Unelected Dogcatchers
“Gentlesophs of the Plurality, on behalf of the Bandal Home/Care Provision Citizen Oversight Group, we move that our statement of intent, critical path, budget and disbursals as modified in our attachment for estimated population variance be accepted as read, being invariant from our presentation of the last fiscal year.”
“We have a single addendum to make, in response to a question-tree forwarded to us on behalf of the Assertive Benevolence Association, which wishes us to define, by way of justification of our proposal and the expenditure of social money contributions on our intent, the concrete benefits provided to the Imperial citizen-shareholder by our COG.”
“It is tempting to merely reply that we do not acknowledge that anyone who does not consider our primary argument, presented in terms of one’s proper moral obligations to one’s dependent creations, sufficient justification in itself has standing or stature enough to question anyone else’s motivations.”
“But if one insists on a pragmatic reason for our care for and rehoming of stray bandal, consider that your typical watchhound these days has diamond teeth that can shear through light armor, fur with the same sort of protective characteristics as an arachnoweave vest, and can leap twenty feet in the air from a standing start, all of which traits breed true. We stipulate that the absence of a large feral population of such capable animals is an obvious external benefit of our work.”
“This tree then asks the secondary question: why does this argument not apply equally to people?”
“The answer here is simple. Sophs can’t revert to a wild state. By definition, they’ve got ethical competence, so if one starts acting in an uncivilized manner, that’s criminal, not feral. There are other instrumentalities to deal with that, with which the Empire is amply supplied, in both the public and private realms.”
“This concludes our proposal to the Plurality.”
– from the Plurality opening session, 3411