Don't want to get side tracked but this is the actual context of what Franklin said:
So Franklin was actually arguing for the right of governments to tax individuals to fund the government's business of protecting common interests. Quite the opposite of the "rights of the individual" argument that it is often used to promote.
Which kind of goes against my original point
But oh well, it's still a good quote when taken out of context to defend the rights of the individual against the state.
I do want to get side-tracked, at least a little, but since it is relevant..
http://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/484
The end of this:
Franklin’s remarks about the trade offs between “essential liberty” and “a little temporary safety” seem to have been directed at those in the colonies who could see that further compromise was no longer possible by the Crown and that it was up to the colonies to cave in in order to maintain the peace. Franklin was urging them that to do this would be to give up the entire game and thereby scuttle any chance for real liberty and independence in the colonies.
doesn't read quite the same. Context really is everything, and there is no denying people do use context to support their positions, regardless of the actual intent.
The relevance: This is where it gets tricky - given that we can have different sorts of powers in control of a system, be they Corporate, Theocratic, Democratic, Anarchistic, or Dictatorial, the matter of the general "Happiness" of the citizens there becomes subjective to who is actually in power.
Let's consider: England is a Constitutional Monarchy. Citizens there enjoy a broad range of freedoms. On Monday, the Houses of Lords and Commons are found empty. Those who previously occupied these positions are nowhere to be found, Queen Elizabeth is nowhere to be found, and George has declared himself to be King of England, and insists on reestablishing "the Old Monarchy". There is a period of "Civil Unrest", but under New King George, there is a complete media blackout, and the rest of the world knows nothing of this for quite some time. When news does come out, the rest of the world is told that George has taken the throne, instituted some changes in the government, the people are delighted to have him, and England becomes a new, and brutal Dictatorship. But we only know what we're told by the media, as the boarders are closed, audiences from foreign dignitaries are denied, and so forth.
We believe the people are happy in their new totalitarian state, when, in fact, they are quite miserable. However, since being or appearing miserable is a Capital Offence, no one dares let on they are anything other than totally thrilled - much in the way North Korea is run.
And yes, this is all a very hypothetical situation of extremes, purely to make a point - that point being that this is not entirely unlike what happens from system to system in Elite already, and I don't really yet see that really changing much at all. Influence and alter and depose the long-established government of a system, while keeping a happy citizenry happy, or after only a short period of Civil Unrest, and then right back to everything's status quo.
I feel this is yet another avenue of the game that is going to require a great deal of further work and development to make even somewhat believable.
And it may well be one that does lie beyond the scope of the game engine to really do justice. I can think of a number of ways this could be incorporated into game play without a lot of deep and fundamental overhauling. One such manner would be in spawning a new faction,
The People's Party of Putting Things Back the Way They Wer, though with an obviously more suited and generated name, that operates in a given system, supports the deposed faction, and offers up missions to aid their cause and restore the former ruling faction, not though mission boards, but through Scenarios and Popup missions (wrinkles, alternative options to missions given by the new ruling faction).
