General Discussions

What were the independents fighting for?

POSTED BY: chronicthehedgehog
UPDATED: Thursday, August 3, 2006 11:29
VIEWED: 3878
PAGE 2 of 2

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 3:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chronicthehedgehog:

Is it really self government if it's planet wide? International bodies such as the UN have enough trouble coping with the variety of countries as it is, and they're not running the planet. If we moved to a planetary government, there'd be no end of internal conflict. I can understand the independents not wanting to expand that to a universal government, but surely the majority of them wouldn't be happy with planet-wide government either?

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



I think the point was really to fight for a chance to determe (or keep) whatever form of government they wanted, instead of having it dictated to them by the Alliance, who would have probably installed a default planetary government.

Or hell, to even just have their own existing government not forced to answer to the Alliance.

I imagine it's not sooo dissimilar to certain European countries being unwilling to be part of the EU, or being weary of the threat that the EU might (will?) usurp their individual nationalities into one big beaurocratic blob. Many countries WANT to be in it, for all the economic (and political?) advantages it provides, but there's that scepticism, too.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 4:13 PM

Remember that we're talking about a system with dozes of planets and hundreds of moons. Now what is the definition of a planet? Apparently they have the ability to manipulate gravity so an asteroid like Ceres or 16 Psyche may count as a planet. If so, then these "planets" would only have an area of between 100 million and 5 billion square kilometers. That means many of the planet/moons would be only be about 12 times bigger than the US, assuming no oceans. So 6 times bigger than the US overall, at the high end. Possibly about half the US or less on the lower end. So that's comparitavely local, isn't it? Not too terribly bad in my opinion, considering most will only be about the size of Ceres and less, which makes them about 50% bigger than the US (assuming half is ocean). That isn't too awfully big at all. And most (judging from our star system that is) would be US sized and under.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 4:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nanite1018:
Remember that we're talking about a system with dozes of planets and hundreds of moons. Now what is the definition of a planet? Apparently they have the ability to manipulate gravity so an asteroid like Ceres or 16 Psyche may count as a planet. If so, then these "planets" would only have an area of between 100 million and 5 billion square kilometers. That means many of the planet/moons would be only be about 12 times bigger than the US, assuming no oceans. So 6 times bigger than the US overall, at the high end. Possibly about half the US or less on the lower end. So that's comparitavely local, isn't it? Not too terribly bad in my opinion, considering most will only be about the size of Ceres and less, which makes them about 50% bigger than the US (assuming half is ocean). That isn't too awfully big at all. And most (judging from our star system that is) would be US sized and under.




I'm assuming that a planet still counts as a planet, a moon as a moon and an asteroid counts as an asteroid (if that makes any sense). We are shown a great many planets and moons in the show, and none of them ever seem as small as you are suggesting.

However, being from the UK I find the US to be too big to have a single government (hell, I think the UK having a single goverment is a bit overboard) so something six times that size seems insane.

You've also got to factor in population density, the US is relatively empty population wise, 300,000,000 people for 10,000,000 square kilometers. If you had a population density more in line with the UK, 60,000,000 people for 242,000 square kilometers you're looking at a hell of a difference when you increase it to that sort of size.

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

Read my fanfic!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/sunroomitem.asp?i=8267

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 4:44 PM

Yeah, you're correct on that point, chronic. But it DOES seem a little unlikely that you would have a planetary system with dozens of planets the size of Mercury. Venus, Earth, and Mars and hundreds of moons the size of Callisto and Titan.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 5:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SpaceAnJL:
Persephone for the Perps, Boros for the Bores, sorta thing.

*snicker*

Is there a planet called Penelope?

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 11:29 AM

Keep in mind that the history of settlement in the 'verse is a bit different from Earth's history.

It seems likely that most planets and/or moons were first settled by relatively small, homogenous groups. These then expanded through native population growth and immigration of like-minded newcomers.

Thus it's plausible that smaller planets and moons would feel quite comfortable with a planet-wide government. Possible exceptions would be any world large enough to have multiple continents or regions, which might have been settled by divergent cultural groups.

Besides, over the very long term, humans have developed ever-larger systems of government. Not all of the larger ones were worse than the smaller ones they replaced. Would we really want to go back to feudal Europe, where the vast majority of the people were serfs "owned" by the landed nobility? Or a village where big, strong Ogh told everyone what to do?

Maybe the real question should be, "What's the ideal size for a sovereign political entity?" Is there really one correct answer for all times and places?

(Edit: yet again, I'm struck by the way a discussion of some aspect of Firefly leads us into issues of truly universal scope. If I had any doubt about the value of the time I spend here among my fellow Browncoats, that fact alone would put it to rest.)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm pointin' right at it!

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME