View Single Post
Old April 18 2013, 08:22 PM   #92
Fleet Captain
Edit_XYZ's Avatar
Location: At star's end.
Re: Did Picard make the right decision with the Son'a/Baku

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post

I would have though the stuff from the shows and at the beginning of the this freaking movie that showed how a planet goes about becoming part of the federation would have clued you in on that.

But since it didn't, The three ways shown were 1) the federation colonizes an empty planet, and 2) A planet that people already live on has to go through a lengthy application process to join, 3) The Federation Council likely with the cooperation of the locals (seeing as the one time this was shown the locals had a diplomatic meet and greet) can give a planet protectorate status. But basically what it boils down to is they pretty much need consent of the people living on the planet.
You forgot one option: the future member species of the federation bring into the federation the territory they previously had.
I don't recall the Ba'Ku's original homeworld joining the Federation at any point during or before the events of the film.
The baku were NOT on their original homeworld.
They settled a planet belonging to one of the species which will subsequently joined the federation.
That makes the baku tresspassers.

In this case - the planet the baku were settling belonged to a future member of the federation.
All other options you mentioned are excluded - the federation does not claim already inhabited planetary systems.
Much like the Ba'ku planet.
Which means the federation - or one of the species which will join the federation - claimed that solar system BEFORE the baku settled it.

After the baku settled that solar system, the federation would not have claimed it.

Actually its not eminent domain


here is the relevant quote

So explain to me oh expert of the law just how grabbing the Ba'ku in their sleep and dumping them on another planet equates giving them the right of due process?
First - you went from ~'the federation is not like USA' to ~'the federation's law on eminent domain is just like today's liberal democracies'?
You DO tend to make things up. Of course, baseless assertions remain worthless.

Second - you went from ~'the federaion had no right to remove the baku from the planet' to ~'the federation had no right to remove the baku from their planet without due process'?
You're making progress.

To answer your question, under current eminent domain law, as legiferated in liberal democracies, yes, the baku were denied due process - a right they legally had.
And any such process would have only one outcome - unless the judge and jury are sociopathic: the baku will be moved to another similar planet, given the immortality drug (along with billions of other peoples) and the rings are mined for the immortality drug.
The losses/gains weighing on the two sides of the balance are far too disproportionate for another decision.

BTW, the liberal democracies have eminent domain not because it sounds cool. But because it generates far less suffering/underdevelopment than your absolutist moral view:
Its not a moral view the federation violated the Ba'Ku's due process rights which they are entitled to under eminent domain, so really what their doing is actually illegal

Who cares about the BILLIONS who will suffer illness/injury/die just so that a few hundred elitists can keep their immortality?
You do not, apparently.
The needs of the Many doesn't let you break the god damned law.
So, if the baku are given due process, you would agree with the decision of moving them?

Or is your 'due process' argument only a smokescreen, used for its 'respectability'?
"Let truth and falsehood grapple ... Truth is strong" - John Milton

Last edited by Edit_XYZ; April 18 2013 at 08:49 PM.
Edit_XYZ is offline   Reply With Quote