> On May 19, 2015, at 3:54 AM, Richard Aiken <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Doug Grimes <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Nonsense, my good chap. Of course one can't simply borrow a marine platoon.  No, no, no. I am merely passing on to the good captain here a request by the newly formed system government for his troops to perform a series of integration and public relations training exercises with their new militia. The new system government is a good supporter of the Imperial Navy and Marine Corps, after all. Eh, what?"
>
>
>
> Very nice.
>
> But in this specific case, a system government did not yet exist. The security was being sought for the Constitutional Convention aimed at creating said government. So the PC noble was asking for Marines to be placed at his personal disposal. Tactical command remained with the Marine lieutenant who was placed in charge of the platoon by the ship's Marine commander. The PC noble could tell his "borrowed" Marines what should be done, but not how to do it.
>

Thus very neatly demonstrating what 'Rule of Man’ v. 'Rule of Law' actually boils down to in practice. The captain of that cruiser has ‘Age of Sail’-like autonomy over his ship, forces and use thereof, and the authority to do what the Baron asked him; he also had the authority to oh-so-politely decline.

It kind of depends on how powerful LSP is in the region, and which nobles THEY have running the local branches and subsidiaries. That he granted it very likely means LSP just wasn’t that powerful in the region, or that supporting the belters made his life easier by not fomenting a rebellious little guerrilla war in his sector.

--
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs