Timo wrote:
|
Um, that was exactly what Picard said, so why are you calling it false?
|
Hmm. What I'm saying is true to what Picard is saying. What you are saying is false.
Namely, your claim that
|
"Having a unified planetary government" aren't my words, those are the actual words actually spoken onscreen by Picard in "Attached."
|
is untrue. The actual words are yours, not Picard's. See above for the actual words of Picard, the ones that do not contain the words "planetary" or "government" at all. |
Doesn't change a thing, really.
The situation in question was still about a world applying for Federation membership that wasn't united under a single government. You can quibble that a "unified world" can mean anything, but my point still stands.
T'Girl wrote:
C.E. Evans wrote:
T'Girl wrote:
If say Vulcan entered the Federation as a autocratic state, changes at some point into a democracy, then morphs back to a autocracy over time, what happens?
|
See what happens when you don't have a unified planet? |
That hypothedical was of a planet with a mono-government. |
Sorry, my response was actually in regards to what came before that.
|
If a planet's population radically changes it's government type, does the planetary population remain a federation member?
|
If it no longer abides by the Federation charter, I don't think it would, but if it still does, then the type of government--rule by one or rule by committee--shouldn't matter at all. I think the only exception would be a government in which the guaranteed rights under the Federation Constitution (such as the Seventh Guarantee, for example) were being denied to its people.