Worldbuilding Realism Consultation Thread Mk. 4

[Minoa]

The Akasha Colony, although it isn't my best choice, given that role-play seems to be a way for me to escape reality, I am willing to clear out the existing role-play parameters of the Minoan state to its core if necessary, and start over.

I think we can agree that the idea of starting over is at least better than doing what the author of Empress Theresa did (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TedsiCaV2B4).

When I have some time, perhaps I may consider a postmodern-era mentor to figure out what needs to be done to make Minoa more palatable in alternate history roleplay, instead of being a mess of piecemeal efforts.

[The Akasha Colony]

The Akasha Colony, although it isn't my best choice, given that role-play seems to be a way for me to escape reality, I am willing to clear out the existing role-play parameters of the Minoan state to its core if necessary, and start over.

I think we can agree that the idea of starting over is at least better than doing what the author of Empress Theresa did (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TedsiCaV2B4).

When I have some time, perhaps I may consider a postmodern-era mentor to figure out what needs to be done to make Minoa more palatable in alternate history roleplay, instead of being a mess of piecemeal efforts.

This is NS, so you can do whatever you want. You have no obligation to make your concept pass my smell test, or anyone else's for that matter.

I understand how years of piecemeal efforts can lead to a very awkward canon and history, but I have no background knowledge on your history and from an objective standpoint, the big picture doesn't add up logically. That's fine if that's how you'd like it to be. Since it's your nation. But (semi-)plausible alternate history is a tricky business. Which is why my alt-history MT nation diverges millennia before the present.

[Kyneland]

Questions:
I. How possible is it for heathenry or paganism to continue existing after the Christianisation of Scandinavia, particularly on an island like my nation?
II. What loopholes in international law could be used to continue repressing Christians/Muslims/Jews and continuing animal sacrifice?
III. What reasoning could I use for Kyneland’s heathen culture persisting?

The answer to all of this is a big army (failing that an atom bomb). A heathen polity can defend itself against outside incursion it can maintain its culture. If it isn't then "international law" will change to eliminate you.

So the only possibility is to build and maintain a hardened defensive army throughout the ages? Is it possible to simply make them hard to convert?

[The Akasha Colony]

So the only possibility is to build and maintain a hardened defensive army throughout the ages? Is it possible to simply make them hard to convert?

If it were possible, clearly no one was actually able to discover it.

[Bears Armed]

Regarding Britain’s hatred for Minoa, it seems that the founder, also to be rewritten also but remaining anti-Brexit, would have to do something big to attract the ire of the UK. Possible ideas could include running a large and successful divestment campaign that sends the UK economy into a spiral due to capital flight

Soros?

I understand how years of piecemeal efforts can lead to a very awkward canon and history,

We used to have a nation in the IDU with three separate histories, all of which ended up -- due to 'realities' merging -- as equally "true"!

The answer to all of this is a big army (failing that an atom bomb). A heathen polity can defend itself against outside incursion it can maintain its culture. If it isn't then "international law" will change to eliminate you.

So the only possibility is to build and maintain a hardened defensive army throughout the ages? Is it possible to simply make them hard to convert?

I suppose that a large enough army, combined with terrain & sheer size, might work if you have them be/become 'Russia' rather than an island further west.

Otherwise, maybe they managed to hide from Christendom until after the crusading urge had worn out? You could have a group of heathens fleeing persecution by a newly-Christian king (maybe St Olaf, in Norway, who in RL massacred some of that country's most powerful lords when they refused to convert; okay, they were potential political rivals too, but that was the excuse he gave..) by deliberately travelling a lonnng way west -- by land [across North America] as well as sea -- and severing ties with Europe completely, so that their descendants weren't re-discovered until the 18th or even early 19th century... although of course that would probably have significant effects on the natives for quite some distance around them, and thus on 'Colonial Era' history, as well... Native Americans who already had iron and [maybe] horses when contacted by 'historical' explorers?

[Kedri]

Since Kedri has a power vacuum, how likely would an oligarchic takeover be?

Kedri was traditionally a hideout for pirates with a minarchist state and direct democracy, and the new government is set up similarly, but since piracy is abandoned and there is little actual infrastructure, Kedri happens to be a loose confederation that came together for moral defense. I’d imagine some particularly wealthy individuals would use their wealth and influence to dictate policy, making the country a de facto oligarchy while being a de hire democratic Republican confederation.

[Great Aletia]

Having nothing there of value or worth would be possible. I think that's why there are some islands off India or near there that have never been colonised.

I'm going to re-post this, because no one replied and I still want some help.

I am trying to figure out a nice government system based on hereditary positions and old European courts. I've got these eight Houses of Lords 'great officers of state', as well as a few Houses of Commons ministers. All are cabinet level positions, and I would like to consult with the people on this thread as to whether these ministerial positions are realistic for a functioning country. Boards in Great Nortend don't have 'Presidents' but instead Chairmen or Masters, probably since 'President' sounds a bit republican and 19th century Nortan governments were at pains to prevent any republican thinking. Cabinet-level boards have masters whereas other boards have chairman.

Lord High Steuard: The speaker of the House of Lords and the senior-most judge under the King, deputising for the King in the Court of the King-in-Council, as well as presiding in impeachment cases in the Court of the Noble Lords. Held by The Earl of Barminster*
Lord High Chancellour: The deputy speaker of the House of Lords and head of the Court of Chancellery and the Court of the Noble Lords. Administratour of church lands and funds and Keeper of the Great Seal of the Realm, and responsible for administrating the courts. Held by the Bishops of Chepingstow, who appoints a Vicar-General to manage his ecclesiastical and religious duties.
Lord High Chamberlain: The head of the Royal Household, and in charge of the Royal palaces and castles, as well as organising ceremonial occasions such as state visits and weddings, and also serves as the King's representative in the House of Lords. Also serves as the Chief Justice of the Court of the Ermine Office. Held by The Earl of Godsucham*
Lord High Treasurer: The controller and official head of the King's Treasury and Exchequer, and Prime Minister of the Government. Held by The Duke of Limmes.
Lord High Admiral: Political and professional head of the Navy Royal. Held by The Duke of Derham
Lord High Constable and the King's Marischal: Originally the commander of the royal armies. Nowadays, the Chief Justice of the King's Marischal and Constable's Court, and Field Marshal of the Royal Army. Held by The Marquess of Lasmere*
Lord Master of the Horse: Responsible for the running of the Royal Mews, hound kennels, stud farm, coaches, carriages and all other equine matters. His remit has expanded into the realm of trade and transport infrastructure in general, and is also ex officio the Lord Master of Trade. Held by The Baron de Stanfield. He appoints a deputy, the Gentleman of the Horse, to manage the day-to-day running of the Royal Mews.

Chancellour of the Exchequer: Deputy to the Lord High Treasurer, he is in charge of the Exchequer, that is, of collecting taxation, duties and levies, raising revenue for the Treasury. Nowadays, he also controls the fiscal policy of the Government. Held by the Rt. Hon. Peter Hofton.
King's Clerk: Minister in charge of home affairs, policing, national security, fire brigades, the constabularies and other domestic matters. Held by the Rt. Hon. Sir Aaron Billings.
Attorney General: Chief law advisor to the Crown, and also has control over most prosecutions by the Crown. Held by the Rt. Hon. Sir Peter Finch.
Foreign Secretary: Minister in charge of foreign affairs and foreign diplomacy. Held by the Rt. Hon. George Drachington.
Secretary at War: Minister in charge of the administration and organisation of the Royal Army. Held by the Rt. Hon. Frederic Hondel.
Postmaster General: Minister in charge of the running of the General Post Office. Held by the Rt. Hon. Sir Lachlan James.
Master of the Board of Education: Responsible for schools, universities, educational standards and colleges. Held by the Rt. Hon. Dr Thomas Wolfuller.
Lord Master of the Board of Agriculture: Responsible for management of agricultural practice, enclosure and surveys parishes by productivity. Held by the Rt. Hon. The Lord Baker.
Master of the Board of Rail: Responsible for the railways, and Second Lord of Trade. Held by the Rt. Hon. Sir William Gouldon.
Master of the Board of Health: Responsible for health services, hospitals, nursing and social care. Held by the Rt. Hon. James Kinson.
Surveyour General of Forests and Woods: Responsible for the administration of Crown land and the Royal Forests. Held by the Rt. Hon. Jonathan Hall.

These are the respective departments/ministries. Have I missed anything crucial?

• His Majesty’s Treasury: Lord High Treasurer (the Prime Minister)
• His Majesty’s Exchequer: Chancellour of the Exchequer
• The Clerk’s Department: The King’s Clerk
• The Foreign Department (Office): Secretary of State for Foreign and Welch Affairs
• The Attorney General’s Office: His Majesty’s Attorney General
• The Lord Chancellour’s Office: Lord High Chancellour
• The Lord Chamberlain’s Office: Lord High Chamberlain
• The Admiralty: Lord High Admiral
• The War Office: Secretary of State at War
• The General Post Office: His Majesty’s Postmaster General
• The Cabinet Office: Minister for the Cabinet Office
• Board of Trade: Lord Master of the Horse
• Board of Agriculture: Lord Master of the Board of Agriculture
• Board of Education: Master of the Board of Education
• Board of Rail: Master of the Board of Rail
• Board of Health: Master of the Board of Health
• The Surveyour General’s Office: His Majesty’s Surveyour General of Forests and Woods

I like your use of ye olde court titles. They are something I adopted into my own nation when I first began designing its government. I have some suggestions though. You are free to reject them, as this is just what I would do if I was using the same titles. If you want to see the titles I'm using and how I'm using them, read the third paragraph under the first spoiler here.

Why are you using using Lord High Steward for speaker of the house instead of the more obvious Lord High Speaker? Why is the chancellor acting as vice speaker instead of foreign minister? The original function of a chancellor was diplomacy after all. I would suggest using Lord High Steward for the head of the royal house, and Lord High Chamberlain for their deputy. I would also suggest using the title of Lord High Secretary somewhere, perhaps for the monarch's personal assistant. I would suggest abolishing the title of Lord Master of the Horse and merging its functions into the title of Lord High Steward. I would suggest placing the Lord High Constable in control of the security service in place of the King's Clerk. Attorney General I would replace with Lord High Justiciar. Placing the army and the navy under separate ministers is a bad idea. I would place both under a new minister titled Lord High Marshal, who would also act as secretary of war. I would place the Master of the Board of Rail in control of the transport ministry, in place of the Lord Master of the Horse, and place the Board of Trade under the Lord High Treasurer.

There are shorter titles you could use, too. For the Chancellor of the Exchequer, you could use Vice Treasurer. You could separate the office of prime minister from that of Lord High Treasurer and establish it as an office in its own right, with the title of Lord High Protector. I know you said you don't like using 'president' but Lord High President could also work here. It could also work as a title for the head of the monarch's privy council, or the civil service. Master of the Board of Rail could simply be Master of Coaches, while Master of the Board of Education could be Master of Schools, Master of the Board of Health could be Lord Hopsitaller. Postmaster General could be Master of Letters, Surveyor General could be Lord Surveyor, and Lord Master of the Board of Agriculture could be Master of Fields. You could translate these titles into Latin if you like. Master of Fields, for example, would be Magister Camporum, assuming I'm translating it correctly.

I would suggest you also take a look at the titles of the Great Officers of the Crown of France. You may find a few interesting titles there.

[Taihei Tengoku]

The answer to all of this is a big army (failing that an atom bomb). A heathen polity can defend itself against outside incursion it can maintain its culture. If it isn't then "international law" will change to eliminate you.

So the only possibility is to build and maintain a hardened defensive army throughout the ages? Is it possible to simply make them hard to convert?

The way people throughout history have resisted Christianization has been through killing Christians. Missionaries are very persistent and have honed their techniques over literally thousands of years. If a pagan society doesn't put the hammer down hard they generally tend to fall into syncretism at the least and often total conversion.

[Darussalam]

I'm currently designing a partially-/wholly-privatized legal system for my country. I have basically zero expertise on the matter, so I am drawing inspiration from David Friedman's works, chiefly Legal Systems Very Different From Ours and Machinery of Freedom, plus Stephenson's Cryptonomicon and Diamond Age for extra aesthetics. The most substantial difference is that while Friedman in both books described what is essentially spontaneous Hayekian order out of chaos (in reality and speculation, respectively), privatized law in my country occurs under the framework of a state that monopolizes violence, which justified the 'marketization' of justice the same way it justified the marketization of other goods and industries - command economy is inefficient and costly. So it's not quite feudalism per se - more like neo-feudalism.

That said, my rationale is probably horribly wrong. Is there any rational reason that doesn't break suspension of belief for a state to willingly concede its monopoly of justice and "outsource" it to private actors?

Let's say that in the first layer, the state technically through the monopoly of force has a final saying to overrule anything (although constrained by constitutional reality). Then patches of its territory is delegated to joint-stock companies which administered the territory as their de jure property and thus provided public goods and services for their residents, including law (yeah I know, but unlike :moldbug: these patches are not sovereign per se). For profit-seeking reason, these companies then might require the residents in their territory to get insurances to cover for potential high maximum liability for legal violations, which then might negotiate terms and services with their customers based on their assessed risk. Or virtually all people will get the insurance whether they're obliged to or not anyway, since the alternative might as well be slavery.

Somewhere in between there are for-profit bounty hunters who replaced much of the police force. Far, far more tentative, speculative, and going more David-Friedmanite, the courts are effectively privatized and deterritorialized - the companies allow multiple legal regimes to flourish and compete in their territory, and insurers offer either their own courts or those agreed upon with their customers and/or disputants.

So to which extent of the "privatization" is the system still quite plausibly sustainable and functional for a well-developed urban civilization? Once again, all of these still occurred under the framework of a monopolist state, so regulations are not out of hand, either by the central authority or local administrative companies. Also, if not, what sort of speculative technology would make the system functional, if there any?

Lastly, do you have any further recommended reading on this matter? (Books, articles, papers are all ok)

Thanks in advance!

[Great Nortend]

Having nothing there of value or worth would be possible. I think that's why there are some islands off India or near there that have never been colonised.

I'm going to re-post this, because no one replied and I still want some help.

I am trying to figure out a nice government system based on hereditary positions and old European courts. I've got these eight Houses of Lords 'great officers of state', as well as a few Houses of Commons ministers. All are cabinet level positions, and I would like to consult with the people on this thread as to whether these ministerial positions are realistic for a functioning country. Boards in Great Nortend don't have 'Presidents' but instead Chairmen or Masters, probably since 'President' sounds a bit republican and 19th century Nortan governments were at pains to prevent any republican thinking. Cabinet-level boards have masters whereas other boards have chairman.

Lord High Steuard: The speaker of the House of Lords and the senior-most judge under the King, deputising for the King in the Court of the King-in-Council, as well as presiding in impeachment cases in the Court of the Noble Lords. Held by The Earl of Barminster*
Lord High Chancellour: The deputy speaker of the House of Lords and head of the Court of Chancellery and the Court of the Noble Lords. Administratour of church lands and funds and Keeper of the Great Seal of the Realm, and responsible for administrating the courts. Held by the Bishops of Chepingstow, who appoints a Vicar-General to manage his ecclesiastical and religious duties.
Lord High Chamberlain: The head of the Royal Household, and in charge of the Royal palaces and castles, as well as organising ceremonial occasions such as state visits and weddings, and also serves as the King's representative in the House of Lords. Also serves as the Chief Justice of the Court of the Ermine Office. Held by The Earl of Godsucham*
Lord High Treasurer: The controller and official head of the King's Treasury and Exchequer, and Prime Minister of the Government. Held by The Duke of Limmes.
Lord High Admiral: Political and professional head of the Navy Royal. Held by The Duke of Derham
Lord High Constable and the King's Marischal: Originally the commander of the royal armies. Nowadays, the Chief Justice of the King's Marischal and Constable's Court, and Field Marshal of the Royal Army. Held by The Marquess of Lasmere*
Lord Master of the Horse: Responsible for the running of the Royal Mews, hound kennels, stud farm, coaches, carriages and all other equine matters. His remit has expanded into the realm of trade and transport infrastructure in general, and is also ex officio the Lord Master of Trade. Held by The Baron de Stanfield. He appoints a deputy, the Gentleman of the Horse, to manage the day-to-day running of the Royal Mews.

Chancellour of the Exchequer: Deputy to the Lord High Treasurer, he is in charge of the Exchequer, that is, of collecting taxation, duties and levies, raising revenue for the Treasury. Nowadays, he also controls the fiscal policy of the Government. Held by the Rt. Hon. Peter Hofton.
King's Clerk: Minister in charge of home affairs, policing, national security, fire brigades, the constabularies and other domestic matters. Held by the Rt. Hon. Sir Aaron Billings.
Attorney General: Chief law advisor to the Crown, and also has control over most prosecutions by the Crown. Held by the Rt. Hon. Sir Peter Finch.
Foreign Secretary: Minister in charge of foreign affairs and foreign diplomacy. Held by the Rt. Hon. George Drachington.
Secretary at War: Minister in charge of the administration and organisation of the Royal Army. Held by the Rt. Hon. Frederic Hondel.
Postmaster General: Minister in charge of the running of the General Post Office. Held by the Rt. Hon. Sir Lachlan James.
Master of the Board of Education: Responsible for schools, universities, educational standards and colleges. Held by the Rt. Hon. Dr Thomas Wolfuller.
Lord Master of the Board of Agriculture: Responsible for management of agricultural practice, enclosure and surveys parishes by productivity. Held by the Rt. Hon. The Lord Baker.
Master of the Board of Rail: Responsible for the railways, and Second Lord of Trade. Held by the Rt. Hon. Sir William Gouldon.
Master of the Board of Health: Responsible for health services, hospitals, nursing and social care. Held by the Rt. Hon. James Kinson.
Surveyour General of Forests and Woods: Responsible for the administration of Crown land and the Royal Forests. Held by the Rt. Hon. Jonathan Hall.

These are the respective departments/ministries. Have I missed anything crucial?

• His Majesty’s Treasury: Lord High Treasurer (the Prime Minister)
• His Majesty’s Exchequer: Chancellour of the Exchequer
• The Clerk’s Department: The King’s Clerk
• The Foreign Department (Office): Secretary of State for Foreign and Welch Affairs
• The Attorney General’s Office: His Majesty’s Attorney General
• The Lord Chancellour’s Office: Lord High Chancellour
• The Lord Chamberlain’s Office: Lord High Chamberlain
• The Admiralty: Lord High Admiral
• The War Office: Secretary of State at War
• The General Post Office: His Majesty’s Postmaster General
• The Cabinet Office: Minister for the Cabinet Office
• Board of Trade: Lord Master of the Horse
• Board of Agriculture: Lord Master of the Board of Agriculture
• Board of Education: Master of the Board of Education
• Board of Rail: Master of the Board of Rail
• Board of Health: Master of the Board of Health
• The Surveyour General’s Office: His Majesty’s Surveyour General of Forests and Woods

I like your use of ye olde court titles. They are something I adopted into my own nation when I first began designing its government. I have some suggestions though. You are free to reject them, as this is just what I would do if I was using the same titles. If you want to see the titles I'm using and how I'm using them, read the third paragraph under the first spoiler here.

Why are you using using Lord High Steward for speaker of the house instead of the more obvious Lord High Speaker? Why is the chancellor acting as vice speaker instead of foreign minister? The original function of a chancellor was diplomacy after all. I would suggest using Lord High Steward for the head of the royal house, and Lord High Chamberlain for their deputy. I would also suggest using the title of Lord High Secretary somewhere, perhaps for the monarch's personal assistant. I would suggest abolishing the title of Lord Master of the Horse and merging its functions into the title of Lord High Steward. I would suggest placing the Lord High Constable in control of the security service in place of the King's Clerk. Attorney General I would replace with Lord High Justiciar. Placing the army and the navy under separate ministers is a bad idea. I would place both under a new minister titled Lord High Marshal, who would also act as secretary of war. I would place the Master of the Board of Rail in control of the transport ministry, in place of the Lord Master of the Horse, and place the Board of Trade under the Lord High Treasurer.

There are shorter titles you could use, too. For the Chancellor of the Exchequer, you could use Vice Treasurer. You could separate the office of prime minister from that of Lord High Treasurer and establish it as an office in its own right, with the title of Lord High Protector. I know you said you don't like using 'president' but Lord High President could also work here. It could also work as a title for the head of the monarch's privy council, or the civil service. Master of the Board of Rail could simply be Master of Coaches, while Master of the Board of Education could be Master of Schools, Master of the Board of Health could be Lord Hopsitaller. Postmaster General could be Master of Letters, Surveyor General could be Lord Surveyor, and Lord Master of the Board of Agriculture could be Master of Fields. You could translate these titles into Latin if you like. Master of Fields, for example, would be Magister Camporum, assuming I'm translating it correctly.

I would suggest you also take a look at the titles of the Great Officers of the Crown of France. You may find a few interesting titles there.

Thank you for your indepth reply. I will attempt to address your suggestions one by one.

1. I chose the Lord High Steuard for the speaker as it seemed fitting given his role as the presiding judge in the House of Lords, which is a court in Great Nortend. Possibly, he would be known in this role as the Lord Speaker, but that would be an honorific title rather than the office, if you get what I mean.

2. I was under the impression that the original function of the chancellor was to oversee the chancellery (I think basically where the people wrote stuff and kept documents) and that it evolved in certain countries to obtain diplomatic roles. He's been given a vice-speaker role because he ranks second in the order of precedence under the Lord High Steuard. I'm not sure how the use of Government members in speakerships would work with regards to neutrality, but perhaps we may assume they are bound by strict convention.

3. The Lord High Chamberlain is in fact subordinate to the Lord High Steuard with regards to the Royal Household but in the sense that he's responsible for the chambers of the household rather than the entire household. The Lord High Steuard is responsible, at least officially, for the entire household.

4. I'm not sure having a secretary in an official Government position would be particularly tenable. Is there any precedent?

5. The problem is that I have trouble rationalising why the Lord High Steuard, who is in control of the entire household, would busy himself with the day-to-day running of the stables, which I have decided was the original remit of the Lord Master of the Horse. I imagined that the former would be much more administrative, leaving day-to-day management of the Royal Household's departments to various officials, being historically:

The King's private chambers and escort: The Lord High Chamberlain
Ecclesiastical: The Lord High Almoner
Ceremonies: The Lord Master of Ceremonies
Writing house: Lord High Chancellour
Stables, kennels and transport: The Lord Master of the Horse
Hunting: The Lord Venerer
The kitchens and food: The Great Master of the Kitchens

Drink and bottle: Master of the Buttery
Bread and Baked goods: Master of the Pantry
Meat: Master of the Larder
Poultry: Master of the Poultry
Fruit: Master of the Fruitery
Cheese: Master of the Fromagery
Cuisine or prepared food: Master of Cosyne
Washing up: Master of the Scullery
Spices: Master of the Spicery
Desserts and sugar confections: Master of the Confectioner

Clothing, goods, furniture: Keeper of the Wardrobe
Crockery, china: Master of the Crockery
Domestic knives, forks, spoons &c of silver: Master of the Cutlery
Music: Master of the Music
Linen: Master of the Napery
Laundry: Master of the Laundry
Water, baths and water vessels: Master of the Ewery
Candles: Master of the Chandlery

6. Good idea! I would do that, but I feel I want to try and give some roles to the Houses of Commons. It seems somewhat undemocratic if the elected ministers have little power.

7. I do have doubts about the suitability of the terms Attorney General and Solicitor General but I am not convinced of the merits of the title 'Lord High Justiciar' and note that the Attorney General is drawn from the Houses of Commons, not the House of Lords.

8. This I would do too, if there were not problems with abolishing the title of Lord High Admiral altogether. As you may have noticed, the holders of these 'archaic' titles are quite protective of their powers and I'm not sure if the LHA would agree to give up his powers... Maybe a Secretary of State for Defence to replace the Secretary of War who would be 'delegated' powers through convention by the Admiral and Constable? I don't want to make it 'Lord High Marshal' because there already is the title of King's Marischal (Marshal) and I think this would be in the remit of the Houses of Commons.

9. Sorry again, I wish to keep the Board of Trade in control of transport, with the Board of Railways (renamed) as a subordinate board or office to it. Also, given the Lord High Treasurer is the Prime Minister, I don't want to give him even more powers.

10. I agree, but I want to be able to clearly differentiate the two and avoid making him the 'deputy Prime Minister', who is properly the Senior Secretary to the Treasury. Perhaps I shall rename it to the Justiciar of the Exchequer (perhaps commonly known as the Justiciar).

11. As above, I don't want to separate the two offices as I think the most important minister surely is the one in control of all of the money!

12. I wish to make them more 'bland' if you will, as they are 'modern' creations and so deserve bland names, like the real-life 'Minister for the Environment, Sport and Community Affairs' or whatever. Your titles are good, and indeed I think I may use them as obsolete titles or ancient titles nowadays only held in serjeanty. For what it's worth, there already is an office of the Lord Master of the Mails, who is the deputy to the Postmaster General. I may rename the Postmaster General.

13. Latin in Great Nortend, though taught, is mainly used in the church and in academics rather than in politics, though it is still used during ceremonies.

14. I think I may decide that there is no uniform civil service in Great Nortend, and that each department or ministry has its own civil servant structure.

I have noticed that I have not agreed with any of your ideas and I am regretful that this is the case. However, I think my explanations have helped me get a better understanding of how the system all works now in my head. I wasn't to be honest looking for name changes, but rather any areas I have missed in terms of jurisdiction. That is, is there any 'field' in which the Government ought to be interested but has no minister attached to it?

[Taihei Tengoku]

I'm currently designing a partially-/wholly-privatized legal system for my country. I have basically zero expertise on the matter, so I am drawing inspiration from David Friedman's works, chiefly Legal Systems Very Different From Ours and Machinery of Freedom, plus Stephenson's Cryptonomicon and Diamond Age for extra aesthetics. The most substantial difference is that while Friedman in both books described what is essentially spontaneous Hayekian order out of chaos (in reality and speculation, respectively), privatized law in my country occurs under the framework of a state that monopolizes violence, which justified the 'marketization' of justice the same way it justified the marketization of other goods and industries - command economy is inefficient and costly. So it's not quite feudalism per se - more like neo-feudalism.

That said, my rationale is probably horribly wrong. Is there any rational reason that doesn't break suspension of belief for a state to willingly concede its monopoly of justice and "outsource" it to private actors?

Let's say that in the first layer, the state technically through the monopoly of force has a final saying to overrule anything (although constrained by constitutional reality). Then patches of its territory is delegated to joint-stock companies which administered the territory as their de jure property and thus provided public goods and services for their residents, including law (yeah I know, but unlike :moldbug: these patches are not sovereign per se). For profit-seeking reason, these companies then might require the residents in their territory to get insurances to cover for potential high maximum liability for legal violations, which then might negotiate terms and services with their customers based on their assessed risk. Or virtually all people will get the insurance whether they're obliged to or not anyway, since the alternative might as well be slavery.

Somewhere in between there are for-profit bounty hunters who replaced much of the police force. Far, far more tentative, speculative, and going more David-Friedmanite, the courts are effectively privatized and deterritorialized - the companies allow multiple legal regimes to flourish and compete in their territory, and insurers offer either their own courts or those agreed upon with their customers and/or disputants.

So to which extent of the "privatization" is the system still quite plausibly sustainable and functional for a well-developed urban civilization? Once again, all of these still occurred under the framework of a monopolist state, so regulations are not out of hand, either by the central authority or local administrative companies. Also, if not, what sort of speculative technology would make the system functional, if there any?

Lastly, do you have any further recommended reading on this matter? (Books, articles, papers are all ok)

Thanks in advance!

A "marketized"/emergent solution is not necessarily always a perfectly competitive market. An optimal, profit-maximizing course of action for a state could be coerced revenue and a monopoly on justice/dispute resolution. In this context it seems like you are proposing some sort of cyberpunk tax farming regime, which has its well-known conflict of interest between the interests of the state tax recipients (long-term revenues on shoestring budget) versus the private tax collectors (short-term $$$$$)

[Bears Armed]

I think on balance, I will have to review how Minoa was founded (Greece, Macedonia, Western Turkey and Blagoevgrad) – there would have to be a strong anti-establishment movement for this to happen (although it is reasonable to expect that the formation of Minoa would happen in stages, such as referendums under international observations), but if I recall correctly, economic crises can be a motivation for revolutions of any kind. If I recall correctly, Erdogan has been messing up Turkey’s economy badly.

It might be most plausible to start the altered history back during WW1: Have the Turkish officer Kemal (who became 'Ataturk' in RL) killed in action, and say that without his subsequent leadership the Turks didn't manage anywhere near as well as was RL the case when the Greeks invaded them after the main war. That could give you an enlarged Greece, with at least parts of both eastern Thrace (although probably not Istanbul, which was under "international" control during the relevant period) and western Anatolia. Most of the Turks & other Muslims would probably have been expelled from those lands (RL saw 'ethnic cleansing' by both sides during the conflict, and an official exchange of [most of] the relevant populations between the two nations anyway).
That probably requires a stronger Greek military afterwards, to hold the border. If there's still a WW2 basically as in RL, and Italy still attacks Greece, then the Greeks might put up an even tougher fight against the Axis.. but Turkey might join the Axis...
Post-WW2 border changes?

[Great Aletia]

I like your use of ye olde court titles. They are something I adopted into my own nation when I first began designing its government. I have some suggestions though. You are free to reject them, as this is just what I would do if I was using the same titles. If you want to see the titles I'm using and how I'm using them, read the third paragraph under the first spoiler here.

Why are you using using Lord High Steward for speaker of the house instead of the more obvious Lord High Speaker? Why is the chancellor acting as vice speaker instead of foreign minister? The original function of a chancellor was diplomacy after all. I would suggest using Lord High Steward for the head of the royal house, and Lord High Chamberlain for their deputy. I would also suggest using the title of Lord High Secretary somewhere, perhaps for the monarch's personal assistant. I would suggest abolishing the title of Lord Master of the Horse and merging its functions into the title of Lord High Steward. I would suggest placing the Lord High Constable in control of the security service in place of the King's Clerk. Attorney General I would replace with Lord High Justiciar. Placing the army and the navy under separate ministers is a bad idea. I would place both under a new minister titled Lord High Marshal, who would also act as secretary of war. I would place the Master of the Board of Rail in control of the transport ministry, in place of the Lord Master of the Horse, and place the Board of Trade under the Lord High Treasurer.

There are shorter titles you could use, too. For the Chancellor of the Exchequer, you could use Vice Treasurer. You could separate the office of prime minister from that of Lord High Treasurer and establish it as an office in its own right, with the title of Lord High Protector. I know you said you don't like using 'president' but Lord High President could also work here. It could also work as a title for the head of the monarch's privy council, or the civil service. Master of the Board of Rail could simply be Master of Coaches, while Master of the Board of Education could be Master of Schools, Master of the Board of Health could be Lord Hopsitaller. Postmaster General could be Master of Letters, Surveyor General could be Lord Surveyor, and Lord Master of the Board of Agriculture could be Master of Fields. You could translate these titles into Latin if you like. Master of Fields, for example, would be Magister Camporum, assuming I'm translating it correctly.

I would suggest you also take a look at the titles of the Great Officers of the Crown of France. You may find a few interesting titles there.

Thank you for your indepth reply. I will attempt to address your suggestions one by one.

snip

1. I was under the impression that the original function of the chancellor was to oversee the chancellery (I think basically where the people wrote stuff and kept documents) and that it evolved in certain countries to obtain diplomatic roles. He's been given a vice-speaker role because he ranks second in the order of precedence under the Lord High Steuard. I'm not sure how the use of Government members in speakerships would work with regards to neutrality, but perhaps we may assume they are bound by strict convention.

snip

2. I'm not sure having a secretary in an official Government position would be particularly tenable. Is there any precedent?

snip

3. This I would do too, if there were not problems with abolishing the title of Lord High Admiral altogether. As you may have noticed, the holders of these 'archaic' titles are quite protective of their powers and I'm not sure if the LHA would agree to give up his powers... Maybe a Secretary of State for Defence to replace the Secretary of War who would be 'delegated' powers through convention by the Admiral and Constable? I don't want to make it 'Lord High Marshal' because there already is the title of King's Marischal (Marshal) and I think this would be in the remit of the Houses of Commons.

snip

4. I have noticed that I have not agreed with any of your ideas and I am regretful that this is the case. However, I think my explanations have helped me get a better understanding of how the system all works now in my head. I wasn't to be honest looking for name changes, but rather any areas I have missed in terms of jurisdiction. That is, is there any 'field' in which the Government ought to be interested but has no minister attached to it?

1. You are right, the original function involved managing the chancellery, which functioned as a writing office for the monarch. This naturally led to it taking on functions relating to foreign affairs.

2. Yes. Secretary was a position in the Scottish government that was responsible for handling petitions to the king and issuing letters patent. The original title was Lord Secretary. It later become Secretary of State.

3. I think a secretary of defence with delegated powers work well. The titles of Lord Admiral and Lord Constable are retained, and administrative control of your armed forces is centralised under one ministry.

4. That's no problem. You have justified the use of those titles, and I can't fault that. They describe what they do while also adding some flavour, and that's what really matters. Now that you mention it, there are some crucial areas you missed, namely science, housing, energy, labour, industry, welfare, or communications. Whether or not you need ministries for those areas depends on your setting and level of technology. If you're modern tech, you will absolutely need them, but if you're past tech and your nation is set in the 1800s, you probably won't. It's not strictly necessary, but you might also consider adding a ministry of culture, with responsibility for tourism, and maybe sport.

[Darussalam]

A "marketized"/emergent solution is not necessarily always a perfectly competitive market. An optimal, profit-maximizing course of action for a state could be coerced revenue and a monopoly on justice/dispute resolution.

Is it "could be" or "necessarily be"? Is there any plausible reason for a state to perceives partial, if not entire, privatization of certain aspects of legal system, such as law enforcement into private police and bounty hunters, for example, as within its best interest?

In this context it seems like you are proposing some sort of cyberpunk tax farming regime, which has its well-known conflict of interest between the interests of the state tax recipients (long-term revenues on shoestring budget) versus the private tax collectors (short-term $$$$$)

In this case, the central authority taxes companies who own the territory-patches according to the unimproved value of the land they own, and let the companies figured the rest on how to maximize their own revenue. Does the principal-agent problem still persist?

I am mostly inspired from Mark Lutter's idea of private, competitive cities.

[Great Nortend]

-removed-

[Great Nortend]

1. You are right, the original function involved managing the chancellery, which functioned as a writing office for the monarch. This naturally led to it taking on functions relating to foreign affairs.

Hmm... I think I'll keep the chancery and the foreign office separated given their vastly different roles in the modern times.

2. Yes. Secretary was a position in the Scottish government that was responsible for handling petitions to the king and issuing letters patent. The original title was Lord Secretary. It later become Secretary of State.

I've just remembered that the King's Clerk is the traditional secretary to the King, although his role now has diverged to be more of a 'Minister of Home Affairs'.

3. I think a secretary of defence with delegated powers work well. The titles of Lord Admiral and Lord Constable are retained, and administrative control of your armed forces is centralised under one ministry.

I shall put this change into effect.

4. That's no problem. You have justified the use of those titles, and I can't fault that. They describe what they do while also adding some flavour, and that's what really matters. Now that you mention it, there are some crucial areas you missed, namely science, housing, energy, labour, industry, welfare, or communications. Whether or not you need ministries for those areas depends on your setting and level of technology. If you're modern tech, you will absolutely need them, but if you're past tech and your nation is set in the 1800s, you probably won't. It's not strictly necessary, but you might also consider adding a ministry of culture, with responsibility for tourism, and maybe sport.

We are set in the modern era. I'm not quite sure what a ministry of science would necessarily do... conduct experiments? Probably a Board of Trade matter. Similarly, unless there is a pressing need for housing I don't see what a department would do. For administrating of public housing, the church controls that through the provision of almshouses. Energy is a Board of Trade matter. Labour is a tricky one and probably would come under the King's Clerk. Industry is again a Board of Trade matter. Welfare, including the administration of common alms, the General Insurance and the General Medical Service is administered by the Lord High Almoner, probably in conjunction with the King's Clerk and the Master of the Board of Health respectively. Communications is a Post Office matter, whilst licensing of films and the like are a Lord Chamberlain matter. There is also a Board of Works in charge of public works.

[Taihei Tengoku]

A "marketized"/emergent solution is not necessarily always a perfectly competitive market. An optimal, profit-maximizing course of action for a state could be coerced revenue and a monopoly on justice/dispute resolution.

Is it "could be" or "necessarily be"? Is there any plausible reason for a state to perceives partial, if not entire, privatization of certain aspects of legal system, such as law enforcement into private police and bounty hunters, for example, as within its best interest?

In this context it seems like you are proposing some sort of cyberpunk tax farming regime, which has its well-known conflict of interest between the interests of the state tax recipients (long-term revenues on shoestring budget) versus the private tax collectors (short-term $$$$$)

In this case, the central authority taxes companies who own the territory-patches according to the unimproved value of the land they own, and let the companies figured the rest on how to maximize their own revenue. Does the principal-agent problem still persist?

I am mostly inspired from Mark Lutter's idea of private, competitive cities.

1) I'm not sure, because this is the realm of contrafactuals. Both do exist IRL but states and government agents are doing other things than maximizing their incomes so the incentives at play are different.
2) I don't see how that's different from just a "normal society" with a land value tax and minimal central govt services.

[Radimostan]

A new factbook thoughts?

[Austrasien]

private, competitive cities.

Creating ideal cities in speech?



We've entered an infinite recursion of philosophy!

[Gallia-]

Literal town upon a hill.

e: I swear every time someone posts that painting it gets more and more color corrected each time.

Someone needs to deep fry it.

[Silver Commonwealth]

How would a society, which is left in economics, but right wing in social issues, look like? How would it function, if work at all?

[Bears Armed]

How would a society, which is left in economics, but right wing in social issues, look like? How would it function, if work at all?

Define 'social issues'.
If you just mean restrictive policies on sex & drugs & so on, without the "right to bear arms" that seems so important to the American 'right', then that description would have fit [for example] both the USSR and Red China...

[The Macabees]

How would a society, which is left in economics, but right wing in social issues, look like? How would it function, if work at all?

What the economy will look like depends more on what you mean by "left in economics" and the role of government. Fascism is under the umbrella of "left in economics, right wing in social issues."

In the early 20th century, fascism in Germany, for example, was an agrarian and labor movement. The German economy was shaped largely by the mobilization program, but any non-capitalist economy will see some sort of authority deciding where to focus the attention of at least some percentage of economic resources.

To enforce that allocation of resources there will need to be a mixture of decrees, price controls, and production quotas that regulate the capital industries related to the production processes relevant to the goals of the authority. It will also affect all other industries because you can't have them siphon resources needed for whatever the government has planned, and so they too are regulated by price controls and quotas. The generalized logic here is that price controls and quotas affect not only the partial equilibrium (the market they're directly imposed on) but also the general equilibrium (the economy as a whole), so you'll need to regulate the general equilibrium through a system of price controls and quotas as well.

Because you don't want your industry to sell resources abroad that you need for whatever the central authority has planned, you may also regulate monetary exchange. In this system, you have a currency board that establishes quotas around currency exchange and it even determines how this foreign currency is distributed amongst those who need it (producers related to the central plan will need to import some of their resources and to import anything they'll need foreign exchange).

[Purpelia]

The difference between the two can be summed up rather easily. Communism takes your stuff away and does with it as the government sees fit. Fascism lets you keep your stuff but forces you to use it as the government sees fit.

[Austrasien]

How would a society, which is left in economics, but right wing in social issues, look like? How would it function, if work at all?

Like Stalinism.