The Typhon Pact

[Kestrel]

Sci wrote:

---

I and others have only shown that the Victorian era had more violent conflicts and human rights abuses than the modern era has tended to have.

That shouldn't be taken as a claim that the present day is without horrific abuses and conflicts, either. It's simply a statement that things are better today than they were then.

Ehh... I'm not sure I entirely agree. The point that the Victorian Era wasn't peaceful (really, who would make that statement except looking purely at continental Europe and the Concert therein) is well made. Nonetheless, I'm not sure how many people in Rwanda, for example, would say things are better now than they were then. Or the Balkans, or Chechnya, or Nepal. I think it's fairer to say that for many people, things are better. For many others, things are worse. For yet many others, things haven't changed all that much.

[Cicero]

^ Besides, the idea of the Pax Britannica isn't that the world was at peace, but that Europe generally was. Similarly, the Pax Americana refers to a lack of war between the great powers, and to generally peaceful conditions in their parts of the world.

[rahullak]

Kestrel wrote:

---

Ehh... I'm not sure I entirely agree. The point that the Victorian Era wasn't peaceful (really, who would make that statement except looking purely at continental Europe and the Concert therein) is well made. Nonetheless, I'm not sure how many people in Rwanda, for example, would say things are better now than they were then. Or the Balkans, or Chechnya, or Nepal. I think it's fairer to say that for many people, things are better. For many others, things are worse. For yet many others, things haven't changed all that much.

I think it might be fair to even say that the percentage of total world population for whom things are better and is at peace is higher today than it was back then. This points to a trend of a better future world.

[BrotherBenny]

The Federation post-Destiny is hardly post-scarcity. Millions of people are homeless and planetary societies do not have enough to feed all the refugees. Industrial food replicators are few and far between and there wouldn't be enough agriculture to feed them all anyway. Although the Federation still has advanced starship technology; on a food scale, they are proportionately back to the post-WW3 era - scarcity is the watchword for those not on starships or starbases.

[Rush Limborg]

^I would imagine things are just as bad in the Typhon Pact worlds.

The difference will be, I think, which society will be more free--and therefore, more industrial. A command economy will eventually collapse--as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union can attest. It's just a matter of how and when....

I think the best thing Bacco can tell the Federation right now is, frankly, to "Stay The Course"...and to not be afraid.

[captcalhoun]

if we stay the course, we are dead. WE ARE ALL DEAD!

[Rush Limborg]

^(Nimoy Voice): I have been dead before....

[KRAD]

JB2005 wrote:

---

It's reasonable conjecture, plus I'm sure KRAD made a comment somewhere about the ambiguity of whether Bacco knew about S31 and he wrote AoTF...

I specifically left it vague as to whether or not President Bacco knew about S31 or not so that, if it ever came up in a future novel, that novel's writer (me or someone else) would not be hamstrung by whatever I established in Articles. (Besides, the scene worked better from Ross's POV anyhow. )

[Kestrel]

Rush Limborg wrote:

---

^I would imagine things are just as bad in the Typhon Pact worlds.

I doubt it. Recall that, by and large, the Borg Invasion mostly hit Federation and Klingon worlds, along with several independent ones. I didn't get a sense that any of the Typhon Pact worlds were suffering in the same way. Ok, the Kinshaya perhaps but for a different reason. Likewise the RSE. But the Gorn, Breen, Tholians, and Tzenkethi? I don't get the feeling that any of them were devastated anywhere near what the Khitomer Accord powers were.

Rush Limborg wrote:

---

The difference will be, I think, which society will be more free--and therefore, more industrial. A command economy will eventually collapse--as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union can attest. It's just a matter of how and when....

Without dragging this *too* far off-topic... Nazi Germany's economic collapse had far less to do with being a command economy than it did with, y'know, fighting a massive war on two fronts and being strangled as far as trade goes, and eventually ground down. Some elements of command economy are integral to our own economic system, let alone those of, say, Great Britain. And complete unshackling of economy led to, well, mid-90s Russia, for what it's worth.*

*note the previous paragraph is written by someone with a very elementary grasp of macro (or micro- for that matter) economics, so specific terminology may not be accurate.

[Rush Limborg]

Nazi Germany's economic collapse had far less to do with being a command economy than it did with, y'know, fighting a massive war on two fronts...and eventually ground down.

Which actually stemmed from the same philosophical premises as the command economy of the Nazis--namely, Old Pre-Kahn Eugenics (the idea of "purifying" man and society through government action, regulation--and millitary might).

As for the command elements in our society: yes, they are good--to a point. Left completely unrestrained (with no laws punishing fraud, etc.), a free market would destroy itself. It would disolve into anarchy, which is not truly free.

A true free market does allow for regulation, but there are limits to this, so as to prevent unneccessary incursion into the market, which hamper production, rather than encourage it.

[Sci]

Rush Limborg wrote:

---

Which actually stemmed from the same philosophical premises as the command economy of the Nazis--namely, Old Pre-Kahn Eugenics (the idea of "purifying" man and society through government action, regulation--and millitary might).

As for the command elements in our society: yes, they are good--to a point. Left completely unrestrained (with no laws punishing fraud, etc.), a free market would destroy itself. It would disolve into anarchy, which is not truly free.

A true free market does allow for regulation, but there are limits to this, so as to prevent unneccessary incursion into the market, which hamper production, rather than encourage it.

That, and let's not forget the necessity of making sure that the free market isn't hijacked by rich elites to force the middle and lower classes to transfer money to the top.

And, as the present crisis shows, of making sure that the elites don't become so greedy as to make incredibly reckless business deals.

[Rush Limborg]

^In order to clean that up, our government simply needs to stop with this Too Big To Fail doctrine, and let the incompetent, exploitive--and yes, greedy--companies fail--as they always do, those who have no regard for the long-term, and focus on "quick killings".

Hisory has proven, time and time again, that those who obtain their wealth dishonorably, will always lose it in time--unless they're being propped up by the government (that would involve "lobbying"). Why? Because those who are not competent enough to make their money honestly--are not competent enough to keep it.

By contrast, those who build their wealth on foundations of integrity--such as Henry Heintz, James C. Penny, etc.--remain prosperous, in the long run.

[SpaceLama]

Yeah, but when those sort of companies fall, they tend to take many people down with them.

[Rush Limborg]

^And...the good people can build again...from the ground up...and start fresh.

[rahullak]

SpaceLama wrote:

---

Yeah, but when those sort of companies fall, they tend to take many people down with them.

Many people who were otherwise competent and went down through no fault of theirs.