- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Honestly, we have no compelling reason to assume the D7s were that bad for their era. Romulus may have gotten a fully modern, highly capable line of battle out of that deal.
The main argument is simply that space habitats collectively, and colonies around other star systems in general, will have very different interests from homeworlds and somewhat different from even major colonies. But inevitably the more remote and less populous colonies will be It's a reprise of the "big state, small state" argument from the drafting of the US Constitution, but with a very strong, very permanent reason behind it, especially in the context of the interstellar colonies.
It makes no sense, just looking at a geographic map, why Bangladesh and (today's) Pakistan were ever part of the same country- but they were. Political jurisdictions are often based on history and demographics. And I can imagine a lot of situations, especially in a period when warp travel was less ubiquitous and transporters were Not A Thing, in which Luna might decide its political interests were better served by alignment with Mars than with Earth.Ooops, I missed that about Mars Councillor.
That said, it makes no sense for Mars to be also responsible for Luna; the Moon is close enough that people can shuttle in to and fro in matter of hours.
The disparity between population sizes on the Moon and Mars, or between the aggregate population of 100 little habitats orbiting Jupiter and Mars, would tend to be a lot less dramatic than the disparity between any of those, and Earth.If Mars is its own actual voting bloc and you have only like, 14 thousand votes, the question doesn't really matter, because Mars can simply outmass you either way. It's the question of "do I prefer to be Martian protectorate, or Earth's?". However, that's a bit outside of the point I was trying to make.
The main argument is simply that space habitats collectively, and colonies around other star systems in general, will have very different interests from homeworlds and somewhat different from even major colonies. But inevitably the more remote and less populous colonies will be It's a reprise of the "big state, small state" argument from the drafting of the US Constitution, but with a very strong, very permanent reason behind it, especially in the context of the interstellar colonies.
It's not just communication, it's different living conditions and economic conditions. I mean, people who live in airtight domes on a planet with no biosphere and who find that 80% of their economy comes from dilithium mining or whatever, they're going to have very specific needs and policy issues arising. Trying to govern them from an M-class planet where their species evolved is going to create a lot of friction. And proportional representation of the colonists' needs in the M-class planet's legislature (or in a Federation-wide governing body) won't address that friction.I admit though, this is a big pet peeve of mine in science fiction - the colonies always have to be fractious and demand their own self-governance, which makes sense if technology makes travel and communication time-consuming or otherwise expensive. But the easier it is to move people, items and information, the less core-periphery dynamics are liable to create the same social forces that would make people consider breaking off with a distant polity, barring deliberate disruption.But that's maybe because I am not American