One thing about the marriage that confuses me

n7axw wrote:
Frankly, I am speculating rather than working from textev. Yes, the unification has strong popular support. But it only takes a significant minority opposed to it to create lots of tension. We see that over and over in our own politics. If, say, a third of the people are opposed, Chava can use that to call into question the whole idea if he doesn't succeed in taking over from the Caliraths. That becomes even more true if the Arcanan threat which provides the primary stimulus for the unification recedes.

Surrendering sovereignty is a crash and burn step that is bound to have lots of people opposed to it simply because it's change.

Don

-

As I read this post you appear to be talking about issues of legitimacy. I understand legitimacy to be the characteristic of a government which makes people obey its decisions without being compelled (no government can compel everyone all of the time) even when they disagree. If a government has legitimacy the opposition of a large portion of the people to a decision will not increase tension because the people who disagree will accept the decision because it was made by the legitimate government in accord with legitimate procedures.

You appear to me to be presuming that the decision to form an Empire of Sharona is not viewed as legitimate by the opposition. A legitimate government (and as far as I can tell the governments of Sharona appear to have had legitimacy when the series began) can lose its legitimacy in two ways. First, if it violates the procedures that legitimate its decisions. For example, the process of voting on a bill in the House and Senate and then having the President sign it legitimates laws in the United States. Second, if the decision is so offensive to the opposition that instead of accepting the decision because the government that made it is legitimate the opponents of the decision start to deny the legitimacy of the government.

In the absence of evidence that either of these apply on Sharona, and you said above that you don't have any, I am assuming that they do not. (Yes if a similar decision had been made on Earth the second would apply but Sharona isn't Earth and based on what we know of its history I don't think its nationalism is as militant as Earth's.) Thus while the reorganization involved in forming the new government will certainly disturb people I continue to doubt that the formation of the world government increases tensions in a meaningful or threatening way.

Nicholas

brnicholas wrote:

n7axw wrote:
Frankly, I am speculating rather than working from textev. Yes, the unification has strong popular support. But it only takes a significant minority opposed to it to create lots of tension. We see that over and over in our own politics. If, say, a third of the people are opposed, Chava can use that to call into question the whole idea if he doesn't succeed in taking over from the Caliraths. That becomes even more true if the Arcanan threat which provides the primary stimulus for the unification recedes.

Surrendering sovereignty is a crash and burn step that is bound to have lots of people opposed to it simply because it's change.

Don

-

As I read this post you appear to be talking about issues of legitimacy. I understand legitimacy to be the characteristic of a government which makes people obey its decisions without being compelled (no government can compel everyone all of the time) even when they disagree. If a government has legitimacy the opposition of a large portion of the people to a decision will not increase tension because the people who disagree will accept the decision because it was made by the legitimate government in accord with legitimate procedures.

You appear to me to be presuming that the decision to form an Empire of Sharona is not viewed as legitimate by the opposition. A legitimate government (and as far as I can tell the governments of Sharona appear to have had legitimacy when the series began) can lose its legitimacy in two ways. First, if it violates the procedures that legitimate its decisions. For example, the process of voting on a bill in the House and Senate and then having the President sign it legitimates laws in the United States. Second, if the decision is so offensive to the opposition that instead of accepting the decision because the government that made it is legitimate the opponents of the decision start to deny the legitimacy of the government.

In the absence of evidence that either of these apply on Sharona, and you said above that you don't have any, I am assuming that they do not. (Yes if a similar decision had been made on Earth the second would apply but Sharona isn't Earth and based on what we know of its history I don't think its nationalism is as militant as Earth's.) Thus while the reorganization involved in forming the new government will certainly disturb people I continue to doubt that the formation of the world government increases tensions in a meaningful or threatening way.

Nicholas

You could very well be right. I'm speculating on the basis of my own experience with human nature as a pastor with 30+ years of esperience in parish ministry.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:You could very well be right. I'm speculating on the basis of my own experience with human nature as a pastor with 30+ years of esperience in parish ministry.

Don

-

What I expect you experience has told you is the radical changes in authority structures always cause opposition and significant problems. If it has told you something else I would be interested in hearing what it has taught you. I agree with you about that and I expect there is opposition and there will be significant problems as a result of the unification.

My argument is that if Sharona is going to fight something close to a total war, and they have good reason to believe that they have to, then radical change in authority structures is necessary. (You have argued that Sharona doesn't need to go to a total war footing for this conflict to which I answered that you are being very optimistic about how this war will turn out.) I think given Sharona's history and culture unification is the most generally accepted way to make that change.

Nicholas

brnicholas wrote:

n7axw wrote:You could very well be right. I'm speculating on the basis of my own experience with human nature as a pastor with 30+ years of esperience in parish ministry.

Don

-

What I expect you experience has told you is the radical changes in authority structures always cause opposition and significant problems. If it has told you something else I would be interested in hearing what it has taught you. I agree with you about that and I expect there is opposition and there will be significant problems as a result of the unification.

My argument is that if Sharona is going to fight something close to a total war, and they have good reason to believe that they have to, then radical change in authority structures is necessary. (You have argued that Sharona doesn't need to go to a total war footing for this conflict to which I answered that you are being very optimistic about how this war will turn out.) I think given Sharona's history and culture unification is the most generally accepted way to make that change.

Nicholas

It doesn't take radical change to cause trouble. Even petty change can ruffle feathers: the seven last words of the church--we've never done it that way before. And it's not just the church. Virtually all organizational structures suffer the same malady, especially older ones that become encrusted in tradition which assumes the role of canon.

I never suggested that "total mobilization" wasn't neccessary. My thought was that a "grand alliance" like WW2 or the Napoleonic wars might have accomplished what was needed without the stress of radical political restructuring.

Governments are not neccesarily an efficient way of marshalling resourses and the bigger an organization becomes, the less efficient it becomes. Further, the longer it is neccessary to sustain the marshalling of resources and the accompanying rationalization, the more prone and vulnerable to totalitarianism a society becomes.

I am not rendering a final judgment on what Sharona needs to do here...only pointing out that a universal government has a lot of potential for stubbing its toes.

Don

-

Both those alliance models are recipes for disaster in a single-front war - in fact, it was the 'alliances' the French faced that kept the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars going for 23 years. Even Waterloo was only pulled off because of the personal determination of two marshals to support each other. And neither of them really knew for sure what the other was up to. In the end, it came down to Wellington pinning Napoleon in place and Blucher marching toward the sound of the guns - and each trusting the other to do his utmost. Something that hadn't happened umpteen times before, and something that Sharona would be insane to count on. The rather - far more than that, when it comes down to it - poisonous relationship between the West and the USSR would have been fatal if they hadn't had Germany between them. All either really needed was exactly what they got: splitting Hitler's attention between them, constantly grinding Germany down and bringing resources to bear that couldn't be matched even with the advantage of the inside position. That is not likely to even be possible for Sharona, and having someone on your flank who is concerned only with fighting his share of the enemy, and really doesn't mind of you're pounded into the ground as long as you don't let the bad guys turn on him too soon is _not_ a comfortable situation.

[and before you bring up the West as an effective alliance: it was both considerably less effective than it might have been and rather more politically united than it looked]

n7axw wrote:

brnicholas wrote:What I expect you experience has told you is the radical changes in authority structures always cause opposition and significant problems. If it has told you something else I would be interested in hearing what it has taught you. I agree with you about that and I expect there is opposition and there will be significant problems as a result of the unification.

My argument is that if Sharona is going to fight something close to a total war, and they have good reason to believe that they have to, then radical change in authority structures is necessary. (You have argued that Sharona doesn't need to go to a total war footing for this conflict to which I answered that you are being very optimistic about how this war will turn out.) I think given Sharona's history and culture unification is the most generally accepted way to make that change.

Nicholas

It doesn't take radical change to cause trouble. Even petty change can ruffle feathers: the seven last words of the church--we've never done it that way before. And it's not just the church. Virtually all organizational structures suffer the same malady, especially older ones that become encrusted in tradition which assumes the role of canon.

I never suggested that "total mobilization" wasn't neccessary. My thought was that a "grand alliance" like WW2 or the Napoleonic wars might have accomplished what was needed without the stress of radical political restructuring.

Governments are not neccesarily an efficient way of marshalling resourses and the bigger an organization becomes, the less efficient it becomes. Further, the longer it is neccessary to sustain the marshalling of resources and the accompanying rationalization, the more prone and vulnerable to totalitarianism a society becomes.

I am not rendering a final judgment on what Sharona needs to do here...only pointing out that a universal government has a lot of potential for stubbing its toes.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:It doesn't take radical change to cause trouble. Even petty change can ruffle feathers: the seven last words of the church--we've never done it that way before. And it's not just the church. Virtually all organizational structures suffer the same malady, especially older ones that become encrusted in tradition which assumes the role of canon.

I never suggested that "total mobilization" wasn't neccessary. My thought was that a "grand alliance" like WW2 or the Napoleonic wars might have accomplished what was needed without the stress of radical political restructuring.

Governments are not neccesarily an efficient way of marshalling resourses and the bigger an organization becomes, the less efficient it becomes. Further, the longer it is neccessary to sustain the marshalling of resources and the accompanying rationalization, the more prone and vulnerable to totalitarianism a society becomes.

I am not rendering a final judgment on what Sharona needs to do here...only pointing out that a universal government has a lot of potential for stubbing its toes.

Don

-

Then I think that we have reached agreement.

I think we agree that, if Sharona is going to martial the resources a full bore war with Arcana will require it will need to change its political structure in some way. That will cause tension. Sharona chose unification under the Calirath's to do that, it might have chosen another way, whether that way would have worked better or worse we don't know. Certainly a universal government has the potential for many problems.

Nicholas