On 07Jan2022 1813, Phil Pugliese - philpugliese at yahoo.com (via tml
list) wrote:
>   I don't buy the 'late-comer' idea that the regional nobles are 'mini-emperors' so I think it'd be up to the sub-sector & sector govs.After all the original CT idea was that the 3I was modelled on the 17th century British Empire, a fact that I was rather abruptly reminded of by several on this list when I returned from 'hiatus' about 15 years ago.
> We do know that there are gov fund-raising activities as one of the High-Lightening class (Children of the March) was funded that way.
> I don't see why there couldn't be some deficit spending, esp out on the 'edges'.
> It's just too attractive for the areas that are still developing & lagging in tech.
We know that Imperial nobles can be quite powerful, and have their own
military units. They aren't 'mini-emperors', but are clearly wealthy
enough that they can (some of them, anyway) afford to fund private
projects. I'm suggesting that they might do so in cases where they think
something is necessary but the Imperium can't or won't fund it.

The Imperium seems to rely very heavily on private settlement and
investment to develop worlds, and prefers to encourage this with
subsidies and concessions rather than by direct investment (which is
rather like how the British Empire often did things). It's also a great
way to keep your rich (including your megacorps and the mega-rich that
own them, which include the Imperial family) getting richer and your
government too strapped for cash to meddle in the affairs of the rich
and powerful over much.

Hmm. Going down this line of reasoning, the first civil war and the
barracks emperors, etc. was your typical civil war of nobles bickering
amongst themselves, which is why the rest of the Imperium just kept
thier heads down, and waited for the shooting to stop.

The next civil war would be the result of an usuper (Dulinor) attempting
to harness the rising power of the middle class and its desire to have a
say in things. Of course, he screwed up, and the middle class wasn't
that powerful anyway, but it doesn't explain why the masses became
involved in such a big way and the war became total. All the faction
leaders became, or at least presented themselves as, populists to
harness that power, and in so doing factionalised the general population.

Note that this is quite a different interpretation of the why and how
the Rebellion went down the way it did to the official one. I'm not sure
it'll make sense in the morning, either.

--
Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>