Me>>Your definition [of the size of the state's apparatus] 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
The subject is size of a state apparatus, not the resources it can mobilize. We were arguing about whether Kralorela had a large complex bureacracy aka state apparatus or a small one (as per the Judge Dee model). If you wish to change the topic, you should at least indicate that you are doing so.
>Neither a large army of paid labourers, OR a large levy, are part of
>the executive proper,
Which is a change from your previous position that a large army of paid labourers was evidence that Kralorela had a large state apparatus/executive proper/whatever term you'll come up with next week _and_ that whether they were paid labourers or levies made no difference to the size of the selfsame thingy/whasit.
> 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.
No, it doesn't. Corvee is a form of tax and taxpayers are not part of the state apparatus in any meaningful definition of the latter.
>>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.
But Sha Ming _is_ paying its taxes (late), not saying that it's going to pay taxes but never actually doing so (non).
>>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?
No, it is illegal because of what the PoIM member does. Immanentizing one's draconic nature is in the eyes of the rulers (and they are probably correct) a serious spiritual error and consequently criminal.
>Wasn't the point of
>this about whether the Kralori practiced 'thoughtcrime'?
Yes, and I pointed out many posts ago that the practice of PoIM is _not_ a thoughtcrime as it has _real_ _observable_ effects - it isn't a matter of merely thinking "I believe in Immanent Mastery", it's the equivalent of shouting "Jehovah" at the top of your lungs in 1st CE Judea.
Powered by hypermail