The Dragoon (lore)

From sdeevelopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

All this data is potentially out of date, and should be taken with a truckload of salt

Template:Fiction The Dragoon. Power and justice are the firmest pillars of good government — commonly referred to as Dragoon — is a book written by King Khanid II. The work concerns the structure of society, social contracts, and legitimate government. Not to be confuse with the destroyer-class ship-line Dragoon. It should be noted here, that the book is positive, and does not try to be normative or even constructivistic. Which means neither does he gives a value judgement, nor does the book claim that ideas of science, laws, ’explanation and proof’ are socially constructed. No, quite the opposite, it tries to give a logical and deductive explanation for the principles of governing in positive way. In a positive way — as in positivism — means that Khanid II believes that information derived from logical and mathematical treatments and experiences, which also implies valid knowledge can be found, even truths and universal laws about New Eden. And those truths and laws stands until their falsification. Which means, that Khanid stands in stark contrast to the constructivism, because he believes that ’scientific-explanations and -poofs’ about reality can be made.

The book title is often interpreted in that way, that the Dragoon is the "absolute". Who is above the two the firmest pillars — power and justice — which are the subordinate agencies and the independent agencies; or sometimes in the book referenced as the "fist" and the "brain".

Like the Legalism, it finds application mainly inside the Khanid Kingdom, as well as in some gallente universities as ’Contextual Studies’.


State of nature[edit]

In the state of nature, does Khanid try to denote the hypothetical conditions of what the lives of people might have been like before societies came into existence. During that time where man and woman live without a common power to keep them all in awe and secure, they would be in a condition which is called leaderless, with no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can resolve disputes, enforce law, or order the system. Notable is, that he doesn’t thinks that humankind is neither inherently benevolent, nor self-centered and competitive; or in other words neither good, nor bad. Rather that each model should be based on a worst-case-scenario, which would mean that a selfish, destructive, egocentric man is possible. He describes, that in such a scenario it doesn’t matter if mankind as whole is "evil" or just one man. Or as he goes on: Just the idea of random acts of violence exist. The end result would be the same: Uncertainty.

At this point can be seen, that some gallente scholars have misread or havn’t read him at all. Despite his statement that "man is a wild slaver hound to his fellow man." His reasoning isn’t driven by misanthropy, a hate or disdain of human nature, quite the contrary, he tries to find way out of the state of nature. He famously stated: "Truly. We can only build a society, if we are honest about all the possibilities, then we can speak about the true principles of governing."

He declared in a state of nature, all humans are by nature equal in faculties of body and mind. The differences are so marginal, that nobody can overcome the uncertainty of anarchy. Everybody can kill everybody, even the weakest man can ram a knife in the back the strongest. Even the smartest can fall over themselves or can be killed by lesser in his sleep. It is a war of every man against every man, within the bounds of the law of nature. Khanid even goes so far to stated, that this anarchy — state of nature — still exists between nations, and therefore nations have the same rights to preserve themselves — including making war — as individuals possessed.

Khanid stated for the state of nature:

  • There’s no turning back or around. Nobody can safely turn their back and ignore the state of nature.
  • Everything is fair game. All humans are by nature equal, therefore anyone can be killed. A war of all against all. You can be as pacifistic and peace loving as you like. Your actions doesn't matter; because if the other side decides to kill you or declares a war, you're in a war then, independent from you own convictions.
  • Nothing is as it appears to be. Mankind tries to take their first steps toward truly claiming the heavens as their own, but everyone is naturally willing to fight one another. Roving bandits steal, as they have the liberty to do anything one thinks necessary for preserving one's own life. They, the roving bandits, also destroy the incentive to invest and produce, leaving little for either the population or the bandits. Mankind will only find that in this world, with its limited resources, aren’t any heavens. Nothing is as it appears to be.


Life[edit]

On that topic of life Khanid uses a metaphor: Imagine two people would be floating in open water. With no land in sight, and just a piece of wood could save your life. Only a strong grip would save you for the time until the rescue comes or you can save yourself. But the stubborn wood could hold only one person. Which means, one would die, must die; so that the other can survive. The interesting question is not whether one sacrifices himself, but would you push the other from the float to save yourself? Would it be murder? As for the example in the book — the same scenario could be replay with a single seat escape pod or a fleeing fleet — is expressly stated that self-protection is a primary natural right for every man and woman in the state of nature. He claims that it wouldn’t be murder "because no one can demand, that you give up your life." Which the raises the question could even the Dragoon impose or force someone to give up their life in a later ’state of order’; as it is a natural right? As for the book, it doesn’t give an answer. He only describes in another part of the book that: "It is the duty of the Dragoon to ensure, that a sense of camaraderie is created, as well as the idea that no one is left behind. [...] Those lies are a crucial part to endure a life in the line of fire."


Social contract[edit]

Given these conditions in the state of nature, Khanid concludes that the state of nature would be unbearably brutal. In the state of nature, every person is always in fear of losing his life to another. They have no capacity to ensure the long-term satisfaction of their needs or desires. No long-term or complex cooperation is possible because the state of nature can be aptly described as a state of utter distrust. Given Khanid’s reasonable assumption that most people want first and foremost to avoid their own deaths, he concludes that the state of nature is the worst possible situation in which man can find themselves. It is the state of perpetual and unavoidable war. The situation is not, however, hopeless. Because men are responsible, they can see their way out of such a state by recognizing the laws of nature, which show them the means by which to escape the state of nature and create a civil society; and a social contract.

In this social contract individuals come together and ceded some of their individual rights so that others would cede theirs. This resulted in the establishment of the state, a sovereign entity like the individuals now under its rule used to be, which would create laws to regulate social interactions. Human life was thus no longer "a war of all against all". The contract becomes effective around the idea, that a individual gives up his/her right to kill another individual, if another individual does the same. The contract is a legal transaction. It consists of content matching ideas, with respect to each submitted ’declarations of intent’ (offer and acceptance) from at least two people. This process is repeated until everyone stays in contract with one another. But as Khanid mention this ’declarations of intent’ doesn’t mean, that everyone will hold up to it. Therefore a third party beneficiary is necessary, a person outside of the contract. The last or the remaining wild slaver hound if you like. His duty is to be the receiver of rights. Should a person commit a violation or a breach of the contract, his individual rights are transfers the beneficiary: The Dragoon. Thereby the Dragoon becomes the main authority and power to enforce the initial contract, as he can give legal punishments for breaches of the contract (because as mention, he has gained the legitimacy over the breachers individual rights). He is therefore not just a punisher, he is also enforcement mechanism for the society.


The Dragoon[edit]

720px For Khanid is the Dragoon the instrument — the enforcement mechanism — to end "the war of all against all". He sits at the crossroads offering choices and possibilities — "the contract of all for all" — to man. But even more, he is as enforcement mechanism, a gatekeeper between the ’state of nature’ and the ’state of order’. From this enforcement mechanism can be derived other tasks as well: Like the minimization of unstable or adverse behaviour, or the support national goals and growth, and so on. It can almost be seen as a second contract, but this time are the partners the Dragoon — sovereign — and the individuals. The latter is the way the khanid legalism movement views it: A contract of a sovereign — last wild slaver hound, therefore without any restrictions — and his subjects (not included are slaves).

A cutout of the virtues of the Dragoon:

  • So much depends on the idea of legitimacy. Guard it with your life.
  • Rely on as few people as possible. Small coalitions should be prefer over large coalitions. Khanid noted that large groups will face relatively high costs when attempting to organize for collective action while small groups will face relatively low costs. Furthermore, individuals in large groups will gain less per capita of successful collective action; individuals in small groups will gain more per capita through successful collective action. Hence, in the absence of selective incentives, the incentive for group action diminishes as group size increases, so that large groups are less able to act in their common interest than small ones.
  • Make sure no single ally becomes irreplaceable or to strong, competition and balance of power are key elements. Be the center of the political roaster, so that is cheaper to built alliances with you as around you. Adapt to the circumstances. You are free to re-create yourself, don’t let anything create you. Be the master of your own image rather than letting others define you. That way you never limited yourself in the political decision-making space, as well as negotiating space. You are the Dragoon, decisions, and partners or opponents should be decided by your own choosing.
  • Conceal our intentions. Keep people off-balance, if people have no clue what you are up to, they can’t prepare for defense.
  • Never put too much trust in friends, learn how to use enemies. You have more to fear from friends as from enemies, that counts especially for the international relations.
  • Control the flow of revenue. You don’t need to control the riches and treasures, just control flow of resources and capital. Pay your key supporters just enough to keep them loyal; or even better as payment, give them opportunities were their profit-seeking depends on their own abilities and cunning. The latter is always to prefer as it is easier to take opportunities or even monopolies away again as wealth. Make them dependent on your good will, not on your wallet.
  • Create the necessary collective goods of your social contract (security, etc), which the invisible hand doesn’t provide. Despite free-rider- and rent-seeking-problems, never fall for the idea of a night-watchman state or the other extreme the welfare state. Moreover never fall for the underlining ideals and moral concepts of those ideas. Never belive in a ’New Human’<ref>In most gallente literature the term "New Man" is found for "New Human," but it means the same. The New Man or New Human is a utopian concept that involves the creation of a new ideal human being or citizen replacing un-ideal human beings or citizens. The meaning of a New Man has widely varied and various alternatives have been suggested by a variety of religions and political ideologies.</ref>, always take and work with the given reality. The libertarian ’New Human’ shows a personal responsibility and knowledge<ref>According to Khanid II: Cost-less access to infinite information</ref> which isn’t seen by man. The ultra-social democratic ’New Human’ shows a selflessness and cooperation<ref>According to Khanid II: A cooperation level which ask the question: Why we even need Institutions to moderate conflicts?</ref> which isn’t seen by man. If you love to talk about the ’New Human’, then better become a philosopher and not a Dragoon. Only reality matters, nothing else.
  • Be your own selectorate and the selectorate for your successor. If this isn’t possible have better a large selectorate rather then a small ones, as well as a small winning coalition (see point two). What Khanid tries to say is, that it would be the best if you were the base of your own legitimacy and the legitimacy base for the next Dragoon/heir. If it isn’t possible to be the passing hand, it is better to have a large royal family choosing the next heir (or even a larger group), as a small family. Because: When the selectorate is large and the winning coalition is small exist for the Dragoon a greater chance of political survival, then in a scenario where a very large proportion of selectorate members are also in the winning coalition.
  • The end is everything. Plan all the way to it, taking into account all possible obstacles.

Template:Quote2


Monopoly on violence[edit]

The monopoly on violence in The Dragoon referred to the notion, that only the sovereign — the Dragoon — and his state organs are reserved legitimacy to exercise physical force or to legitimize a third party exercise of physical force. According to Khanid, the sovereign is the source of legitimate physical force. The police and the military are its main instruments, but this doesn’t mean that only public force can be used; private force (as in private security) can be used too, as long as it has legitimacy derived from the sovereign.


Pax Amarria vs. The Dragoon[edit]

Headers like Pax Amarria vs. The Dragoon, or Heideran VII vs. Khanid II, or romanticism vs. enlightenment, or idealism vs. realism, or "peace and justice" vs. "order and progress", philanthropy vs. misanthropy are often use to describe those two very different personalities. Heideran VII was widely known as a peacemaker and seeker of compromises. This led to him being awarded the Aidonis Statue as a champion of interstellar peace.<ref>Chronicle: Heideran Gets the Aidonis: http://community.eveonline.com/backstory/chronicles/heideran-gets-the-aidonis/</ref> His work — the Pax Amarria, which advocated a peaceful and cooperative Empire spreading goodwill<ref>Aidonis Statue. Controversies: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Aidonis_Statue#Controversies</ref> — was, and still is, by far the more popular work.

Generally, Khanid’s book is outside of the Kingdom neither well known nor positively regarded. One of the many reasons is also Khanid’s old statement: "I will not be ordered by some whimpering fool to destroy myself when my work is unfinished. You will not take anything from me, not my kingdom, not my people and least of all my life."<ref>Region Description: Khanid</ref>


The Dragoon in popular culture[edit]

The Dragoon also his way into the pop-culture of New Eden:

  • The Great King: A HoloVision mini-series about the Dakos rebellion.
  • Freedom Fighter VI: The sixth motion picture holoreel in the ’Freedom Fighter’ franchise. The protagonist is a ethnic gallente male, who single handedly fights a crime syndicate which threatens a innocent matari village. The Antagonist — the leader of crime syndicate — is call the Dragoon.
  • Random Acts of Violence: Is a quote out of The Dragoon used as name for a dark-khanid-cyberpunk music band.


Criticism[edit]

The majority of the criticism came from the Federation. A gallente scholar criticized: "The Dragoon is just a stationary bandit who monopolizes and rationalizes theft in the form of taxes. [...] In the end it is just a tyrannical form of government, with an uncontrolled oppressive dictator. [...] Who watches the watchmen? Khanid’s only answer is, that a poor operating Dragoon would be a easy target. As his state would be with ease outperformed and overwhelmed by other states. The anarchic and competitive nature in which the states operate would be unforgiving. Which would left no margin for error, in which only those survive which are fundamentally understand the principles of competition and the balance of power, as well as the tools of self-help, or interdependence, or institutionalism."

A sociocrate criticized, that "Khanid is a step too far, in the state of nature all humans are good, equal and peaceful. But unequality! The emergence of private property and of castes or classes led to the disintegration of the ur-society. The modern society, with their private property, is to blame for the disruption of the communal and natural state of nature which is true freedom." A famous gallente ultra-right wing pundit stated: "Biological equality? The human races and bloodlines aren’t equal. Has the fossil ever heard of anthropology? The human races aren’t different from animals, both are subject to natural selection and the survival of the fittest. It is only the lies of our modern society, that suppresses the obvious truth, and suppresses the heart<ref>The terms ’Heart’ or ’Heartland’ are in gallente nationalistic circles codes for ethnic gallente or residential areas of ethnic gallente.</ref> of the Federation; otherwise we would rule the cluster as master. I'm not shocked this chadlard<ref>Chadlard is a derogatory term for a person of amarrian faith.</ref> [Khanid II], as inferior being, embraced this socialist idea."


See Also[edit]


References[edit]

Template:Reflist