Philosophy Governing The Star Wars Galaxy

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Hmmm, I think with your comparison, the Death Star is something only a galactic level government can build. There really isn't an equivalent to modern day. Star Destroyers/Capital Ships are like tanks to today's world. Someone can build a couple hundred tanks in secret if they have enough money.

The Clone Wars was more about controlling key planets rather than a system by system take over. With hyperspace lanes, there are super efficient space highways in Star Wars. Controlling these lanes, key manufacturing planets, and key resource planets was the extent of the conflict. 2 million clones means less than one clone per inhabited system even at the low end of size estimates for Star Wars.


It is honestly hard to say. I suspect that a lot of low level jobs are fairly automated with droids or computer systems. These systems operate more through inertia most likely than anything else. Coruscant itself is very interesting since you literally have super rich people living on top of super poor people. The class divide doesn't get any more real than here. I would suspect a very tiered system and people having 'connects' at least in the middle class. The lower class is just screwed over in the under city. How to fix that......well no idea. Coruscant is just as bad but different than the galaxy as a whole.



The issue is how many corresponding systems said trade has to pass through first. If Corellia decided to tax all shipments through its sector by 0.5% for space traffic control, that is going to be a lot of credits and impact millions of systems in terms of end costs. If every system did this....it gets insane. A good example of this not working are how US States functioned before the US as a whole came to be.



They are a corporation since they are the only entities that can ship enough goods at the galactic level. This is where a lot of problems come into play, since they have a lot of really large ships that need protection, and freedom to travel. Trade is needed since things like Bacta, droids, ships, tibana gas, hyper matter refineries, and various other items are only produced on certain worlds. Sure places can go it alone or a small group of systems, but they are inferior to the abilities and costs of large corporations. It is both a nation state AND a corporation, the Trade Federation had a senate seat as a point of reference.

Even if a government controlled 10 systems, that is not enough to counter a mega-corp. You need 100+ minimum, and even then the trade network, credits coming in from other systems, will allow them to field a larger force than any comparative sized government.



The issue is that with the size of Star Wars and the 3D nature, it is more like WW1 on steroids than WW2. If each group of systems is allowed to independently align foreign policy, the sheer diplomatic and spying costs would be astronomical. This would force larger blocs to form for protection, with the cycle continually repeating until the galaxy was destroyed or a single bloc triumphed. Unlike planetary warfare, there are no galaxy ending weapons like nuclear weapons to create a stalemate. Any super weapons needs an incredible amount of capital investment, so any government with 10%+ control of the galaxy could reasonably build one, but would drain their economy and leave themselves open. This is why the eventual state of the galaxy would be a single polity, since there is no threat of complete annihilation. Sure the Sith got genocided, but their vast Empire still remained and the Republic gobbled it up, systems and all.

1. You're quoting logistically impossible factors to try to claim that small-scale nations wouldn't be functional. Bad writing isn't a justification for impossible governmental systems. Economy of scale can give you advantages in hypermatter production, but that doesn't make fundamentally unstable governments needed to give crushing advantages to a handful of systems in the galaxy the ability to exist in the first place.

2. Regarding trade, Space is very big and mostly empty. It's extremely easy to just not go through systems that try to charge you for trying to ship through their territory. If most states try to stick high prices on shipping through their territory, this will incentivize other states to charge much smaller amounts, thus getting them some income, or none at all, and get some income from being a refueling hub since it doesn't tack extra costs on for ships to stop there to refuel/resupply. Frankly, you trying to cite tax and space traffic control makes it clear that you do not have a very good understanding of how space works, at least in this regard.

3. Your cited example about the Trade Federation holding a senate seat supports my point, not opposes it. It's a nation run like a corporation, and the problems there are inter-nation problems, not 'our corporation in your territory' problems.

4. You can always just not trade with a corporation, and that will prevent them from doing nasty things to your economy from the inside. If they're a corporate state and threaten war, well, wars are examples of things that regular nations have to deal with all the time. Much stronger nations fight much weaker nations regularly as well, there's plenty of examples throughout history.

5. Space being 3 dimensional in no way changes any of the fundamental problems involved with trying to form a unified super-state. In real life, a land-locked nation only particularly needs to worry about its neighbors. A coastal nation needs to worry about any nation with a powerful navy, especially if it's a primarily coastal nation, like Chile or Denmark. Space being 3-dimensional has somewhat similar effects.


It is not human nature to peacefully default to gradually-coalescing super-national identities and cultures that come closer and closer together, conglomerating into unitary states. There are literally zero examples of that ever happening in human history; the closest it's ever come would perhaps be Australia, which is to this day mostly empty space, and the British colonists mostly left the Aborigines to keep doing things as they pleased, while the colonists took (and still take) up small enough amounts of space relative to the continent as a whole, that it's not a real conflict or issue.

If the Star Wars galaxy is sufficiently dominated by drastically non-human psychology, then the whole thing is either an exercise in futility, or author fiat, whichever you prefer.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
2. Regarding trade, Space is very big and mostly empty. It's extremely easy to just not go through systems that try to charge you for trying to ship through their territory. If most states try to stick high prices on shipping through their territory, this will incentivize other states to charge much smaller amounts, thus getting them some income, or none at all, and get some income from being a refueling hub since it doesn't tack extra costs on for ships to stop there to refuel/resupply. Frankly, you trying to cite tax and space traffic control makes it clear that you do not have a very good understanding of how space works, at least in this regard.
This one I'm gonna disagree with. Star Wars hyperdrive is actually absurdly limited, very fast but you have to travel across very specific paths with it, or you probably die (this tends to get quietly ignored in vs. debates where Star Wars' extremely fast travel speed is discussed). That's why things like Interdictor Star Destroyers worked, ships really couldn't take other routes to go around them. One of the reasons Correllia is so stupid influential and powerful despite being a single planet is because about 40% of the few major trade routes pass through the Correllia system so a tiny tax on space travel through their system let them make bank.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Well you can make blind hyperspace jumps. Its just like really not wise.

Your not statistically likely to end up in a star or black hole, but more likely in the middle of nowhere thousands of light years away from any planet or other ship, force help you if your ship's systems have broken down.

Also smaller routes are used all the time-not just the big hyperlanes. But they move a lot.

Think of hyperspace like a canyon or indention in real space-it changes with the movement of stars, planets, black holes etc...

Also astromech droids do a lot of the calculations and trigonometry to determine where the ship is, where it has to go, how many stops, etc...

Its actually very math heavy. So you have navicomputers and astromechs that in the modern era do most of the work-thus making travel mostly easy. Though in uncharted space or in another galaxy-you'd need to take really small jumps or try your luck going blind.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
This one I'm gonna disagree with. Star Wars hyperdrive is actually absurdly limited, very fast but you have to travel across very specific paths with it, or you probably die (this tends to get quietly ignored in vs. debates where Star Wars' extremely fast travel speed is discussed). That's why things like Interdictor Star Destroyers worked, ships really couldn't take other routes to go around them. One of the reasons Correllia is so stupid influential and powerful despite being a single planet is because about 40% of the few major trade routes pass through the Correllia system so a tiny tax on space travel through their system let them make bank.

That popped up as a direct element in literally none of the movies or books I've seen or read, which is most of the original EU, and all of the movies except the most recent.

Looking at the sources for that page, it seems to come exclusively from game manuals and the like. So, tertiary source of canon material.

If we do take that at face value though, there's still a very simple way to respond to that:

Don't trade on the lanes that are too expensive to be profitable.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Hyperspace lanes are relatively stable-they aren't changing all the time. The big hyperlanes have been around nearly 20,000 years in some cases.
 

PeliusAnar

Well-known member
1. You're quoting logistically impossible factors to try to claim that small-scale nations wouldn't be functional. Bad writing isn't a justification for impossible governmental systems. Economy of scale can give you advantages in hypermatter production, but that doesn't make fundamentally unstable governments needed to give crushing advantages to a handful of systems in the galaxy the ability to exist in the first place.

2. Regarding trade, Space is very big and mostly empty. It's extremely easy to just not go through systems that try to charge you for trying to ship through their territory. If most states try to stick high prices on shipping through their territory, this will incentivize other states to charge much smaller amounts, thus getting them some income, or none at all, and get some income from being a refueling hub since it doesn't tack extra costs on for ships to stop there to refuel/resupply. Frankly, you trying to cite tax and space traffic control makes it clear that you do not have a very good understanding of how space works, at least in this regard.

3. Your cited example about the Trade Federation holding a senate seat supports my point, not opposes it. It's a nation run like a corporation, and the problems there are inter-nation problems, not 'our corporation in your territory' problems.

4. You can always just not trade with a corporation, and that will prevent them from doing nasty things to your economy from the inside. If they're a corporate state and threaten war, well, wars are examples of things that regular nations have to deal with all the time. Much stronger nations fight much weaker nations regularly as well, there's plenty of examples throughout history.

5. Space being 3 dimensional in no way changes any of the fundamental problems involved with trying to form a unified super-state. In real life, a land-locked nation only particularly needs to worry about its neighbors. A coastal nation needs to worry about any nation with a powerful navy, especially if it's a primarily coastal nation, like Chile or Denmark. Space being 3-dimensional has somewhat similar effects.


It is not human nature to peacefully default to gradually-coalescing super-national identities and cultures that come closer and closer together, conglomerating into unitary states. There are literally zero examples of that ever happening in human history; the closest it's ever come would perhaps be Australia, which is to this day mostly empty space, and the British colonists mostly left the Aborigines to keep doing things as they pleased, while the colonists took (and still take) up small enough amounts of space relative to the continent as a whole, that it's not a real conflict or issue.

If the Star Wars galaxy is sufficiently dominated by drastically non-human psychology, then the whole thing is either an exercise in futility, or author fiat, whichever you prefer.
1. Bacta can only produced on a single planet. Same with that one type of mind spice on Kessel. Full stop. Massive ship yards that can build capital ships are present in about 10 or so systems. Most of the production is centered on Kuat with its massive orbital ring. Tibanna gas is only present in certain gas giants and you need large refineries. There are a number of rare materials like cortosis or kyber crystals that are also system limited. The sheer amount of metal/components needed would focus the supply chain. I recommend reading Instruments of Destruction, which is a brilliant take on the construction of the 2nd Death Star and how supply chains work. The most relevant point is about turbo laser batteries, and how the original Death Star created a glut in demand, but when it was completed all the plants scaled back and it wasn't just the main plant, but the entire supply chain feeding components and raw materials into it.

Look at how food is set up today. In the US food producers either produce for stores or restaurants and have very little crossover, which has led to food shortages. This is because they became specialized. In a galaxy like Star Wars, I am sure the mega-corps have consolidated production to key worlds they control to maximize cost savings and ease of distribution. There has never been a wide scale shut down of the hyper lanes, but I think the Vong war in Legends might have touched on this issue of routes being disrupted. Probably to a lesser extent the Clone Wars with Kamino being the only place for clones.

2. Star Wars has hyper lanes/routes. These routes allow faster travel than just shooting blindly through space, due to not having any gravity wells. Hence the term Carrollian Route or the Hyperion Way. Just like major interstates, you are very rarely going to have trucks go onto the back roads to get to their destination even with tolls. The time and effort to go around is not worth while. This is even in cannon since the last movie they had to take a specific path, despite being able to hyper skip everywhere. Heck you have things like the Kessel Run, 12 parsecs, which is through a specific area of space.

3. Then you need to clarify when corporations that are larger than some nations have corporate problems vs national problems. If it is just on the use of force, well Disney has their own police force but they aren't a separate power and still a corporation. I guess the main difference is that an independent nation weather it is corporation or not would not be part of another nation's senate. So as long as the Trade Federation is represented in the Republic, it is a corporation with the power of many systems combined.

4. The Naboo people are very upset at this. They pay taxes to the Republic and even have representation, but were still invaded and nothing was done. The sheer difference in strength is far different than anything in what we can observe today. Naboo only had one interstellar ship, the size of a small frigate. The Trade Federation had 10s of capital sized ships, thousands of fighters, and hundred thousands of droids. To say a system should fight up a massive inter-system force is silly.

5. It is how many systems there are in the galaxy that would create millions of nation systems. In Europe you could count nobles, not nations, in the hundreds, maybe thousands. Multiply that by a thousand, and then another thousand. That is the minimum of the scale of the problem you are dealing with if everything fractures to the system level. Again comparing the scope to present day doesn't work due to the sheer size of the Star War's setting.

6. The issue was always communication time and travel time. Star Wars has very good FTL communications and FTL travel between known worlds. If you look at WW2, if there was no atom bomb, there is a very good chance of a global war USSR/US instead of a cold war. Travel time and communications had reached the critical point for hegemony of known area. In Star Wars, this known area is a bit in flux but constantly expanding. While the Republic has been around for forever, it started off much smaller and gobbled up new territory, cough Sith Empires cough, as they became available. The main difference is that there is no nuclear equivalent in Star Wars. Sure there are super weapons, but they tend to be one offs and while they do damage they don't have staying power or a total Galactic wipeout like nuclear weapons would have on Earth.

As time progresses, the chance of war between two systems becomes more likely, in turn as time progresses war will eventually end with unification, if not just wait for it to happen. Spread this out across thousands of years, various systems will slowly gobble each other up. Since the level of destruction never reached destructive proportions on a widespread level this trend will continue onwards. Sure some system groups will shatter due to internal division, but as time keeps going everything moves towards hegemony. This is due to the ease of communication and travel. It took longer to travel/communicate across the Roman Empire then it does across the galaxy in Star Wars.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
And when you have a powerful polity spreading outward-like the early republic-it will absorb local systems and polities in this way. Like a mudslide accumulating bits of dirt and soil. Not that it didn’t have times where expansion was slower but it spread quickly for 7,000-10,000 years. And didn’t really reach the end of its expansion until around 3000 BBY in legends.

Even then it did not control everything.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Depends, is SW really the best setting thematically for that? A good argument can be made that a large scale entity-a republic or empire or "galactic federation" is crucial to the themes, motifs, and tropes which make SW, SW.
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
Depends, is SW really the best setting thematically for that? A good argument can be made that a large scale entity-a republic or empire or "galactic federation" is crucial to the themes, motifs, and tropes which make SW, SW.
No clue I'm not talking "thematically" whatever that means. I'm talking if it was a legit polity.
 

PeliusAnar

Well-known member
No clue I'm not talking "thematically" whatever that means. I'm talking if it was a legit polity.
I think that the various systems will join together to fight resist other systems over time, eventually forming a galaxy wide government. How long said government lasts and the type depends, but unless there is a deterring factor, (Limited communications/travel, super weapons, bigger government), then through wars and time various systems will combine with each other either for protection or through conquest.

The issue then becomes one of size. Even with all the technology, the vastness and size of Star Wars setting puts a huge pressure on the central government. The biggest issue appears to be the mega-corporations, which are needed for any kind of efficacy in trade and resource production for stuff like capital ships and tibanna gas. This was the key problem that led to the Clone Wars. Large mega-corps exploiting outer rim systems, with said systems having very little say in their government, especially in relation to the mega-corps.

The problem comes from the need to ship stuff all over the galaxy, which requires a large fleet that is armed to prevent piracy, while at the same time stopping these corporations from military adventurism. Since these mega-corps can control large groups of Systems, they can get representation in any kind of proportional representational system. The flip side is that an Empire cracking down is exactly what Palpatine did. So is there any other way to limit the power of mega-corps, while keeping their military adventurism under wraps, allowing trade as efficiently as possible, and not resorting to an Empire level beat stick?

I think that a Corporatocracy might be the answer, with groups buying shares to equal their representation/votes. That way everyone has to literally buy into the government, and people can try to gain more control. The bad part with this is that the rich will tend to stay in power and rich, and turnover in regards to large volumes of shares will be difficult. Also the danger of a single group gathering up all the shares under their control as well, but with enough competing interests and a large initial spread of shares this has a good chance of being prevented at least for a very long time.
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
With regards to the need for armed ships to resist piracy, I'd say legislating a convoy system, where dedicated combat vessels belonging to the sector governments travel alongside the trade fleets that aren't allowed anything above their own fighter cover, would probably be the best way to "disempower" them from having their own military forces.

The incorporation process for trans-galactic trading organizations could additionally exclude them from participation in any corporatism, alongside mandating system-bound resources be held under exclusively local authorities. In other words, the long-distance trade groups can only participate in trade at the galactic level, but in exchange are given the status of protected trade.

Sure, it's trivial to hold those by bribery and other methods of proxy, but the trade groups operate under Galactic law while the local facilities operate under their sector's laws, meaning that the sector government has an essentially irrevocable thing to hold over the trade group if it tries to butt in. And actual military vessels of their own where the trade group can only have fighter cover, unless they've bribed a higher level into helping them first or can get a formal declaration of war from an existing puppet.

Speaking of which, sanctioned methods of war between member states. It's going to happen, but having an overarching government with greater power means somebody who can set rules for it. Including arbitration of surrender terms by higher level governments, and a forbidence of total war being declared between peers or from a superior to their immediate subordinate, or vice versa for that matter.

The penalties for violating the arbitration clauses amount to being stuck paying for the excess damages caused by forcing the war to drag on longer, and if you've pissed off your boss's boss enough for them to want to try genociding you, there's a non-zero chance you deserve it and this covers huge leaps of rebellion by having a very extreme punishment. If you want to conquer a huge chunk of space, you can do it, but have to do it one layer at a time, and continue upholding Galactic law in the regions conquered. If you try to throw out layers of governance to hold direct power over a huge chunk of the Galaxy, your ass is getting dogpiled, and if you try to shut down protected trade, you will be obliterated with extreme prejudice.

In essence, the final purpose of the top-level government ought to be essentially to act as an enforcer of international law so Galactic civilization is stable, rather than quite so much a government in its own right. A UN with teeth and legs of its own.
 

PeliusAnar

Well-known member
With regards to the need for armed ships to resist piracy, I'd say legislating a convoy system, where dedicated combat vessels belonging to the sector governments travel alongside the trade fleets that aren't allowed anything above their own fighter cover, would probably be the best way to "disempower" them from having their own military forces.

The incorporation process for trans-galactic trading organizations could additionally exclude them from participation in any corporatism, alongside mandating system-bound resources be held under exclusively local authorities. In other words, the long-distance trade groups can only participate in trade at the galactic level, but in exchange are given the status of protected trade.

Sure, it's trivial to hold those by bribery and other methods of proxy, but the trade groups operate under Galactic law while the local facilities operate under their sector's laws, meaning that the sector government has an essentially irrevocable thing to hold over the trade group if it tries to butt in. And actual military vessels of their own where the trade group can only have fighter cover, unless they've bribed a higher level into helping them first or can get a formal declaration of war from an existing puppet.

Speaking of which, sanctioned methods of war between member states. It's going to happen, but having an overarching government with greater power means somebody who can set rules for it. Including arbitration of surrender terms by higher level governments, and a forbidence of total war being declared between peers or from a superior to their immediate subordinate, or vice versa for that matter.

The penalties for violating the arbitration clauses amount to being stuck paying for the excess damages caused by forcing the war to drag on longer, and if you've pissed off your boss's boss enough for them to want to try genociding you, there's a non-zero chance you deserve it and this covers huge leaps of rebellion by having a very extreme punishment. If you want to conquer a huge chunk of space, you can do it, but have to do it one layer at a time, and continue upholding Galactic law in the regions conquered. If you try to throw out layers of governance to hold direct power over a huge chunk of the Galaxy, your ass is getting dogpiled, and if you try to shut down protected trade, you will be obliterated with extreme prejudice.

In essence, the final purpose of the top-level government ought to be essentially to act as an enforcer of international law so Galactic civilization is stable, rather than quite so much a government in its own right. A UN with teeth and legs of its own.

The risk of stripping capital trade ships of the ability to defend themselves, is who is responsible for a loss in the event of piracy. If the trade mega-corps are held responsible, then they can easily black list systems as 'too risky' and force them to terms. If you put the risk on the local system they can easily be forced into bankruptcy and servitude if a capital ship is destroyed in their system. If you put it on the Galactic government, then they would have to pay for a lot of ship cover, which would impact costs by increasing the number of ships needed.

I guess this could be the backbone of the Galactic Government. Have a fleet whose primary duty is to protect trade groups/patrol. This is actually not a bad option for snipping mega-corps in the bud while having a sizable military and presence in the galaxy. The military could release patrol times and invite trade groups and other ships to travel with them. This would leave space open when the military isn't patrolling, but that was already the case.

The main issue is the vast increase in military costs. Taxing galactic level trade by charging ships that are nearby during a patrol would probably be the best way. Like a moving toll booth. Systems that don't adhere to galactic law can be cut off. Now the main question is, how is the top-level of government organized? Because I doubt the rim systems would like everything dictated by the core worlds or having power blocs favor one group over another. The second question would touch on military adventurism, having a large military invites the risk of warlords coming about.
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
The risk of stripping capital trade ships of the ability to defend themselves, is who is responsible for a loss in the event of piracy. If the trade mega-corps are held responsible, then they can easily black list systems as 'too risky' and force them to terms. If you put the risk on the local system they can easily be forced into bankruptcy and servitude if a capital ship is destroyed in their system. If you put it on the Galactic government, then they would have to pay for a lot of ship cover, which would impact costs by increasing the number of ships needed.

I guess this could be the backbone of the Galactic Government. Have a fleet whose primary duty is to protect trade groups/patrol. This is actually not a bad option for snipping mega-corps in the bud while having a sizable military and presence in the galaxy. The military could release patrol times and invite trade groups and other ships to travel with them. This would leave space open when the military isn't patrolling, but that was already the case.

The main issue is the vast increase in military costs. Taxing galactic level trade by charging ships that are nearby during a patrol would probably be the best way. Like a moving toll booth. Systems that don't adhere to galactic law can be cut off. Now the main question is, how is the top-level of government organized? Because I doubt the rim systems would like everything dictated by the core worlds or having power blocs favor one group over another. The second question would touch on military adventurism, having a large military invites the risk of warlords coming about.
Couldn't you mandate the corps carry insurance on thier own dime. So if a ship is fragged Warsgeico or whatever has to pay? Putting the cost directly on the Corp and not the state
 

PeliusAnar

Well-known member
Couldn't you mandate the corps carry insurance on thier own dime. So if a ship is fragged Warsgeico or whatever has to pay? Putting the cost directly on the Corp and not the state
The corp would say that X systems are too risky to trade with and embargo. This can then be flipped around and if they don't like a system enough or think it will benefit in the long run, lose a ship and then embargo. Basically it gives the corp the right to cut off trade if you put the responsibility of protecting their ship on them. In addition they will ask to be allowed to defend their ships, allowing a vast fleet that is armed, which is what happened with the Trade Federation. The Republic was like, 'Its your problem.' they were like, 'Okay.' and then bought all the guns, fighters, and droids.
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
Hm. I'm going to go off of the numbers of 100 quadrillion and 50 million systems.

So, I once heard that, as a basic rule of thumb, an effective number of representatives would be about the cube root of the population. So, of 100 quadrillion, cubed would suggest a representative body of about 500,000. So, a large body, but not impossible to handle.

One interesting thing about the Star Wars Galaxy is that conversation and travel are pretty quick. This seem to suggest it doesn't really take more than, at most, a couple of days to get anywhere. At least going fast: there's some suggestion that, for example, bulk freighters travel slower.

So, on travel time, things aren't much worse than being on Earth alone: If each planet/sector had an election, you could basically change out everyone in about the same time as our current government bodies change people out.

Likewise with sending out forces: If there was a problem, one could send a fleet out to Coresant about as quickly as the US military can deploy to anywhere on earth. Of course, the US doesn't apply a huge amount of control over the world. Heck, the US doesn't have an immense amount of control over a lot of power. They have the ability to bring a lot of power to bear when they want to.

So, likewise, If you had a core of planets, say representing some 10% of Galactic power, or even 1% of galactic power, then that group could exert sovereignty over the entire galaxy, simply on being more powerful than any other block and being able to apply immense power if they choose to.

So, ruling the galaxy doesn't really take an immense amount of power (as long as no major opposing blocks can form).

This is generally more or less practicle based on all the reasons its listed as being so hard, which means major power blocks forming organically is difficult, and it would be all the more difficult when existing powers are around and willing to exert power to prevent disobedience.

For example, the FBI can be pretty effective at gathering intelligence, keeping an eye on much of the bureaucracy, and crushing people who engage in excessive corruption or treasonous (either to the state or political power) despite only having some 30,000 members to police a nation of 300 million. 10,000 to 1 for a population of 100 Quadrillion suggests the Galactic FBI, to have the same footprint as the FBI in the US, would number some 10 trillion. Which is of course a big force, but the FBI is also operated at a fairly low level.

The galactic FBI (GFBI) would, to be a sensible organization, be something concerned with the policing of the elite. So, for example, on Earth you have some 8 billion. However, you only have about 2,000 billionaires. 500 Companies represent about 60% of GDP.

Thus, for ground level FBI policing of earth, you need 800,000 members, in order to observe and police the actual major powers of Earth would take something like 2,500 Agents. So, while there are billions of people, there's only really some, by the approximation of cube root, there's really only about 2,000 people who matter on a global level, which matches about how many billionaires there are.

So, an earth scale planet in an a Galactic Empire, there are only some 2,000 people who would have the power to be relevant on galactic level politics. Say even each one really takes a team of 10 to monitor and audit their organizations operations, your talking about a policing presence of about 20,000 for Earth, assuming access privileges are maintained: when the GFBI comes up with its warrent equivalent and presents it to the CEO demanding he release his books to the GFBI agent, he does so.

So, assuming a similar ratio to the galaxy as a whole of 20,000 agents per, lets round up to 10 billion, since it doesn't change the power rules that much, that's about 1 agent per 500,000. This reduces the number of agents needed for the GFBI from a force of 10 trillion (huge) to a force of 200 Billion. Still an immense force, but not nearly as immense as 10 trillion. If each underling had a hierarchy of 10 underlings reporting to a manager, you could get down to a mere 12 layers of bureaucracy between the field agent and the grand director of Galactic investigation.

But, even this is still dealing with a fairly low level of policing: the Galatic Investigatory Bureu keeping daily tabs on the goings on of the daily happenings of the Planetarily significant who have the resources to dip their toes into Galactic scale politics. Your talking about people who could, if they dedicated significant amounts of resources to it, scrounge up enough resources to build a Star Destroyer by the listed price, but would have no ability to engage in such actions covertly. So, they would not be able to carry out such an operation in secret from even the barest level of monitoring: making sure the Earth was not producing capital grade ships probably requires the most skeletal of monitoring and auditing. And even if someone did build a capital ship in secret, the number that somewhere like Earth could reasonably build (and maintain!) in secret without catching the notice of Galatic auditors is tiny and not materially relevant to Galactic interests. For example, take Coresaunts population of 1 trillion: assuming 1% serve in the military in some function, you have a military of 10 Billion with light mobilization. Which, would be a military larger than the population of Earth, which given Star War's FTL can start deploying against the troublemaker in a couple of days.

So, really, the GFBI only really needs to concern itself (for the mission of enforcing control over those who have enough power to cause serious issues to it) with those who have control over hundreds of billions, who can mobilize resources on a scale large enough to cause major problems for the Galactic Republic. Cube power suggests this is about 10,000 individuals per trillion. So, in that case you might get away with about 100,000 agents per trillion: to keep daily tabs on the activities of the locally rich and powerful, a class consisting of only some 1 billion in the entire galaxy, and giving some extra agents to do random audits of lower levels to keep them more honest, though more importantly to further keep tabs on what the big boy's in power are really doing.

And of course, this is still only dealing with local, regional powerful of the galaxy: if the GFBI only really needed to focus on people with enough power and influence to really participate on galactic scale economics and politics, well, your down to only really needing to monitor a couple of million people in the whole galaxy.
 

PeliusAnar

Well-known member
Hm. I'm going to go off of the numbers of 100 quadrillion and 50 million systems.

So, I once heard that, as a basic rule of thumb, an effective number of representatives would be about the cube root of the population. So, of 100 quadrillion, cubed would suggest a representative body of about 500,000. So, a large body, but not impossible to handle.

One interesting thing about the Star Wars Galaxy is that conversation and travel are pretty quick. This seem to suggest it doesn't really take more than, at most, a couple of days to get anywhere. At least going fast: there's some suggestion that, for example, bulk freighters travel slower.

So, on travel time, things aren't much worse than being on Earth alone: If each planet/sector had an election, you could basically change out everyone in about the same time as our current government bodies change people out.

Likewise with sending out forces: If there was a problem, one could send a fleet out to Coresant about as quickly as the US military can deploy to anywhere on earth. Of course, the US doesn't apply a huge amount of control over the world. Heck, the US doesn't have an immense amount of control over a lot of power. They have the ability to bring a lot of power to bear when they want to.

So, likewise, If you had a core of planets, say representing some 10% of Galactic power, or even 1% of galactic power, then that group could exert sovereignty over the entire galaxy, simply on being more powerful than any other block and being able to apply immense power if they choose to.

So, ruling the galaxy doesn't really take an immense amount of power (as long as no major opposing blocks can form).

This is generally more or less practicle based on all the reasons its listed as being so hard, which means major power blocks forming organically is difficult, and it would be all the more difficult when existing powers are around and willing to exert power to prevent disobedience.

For example, the FBI can be pretty effective at gathering intelligence, keeping an eye on much of the bureaucracy, and crushing people who engage in excessive corruption or treasonous (either to the state or political power) despite only having some 30,000 members to police a nation of 300 million. 10,000 to 1 for a population of 100 Quadrillion suggests the Galactic FBI, to have the same footprint as the FBI in the US, would number some 10 trillion. Which is of course a big force, but the FBI is also operated at a fairly low level.

The galactic FBI (GFBI) would, to be a sensible organization, be something concerned with the policing of the elite. So, for example, on Earth you have some 8 billion. However, you only have about 2,000 billionaires. 500 Companies represent about 60% of GDP.

Thus, for ground level FBI policing of earth, you need 800,000 members, in order to observe and police the actual major powers of Earth would take something like 2,500 Agents. So, while there are billions of people, there's only really some, by the approximation of cube root, there's really only about 2,000 people who matter on a global level, which matches about how many billionaires there are.

So, an earth scale planet in an a Galactic Empire, there are only some 2,000 people who would have the power to be relevant on galactic level politics. Say even each one really takes a team of 10 to monitor and audit their organizations operations, your talking about a policing presence of about 20,000 for Earth, assuming access privileges are maintained: when the GFBI comes up with its warrent equivalent and presents it to the CEO demanding he release his books to the GFBI agent, he does so.

So, assuming a similar ratio to the galaxy as a whole of 20,000 agents per, lets round up to 10 billion, since it doesn't change the power rules that much, that's about 1 agent per 500,000. This reduces the number of agents needed for the GFBI from a force of 10 trillion (huge) to a force of 200 Billion. Still an immense force, but not nearly as immense as 10 trillion. If each underling had a hierarchy of 10 underlings reporting to a manager, you could get down to a mere 12 layers of bureaucracy between the field agent and the grand director of Galactic investigation.

But, even this is still dealing with a fairly low level of policing: the Galatic Investigatory Bureu keeping daily tabs on the goings on of the daily happenings of the Planetarily significant who have the resources to dip their toes into Galactic scale politics. Your talking about people who could, if they dedicated significant amounts of resources to it, scrounge up enough resources to build a Star Destroyer by the listed price, but would have no ability to engage in such actions covertly. So, they would not be able to carry out such an operation in secret from even the barest level of monitoring: making sure the Earth was not producing capital grade ships probably requires the most skeletal of monitoring and auditing. And even if someone did build a capital ship in secret, the number that somewhere like Earth could reasonably build (and maintain!) in secret without catching the notice of Galatic auditors is tiny and not materially relevant to Galactic interests. For example, take Coresaunts population of 1 trillion: assuming 1% serve in the military in some function, you have a military of 10 Billion with light mobilization. Which, would be a military larger than the population of Earth, which given Star War's FTL can start deploying against the troublemaker in a couple of days.

So, really, the GFBI only really needs to concern itself (for the mission of enforcing control over those who have enough power to cause serious issues to it) with those who have control over hundreds of billions, who can mobilize resources on a scale large enough to cause major problems for the Galactic Republic. Cube power suggests this is about 10,000 individuals per trillion. So, in that case you might get away with about 100,000 agents per trillion: to keep daily tabs on the activities of the locally rich and powerful, a class consisting of only some 1 billion in the entire galaxy, and giving some extra agents to do random audits of lower levels to keep them more honest, though more importantly to further keep tabs on what the big boy's in power are really doing.

And of course, this is still only dealing with local, regional powerful of the galaxy: if the GFBI only really needed to focus on people with enough power and influence to really participate on galactic scale economics and politics, well, your down to only really needing to monitor a couple of million people in the whole galaxy.
I do like your idea about a GFBI. The biggest issue would come from the people even further up the wealth pyramid, like the robber barons of the roaring 20s. It is not unreasonable to assume that there are individuals out there who can purchase entire systems and close off access. That is the issue when the setting becomes stupidly large. Even if it isn't individuals the mega-corps can easily control entire systems and have closed off eco systems that can't be monitored like ships or space stations.

The only people we ever see really try to spy are the occasional droid and Force Users. I suppose having the GFBI be primarily a force using organization, it could work. Instead of having a central temple dispatch teams, you would have teams patrol/monitor an area. Still there was only about 10,000 to 20,000 Jedi when Palpatine took power, which was the height of the Jedi. So they would be challenged to police the galaxy due to a lack of numbers, probably why they focused on diplomacy more.

You did mention having 500,000 representatives and I do agree that they can communicate easily enough, but the problem is the sheer amount of communication. All the committees, groups, support staff, would generate a massive amount of grid lock. If each representative puts together 1 piece of legislation a year, no one would have time to read anything. There would probably be political blocs formed, but even getting 10% and managing said group would be challenging. On the other hand, having a such gridlock would make things resistant to change, but ripe for abuse if the executive branch got emergency powers. Taking such powers away would be near impossible once implemented, cough Palpatine, cough.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Am I the only one in favor of a benevolent force monarchy?

Palpatine I think is right here-
" It has been said that anyone who knows the ways of the Force can set her- or himself up as a King on any world where only she or he knows the ways of the Force. Any Jedi could do this. But the Jedi, fools that they are, adhere to a religion in which the Force is used only in the service of others.
How shortsighted of them. Is that not why they lost the galaxy to the dark side?"

Why can't you have a benevolent Jedi monarch? Who reigns in dedication to the light side of the force?

Who has mastered healing, foresight, and the art of finding shatterpoints. Who can rule with wisdom and grace and compassion.

It is my contention, gentleman that such a regime is possible. That the force need not be limited in merely serving those who lack the vision it gives, but that it can be used in the greatest form of service there is.

To rule for others.
 

PeliusAnar

Well-known member
Am I the only one in favor of a benevolent force monarchy?

Palpatine I think is right here-
" It has been said that anyone who knows the ways of the Force can set her- or himself up as a King on any world where only she or he knows the ways of the Force. Any Jedi could do this. But the Jedi, fools that they are, adhere to a religion in which the Force is used only in the service of others.
How shortsighted of them. Is that not why they lost the galaxy to the dark side?"

Why can't you have a benevolent Jedi monarch? Who reigns in dedication to the light side of the force?

Who has mastered healing, foresight, and the art of finding shatterpoints. Who can rule with wisdom and grace and compassion.

It is my contention, gentleman that such a regime is possible. That the force need not be limited in merely serving those who lack the vision it gives, but that it can be used in the greatest form of service there is.

To rule for others.
I would contend that said individual was smarter than all the Dark Siders and is the true Dark Sider. It is like only real Slytherins aren't in Slytherin.

On a more serious note, the issue is that a lot of political positions will involve having to compromise or choosing between the lesser of two evils. Then on the flip side there is the risk of a Lawful Order Paladin type that doesn't compromise. A light side dictatorship would be just as bad as a dark side one just in different ways. Like all that pesky genocide or the Pius Dea Crusades. Twenty four crusades with commissars and inquisitors to purge the galaxy of impurity in the name of the Goddess 12,000-10,000 Years Before Battle of Yavin. No word on if she was the God Emperor's waifu. Some of the Jedi gave up all of that nonsense, but there was a sizable splinter group called Order of the Terrible Glare which happily participated in the purging and crusading against impurity. Their naming sense was clearly lost along with their common sense.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
1. Bacta can only produced on a single planet. Same with that one type of mind spice on Kessel. Full stop. Massive ship yards that can build capital ships are present in about 10 or so systems. Most of the production is centered on Kuat with its massive orbital ring. Tibanna gas is only present in certain gas giants and you need large refineries. There are a number of rare materials like cortosis or kyber crystals that are also system limited. The sheer amount of metal/components needed would focus the supply chain. I recommend reading Instruments of Destruction, which is a brilliant take on the construction of the 2nd Death Star and how supply chains work. The most relevant point is about turbo laser batteries, and how the original Death Star created a glut in demand, but when it was completed all the plants scaled back and it wasn't just the main plant, but the entire supply chain feeding components and raw materials into it.
You do not need Bacta. There are other forms of medicine. The idea that a single planet can provide it to millions of worlds in a galaxy is hard to believe anyways.

You do not need Tibanna gas. There's other types of weapons technology available, canonically, and those gas giants are scattered throughout the galaxy anyways.

Cortosis and Kyber are both insanely niche items, they literally only matter if you're a Jedi/Sith/similar or trying to fight them.

All of these are nice things to have, but the problems of scale in trying to have a nation the size of a galaxy create far more pressure and problems than having any of these things would relieve.

Again, it is not human nature to be so unified and harmonius on a macroscale. It just does not work.

Look at how food is set up today. In the US food producers either produce for stores or restaurants and have very little crossover, which has led to food shortages. This is because they became specialized. In a galaxy like Star Wars, I am sure the mega-corps have consolidated production to key worlds they control to maximize cost savings and ease of distribution. There has never been a wide scale shut down of the hyper lanes, but I think the Vong war in Legends might have touched on this issue of routes being disrupted. Probably to a lesser extent the Clone Wars with Kamino being the only place for clones.
'I am sure.' That's nothing but an assertion, and it completely ignores the costs of shipping a low-value high-bulk good like food, as well as the sheer size of worlds and populations, and how rapidly you can cause mass starvation if there's disruption to a massively inter-dependent food trade system.

There isn't just a world of difference between 'growing potatoes in Idaho and shipping them to Texas,' there's literal worlds. You're making massive assumptions about how things could or would work, then completely hand-waving away the equally-massive logistical and technical difficulties in making that happen, as well as the consequences if those things fail.

It's one thing to have some specialized worlds that are very dependent on food imports. It's another thing to try to have the majority of worlds dependent on food imports. And this is one industry you're trying to make claims about that is vastly more complex than you understand.
2. Star Wars has hyper lanes/routes. These routes allow faster travel than just shooting blindly through space, due to not having any gravity wells. Hence the term Carrollian Route or the Hyperion Way. Just like major interstates, you are very rarely going to have trucks go onto the back roads to get to their destination even with tolls. The time and effort to go around is not worth while. This is even in cannon since the last movie they had to take a specific path, despite being able to hyper skip everywhere. Heck you have things like the Kessel Run, 12 parsecs, which is through a specific area of space.
You're actually wrong about this. You have truckers on 'back' country roads all the time. Not all of them, certainly, but quite a number, and they do so because while it is slower, it is more direct and saves them time. It's not about the tolls, it's about the time saved.

Also, quoting the last couple of Star Wars movies does your argument no credibility, since they were blatantly written by people who are actively ignorant of how things like trade and logistics really work.
3. Then you need to clarify when corporations that are larger than some nations have corporate problems vs national problems. If it is just on the use of force, well Disney has their own police force but they aren't a separate power and still a corporation. I guess the main difference is that an independent nation weather it is corporation or not would not be part of another nation's senate. So as long as the Trade Federation is represented in the Republic, it is a corporation with the power of many systems combined.
I'm not sure what your point here is?

Some corporations are quite powerful, yes. The problem with the prequel trilogy and the Trade Federation isn't that the Trade Federation has militarized, it's the absolutely farcical notion that the Republic could exist without a standing military in the first place. A nation without a military exists purely on the sufferance of other nations.
4. The Naboo people are very upset at this. They pay taxes to the Republic and even have representation, but were still invaded and nothing was done. The sheer difference in strength is far different than anything in what we can observe today. Naboo only had one interstellar ship, the size of a small frigate. The Trade Federation had 10s of capital sized ships, thousands of fighters, and hundred thousands of droids. To say a system should fight up a massive inter-system force is silly.
The idea that the entire planet had jack-all for military is also silly. The idea that the Republic didn't have a standing military capable of smacking the Trade Federation down is even sillier.

To clarify, the people writing this stuff didn't know anything about the subject matter. Naboo (not counting the Gungans) is a human civilization. No planet-wide human civilization would be capable of existing without a military for any meaningful duration, that's not how human societies work.

Naboo was very clearly an idealized 'peaceful and enlightened' civlization, with a romatnicized conception of how it was run and ruled. They have an 'elected monarch,' in an attempt to appeal to the nostalgia for the 'good king' and the 'representative statesman' both at the same time.

If you want to go down the road of fantasy-humans not being like real humans, but instead less evil, more enlightened, less war-like and sinful, then you can have whatever kind of government you want.

That's not a story that real people can relate to as anything more than wish-fulfillment fantasy though. Part of what made the original Star Wars so iconic, and so much of the original Expanded Universe material at that, was because it was a tale both of struggle against external evil (The Empire), and internal evil, Luke trying not to fall to the Dark Side, Vader turning away from it, Han Solo choosing to come back and risk his life even after he'd gotten paid, etc, etc.

The original trilogy also did a very good job of not going into fine detail about the size or scale of the conflict. The Empire is bigger and more powerful than the Rebel Alliance, with large fleets and large numbers of expendable forces. The Rebel Alliance tries to fight in a way to preserve their people while still dealing effective blows, because that's how the good guys fight, treating life as precious as they can in war.

The Prequels had almost entirely lost that. The only character you really see struggling with that, is Anakin, and the way it's written is really shitty.
5. It is how many systems there are in the galaxy that would create millions of nation systems. In Europe you could count nobles, not nations, in the hundreds, maybe thousands. Multiply that by a thousand, and then another thousand. That is the minimum of the scale of the problem you are dealing with if everything fractures to the system level. Again comparing the scope to present day doesn't work due to the sheer size of the Star War's setting.
No, this is not 'the scale of the problem if everything fractures to the system level,' this is the reason that you can't have a monolithic galactic civilization in the first place.

There are too many conflicting interests, too many different people that want to seize power, just too many conflicting factors period.

Feasibly speaking, you wouldn't have everything devolve down to single-system polities, but once things move past hundreds or a few thousand systems, a nation will be too busy trying to not fly apart from all the internal stresses to keep expanding. I'd expect most systems to be part of nations that range from the dozens to low hundreds of systems in total, with some much smaller, and some larger.
6. The issue was always communication time and travel time. Star Wars has very good FTL communications and FTL travel between known worlds. If you look at WW2, if there was no atom bomb, there is a very good chance of a global war USSR/US instead of a cold war. Travel time and communications had reached the critical point for hegemony of known area. In Star Wars, this known area is a bit in flux but constantly expanding. While the Republic has been around for forever, it started off much smaller and gobbled up new territory, cough Sith Empires cough, as they became available. The main difference is that there is no nuclear equivalent in Star Wars. Sure there are super weapons, but they tend to be one offs and while they do damage they don't have staying power or a total Galactic wipeout like nuclear weapons would have on Earth.
No, the issue is not communication and travel time. The British Empire held together for generations in the age of sail, when it could literally take months for word to reach London from a given colony. The British Empire fell apart after WWII, when air travel and radio existed, and thus you could send a message across the world in minutes, and move people and equipment around the world in a couple of days. To be clear, the British Empire endured when communication and travel took weeks and months, and collapsed when that took minutes and hours.

The issue is that every local area has conflicting interests and priorities, and as your nation scales up in size, you have more and more conflicting interests fighting within it. Further, as the scale of a nation becomes more difficult for people to conceptualize an identity around, the people will more and more often build their identity over something more local. You can fight this to a degree, but that only goes so far.
As time progresses, the chance of war between two systems becomes more likely, in turn as time progresses war will eventually end with unification, if not just wait for it to happen. Spread this out across thousands of years, various systems will slowly gobble each other up. Since the level of destruction never reached destructive proportions on a widespread level this trend will continue onwards. Sure some system groups will shatter due to internal division, but as time keeps going everything moves towards hegemony. This is due to the ease of communication and travel. It took longer to travel/communicate across the Roman Empire then it does across the galaxy in Star Wars.
You're completely leaving out that wars can also lead to divisions. The Roman Empire gradually accumulated territory, then it collapsed. So did the Persian Empire. So did the Mongol Empire. So did the British Empire, the German Empire, the French Empire, etc.

If you just completely leave out the decline part of the cycle of nations and civilizations rising and falling, of course you'll end up with an eventual conglomeration into a unified super-state.

But that's not how history actually works out. Things do not naturally move towards hegemony without limit, they naturally move towards hegemony until the internal stresses overcome the strength of the hegemony. Then they start to fall apart.

I'm going to cut back on the spaghetti-post responses after this. It eats a lot of time.

And again, all of this is so long as you're using a human psychology. If you want to have some alien race that is more suited to being a cultural monolith and accepting authoritarian structures, it could work with that. A large human population could tear it apart though.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top