Insurrection as an episode...

[Sindatur]

sonak wrote:

---

Well it depends WHAT the thing in question is. If it's a fuel source, then yes you're right, you either meet their price or they keep it or negotiate with someone else.


If it's a revolutionary medical resource that can cure most diseases, can regrow eyes, can extend life spans, etc., then you negotiate at first, but if that doesn't work, you certainly don't just shrug and walk away. Yes, you would eventually take it and administer it in a fair way that benefits the larger society.


And tell me you actually think that if the cure for cancer was found on some small group's land and they didn't want to move, that people would just shrug and say "oh well, we tried."

So, then it was OK for the Aliens in "V" to do what they did? They were hungry and thirsty/needed water, and we obviously weren't willing to sell ourselves and our water to them, then it was perfectly reasonable for them to invade and take what they wanted?

Might makes Right

[CaptainStoner]

There was no real effort to negotiate with the baku. The whole kidnapping operation was without starfleet knowledge or approval, save a few rogue officers. There was no reason to move them other than vendetta in any case. So, starfleet puts a research facility there, and the pacifist baku file a protest. I completely agree with Picard intervening. The relocation was senseless.

[sonak]

Sindatur wrote:

---

So, then it was OK for the Aliens in "V" to do what they did? They were hungry and thirsty/needed water, and we obviously weren't willing to sell ourselves and our water to them, then it was perfectly reasonable for them to invade and take what they wanted?

Might makes Right

I've never seem "V" but the scenario you described doesn't seem equivalent.

Also, "the greater good" is NOT the same thing as "might makes right."

[Sindatur]

sonak wrote:

---

I've never seem "V" but the scenario you described doesn't seem equivalent.

Also, "the greater good" is NOT the same thing as "might makes right."

I disagree, The Baku don't answer to Starfleet, they owed them nothing. They said NO to relations. Kirk (And most every other Captain we've seen in Star Fleet) always told us that "NO" meant the Federation would go away, and take nothing from you, or exact any price for rejection. So, an Independent Society, who said no to the Almighty Starfleet, is ignored when they say no, and Forced to comply, through might, because they had the audacity to not join up or bow down to the Federation? This isn't a colony, or a territory we're talking about here, it's an Independent Society, not beholden to the decisions of the Federation. Starfleet taking what they want, without consent, and after refusal, is a brutal act of Invasion/War

Sure, you could make all these claims, if they were Federation Citizens or Protectorates, but, they're not, they're outsiders, that have chosen not to bask in the benevolence of the Federation, and are being bullied

[horatio83]

Sonak's error is that he equates the Federation's well-being with the common good. This is wrong as the UFP is only one political entity among many in the Alpha and Beta Quadrant. Once it believes that it may take something by force it is no better than the Klingons or Romulans.

[MacLeod]

sonak wrote:

---

I think it's extremely unlikely that the Baku would share their resources. They knew full well what they were sitting on, which is why they stayed there hidden, and didn't tell anyone about what they'd stumbled upon. After the events of INS, they had to have known what Dougherty was originally after.

Sympathy isn't necessary for justice, but it DOES help in a fictional story where the audience is supposed to side with a group. It has been said by many critics of INS that a major issue with it is that it's very hard to sympathize with the Baku, which cripples the movie, because we either

(a) don't care about what happens to the Baku or
(b) actively root against them




also, comparisons to "theft" and the Klingon empire are silly. Eminent domain is a pretty common policy of even democratic governments and few think it's an example of "tyranny." If a small village were sitting on a revolutionary cure for a major disease I don't think any serious people would oppose moving them to get at the cure.

That's not exactly how it works.

1.>While the planet might be in Federation space it is inhabiated.

2.>The inhabitant's aren't part of the Federation

3.>While the inhabitant's aren't native to that world, it could be considered a colony world.

From evidence we saw throught ST, that basically means it is off limits to the Federation.

In the example cited above if that village was part of your nation, then yes they could be moved. In the case of the Ba'ku they weren't part of the Federation so Eminant Domian wouldn't apply.

The Federation basically got invovled into an internal matter between the Ba'ku and Son'a as they were the same race.

[sonak]

Sindatur wrote:

---

I disagree, The Baku don't answer to Starfleet, they owed them nothing. They said NO to relations. Kirk (And most every other Captain we've seen in Star Fleet) always told us that "NO" meant the Federation would go away, and take nothing from you, or exact any price for rejection. So, an Independent Society, who said no to the Almighty Starfleet, is ignored when they say no, and Forced to comply, through might, because they had the audacity to not join up or bow down to the Federation? This isn't a colony, or a territory we're talking about here, it's an Independent Society, not beholden to the decisions of the Federation. Starfleet taking what they want, without consent, and after refusal, is a brutal act of Invasion/War

Sure, you could make all these claims, if they were Federation Citizens or Protectorates, but, they're not, they're outsiders, that have chosen not to bask in the benevolence of the Federation, and are being bullied

Again, in most circumstances, I'd agree with you. The UFP doesn't go around stealing planets and relocating cultures just to get something it wants.

But there are exceptions to rules and this situation is one of them for many reasons:

1. The Baku aren't native to the planet
2. They are an artificial "culture" of 600, only sustained in their way of life by the magical properties of the planet.
3. The Son'a have just as much right to the planet as they do, and the Son'a were partners of the Federation


All that doesn't even touch on the larger issue of again, whether the property rights of a tiny minority outweighs the improved well-being of billions across the galaxy. For me, obviously, the answer is that the well-being of billions outweighs property rights of a group that's not even native to the planet.

It's interesting to see so many argue the opposite, though-I wonder if people would argue the same way in the abstract, and removed from the specific scenario of a Star Trek movie.

[horatio83]

By your logic of majority oppression the Feds could crush a population of one million if it benefited their club of trillions. Come on, what's the suffering of a million compared to the well-being of trillions of life-forms?

Every liberal democracy values the life and liberty of each individual as much as it values the common good. You do not have to formalize minority protection precisely because the basic principles of our constitutions already imply that 'the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few'. Picard also says the same thing when he talks with Dougherty. I might be a left-winger but I am also an anti-communist precisely because in the name of the common good millions had to suffer. You can help everybody without violating human rights in the process.
Once you believe that you may crush people of your society for the benefit of a majority you become a tyranny and once you believe that you may crush people of another society respectively an entire alien civilization you become an imperial power..

[sonak]

horatio83 wrote:

---

By your logic of majority oppression the Feds could crush a population of one million if it benefited their club of trillions. Come on, what's the suffering of a million compared to the well-being of trillions of life-forms?

Every liberal democracy values the life and liberty of each individual as much as it values the common good. You do not have to formalize minority protection precisely because the basic principles of our constitutions already imply that 'the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few'. Picard also says the same thing when he talks with Dougherty. I might be a left-winger but I am also an anti-communist precisely because in the name of the common good millions had to suffer. You can help everybody without violating human rights in the process.
Once you believe that you may crush people of your society for the benefit of a majority you become a tyranny and once you believe that you may crush people of another society respectively an entire alien civilization you become an imperial power..

for the most part you're correct. But principles and rules are not absolute or they lose the effectiveness which is their actual purpose. You're applying the "don't trample on a minority" principle which is a generally good one to a rigid degree to the point that it's actually causing greater HARM by your unwillingness to bend on it.

All democracies and (just)societies are built around a balance between individual/minority rights and a "the needs of the many outweigh..." principle. In the INS scenario, the greater good simply carries the day.

[horatio83]

You still don't understand that the Federation has no authority over the Ba'ku as they govern themselves and your advocacy of such a plain and obvious case of imperialism is simply unethical.

[sonak]

horatio83 wrote:

---

You still don't understand that the Federation has no authority over the Ba'ku as they govern themselves and your advocacy of such a plain and obvious case of imperialism is simply unethical.

I understand that the Federation doesn't govern the Baku. You're stuck on my use of eminent domain, but that was merely an analogy.

And no, it is not "simply unethical," as there are many, many folks out there who agree with me, and there are many ethical systems which would view removing the Baku as the right thing to do.(indeed, probably most would)

Brent Spiner himself criticized the film's ethical viewpoint, as did Roger Ebert in his review of the film. I think the story's bad dilemma is part of the reason the film wasn't very popular.

[DonIago]

I won't argue that the Feds would have the right to remove the Baku, but I also think the Baku come off as very morally dubious if they won't let anyone else settle on their entire planet.

I'm surprised nobody's compared them with the Maquis yet.

[horatio83]

sonak wrote:

---

I understand that the Federation doesn't govern the Baku. You're stuck on my use of eminent domain, but that was merely an analogy.

And no, it is not "simply unethical," as there are many, many folks out there who agree with me, and there are many ethical systems which would view removing the Baku as the right thing to do.(indeed, probably most would)

Brent Spiner himself criticized the film's ethical viewpoint, as did Roger Ebert in his review of the film. I think the story's bad dilemma is part of the reason the film wasn't very popular.

There is no dilemma, just an incredibly simple morality tale like The Drumhead which obviously had to be told if so many people do not understand the constitutions of their countries. I don't care how many folks agree with you and I don't care how direly you have to appeal to majority in order to be able to sell theft, kidnapping and murder.

You advocate that a stronger nation steals an asset from a weaker one and crushes its population in the process instead of politely asking for trade and negotiating for a price.
You can rationalize it all you want via pretending that the stronger nation cares about the common good, imperialism remains imperialism.
By your logic Romulans, Klingons and Feds would have had the right to raid and rape Ba'ku because their empires are large, because trillions of people could gain from the radiation, because they all care about the common good. Bullshit, they merely care about themselves.

I hope you never stand on my door, rush in, trample me down, take something from me and tell me while going out that you value this particular asset more than I do ... and in addition to that you have the audacity to claim that your act were ethical instead of admitting that you are just a petty thief.

[sonak]

horatio83 wrote:

---

There is no dilemma, just an incredibly simple morality tale like The Drumhead which obviously had to be told if so many people do not understand the constitutions of their countries. I don't care how many folks agree with you and I don't care how direly you have to appeal to majority in order to be able to sell theft, kidnapping and murder.

You advocate that a stronger nation steals an asset from a weaker one and crushes its population in the process instead of politely asking for trade and negotiating for a price.
You can rationalize it all you want via pretending that the stronger nation cares about the common good, imperialism remains imperialism.
By your logic Romulans, Klingons and Feds would have had the right to raid and rape Ba'ku because their empires are large, because trillions of people could gain from the radiation, because they all care about the common good. Bullshit, they merely care about themselves.

I hope you never stand on my door, rush in, trample me down, take something from me and tell me while going out that you value this particular asset more than I do ... and in addition to that you have the audacity to claim that your act were ethical instead of admitting that you are just a petty thief.

I don't think that you're really reading what I'm writing-I agree that they should have tried negotiation, though, but at the time, Dougherty thought they were a group of primitives that fell under the PD. After Picard went down to the planet though, Dougherty should have changed the plan according to the new info.


It's a glaring hole, but of course the real reason this doesn't happen is because if the Baku say no, they lose audience sympathy, and if they say yes, there's no movie. That's why the story of this movie is weak.

[Dream]

sonak wrote:

---

It's a glaring hole, but of course the real reason this doesn't happen is because if the Baku say no, they lose audience sympathy, and if they say yes, there's no movie. That's why the story of this movie is weak.

Exactly.

Dougherty: "Hey, can you move off this planet so we can research it and develop medicine that might help billions of people in the galaxy?"

Balu: "Hell no. Screw the rest of the galaxy. We have already lived here for 300 years and want to continue to live forever!"

Picard: "Anij is hot! Beverly who?"