kralori state

From: David Cake <dave_at_starfish.net.au>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:12:56 +0800


Peter
>Your definition is a complete solecism in that there is no difference
>between a small state apparatus and large one as every taxpayer is
>part of the state apparatus.

        Only if you demand the difference a small state and a large one has nothing to do with what resources the state can command, and is merely a matter of definition not degree (which would seem an odd attitude, as the difference between large and small is obviously one of degree). If the state can muster a large amount of manpower, and coordinate it effectively, and thus perform enormous state projects, or not, that is a far more important difference than how the liability of the citizenry to provide those resources is accounted for in determining the effective size of the state.

>>Obviously, the Kralori state can mobilise a fair
>>bit. Whether this is a part time levy, or a smaller number of full time
>>workers, isn't necessarily relevent.
>
>But it is relevant. I said the state was small because it met
>its construction demands through the use of the corvee rather
>than the large army of professional labourers that you suggested.

        Well, we are getting into obscure political semantics here. Neither a large army of paid labourers, OR a large levy, are part of the executive proper, so how exactly their services are obtained doesn't matter much IMO, what matters is the executive can mobilise a relatively large proportion of the populace for various projects.

>You then started suggesting that corveed workers were part of the
>state apparatus which, according to successive definitions of
>your own devising, implied that an anarchist commune was a state
>and that every taxpayer was part of the state apparatus!

        On the other hand, where they ultimately derive their direction from obviously does have relevence to whether a worker is a part of the state apparatus. If the executive (the mandarins, to maintain some tenuous Kralorelan relevence) ultimately tells them what to do with their labour, they are part of the state apparatus, which is obviously the case in both levy and paid employee labour, and obviously not in the case of an anarchist commune (there not being an executive to issue demands for curious projects and no one actually being compelled to provide labour at any of its projects should there be one), or in the case of the average taxpayer.

        I suspect this anarchist commune to be constructed of straw, and am thus not surprised to find its a fire hazard.

>And you still can't grasp the essential
>difference between the late payment of taxes (which happens all
>the time in Sha Ming) and the non-payment of such.

        As I said, if you keep saying you going to pay the taxes but not actually doing so, there comes a point at which it is considered non-payment. The difference between late payment and non-payment is a matter of patience of the creditor. Its not an essential difference at all, its a line in the sand.

>> So, the Kralori see the POIM as only a path to material gain, and
>>do not accept that the average member sees it as a religious path? Even
>>mistakenly? Curious.
>
>No. The rulers (the people who determine what is criminal and what
>is not) in their wisdom see the PoIM as a material path.

        So, in essence, the POIM is illegal not because of anything any POIM member necessarily does, but because of the rulers opinions (prejudices to anyone else) about what it might do? Wasn't the point of this about whether the Kralori practiced 'thoughtcrime'? Assuming that bad spiritual practices always lead to criminal behaviour sounds like thoughtcrime to me, just with a layer of rationalisation over the top. So this Charismatic Wisdom stuff is banned because the leaders believe it leads directly to criminal behaviour?

	Cheers
		David

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

End of The Glorantha Digest V7 #412


Powered by hypermail