“The modern trend towards city states during the past fifty years is mostly due to the demand for a simpler and broader trading system. It originated with the formation of an economic model that bypassed the hindrances of a myriad free trade agreements.”
It’s really hard not to facepalm when confronted by headlines stating that 100,000 have signed up for a one-way trip to Mars. A Dutch, non-profit (yes, that’s right, non-profit) company called Mars One is collecting human specimens, and raising six billion dollars, to send these people some 225 million kilometres, one way, to the planet Mars.
They call it colonization. They market it as a “stepping stone in human galactic expansion.”
“Conventional economics is like rolling a boulder up a hill. Every time you stop to rest, it rolls back onto you. Binary economics is about rolling the damn boulder downhill.”
~Frank Tucker, Chapter 12 (The Corporatist Manifesto)
The relationship between individuals and their government is often a complex one, influenced by perceptions of trust, accountability, and the role of bureaucracy. This essay explores the notion that having the government against you is a disadvantage, primarily focusing on the matter of trust. It examines concerns regarding short-term, career bureaucrats whose interests may prioritize personal advancement over the welfare of the individual.
Trust is a vital element in any functioning society. It is the foundation upon which individuals rely when interacting with their government. When trust erodes, it undermines the social contract between citizens and the state, leading to disillusionment and skepticism.
Career bureaucrats, whose professional trajectory involves advancing into influential positions, may raise concerns regarding their intentions and motivations. The pursuit of personal gain and influence can create a perception that their actions prioritize self-interest over the well-being of individuals. This can breed skepticism and mistrust in the government’s ability to genuinely address the needs of its citizens.
Individuals may feel that they are treated as political pawns, used to further the agendas of bureaucrats seeking to secure their positions of influence. Promises made during election campaigns or other political processes might be seen as empty gestures, quickly forgotten once their usefulness in gaining political advantage diminishes. This perception reinforces the notion that career bureaucrats may not genuinely care about the individual, as their primary focus is personal gain rather than serving the public interest.
While it is true that bureaucracy serves a crucial function in governing and implementing policies, concerns can arise when bureaucracy becomes detached from the needs of individuals. Bureaucrats are often tasked with complex responsibilities, but it is important for them to maintain a connection to the concerns and aspirations of the people they serve. Without this connection, bureaucracy can be seen as an impersonal and uncaring system, further eroding trust in government.
The erosion of trust between individuals and their government is a matter of significant concern. When individuals perceive that career bureaucrats prioritize personal advancement over the welfare of the people, trust diminishes, and the social contract weakens. However, it is important to recognize that not all government officials or career bureaucrats fit this negative perception. Many individuals enter public service with genuine intentions to serve and make a positive impact.
Writing science fiction gives an author the opportunity to have a go at predicting the future. For me, the best tool I always find helpful is this; in order to build a world in which to set the novel, you start by going back into history. ‘To see the future, one must look into the past’ and follow the trends. In the case of ‘A Hostile Takeover,’ I began by asking ‘What is a nation? A state? A country?’ and then went on to research different types of sovereign nations throughout history.
I followed the trends and discovered the future of the world’s political landscape is obvious and surprising. The one prediction that seems most definite among all the others is that the nation-states we live in today are not static, rigid institutions, but evolving, changing political creatures.