Me>>The subject is size of a state apparatus, not the resources it can
>>mobilize.
> The resources it can mobilise is not the same thing, but not
>unrelated.
So? We _were_ talking about the size of the state apparatus, not the resources it can mobilize.
>>>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
>Ah, a veritable army of straw. The state apparatus is not the same
>as the ruling class, and I have never said otherwise.
So? We were talking about the state apparatus, not the ruling class. It is no strawman to point out that you constantly change your ill-defined terminology to avoid the consequences of your last definition when they have been pointed out to you. By introducing new impressive sounding terms such as executive proper and not explaining how they differ from the old one (state apparatus), you only have yourself to blame for subsequent misunderstandings.
>>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.
> Because taxpayers money is used to obtain other resources that are
>part of the state, frequently employees of the state.
A clause is missing from this statement. Several possibilities suggest themslves as to what the missing clause might be. However none of them actually make the sentence actually relevant to what I said.
>The state needs people who
>are willing to labour on its projects for a full time period,
It needs no such thing. What ancient states do have is access to a large body of idle labour that appears every summer (and also winter). During the growing and harvest season, very little construction takes place for obvious reasons and nobody is concerned.
Me>>But Sha Ming _is_ paying its taxes (late), not saying that it's
>>going to pay taxes but never actually doing so (non).
>It seems bizarre to me to assume that they might be sacked for late
>payment AFTER they have paid their taxes,
It _is_ quite bizzare because this is another of your strawmen (which you keep making and projecting onto the other person). The statement does not say that Sha Ming is sacked for late payment. It does says that it has never paid its taxes on time _and_ has been sacked several times by the army.
Me>>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.
> Well, making serious spiritual errors a criminal offense sounds
>even MORE like thoughtcrime to me.
Look up the definition of thoughtcrime and then contrast this to what the PoIM do (i.e. physically turn themselves into dragons). There is quite a difference between the two in most people's books.
End of The Glorantha Digest V7 #415
Powered by hypermail