If Starfleet Intelligence can't do their jobs effectively and protect federation citizens by any means necessary then someone has to do it. I'm not saying it's right but i am saying that what Section 31 does is at times necessary.
No. No, absolutely not! The reasoning here just doesn't hold up. You
can't say that what you're doing is "necessary" to defend a given society, if what you're doing
violates the foundation principles of that society. If that's the case, then regardless of whatever you claim to be defending against, you yourself
are a threat to that society. Any pretense to the contrary is pure self-serving rationalization.
Members of Section 31 will do things they think are necessary to protect the Federation, one would assume. ...
Their intentions could be good, in terms of wanting to serve and protect the Federation's interests, but they could still take actions or use methods which are ultimately condemned as going too far and undermining its larger ideals.
Yes, that's the critical distinction here: Protection vs. principles. Interests vs. ideals. The Federation's "interests" (whoever defines them, whether S31 or anybody else) must not ever be placed ahead of its ideals. Because: if its ideals are sacrificed, its very legitimacy as a society crumbles... at which point its "interests" no longer matter, because they no longer deserve protecting.
I'm not certain why the argument continues to be the Federation never compromises its principles ever based even on the history of the Federation. The Federation doesn't need to be Heaven to be inspiring. Imperfect people and institutions inspire people every day.
Yes, they do... in the here and now, and presumably in the future. But Trek is, critically, about presenting a
better future — one that has solved most of the problems that plague us today, and one that lives up to its principles. That is to say: when and if it discovers someone within it
violating those principles, it does whatever is within its power to
stop it, and to hold that someone accountable. (This has been true from the beginning, from Captain Merrick through Admiral Cartwright, and on to Judge Satie and Admiral Pressman in the TNG era.) It absolutely
does not turn a blind eye to the violation and put an official stamp of approval on the someone.
I and so many Trek fans don't want to watch another dystopian sci-fi vision where there are evil assassins killing people and brutal Realpolitik is still the status-quo of foreign policy. We want to watch a future that is better than ours
Exactly. This. Absolutely.
It's interesting, someone commented in another thread about the Klingon-Federation Alliance and how much the Federation must have to turn a blind eye to the conquering ways of the Empire. The Federation has no doubt ignored many a Klingon atrocity in the name of peace, that is until it didn't serve their interests.
The 24th-century Klingon Empire is an ally, but not a part of the Federation (and this is why, I think, the TNG writers were smart to retcon the initial statement that it was). As such, it is a sovereign entity in its own right, and its behavior (for good or ill) does not fall under the power of Starfleet. While every nation should have some basic standards for acceptable allies, no nation can demand that allies embrace perfect fealty to its own internal principles, any more than any individual can expect his friends to see eye-to-eye with him on everything.
Personally I've felt 31 has been justified since they first appeared in DS9. They're a necessary evil to counter threats that Starfleet is either unable or unwilling to deal with in realistic and pragmatic terms. It's good to think that everyone can get along but the truth is the galaxy is a dangerous place
This kind of "realpolitik" approach to foreign relations is appalling — nothing but an excuse for moral double-standards, "rules for thee but not for me." It's troubling enough in the present-day real world, and in Trek's future it is precisely the sort of thing the Federation is supposed to have risen above.
how realistic is it that in 200 or 300 years from now, we will not be all that much further along than we are now in how we conduct ourselves? Answer: we just don't know. It could go either way.
Yes, it could. It could well wind up a tragic and dystopian future, one where we've failed to address the problems facing us today and suffered the stagnation or collapse of civilization, the ongoing degradation of Earth's ecosystem, major human population crashes, and increased inequality and injustice among those who survive.
Or it could wind up a future where we've set our sights higher, and gone out to the stars to find new challenges to confront. Frankly, the
only way to find that second future plausible is if we've set our house in order on Earth.
Star Trek imagines that second future, and therefore as a logical consequence imagines that to get to it, we've put our old problems and shortcomings behind us, left war and poverty and hunger and prejudice in the dustbin of history... and built a society that has higher ideals than we do today, and does a better job of living up to them.
Meanwhile, as to the
Enterprise design aethetic:
When I watch Disco, I see the most relation to TMP and the Nicolas Meyer films, not any other property. Which is why I have no trouble accepting Discovery being in the same universe as those films.
Ah, but do you see it as being in the same universe as
TOS? That's the real question here.
That's the ur-version of Star Trek, the one fans love most, the
sine qua non for all that came later... and the version to which DSC is supposed to be a prequel.
