Star Trek Utopia or Fire Fly Dystopia? Depends on where you live.

[Meadowmorph]

Why do I ask this? Mal: "What goes around, comes around, Badger" Badger: "That only matters to those on the rim" Now, look at the Maqui...totally screwed by the Federation of Planets, farmers, who whose "home world" is the most central planet in Star Trek... Earth. Earth might be a paradise, but what about "those on the rim?"

I'm sorry if this is "inter-series", but the question has sort of been plaguing me lately. Earth might be a paradise, but I get the feeling those on the rim have a tougher life. Because those on the rim are few, and those on Earth are many, rim-living voices are not only unheard, but totally discounted.

 

[Nyotarules]

If you leave your own star system to park in someone else backyard there is a chance the local people will not be too happy. Its the risk you take when you start a colony.

 

[ALF]

Kind of ironic that in the vastness of endless space, people still tend to bump into each other. There must be a compelling reason to propel someone to the edge of civilization.

A remarkable aspect of the Maquis it was made up of Federation-born colonists yes, and there were also Starfleet officers conflicted by their orders that defected and straight-up Bajoran dissidents who joined the cause. Great mix of characters. DS9 spoilers

Spoiler

They were all but wiped out by the Cardassian-Dominion alliance.

Maybe the question could be: do you choose to be a colonist and live a hard but rewarding life or choose the warm embrace, crowded streets and protective shielding of the Earth Headquarters?

 

[Tenacity]

There's a lot of room inbetween a utopia and a dystopia. Star Trek doesn't have to depict either.

look at the Maqui...totally screwed by the Federation of Planets

What happen was the Federation didn't want to endlessly fight and die against a foe that they apparently were incapable of defeating militarily.

 

[fireproof78]

There's a lot of room inbetween a utopia and a dystopia. Star Trek doesn't have to depict either.

Exactly so.

Also, to the OP's point, the whole developmental conceit of Firefly was the idea that these were the planets the USS Enterprise would skip.

 

[Tenacity]

: do you choose to be a colonist and live a hard but rewarding life or choose the warm embrace, crowded streets and protective shielding of the Earth Headquarters?

Spock:
There are many who are uncomfortable with what we have created.
It is almost a biological rebellion.
A profound revulsion against the planned communities,
the programming,
the sterilised,
artfully balanced atmospheres
They hunger for an Eden where spring comes.

 

[Rahul]

Hell, even Firefly isn't a straight up dystopia. Yes, the Alliance is injust, bureaucratic, authoritarian, classicist and whatnot. But it isn't even straight up evil as a whole, not like the Empire in Star Wars, and not even Star Wars actually classifies as a "dystopia". Just a universe in "dark times".

As for Star Trek: The Federation isn't a perfect Utopia. It's just an Utopia compared to our modern world. The same way our modern world would be seen as an Utopia for someone from the 19th century, or how the 19th century would look like an Utopia for someone from medieval times. It's not so much an actual "Utopia", as it simply is "a positive future", which is rare enough in Science Fiction that it's a stand-out feature for Star Trek.

The absolute safety is physically limited to the space of the Federation. The more you go to the edges or even leave it, the more more dangerous it gets. But even then, these people live in a free, post-scarcity society. Just a bit more exposed to outsie dangers. But their society is nevertheless very positivistic. They chose to be there, the same way you and I can choose to get ourself in danger in a free society or not.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

There’s no good in-universe reason to doubt the Federation takes care of all its people. Only if you apply real world reasoning which there is no reason to do in a fictional universe except as a thought experiment.

The Federation mishandled the Maquis but even they were given time to evacuate.

 

[Meadowmorph]

The way I was understanding it was that they were colonists at the rim of Federation space. Then the Feds and Cardi government got together and agreed to move the border...they played planet poker and gave away each other's planets without the consensus of the colonists. It would be like giving away the "point" of Texas to gain the California peninsula without the agreement of the people living there. The folks on the Cali peninsula would rejoice, but the Texans would be pissed. as the gangs came in and forced (tried to) them off the land...but they could all move to the, already populated peninsula. Doing this all to guarantee the gangs would not invade and take over. I know this is a hot topic and I didn't want to pour gas on the fire... I tried to think giving away the upper peninsula in Michigan for lower parts of Ontario, but I question whether it would be as dangerous for both country's citizens. We love them, they love us...more sibling squabbles.

 

[Christopher]

Hell, even Firefly isn't a straight up dystopia. Yes, the Alliance is injust, bureaucratic, authoritarian, classicist and whatnot. But it isn't even straight up evil as a whole, not like the Empire in Star Wars, and not even Star Wars actually classifies as a "dystopia". Just a universe in "dark times".

Indeed, the Alliance in Firefly/Serenity wasn't even supposed to be dystopian. It was supposed to be basically like the United States (or like we were at the time FF was made) -- a nominally free, just, and ethical society, but one that's imperfect, that doesn't extend its benefits and freedoms equally to all members of society, and that has pockets of corruption within it. To the privileged people who lived in the prosperous inner systems, like Simon and Inara, it was a marvelous society to live in, but to the folks on the fringes, it didn't seem that way. The way Mal saw the Alliance was basically the way libertarians in deep-red states see the federal government. While some see its regulations and taxes as necessary to maintain a fair and prosperous society with equal freedoms and benefits for all, others see those same regulations and taxes as unjust impositions on their personal liberties.

The Maquis were basically the same thing. They started as people on the fringes who fell victim to a decision that the Federation deemed necessary for the greater good but that went wrong and did more harm than intended. And that led them to believe they had to fight back, but many of them took it too far and did more harm than good. I've often felt that Firefly was basically what a Trek series from the Maquis's POV would look like.

I feel there's an ongoing evolution in Whedon's original works that grows increasingly skeptical of the concepts of good and evil, getting more and more ambiguous over time. In Buffy, there was initially a pretty clear divide between good and evil, but over time we saw that the forces of "good" could be corrupt and the "evil" demons could just be harmless and trying to get by. In Angel, the lines were further blurred until apocalyptic evil was redefined, not as something imposed on us by demonic forces, but as the cumulative total of all our individual petty cruelties and slights against one another, something that arose from within us and that we had to struggle against. Then Firefly/Serenity told a story in which the protagonists were basically the bad guys, and both they and their government adversaries were doing the wrong things for what they believed were the right reasons. And then Dollhouse took that even further, telling a story where nobody was really evil but just trying to do things that seemed like the best option at the time, only to see them turn out quite horribly. And the characters who initially seemed the most villainous or amoral turned out to have the biggest redemption arcs.

 

[Rahul]

Indeed, the Alliance in Firefly/Serenity wasn't even supposed to be dystopian. It was supposed to be basically like the United States (or like we were at the time FF was made) -- a nominally free, just, and ethical society, but one that's imperfect, that doesn't extend its benefits and freedoms equally to all members of society, and that has pockets of corruption within it. To the privileged people who lived in the prosperous inner systems, like Simon and Inara, it was a marvelous society to live in, but to the folks on the fringes, it didn't seem that way. The way Mal saw the Alliance was basically the way libertarians in deep-red states see the federal government. While some see its regulations and taxes as necessary to maintain a fair and prosperous society with equal freedoms and benefits for all, others see those same regulations and taxes as unjust impositions on their personal liberties.

Oh, I think the Alliance was a bit more evil than that. They used chemical weapons against their own people (okay, that was in the movies), but even before that, you had the blue hands, and what they did to River. And they almost definitely werent a "free, just and ethical" society. There was never any mention about personal freedoms, or even democracy for that matter. What it was, was a society where people could live in. Where - if you don't accidentally or willingly clash with the system - you can have a pretty fullfilled life. But more in line how people in the real world in actual authoritarian regimes live. They really weren't "the United States", they were a more friendly version of "Starship Troopers".

 

[Meadowmorph]

Indeed, the Alliance in Firefly/Serenity wasn't even supposed to be dystopian. It was supposed to be basically like the United States (or like we were at the time FF was made) -- a nominally free, just, and ethical society, but one that's imperfect, that doesn't extend its benefits and freedoms equally to all members of society, and that has pockets of corruption within it. To the privileged people who lived in the prosperous inner systems, like Simon and Inara, it was a marvelous society to live in, but to the folks on the fringes, it didn't seem that way. The way Mal saw the Alliance was basically the way libertarians in deep-red states see the federal government. While some see its regulations and taxes as necessary to maintain a fair and prosperous society with equal freedoms and benefits for all, others see those same regulations and taxes as unjust impositions on their personal liberties.

The Maquis were basically the same thing. They started as people on the fringes who fell victim to a decision that the Federation deemed necessary for the greater good but that went wrong and did more harm than intended. And that led them to believe they had to fight back, but many of them took it too far and did more harm than good. I've often felt that Firefly was basically what a Trek series from the Maquis's POV would look like.

I feel there's an ongoing evolution in Whedon's original works that grows increasingly skeptical of the concepts of good and evil, getting more and more ambiguous over time. In Buffy, there was initially a pretty clear divide between good and evil, but over time we saw that the forces of "good" could be corrupt and the "evil" demons could just be harmless and trying to get by. In Angel, the lines were further blurred until apocalyptic evil was redefined, not as something imposed on us by demonic forces, but as the cumulative total of all our individual petty cruelties and slights against one another, something that arose from within us and that we had to struggle against. Then Firefly/Serenity told a story in which the protagonists were basically the bad guys, and both they and their government adversaries were doing the wrong things for what they believed were the right reasons. And then Dollhouse took that even further, telling a story where nobody was really evil but just trying to do things that seemed like the best option at the time, only to see them turn out quite horribly. And the characters who initially seemed the most villainous or amoral turned out to have the biggest redemption arcs.

I agree with you about Whedon's development as an artist. I do feel Fire Fly was the best...perhaps because it was the shortest and didn't have time to get all fouled up. heh. It had such potential.

I guess I was pointing out in the origin of this post was what you, and several other people were talking about: Paradise or poverty might all depend on where you live.

I've often thought that living on Earth during the TNG years would drive me crazy...I'd have no purpose. No wonder they are trying to figure out how to raise a new sub-continent from the ocean floor...idle hands and all that. Weather control? Oh man, they never get to smell the ozone of an on-coming thunderstorm across the prairie. NOTHING IS HARD! They have a colony built in the likeness of Scotland....except it hardly ever rains! Well, I have to tell you...That's not Scotland.. So many want to join Star Fleet to escape "paradise". Paradise, a nice place to visit, but...

I'd probably be one of those on the rim. The people of paradise would not understand .... totally clueless of why I would so violently object. Some things are simply worth fighting for.

 

[Christopher]

Oh, I think the Alliance was a bit more evil than that. They used chemical weapons against their own people (okay, that was in the movies), but even before that, you had the blue hands, and what they did to River. And they almost definitely werent a "free, just and ethical" society. There was never any mention about personal freedoms, or even democracy for that matter. What it was, was a society where people could live in. Where - if you don't accidentally or willingly clash with the system - you can have a pretty fullfilled life. But more in line how people in the real world in actual authoritarian regimes live. They really weren't "the United States", they were a more friendly version of "Starship Troopers".

But that wasn't the intent. Whedon goes into this in the companion book for Serenity. The idea was that the Alliance was neither purely good nor purely evil -- it was just a government like any other. A nominally free, democratic society can have corruption within it -- just look at what's happening in the US today, with the corruption tainting every branch of government and our most basic legal safeguards under attack and refugee children being locked up in concentration camps. To a lot of people right now, the United States looks pretty damn evil. But that's not what it intrinsically is. It's a breakdown of the system, a system that's not designed to be harmful but that can fail or be abused in greater or lesser ways.

Firefly/Serenity was not meant to be good vs. evil. Its characters were criminals and killers; we weren't supposed to see them as paragons of pure goodness or the system they fought as a pure tyranny. They were people who didn't fit into the system for various reasons, and not always because they opposed it. (Inara fully believed in the system; her reasons for being on the fringes were personal.) The show was meant to be about how a realistically imperfect government looked to the people who were harmed by its failures, people who only saw its darker side and its corruptions. It wasn't supposed to be intrinsically "evil," because Whedon rejected the idea that any person or system is intrinsically good or evil -- that a lot of the harm that happens in the world is just the result of people doing what seems like the best available option at the time and not realizing the consequences. And that even the most well-intentioned government can have individual factions within it who corrupt the system for their own greed. The Blue Hands were supposed to represent a secret conspiracy within the Alliance, not the entire government thereof. And the Miranda situation was a case where an experiment with benevolent intentions went horribly wrong and the members of the government involved with it tried to cover it up to protect themselves, but they didn't represent the entire government. The point of Serenity was that the system needed reform, not that it was fundamentally evil. Exposing Miranda worked to bring about that reform because there were still plenty of people in the government who did have benevolent intentions and wouldn't have supported the conspiracy if they'd known about it.

If the show had lasted longer, we would've gotten to see a more balanced view of the Alliance. We would've seen more of its positive side along with the darker side the main characters were exposed to. Unfortunately, the show didn't run long enough to do that. And the movie had to focus on a big systemwide conspiracy/corruption angle because it was a movie and had to tell a big story, one that was more simplified and narrowly focused than a seasonal TV arc could've been. So we only really got to see the negative view of the Alliance and didn't get enough of the counterpoint to balance it out.

 

[Rahul]

But that wasn't the intent. Whedon goes into this in the companion book for Serenity. The idea was that the Alliance was neither purely good nor purely evil -- it was just a government like any other. A nominally free, democratic society can have corruption within it -- just look at what's happening in the US today, with the corruption tainting every branch of government and our most basic legal safeguards under attack and refugee children being locked up in concentration camps. To a lot of people right now, the United States looks pretty damn evil. But that's not what it intrinsically is. It's a breakdown of the system, a system that's not designed to be harmful but that can fail or be abused in greater or lesser ways.

Firefly/Serenity was not meant to be good vs. evil. Its characters were criminals and killers; we weren't supposed to see them as paragons of pure goodness or the system they fought as a pure tyranny. They were people who didn't fit into the system for various reasons, and not always because they opposed it. (Inara fully believed in the system; her reasons for being on the fringes were personal.) The show was meant to be about how a realistically imperfect government looked to the people who were harmed by its failures, people who only saw its darker side and its corruptions. It wasn't supposed to be intrinsically "evil," because Whedon rejected the idea that any person or system is intrinsically good or evil -- that a lot of the harm that happens in the world is just the result of people doing what seems like the best available option at the time and not realizing the consequences. And that even the most well-intentioned government can have individual factions within it who corrupt the system for their own greed. The Blue Hands were supposed to represent a secret conspiracy within the Alliance, not the entire government thereof. And the Miranda situation was a case where an experiment with benevolent intentions went horribly wrong and the members of the government involved with it tried to cover it up to protect themselves, but they didn't represent the entire government. The point of Serenity was that the system needed reform, not that it was fundamentally evil. Exposing Miranda worked to bring about that reform because there were still plenty of people in the government who did have benevolent intentions and wouldn't have supported the conspiracy if they'd known about it.

If the show had lasted longer, we would've gotten to see a more balanced view of the Alliance. We would've seen more of its positive side along with the darker side the main characters were exposed to. Unfortunately, the show didn't run long enough to do that. And the movie had to focus on a big systemwide conspiracy/corruption angle because it was a movie and had to tell a big story, one that was more simplified and narrowly focused than a seasonal TV arc could've been. So we only really got to see the negative view of the Alliance and didn't get enough of the counterpoint to balance it out.

Oh, I believe everything of that!
I was just judging from what was shown on-screen, not from any behind-the-scenes sources. And there is also probably a bit of a disconnect of what Whedon intended (a US-gouvernment-like system), and what it actually turned out to be, which is much closer to "The Machine". In any case I appreciated his very nuanced look at it, but if you're writing a story about (not-so) noble outlaws - it's very easy to make the system seem even more oppressive.

I think a good comparison can be made with the civilian gouvernment of the Colonial Fleet in the new Battlestar Galactica. Because in a way, the BSG gouvernement was more benelovent to it's citizens - despite coups and all it really tried to be a lawfull democracy, but also much, much weaker, and living in the BSG fleet was certainly more dangerous for everyone to live in. Whereas the Firefly Central gouvernment has a pretty good control over it's citizens and can guarantee personal freedoms and security. But it's a much, much less benelovent gounvernment nevertheless - it's not a gouvernment for the people or by the people, it's a gouvernment for the system, in which "keeping it's people happy" is just one part of guaranteeing the success of the entire system.

Neither of these systems are what can be described as "good" gouvernments, but for different reasons. Certainly a far cry from the functional gouvernment system of the Federation. But the key difference is neither of them are strictly malevolent either! They're not "the Empire". And I just love how much nuance is in these cases. But still, a straight up "good" gouvernment is part of what makes "Star Trek" special - hell, it might be the ONLY major SF IP that actually has one!

 

[Christopher]

Oh, I believe everything of that!
I was just judging from what was shown on-screen, not from any behind-the-scenes sources. And there is also probably a bit of a disconnect of what Whedon intended (a US-gouvernment-like system), and what it actually turned out to be, which is much closer to "The Machine".

As I've been trying to get across, it's a matter of perspective. There are some populations to whom the US government has always looked malevolent. Ask most any working-class African-American if they believe the US legal system is benevolent and fair -- you'll get a profoundly different answer than you'll get from a white American. A country in Europe that has good diplomatic relations with the US will see our government very differently from a government in, say, the Mideast or Latin America whose democratic leaders were overthrown or opposed by the CIA in favor of brutal dictators who happened to be anti-Communist. The same government can be good or evil depending on whom you ask. Fiction generally oversimplifies that and makes the sides more clear-cut, but Firefly was meant to be more realistically ambiguous.

In any case I appreciated his very nuanced look at it, but if you're writing a story about (not-so) noble outlaws - it's very easy to make the system seem even more oppressive.

Yes, exactly. Who the good guys are can depend on who's telling the story. But Whedon by that point in his career was all about embracing ambiguity and shades of gray, so I'm certain that if the show had gone on, the picture we have of the Alliance would've grown far more complex and less caricatured as an "evil empire."

Whereas the Firefly Central gouvernment has a pretty good control over it's citizens and can guarantee personal freedoms and security. But it's a much, much less benelovent gounvernment nevertheless - it's not a gouvernment for the people or by the people, it's a gouvernment for the system, in which "keeping it's people happy" is just one part of guaranteeing the success of the entire system.

Again: That is how it looked from the perspective of the characters the show centered on. That does not mean everyone else would've agreed with them; indeed, Inara clearly didn't agree with that perspective, and I believe Simon saw what happened to River and himself more as the responsibility of a limited conspiracy than a failure of the society as a whole. You keep stating these things as universal absolutes, and that's too simplistic. Even within the show we got, there were different points of view on this.

Basically, Mal and Zoey represented conservatives or libertarians -- people who believe that any strong central government, no matter how benevolent it purports to be, will ultimately serve the power of the system above the freedom of the people. But there are other worldviews that see government differently, as something that, for all its imperfections and compromises, is still necessary to protect people's freedoms and safety. Whedon himself is, of course, more on the progressive side, but he was intrigued by the creative challenge of writing from the point of view of a lead character he disagreed with (IIRC, he's said that he probably wouldn't have liked sitting down to dinner with Mal Reynolds, because they have little common ground). So it stands to reason that he wanted to explore opposing points of view as well.

But still, a straight up "good" gouvernment is part of what makes "Star Trek" special - hell, it might be the ONLY major SF IP that actually has one!

Although the Maquis and the victims of Section 31 would disagree that it's "straight up good." The people of planets that the Federation failed to help because of the Prime Directive would probably disagree too. That's my point. No matter how good a system tries to be, there will be times that it fails, is corrupted, or does bad things for what seem like good reasons.

 

[Rahul]

Yes, exactly. Who the good guys are can depend on who's telling the story. But Whedon by that point in his career was all about embracing ambiguity and shades of gray, so I'm certain that if the show had gone on, the picture we have of the Alliance would've grown far more complex and less caricatured as an "evil empire."

Well, the Alliance was never the "evil Empire" to begin with. But it was a machine. A system to protect itself. And it definitely amplified that aspect to the point that it is representative of the gouvernment form of the Alliance as a whole. Of course there were shades of gray - the people in it seem to be able to get along with their lives. But this was definitely not a free democracy either.

Again: That is how it looked from the perspective of the characters the show centered on.

But also from the "neutral" observation from the cut-aways to the Alliance or it's representatives.

That does not mean everyone else would've agreed with them; indeed, Inara clearly didn't agree with that perspective, and I believe Simon saw what happened to River and himself more as the responsibility of a limited conspiracy than a failure of the society as a whole. You keep stating these things as universal absolutes, and that's too simplistic. Even within the show we got, there were different points of view on this.

That's not "simplistic". Every form of gouvernment has people that benefit from it, and others that don't. The Alliance seem to manage that most people in it can have a pretty stable life. Not every authoritarian gouvernment is automatically a failed state. If anything the alliance is probably comparable to a former Eastern Europe bureaucratic state. But that doesn't change the fact that the system, as presented, was neither malevolent, but not benelovent towards it's citizens either. It simply wasn't a gouvernment "for" the people (or "by" them), it was the attempt to keep a system working. This is not a judgement. But an observation.

Although the Maquis and the victims of Section 31 would disagree that it's "straight up good."

Funny how both of these concepts come from the show many people complained that it didn't "get" the Roddenberry version of Star Trek. That might be one of the reasons. But that's still wrong, as neither any of them are truly victims of the gouverning system.

The people of planets that the Federation failed to help because of the Prime Directive would probably disagree too. That's my point. No matter how good a system tries to be, there will be times that it fails, is corrupted, or does bad things for what seem like good reasons.

There is also a massive misunderstatement here: A gouvernment cannot be made responsible for the things that happen around it. A gouvernment is made to gouvern the people under that gouvernment. The Federation doesn't bring harm to anyone outside. That's everything you can expect from a "good" gouvernment.

In fact, the Federation even tries to help where it can. You cannot make her responsible for "not helping enough". But by and large - even with the Maquis and Section 31 - the Federation is a "good", benelovent gouvernment for it's people. That doesn't mean it's perfect, not even that it succeeds at being always good! - Hell, it TRIED to help the people from the Maquis (by resettling them out of a conflict zone). That approach might not have worked out. But that's still not comparable to authoritarian regimes or even a modern day gouvernment corrupted by lobbyism.

 

[Christopher]

Well, the Alliance was never the "evil Empire" to begin with. But it was a machine. A system to protect itself. And it definitely amplified that aspect to the point that it is representative of the gouvernment form of the Alliance as a whole. Of course there were shades of gray - the people in it seem to be able to get along with their lives. But this was definitely not a free democracy either.

We're going in circles. So here it is from Whedon's own pre-production document for Serenity:

https://firefly.fandom.com/wiki/A_Brief_History_of_the_Universe

These two powers, still working in harmony, grew at once into the most populous and advanced civilizations in the new star system.

'Advanced' meant just that: these were enlightened cultures, with respect for all non-aggressive religious beliefs (though the main religion on both was Buddhism). Literacy levels were at 94%. Average lifespan was 120. Public Service was not law - it was simply an ingrained part of the people's ethos. And pot was totally legal (though I probably won't stress that). (In fact, forget I said it.) The point is, certain social mores had evolved (whether forwards or backwards is a matter of opinion) beyond our modern conceptions.
...
The thing is, we had enough worlds to go around, but not enough resources. And people didn't exactly stop making babies. The outer planets, the worlds and moons that hadn't been chosen to house the new civilization - they were the destination for the poorer, more extreme, the pioneers. They traveled out to the nearest planet someone hadn't claimed yet and started turning their rockets into roofs. Building off whatever the land had been shaped to provide them with. Some of these people were brought near to savagery by the conditions they encountered. Some were just hard-working, independent folk who didn't want their lives mapped out for them before they'd lived them. Didn't want convenience. Some were orthodox in their beliefs to the point where they were not comfortable among non-believers, and wanted whole worlds where they would not be slowly homogenized into society. And some had reason to avoid the law.

There were troubles. There were famines, there were wars - the human race didn't get better or smarter just 'cause they had made scientific leaps. Things were definitely more peaceful among the Central Planets, but that peace was bought at a price. Nothing resembling totalitarianism, but a certain regulation of existence that would not sit well with some. And even among these planets, conflicts over resources, trade, and political influence strained the civil relations of sister nations. In an effort to unite and quell this conflict, the Central Planets formed the Alliance, a governing structure that unified them all under one governing body, the Parliament. The few members represented each planet, and worked in genuine harmony to fulfill each planet's various needs, economically and politically. In harmony, and very often, in secrecy.

For we are nothing more than humans, however high we reach. The Parliament ruled over people with fairness and intelligence, but also with a strong army and a wary eye toward any insurrection. The Military Council worked under the Parliament to deliver swift, effective control of any real unrest among them or their neighbors. And even beyond the knowledge of the Military council were other bodies, secret bodies ... human experimentation. Spies. Assassins. Schemes, secret up to the highest level, to get people to behave. To improve.

See, you're trying to fit it into the cozy paradigm "democracy = good, authoritarianism = bad." But Whedon's point in Firefly, Dollhouse, and even Buffy/Angel to an extent is that you can't wield power to do good without doing some harm at the same time, and that even the best intentions can be screwed up by human fallibility. Democracies can be authoritarian to an extent. Look at how the US compromised civil liberties after 9/11 in the name of safety. We still had democracy, but probably a bit less liberty than before. These things are matters of proportion and degree.

In Serenity: The Official Visual Companion (Titan Books, 2005), Whedon said on p. 8, "The basic tenet was that it was... Reconstruction era. Mal had fought for the South -- not for slavery, I can't stress that enough [laughs], but for [the losing side]." That's a flawed metaphor, because the idea that fighting for the South was somehow not fighting for slavery is a lie propagated by generations of propaganda from factions who wish the South had won. But Mal was like those people -- people who though the Union was the villain and the Confederacy should've won. He wasn't based on, say, a Czech under Soviet occupation or a Chinese Nationalist after they were driven to Taiwan. He wasn't based on a champion of democracy standing up against a tyranny. He was based on a Southerner opposed to Reconstruction after the Civil War. That should tell you something about how Whedon saw the nature of the government Mal opposed.

But also from the "neutral" observation from the cut-aways to the Alliance or it's representatives.

If all you saw of the United States was the actions of its police and military, it would seem authoritarian to you. There are people who think the Federation in Star Trek is a military dictatorship because the shows only portray its military side. But that doesn't mean the civilian side isn't there.

In fact, the Federation even tries to help where it can. You cannot make her responsible for "not helping enough".

Oh, come on. It's not about what I think. You're missing the entire thrust of my argument if you think I've been trying to advocate a single side. My whole point is that the same thing can look different to different people, that there isn't just one allowable interpretation. You keep trying to reduce this to absolute, inarguable statements of fact, but different people can disagree fundamentally on what the objective facts of a situation even are. Especially with something like a government, which is too complex and multifaceted to be only one thing.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I suspect that if certain Firefly episodes were re-told from the perspective of the Alliance, we'd get a very, very different result...

That said, I would prefer that Trek in any form remain as un-Firefly-like as possible. I admit I'm biased, because I never really cared for FF at all. Although I did like one line that Mal had - I think it was from an unused script - where one of his old comrades was going around blowing up Alliance installations and killing innocent people. (The fact that the episode even admitted that there were innocents in the Alliance did say something.) Mal says something like "It ain't war when they're not shooting at you. Then it's just plain murder."

 

[Tenacity]

As for Star Trek: The Federation isn't a perfect Utopia. It's just an Utopia compared to our modern world.

Impossible to know, because the show never focused on Federation society, we merely had the occasional glimpse.

There probably isn't a "Federation society" as such, more a matter of planet by planet, each very different than the others.

Even just speaking of Earth, the concept of "utopia" is subjective. And without knowing more about the freedoms and possible constraints of the people can you really call it a utopia just because some of the people have replicators?

The absolute safety is physically limited to the space of the Federation. The more you go to the edges or even leave it, the more more dangerous it gets.

Earth is a pretty dangerous place, in terms of being capable of being attacked.

But even then, these people live in a free, post-scarcity society. Just a bit more exposed to outsie dangers.

There's no indication that it's "post-scarcity."

As for free, the Federation president can place troops in the streets on his own individual authority. This sounds very much like the ability of a autocrat.

It isn't even clear who elects the Federation president.

And there is apparently a lack of privacy within their society, Starfleet officers can certainly access anyone's personal information without any due process. Federation freedoms don't appear to include a equivalent to the fourth amendment.

There’s no good in-universe reason to doubt the Federation takes care of all its people.

And also no good in-universe reason to believe this is what is happening, again we just don't see it happening.

The way I was understanding it was that they were colonists at the rim of Federation space.

My understanding is that the settlers were outside both the Federation and the Cardassian Union. Both the Federation and the Union were seeking to expand into this basically unclaimed area of interstellar space, and were willing to fight for it.

The war was more about territory, and never primarily about the colonist planets.

Similar to the short war in the TOS episode Errand of Mercy. Territory.
Kirk: "You're the ones who issued the ultimatum to withdraw from the disputed areas."
Kor: "They are not disputed, they're clearly ours."

But still, a straight up "good" gouvernment is part of what makes "Star Trek" special - hell, it might be the ONLY major SF IP that actually has one!

Data: "... Starfleet has permitted several civilizations to fall. We have at times allowed the strong and violent to overcome the weak."

I've always seen the Federation government as a pragmatic organization. One example of this was after the council got control of the cure to the poisoning of the Dominion Founders, they then sat on it until it could be used as a barganing tool to the Federation's advantage.

The Federation president in TUC was pretty quick to throw Kirk and McCoy under a bus in order to advance a political objective.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

As for free, the Federation president can place troops in the streets on his own individual authority. This sounds very much like the ability of a autocrat.

There was an emergency situation going on, an immediate crisis that needed to be addressed. Jaresh-Inyo was well within his rights to mobilize Starfleet forces. It'd be like the President of the US activating National Guard forces to deal with a crisis.

(ah, but what about United Earth's own military, you may ask. Well, there was going to be a scene where Jaresh-Inyo "federalizes" UE forces to deal with the changeling threat, but it simply got cut for time.)