Insurrection as an episode...

[horatio83]

Which part of "kidnapping a people and rob them" is pragmatic and ethical?
One political entity forces its will upon another. Happened numerous times in history and the word for this is imperialism.

No idea where you are from but on my continent we got rid of this one nations attacks another BS after WWII and we are better off because of it. Leading war, violating the sovereignty of another nation and the freedom and dignity of its people, is evil and so is warmongering, advocating such crimes.

[sonak]

horatio83 wrote:

---

Which part of "kidnapping a people and rob them" is pragmatic and ethical?
One political entity forces its will upon another. Happened numerous times in history and the word for this is imperialism.

the kidnapping is the pragmatic part, the use of the resources for the general welfare is the ethical part.

And again, I agree that the way they were going to go about it was problematic. But remember, Dougherty ONLY proceeded that way because of the false assumption that the Baku were agrarian primitives. He should have immediately opened negotiations and changed strategy after discovering the truth from Picard. But then we go back to the "either the Baku say no and the audience loses sympathy or there's no movie" problem.


I mean really, Horatio83, what would you think of a movie where Picard is fighting on behalf of the Baku after they've openly refused to leave under any circumstances? What's the tagline?

"This November, Picard and co. fight on behalf of a small group of smug, selfish pacifists who refuse to either fight for their own homes or leave them to help anyone else!"


Oh, and I'm from the U.S. btw. And yes, warmongering is bad.

[Hartzilla2007]

sonak wrote:

---

the kidnapping is the pragmatic part, the use of the resources for the general welfare is the ethical part.

Actually its kidnapping and THEFT of resources. Remember you pretty much agreed that this wasn't a federation planet earlier

Besides kidnapping is still a crime last I checked.

And again, I agree that the way they were going to go about it was problematic. But remember, Dougherty ONLY proceeded that way because of the false assumption that the Baku were agrarian primitives.

Oh so it all right to do the very thing the federation came up with the Prime Directive to prevent now?

So you're basically saying its all right for the federation and really any nation to hypocritically piss all over every thing were founded on and acting no better than an expansionist empire who crushes anyone who gets in their way if they don't kindly take it in the rear.

[sonak]

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

---

Actually its kidnapping and THEFT of resources. Remember you pretty much agreed that this wasn't a federation planet earlier

Besides kidnapping is still a crime last I checked.

Oh so it all right to do the very thing the federation came up with the Prime Directive to prevent now?

So you're basically saying its all right for the federation and really any nation to hypocritically piss all over every thing were founded on and acting no better than an expansionist empire who crushes anyone who gets in their way if they don't kindly take it in the rear.

even if you say the planet's not Federation by location, the PD still doesn't apply, not even under the broadest definitions, since the Baku aren't pre-contact, or even FROM that planet originally.

If you apply the PD to the Baku, you make it so all-encompassing that it would basically paralyze the UFP.

[CaptainStoner]

The story would be essentially the same if the baku said yes to negotiation, because the immovable object is the sona leader, who simply would have killed dougherty a bit sooner.

INS is certainly a succesful film at getting people to talk about it, though more out of confusion...

Diplomacy, and further study, is what was needed. You cant reason with nuts, so a fight ensues. The whole thing about moving the baku, or not moving, isnt really the problem in INS, which becomes clear when rualfo kills dougherty.

[Hartzilla2007]

sonak wrote:

---

even if you say the planet's not Federation by location, the PD still doesn't apply, not even under the broadest definitions, since the Baku aren't pre-contact, or even FROM that planet originally.

If you apply the PD to the Baku, you make it so all-encompassing that it would basically paralyze the UFP.

Um didn't you just say

sonak wrote:

---

But remember, Dougherty ONLY proceeded that way because of the false assumption that the Baku were agrarian primitives.

Seeing as they were planning to move the Ba'ku before Picard arrived and found out they were warp capable this would mean that at the time they would believe that the Ba'ku were pre-warp

What that means is that from Dougherty's perspective at the time the Prime Directive would in fact apply and as such he would be planning to violate it.

[sonak]

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

---

Um didn't you just say

Seeing as they were planning to move the Ba'ku before Picard arrived and found out they were warp capable this would mean that at the time they would believe that the Ba'ku were pre-warp

What that means is that from Dougherty's perspective at the time the Prime Directive would in fact apply and as such he would be planning to violate it.

yes, Dougherty WOULD have been violating it under the incorrect assumptions about the Baku.

[DonIago]

That being said, if Dougherty was telling the truth and operating under orders from the Federation Council, then the question becomes whether the Council has the right to waive the PD.

[horatio83]

Having to point out that violating the sovereignty of another nation, kidnapping its citizens and stealing their resources is imperialism feels like having to point out that forcing somebody against his will to do something sexual is rape or that simulating drowning is torture. It shouldn't be necessary to have these kind of pseudo-discussions in a civilized society.

By the way, I am totally for the Cardassian land for peace treaty (the Feds once abandoned cloaking technolgoy for peace). The Maquis are Federation citizens and subject to the laws and treaties of their government. If they don't wanna leave the dangerous border region they gotta live with the consequences.
The Ba'ku /S'ona on the other hand are not Federation citizens so the Federation has no right to mess with them. Pre-warp or post-warp doesn't matter and you don't need the Prime Directive to realize that taking the land of resources of other folks is wrong. Gee, children learn these rules in the sandbox!
In short, there is no moral dilemma of any kind, INS is a simple, old-school, Picard vs. the evil admiral morality tale like The Drumhead. Like TFF it is essentially a small screen story, something thematically familiar from the series that doesn't work perfectly on the big screen.

[DonIago]

I agree that taking the Baku off the planet by force is morally questionable. That said, the Baku monopolizing the planet also strikes me as morally questionable.

There's apparently a lot of information that we don't have about the situation. Including who actually authorized the operation and whether they had any legitimate (if not moral) authority to do so.

I still think it would have been amusing on one level if Our Heroes had made their case only for the Council to say, "We knew what Dougherty was doing...why are you screwing with this?"

[sonak]

horatio83 wrote:

---

Having to point out that violating the sovereignty of another nation, kidnapping its citizens and stealing their resources is imperialism feels like having to point out that forcing somebody against his will to do something sexual is rape or that simulating drowning is torture. It shouldn't be necessary to have these kind of pseudo-discussions in a civilized society.

By the way, I am totally for the Cardassian land for peace treaty (the Feds once abandoned cloaking technolgoy for peace). The Maquis are Federation citizens and subject to the laws and treaties of their government. If they don't wanna leave the dangerous border region they gotta live with the consequences.
The Ba'ku /S'ona on the other hand are not Federation citizens so the Federation has no right to mess with them. Pre-warp or post-warp doesn't matter and you don't need the Prime Directive to realize that taking the land of resources of other folks is wrong. Gee, children learn these rules in the sandbox!
In short, there is no moral dilemma of any kind, INS is a simple, old-school, Picard vs. the evil admiral morality tale like The Drumhead. Like TFF it is essentially a small screen story, something thematically familiar from the series that doesn't work perfectly on the big screen.

again, if this were the case, there would be no debate on it, it would be a factual matter on the level of "2+2=4." Since the movie has stirred MUCH debate, including critics and cast members as well as fans, and since many have taken a view on the issue that is the opposite of yours, it is clearly not the case that "there is no dilemma."

Again, your rigid regard for and elevation of property rights to such a level of paramount importance makes me wonder if you are entirely clear about the very philosophy and political orientation you claim to adhere to. Perhaps you are really a very confused conservative?

[horatio83]

Ah, another appeal to majority. Seems you really need such crutches to defend a position which is simply wrong. I don't care how many people view imperialism as something good, they are wrong.
And more of the "I am flexible and you are rigid" nonsense. If not wanting to kidnap, rob, relocate and (let's not beat around the bush, we all know what follows after relocation) murder other people makes me rigid and dogmatic I am gladly a dogmatic defender of common sense and decency.


Enough polemics, now back to the actual arguments.

In my last post I made very clear that I am quite sympathetic to centralized progressive rule. I have no problems with a government that forces its OWN people to do something which goes against their narrow interests but serves the general good. I want to live among citoyens and not among bourgeois.

Property rights are not the issue and I am anything but a conservative. Nice attempt to deflect from the core of the issue though, that you want one nation / political entity to force ANOTHER ONE to do its bidding. You simply ignore the fact that we are dealing with TWO nations and pretend that the well-being of one is more important than the well-being of the other simply because it is more populous. As a fellow leftist you should know better from history what such an attitude implies.

[sonak]

horatio83 wrote:

---

Ah, another appeal to majority. Seems you really need such crutches to defend a position which is simply wrong. I don't care how many people view imperialism as something good, they are wrong.
And more of the "I am flexible and you are rigid" nonsense. If not wanting to kidnap, rob, relocate and (let's not beat around the bush, we all know what follows after relocation) murder other people makes me rigid and dogmatic I am gladly a dogmatic defender of common sense and decency.


Enough polemics, now back to the actual arguments.

In my last post I made very clear that I am quite sympathetic to centralized progressive rule. I have no problems with a government that forces its OWN people to do something which goes against their narrow interests but serves the general good. I want to live among citoyens and not among bourgeois.

Property rights are not the issue and I am anything but a conservative. Nice attempt to deflect from the core of the issue though, that you want one nation / political entity to force ANOTHER ONE to do its bidding. You simply ignore the fact that we are dealing with TWO nations and pretend that the well-being of one is more important than the well-being of the other simply because it is more populous. As a fellow leftist you should know better from history what such an attitude implies.

I wasn't appealing to the majority, I was pointing out that you are incorrect about there not being a dilemma. And I don't know why you draw such an arbitrary line between different nations or governments. Are you an isolationist? What difference from an ETHICAL perspective does it make if the Baku are UFP citizens or not? It makes a difference politically, but ethics don't change based on borders.

Also, the Baku aren't much of a nation. They are a tiny group of pacifists who, if left on their own and undefended by the UFP or outside group, would be conquered/removed fairly quickly. And as I like to point out in this debate, if you think it's a PD issue, then Picard STILL shouldn't be defending the Baku, he should let them fight it out with the Son'a.

And of course the Baku would lose. Either way, they lose.

[horatio83]

In the real world I am no isolationist, there is international law that regulates when the sovereignty of a nation can be violated. Withholding medical assets is not a trigger, otherwise you could invade any country that has pharmaceutical companies.
Trek is what you call isolationist, the Federation has no right to mess with other cultures in any case. Not when there is are devastating wars and certainly not because they withhold a medical asset.

So your position is violating law in the Trekverse as well as in the real world. To pretend that you are actually doing something ethical while ravaging and raping people is a bad joke at best.

[Hartzilla2007]

DonIago wrote:

---

I agree that taking the Baku off the planet by force is morally questionable. That said, the Baku monopolizing the planet also strikes me as morally questionable.

Of course this assumes the Ba'ku are monopolizing the planet.

There's apparently a lot of information that we don't have about the situation. Including who actually authorized the operation and whether they had any legitimate (if not moral) authority to do so.

Well seeing as how fast the council backtracked on the relocation plan and the fact that Dougherty feared this possibility enough to let the Son'a attack the federation flagship with the possible intent to destroy it.

I still think it would have been amusing on one level if Our Heroes had made their case only for the Council to say, "We knew what Dougherty was doing...why are you screwing with this?"

But they didn't so it looks like Dougherty may not have had much of a leg to stand on.