GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

What were the independents fighting for?

POSTED BY: CHRONICTHEHEDGEHOG
UPDATED: Thursday, August 3, 2006 01:29
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1369
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 2:01 AM

CHRONICTHEHEDGEHOG


Okay, that might sound like a stupid question (independence, duh), but had the independents won the war, how would the system of government have worked? Would it be planet-wide governments? Because as I see it, that's just as bad as the Alliance. So what, country wide governments? Settlements?

What were they actually fighting for?

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

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

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

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 2:05 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Each planet had their own system of government, which was consolidated under the Alliance after they won the war. The Independents wanted to hold on to their particular laws and customs. The Alliance could have the Core if they wanted it.
The Alliance had a good system; they thought they were doing right. But any government that big is going to become sooooo corupt. And they did. Totalitarianism, when they really just wanted everyone to be treated fairly. Too bad it tends to work that way.


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

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 2:07 AM

SPACEANJL


Individual rule by planet, I think. Persephone for the Perps, Boros for the Bores, sorta thing.

There is a Parliament on Londinium that determines the laws etc of the Alliance, and it would seem that a certain number of worlds are represented there. How the economics of individual rule were going to work, who can tell? A large planet with an army was going to find smaller planets to stomp. These are just people, and looking around now, I don't think five hundred years will make a lot of odds.

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

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 2:10 AM

BOOKSWORD


Quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Each planet had their own system of government, which was consolidated under the Alliance after they won the war. The Independents wanted to hold on to their particular laws and customs. The Alliance could have the Core if they wanted it.
The Alliance had a good system; they thought they were doing right. But any government that big is going to become sooooo corupt. And they did. Totalitarianism, when they really just wanted everyone to be treated fairly. Too bad it tends to work that way.










Who knows, given some time. Also with the whole Miranda thing the 'good' people of the Core will stop accepting things down for the greater good and make the goverment what it should be all along and not what it is slowly becoming or already is.

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

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 2:26 AM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER


Quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Each planet had their own system of government, which was consolidated under the Alliance after they won the war. The Independents wanted to hold on to their particular laws and customs. The Alliance could have the Core if they wanted it.
The Alliance had a good system; they thought they were doing right. But any government that big is going to become sooooo corupt. And they did. Totalitarianism, when they really just wanted everyone to be treated fairly. Too bad it tends to work that way.




That's what I like about you Phoenix. Before I even have a chance to respond to a thread, you speak my mind for me.

One thing to add though, the only people that benefitted from the Unification (as evidenced by the suffering on many planets and the Alliance's tendancy to ignore them) was the Alliance. Now they get to tax all the planets and force them to adhere to their laws, but they don't do anything to help them. The Independants were fighting for planetary soverignity and individual freedoms, the latter of which is a comodity even in todays society.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

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

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 3:53 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


Quote:

Originally posted by babywiththepower:
One thing to add though, the only people that benefitted from the Unification (as evidenced by the suffering on many planets and the Alliance's tendancy to ignore them) was the Alliance. Now they get to tax all the planets and force them to adhere to their laws, but they don't do anything to help them. The Independants were fighting for planetary soverignity and individual freedoms, the latter of which is a comodity even in todays society.




Exactly. The Independents were fighting for the right of self government and freedom from the neglect and unwanted rule of the Alliance. Planetary sovereignty was their right as they saw it, reinforced by the fact that the Alliance did nothing to aid them in their daily struggles as is evidenced in the series and commented on by several characters during the series.

__________________________________________

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org


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

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 4:04 AM

PURPLEBELLY


Money. It's always the money

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

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 4:05 AM

PELL


The Alliance fought for belief without concern for reality.

The Independants fight to survive. Plain and simple. Look at Miranda, those folks had no choice...



Pell
Browncoat Signal Corps
Volunteer

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

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 4:11 AM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


I almost don't think they knew, exactly. At least, most of the soldiers on the ground didn't. Maybe the generals had an idea, but only Joss can really tell you that. The war, and the fighting, was more about fighting against evil than establishing something else that was good.

---

Forgive me, for I am new.

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

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 5:32 AM

CHRONICTHEHEDGEHOG


Quote:

Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Quote:

Originally posted by babywiththepower:
One thing to add though, the only people that benefitted from the Unification (as evidenced by the suffering on many planets and the Alliance's tendancy to ignore them) was the Alliance. Now they get to tax all the planets and force them to adhere to their laws, but they don't do anything to help them. The Independants were fighting for planetary soverignity and individual freedoms, the latter of which is a comodity even in todays society.




Exactly. The Independents were fighting for the right of self government and freedom from the neglect and unwanted rule of the Alliance. Planetary sovereignty was their right as they saw it, reinforced by the fact that the Alliance did nothing to aid them in their daily struggles as is evidenced in the series and commented on by several characters during the series.

__________________________________________

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org




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?

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

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

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

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 5:48 AM

AGENTROUKA


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 6:13 AM

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.

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

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 6:31 AM

CHRONICTHEHEDGEHOG


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 6:44 AM

NANITE1018


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 7:31 AM

CYBERSNARK


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 3, 2006 1:29 AM

DONCOAT


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL