 CHiggin@aol.com  Feudal TechnoEconomics (2nd try) << I f
 643  8033 16-Jun-1994 Andy Lilly       Talk << I'm very lucky in that my e-mai
 643  8035 17-Jun-1994 David Johnson    TNE: Population and Tech Level Growth <
 642  8024 15-Jun-1994 David Johnson    All: PoliSci 5007: Feudal Technocracy <
 643  8034 17-Jun-1994 David Johnson    All: PoliSci 5008: Feudal Technocracy <

This is a passively moderated mailing list. All messages sent to the
submission address will be distributed. The biweekly digest is currently
distributed each Wednesday and Sunday at 9:00pm.

Submissions: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca -or- uunet!engrg.uwo.ca!traveller
Administrator: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (James Perkins)

The TML is made possible by facilities provided by the University of
Western Ontario. All opinions and materials below are the responsibility
of the originator.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8025
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 19:10:47 +0600
From: RJR96326@vax1.utulsa.edu (J Roberson)
Subject: GURPS FF&S

Haven't got back robo-response so here goes again. First time I've had a
problem with TML. . .

>I just bought GDW's FF&S yesterday, hoping to design some high-tech weapons
>and vehicles. After glancing through it, I believe it is *much* better than
>GURPS vehicles for designing spacecraft, and generally better for anything
>beyond GURPS TL 9 (I think that's an Imperial TL 10 - not sure).
>
>Anyway, what I would really like to do is revise the GURPS fire combat
>rules to make them a little more streamlined and less overwhelming in
>damage. The two biggest complaints I have about non-fantasy/lowtech GURPS
>is:
>        Gun stats are too detailed for quick play.
>        Damage is excessive.
>
>I find that the range mods in GURPS go up and down to quickly to keep good
>track of accurately, especially if more than 4 people are involved. I also
>concur with the excessive damage - I believe ultratech combat stats could
>be scaled back a tad with no problem.
>
>ANYWAY - I was wondering if anyone else had done this, or would be
>interested in the results.
>
>ALso, I'd like to use FF&S to create Shadowrun weapons - far more difficult
>because of the way Shadowrun does damage. Any takers?

Consistency is a Flaw
J Roberson      RJR96326@vax1.utulsa.edu        Priss@io.com





------------------------------

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8026
From: csc3rwm@cabell.vcu.edu (Rodney W. Morris)
Subject: The revival of the net.plot.book
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 21:57:24 EDT

The Prince of Darkness
X-Mailer: ELM-MIME [version 1.0 PL0]

        I am reviving the Net.Plot.Book, beginning with Volume III.
If you have any ideas for plots of any kind, please drop me a line.
The idea shouldn't be too detailed.  No need for specific stats and
such, just some plot lines for GMs to grab and use in their
campaigns.  Be kind and include your RL name, and the system or
genres your plot is meant for ('misc' is a viable genre).  Chances
are you'll see your name in print, at the least.  Please include
PLOTS: in your header.  I will be posting the results of the book,
when I think it's big enough to ;) to the list as well as major rpg
ftp sites, in ascii format. 
        PLEASE only send these to me, as I'm not subscribed to many
of the lists I've sent this message to.  Thanks.

        Lucifer >:} csc3rwm@cabell.vcu.edu

        P.S. If you can contact the previous owner of these books
(or ARE that person), please drop me a line.  I'm not trying to step
on anyone's toes, I'd just like to see further issues...and, as they
say, if you want something done...

------------------------------

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8027
From: b.borich@genie.geis.com
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 94 04:20:00 UTC
Subject: TNE: Shall not Perish

    <Thanks, Bryan, for making this available.> You're welcome. Sorry it
took so long, but forgot about it and than had troubles (extracting and
getting the mailer to accept it)
    <Since we're examining the Regency it makes since to use the *POT*
figures, doesn't it?> I'd also suggest that POT should be used as a
guideline, not a 'Bible'. The Regency is different in nature from the
worlds depicted in POT.
 
     <An interesting concept.  Does this mean *every* military asset in the
Regency must be retrofitted in some fashion?> All computers will be refitted.
There is a probability of a ban on robots, at least as independent entities,
as fixed installations they still might be acceptable.
    Most older vessels will probably be refitted to newer tech (this being
easier than building new ships) where possible. The Regency needs to use
whatever technological advantage it has so that it can best protect its
boarders (Virus, Zhodani, Aslan, Vargr, etc...).
    <You think so?  I would have thought that use of this sort of weapon would
have become quite inconceivable after the Viral Collapse.> The TNE book
I believe states that the Regency has a captive virus.
    <A `true' heir to the Iridium Throne showing up with a Unification Fleet?
(Rebellion II).> See Arrival Vengeance....
    <Regency nobles upset at the `democractic' reforms taking place (Rebellion
III).
    Regency `democracts' upset at the slow pace of `reforms' (Rebellion IV).>
If either of these happen I would figure on assassination wars, somewhat like
the Aslan, I think most of the leaders would be too worried about the Virus
for one thing at least to start a major war. Unless of course said individual
is certifiably insane, which I admit there is always a possibility of. But
I think Norris is smart enough to use whatever methods he needs to clean
things up....

------------------------------

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8028
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 94 08:14:13 ADT
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@192.219.29.90>
Reply-To: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@Prograph.Com>
Subject: Missile Tactics

Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no> writes:
> First if you are to deliver a lot of missiles at one target, the turrets
> and barbettes for these has to be better. Something like the VLS system
> to USS Ticonderoga. And missiles take up premium space. And the rapid
> firing laser thingie mentioned later will stop almost anything that
> approaches of missiles. Do you see any use in missiles with 200 armor
> points? It leaves precious little space for controls, warhead and drive.

The question is, are missiles of any use at all.  In the context of GDW's rules 
(which is what I plan to go by) it is easy enough to armour capital ships over 
the penetration limit off the 500Kt det-laser.  However, I do not think that the
potential damage to sensors and shields can be ignored, so some form of 
point-defence is needed.

The benefit is that, by launching a missile attack against my opponent, even if 
I cannot penetrate his defences, I am forcing him to either (1) use his main 
weapons (which could otherwise be punching holes in my capital ships) to defeat 
the attack or (2) allocate resourses at design time to either point defence or 
specialized zone defence ships. 

I am going to want some more BL experience before I commit myself to where the 
tradeoff lies.

I think its a tautaulogy  that enough missiles can saturtate any defence.  You 
just have to define enough as 1 + the number of missiles that could be destroyed
by 100% effective point defence fire.  I think your point is that it might not 
be worth it, which is true.

> Why must the nuke impact? I believe the electromagnetic pulse generated
> will do enough damage to most ships within several hundred kilometers.
>
Good question.  Much the same as the question Why Can't My Nuke Ever Impact.  
Damned if I know, I didn't write the rules :-)
 
> 
> The discussion has taken a very militaristic slant. What about the
> traders and pirates? I don't believe merchants will have access to the
> best missiles possible. Those available might even be built in a way
> that prevents them from detonating in a gravity well, or close to it.
> Else any crazy nut can hold a planet for ransome.
> 

Well, chances are any crazy nut CAN hold a planet for ransom.


> >From the designs of missiles I have seen from GDW to date are more
> suited for civilian crafts than military crafts. Military crafts need
> missiles with longer duration and more stealthy one too. Emission
> masking on missiles, what are your thoughts about that?

I do plan to play with these rules a bit.  None of the weapons I have seen in 
TNE (I am still wating for BL) seem to rate very highly for fleet use.  Most of 
the ships seem to be equivalent to light cutters with machine guns, and the 
pirate equivalents.  I think major combat units will be quite a bit different.  
One of the criteria I am using for hull design is the armour to defeat 
penetration by any basic game laser.

Les Howie
Prograph International


------------------------------

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8029
From: cs5025@wlv.ac.uk (L.T.Bryant)
Subject: leaving
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 12:55:53 +0100 (BST)

With  thanks to all on the list i must inform you all  that  till
september  i will not be on-line or reciving any maill , This  is
a  thank  you  to  all for the well  thought  out  arguments  and
points, and the designs.
        So untill september
Goodbye and thanks for all the stuff.
L. Bryant

- -- 
oh rose thou art sick
               the invisible worm that flys by night.....STEEL


------------------------------

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8030
From: mgood@MIT.EDU
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 94 09:50:23 -0400
Subject: Traveller 73 Review, Product Release Dates


Traveller 73 is worth picking up, if only for "Strange Lights Over
Hokum", a GREAT TNE adventure by Mike Mikesh (sp?  sorry!).  While set
in the TNE, it could easily be converted to any era, or GURPS Atomic
Horror :-) (I'm busily trying to figure out how to convert it to
Space:1889 ;-)

"Hokum" should appeal to people on both lists: it's a non-combat
oriented adventure with high amusement value.  I can give more
specifics, but I hate posting spoilers.

Product Release Dates: Confusingly, GDW keeps listing all the TNE
stuff as if it's available.  I know the RC Equipment Guide is out,
but what about Battle Rider?  Does anyone have a schedule?

Matt 

------------------------------

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8031
From: CHiggin@aol.com
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 94 10:18:50 EDT
Subject: JTAS index (2nd try)

From: b.borich@genie.geis.com

>    Before I forget, this is an index I put together many years ago:
>Format:
>   1st column is issue #
>   2nd column is type
>   3rd column is article title
>       AZ is Amber Zone
>       BE is Bestiary
>       CA is ?
        CA is Cover Article??

>       CE is Casual Encounter
>       CO is Contact!
>       FA is Featured Article
>       MO is ?
        MO is Mercenary something-or-other??

>       RF is Rules Feature
>       RN is ?
>       SL is Ship's Locker
>       SS is Special Supplement
>       TM is ?
>       VA is ?

>   4th is page number

Add:   DP is Deck Plan

Thanks for the index, BTW.




------------------------------

Bundle: 643
Archive-Message-Number: 8032
From: CHiggin@aol.com
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 94 10:19:01 EDT
Subject: Feudal TechnoEconomics (2nd try)

I feel compelled to comment on the Hans & David show:

David Johnston:

>> You keep saying that, but how does it work? Start with the basic building
>> blocks, show me how they hang together and why it works fundamentally
>> differently from a garden variety capitalist society.

>Are you beginning to see the difference?  In a market economy a government
>entity external to the marketplace provides the framework of principles
>which govern the nature of interactions in the marketplace.  In a feudal
>technocracy these principles will be provided by the feudal agreements.

    After reading much of your post, I think I am finally coming 
understand your point of view -- not necessarily agree with it, but at
least understand it.  The question arises: what is the difference 
between your view of "feudal technocracy" and laissez-faire 
capitalism, or libertarianism?  If the government concerns itself 
merely with external defense and preventing violent crime, and leaves 
economic interactions to "market forces", how does that differ from 
your picture of a "feudal technocracy"?

>Now let's talk about economic might.  The entire Mexican economy
>is about 5% of the US economy.  Where would Mexican industry be in 
>the face of US industry if there were not an external government
>entity (the Mexican government) trying to protect it and another
>external government entity (the US government) making some effort to
>see that US industry respect the will of the Mexican government?

    Probably in much better shape.  Mexico's "formerly" socialist 
habits of nationalizing industries and "protecting" the hell out of 
them with tariffs, etc.  guaranteed inefficient, ineffective national 
industries unable to compete against an efficient free-market economy.  
With the opening up of Mexico, we are seeing more efficient, 
competitive Mexican companies going into partnership with U.S.  
companies and/or competing with them.  

>The entire European Union economy is about 120% of the US economy
>but it is highly fractured when compared to US industry.  The only
>thing protecting European industry from being diced up and swallowed
>by US industry is the intervention once again of external government
>entities on both sides of the Atlantic (this is, in fact, a major
>motivation behind the whole idea of the European Union) and these
>powers enjoy roughly the same level of technological capability.

    I hate to burst your soap bubble, but the main thing keeping the 
EU economy from dominating the world is the "intervention once again 
of external government entities on both sides of the Atlantic".  The 
socialist, interventionist policies of most European nations has 
hobbled and crippled their economies to the point where most of these 
economies are on the edge of collapse from spiraling budget deficits 
and skyrocketing unemployment, all directly traceable to socialist 
"tax the producers until they can't produce anymore and throw revenues 
down a fiscal black hole" policies.  
    It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the best way to make an 
economy boom, and improve the standard of living for all is to provide 
the basic legal foundations for entrepreneurship to flourish (i.e., 
establish and respect property rights), and then get the government 
the hell out of the way!  Government intervention beyond protecting 
property rights just gums up the works.  The U.S.  is productive IN 
SPITE of the U.S.  Government; German corporations are productive in 
spite of the German government, and in spite of the European Union.  

    Excuse me for getting up on the soapbox, but I can't stand to see 
outright misinformation spread about without some attempt at 
correction.  


From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.sf.ca.us>

>Having advanced from feudalism to capitalism, can we have a feudal 
>structure again?

    It would be difficult at high-population levels, because feudalism 
depends on the responsibilties of each individual to each other 
individual, going up and down the ladder.  OTOH, many idealists have 
postulated that in an enlightened society, the only "government" would 
be that of each individual willingly carrying out his/her/its 
responsiblities and obligations to other individuals above and below 
him, a la feudalism.  I expect that a true Libertarian society would 
appear feudal with class mobility.  
    As for the concept that societies inevitably go from tribalism -> 
feudalism -> capitalism -> communism, (if that's what you're referring 
to) hasn't Marx been discredited yet?!?  :-)






------------------------------

Bundle: 643
Archive-Message-Number: 8033
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 16:17:36 +0100
From: A.S.Lilly@bnr.co.uk (Andy Lilly)
Subject: Talk

I'm very lucky in that my e-mail is run by a generous company who are 
understanding enough to let engineers like myself participate in interactive 
groups on Internet, etc. However, for those who have to pay for their TML, I 
would like to venture that they are sharpening their knives with regard to 
the ongoing 'feudal technocracy' (or whatever) discussion. Today's biweekly 
bundle seemed to me to be 90% such stuff (just my impression, I know it's 
not accurate).

Might I humbly suggest that the 'players' in this 'game of intrigue' discuss 
the whole matter privately and come back to TML with a BRIEF SUMMARY of 
their conclusions (including any disputed points where individual referees 
will have to decide for themselves).

Just a (humble) thought...

Andy
Commander Lilly, PITS (Political Intelligence Team, Scout)
Nothing I say or do in any way reflects the views of my very kind and
generous employers.


------------------------------

Bundle: 643
Archive-Message-Number: 8035
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 94 16:47:52 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: TNE: Population and Tech Level Growth

Gentlesophonts:

First off, I accept that the most likely explanation of the constant
population levels in the CT/MT Spinward Marches UWP sources is that this
information all comes from a single census.  I still feel though that
this population issue isn't really relevant to and somewhat needlessly
confuses the tech level growth issue.

My good friend Hans Rancke <rancke@diku.dk> writes:

> Regina's change from TL 10 to TL 12, and it was
> suggested that that was merely a correction of a typo.

It wasn't a typo.  The TL 10 listing for Regina also appears in *Book 6:
Scouts* and *Book 7: Merchant Prince*.
 
> Yet Spinward Marches is again and again referred to as a
> 'frontier'  -  not only in the 'frontier with other nations' sense, but
> also the 'developing area' sense.

Maybe, but I think `frontier' might mean something quite `advanced' in terms
of `development' in a millenium-old interstellar empire.

> I would expect a lot of emigration FROM high-population planets
> to developing low-population planets. That's usually the way it goes here
> on Earth: From the crowded (or opressive) to the less crowded.

No.  Most migrations are from rural areas to urban areas and result in
an increase in population in developed areas and a decrease in developing
areas.  Even in developed areas migration is only from the urban center 
to the suburban fringe.  There is no sigificant migration from New York
City to rural Iowa, much less to rural Somalia.  There has been a great deal
of migration from rural Haiti and rural Central America to urban Florida,
California and Texas.  Similarly, migration in the Regency can be expected
to be from low-pop worlds to high-pop worlds.  This may not show up as
changes in population figures because *a lot* of folks from *a lot* of
low pop worlds would have to immigrate to Porozlo, say, before the population
number there changes much.

> The size of a unified economy, yes. But do you really think that the Mexican 
> economy is the more stable because of the size of the population of the US?

To some extent, yes.  I'm not sure what you mean by `unified'.  Do you mean
`isolated' instead?

> Yes, but are you saying that 10 billion people have a greater difficulty
> affecting 1 billion people than 1 billion people have affecting 100 million?
> My guessing bone tells me that the proportions would remain roughly the
> same.

I'm not sure I get your point.  If you mean could an economy of 1 billion
easily affect a neighboring economy of 100 million (assuming somewhat
equivalent tech levles), I'd have to agree.  If you mean could an economy
of 1 billion cause severe *fluctuation* (enough to affect tech level) in
a neighboring economy of 100 million, I'd have to say again that it's not
very likely.  The larger economy would have to fluctuate quite a lot to
do that.  This might be more pronounced in a 10 million economy or smaller
though.

> There are scores of low-population worlds with a high-tech
> classification that they couldn't _possibly_ maintain on their own
> population base.

Yes, yes.  I thought we'd already agreed that these anomalies don't fit our
understanding of tech level as measuring technological capability?

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, TExas, USA

------------------------------

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8024
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 19:57:03 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: All: PoliSci 5007: Feudal Technocracy

Gentlesophonts:

I think replying directly to specific quotes is beginning to stretch out
the discussion and making it difficult to maintain a coherent thread so
let me try to respond without quoting directly and then pick and choose
quotes `out of order' as appropriate.  (If I miss an important point by
doing this please let me know.)

We seem to have spent a lot of effort discussing the `feudal' portion of
feudal technocracy but not much discussing the `technocracy'.  I've tried
to suggest that a technocracy is much like a capitalist market economy but
haven't been very successful in describing how a technocracy is *different*
from a capitalist market economy.  The main difference as I see it is that
in a capitalist market economy there are government entities external to
the marketplace that provide the political framework which allows the
market economy to function.

Hans Ranke <rancke@diku.dk> asks for a definition of technocracy which
seems like a good place to start.

Grabbing a handy dictionary (I know others have already done this):

Technocracy: government by technicians, specifically management of society
  by technical experts.

This refers to the *nature* of authority.  It defines the ruling class.
What is meant by `technicians' and `technical' experts though?

Technical: having special, usually practical knowledge, especially of a
  mechanical or scientific subject.

This is the first of several definitions.  Of particular interest is the
sixth definition: 

Technical: (6) resulting chiefly from internal market factors rather than
external influences.

This suggests a technocracy is a government where authority is exercised by
a class with specialized knowledge.  This knowledge is somehow practical,
scientific and related to market forces.  This suggests technology which is
the confluence of the practical application of science and the requisite
economic factors that permit that application.  Hence, technocracy is rule
by an industrial class based upon the `practice of technology' - everything
that is required for technological endeavor.

A technocracy ties political power (government) to economic power (industry,
the `practice of technology').  This is something much more sophisiticated
than mere government by engineers and scientists.  It takes much more than
just engineers and scientists to successfully run industry and an industrial
economy.

In contemporary market economies much of the political framework that 
permits the industrial economy to function is provide by democratically
established governments that exist external to the economic system.
Furthermore, the basis for political power is also outside of the economic
system.  (Keep in mind the above `sixth' definition of technocracy here.)
Thus, contemporary capitalist systems are not technocracies.

Nevetheless, any technocracy needs a political framework to permit the
functioning of the industrial economy.  To meet the requirements of a
technocracy this framework must arise from *within* the market place.
One way to do this is for the strongest economic actor to establish this
framework.  One might call this `autocratic technocracy' or "what's good
for General Motors is good for planet Earth".

Another means might be to establish this framework through a formalized
system of well-defined relationships between the various actors in the
industrial economy.

Let's grab that dictionary again:

Feudalism: the system of political organization [prevailing in medieval
  Europe] having as its basis the relation of lord to vassal with all land
  held in fee and as chief characteristics homage, the service of tenants
  under arms and in court, wardship, and forfeiture.

Now medieval feudalism, as we've already seen, was closely tied to the
the ownership of land.  This was the *nature* of the authority in a 
medieval feudal structure - it defined the ruling class just as "specialized
knowledge" or industrial proficiency defines the ruling class in a
technocracy.

There was more to the feudal system though.  It was based upon "the relation
of lord and vassal" with respect to that which defined the the ruling class,
namely land.  The characteristics of fedualism (homage, service, wardship,
forfeiture, etc.) were all manifestations of this relationship between the
actors in the feudal system.  Feudalism provided the framework needed to
permit the fuedal economy to function.  It did this through a formalized
system of well-defined relationships between the various actors in the
feudal economy.

Sound familiar?  That's just the sort of thing that might provide the
political framework in a technocracy.

Whew!  I feel like I deserve some college credit for all that!  :-)

Okay, now let's look at some specifics of the discussion that might help
to further illustrate this point.

Hans writes:

> The whole world economy, for example, is
> based on negotiations between sovereign nations. Sovereign nations have no
> external governmental entity to provide any legal framework.

Nation-states *are* the `external government entities'.  They are not actors
*within* the industrial economy.

> Yet would you 
> claim that the interactions between the U.S, EU, Japan, Russia, China, ect. 
> is not capitalist in nature?

Of course not.  This is the essence of a capitalist market economy.  It's not
a technocracy though.

> >(This lack of a stable source of legal authority is the major barrier to
> >market reforms in Russia today.)  
> 
> The disappearance of the USSR removed the established framework between the 
> member republics. The USSR were an exampe of a government providing a 
> framework.

This misses the point.  First, there was not a capitalist system within
the Soviet Union.  In centrally-planned economies the government *is* an
*internal* entity in the economy but this most certainly is *not* an
`industrial economy', i.e. one geared solely to the `practice of technology'.
Centrally-planned economies have other goals such as full-employment.
Furthermore, *political* power is not tied to economic power but rather
is *superior* to economic power.  (Hence all the unprofitable but still-
powerful industrial actors in the former Soviet states.)

There is currently no entity (external *or* internal to the economy) within
the former Soviet states to provide a framework under which an industrial
economy can function.  Thus there is no legal framework to guarrantee 
access to profits, rates of exchange, control of investment or any of the
other factors necessary to conduct profit-oriented industry.

[BTW, I'm not claiming `industrial economy' is `better' than any other
system, I'm just explaining what's necessary for it to function since I
see that as the goal of a technocracy.]

> Now the republics are negotiating as equals to replace the
> framework. Once they work out various treaties to govern their interaction 
> we will have an example of a framework provided without a government. The
> internal relations of the EU is a hybrid. GATT is a negotiated framework.

Exactly (except for the part about "without a government").  It is clear
from all of these examples that some sort of framework is needed.  In all
of these cases that framework is established by governmens acting external
to the industrial economy.  In the former Soviet states, in the European
Union, under GATT, the only recourse of any economic actor to seek redress
for mistreatment is through its own local governmental entity or through
structures established and enforced by its local governmental entity.
There are no agreements between, say, a Kazakh oil field and an Australian
drilling corporation, that are not enforced by some governmental entity
that exists *external* to the marketplace.

These are all elements of the capitalist system.  None of them are elements
of a technocracy.

> Of course one can have market systems without government supervision. Well,
> you may need a government to make sure noone shoots at you while you're
> manufacturing or trading, but what more do you need?

You need someone to print currency, to establish procedures to guarrantee
control of investments and access to profits, to control monetary supplies
and rates or exchange, etc.  In capitalist market economies governmental
entities external to the market perform these functions.  Under technocracy
these functions are performed *internal* to the market.

Let's take for example this idea of a `technocractic lord' `selling' shares
in her enterprise to a `technocractic vassal' in exchange for financial
capital.  Under a capitalist system the goverment prints that money and 
guarrantees its value.  In a technocracy the lord and vassal must come
to some agreement themselves as to just what that `financial capital'
is worth because the vassal (shareholder) doesn't have any `money' to
`give' to the lord (chairman).  In essence, money is nothing more than a
promise guarranteed by the government.  In a feudal technocracy, feudal
principals are used to guarrantee that `promise' internally to the market.

I think that's enough for now.  I hope I've made some progress in explaining
what, IMHO, a feudal technocracy is.  To recap:

1. The nature of authority: authority is exercised by those possessing
   specialized knowledge related to the practice of technology as manifest
   in an industrial economy.
2. Politcal power and thus the framework for the industrial economy must
   arise from *within* the industrial economy.
3. Feudal principles will be used to establish the framework through a
   system of well-defined relationships between the actors in the market.

Remember, it's feudal *technocracy*, not technocratic feudalism.

Finally, Glenn Goffin <sudet@well.sf.ca.us> writes:

> I've been enjoying the discussion so far.

I'm glad to hear someone besides Hans and I has been enjoying this!  :-)
(Phil Pugliese are you listening?)

Peace,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

------------------------------

Bundle: 643
Archive-Message-Number: 8034
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 94 16:05:24 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: All: PoliSci 5008: Feudal Technocracy

Gentlesophonts:

It's great to have so many other folks join in the feudal technocracy thread.
(BTW, I haven't yet received Thursday night's messages.  My definition of
technocracy should have appeared there though.  If it didn't show up some
of what I write here might not make sense.)

Glenn Goffin <sudet@well.sf.ca.us> writes:

> Under what theory can a corporation 
> own its shares and grant possession of them to shareholders, when shares 
> themselves are merely evidence of ownership?

I see this `evidence of ownership' as being analogous to the feudal title
granted by an aristocractic lord to his vassal tenants.  Ownership of a
portion of industry in a technocracy (a block of shares) is the same
as *tenancy* under the feudal system.

> Shareholders provide capital 
> only once, when they buy.

No.  In a technocracy where there is no governmental entity external to the
industrial economy to print, manage and guarranty currency the shareholders
must have a well-defined and continuous relationship with the technocractic
lord in order to guarranty the value of and access to that capital.

> Fealty is loyalty.  How is the provision of money equivalent to loyalty?  

In a technocracy there is no external entity to provide `money'.  What
serves as currency in a technocratic system must be arranged through
agreement by the participants.  One might call the shareholders portion
of this agreement `loyalty'.  The key is that the system requires inter-
dependent relationships between the actors - `lord' and `vassal'.

> The Chairman--and, more importantly for this discussion, the CEO--
> owe a duty of loyalty to the company and the shareholders, not the other 
> way around.

Don't confuse CEO and Chairman (and I have been guilty of this myself in
the past).  The CEO is just the `chamberlain' who sees to the day to day
operations.  The Chairman is the technocratic lord.  An aristocratic
lord had a duty to his vassals to provide coordinated security services.
A technocractic lord (Chairman) has a duty to her vassals (shareholders)
to provide coordinated profit services.

> Again, you've turned the relationships around.  The shareholders aren't
> vassals;
> rather, the management of the corporation owes a duty of loyalty to them,
> to maximize the value of their investment.

Focus on the `duty' rather than the more nebulous `loyalty'.  IMHO, it's
important to examine how things such as `loyalty' are manifest in order
to apply feudal principles to technocracy.

> The employees of the corporation
> are closer to vassals of the CEO, and maybe a feudal structure could be
> arranged around this idea.

No.  I've said this before.  There is no `inter-relatedness' between
employee and employer.  The corporate model is a specialized form of
autocracy.  It is in no way feudal.

> What is being held in
> tenancy, 
> and what kind of service, are the defining issues here.

A block of the corporate enterprise is held in `tenancy' in exchange for
the `service' required to guarranty the access to and value of financial
capital.

> The text:  Feudal technocracy.

See my previous post (TML 634/7959) for why this canonical definition is
so vague as to be virtually useless.


Tom O'Neill <tom@csvax1.ucc.ie> writes:

> A FT does not need to be capitalist - indeed the very system would
> often dictate against capitalism. If control of a particular resource
> determines one's place in society, selling it off may not make sense.

I'd have to disagree.  A technocracy may not have to be capitalist but it
involves much more than the control of resources or a particular technology.
A technocracy is government by the class of individuals responsible for 
the complete `practice of technology'.  In a capitalist system this role
is played by the actors in the industrial economy (but these actors do
not have political power to match their economy power which is what makes
them different from technocrats).

> This actually is quite relevant. One characteristic of the feudal system
> is some form of serfdom or slavery for the common people.

No.  Feudalism defined the relationships *between* the members of the
ruling class, not between the ruling class and the ruled classes.  Serfdom
occurred in concert with feudalism but was not part of feudalism.

> Capitalism and the rising mercantile
> class is what destroyed feudalism

No.  The rise of the mercantile class destroyed the feudal ruling class and
hence the framework of interactions between the members of that ruling
class, feudalism, disappeared.  Concurrent with the ascendancy of the
mercantile class was a separation of political power from economic power.
In a technocracy these two spheres of power are reunited.

> I will try to give an example of a non-capitalist FT.

Any system in which a group of elites control some crucial technology to
exercise control of the remaining populace is neither feudal nor
technocractic.  It's not feudal because there is no `inter-relatedness'
between the participants and it's not technocratic because those who
control a particular critical technology are not involved in the `practice
of technology'.


J Roberson <RJR96326@vax1.utulsa.edu> writes:

>         First of all, a shareholder is not responsible for the development
> of the shares the CEO & assorted lackeys are.

Nor was an aristocratic vassal responsible for providing coordinated 
security services.  The `development' of a technocratic fief (shares)
is associated with the responsibilites necessary to guarrantee the
value of and access to the capital provided to the technocratic lord.

> Secondly, from a more
> romantic point of view, loyalty and fealty do not come from being paid off,
> but from the heart

And in a technocracy where the value of, access to and control of `money'
must be guarranteed through the `agreements' between `lord' and `vassal'
one might find some `romantic' aspects for loyalty as well.

> However, while the Baron has legal authority over his vassals and subjects,
> the CEO of Corporation X has no legal authority over the shareholders.

Well, first, again, the CEO is not the `technocratic lord', the Chairman
is.  This `legal basis' for any relationship in a capitalist market
economy is provided by the government entity external to the market. In
a technocracy there must be some relationship between the `lord'
(Chairman) and the `vassals' (shareholders)  that is developed among
themselves.  This is the basis for all `legal' issues between them.  For
example, in a market economy the external government entity guarrantees
the value of the capital provided by the shareholder to the chairman.  In
a technocracy the `lord' must have some means to ensure the value of and
access to this capital.  In a feudal technocracy, feudal agreements
between lord and vassal will do this.

>         IMHO it is the predominant shareholders who have the ultimate
> authority in a FT. Rail Baron Getty invests and eventually controls 35% of
> Getty Rails. *He* is the Baronial equivalent

This is no different from `Baron Gustaf' who provides 35% of the military
forces in an aristocratic duchy.  This is what I've been saying all along.
The shareholders are the equivalent of medieval feudal barons.

> The CEO, the Board of Directors - these are but the minions of the
> fiefholders who maintain the company, equivalent (perhaps) to the Sheriffs,
> Castellans, and others who were granted authority but not fiefs.

The CEO, yes.  The Chairman, no, because without the role of the external
government entity to enforce the `legal' behavior of the Chairman this
person controls all of the financial capital provided by the shareholders.
The only way for the shareholders to guarrantee their own access to their
funds, in the absence of the external governmental entity, is through a
series of agreements with the technocratic lord (chairman).


Les Howie <lhowie@Prograph.Com> writes:

> Now David Johnson (if I have this straight) has argued for the equivalence of
> "share fiefs" with "industrial fiefs".  I cannot accept this because a share
> holder performs no TECHNICAL service for the corporation.

Look at your OED definition of technocracy again.  It doesn't talk about
`technical service for a corporation'.  It talks about `management of
industrial resources', i.e. industrial holdings or `fiefs'.

> He provides 
> Capital and receives dividends and a measure of control.  I think this is 
> a more proper role for a Capitalist, not a Technocrat.

These are `proper roles' for both.  The difference is that a capitalist
has a government entity external to the market to establish the framework
for interaction there.  A technocrat must establish this framework internal
to the market.  The most powerful technocrat can establish this framework
through fiat if she's powerful enough.  That might be called `autocratic
technocracy'.  If there is no single technocrat powerful enough to establish
this framework herself then some system of agreements must be reached
among the various technocrats to establish the framework.  In a feudal
technocracy, feudal principles are used to establish this framework.

> As a side note, while Aristocratic terminology rang true for Piper's Sword
> Worlds, it probably confuses the issue in this debate

Good point.  I think we've begun to get past this though.

Great work all!  Some very constructive, interesting and valuable
contributions here.

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

------------------------------

End of TML Biweekly
******************
