Editing FederalSpace:Peoples (section)

== The Orion Alliance ==

'''Brainstorming:'''
* A republic with AI advisors, with a Parliament and Prime Minister or Ministers.
* Corporate capitalism, complete with well developed mass media, etc.
* Reduced social programs and lax regulation of business, in order to encourage business. Greater individual liberty than the Federated Worlds, but also great social inequality—the poor are poorer. 
* Less conservative technologically, but also less stable—more boom and bust cycles. 
* Colonies tend to be for business first, and ideology only much later. 
* Army and Navy are traditionally-structured militaries, but compete at times with the private corporate fleets. 
* Great music, food, and drink!

'''Random Action Table (1d6):'''
# Light a cigarette.
# Offer money.
# Offer sex.
# Apply overwhelming force.
# Bluff.
# Damn the consequences and do the right thing.

=== Commentary ===

'''Shadowjack:''' One reason for the Orion Alliance is to let them serve as mirrors to the Federation. Anything which doesn't work for the one, I can try out on the other, but ''both'' can be "people like us." It's also inspired by fandom arguments along the lines of "Who would win, the Colonial Marines from ''Aliens'' or Starfleet Security?" and "The Federation is Communist propaganda!"

Another reason is to let me do stories about capitalism and greed without having to invoke a race of short greedy scheming moneylenders with big ears and noses who covet gold. Which for some ''funny'' reason seems distasteful to me. (Which is a shame, because the Ferengi episodes on DS9 were generally great fun!)

'''Devin Parker:''' I love having that cultural counterpoint present. It reminds me a lot of Austrin-Ontis from the ''Star*Drive'' setting for ''Alternity''...which also has an Orion '''League'''...hmm.

'''Shadowjack:''' You know, I've never looked at Star*Drive. *adds to the round-to-it list*


'''Albert:''' Okay, we can tell that Federal Space is more easy-going than the Orions, and probably a better place to be "poor" in, but what are the Orion advantages? More social mobility? A higher "average" standard of living? Technology that tends to remain about a generation ahead? In other words, what distinguishes this from "My Little Telepathic Pony and the strawman Eagleland IN SPAAAAAAAAACE!"

'''LordDraqo:''' I see the Orion Alliance as ''lazzaie fair'' capitalism with the volume-dial set to "high." Of course you have more social/economic mobility, as anyone with the capital to do so can set themselves up as a business. Corporate entities would tend to become powerful, and I can see interactions between Management and Labor as common.

'''Shadowjack:''' Well, maybe not ''high'', but higher.

'''Fasth:''' Here we have a political minefield, yes? Perhaps the best would be to accentuate the differing philosophies and their effect on the individual rather than make a maniphesto about the greater efficiency of the laissez-faire capitalist state. The Orions are more fun. More hedonistic. More swashbuckling, cigar-chewing, babe-getting, bar-brawling individualists than the Feds and their duty-ridden sense of communal spirit. I think their hats have broader brims as well.

'''Shadowjack:''' What he said. The Orion's have drive. It's bad if you're poor, but if you're successful, the sky's the limit. 

The Federation tends toward caution—they are still very hesitant to poke their noses into another planet's business. While if the Orions see something they see as wrong, they'll obknock all over their asses—so they've had spectacular failures, but also spectacular successes. I imagine a good story could be had where both Federation and Alliance ships respond to a distress call from some neutral world—both governments want to help, but they differ in approach. 

An individual in the Alliance has more personal liberty than in the Federation. They've got a broader right to bear arms, and lots of independent media—but also lots of ''powerful'' corporate interests, who use those rights too, and more effectively than the individual. Lots of social strain there. You'll see this in the economy, too; there are stronger boom-bust cycles in the Alliance, while the Federation prefers stability. 

Oddly, the Alliance is more unified culturally; Federation colony worlds tend to spin-off their own subcultures, while Alliance colonies are more tied to the whole, perhaps because their colonies are more profit-based than ideological. And it's easier to market mass culture.

The Federation's in this thing where they're mining pre-Empire art for inspiration, trying to reclaim Earthling art—all those string quartet revivals, and Picard's hoarded copies of Dickens and pulp novels—while the Orions are cheerfully making new, loud music and media. If you want good food, good music, go to Orion space; Yoko Kanno does the soundtrack. If you want tradition, find a Federation planet; the first music played on a newly-christened ship is always "The Blue Danube."

I tend to draw the Orion Alliance uniforms and equipment looking a ''lot'' like in ''Aliens'', and I think of the cities like those in ''Bubblegum Crisis'', so think of Weyland-Yutani or GENOM doing business in the Star Trek universe. That's the ''downside'' of the Alliance.



'''CasperLions:''' I'd say the big secret is that the Orion Alliance has a social welfare system almost as good as the Fed's...it's just being poor sucks in the Alliance. Every (Orionite? Oriono like Angeleno? Orionian?) knows it does. That's because they value the finer things in life, which is to say they live in a consumer culture that caters to base gluttony and sloth and make people obsessed with getting the luxuries that money can get (ironically, due to less restrictions and less trade regulations many food/drug type luxuries are available - in some form at least - quite cheaply). That's the consumer-culture-capitalist secret to getting people from a fat wealthy nation to be motivated, by playing on their greed and their desire to not work. People ignore the fact that they could just not work by becoming obsessed with working hard (or at least getting clever and trying to scam/trick people and take risks) now so that some day they can earn the right to relax in the corporate-packaged sort of retirement/vacation/"high life" they imagine.


The Fed on the other hand probably dealt with the early lethargy of it's welfare state by placing higher restrictions on various things and activities taken for granted, encouraging people to become productive (and after that people become proud of being productive and a form of patriotism rises around the subject). The loop probably works like this - the Fed tarrifs space-ciggs and so on in order to have the cash to provide everyone with education tailored to their talents/inclinations, thus encouraging the development of happy productive people.


Alliance citizens see economic freedom as ultimately being the freedom to pursue happiness, and their appreciation for that economic freedom develops into a sometimes arrogant patriotism bordering on the fetishistic.

Fed citizens see a nurturing/uplifting society and the opportunity to do meaningful things with their lives as the source of the freedom of the pursuit of happiness, and that breeds a contentment/appreciation of their role in the great machine without needing a clearly defined sense of patriotism separate from their feeling of life fulfillment.

It's all very subtle in how it's actually induced, though, seeing as both come from the same general point and time of origin. The Fed isn't a communist utopia and the Alliance isn't a libertarian wet-dream, at least not in flashy ways. Both are essentially stratified societies where patriotism and specific socioeconomic (occupational counting as economic) standards are closely tied, preventing class wars or neo-aristocracy or anything like that. An Alliance slacker will complain just like someone today, but they're proud of their right to slack and furthermore have the desire to do more (and probably will), out of the collective peer pressure that they get a higher paying job so they can have a house in the space suburbs and 2.5 space kids. 

A Fed slacker will complain just like someone today, but they're actually frustrated at themselves for not having the courage to take up the various educational/occupational opportunities that have come their way; their silent patriotism being the overwhelming desire for a standard of self-satisfication/fulfillment that would baffle even the most rugged Orion individualist.




A countercultural, radical, subversive in the Fed would be a hippy type who manage to combine that same desire for fulfillment with a rejection of the omnipresent authority that makes such an encouraging society possible. 

A radical in the Alliance would be someone that combines their focus on individuality with an extreme focus on personal survival. Selfishness is almost a virtue (in that it encourages people to be productive), but the traditional family/friends/community/corporate feelings of loyalty are expected in a small way at least as part of the general cultural background. Really hardcore dog-eat-dog cyberpunk dystopian types are not any more well-liked than we like survivalist gun nuts today. Even the commercial/cultural image of the rugged individualist is a good consumer (er, citizen); loner street samurai are considered immoral scumbags even if religion/traditional values are not an overt norm (good-neighborism, the ideological motif of not letting your liberty infringe on your neighbors, is still valued is the point).



That's what this all makes me think of, anyway.


'''cmdicely:''' The idea of laissez-faire capitalism with the volume dial set to "high" and an increased degree of socio-economic mobility doesn't really strike me as particularly credible. "Anyone with the capital to do so can set themselves up as a business" is a recipe for fairly rigid economic stratification.

'''Mr. Teufel:''' You need a mechanism where those at the top are as likely to fall as those at the bottom are to rise. Maybe there's no such thing as "limited liability". If your company goes bankrupt, you lose everything, and your shareholders incur debts. It would work with the whole individualist concept.

'''Shadowjack:''' I agree [on the point of economic stratification]. That's why I wouldn't turn the dial up myself to super-high. Just pretty high, compared to the Federation; I bet the Alliance Trade Commission is ''very'' busy (no doubt pressured by the other corporations to keep others from getting too far ahead). I kind of think that ''all'' of the interstellar governments have pretty heavy social programs by our standards, to maintain social stability. But the Alliance has much lower standards, to encourage people to go out and work.



'''MadDogMike:''' Just a couple of thoughts real quick. If the Orions have a looser reproduction policy than the Federation, one way you could get some tension is the Orions being more expansionist to deal with their extra population. Might also work as a "safety valve" for the poor and disaffected; have somebody invest "start-up funds" (possibly with government subsidies) into forming colonies which the poor can take up and effectively get a higher lifestyle with the potential of going even higher thanks to being in a "new market", while the sponsors/government get an eventual return on investment from paying back the loan/taxable population increase. This also provides the possibility of Orion worlds on the fringe the Feds might visit in various straits, from happy and well-off to miserable and under crushing debt due to the failure of the colony (either of which might present issues to Fed planets nearby of various sorts; "Orion pirates" might be caused by the latter while the government as a whole is reasonably legit). I would say to make things less black and white that the Orions (minus corrupt individuals and mistakes, of course) aren't actually conquerors as they expand; they work on the principle of "space is so big there's plenty of room to grow". The Federals could still complain about the Orions growing faster than is wise (and possibly running into threats faster than the Feds), while the Orions bring up the Federals dictating fundamental things like childbirth as a horrible flaw. Shows both sides of the issue without necessarily having either be "right".

'''Shadowjack:''' A justification for the old "Orion pirates" line—nice. And this sort of real but not-rigged politics is good thinking.



'''Shadowjack:''' Genetic engineering: I figure the Alliance is more laise-faire about the whole thing, but also has strong currents of public opinion that go back and forth; probably an "indentured servitude" option in there, I need to think about it. 


'''John Morrow:''' One idea, then, is to get rid of your Orion Alliance and put it back into Federal Space and create a "Blue State"/"Red State" dichotomy within your Federal Space. The urbanized core worlds are more socialist and socially liberal while the more rural frontier worlds are more capitalist and traditional. This creates tension in the Federation Council, which shifts back and forth between the two approaches as one group or the other gains control and with each trying to push their sensibilities on the other. This would allow a mixed crew approach. Maybe your Orion Alliance is a part of the Federation, an alliance of worlds within rather than a separate government outside. If each world has it's own government that can vary quite a bit, that gives you room for your California fiscal crisis as a local matter.

'''Shadowjack:''' By now, I'm too beholden to the idea of the separate government and culture to abandon it… but I ''do'' like the idea of different regions within the Federated Worlds. We know there's the original core, and the area bordering "the Badlands", so what else is there?