RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,136
Posts: 5,433,735
Members: 24,934
Currently online: 530
Newest member: Emperor Khaless

TrekToday headlines

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Cracked’s New Sci-Fi Satire
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16


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 June 3 2014, 11:14 PM   #61
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

But in the case of the Klingons joining the Federation wouldn't it be just the Klingon's? If they had granted independance to the worlds within their, then it would be up to those individual members to apply to join the Federation.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2014, 11:36 PM   #62
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

MacLeod wrote: View Post
But in the case of the Klingons joining the Federation wouldn't it be just the Klingon's? If they had granted independance to the worlds within their, then it would be up to those individual members to apply to join the Federation.
Not necessarily. What if their conquered worlds chose to stay in the Empire as equal partners with Qo'noS? What about other Klingon worlds that weren't conquered but were settled by Klingons, and have huge Klingon populations in their own right?

It's entirely possible that the Klingon Empire by itself, absent conquered worlds that don't want to be in the Empire and have been granted independence, might be almost as large as the Federation in population -- may its population would equal 66% of the Federation's.

That's still a huge, unfair population advantage for a newly-Federated Klingon Empire. Hell, even a population that is itself 33% of the Federation's total would be a huge, unfair population advantage for a single UFP Member State.

Hence why I think the UFP ought to have population limits for its Member States.
__________________
"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 June 3 2014, 11:46 PM   #63
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

So for example if the population for it's member state is set at X what happens when it reaches X+1 does it get thrown out for exceeding the population limit? It's not very democratic to limit population.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2014, 01:46 AM   #64
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

MacLeod wrote: View Post
So for example if the population for it's member state is set at X what happens when it reaches X+1 does it get thrown out for exceeding the population limit?
That's a completely fair question.

In most instances, it seems to me that there's going to be a natural limit to how large a population a single planet can sustain while maintaining a decent standard of living for everyone. Given what we know about environmental sustainability and population growth today, given that it's an established fact of life that better-educated populations will tend to reproduce at lower rates than less-educated populations, and given Vulcan's stated population in ST09 of roughly six billion, I am inclined to assume that something in the area of six billion is the upper limit on what most planets can sustain in the Star Trek Universe and still maintain their technological standards of living.

After that, I suspect that most population growth for a given Member State would have to come from its periphery planets rather than its central planet. If, for instance, the Commonwealth of Deneva develops a population of ten billion, it seems most probable to me that this growth is going to come from extra-Denevan planets that are also part of the Commonwealth's territory; Deneva Prime may have six billion, Deneva II may have one billion, Deneva V may have three billion, etc.

In such a circumstance, I imagine that Federation law would require the UFP to sit down with representatives of the Member State's government to develop a plan for splitting the Member State into two or more Member States in a manner that is fair and equitable for both or for all sides.

In my view, such a split is probably going to be in the best interests of the Member State's populace, since the extant planetary divisions are likely to produce populations on the periphery worlds that have interests which conflict with those on the primary world. Residents of Deneva II and Deneva V may well have completely different goals and values than residents of Deneva itself; if you split them off into the Union of Deneva II and V, or the People's Republic of Deneva II and the State of Deneva V, this allows Two's and Five's interests to be directly represented on the Federation Council, instead of having it go through the Councillor from Deneva Prime who may put Prime's interests ahead of Two and Five.
__________________
"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 June 4 2014, 06:11 AM   #65
George Steinbrenner
Fleet Admiral
 
George Steinbrenner's Avatar
 
Location: Mr. Laser Beam is in the visitor's bullpen
View George Steinbrenner's Twitter Profile
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

Sci wrote: View Post
The only government that obtains its right to exercise power from the consent of the governed is one that obtains a democratic mandate.
But what about a farcical aquatic ceremony?

Sci wrote: View Post
"relatively egalitarian social order" does not mean "single social level."
I should hope not. Most of us have indeed read Harrison Bergeron.
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
George Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2014, 08:14 PM   #66
JirinPanthosa
Commodore
 
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

@Sci

You're making a lot of assumptions along the line of "This is how it works in the United States in 2014, therefore this is how this system inevitably works". Just because the wealthy are able to exercise disproportionate power by controlling the 'Elected' representatives today does not mean it is an inherent element of the system.

Freedom is not possible in any form of government if there are not limitations on the power the government can exercise over individuals. The exact organization of authority is not nearly as important as having solid Constitutional protections. A monarchy where the rights of the individual are explicitly spelled out is far more free a society than a democracy where 51% of the people can vote the other 49% into slavery. Also the structures that work and make sense for humans on Earth don't necessarily work for cultures with an entirely different biological and social structure. Which is why I would say Federation membership focuses more on the Human Rights Index than it does on how the government is organized.

As for your concerns about population, I'm sure the system was designed with those kinds of concerns in mind. Just like the United States deals with population discrepancies between states by having one body with equal representation for every state and one with population proportional representation and bills have to pass through both councils. The Federation does not necessarily have a Senate/House system but that is just one of many possible solutions to population differences.

And the council itself probably only makes decisions that deal with interplanetary matters, and internal matters are left to member planets. Any system is fine so long as it's designed so majorities can't force their will on unwilling minorities. Really, all the problems you're describing with unfair concentrations of authority due to population differences were solved in 1787.

I personally agree with you on the death penalty, but I think if you're going to make the argument that a person's life is not owned by the state, then a person's physical body isn't either and they shouldn't even have the right to incarcerate. A government does have the right to punish in order to protect people's natural rights to life, liberty, and property, and if the death penalty were more effective to that end than incarceration, then you can make an argument for it. Now, it just so happens that the death penalty is NOT a better deterrent than incarceration, so it's likely that most Federation members do not practice the death penalty.

And you're right the government has the right to tax, but taxing one group disproportionately because we're just not particularly fond of them is an abuse of that power, and that includes the wealthy. Having a progressive income tax is one thing, having a wealth cap is entirely another, and besides being morally outrageous all it would accomplish is to make the wealthy better at hiding their wealth and to get them to move all their resources offshore. Like, oh, I can't make any more money? Ok, I'll just go ahead and relocate to Farenginar. Allowing some to become outrageously wealthy only creates poverty if they're allowed to do it in anti-competitive ways. If they become wealthy through fair and open competition, everyone benefits.

In order to prevent the power gaps between the rich and the poor, the better route is comprehensive campaign financing laws, laws about elected representatives voting in cases where they have a vested interest, laws preventing parties from forcing people from voting the way they want, and immediate impeachment for any kind of influence peddling. Make sure democracy really is one person one vote, not one dollar one vote, and make sure everybody has access to the education they need to develop the skills to compete.

Now, universal education, that might be one of the requirements.
JirinPanthosa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 01:17 AM   #67
Elvira
Vice Admiral
 
Elvira's Avatar
 
Location: t'girl
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

Sci wrote: View Post
No matter what state you are from, you only ever have three representatives in Congress
As a resident of Washington's seventh district I have only three, but as a resident of Washington State I have twelve people in my congressional delegation. And I understand quite well how this works, in matters directly effecting Washington State the 8 dems and 4 repubs will consult and often vote in unison.

capital punishment
No justice system is perfect, and having capital punishment inherently means you will be killing innocent people at some point.
Okay, then how can society place anyone in confinement for life, or even a protracted period of time, given that they might be innocent?

this is the window on the future that is featured. A hierarchy power structure is very much on display, in addition to Starfleet we frequently see planetary leaders and others in positions of authority.
And within the Federation, these persons derive their authority from democratic mandate.
From the show, this isn't a given. Other than the Fed President (elected by the council itself?) when did we hear of elections?

T'Pol was very much not on the same social level as those around her,
I'd say she was about on the same social level as the Humans she served alongside.
My mistake Sci, I meant T'Pau.

Strawman argument; "relatively egalitarian social order" does not mean "single social level."
But you are advocating holding a entire population within a narrow social-economic enclosure, preventing anyone from falling below, and restraining those who would rise above. In a metaphoric building with a hundred floors, you have everyone restricted to one level.

And forced prison labor should absolutely be abolished.
Hey, those license plates have to come from somewhere.

That Biological Species Representative for Tellarites may not represent his interests well at all if she reflects the dominant culture of Tellar.
Not the dominate culture, but the essential sui generis of simply being Tellar.

For the record, the novels have established that a single Federation Councillor represents each Federation Member State on the Council.
And the show itself (DS9) establish that there are multiple reps from each Member.

But then the novel-verse long ago veered off away from the show.

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.
Amok Time (referring to the guy with the big blade).

T'Pau: "He acts only if cowardice is seen."

Legal, socially acceptable, summary execution. Again, this should be a matter for the individual Member worlds, based upon their own legal system, culture and history.

MacLeod wrote: View Post
So for example if the population for it's member state is set at X what happens when it reaches X+1 does it get thrown out for exceeding the population limit? It's not very democratic to limit population.
By forcing a society to divide, it would definitely violate their right of free association. If a handful of Members thought different, then (hopefully) the majority of the Membership would disallow any expulsion. Majority rules, democracy in action.

JirinPanthosa wrote: View Post
You're making a lot of assumptions along the line of "This is how it works in the United States in 2014, therefore this is how this system inevitably works"
There also seem to be a assumption that dozens/hundreds of alien species are all going to agree to governance rules largely (with few exceptions) derived from Earth's history and specifically the Westphalia system.

Given how few example we've seen, Member planets with any form of domestic democracy could easily be but a smattering amongst the various other government types. The only Federation Member government we really got any kind of look at was Ardana, and they appear to be a aristocracy.

From one Voyager episode, the Vulcan High Command is still in power in the 24th century, and they certainly weren't a democracy.

__________________
.
no mere mortal can resist the evil of the thriller
Elvira is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2014, 06:43 PM   #68
Enterprise1701
Fleet Captain
 
Enterprise1701's Avatar
 
Location: Sol III, Sector 001, 2014 C.E.
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

T'Girl wrote: View Post
From one Voyager episode, the Vulcan High Command is still in power in the 24th century, and they certainly weren't a democracy.

But by the 24th century the re-assembled High Command would presumably be one that operated by Federation values.
Enterprise1701 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2014, 11:12 PM   #69
Elvira
Vice Admiral
 
Elvira's Avatar
 
Location: t'girl
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

Kirk: "And the highest of all our laws states that your world is yours and will always remain yours."

Why would Vulcan, a Federation Member, have to operated internally by Federation values? As opposed to solely by their own cultural mandates, and (centuries old?) societal practices?

And what are Federation values? As one of the small number of founding Members of the Federation, surely Vulcan would have had significant influence upon the Federation's early construction. If say two of the founders were democracies, and four were otherwise, then it would be unlikely that democracy would be a requirement.

Vulcan definitely would see to it that arranged marriages and death duels are not prohibited when it comes to Membership requirements.

IIRC, the Andorian also on occasion engaged in death duels. Regardless of how infrequently they occurred, the Andorians wouldn't allow them to be hindrance to membership.

The Betazed also have arranged marriages, if after the Betazed joined the membership one of the other Members proposed a requirement to membership that there could be no arranged marriages, the Betazed (and the Vulcans) would oppose it.

Now if (hypothetically) two-thirds of the founding Members were "non-democracies," And incoming Members faced no democracy requirement, how would the Federation possible come to possess a democracy requirement? Those "otherwise governed" Members who were already through the door would never vote in such a requirement, doing so would result in their expulsion.

There's no evidence that the Vulcan high command was dismantled or replaced with another governing system, what happen was the control the high command simply changed hands. The people formerly in control of the Vulcan government and fleet were purged.

__________________
.
no mere mortal can resist the evil of the thriller

Last edited by Elvira; June 8 2014 at 06:01 AM.
Elvira is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2014, 11:29 PM   #70
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

JirinPanthosa wrote: View Post
@Sci

You're making a lot of assumptions along the line of "This is how it works in the United States in 2014, therefore this is how this system inevitably works".
Tell that to Thomas Piketty. His book Capital in the Twenty-First Century has provided centuries' worth of empirical data across multiple cultures to demonstrate how wealth in capitalist systems inevitably concentrates into the hands of a small elite unless something forces a more egalitarian distribution.

Freedom is not possible in any form of government if there are not limitations on the power the government can exercise over individuals.
Certainly. This is why I argued that one of the requirements for Federation Membership ought to be the legal enumeration and protection of civil rights and liberties.

The exact organization of authority is not nearly as important as having solid Constitutional protections. A monarchy where the rights of the individual are explicitly spelled out is far more free a society than a democracy where 51% of the people can vote the other 49% into slavery.
I think it silly to try to measure them against one-another, because both such societies are oppressed.

You simply cannot trust a hereditary dictatorship -- and this is what a real monarchy, as opposed to a ceremonial monarchy, actually is -- to protect the rights of the individual. Ever. It is a cliche to say that absolute power corrupts absolutely -- but it is a cliche because it is true. Even if Good King Bob would never, ever violate his subject's civil rights and liberties, what about Prince Billy when he ascends to the throne? It is inherent to the nature of a dictatorship that the rights of the people over whom it rules are only as safe as the dictator's whims. Thus, dictatorships are inherently oppressive, no matter how nice the dictator might claim to be.

The power to govern naturally belongs to the people at large. They delegate this power to the government, so that it can govern on their behalf. Governments require the consent of the governed to wield their power legitimately. The only way to gain this consent is through expireable democratic mandates. Thus, only democracies are legitimate.

Now, we both agree that democracies need to have real protections of civil rights and liberties -- that a democracy in which, say, 66% of the population can vote to enslave 33% of the population, is also not legitimate.

I am, in other words, making the following argument:

That being a democracy is a necessary condition for a government to be morally legitimate, but that it is not a sufficient condition for it to be morally legitimate. Just as it is necessary but not sufficient to be in Canada in order to enter the Province of British Columbia, it is necessary but not sufficient to be a democracy in order for a government to be legitimate.

You have in essence seemed to argue that I have claimed democracy is a sufficient condition. I have not; it is necessary, but it is not sufficient.

Also the structures that work and make sense for humans on Earth don't necessarily work for cultures with an entirely different biological and social structure.
This is in essence a function of the dramatic conceits of Star Trek as a work of fiction: Star Trek posits a universe in which the psychologies and cultures of aliens are relatively comparable to those of Humans.

Which is why I would say Federation membership focuses more on the Human Rights Index than it does on how the government is organized.
I think it is unrealistic to imagine that the two can be separated.

As for your concerns about population, I'm sure the system was designed with those kinds of concerns in mind.
Well, yes -- and I am proposing a design for the system to deal with that concern.

Just like the United States deals with population discrepancies between states by having one body with equal representation for every state and one with population proportional representation and bills have to pass through both councils. The Federation does not necessarily have a Senate/House system but that is just one of many possible solutions to population differences.
That only addresses the question of formal political power. It doesn't address the questions of cultural and economic domination that can arise outside of the mechanisms of formal power. (There is, after all, a reason that many states in the U.S. feel marginalized while states like New York, Texas, and California are seen as dominating the country at large.)

And the council itself probably only makes decisions that deal with interplanetary matters, and internal matters are left to member planets. Any system is fine so long as it's designed so majorities can't force their will on unwilling minorities. Really, all the problems you're describing with unfair concentrations of authority due to population differences were solved in 1787.
You do not live in the real world if you think these problems are not ongoing today.

I personally agree with you on the death penalty, but I think if you're going to make the argument that a person's life is not owned by the state, then a person's physical body isn't either and they shouldn't even have the right to incarcerate. A government does have the right to punish in order to protect people's natural rights to life, liberty, and property, and if the death penalty were more effective to that end than incarceration, then you can make an argument for it.
No, you can't, because the death penalty cannot be reversed if it is later discovered that a person was executed by mistake.

What gives moral legitimacy to the act of incarceration, at the end of the day, is the fact that it is reversible -- a wrongfully-convicted man can be set free. An injustice has still been done to him, certainly -- but by having a correctible means of punishment, the state is justified in its capacity to remove someone's liberty if they have been convicted of a crime.

Until or unless a reliable means is found to resurrect the dead, executions can never be morally legitimate.

And you're right the government has the right to tax, but taxing one group disproportionately because we're just not particularly fond of them
But it's not "because we're not particularly fond of them." It's because an enlightened society would recognize that too much wealth accumulation damages the rest of society. It inevitably leads to the oppression of poverty, and to an oligarchical social order that infringes upon the liberty of the majority.

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Sci wrote: View Post
No matter what state you are from, you only ever have three representatives in Congress
As a resident of Washington's seventh district I have only three, but as a resident of Washington State I have twelve people in my congressional delegation.
No, you do not; your Congressional delegation consists of Congressman Jim McDermott, Senator Patty Murray, and Senator Maria Cantwell..

Do you know what happens if you write a letter to the United States Representative for the Eighth Congressional District of the State of Washington, Derek Kilmer?

They'll throw your letter in the trash, because you are not one of Congressman Kilmer's constituents. Period. You are utterly foreign to them; you might as well be from Denmark if you're one district over.

No justice system is perfect, and having capital punishment inherently means you will be killing innocent people at some point.
Okay, then how can society place anyone in confinement for life, or even a protracted period of time, given that they might be innocent?
See above re: being able to free innocent prisoners.

T'Girl wrote:
Sci wrote:
T'Girl wrote:
this is the window on the future that is featured. A hierarchy power structure is very much on display, in addition to Starfleet we frequently see planetary leaders and others in positions of authority.
And within the Federation, these persons derive their authority from democratic mandate.
From the show, this isn't a given.
Actually, it is:

"Errand of Mercy," TOS wrote:
KOR: You of the Federation, you are much like us.
KIRK: We're nothing like you. We're a democratic body.
T'Girl wrote:
Sci wrote:
T'Girl wrote:
T'Pol was very much not on the same social level as those around her,
I'd say she was about on the same social level as the Humans she served alongside.
My mistake Sci, I meant T'Pau.
Oh, T'Pau. T'Pau, who overthrew the military dictatorship of V'Las and obtained a democratic mandate to lead Vulcan?





Strawman argument; "relatively egalitarian social order" does not mean "single social level."
But you are advocating holding a entire population within a narrow social-economic enclosure, preventing anyone from falling below, and restraining those who would rise above. In a metaphoric building with a hundred floors, you have everyone restricted to one level.
No -- in a metaphoric building with a hundred floors, I would have a hundred floors. You, on the other hand, are arguing for a metaphoric building with no ceiling, inevitably causing the rest of the floors to collapse when the rain starts to pour. It is the nature of severe economic inequality that it impoverishes the many while enriching the few.

I am not arguing for holding an entire population within a narrow socio-economic enclosure. I am arguing for a system that distributes wealth to the people who actually create it; that allows for a certain amount of inequality as an incentive for innovation and stronger performance; which would prevent anyone from gaining so much wealth that they can distort society's democratic order or infringe upon others' rights; and that would prevent anyone from falling into the oppression we call "poverty."

Hey, those license plates have to come from somewhere.
Yes, they do. And in a society that's ready to join the Federation, the state can purchase those license plates from the License Plate Makers' Co-op, and the profits from the sale would be equitably distributed to all of the co-op's employees.

Not the dominate culture, but the essential sui generis of simply being Tellar.
This relies on the assumption that there is a such thing as a single constant "Tellarite nature" (or "Human nature"). But the obvious diversity of attitudes, opinions, beliefs, temperaments, etc., should remind us that this is not the case. If the only thing you have in common with the Representative of the Tellarite Species is that you're both biologically Tellarite, then you don't really have anything meaningful in common -- and there's no reason to think he'd be able or willing to represent your interests.

For the record, the novels have established that a single Federation Councillor represents each Federation Member State on the Council.
And the show itself (DS9) establish that there are multiple reps from each Member.
That is one interpretation of the line, but it is not the only possible legitimate one.

The line itself, from the episode "Rapture," is as follows:

Ben, I need to know I can count on
you. Bajor's admission is only
the beginning. Now comes the hard
part Federation council members
have to be chosen... the Bajoran
militia has to be absorbed into
Starfleet... there are thousands
of details that have to be
overseen.
That could certainly be interpreted literally to mean that Federation Members have more than one Councillor.

It could also be interpreted to mean that that he's speaking generically of all future elections. Or it could mean that he mis-spoke, which of course happens all the time in real life.

Either way, Star Trek's owner, CBS, has decided that the idea that Federation Members have more than one Councillor, is not a binding piece of continuity, and has therefore allowed the novels to establish each Member as having only one.

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.
Amok Time (referring to the guy with the big blade).

T'Pau: "He acts only if cowardice is seen."

Legal, socially acceptable, summary execution.
It would be more accurate to call that consensual homicide. If you choose to participate in the kal-if-fee ritual, then you choose to subject yourself to the authority of the persons overseeing the ritual, including to their judgment of death. You are, in other words, consenting to their killing you if you engage in cowardice in their judgment during the ritual.

This is absolutely not the same thing as the state using capital punishment for a crime. The key is consent -- you can choose not to participate in the kal-if-fee. You cannot choose not to participate in the criminal justice system.

MacLeod wrote: View Post
So for example if the population for it's member state is set at X what happens when it reaches X+1 does it get thrown out for exceeding the population limit? It's not very democratic to limit population.
By forcing a society to divide, it would definitely violate their right of free association.
No, because that society can always choose to allow itself to be removed from the Federation if it is unwilling to divide.

The Federation's right of free association comes into play here, too. They don't have to let you into the club if you don't abide by their rules. If you don't want to play, then that's fine -- but that doesn't mean you get to stay in the club.

From one Voyager episode, the Vulcan High Command is still in power in the 24th century, and they certainly weren't a democracy.
From "Kir'Shara" (ENT):

SOVAL: The Minister intends to pursue a less aggressive policy toward your people. The High Command will be dissolved.
If something called the "High Command" exists in the 24th Century, then it seems probable that it's a replacement agency with the same name. Certainly no reason to think Vulcan is still a military dictatorship.

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Enterprise1701 wrote: View Post
T'Girl wrote: View Post
From one Voyager episode, the Vulcan High Command is still in power in the 24th century, and they certainly weren't a democracy.
But by the 24th century the re-assembled High Command would presumably be one that operated by Federation values.
Kirk: "And the highest of all our laws states that your world is yours and will always remain yours."

Why would Vulcan, a Federation Member, have to operated internally by Federation values?
Because they agreed to do so to become Federation Members. And because Federation values are Vulcan values, since Vulcan helped forge those values.

Vulcan definitely would see to it that arranged marriages and death duels are not prohibited when it comes to Membership requirements.
It would indeed seem to be the case. However, we know that from as early as the 2150s under the V'Las dictatorship, it was still possible for a Vulcan to refuse to consent to an arranged marriage without suffering legal consequences. So it would appear that Vulcan arranged marriages are informal, but not legal, obligations.

And between the kal-if-fee and the Andorian ushaan, it would indeed appear that Federation law allows for consensual homicide in at least some circumstances. Perhaps it also allows for consensual euthanasia.
__________________
"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 June 10 2014, 01:44 PM   #71
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

^^ Many good points and arguments, I found it most interesting to read. The one thing your post reminded me of, was to wonder how a political system where the winner takes it all (51% or more) is compatible with what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Wasn't the core issue of the Independence War "No taxation without representation"?

Regarding the original topic, I found this line from "Patterns of Force" interesting:

KIRK: Mister Spock, I think the planet is in good hands.
SPOCK: Indeed, Captain. With the union of two cultures, this system would make a fine addition to the Federation.

Sounded to me as if a unified planetary government was a prerequisite for admission to the UFP.

OTOH, neither Kirk or Spock threatened to report the conditions on Ardana in "The Cloud Minders":

SPOCK: But they are not allowed to share its advantages.
DROXINE: How can they share what they do not understand?
KIRK: They can be taught to understand, especially in a society that prides itself in enlightenment.
DROXINE: The complete separation of toil and leisure has given Ardana this perfectly balanced social system, Captain. Why should we change it?
SPOCK: The surface of the planet is almost unendurable. To restrict a segment of the population to such hardship is unthinkable in an evolved culture.


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 June 11 2014, 06:11 PM   #72
Enterprise1701
Fleet Captain
 
Enterprise1701's Avatar
 
Location: Sol III, Sector 001, 2014 C.E.
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Kirk: "And the highest of all our laws states that your world is yours and will always remain yours."

Why would Vulcan, a Federation Member, have to operated internally by Federation values? As opposed to solely by their own cultural mandates, and (centuries old?) societal practices?
As Sci pointed out, you've forgotten that the Vulcan High Command in ENT was dissolved. If it reformed by the 24th century, it would most certainly be in line with Federation laws.
IIRC, the Andorian also on occasion engaged in death duels. Regardless of how infrequently they occurred, the Andorians wouldn't allow them to be hindrance to membership.
That was only ever shown on ENT. There's no evidence that it remained legal in the Federation era.
Enterprise1701 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2014, 07:36 AM   #73
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

Enterprise1701 wrote: View Post
T'Girl wrote: View Post
IIRC, the Andorian also on occasion engaged in death duels. Regardless of how infrequently they occurred, the Andorians wouldn't allow them to be hindrance to membership.
That was only ever shown on ENT. There's no evidence that it remained legal in the Federation era.
True, but there's no particular reason the ushaan ritual would be illegal in the UFP era, provided that both parties have the legal option of refusing to participate. We already know that Federation law seems to allow the kal-if-fee ritual on Vulcan; given their similarities, it seems improbable that the kal-if-fee would be legal but not the ushaan.

My suggestion would be that the Federation allows for its Member States to have consensual homicide under very specific, regulated conditions -- the key being consent. I very much doubt that, say, United Earth or the Alpha Centauri Concoridum allow for such duels, though.
__________________
"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 June 13 2014, 08:06 PM   #74
Maxillius
Commander
 
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

-One world government
-Warp/FTL capable for at least a generation of the planet's inhabitants, preferably two.
-No intra-species wars for at least three generations of the planet's inhabitants
-Limited contact with enemies of the Federation unless the planet has applied for asylum status first
-Planet's government has proven they can defend their own planet without Starfleet assistance for seven Federation Standard days (maximum time it takes to assemble a battle fleet and plan tactics to repel attacker).
Maxillius is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 14 2014, 06:17 AM   #75
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Re: What should be the minimal requirements for Federation members?

Maxillius wrote: View Post
-No intra-species wars for at least three generations of the planet's inhabitants
That's an interesting idea -- and, depending on how long the post-WW3 violence might have lasted, it's possible it might actually disqualify Earth from Membership! Possibly Vulcan, too, depending on whether or not you classify the conflict between the V'Las regime and the Syrannites as an intra-species war.
__________________
"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
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 03:38 AM.

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