Insurrection as an episode...

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by lewisniven, Sep 27, 2012.

  1. sonak

    sonak Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination

    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.
     
  2. Sindatur

    Sindatur The Grey Owl Wizard Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    Is that actually true? Few think is Eminent Domain is Tryanny? A house could be in your family for 150 years, Your Grandparents raised your parents in it, who in turn raised you in it, and you have raised your kids in it and they can simply get a wild hair and decide they can get more tax revenue by buying your house, against your will, without any chance of rejecting their offer, no compensation for relocation, and they can pay you whatever they deem they want to (Not replacement cost, no consideration for how much you owe on if it's a newer purchase, no requirement to be fair market value, no set formula, just whatever they want to pay you). Say for instance it happened now, where many mortgages are underwater, you owe $150,000 on your house, but, they deem they want to pay you $75,000. You will still owe $75,000 and no longer have a house. Are there seriously only a few people who don't consider this Tyranny?
     
  3. Starfury

    Starfury Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    ...which - sadly - still happens today, for instance in africa or argentina in the name of agriculture. And then people say the story of Insurrection wasn't good or meaningful and they go all haywire over a joystick and a squirrell instead.
     
  4. horatio83

    horatio83 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    So what? It is their property, they can do with it whatever the hell they want. If you are militarily weak not telling the entire galaxy that you sit on a treasure seems pretty reasonable.

    No democratic government does relocate people who sit on resources without telling them in advance and compensating them for their loss in the case they own a land or a house.

    Here the Federation is not the government of the Ba'ku so all the Feds can legally do is to ask the Ba'ku to trade their resources. What they have done is to just take it from them which is criminally theft and politically imperialism.
    When Europeans invaded and colonized Africa they also rationalized their greed and barbarism via pretending that they are actually doing something good for these uncivilized brutes. I am surprised to see a fellow left-winger doing the same.
     
  5. Ryan8bit

    Ryan8bit Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Location:
    St. Paul, MN
    If it were actually during TNG's run, it likely would have played out quite differently. As it was, the movie was written like a Voyager episode, where even Picard is acting a lot like Janeway.
     
  6. Delsaber

    Delsaber Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 13, 2001
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Anyone remember the teaser trailers for Insurrection? They made it look like it was going to be a Federation civil war story or something crazy like that. I wonder if that would've been a better idea than what we got...
     
  7. sonak

    sonak Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination

    What do you mean "so what?" I was responding to YOUR suggestion that the Baku would be willing to share. Judging from what we see in the movie, they seemed selfish and utterly unconcerned about the outside galaxy.

    I guess we are both surprised. I'm surprised to see a fellow left-winger defend absolute property rights as a moral principle. Doesn't seem very leftist. Sure, I support property rights as a general rule, but they come second to a greater good, such as they would have in the INS scenario. That is exactly the idea behind eminent domain. If the UFP had given the Baku compensation and paid for the resettlement, would you have supported relocation in that case?
     
  8. horatio83

    horatio83 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Eminent domain? The Federation doesn't rule the Ba'ku, they rule themselves. There are plenty of planets encapsulated in Federation space which contain civilizations that are not members of the Federation.

    Suppose the Feds land on a planet, meet the local civilization and discover that they have ample of dilithium yet are unwilling to give it away.
    Do they have to rationalize themselves to the rest of the galaxy, do you suggest that the Feds should just take it from them? Why, because they are a larger club in which more people can benefit from dilithium?
    No, the appropriate thing to do is to ask them and then negotiate for a price. If the price is too high for you that is your problem, not theirs and if they are unwilling to give it away even at a high price that is still your problem and not theirs. You might have something I care deeply about but I have no right to take it forcefully from you. Strange that one has to explain something which every little kid learns in the sandbox.
     
  9. sonak

    sonak Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination

    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."
     
  10. horatio83

    horatio83 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Of course not, people would forcefully take it from them. And I'd be the first one to say that it is wrong. And I'd say it is wrong to relocate these people with the help of a bunch of thugs who help you fight a war. And I'd say it is wrong to not simply ask them and negotiate with them.
    If you value something so much, pay the fucking price for it. First time I have to use bourgeois logic against imperialism but, well, I guess there is a first time for everything.

    I am pretty sure that you would also be on my side when a bunch of mercenaries like Blackwater would claim that they have found a cure against AIDS on a small island in the Pacific Ocean, go in there and take it from them.
    History is full of self-righteous people who rationalized their crimes with bullshit like serving the common good. It is not full of Robin Hoods and a political entity which corporates with a bunch of "petty thugs" to win a war is certainly not a Robin Hood who is interested in sharing their medical innovations with the entire quadrant or galaxy. Since "Journey to Babel" this has been perfectly clear, they will take it and keep it.
     
  11. Sindatur

    Sindatur The Grey Owl Wizard Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    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
     
  12. CaptainStoner

    CaptainStoner Knuckle-dragging TNZ Denizen Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Location:
    Hill dweller
    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.
     
  13. sonak

    sonak Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination

    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."
     
  14. Sindatur

    Sindatur The Grey Owl Wizard Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    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
     
  15. horatio83

    horatio83 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    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.
     
  16. MacLeod

    MacLeod Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Great Britain
    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.
     
  17. sonak

    sonak Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination

    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.
     
  18. horatio83

    horatio83 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    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..
     
  19. sonak

    sonak Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination

    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.
     
  20. horatio83

    horatio83 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    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.