...Oh. Well in that case, thanks. I will, of course, make sure to give due credit before posting such a TL (though not by name, if you're uncomfortable with that). That is, assuming I ever go through with it.
Cool.
Anyhow: I'm wondering what the exact scale and scope of government will likely be, after the whole collapse of Modernity? You have made a point of how big government dragging us into the deepest depths of Hell would invite the preeminence of a "night-watchman" state, but I'm curious as to the possible specifics of that?
Well, I just look at history. Of course, there's the general tendency of "one extreme gives way to another" (because action-reaction). And we may certainly note that every period tends to end in extreme (even absurdist) iterations of its defining traits. So what defines the current era? Competing states, centralisation of political power within the structure of said states, unprecedented scope of government (both in cost/size and assumed authority), enormous governmental debt, structural debasement of the currency, egalitarian social doctrine, criticism of tradition and traditional religion, breakdown of social and familal structures in favour of statist ones, implicit belief in progress and linear history, political legitimacy derived from an appeal to the masses, increasing demagoguery as a result of the previous point.
That's just a few striking things. We could get way more detailed and precise, but you get what I'm pointing at here. And all these trends are escalating, in certain cases already to the point of self-parody. That's only going to get worse as time passes. Since we may safely assume that this situation cannot last forever, and will end in a very unpleasant way... there's going to be major back-lash. In other words:
reaction.
Just on that general basis, we may say certain things about the period after "modernity".
1. Unification of the greater culture, instead of division into competing states. A period of division gives way to one of unification, and vice versa. (This is as true and self-evident as the simple fact that Winter gives way to Spring, and Summer leads into Autumn.)
2. This will be paired with decentralisation of most political tasks to the local level. That one's less intuitively obvious, but follows logically: overly centralised empires don't tend to last very long. Besides, if the end of modernity leaves us in dire straits (as it will), the new regime will devolve loads of tasks simply because it
must. To function and to survive. In addition... centralism will by then be one of the defining factors of the all-too-recent Bad Times, and therefore anathema to all right-thinking people.
3. The economy of our "modern world", which is a huge soap bubble, has exploded. While there will inevitably be government debts, particularly in the early period, the tendency will once again be to pay of "crisis debts" and "war debts" as soon as possible. (Remember, before the age of revolutions, states tended to pay off all their temporary debts in mere decades, if not mere
years. And they only borrowed money during crises. Not structurally.) The money will be sound again, meaning backed by something. Probably gold. It almost always is. The key thing is that people can trust its value. The Empire legitimises itself by bringing stability. Anything that is -- or even seems -- unreliable will be
bad news.
4. The simple reality of the aforementioned points means a huge reduction in the scope of government. Observe how governments in the West have only truly ballooned as of the time that the gold standard was abandoned, and public debts were increased enormously. Gee, I wonder why
that is...! (Answer, for the economically illiterate: it's because our "modern" governments are literally bigger than can be paid for, so they keep printing bullshit money and borrowing bullshit money just so there's enough bullshit money for them to spend on increasingly ludicrous things. If you think this will work out, you may be Paul Krugman. And crazy. But I repeat myself.)
5. Additionally, for the terrible last decades of "modernity", what people have experienced of government has been a boot stomping on their faces (at
best). At the same time, everything has broken down, so government has done nothing
for anyone. Therefore, if someone announce that his government will be very involved in people's lives, that will
not aid his popularity. If he says he'll leave you alone and also execute anyone who even
looks like a predatory warlord, that will make people dedicate prayers to his name. The Emperor keeps you safe, and he hardly ever visits. Everybody sighs in pure relief. For this reason, government will presumably be a bit smaller, even, than it technically
could be.
6. Egalitarianism was the doctrine of an age that ended in utter carnage. It has also brought nothing particularly good in the long run, since none of the advantages have survived. Conversely, social hierarchy brings
certainty, and therefore
safety. Also, when everything went to shit, everybody who wanted to survive had to locally, communally self-organise. I can assure you that everly democratic attempts at this
rarely succeed, whereas the traditional tribal model (classical social stratification) has worked for well over ten millennia. Don't get me wrong, there will probably be a Senate or something, but it'll be more like a House of Lords (and I mean
real Lords). Mass democracy will be a bad memory of a time everybody wants to leave behind. Society will be stratified, and people at the time will be very happy about the inherent security that this entails. No more chaos. No more experiments.
Every thing in its place, and a place for every thing.
7. After deadly uncertainty and an unmooring of all identity, tradition and traditional religion come back in a big way. At least for a while. Modernity wants the new, the bold, the progressive. The people who survive the less pleasant outcomes of all that want the old, the safe, the familiar. They want something that has proven it can stand the test of time.
8. The collapse of the state's "social" security schemes has left people dependent on the more natural providers of such. The ones that have been doing it since time immemorial. Community and family. I already touched upon the former, but community will often
be (extended) family. Expect large families, clannish structures. Those can actually do something for their members, which is the key thing. The current social attitude of "deliberately childless, I'm post-family, my cat is my baby!" will
not survive.
9. Collapse tends to prove the inherent inaccuracy of the Whiggish myth, so the concept of history-as-linear-progress will be dead as a doornail, and more cyclical attitudes will be dominant again. For a while. This has the ffect of influencing the cultural attitude towards the future. It's "sense of fate", if you will.
Memento mori.
10. Finally (and I'm inordinately pleased that I randomly ended up with ten points), the appeal to the masses will be a thing of the past. Nobody will want to appeal to them, and they will not want to be appealed
to. Political legitimacy will derive from the source it traditionally has: the divine. Just as well. Much less tricky, far more reliable.
Now, to be clear: none of this will last. Nothing under the sun ever does. Every era ends, and things turn around again. But this gives you the general impression of "the world after modernity". There will be people who believe I've described a veritable nightmare, and there will be people who believe I've described a joyous dream. In truth, I've done neither. It will be, as all ages, a mixed bag. But the people inhabiting it will feel it's a lot better than what came right before. And history tends to view the early Empire as a Golden Age.
(I noted that I start out by looking at history. What I've now done is outline more of a general principle. Of course, a case study of any previous High Culture confirms these points. When the theory comfortably fits the facts, that's usually a sign you're onto something.)
Moreover, are there any significant ways in which you'd see this traditionalist government intervening somewhat more than present ones--such as adopting an official state religion, or even taxing people of a different denomination? Because if "neo-Augustus" could lead a crusade to retake the Middle East and force the locals to convert at gunpoint, then the much milder policies I suggested above definitely sound like fair game (in the sense of what such a government would probably do, of course!).
I'd be surprised if all of the above
didn't feature in some way. They're all very normal, historically. Ultimately, these wouldn't be considered examples of a more intrusive government. Consider it: presently, we have governments generally subscribing to some kind of secularism, interfering with religions in dozens of ways, and taxing everybody through the nose. Yes? Now imagine a situation where the Empire adopts a state religion, tolerates other religions (within reason), hardly taxes anyone, allows all Churches to request tithes from their adherents, and... mildly encourages people to join the official state church by demanding that all religious dissenters pay a very modest annual heresy tax (it won't be called that, obviously).
Which of those do you think is functionally more intrusive into the lives of the citizenry?
Obviously, it's different when we look at external policy. For reasons I've outlined before, the Empire will want to focus most of its efforts outwards. Conquered unbelievers will not be treated kindly. They rarely are. Consider also that it has often been a policy to tax/exploit outsiders, and to barely (or
not) tax your own citizens.
Suppose you're the Emperor. You have made all external affairs your exclusive prerogative. Let's say your legions are conquering North Africa, if only because you have to give them
something to do (or some bored General might get ideas). The rest of Africa is in shambles, because the global economy collapsed and they very much needed that to survive. It's a messy warlord bonanza down there. So you declare: "All here that I behold is mine, and by right and duty, I shall bring law to the lawless". And then you start selling colonial charters. Enterprising people can purchase them, and then -- within defined regions -- anything they can grab is theirs to hold and exploit. Except, of course, for the ten percent they owe the Imperoal government, i.e.
you.
Let my rephrase that: you give them permission to conquer stuff that's not even yours, and they pay you for the privilege. If they succeed, they get to keep paying you. And you don't even have to do anything.
They do all the work. If you think that'll never fly, allow me to point you to every half-way capable monarch ever. This is
exactly how it works. And they'll thank you for it! Because the fact that you do this means there will only be
minimal bitching about claims. People only own what you said they own. And the system comes with a built-in ultimate dispute arbiter. Again:
you. That's the added value of a monarch, really. That's what he's for.
My point with this little digression is to outline a way in which an early Emperor can quite literally finance his entire government, with barely any added expense, without levying a
single tax within the actual borders of the Empire! This doesn't mean that he won't levy any taxes (if nothing else, it's usually considered smart to structurally remind the people that they owe you fealty, and not to let them foster the notion that they have no obligations). But typically, such taxes are low, and pretty rare. For instance, military service may well be accepted
in lieu of paying the tax... and vice versa. Similarly, I'd expect (also given the chaotic post-war situation) any tax to be extremely simple. Most probably a land/property tax. (Can't hide a house! Makes taxing it very simple!) And you'd probably get something in return, too. The something is probably citizenship. As in: you're a citizen if you pay taxes, and you pay taxes for the considerable boom of
being a citizen. That tends to have advantages, after all. (For starters, when somebody threatens you, the words "
Civis Romanus sum" are the most powerful that can pass your lips. If attacking you means attacking the Empire, it will give most potential assailants pause.)
Naturally, none of this will last, either. As I have previously mentioned, every Empire reaches its geographical limits at some point. Once that happens, the amount of land that can be colonised/taxed/exploited becomes finite. Moreover, regions conquered early are "civilised" over time, and become proper provinces. This reduces the exploitable periphery. This forces the government to start taxing citizens (or, if such taxes already existed, raising them). It'll lead governments to start debasing the currency again. They always do that. But by that point, we're a few centuries down the line. And hey... the Principate was fun while it lasted, wasn't it?
