From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume99/288 Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="----------------------------" To: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se Reply-To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se ------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain blakes7-d Digest Volume 99 : Issue 288 Today's Topics: Re: [B7L] ["Danni Lighter" ] New Horizon Policy Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience [B7L] On "bad" episodes... Re: [B7L] Lightergate Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes... RE: [B7L] On "bad" episodes... [B7L] Re: Horizon policy Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #285 [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Re: [B7L] Spatials, speed and relativity Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes... [B7L] Horizon Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 02:05:42 PDT From: "Hellen Paskaleva" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] ["Danni Lighter" ] New Horizon Policy Message-ID: <19991010090543.33426.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > >Calle wrote, RE anti-slash message: > > > >> This got stuck in the spamtrap... You should let it stay there... Hellen ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 13:06:38 +0100 From: "Una McCormack" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience Message-ID: <00c001bf1317$edfa1b70$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mistral wrote: > Una McCormack wrote: > > Hmm, not sure I totally agree. Surely you can take authority by force and > > coercion, like the Federation. You could argue that acting obediently > > through fear is tantamount to complicity (in that *Blake* chose to fight), > > but when you act obediently because you've been drugged or brainwashed is > > another matter. Sometimes the choice isn't there. > > There's a difference between rule and authority. > > You can rule by force. Authority's given, and has more of > responsibilities in it than of rights. > > Mistral, charter member of hair-splitters anonymous God preserve me from people who are precise with their terminology! ;) OK, 'authority', n. 1. The right *or power* to act, command, enforce laws, exact obedience, determine, or judge. The Federation were an authoritarian regime, and I suspect they were also (mostly) acting legally - note Soolin's exchange with Vila in 'Blake'. There is a superb story in Neil's new zine 'Pressure Point' which deals with these issues: 'Drug-Induced Tranquillity' by Christine Lacey. Hugely recommended, as is the whole zine. Una ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 06:15:12 -0700 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience Message-ID: <3800915F.DDBCC27D@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Una McCormack wrote: > Mistral wrote: > > > Una McCormack wrote: > > > Hmm, not sure I totally agree. Surely you can take authority by force and > > > coercion, like the Federation. You could argue that acting obediently > > > through fear is tantamount to complicity (in that *Blake* chose to fight), > > > > but when you act obediently because you've been drugged or brainwashed is > > > another matter. Sometimes the choice isn't there. > > > > There's a difference between rule and authority. > > > > You can rule by force. Authority's given, and has more of > > responsibilities in it than of rights. > > > > Mistral, charter member of hair-splitters anonymous > > God preserve me from people who are precise with their terminology! ;) > > You do realize if we check five different dictionaries, we'll get five different definitions? ;-) > OK, 'authority', n. 1. The right *or power* to act, command, enforce laws, > exact obedience, determine, or judge. I do think that power in this case must be meant as granted power, rather than the power of force; otherwise that would imply that any group who can seize control of a government would have the authority to do so, and you return to the idea of 'might makes right', where no government is illegitimate, because the ability to take power is its own justification. The bully down the street may have the power to force me to do his will, but he has no real authority to do so, would you say? > The Federation were an authoritarian regime, and I suspect they were also > (mostly) acting legally - note Soolin's exchange with Vila in 'Blake'. The Federation gives me the impression, however, of being a legitimate government that became corrupted, rather than a conquering or usurping force. The people had indeed given it the authority, and the government depended to a certain extent on the people continuing to do so, else there wouldn't have been so much bother about what to do with Blake. If the masses were drugged *into insensibility*, they could have just executed him. Probably the 'ins' depended primarily on giving the impression of being a benign or even a benevolent government, in order to retain their authority. Just a thought, Mistral -- "Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!" --Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 17:54:38 +0100 From: "Una McCormack" To: "B7 List" Subject: Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience Message-ID: <00ec01bf1340$2ae7eb20$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mistral wrote: > Una wrote: > > > > > You do realize if we check five different dictionaries, we'll get > five different definitions? ;-) Yes, I know, but as we were struggling with terminology it seemed sensible to provide one baseline from which we could operate. I assumed that a dictionary definition would be more useful than just making one up, e.g. 'authority', n. 1. Whatever Una says ;) > > OK, 'authority', n. 1. The right *or power* to act, command, enforce laws, > > exact obedience, determine, or judge. > > I do think that power in this case must be meant as granted > power, rather than the power of force; otherwise that would > imply that any group who can seize control of a government > would have the authority to do so, and you return to the idea > of 'might makes right', where no government is illegitimate, > because the ability to take power is its own justification. > > The bully down the street may have the power to force me > to do his will, but he has no real authority to do so, would > you say? But he or she does *not* have that authority because there are *laws in our country to prevent it*. But if there were laws which encouraged it or did not prevent it, then she or he *would* have the authority. This is my point about legal and illegal activities. You're making a *moral* judgement about what you consider legitimate authority based on the status quo in our own society. The whole point is that that legitimate authority is contingent. In an authoritarian regime, it's legal to commit many acts which would be illegal under other systems. Whether it's *right* or not is another debate entirely! > > The Federation were an authoritarian regime, and I suspect they were also > > (mostly) acting legally - note Soolin's exchange with Vila in 'Blake'. > > The Federation gives me the impression, however, of being a > legitimate government that became corrupted, rather than a > conquering or usurping force. The people had indeed given it > the authority, and the government depended to a certain extent > on the people continuing to do so, else there wouldn't have been > so much bother about what to do with Blake. If the masses were > drugged *into insensibility*, they could have just executed him. > Probably the 'ins' depended primarily on giving the impression > of being a benign or even a benevolent government, in order to > retain their authority. I tend to assume that the Federation emerged after some great disaster (the Atomic Wars) and a dictatorship or strong government was easy to justify or welcome in the face of extreme pressures. We see this society at a stage when humanity is back on its feet and it can no longer be so easily justified; unfortunately, those in command are not keen to give up power. I find Servalan a much more interesting character when she's portrayed as seeing strong government as a necessity rather than just being plain bonkers. Una ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 19:58:45 +0300 (EET DST) From: Kai V Karmanheimo To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] On "bad" episodes... Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hello This is my first posting, delayed because of some technical difficulties, so excuse me if everything I am saying is old news. I just wanted to contribute to the recent discussion on which Blake's 7 episodes are considered "bad" and why. I find something interesting in just about every episode in the series, and even some of the more pedestrian examples can be pleasing in their own way. For example, "Ultrawold" is a collection of space opera cliches (a mind-absorbing computer, the we-want-to-observe-human-mating-rituals gag, relying on FX to pad out the story and the importance-of-being-illogical moral - even if it is treated with irony) with little of the character complexity and moral ambiguity that is central in B7's attempt to transcend the limits of that subgenre. Still I find it holds together and moves along nicely. It's inoffensive, easily digestible, even entertaining (bubblegum B7), just so far from the best of what B7 has to offer. Uninspired, not bad. In contrast, "Dawn of the Gods" is even more hampered by comic book cliches and plot turns, not to mention inconsistencies with the rest of the series in characterisation, dialogue and concept level. While I think that overall this is one of the worst episodes in the series, there are some great small bits here too (Vila's spacesuit scene, Orac's commentary while Zen zaps the demolition crew), which prompt further screenings. Both of these episodes feel somewhat out-of-place in the series. Of course in both cases it was the writer's first script for Blake's 7, though having read some of Follett's and Hoyle's printed fiction, I notice they consistently come up with interesting ideas only to mar them with cliched plots and conservative solutions. Then again, "Sarcophagus" was Tanith Lee's first B7 script, and that episode is also somewhat out-of-place in terms of mood and characterisation - and I think it's one of the best episodes in the series. Okay, what am I saying? I guess that there are scraps of solid gold even at the bottom of B7's barrel. But then you knew that already, didn't you? Kai Karmanheimo ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 19:43:23 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Lightergate Message-ID: <008e01bf1355$3fe9d460$6d1cac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kathryn wrote: >Darn, stop confusing me! That is actually a reasonable point you >make. I guess it depends on whether one considers the whole on a >personal level or on a political one. On a personal level, it would >be aiding and abetting a betrayal of trust. On a political level, it >would be constituents discussing a leaked cabinet document. I think the question we ought to ask is, is it in the fandom public's interest to know? In this case I would say yes. This isn't a saucy titbit of committee gossip, it is a proposal (and we should remember that at this stage it is still nothing more than a proposal) that if implemented will have serious repercussions not only for adult/slash writers and readers, but also many gen writers/readers, since many dealers market both. (For example, although I don't write adult myself, most of best stuff is in Judith P's zines, and this proposal could effectively prevent Judith from advertising through Horizon, and perhaps even from from dealing at some conventions. So I - like anyone else who has written for Judith - stand to lose readers. And as a writer, I want readers.) >Thing is, what I don't want to see is hysterical and acrimonious >name-calling in a public forum. Agreed, that is totally counter-productive. I make no secret of the fact that I utterly loathe Diane Gies, but at the same time I have to acknowledge that her services to fandom are considerable. >In any dispute, surely the most >sensible thing to do is to talk to the person with whom one has the >dispute - in this case, Diane Gies? What I would prefer to see is the Horizon committee accountable to the membership - but it isn't. Policy decisions seem to be formulated and implemented without any consultation at all. When I was Letterzine editor for Horizon, I was instructed to make certain cuts to some LOCs because they mentioned things that Gies didn't want up for discussion. I was also told not to indicate which letters had been cut, or where, or why. My suggestion that the subscribers, if not the club members as a whole, be polled on what they wanted to see was instantly vetoed on the grounds that they would have to be informed of the issues in question in order to make a decision. Not wishing to be an accessory to keeping people in the dark (and quite needlessly, as I still believe), I fled Horizon and started up AltaZine. Certainly if I'd been on the net in those days, and got an e-mail from Gies explicitly stating the secretive way in which club policy was to be implemented, I'd have leaked it to the Lyst straight off. But I wasn't online then, and now I'm no longer a member of Horizon. Do current Horizon members on the Lyst have any opinion on this? Neil ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:24:26 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes... Message-ID: <008f01bf1355$4105a4a0$6d1cac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kai wrote: >This is my first posting, delayed because of some technical difficulties, >so excuse me if everything I am saying is old news. I just wanted to >contribute to the recent discussion on which Blake's 7 episodes are >considered "bad" and why. Virtually every newcomer ends up treading old ground sooner rather than later. Think of it as an initiation rite to prove your fanhood. And welcome to the Lyst. > >I find something interesting in just about every episode in the series, >and even some of the more pedestrian examples can be pleasing in their own >way. Guess that's why I like Bounty so much. >Then again, "Sarcophagus" was Tanith Lee's first B7 script, and that >episode is also somewhat out-of-place in terms of mood and >characterisation - and I think it's one of the best episodes in the >series. You are not alone. >Okay, what am I saying? I guess that there are scraps of solid gold even >at the bottom of B7's barrel. But then you knew that already, didn't you? Different people rate episodes according to different criteria (as Una McCormack has analysed in her in-depth study http://www.q-research.connectfree.co.uk/personal/blake.htm )). FWIW, I'm one of those people who take an episode in its entirety and weigh up the 'good' and the 'bad' before pronouncing judgement - and if the 'bad' heavily outweighs the 'good', then the good moments do not redeem the episode. My least favourites are: Not Terribly Good: Headhunter The Keeper Volcano Harvest of Kairos Not Really All That Good At All Animals Stardrive The Web Assassin Bloody Awful Duel ####ing Awful Dawn of the Gods Nope, Ultraworld doesn't make the worst-ever list. And neither does Moloch. (Nor even Power, despite my profound disagreement with the implicit attitude of the scriptwriter.) Silliness (of script or visual design), cliche, and a tendency towards fantasy rather than SF all earn bad marks from me. Put all three together (as in DotG) and the episode hasn't a prayer. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 23:23:00 +0200 From: Jacqueline Thijsen To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: RE: [B7L] On "bad" episodes... Message-ID: <39DCDDFD014ED21185C300104BB3F99F795910@NL-ARN-MAIL01> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Kai Karmanheimo wrote: > For example, "Ultrawold" is a collection of space opera > cliches (a mind-absorbing computer, the > we-want-to-observe-human-mating-rituals gag, That may have been cliche, but the line "Was that the bonding ceremony?", after Dayna's bomb went off still has me giggling. Jacqueline ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:28:07 +0100 From: "Andrew Ellis" To: "Lysator List" Subject: [B7L] Re: Horizon policy Message-ID: <024f01bf1365$4105ff80$1510063e@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Judith, amidst a long rebuttal of some of Diane Gies' PRIVATE thoughts said, > ....it always seems to me that people from both sides (if indeed there are sides) can live together quite happily and share what they both enjoy. The Lysator list and Freedom City live happily alongside one another - many of us are members of both. > and what a sensible policy that is. I don't want the material from Freedom City - so I don't go there, and I appriaciate the fact that the people who do like that sort of thing have somewhere to go. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:35:47 +0100 From: "Andrew Ellis" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #285 Message-ID: <025001bf1365$578c4b60$1510063e@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I said, >> Of course, Quantum Mechanics allows strictly secure key distribution using a >> technique called Quantum Cryptography, so all that messing about getting >> Cally captured, in order to obtain the Federation cyper machine suggests >> that Blakes 7 isn't a quantum world either. and then Avona said... > If I was a Federation scientist, I think I'd want to >use my unbreakable cipher to send private messages that Big Brother >couldn't read. How's that for a reason that technology isn't in official >use? > But all the best scientists are mercenaries (well Avon is at any rate), and would have sold it to the Federation. But the Federation could very well reserve its use solely for critical messages only, and keep its existence a secret, good point. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:49:47 +0100 From: "Andrew Ellis" To: "Blake's 7 list" Subject: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Message-ID: <025101bf1365$59a3e0c0$1510063e@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kathryn said, > >Yep. If and when this thing becomes official Horizon policy, we can >disuss it then. Until then, let us politely pretend we haven't seen >it. (Apart from Judith P who really does have a right to defend >herself against slander). What we may say privately is another >matter, but we probably shouldn't discuss this in a public forum. >Give Horizon a chance to discuss it amongst themselves first. >Who knows, they may change their minds. > Hear hear, if you believe in the right to publish slash, you must also believe in the right to talk about it, in PRIVATE. One point I will raise before somebody suggests we drop this thread. There is obviously a line between acceptable and unacceptable. The only problem is that different people have different views on where the line should be. What is acceptable to a sun worshipper from the 7 th sector is probably unacceptable to a veteran trooper from the 5th legion. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:10:46 +0100 From: "Andrew Ellis" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Spatials, speed and relativity Message-ID: <025201bf1365$5dddb9e0$1510063e@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Neil wrote >Actually, B7 is so far ahead that relativity and quantum mechanics would >probably be relegated to the same quaint-but-useless file as Copernicus and >Aristotle. Blake and his contemporaries would view the universe as >described by Squirble's Theory, which states that a ship will be forced to >flee from hordes of pursuit ships just before one of the two crew members >down on the planet breaks his ankle. > I agree that Squirble's Theory probably applies to sub TD11 travel, but to get up to TD12 in REAL TIME, well that needs the Jaberwiggle Transform to be applied. But seriously, all SCIENTIFIC theories build on prior theories, that is after all the nature of science. Special Relativity is a refinement of Newtonian Mechanics. General Relativity is a refinement of Special Relativity. But within the bounds of their own approximations, each theory still remains valid. You can calculate the motion of a planet using any of the three and get a good enough answer (or even of the liberator moving under the influence of a gravity generator which resembles a black whole). So Squirble's theory is a refinement of .... which is a refinement of .......... of the Grand Unified Theory. For example, chaos theory does not replace any early 20th century theories, it simply points out, and formalises, that they are all very susceptible to the boundary conditions in the limit of a many body problem. We could thus postulate that squirble's theory describes the way that a motive force, simultaneously propelling a vehicle and producing a logarithmic time distortion, could arise when the lines of determinism are extracted from the fundamental chaos embedded within that 21st century theory of quantum gravity in a peculiarly "Self Similar" fashion. I put the last bit in to be trendy and up to date in late 1990's theoretical maths, rather than late 1980's. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:59:34 +0100 From: "Una McCormack" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes... Message-ID: <003001bf136a$c6f55050$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Neil wrote: > Different people rate episodes according to different criteria (as Una > McCormack has analysed in her in-depth study > http://www.q-research.connectfree.co.uk/personal/blake.htm )). Hey! Citation! It's almost like being a proper academic! Una ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:11:21 -0600 From: "Ellynne G." To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Horizon Message-ID: <19991010.223102.3318.0.Rilliara@juno.com> >One point I will raise before somebody suggests we drop this thread. >There >is obviously a line between acceptable and unacceptable. The only >problem is >that different people have different views on where the line should >be. What >is acceptable to a sun worshipper from the 7 th sector is probably >unacceptable to a veteran trooper from the 5th legion. > >Andrew Just so long as people don't use the difference of opinion to avoid making the decisions they agree need to be made. There was a court case in the US where the jury, to determine guilt, had to determine community standards (OK, it was more complicated, but I'm trying to keep this short). They voted not guilty. The problem? When polled afterwards, members of the jury said that, while the actions in question fit their _personal_ standards for criminal/unethical activity, they didn't feel entitled to make that judgement for the community. Apparently, no one explained the law decided community standards in this case by getting TWELVE people together and ASKING them. So, what's the question here? Legal or technical definitions of porn? Not so far. As I understand it, the question is whether Horizon 1) has a right to make certain decisions about advertising and 2) whether it is making this decision in a legitimate fashion. For number 1, the answer is probably yes. In the US, at least, certain standards of fairness have to be kept usually (the usually is generally covered in the mixed success of various lawsuits), but there's a lot of leeway. I know of a magazine that was specifically forbidden to carry advertising from any local businesses by the owner. Basically, the law here agrees that the _right_ to speak does not necessarily mean the right to a _forum_ to speak. The internet, being international, may someday rewrite the laws on this. At present, it tends to be less regulated than most other public forums. I'd give Horizon good odds on this. The second question is where it gets sticky. Does Horizon have rules of debate for this kind of thing? Voting? I have to admit not having a clue how it's run. What kind of consequences is it likely to deal with if it offends enough of its fan base? Horizon may only be liable through the social-economic consequences of its decision. So where do I stand personally on all this? I don't know. I don't care for explicit material and I appreciate warnings to help me avoid them. I think some people go on about freedom of speech as if it were truly unlimited, never mind you can't yell fire in a movie theater (unless there is one). On the other hand, I can still vividly remembering being one of only three people to stand up in a mock senate to defend the rights of a group who appalled me in every way, shape and form. Ironically, there were several people present who had world views a lot similar to this group's who voted against them. In fact, the three of us who voted in favor were all conservative, religious minorities and, like I said, about as far apart from this bunch as it was possible to get. But we all said essentially the same thing. We cited times from recent history when people had made similar arguments against our peoples (i.e., they're weird, get rid of them), and we had suffered the consequences. Eep, this is long. OK, summary. I've got strong feelings against explicit material and have an obligation to say so. Beyond that, I'm unsure what steps I can or should take. I do know the legal situation on limiting it, however, is murky at best (unless material is deliberately given to minors or people who don't want it [or if it can be construed as deliberate threat, although that isn't much of the stuff in question--unless someone really has a killer mutoid working for them?]). However, the same defenses generally apply to privately owned forums to provide or refuse advertising. This does not mean these forums are not subject to checks and balances outside the legal arena odr that their supporters can, er, cease to support them if they don't like their decisions. I should point out this can cut both ways, with a fan base reacting negatively to material included as well as material rejected. Ellynne Who is Trying to Figure How Her Standards Balance with the Community's ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 05:01:30 -0700 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience Message-ID: <3801D199.C60EDFA4@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Una McCormack wrote: > I assumed that a dictionary definition would be more useful than just making > one up, e.g. 'authority', n. 1. Whatever Una says ;) Works for me :) Actually, although I do tend to be the one running for the dictionary, dictionaries are supposed to follow usage, not the other way around (which I often find frustrating.) The flexibility of the English language is both its beauty and its curse. Probably why we're having this discussion :) > > > OK, 'authority', n. 1. The right *or power* to act, command, enforce > laws, > > > exact obedience, determine, or judge. > > > > I do think that power in this case must be meant as granted > > power, rather than the power of force; otherwise that would > > imply that any group who can seize control of a government > > would have the authority to do so, and you return to the idea > > of 'might makes right', where no government is illegitimate, > > because the ability to take power is its own justification. > > > > The bully down the street may have the power to force me > > to do his will, but he has no real authority to do so, would > > you say? > > But he or she does *not* have that authority because there are *laws in our > country to prevent it*. But if there were laws which encouraged it or did > not prevent it, then she or he *would* have the authority. > > This is my point about legal and illegal activities. You're making a *moral* > judgement about what you consider legitimate authority based on the status > quo in our own society. Er, the status quo in society is just about the *last* thing I'd *ever* base a moral judgment on. Unless I've misunderstood what you're saying? > The whole point is that that legitimate authority is > contingent. > > In an authoritarian regime, it's legal to commit many acts which would be > illegal under other systems. Whether it's *right* or not is another debate > entirely! Sure, I totally agree with you about legality not equalling morality. But the question seems to be where does a government *get* its authority? Contingent on what? I don't think legality and authority are the same, either. If they were, then Blake could have no authority on the Liberator, because he's there illegally in the first place. (Just to be clear, I don't equate authority and morality, either.) The definition you quoted talked about the right to command as well as the ability. Surely you don't mean the ability to conquer people gives one the right to do so? Conquered peoples rarely accept the *authority* of the invaders anytime soon. That's what the French resistance was about. > I tend to assume that the Federation emerged after some great disaster (the > Atomic Wars) and a dictatorship or strong government was easy to justify or > welcome in the face of extreme pressures. We see this society at a stage > when humanity is back on its feet and it can no longer be so easily > justified; unfortunately, those in command are not keen to give up power. I > find Servalan a much more interesting character when she's portrayed as > seeing strong government as a necessity rather than just being plain > bonkers. You see, now I am confused; as if we've swapped sides. It sounds to me that you're saying the Federation lost its legitimacy when the people no longer wanted that type of government; in other words, its authority was granted? Perhaps the problem is that I am associating authority with legitimacy and you are associating it with control? But then I have to rely on the point you brought up, about obedience being tantamount to complicity. In which case the bully has authority over me, legal or not; but only because I cede it to him. About Servalan, I totally agree. Mistral (whose brain is beginning to ache) -- "Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!" --Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D. -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #288 **************************************