Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Syylara/Yaansu]

A little blurb from a level 2 mission "Customs Interdiction":

Caldari Customs Authority
The CCA is a division of the Caldari Business Tribunal, which is the only nationwide law enforcement agency in the Caldari State. The CCA is in charge of policing trade at the borders of Caldari space and enforcing any customs duties or tariffs, though the State generally has few of those with both the Liberal and Practical factions both being free trade advocates. However, the CCA tends to be short-staffed, despite being adequately funded, and as a result they often outsource customs duties to the Navy or corporate security forces, who will in turn sometimes subcontract to individual pod-pilots. In general, customs duties are a low priority (and sometimes an obstruction) for many of the Caldari megacorporations' operations, so they tend to be pushed upon pilots and officers towards the low end of the totem pole.

[Milo Caman]

That sounds like a delicious excuse to reform the smuggling system with player customs :3

[Misan]

...that was supposed to be what they were doing, except I haven't heard anything about it actually being implemented. 

I know Dropbear was helping with it before he left, as I talked to him about some ideas for it at the Nashville event. Really hoping it didn't get delayed or put off indefinitely. 

[orange]

they often outsource customs duties to the Navy or corporate security forces

Items like this are what drive me to argue that the vast majority of relationships in the State are contract driven.  Even the interaction between two national, "government" agencies is treated as a business transaction.

[Malcolm Khross]

I imagine that most of what occurs between corporations is indeed contractual to some degree (even if there's no formal contract).

Where we seem to differ is what defines a "contract." From a very strict perspective, yes, everybody is on a contract of some kind to a corporation. However, I don't think every citizen of the State signs a contract for their employment or even for their provisions, a large part of the relationship appears to be simply employer to employee with social expectations on both regarding their duties and responsibilities toward one another.

[orange]

the relationship appears to be simply employer to employee

The relationship between an employer and an employee is spelled out in a contract.

The contract is evidence of employment and all the rights, responsibilities, and privileges that come with being an employee of a particular employer.   Anything that is not in a formal contract is hearsay and easily tossed to the way side.   Agreements made outside of contractual obligations are meaningless to the corporations, other employees, and New Eden at large.

In the State, a person's employee contract is their evidence that they are indeed a "citizen" of a State entity and not some vagabond or worse.

Unlike the Federation (citizens), Republic (citizens), or Empire (subjects), the State's corporations have no "natural" obligation to any particular individual.  They are obligated to their contracted employees, wherever in the cluster they may be (unless it violates the terms of their employee contract).

It is the State's dark side, without contracts stored with the CBT or some other third-party, the State does not know you exist. There are no "natural rights of men" in the State.

Rather than beg the question of a social contract, the corporations that formed the State had a pre-existing system (employee contracts under the model of the a Luminaire corporation) of establishing explicitly the relationship between authority (the corporation) and people.

This explicit relationship is ripe for abuse by authority and it was.  The societal expectations of Heiian were not followed and it took rebellion to terrify authority into doing so again.

[Gottii]

the relationship appears to be simply employer to employee

The relationship between an employer and an employee is spelled out in a contract.

The contract is evidence of employment and all the rights, responsibilities, and privileges that come with being an employee of a particular employer.   Anything that is not in a formal contract is hearsay and easily tossed to the way side.   Agreements made outside of contractual obligations are meaningless to the corporations, other employees, and New Eden at large.

In the State, a person's employee contract is their evidence that they are indeed a "citizen" of a State entity and not some vagabond or worse.

Unlike the Federation (citizens), Republic (citizens), or Empire (subjects), the State's corporations have no "natural" obligation to any particular individual.  They are obligated to their contracted employees, wherever in the cluster they may be (unless it violates the terms of their employee contract).

It is the State's dark side, without contracts stored with the CBT or some other third-party, the State does not know you exist. There are no "natural rights of men" in the State.

Rather than beg the question of a social contract, the corporations that formed the State had a pre-existing system (employee contracts under the model of the a Luminaire corporation) of establishing explicitly the relationship between authority (the corporation) and people.

This explicit relationship is ripe for abuse by authority and it was.  The societal expectations of Heiian were not followed and it took rebellion to terrify authority into doing so again.

Great stuff.  Well thought out.

[Malcolm Khross]

That makes sense, thanks.

[Syylara/Yaansu]

The relationship between an employer and an employee is spelled out in a contract.

The contract is evidence of employment and all the rights, responsibilities, and privileges that come with being an employee of a particular employer.   Anything that is not in a formal contract is hearsay and easily tossed to the way side.   Agreements made outside of contractual obligations are meaningless to the corporations, other employees, and New Eden at large.

Not necessarily, a vast majority of employment here in the U.S. is employment-at-will.  Now, you can argue that there is an implicit contract defined by laws and statutes, but I'm thinking that's not the definition you're thinking of when you refer to contracts.

In the State, a person's employee contract is their evidence that they are indeed a "citizen" of a State entity and not some vagabond or worse.

Unlike the Federation (citizens), Republic (citizens), or Empire (subjects), the State's corporations have no "natural" obligation to any particular individual.  They are obligated to their contracted employees, wherever in the cluster they may be (unless it violates the terms of their employee contract).

It is the State's dark side, without contracts stored with the CBT or some other third-party, the State does not know you exist. There are no "natural rights of men" in the State.

Is there reference to employment-based citizenship somewhere?  Why can't there be birth certificates and a unique identifier assigned to each individual regardless of employment that carries all of your work history, criminal records, accrued retirement benefits, etc?  If the corporation came and stole your 3-year old from your house long before they were old enough to work, you'd have no records of their existence?

Rather than beg the question of a social contract, the corporations that formed the State had a pre-existing system (employee contracts under the model of the a Luminaire corporation) of establishing explicitly the relationship between authority (the corporation) and people.

This explicit relationship is ripe for abuse by authority and it was.  The societal expectations of Heiian were not followed and it took rebellion to terrify authority into doing so again.

Whether explicit contracts or implicit statutes/legislation, whether contractual or at-will, any system can be abused to the detriment of the workers.

I guess mostly I'm just curious if there's any referencing/sourcing for the claims you're making here, because there's no qualifiers or room for interpretation, it reads as very absolute and final.  I'm not in any way saying "this is wrong" I'm just looking for some authoritative weight to it, especially the employment-based citizenship/evidence-you-even-exist part.

[Ken]

It is the State's dark side, without contracts stored with the CBT or some other third-party, the State does not know you exist. There are no "natural rights of men" in the State.

Is there reference to employment-based citizenship somewhere?  Why can't there be birth certificates and a unique identifier assigned to each individual regardless of employment that carries all of your work history, criminal records, accrued retirement benefits, etc?  If the corporation came and stole your 3-year old from your house long before they were old enough to work, you'd have no records of their existence?

Many employers take an interest in whether you have dependents at home like children or adult relatives who require special care.  There are sometimes tangible benefits afforded to people with dependents simply because they are employees and the company wants to take care of them.  This is much more prevalent in government employment, which is precisely what we're talking about when we discuss the State because the corporation is the government.  I imagine that children are written into a parent's contract (probably accounted for long before they are actually born by standard clauses in all employment contracts), and until a child is of working age themselves they are protected by the corporation through this.  If for some reason a parent were to void their contract, some corporation might require that any children be surrendered to become wards of the company while others might kick the entire family out of the system.

[orange]

I guess mostly I'm just curious if there's any referencing/sourcing for the claims you're making here, because there's no qualifiers or room for interpretation, it reads as very absolute and final.  I'm not in any way saying "this is wrong" I'm just looking for some authoritative weight to it, especially the employment-based citizenship/evidence-you-even-exist part.

I did not write it with "escape words" but it is my opinion and not something where CCP has said - "The State runs on contracts be it person to company, person to person, or company to company."

It is how I imagine the State, a corporate entity from the very start.  A confederation of feudal corporations, created during an interstellar war.

In the State, a person's employee contract is their evidence that they are indeed a "citizen" of a State entity and not some vagabond or worse.

Unlike the Federation (citizens), Republic (citizens), or Empire (subjects), the State's corporations have no "natural" obligation to any particular individual.  They are obligated to their contracted employees, wherever in the cluster they may be (unless it violates the terms of their employee contract).

It is the State's dark side, without contracts stored with the CBT or some other third-party, the State does not know you exist. There are no "natural rights of men" in the State.

Is there reference to employment-based citizenship somewhere?  Why can't there be birth certificates and a unique identifier assigned to each individual regardless of employment that carries all of your work history, criminal records, accrued retirement benefits, etc?  If the corporation came and stole your 3-year old from your house long before they were old enough to work, you'd have no records of their existence?

This is my opinion.

The State (especially pre-CPD), had no use for each individual having a State assigned unique identifier (in the US our SSN).  Most Caldari will have medical records, they will have evidence of their birth in such & such facility and why they were born there (versus a competing medical center).   Their parents might even have access to those records.

The corporation might just come take all the children, even if there is a record of it.   The schooling contract that the company had with the educational development company has changed and now it is centralized on the station in orbit.

[Casiella]

I wonder if the House of Records might not play a role in that.

[Mithfindel]

I feel these links are relevant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_paternalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mill_town
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotown

[Ken]

Nice.  Very relevant links Mithfindel.

I began running the Caldari epic arc today.  I thought this text was highly relevant:

Bad Habits
Rivalry among the corporations of the Caldari State is a daily reality, even today. The breakdown of relations with the Federation, opportunistic Guristas invasions and countless other problems facing the Caldari people have done little to ease inter-corporate tensions, some of which predate the existence of the State itself.

In other situations, rather than unifying the Caldari people, external threats only cause further divisiveness, and it is not uncommon for such issues to be leapt upon and twisted towards serving the agenda of one corporation or another. Survival within the harsh political arenas of the State requires a mastery of political cunning. To succeed requires even more – not only the ability to deeply understand events, but the capacity to shape them as well.

So, in the State it's not always a matter of 'me against my brothers, my brothers and I against our cousins, and my cousins and I against strangers'.  Corps will fight enough other even in the face of a serious external threat.  (Implication: factionalism, factionalism, factionalism...)

As I play through the arc, I will record the mission text and flavor stuff that is presented and try to put together a post covering the finer details and implications.

[Mithfindel]

I was also a bit hasty there: The "mill town" article was certainly trying to convey what we call here "ruukki", or in Swedish "bruk", in specific bruksmentalitet or "mill town mentality". You will likely need Google translate with that article, unless you know Swedish. In short, in the traditional Scandinavian mill town (16th century to perhaps up to early 20th century) the mill provided most of the communal services. In turn, the local "patron" (manager) acted the leader of an insular community with a very strict hierarchy and high peer pressure to fit in.