Print

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

[Svetlana Scarlet]

The State is still "libertarian". There are few if any laws made by the State government that restrict individuals in any way, shape or form, at least prior to Heth and that ridiculousness. Of course, corporations owned almost all that territory already, but it was only fair, they were the ones that colonized it in the first place...and you wouldn't deny a man his right to private property, would you?

[Lyn Farel]

The State is still "libertarian". There are few if any laws made by the State government that restrict individuals in any way, shape or form, at least prior to Heth and that ridiculousness. Of course, corporations owned almost all that territory already, but it was only fair, they were the ones that colonized it in the first place...and you wouldn't deny a man his right to private property, would you?

The megas are the state. I do not see much difference if laws come from here or a governement.

Really? I think the Caldari State is pretty much a taken-to-the-extreme example of what happens if you get rid of almost all government regulation. No one is forced to work for a corporation, you have every right not to sign that employment contract. The fact that you will have a very hard time of it if you don't isn't the government's problem, it's yours.

In practice, the Caldari State is definitely not a libertarian utopia, but there's a reason that "utopia" means "no place."

No one is either forced to live in the country they live in, with all its laws...

[K_Wiroshoda]

I must admit I am very confused to see Caldari and libertarianism in the
same sentence. I would not misconstrue confederalism with libertarianism.
As far as the PF reads, each megacorporation appears to function as a
government/state unto itself, and all seem to be very statist. Even the PF
which goes back before Tibus Heth (I am assuming the following is) alludes
to this. The whole concept of libertarianism in EVE would to apply to the
Gallente instead, who have several direct references to the concept. Never
mind the fact the word "liberty" is key to the Gallente's ideology
according to the PF.

Libertarianism is a set of related political philosophies
which emphasize individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary
association.

This is the complete opposite of what we know of the Caldari.

Driven by the cultural premise that the
good of the whole must come before the needs of the individual

He knows that even if Gallente society can
be called a capitalistic one, the capitalism followed by the Gallenteans is
fundamentally different than the one found in the Caldari State. For
Gallenteans, the accumulation of wealth is something that is done on an
individual level and personal wealth only matters in comparison to the
wealth of other individuals. For the Caldari the economic wheels of the
state are controlled by huge corporations and for corporations competition,
efficiency and market share is more important than accumulation of wealth
(although the latter is often a happy by-product of the former) - business
for the good of the individual rather than the good of the many is
something totally alien to the Caldari.

Duty and discipline are required traits
in Caldari citizens, plus unquestioning loyalty to the corporation they
live to serve.

As long as you keep
in line, do your job, uphold the laws and so forth, life can be fairly
pleasant and productive. But for those who are not cut out for this strict,
disciplined regime life quickly becomes intolerable. They lose their
respect, family, status, everything, and the only options left to them are
suicide or exile

The third point directly undermines the political freedom aspect of
libertarianism, what with 'unquestioning loyalty'. The last point directly
undermines the 'voluntary association' element of libertarianism. According
to libertarianism, the ability to refuse participation should not come with
the consequence of losing everything. Participation in the State is
compulsory if you desire to live your life.

The word libertarianism is used to directly describe the Gallente
Federation. I do not recall it ever being used to describe the Caldari.

Anygovernmental
interference to keep things in check through legislation and
policing is naturally perceived as oppression of the rights and freedom of
individuals, constantly creating tension.

the libertarian
culture

The Gallente dislike their government and appear to not want anything to do
with it. This is in direct contrast to the Caldari, who put themselves
behind their government/megacorporation. Repeatedly in PF, we see the
Gallente described as individualists and the Caldari as collectivists.
Libertarians are staunch critics of collectivism.

I'm also confused as to where the Caldari belief in the right to private
property comes from, not only considering they are collectivists, but also
when considering the following;

All land and real
estate is owned by a company which leases it to the citizens

The question of "you wouldn't deny a man his right to private property"
would not appear to be asked by a Caldari. The State comes across as an
Asian meritocracy, which favors communal contribution, not an American
meritocracy, which favors individual uniqueness (as some may say). The
Gallente appear the latter.

If the Caldari State were about individual liberty, private property, and
the rejection of laws, then I would wonder why they are in staunch cultural
opposition to the Gallente. This is certainly not how I play them.
Svetlana; how would the Gallente fit in EVE's ideological framework if the
Caldari adopted an American libertarian outlook?

[Alain Colcer]

haha never have seen such a detailed and properly articulated answer to provide the basic difference between Frog and Squid bravo!

indeed, personal wealth vs corporate wealth is to me one of the main motivators on the citizen level.

Gallente -> i'll work towards attaining wealth and personal social status
Caldari -> i'll work towards improving the wealth of my corporation and thus benefit my personal and coworkers social status

[orange]

I must admit I am very confused to see Caldari and libertarianism in the same sentence. I would not misconstrue confederalism with libertarianism.
As far as the PF reads, each megacorporation appears to function as a government/state unto itself, and all seem to be very statist. Even the PF
which goes back before Tibus Heth (I am assuming the following is) alludes to this.

First the Caldari and Gallente are two branches of the same interplanetary culture.

Secondly, there are stations, worlds, and systems (possibly constellations) in the Federation where a megacorporation functions as a government/state unto itself all in a very statist manner.

Libertarianism is a set of related political philosophies which emphasize individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association.

This is the complete opposite of what we know of the Caldari.

The political philosophies presented to the majority tend to be draped in propaganda benefiting those in power.  In the case of the State (or an employee of Roden, CreoDron, Quafe, ORE, etc), much of that will focus on doing things for the good of the company.

Driven by the cultural premise that the good of the whole must come before the needs of the individual

  ...

Duty and discipline are required traits in Caldari citizens, plus unquestioning loyalty to the corporation they live to serve.

While Svetlana did a lot of work conjecturing a Caldari Prime drive behind the cultural premise (partially , it can equally be argued that a society that for the most part lives in space the good of the whole will be pushed to the fore by necessity and the propaganda will and culture will eventually reflect it.

When, as a result of an economic decision to secede from the Federation, the majority of Caldari found themselves on ships and stations far from any property they could call their own and in which strict observance of various forced military structures was needed simply to survive (at war without a vast agricultural reserve).

We may frame the Gallente-Caldari War as a cultural one, but at its core it was a question of economic power between corporate entities and government.

He knows that even if Gallente society can be called a capitalistic one, the capitalism followed by the Gallenteans is fundamentally different than the one found in the Caldari State. For Gallenteans, the accumulation of wealth is something that is done on an individual level and personal wealth only matters in comparison to the wealth of other individuals. For the Caldari the economic wheels of the state are controlled by huge corporations and for corporations competition, efficiency and market share is more important than accumulation of wealth (although the latter is often a happy by-product of the former) - business for the good of the individual rather than the good of the many is something totally alien to the Caldari.

Is the assumption that Power Politics is an unbiased infodump or a piece written by a Gallente with said bias?   The Caldari and Gallente were in constant contact for hundreds of years and had vast impact on each other's cultures.  The very premise of the Hethian Revolution is that the Caldari executives had for years not been living up to their propaganda and were engaged in the very individual accumulation of wealth described here as Gallente.

As long as you keep in line, do your job, uphold the laws and so forth, life can be fairly pleasant and productive. But for those who are not cut out for this strict, disciplined regime life quickly becomes intolerable. They lose their respect, family, status, everything, and the only options left to them are suicide or exile

The third point directly undermines the political freedom aspect of libertarianism, what with 'unquestioning loyalty'. The last point directly undermines the 'voluntary association' element of libertarianism. According to libertarianism, the ability to refuse participation should not come with the consequence of losing everything. Participation in the State is compulsory if you desire to live your life.

Libertarianism however does not exclude the possibility of losing everything if you want to live your life.   The decisions you make will be judged by those around you and can very well result in your expulsion from a group, ie no one volunteers to be associated with you.  On Earth, this means you depart with "the clothes on your back" into "the wild," whatever that may be. 

Any governmental interference to keep things in check through legislation and policing is naturally perceived as oppression of the rights and freedom of individuals, constantly creating tension.

the libertarian culture

The Gallente dislike their government and appear to not want anything to do with it. This is in direct contrast to the Caldari, who put themselves
behind their government/megacorporation. Repeatedly in PF, we see the Gallente described as individualists and the Caldari as collectivists.
Libertarians are staunch critics of collectivism.

Excellent, we arrive at the challenges that a science-fiction scenario presents us to discuss political philosophy.

In the development of the ante bellum Federation, what were the preferences of various groups?   Did Gallente favor & push for terraforming, while the Caldari accepted more spartan living conditions?  Why didn't these two groups, who for hundreds of years worked hand-in-hand merge?   What allows the Gallente to retain the emphasis on individualism, which as a space-faring culture likely has numerous station emergency protocols (assuming a hazardous outside environment) likely calling for the sacrifice of a few for the survival of the greater whole?

I'm also confused as to where the Caldari belief in the right to private property comes from, not only considering they are collectivists, but also when considering the following;

All land and real estate is owned by a company which leases it to the citizens

The question of "you wouldn't deny a man his right to private property" would not appear to be asked by a Caldari.

If the Caldari State were about individual liberty, private property, and the rejection of laws, then I would wonder why they are in staunch cultural
opposition to the Gallente. This is certainly not how I play them. Svetlana; how would the Gallente fit in EVE's ideological framework if the Caldari adopted an American libertarian outlook?

I return to the following.

The Caldari and Gallente are two branches of the same interplanetary culture.

Before there was a State, there were Federation registered corporations that went out beyond the reach of the Federation's laws and established outposts for themselves.

Both the Intaki Syndicate and ORE provide an opportunity to explore the concept of property ownership in addition to the State and Federation.

There are individuals in Caldari society, who with little backing from the State's larger corporations, are settling in Black Rise.

Black Rise on the demographic level is otherwise an anomaly when compared to the rest of the State. Because of its widespread disconnection, several communities have sprung up that are completely independent of the Caldari authorities, who otherwise do not tolerate disconnected entities within their borders.

All the questions that can be asked of the Caldari State's corporations can be asked of a corporate domain in the Federation, particularly a space station.


All the above having been said - I suspect most take the simple road.  The State is/was a meritocratic Asian culture and the Federation is a meritocratic European culture.

[Alain Colcer]

I return to the following.

The Caldari and Gallente are two branches of the same interplanetary culture.

If thats the absolute true, them i'm not able to explain or even begin to devise a way why caldari would put the well being of the group in front of the well being of the person.

[Ciarente]

I return to the following.

The Caldari and Gallente are two branches of the same interplanetary culture.

If thats the absolute true, them i'm not able to explain or even begin to devise a way why caldari would put the well being of the group in front of the well being of the person.

You can actually see both attitudes within the same culture on Earth.  For example, in Australia, the typically capitalist pursuit of wealth by some has run, for most of our history, alongside a more collectivist ideal, with individuals contributing from often scant personal resources to projects such as lending libraries, mortgage lotteries, schools (in the days before free education), scholarship funds, and salaries for elected officials (in the days before elected officials were paid) so that those not independently wealthy could still stand for election.  People contributed to all these knowing they might not, and in some cases certainly would not, benefit personally.

Former New South Wales Labor Premier Neville Wran described it (and I am sure he pinched it from somewhere else) as 'rising with your class, not out of your class'.

I find it very easy to imagine that two cultures, separated for a period and then interacting, could nonetheless develop very different value systems.

Also, it's worth remembering that the Gallente article describes the Federation as having a comprehensive welfare system - indicating that not all Gallente cultural/political values are purely individualistic.

I imagine both societies as more complex than the eve-o-pedia articles describe - just as our own cultures are more complex than wikipedia articles!

[orange]

I return to the following.

The Caldari and Gallente are two branches of the same interplanetary culture.

then i'm not able to explain or even begin to devise a way why caldari would put the well being of the group in front of the well being of the person.

Because at the Exodus the Caldari did not flee Caldari Prime for open terraformed verdant worlds where a single man and his agri-drones could build a homestead and survive on their own (the American ideal of liberty is somewhat wrapped up in this ideal).

At the Exodus, the Caldari crammed themselves into spaceships with limited resources and fled to space stations with hardware limits on how many people they could support effectively and limited total support for an influx of refugees (assumes a lack of replicators a la Star Trek).   On top of this, the rebelling Caldari then had to turn and fight the Federation to defend these limited resources (and potentially terraforming worlds*).

When living in a resource constrained system priorities become much more straight-forward.   Resource discipline & efficiency become ideas taught to children before they can walk.  Acknowledgment/acceptance that individual sacrifice ensures the survival of the whole (be it the colony, company, military unit, or nascent State) because should the worst happen, your life may be forfeit as the station/ship section is isolated to save the rest.  Now maintain that for 3 generations (100 years of war).

*This goes back to engineering preferences of the corporations involved.  If the Caldari generally lacked the expertise to terraform worlds, then it becomes a slower process as they learn that skill set.  Add to this the very real possibility of scorched world tactics by either accelerating terraformation to uncontrollable conditions or by interrupting it mid-terraformation.  If we assume that previous civilizations had also engaged in terraformation, there worlds may have either failed due to lack of on-going maintenance or become overgrown by nature itself.

[Svetlana Scarlet]

They weren't on ships forever though, they had places to go. Most of my speculation about the shaping of the Caldari psyche focused on the Caldari experience just after the collapse of the Eve Gate and prior to contact with the Gallente, when they were surviving on a harsh world with limited resources.

[Vieve]

In the development of the ante bellum Federation, what were the preferences of various groups?   Did Gallente favor & push for terraforming, while the Caldari accepted more spartan living conditions?  Why didn't these two groups, who for hundreds of years worked hand-in-hand merge?

I've been assuming that in the earliest days of colonization (that is, while the stargate network was being built), Gallente, Caldari and hybrid colonization interests all pointed themselves at systems based on survey data and simply hoped for the best.  They chose planets based on their perceived ability to support life without terraforming, or with whatever terraforming could be done in a relatively short period of time with the equipment or resources they were able to bring or believed they would be able to extract once they arrived in system.¹

After the stargate network became established, colonization became less a question of "can this world sustain life with minimal intervention" and more a question of "are there resources on this world that make it economically feasible for us to make it habitable"?  I think Seyllin I is a good example of planets that likely weren't settled during the pre-stargate era. 

¹I've always been willing to argue that Caldari colonizers in general favored worlds with harsher conditions than Gallente colonizers found optimal, and that this may have been one of the factors that discouraged their merging as peoples. Couple that with the notion that there may have been relatively few joint colonization efforts between the two peoples. One of these days, I should get around to posting my ridiculous ideas about pre-CDS-era Gallente-Caldari cooperation.  That is, if the new PF hasn't already contradicted them.

[Ciarente]

[mod]Topic split to move discussions about gene-modding, kresh, et al to its own topic. Please let me know if you think a post has been mis-allocated so I can fixor.  [/mod]

[Desiderya]

Seems like Heth has lost a bit of his crazy and is also back in the public again.

[ArtOfLight]

Seems like Heth has lost a bit of his crazy and is also back in the public again.

Perhaps being shot at was a good wake up call for him.

[Samira Kernher]

Reports of Unrest among Kaalakiota Factory Workers

[Svetlana Scarlet]

The schadenfreude, it is delicious. Death to populists.