Where was Earth's Leader?

[FKnight]

Like any member planet, Earth would have to have a planetary government for pretty obvious reasons -- there are simply planetary affairs which need to be handled which have absolutely nothing to do with the Federation.

If the Earth planetary government was to be supplanted because Earth joined the Federation, I'd be the first one in line to sign up for Terra Prime. I don't want to be told how to live my life because of the way a bunch of people from other planets voted in San Francisco.

I doubt the people of Earth would allow themselves to be subject to Federation law without their own planetary government in place any more than Texas would disband its state government and submit only to Federal jurisdiction.

[Timo]

there are simply planetary affairs which need to be handled which have absolutely nothing to do with the Federation.

Affairs would always be ideally handed at a specific level of hierarchy tailored for each affair. But all hierarchies in reality consist of only a limited number of levels, forcing people to go higher up or lower down than they would prefer to get their voice heard.

Setting a hierarchy level at "one planet" is awfully arbitrary. Some planets in Trek are self-contained units that only do minimal trade with each other, true - but OTOH we hear of mining worlds or agricultural worlds that apparently do major trade and not much else. The need for a President of Earth might not be particularly pressing, whereas mankind would have a desperate need for a President of Antarctica for the resources inherent in the location, and for a President of Sol, Alpha Centauri and Barneyworld for the economic unit defined by these three key systems.

Whether either of these local levels of government would be relevant to the defense of planet Earth is anybody's guess. Government hierarchy levels in general do not go hand in hand with the way the military defending said government organizes its forces; there's no military equivalent to a Mayor or a Senator, say, no city-level or 1/Xth-state-level defensive unit. Why should the existence of a President of Earth be necessary for the defense of Earth?

Timo Saloniemi

[Guy Gardener]

Not all worlds in the Federation are member worlds.

150 member worlds, who each bought a few dozen systems in when they joined up.

[R. Star]

Guy Gardener wrote:

---

Not all worlds in the Federation are member worlds.

150 member worlds, who each bought a few dozen systems in they joined up.

I would have thought all the colony worlds would have their own representation on the Council too. That's kind of a crappy deal if you're still tethered to a colonial empire that's a member of a federated state.

[Carcazoid]

If only someone onscreen would have said it ... "Take me to your leader ... " we'd all know where he was.

[Timo]

That's kind of a crappy deal if you're still tethered to a colonial empire that's a member of a federated state.

If your population is 483 (not counting the tastybeests), you're probably thankful that you can outsource all the paperwork to a joint leader of thirteen like colonies...

As said, a planet isn't a particularly natural unit of self-governance, especially not with those DMZ colonies that appear to do a lot of stuff together and wither and die if isolated.

Timo Saloniemi

[R. Star]

Timo wrote:

---

If your population is 483 (not counting the tastybeests), you're probably thankful that you can outsource all the paperwork to a joint leader of thirteen like colonies...

As said, a planet isn't a particularly natural unit of self-governance, especially not with those DMZ colonies that appear to do a lot of stuff together and wither and die if isolated.

Timo Saloniemi

If that's the only example you're using, sure. But if you have a few million people, you're not going to be wanting folks literally light years away making the calls for you.

It would remind me of 19th century western US, a set requirement for statehood and until then you're a territory.

[Guy Gardener]

But it goes both ways.

All of earths colony worlds would have equal rights and responsibilities as any citizen of Earth.

All a colony is, is more Earth.

"Federation Governor"

We know about these people.

[Phily B]

I always thought Earth at that point might've been a bit of an anarchist society which meant there wasn't a leader in the traditional sense.

[Timo]

Or, since it was the capital world, it would be split up more or less evenly between the 150 or so members. Between them, there'd be more governing than anybody could ever have use for...

Timo Saloniemi

[Sci]

I think a casual look at the history of the District of Columbia's fight for self-governance more than demonstrates the necessity of making sure your capital polity has both its own government, and equal representation in the legislature.

[Guy Gardener]

Humans don't have money.

How they determine ownership is probably questionable too.

Remember how whitey treated the Inidans?

Maybe the Humans of the 22nd century when all this was being set up got some glass beads and lost their homeworld?

[T'Girl]

Guy Gardener wrote:

---

Maybe the Humans of the 22nd century when all this was being set up got some glass beads and lost their homeworld?

Remember what happen to the Ferengi home world's moon?

Guy Gardener wrote:

---

150 member worlds, who each bought a few dozen systems in when they joined up.

LILY: How many planets are in this Federation?
PICARD: Over one hundred and fifty ...

I do kind of assume that means 150+ species home ("birth") planets. Let's say that Starfleet encounters a small interstellar republic, 10 species home worlds and each home world has 9 colonies. 100 planets total. They are convinced to join the Federation, I think that would mean only 10 additional seats on the council, not 100.

It would depend on what the Federation membership considers a "unit" for a seat.

Sci wrote:

---

... the necessity of making sure your capital polity has both its own government, and equal representation in the legislature.

Residents of the Brazilian federal district elect eight representatives and three senators, but the federal district isn't a state. It isn't necessary for Washington DC to be a state, for it's resident to have representation in the federal legislature.

Moving the current Maryland state boundaries to enclose all the residential areas would be better. The areas wouldn't even have to be continuous, there could be "islands" of Maryland in the new, smaller District of Columbia. I believe the term is "pene-exclave."

To drive to one part of Washington State, you briefly have to enter Canada.











.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ It most definitely is necessary for DC to be a state. Its representative in Congress can't vote in it, therefore the representation means nothing. So 'taxation without representation' is very real for them.

[T'Girl]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

^ It most definitely is necessary for DC to be a state.

Again, if another nation can have a federal district that isn't a state, and the residents of that district can have elected representation in both houses of the federal government, (and vote for president), why does DC have to be a state to have the same arrangement in this nation?

The laws were changed to give DC a city council, change the laws again. I think there are better options (which I outlined), but DC doesn't have be a state.

Because that would put the federal government physically inside of one of the states.