I have an idea for three worlds in conflict, with one of them being my utopia world. Keeping in mind the reality that even the best world is going to have serious flaws....
Ti Pramere as most of the worlds in the Long Journey Cluster was terraformed by a 'package' designed by Long Journey, Limited. This English company developed the know-how and the sophisticated interplay of terraforming agents to allow a collection of bacteria to be unleashed from hundreds of lightyears away. The varying bacterium are released in carefully prescribed order with the result of a human-ready planet available for use after a mere century.
The near lightspeed rocket with its varying packages left Earth early in the 22nd century, and a package crashed into Ti Pramere's dead world in 2315. In 2422, the planet was certified as ready for humanity.
In 2272, a ship left Earth, and more sedately due to its human passengers (even frozen they required more kindness than sturdy bacterium) it arrived in 2480.
The Founders were subtle and wise men who bound their descendants into a social contract based on a profound mistrust of humanity, and a deep respect for the Creator.
in 2690, the first FTL ship arrived at Ti Pramere, and found a thriving society. They tried to bend things to their favor, but although they did well, they found there was no means of creating a monopoly.
The governance is very small, and hence it is well-respected as honorable. Its job is to maintain the defenses against exterior foes, and to ensure that crimes are punished.
But it lacks the power to create a monopoly. There are monopolies, but without special advantages granted to them by the governance (like tax breaks, and special tariffs), a monopoly can only be such by being better than everyone else. And that is what is desired after all. If a monopolist tries to take advantage of his unique position, he only destroys his own power.
Unlike many supposedly laissez faire governances, the entities of 'corporation' and 'banker' have no meaning. A corporation, a means of evading responsibility for legal harms, is not legal. Neither is it legal for a man to take money, and then offer twice or three or more times money in loans. Such is regarded as fraud. One may serve as a broker between the rich investor, and the man wishing a loan, but such position is far weaker than 'banker'.
Side effects of this are both good and bad. One of the effects of a 'corporation', especially when tied to a 'franchise' is for the society to be very rapidly transformed into a new way of living in response to challenges arising, or in response to new good ideas. Without corporations, the society changes far more slowly.
On the other hand, the society is far more 'Jeffersonian yeoman'. Each person is more apt to have some significant wealth, but neither poverty nor grand heights of wealth are as common. The dignified, yet restrained farmer is the model for society. He neither flatters, nor grovels.
The effect of no banking is more positive as the business cycle is largely non-existent. Without undue credit expansion, there is no undue credit crunch.
One other set of changes...it has been noted many times that children in an industrial society are not an economic benefit unlike in agricultural socities. It has also been noted that 'teenagers' are such spoiled, punk brats because they are neither fish nor fowl. It has also been noted that with proper nutrition, that teenagers grow up earlier. This leaves one of two choices--the teenager may be abstinent for a very long time, or he may forego morality in response to insistent demands of his libido. Prior to the modern age, morality demanded, but not for such a very long time.
Ti Pramere made some changes.
1. Fourteen year old females and fifteen year old males were allowed, nay encouraged, to be married. This was under the old definition of marriage....'till death do you part', and with the understanding that each side would work on the relationship.
Tests were given to help discern compatibility. Also classes were given with the clear idea of instructing each gender in the good qualities of the other gender. Too many females had found themselves swayed by the 'bad boys'.
Of course, one of the dominant reasons females were swayed by such 'bad boys' was the feminization of 'good boys'. This was reversed. Being tough, brave, and loyal were regarded as more important than getting good grades especially since situations change. A knowledge of situations was very useful, and hammered into the lads, but bravery was more important because it was useful in all situations.
Naturally, most fifteen year olds were not competent to lead a household by themselves. Although, considerable ability was unleashed when it was shown that much of 'necessary training' was pure unneccessary credentialism. Still, it was not enough. This was where parents and grandparents stepped in to help out. An extended family guided the young couple.
The economic drain was more easily solved. Each child gives to his parents a set percentage per year of the wealth he earned. He also gives a smaller percentage to his grandparents. Thus, if one were to have seven children who became professional investors, and merchants....one could retire quite nicely.
This fostered a focus on teaching the children.
Two hundred years after the FTL ships arrived, the people of Ti Pramere are groups of extended families heavily into merchanting, with young adults responsible for vast fortunes, and the typical couple having on average 6.9 children. Most people have a wide array of talents, and usually have several that they are professional at. The family elders tend to have expert level skills in certain areas.
Most business arrangements are 'done with a handshake'. The honor of a particular extended family is of great worth to it, and to maintain that honor they would definitely accept economic damage.
Laws have been passed about a hundred years ago forbidding too close relationships between families. This is based in part on worries of inbreeding, and on the desire for the families to be open and energetic.
Many of the Great Families are starting to make marriages off-planet.
Overall interesting. I might raise some questions about whether your concepts of social policy are practicable, but I think the one issue that stands out most seriously to me is the monetary one. You've eliminated banks and in essence undone credit. On what is wealth based?
For a quick review on money as a concept historically, I'll send you to Game Ideas Unlimited: Cash. The problem is that money has to have value, and it only has value if it is recognized as having value. What gives it that value in your society? Is it like the Creditos, a slip entitling the bearer to a specified amount of goods which can be issued by any provider of such goods? Is it like the early forms of letters of credit, indicating that there is on deposit with a neutral third party (e.g., a bank, or the government) a specific quantity of gold, silver, or similarly in demand precious substance (in The Ice Pirates, water)? Is it totally by public convention (which seems to be our present system), that the money has value simply because everyone will accept that it has value--that even though it represents nothing at all, I will accept it in payment for goods and services because I know the next guy will also accept it in payment for goods and services?
It seems to me that banks are virtually unavoidable. Your third-party mediators easily become the trusted escrow holders (I give you the money to give to him when he completes his obligations to me, you getting a percentage of the transaction), then the trusted investors (I give you my money to give to people you trust will make a profit from it, and you return the profit minus a percentage to me) and investment brokers (I need more money than any one person can provide, but will let you have a percentage if you can put together a coalition of investors to meet my needs), and at that point they are de facto bankers. There is evidence of the existence of banking in Sumerian writings; I don't think you can simply legislate them out of existence unless the government takes over the job--and that's socialism, and probably means that the guy whose job it is to decide how to invest doesn't have any vested interest in whether his investments are successful, but does have an interest in whether those with whom he invests will reimburse him on the side, an invitation to corruption.
So a lot hinges on what you mean by "money" and what you mean by "bank".
--M. J. Young
I'm influenced by the Libertarian SF writer, L. Neil Smith, in his book Pallas on the issue of banks. I gathered that a bank could 'make up money' by fiat. That is, they would extend loans for more money than they had. This action is forbidden.
However, brokers, or escrow holders, do exist. Its just that they are a lot weaker, and lower in status and wealth. My real estate broker, when I bought my house, made sure to point out that the bank might try to shut him out of his fair percentage (a not unreasonable concern considering how unethical that particular bank was...and no I'm not associated with them anymore.)
Also, keep in mind that without large corporations, large banks are not as necessary. Nobody goes down to American Express to borrow a billion bucks to buy Google. Amex and Google don't exist.
Money...I hadn't considered that. Gold coins would probably fit this universe as to its feel. The coinage would be created by ....hmmm, not sure. Probably by the government. I could also have the coinage be a more exotic material like palladium.
Ti Secundus began the terraforming process at the same time as Ti Premere and finished a few years later than the primary world in the Ti System. However, the extra time was a benefit as Secundus is an extremely pleasant world. It has mild winters and kindly summers with Force Three gales being the most severe weather its ever experienced.
The Founders of Ti Secundus were much as the Founders of Ti Premere. However, the Secundans did not have as solid a foundation for skepticism about humanity as the Premerans. So they allowed more of a scope for 'human goodness'.
Banks were commonplace, and corporations were not. But they did exist. The elite view of the purpose of the governance was to foster economic prosperity, and so the society was bent toward that goal.
It became easier and easier to form corporations. Mag-lev railroads were built with taxpayer subsidies from the farmers, but the benefit of these rails went to the city men who built them.
In order to encourage expansion, certain monopolies were formed. These monopolies then preserved their existence by financing political leaders, and opinion journals.
When the farmers complained of 'capitalism's cruelties' the opinion journals, as good lapdogs, used their preconstructed megaphone to blast the farmers for their lack of faith in free enterprise. Few realized that freedom had not brought them to this pass, but fascism, a joining of government and business.
Such keen focus had degenerated society. People were cogs in the Great Machine. It had also created much wealth. However, there was the example of Ti Premere which troubled the sleep of the Great and the Powerful of Secundus. For on Premere, they were gaining on Secundus in overall wealth, and showed signs of passing Secundus. Add to that the clearly obvious fact that Premerans lived in a vastly more humane society, and something needed to be done.
About this time, the FTL Ships arrived. Unlike on Premere, they were able to get many inordinately profitable monopolies on Secundus which had the effect of driving many workerman families into poverty. Secundus, however, surged ahead in certain respects as the Shipmen were happy to trade with the Secundans, and not so happy to trade on fair terms with the Premerans.
And so, Secundus demanded that all goods from the Ti System be transported to Secundus Orbital Port first, before being transhipped outwards. This would allow Secundus to grab twenty to fourty percent of the wealth that Premere produced. Secundus claimed this was 'more efficient', and in ways it was. The Shipmen would also send larger ships for more concentrated orders.
The Premerans refused as they saw what it clearly was....an attempt by Secundus to lock them into an inferior position. In a generation, the positions would be reversed, and Premere would hold the high hand.
Secundus claimed damage from the smaller ships sent, and thus struck at Premere with the more advanced ships it had bought from the Shipmen with its excess of interstellar credit.
The Great Burning was a massive raid on Premere which destroyed industrial centers, hydroelectric dams, nuclear power plants, and rail nets. After this destruction, the Blockade and the subsequent Starving Times, merely forced the bitter truth down the stubborn Premerans throats. Secundus held the high hand, and would do whatever it had to do to keep it.
It took two years of orbital bombardment of crop fields, but the Premerans yielded, and accepted the Secundans and their Trade Efficiency Treaty.
The next hundred years were painful ones as the Premerans learned the first rule of warfare: Don't lose. Whenever a Premeran started to be really successful, the Secundans changed the rules of the game.
But, the Secundans, despite the best efforts of their paid flacks, and their activists could not in essence change the Premerans. The only thing that would have worked would have been a full-scale terror campaign of at least a decade in length. And the Secundans still felt themselves to be the 'noble and wise', and could not see doing this. Besides, they justly feared what would happen if they embarked on a plan of 'burn every other city to ash'. Probability studies revealed a 25% chance that such a campaign would end with both planets completely depopulated as the Premerans retaliated in a war to the knife.
Things continued. The Secundans continued to create great wealth, to cheat, and to hollow out their own society. The Premerans continued to suffer injustice, to sullenly fume, and to build on the strengths that their society had. Centuries later, the Premerans are like a giant water buffalo of ill temper held in tow by an ancient man with a willow wand.
The Union of Worlds is run by Secundans, but most of its energy and wit come from Premere.
The Secundans know they are illegitamate, and so they have bred a generation of their own children which hates their own people, and their own selves. They have also chosen to believe in a great many theories which cannot be tested in a laboratory, but they loudly claim these theories to be scientific. They believe that IQ is useless, that string theory is obviously true even if no one can test it, that phrenology is great, that the universe is immortal and infinite, that evolution is true, that the light of certain skies is inherently good and contributing to intelligence (such as the Secundan skies), that logic is a trick, that the universe is fundamentally irrational but that science is always true.
They have embraced irrationality, and untestable theories and proclaimed themselves with the aid of paid flacks as the ultimate in rationality and science.
They choose not to have children for the world is too populated (its nearly a billion people on Secundus). And they hate the Premerans who have nearly seven children for each couple.
Author's note:
A couple questions arise:
1. Am I trying to put too much into one set of worlds, or is this realistic complications? Realistically, history is a lot of different things going on at varying speeds at the same time, but such a portrayal requires a masterly handling of the material. If you can do as an orchestra conductor does, then you can do this. But most game designers should stick to four piece ensembles and smaller.
I fear that since I am attempting to break new ground, to use new metaphors, for social realities which are not popular with the SF consensus, that I need to simplify.
2. I also wonder if much of my history is unneeded.
I suspect that I'd be better off if I made Ti Premere my utopia world, and left it at that. And then I could have another world with Secundus and the economic struggle to crush its better (as yet uncreated better). And then yet another world where the struggle is between True Religion/True Science and False Philosophy/Irrational Science.
As to the last, I'm referring in part to Quantum Mechanics. I'm not an expert, but I have heard it stated, repeatedly, and from different sources that QM is essentially illogical.
This brings me to a point or two. One, the events that QM is describing, the facts are facts. The interpretation of those facts is what is at risk.
Two, I can go back to Aristotle for A=A, and not-A does not equal A. Three thousand years of logic. I can just toss this out the window in favor of QM.
Hmmmm. No thanks.
I have previously argued that Science is the daughter of Christianity. Jehovah is a logical, rational Creator who made an orderly universe that He wants humans to discover and control. Its interesting that science really got going in an environment filled with Christian axioms.
Some people think this arguement is silly.
However, its interesting that as the post-Christian era appears, so does QM. I think C.S. Lewis saw this decades ago...as the Rational God recedes in men's minds, so does rationality.
Thus, I think its clear....String Theory (which practioners have boasted won't be testable for a hundred years), Evolution (which is so weak a theory as to defy incredulity), Anthropogenic Global Warming (again, sigh, SUVs on Mars are raising its global temp), Quantum Mechanics (let's just toss logic out the window), Multiculturalism (every society is as good as ours, except ours is worse, and since all societies are alike, you don't really need to study other cultures)......And we have the nerve to make fun of Scholastics debating how many angels could dance on a pin.
Now imagine a further corruption of science and logic. Imagine a world in which reason is viewed as merely a lie to use to get power....oops thats our world.
Take this unreality a step further. Make sure its fully funded by government grants. Make sure anyone who actually goes out to count the horse's teeth is ridiculed, and denied tenure.
Pretty soon, irrationality is making a serious comeback, and under the banner of Science.
Now imagine another world where Logic and Faith are taken seriously. A world where Science doesn't get grants from government. A world in which all the popular approved by government bueraucrats and social activists theories of 'science' are laughed at, if anyone pays any attention at all.
Imagine a new formed colony of clean logic and clear faith up against an ancient colony world full of wealth and venom. As my friend J said....'there's a reason some people don't like me. I'm good and they're evil.' The clean world, which is not drowning in its own lies, is a testament of righteousness to the wicked. And the wicked don't much like having their deeds exposed.
I gathered that a bank could 'make up money' by fiat. That is, they would extend loans for more money than they had. This action is forbidden.
Well, not exactly. I thought I explained this somewhere, but at the moment I cannot think where, so I'll give a brief on it here.
Investor has a bunch of money. He wants to keep it safe; he'd also like it if his money made money. He could hire someone to keep his money safe, but Banker comes along and has a better suggestion: give me your money, let me figure out how to use it to make money, and we'll split what I make.
Investor likes that idea better than paying someone to care for his money, but he's also worried: what if Banker loses money? Banker makes a guarantee, that Investor will be able to get his money any time he wants it, and that Banker will pay him a fixed percentage guaranteed, but not more than that--so the risk is all on Banker, but so are the rewards.
Investor gives Banker his money. Investor now says to himself, "I have ten thousand in the bank; I can get it whenever I want it." He is right; he has ten thousand.
Banker also says, "I now have ten thousand. It is on loan to me from Investor, but as long as I have it when Investor wants it, I can use it however I want to make more money." There is now twenty thousand--the ten thousand that Investor has, and the ten thousand that Banker has. It is the same ten thousand, but both of them are counting it as their money.
Business comes. Business wants to borrow money to do something--let's keep it simple, he wants to build a house. Banker gives Business the ten thousand. Business now says, correctly, "I have ten thousand to use to build this house. I have to pay it back, but in the meantime, it is mine to use as I see best." At the same time, Banker says, "I have ten thousand given to me by Investor. I don't have it here, but I loaned it to Business, who will pay me back (with interest), so it is still mine." Business also still counts that same ten thousand as his money. There is now thirty thousand.
Opportunity comes to Banker wanting to borrow money; Banker is tapped, but Opportunity is willing to pay. So Banker talks to him and meanwhile runs over to Uberbanker. Uberbanker is willing to lend money to Banker at a rate that is lower than what Banker will charge Opportunity (or Business), so Banker can still make a profit. Banker shows Uberbanker that he has ten thousand given him by Investor, and he also has ten thousand owed him by Business--that's twenty thousand; there is now forty thousand. Based on that twenty thousand value of Banker's assets, Uberbanker gives Banker another ten thousand. Again, the ten thousand that Uberbanker gives Banker is counted by Banker as his money, but also as Uberbanker as his money, so there is now sixty thousand, and when Banker loans ten thousand to Opportunity, it becomes eighty thousand, as Opportunity has the money and Banker owns the money.
So although it is the same twenty thousand (ten thousand from Investor and ten thousand from Uberbanker), within the economy it has the effect of being eighty thousand, four times as much, because it is a credit on the balance sheets of five different entities. It is also a debit on the balance sheet of three of those entities, but note this: the people who have the cash in hand are the ones who can spend it now even though they owe it to someone else; the people to whom the cash belongs can claim it as assets even though they do not have the cash in hand, because they have positive accounts receivable.
Thus the very concept of investment "creates" money.
Note also that even if you eliminated the middleman, you would still have this effect. Investor gives ten thousand to Business. Business has ten thousand cash (offset by a ten thousand debt it must repay) and investor has a ten thousand account receivable, which means between them they have twenty thousand in assets. The banker facilitates this, and increases the number of entities with a claim to the money, but it is not because it is a bank but because it is a middleman that it has this impact.
The way out of it is to make investments and loans illegal, such that if investor wants to use his money he must start the business himself and hire Business as his employee. This, though, makes Business salaried, and reduces his stake in the operation and thus his motivation to succeed as well as his ability to control the operation (he cannot implement his great but risky ideas without getting permission from his boss). Thus progress is stifled somewhat, because the people with the money and the people with the ideas can't create the kind of relationship that lets the idea people use the money effectively.
I have heard it stated, repeatedly, and from different sources that QM is essentially illogical.
I am not an expert either, but I think that a significant part of the irrational (not illogical) aspect is that it is believed by some that at the quantum level there are events that do not have causes.
To use an example, it is known that an unstable atomic nucleus will decay, throwing a particle as it reduces in size slightly; this is what we call radioactivity. This can happen because of a collision from another particle, but even in isolation it will happen eventually. One can assess the probability of it occurring to any one atom at any given moment, and so by statistical averages can determine the number of atoms which will collapse per second in a given mass--but still cannot predict when this one atom will collapse.
What some in Quantum Mechanics claim is that it cannot be predicted because it has no cause; that is, it will happen at a random moment, not because the cause will hit at a random moment but because it is an uncaused event. Others maintain that this is simply a matter of insufficient information, that there is a cause but we have not discovered it. There are alleged to be proofs that there is no cause, and I have the impression that Shroedinger's Cat has something to do with this (in short, the illustration maintains that the cat hidden in the box is neither alive nor dead until someone checks). Not everyone in the field is persuaded, but the leaders seem fixed on the notion that these are truly random events.
I have previously argued that Science is the daughter of Christianity. Jehovah is a logical, rational Creator who made an orderly universe that He wants humans to discover and control. Its interesting that science really got going in an environment filled with Christian axioms.
I have heard that argument elsewhere, and repeated it myself. In essence, the belief that a rational God created a rational world built on rational principles is fundamental to the belief that we can discover and express those rational principles; if there is no rational Creator, it is not reasonable to expect there to be a rational structure to the universe.
However, its interesting that as the post-Christian era appears, so does QM. I think C.S. Lewis saw this decades ago...as the Rational God recedes in men's minds, so does rationality.
I would be careful about citing Lewis for this. I believe he saw in the alleged randomness of Quantum Mechanics a basis for free will against the prevailing view of determinism that had arisen in science to that point. If everything was locked into a cause-effect chain then that would include our thoughts, our opinions, our decisions, our arguments, our conclusions, and thus our actions--we could not do other than what we do. I walk a fine line on that concept, particularly in connection with my temporal anomalies work but also to some degree in my treatment of predestination theologically (way beyond the scope here). That there were within Quantum Mechanics random events broke the mold and made it at least conceivable that human choice could be non-deterministic. So he saw something positive in the concept.
Overall, I think you've got a solid world here. I wouldn't say that you've put too much history into it; some worlds need history--particularly if there's any chance of the verser traveling to the past, but even if it's likely (as seems so in this case) that the player will wonder how it got to be as it is and the resources are available to learn that. It might be a bit much for some to run, but that actually might be a textual organization problem. Take a look at the organizational structure of the Sherwood Forest world--the current political situation and recent history are offset in their own section, so that although you would probably read them when you first came to run the world you would only return to them if the player pushed against the edges of the scenario. That is, if I'm in Pramere or Secundus, I'm dealing with the situation on the ground in the present; if I start getting involved in the relationships between the two worlds, I will want to know at least some of what you've backgrounded.
As I often say, the design of a good world means giving the referee everything he needs to run it, and letting him fill in the parts that aren't vital. Here, how did it get like this seems integral to what it is now, so you need it. I'll note that when I run Starship Destiny at conventions, as soon as people start asking about the history of the world I tell them that they get it from the computer, and hand them a copy of Verse Three, Chapter One open to the chapter that tells the history.
--M. J. Young
Okay, then simply say that 'whoever has the ten k, has the ten k'. Sure, you have a promise of the ten k, but that's not the same thing as actually having it.
Someone can invest, without hiring a business. I give Business Guy ten k, and he in turn promises me that 1)He will pay me back. 2)He will give me 20% of his profits. We make a deal.
The broker comes in because he's a specialist at finding investors and businessmen to match up. Maybe he gets paid 5% of the deal....so he gets $500 bucks for setting up this investment of 10k.
This might be slower, but I think it would be more solid, and less risky for investors. In other words, no Tulip Booms, no Net.com Booms, just relatively long-term investments. It would probably eliminate the Business Cycle.
And one could argue that more money would go into productive uses rather than in to padding banker's wallets.
I suspect it would be more boring...."In economic news, for the fourteenth straight year, economic growth was 2%."
I do think it would be slower, but not as slow as it would seem. Part of our problems is managing risk. Risk scares investors who then hide. Lower risk and more investment.
Of course, the 'no corporations' complicates things, and probably adds risk for investors.
================================================================
There is also Ti Terturus which is a more desolate, and more recently colonized world. As such, its trying to catch up by using creche babies. Babies are conceived and incubated in thousand fold job lots in womb machines.
Terturus has recently gotten enough power to act on its goals. Its goals include domination of the Ti System.
Terturus was colonized after the FTL Shipmen arrived. It was a poorly developed world, and its people were simple herders. But then FTL Shipmen got behind a native leader who invited in bunches of others, and united his world. And then the FTL Shipmen gave them bunches of certain types of tech.
For the FTL Shipmen had become dissatisfied with the deals they could make in the Ti system. They were'n't able to skin the natives completely to the bone.
Worse, the Great Families of Ti Premere were starting to compete with the FTL Shipmen groups on the galactic stage. And the Great Families were simply better than the Shipmen. However, the Shipmen were longer established in their markets and had a larger, although quite diffuse power. The solution was to fund a local barbarian horde in the Ti System to deal with 'these upstarts'.
Its rather as if Amsterdam (in what I think is close in time to the Spanish Armada)decided to deal with the rising threat of London by hiring some Scottish Clans to go conquer London.
Naturally, Premere and Secundus don't like this. Secundus is having difficulty because the Terturans have a lot of energy, and a lot of young soldiers. The best way for Secundus to survive is to let Premere have its head, and to deal with the Terturans. However, to do that would be to let Premere go free, and to accept second place in the system.
Secundus is trying to arrange things so that Premere does the fighting, and gets little of the rewards. It puts Premere forward, and then snipes at them from behind in various ways to weaken them.
The Secundans claim to be boldly and fully against the Terturans, but in truth, they see the Premerans as worse than the Terturans. Because the Premerans are actually sophisticated enough to run things while the Terturans are a bunch of rich savages who don't really understand what they are doing. If pressed to the point, many Secundans aren't entirely sure they wouldn't rather the Terturans (who really are a bunch of barbarians with hi-tech gear) win rather than the Premerans.
Many of the Premerans are trying to take th efight to the Terturans, but they don't understand why the Secundans are being so laggard, and so obfuscatory. Some of the Premerans do, and t hey wonder if they need to attack Secundus first so to have freedom of action in handling Terturus.
The Terturans don't have these issues. They want to run things, and they see no reason why they shouldn't. Bloody, aggressive war seems like a perfectly reasonable idea to them although they are willing to use other techniques if those seem to work better. But their goals don't change.
In part, this is because of the creche robot training system of them as children. A certain viewpoint is hammered into them, all at the same time. It creates a remarkable uniformity and a deep committment to the basic views of their society.
Forgive me for playing devil's advocate here, but I find the subject intriguing.
Okay, then simply say that 'whoever has the ten k, has the ten k'. Sure, you have a promise of the ten k, but that's not the same thing as actually having it.
Isn't it? How is it different?
Let us suppose I have the 10K. I have more than 10K, but I'm interested in your business. I give you a letter to show to your creditors; it says specifically that I will cover your bills and expenses up to an amount equal to 10K. You now order supplies and tell your creditors to send the bills to me. Which one of us actually owns the 10K? Assuming my promise is good--and if we assume that such a letter would be enforceable in court--then you control the money that is in my possession, and I am obliged to spend it. On the other hand, I have 50K, and all those banknotes look more or less alike, so who is to say which 10K of them are yours? You own not these particular notes, but one fifth of all the notes I have, whichever fifth I happen to use to pay your creditors.
Another scenario. Let's suppose again I have 10K and you have business idea that interests me. I offer you a deal: I will buy the business, and let you run it completely unhindered by me, using the money I give you and the money you make from it. From the moment I buy the business from you you have the option to buy it back for 11K, but every year the price goes up 10%, so next year it will be 12.1K, the next year 13.32K, and so on. I don't get any money from the business until you buy it back from me, and you can buy it from me using any money I gave you and any money you make from it. Also, I can sell the business to someone else for any price I can get for it, and if you want to buy it you have to give them whatever you would have had to give me. So it's your money, because I gave it to you, but you are obliged to use it to build the business, which is my business but not my money. Who exactly owns the money?
Again, I have 10K and am interested in your business. I give you the 10K on the condition that I would become your partner. The basic term of the deal is that half of the profit before salaries is mine, and the other half is yours; if you want to hire someone or pay yourself a salary that comes out of your half. I have agreed to give you full control of the business, and that means the money; you have agreed that if the company is sued or has debts that must be paid, this comes out of your pocket even if it exceeds your share of the company (you indemnify me). So if I own half the business and the money belongs to the business, but you have full control over the business including the money, who owns the money?
I can find a dozen ways to put the actual ownership of the money in doubt. The physical possession of the money seems to be the least important factor in most of them.
--M. J. Young
This is kinda like when I critiqued guys for the lack of logic in their worlds, and then got criticized for that. Happily, I'm not such a wilting flower that a little bit of criticism is going to cause me to whimper. But the point is...in this world, they do it that way.
I'm personally not sure its better to do it that way or not. There are a lot of benefits to having bankers, corporations, and all that. The question is...will it work in That World, or at least close enough to be reasonable?
As to your question: Yes, its different. One person has it. One person has a promise of it. This is privileging possession over a promise, but thats a reasonable point of view. Even in our world we say 'Possession is nine-tenths of the law'.
Now if you equate possession with promise, then yes, you have a point. But for this world, they don't.
The physical possession of the money only seems to be the least important because you're going by this world's axioms.
I think each of your three examples can be easily resolved.
1. MJ has the money, MJ gets to call it his money.
2. Eric the biz owner has the money, Eric gets to call it his money.
3. "I give you the 10k"...well thats easy. Eric has the money.
Now just because you have the money doesn't free you from other legal obligations, but you can't count the money as yours in collateral unless you're considered to have possession of the money.
And you've helped a lot by fleshing out the details of what was only a vague notion.
Wow, this is worked out until the detail! Nice! Well done!