View Single Post
Old May 29 2014, 07:27 AM   #32
Vice Admiral
T'Girl's Avatar
Location: Looking for somewhere to put my urine sample down
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

varek wrote: View Post
... the citizens of the applicant culture should be able to adapt to the various cultures in the Federation ...
And the antecedent Members should do the same with the newest Member, accommodating them and their various peculiarities and characteristic .

The Federation would be at least slightly refashioned with each new addition (or subtraction).

Sci wrote: View Post
- Minimum and maximum population levels, to ensure relative equality of representation on the Federation Council
While requiring a minimal population would be fine, how would a restriction on populations above a given number make any sense? An older interstellar civilization seeking membership in the Federation might have a total population in the hundreds of billions, such a civilization could be a valuable asset to the Federation, the needs of the Federation should over-ride any difficulties the council might have finding room for additional chairs.

- Government must be a constitutional liberal democracy
Must? Nah, there'll be room for planets Vatican, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, etc. Ruling monarchies and corporate worlds.

- Maintenance of a welfare state ensuring minimum wealth for all citizens and residents
While a minimal safety net is a good idea, nobody starves - nobody freezes, mandating minimal wealth is likely going to far.

- Maximum limit to the amount of wealth any citizen or resident may accumulate to prevent the evolution of an oligarchy
This kind of impediment on personal achievement would probably be something to avoid, certainly to be left to each Member.

- History of social policies of serious reparations and restitution if such oppressions have existed in the past
Data (Farpoint): "In the year 2036, the new United Nations declared that no Earth citizen could be made to answer for the crimes of his race or forbears."

How then could money, land or other value be removed from a people (or segment of) to compensate for actions that they themselves didn't undertake? This is a bad idea.

- Overall a relatively egalitarian social order
Forcing any population to be confined to single position in a mono-societal construct from which they can never lift themselves beyond (or fall below) through their own efforts would be a form of punishment, coercive egalitarianism. Some people simply have more drive and ambition than others, they should be free to spread their wings and soar. There will be billionaires, celebrities, athletes and others who push their way to the front, and to the top.

- Absence of any form of slavery or forced labor
We saw prisoner Tom Paris doing grounds keeping while in a penal institution, being compelled (forced) to perform labor as part of a criminal sentence is reasonable.

- Absence of capital punishment
This should be a matter for the individual Member worlds, based upon their own legal system, culture and history.

Last edited by T'Girl; May 29 2014 at 10:09 AM.
T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote