RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,602
Posts: 5,424,917
Members: 24,810
Currently online: 368
Newest member: David Ellerman

TrekToday headlines

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12

New Wizkids Attack Wing Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 29 2014, 02:13 AM   #31
varek
Commander
 
varek's Avatar
 
Location: Danville, IN, USA
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

There seem to have only been two major requirements: a unified government and warp-capability. Of course, the citizens of the applicant culture should be able to adapt to the various cultures in the Federation, or they could feel rather left out.
__________________
Varek, Vulcan Engineer
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations
Time, like latinum, is a limited commodity.
varek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2014, 07:27 AM   #32
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
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
Old May 29 2014, 10:23 AM   #33
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

varek wrote: View Post
There seem to have only been two major requirements: a unified government and warp-capability. Of course, the citizens of the applicant culture should be able to adapt to the various cultures in the Federation, or they could feel rather left out.
I concur that a unified government probably is a major requirement.

Regarding warp-capability I have strong doubts. It didn't look to me that either Eminiar VII ("A Taste of Armageddon"), Ardana ("The Cloud Minders") or Gideon ("Mark of Gideon") had warp-capability, yet Ardana was a member, Gideon a candidate and Eminiar VII probably, too.

If you can't travel to other places in the Federation, the Federation will provide a transport or come to you. Come to think about it, the Enterprise picked up the delegates one after one in "Journey to Babel". Theoretically most delegates could have travelled with their own ships to Babel, but maybe that's a procedure in order not to give non-warp members a feeling of inferiority (and they have a chance to get to know each other better, although it looked like some of them already knew each other too "well" ).

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2014, 03:33 PM   #34
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

Some Members might not have starships as fast as the Enterprise, or as well armed. If there was intelligence about a possible attack, using a Starfleet vessel for transportation might have been deemed a prudent move.

T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2014, 09:30 PM   #35
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

OTOH, shouldn't you not put all your eggs in one basket?

That basket almost got destroyed hadn't Kirk played dead duck.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2014, 10:05 PM   #36
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

A kick-ass chili recipe.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2014, 11:01 PM   #37
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
OTOH, shouldn't you not put all your eggs in one basket?
Was the Enterprise the only Starfleet ship being employed as a VIP transport to Babel?

It's never been clear how big the Federation was in the mid 23rd century.

T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 01:01 AM   #38
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

Captain's log, Stardate 3842.3. We have departed Vulcan for the neutral planetoid code-named Babel. Since it is in our sector, the Enterprise has been assigned to transport [32] ambassadors of Federation planets to this vitally important council.

Enterprise was chosen because Babel was in "its" sector. No other ambassador transports were mentioned.

However, the prominent ambassadors (Vulcan, Andor, Tellar) were on board, but we never learned the whereabouts of the ambassador of Earth.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 06:08 AM   #39
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Enterprise was chosen because Babel was in "its" sector. No other ambassador transports were mentioned..
I see your point, however what about those parts of the Federation that exist outside of that one sector? You could theorize that the entire Membership area of the Federation is enclosed within a single sector, but I would find it odd that Kirk's sector held all the Member worlds.

a hundred and fourteen delegates ... thirty two of them ambassadors
In addition to people from the Federation, hopefully Coridan itself would have had representatives at the council, and maybe other peoples from outside the Federation who had perspective on Coridan's admissions.

This might be why the meeting was being held on a "neutral planetoid."

T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 08:16 PM   #40
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

T'Girl wrote: View Post
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?
Unless we assume that representation on the Federation Council is based on population, it's actually in their interests to have an upper population limit. Let's say it's 2164, and you have two new Federation Members who've just applied: The Commonwealth of Vega (population 400 million), and the United Rigel Worlds and Colonies (population 20 billion). Rigel has 50 times as many people as Vega, but unless it gets more Federation Councillors than Vega, the vote of each individual Vegan is 50 times more valuable than that of each individual Rigelian.

I should specify: I'm operating on the assumption that each Federation Member State gets one Federation Councillor, as per the novels. Given this a priori assumption, it is actually in the best interests of those persons from higher-population Member States for the UFP to have an upper population limit per Member.

Speaking outside of the question of Council representation, however, upper population limits are also better for the smaller-population Member States and for the Federation as a whole. Putting a cap on how large a Member State can get puts a check to make it harder for any particular Member State or small set of Member States to amass so much wealth and power within the Federation that they dominate the union to the detriment of smaller Member States.

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,
Then that civilization should either consent to being broken up into multiple Member States, or it should not be allowed to join and thereby render the Federation its puppet. Period.

- 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.
Nope. Constitutional liberal democracies are the only legitimate form of government, because it is the only form that requires its governments to obtain temporary renewable democratic mandates. Any other form of government is an inherent violation of the natural right of the people to rule themselves.

- 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.
The problem is that, as Christopher Hayes has shown us, meritocratic social orders are incapable of perpetuating themselves. The meritocrats inevitably begin to find ways to subvert the rules of fair competition in order to benefit themselves and their allies, producing an oligarchical social order in the meritocratic name. "He who says Meritocracy says Oligarchy."

This is perhaps most clearly illustrated today by Thomas Picketty's new research, demonstrating that in a capitalist economy -- and what is capitalism if not an economic form of meritocracy? -- it is inevitable that wealth will accumulate into fewer and fewer hands and poverty will spread to more and more, because the rate of return on capital will in the long run always exceed the growth of the overall economy.

In other words, an enlightened society that values freedom such as the Federation would have to require these kinds of limits, these floors and ceilings on wealth, in order to preserve freedom.

- 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."
Reparations are not punishment. They represent, in the words of Ta-Nehisi Coates of The Atlantic, "a national reckoning that would lead to spiritual renewal."

It also means understanding that when oppressive social conditions have been created by evil institutions, those conditions do not simply cease to exist because the initial institutions creating those conditions are removed. A society that has, for instance, slavery, but never has reparations, is a society that will remain tainted by discrimination, inequality, and oppression forever after unless reparations are undertaken -- because the conditions favoring one group while robbing from the other will continue to perpetuate themselves even absent slavery. True freedom and equality of opportunity cannot exist without the economic and moral reckoning reparations requires. To argue otherwise is to say, to again paraphrase Coates, that if you stab someone ten times, "the bleeding stops and the healing begins the moment the assailant drops the knife."

- 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.
And in the world of Space Journey created by T'Girl, you can portray the Confederated Alliance of Worlds that way if you so choose. But we're talking about Star Trek's United Federation of Planets, created by the left-leaning Gene Roddenberry -- and his entire notion of what the UFP would be like was based on the triumph of egalitarianism over hierarchy, and on an understanding that real freedom is not possible without egalitarianism.

- 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.
Absolutely nothing in "Caretaker, Part I" established or implied that Paris was being compelled to engage in forced labor as part of a criminal sentence.

The exact lines are as follows:

Caretaker, Part I wrote:
JANEWAY: Tom Paris? Kathryn Janeway. I served with your father on the Al-Batani. I wonder if we could go somewhere and talk.
PARIS: About what?
JANEWAY: About a job we'd like you to do for us.
PARIS: I'm already doing a job for the Federation.
JANEWAY: I've been told the Rehab Commission is very pleased with your work. They've given me their approval to discuss this matter with you.
PARIS: Well then, I guess I'm yours.
It's just as likely that Paris is performing voluntary labor in return for a reasonable rate of compensation, perhaps something similar to Scandinavia's superior prison system.

Because I'm sure the Federation and its Members understand that compelling forced labor merely creates an incentive for the state to unjustly imprison people in order to profit off of their unpaid labor.

- Absence of capital punishment
This should be a matter for the individual Member worlds, based upon their own legal system, culture and history.
Nope. Capital punishment is barbarism, pure and simple. It is the assertion that sentient life is the property of the state. No state has any right to kill someone except in the act of defense from an immediate threat, and there is no justification whatsoever for capital punishment.

If the Most Serene Republic of Planet Zog wants to keep capital punishment when it applies for Federation Membership, then it shouldn't be allowed in. Period.
__________________
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." - George Orwell, 1946
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 08:33 PM   #41
Annorax849
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: Connecticut
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

I like the idea of the Federation council having a tricaramel legislature: (in order of power)
-One entirely based on population groups (basically like then House of Reps)
-One where each planet (besides colonies with tiny populations) gets one Councillor.
-One where each species gets one Councillor.
Annorax849 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 08:54 PM   #42
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

Annorax849 wrote: View Post
I like the idea of the Federation council having a tricaramel legislature: (in order of power)
-One entirely based on population groups (basically like then House of Reps)
-One where each planet (besides colonies with tiny populations) gets one Councillor.
-One where each species gets one Councillor.
Why species?

If a single family of Cardassians moves to Vulcan in the year 2267, does that mean that you have to add an entirely new Councillor for Vulcan to the House of Species?
__________________
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." - George Orwell, 1946
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30 2014, 11:50 PM   #43
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

Sci wrote: View Post
If a single family of Cardassians moves to Vulcan in the year 2267, does that mean that you have to add an entirely new Councillor for Vulcan to the House of Species?
A single family might be too small a group to warrant a councilor, however if half a million Cardassians immigrate into the Federation, settling on hundreds of planets (moons, stations, etc.) then they collective would have a councilor.

T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2014, 04:34 AM   #44
Annorax849
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: Connecticut
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

Sci wrote: View Post
Annorax849 wrote: View Post
I like the idea of the Federation council having a tricaramel legislature: (in order of power)
-One entirely based on population groups (basically like then House of Reps)
-One where each planet (besides colonies with tiny populations) gets one Councillor.
-One where each species gets one Councillor.
Why species?

If a single family of Cardassians moves to Vulcan in the year 2267, does that mean that you have to add an entirely new Councillor for Vulcan to the House of Species?
The idea is that it would be for species which have officially joined the Federation via their homeworld, and it would be much smaller body than the Planetary one, which would be bigger due to all the colonies. I admit it's sort of a flimsy idea, and maybe it could be a committee in one of the other two or something.

Also, it wouldn't work in the way your asking. It has nothing to do with planets. So, if it were so specific, there would just be a Cardassian Councillor who represents all the Cardassians in the UFP.
Annorax849 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2014, 05:49 PM   #45
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

^ It would be nice to have a form of representation that "followed you" as you moved around. If you had a job (or a lifestyle) that involved you frequently traveling from star system to star system, and not really having a home planet, this guy would be your rep.

If there were a group of people similar to the boomers on ENT, who represents them? They have no "home world," but they do have a species.

How this would work with individuals who are the product to multi-species ancestry might be hard to say, but they could legally be covered by all their different species reps.

This is a good idea Annorax 849.

Annorax849 wrote: View Post
there would just be a Cardassian Councillor who represents all the Cardassians in the UFP.
But the Councillor wouldn't be connected in any way to the Cardassian Union's government?

The Cardassian Councillor would be independent of that body, yes?


Last edited by T'Girl; June 1 2014 at 06:00 PM.
T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.