Silly? These people had made lives for themselves there. If you were suddenly told that the home you lived in was going to be taken from you, the home where you are happy and want to spend your life, you don't just say 'well that's just super, where do I sign up?'. Even if your government was going to pay for a new house, give you a job and feed you. You are happy where you are.
The Maquis were right in there cause. The Federation had no right to just give away those colonies without atleast asking what the people who life there think about it. You talk about Utopia (and as Sisko said, only the coreworlds have real Utopia, the colonies still have to struggle to maintain themselves). In a Utopian society, everybody matters. No one is forced into doing anything they don't want. So by forcing to settlers into abandoning their homes, the Federation is basicly showing their true colors.
Perhaps the attitude of doing what you are told works for Starfleet officers, but a civilian will struggle with that sort of forced relocation. Hell, even Starfleet officers saw how wrong it was and decided to join up.
1. Yes I'd be fine with moving, if we're talking in the context of a 24th century society where my needs are provided for and I'd be provided with a new home, and if it meant peace. Some random piece of property isn't worth a war. (I realize that it didn't exactly bring peace here, but I mean hypothetical or potential peace)
2. The Federation had EVERY right to do what they did. They're a democracy whose legitimately elected leaders made a legal treaty with another government, and I assume the treaty had broad support outside of that small minority of colonists.
A free society doesn't mean that nobody ever has to do anything they don't want to. That's more like anarchy.
Anarchy is a misunderstood concept. Literally, it means nothing more and nothing less then not believing in the benefits of a single ruler or rulingbody. End of story. All the other horror stories connected to anarchy are the result of punk teenagers in the (mostly) the UK, who had no sense of identity and used a misinterpreted version of anarchy as something to rally behind, thinking it ment they could plunder, riot and be violent. That's not what anarchy is.
And just because leaders are chosen by the people, doesn't automatically mean that all there actions are just and right. Just look at history to see how that has worked out so well over the centuries.
And honoustly people, some of the reactions of people in this thread.... It's just and right that these colonists were burned for not listening to their government?? That's not really the message of understanding and having respect for others and their opinions that Trek is teaching us.
So your position is that anytime a small minority of citizens disagree with the decisions of a legitimate, democratic government, that they have the right to violently resist that government and wage war?
How would you ever have a functioning society? In a democracy, on any given policy you have a number of people who disagree with the current one. If they took up arms every time they felt they had a cause, you'd have chaos.
And again, it wasn't like the UFP was being absurd or tyrannical here. Making some minor border modifications/swaps in the interest of long-term peace is certainly defensible and reasonable.