What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Nyotarules]

In the United Kingdom, there has to be a General Election for a new Parliament every five years; the only exception is when there's a truly existential threat, like World War II. (And the U.K. held a General Election literally as soon as it was possible to do so, even before that war was fully over.)

This was a recent event, The Fixed Term Parliment Act 2011, prior to this the P.M could call a general election whenever they wanted to , so if the polls were in their favour they could call a GE, it is what Thatcher did after the Falklands War gave her a stomping victory. Boris Johson's government repealed the act in 2022 so there no longer has to be a GE every five years anymore.

 

[Nyotarules]

Another thing to remember is that different races have much longer lifespans than humans. Vulcans, for example, can live to be over 200 years old, easily. So while holding an election every 4-6 years might make sense for humans, that might be too chaotic for others with much longer lifespans.

In the Trek universe humans also live longer, so a GE might be called every 7 years instead. Humans are not expected to drop dead at 75 or even 95, that is probably the retirement age.
Crusher had her second son in her late 50's or early 60's, it was no big deal or surprise to anyone.

 

[FederationHistorian]

PIC S3 just devolved into constant fan service without doing much of anything new with the characters.

"Hey, remember this character? Well, how about this character? Can you believe we got THIS actor back to reprise their role? What about the Borg? Are ya sick of the Borg yet? How about the Changelings on DS9? You liked them, right? You liked Christopher Plummer in Star Trek VI, didn't ya? Well, we've got his daughter Amanda to be the big bad for Picard's crew from TNG! Isn't that neat? Hey, wasn't it cool when Sisko hated Picard in the first episode of DS9? How about we give another character the exact same backstory as the reason why HE hates Picard? That'll work just as well the second time around, right? And hey, what if we resurrected Data for the sixth time?"

That’s on the fans that disliked S1.

They want the warm, and fuzzy, and familiar. Instead of what they came up with, that dared to do different things with Picard, Seven, Riker & Troi. Its probably a factor as to why the writers never built upon the threads from S1, leading to a dreadful second season with no real connection to the prior season.

Had the fans not been so harsh, the writers could have taken even bigger risks and could have led to an even better S3 than it was.

We could have seen Kira in the Vadic role, and Harry Kim in the Liam Shaw role. One of those cadets could have been replaced by Jake Sisko. One of the Fenris Rangers that boarded the Eleos could have been Naomi Wildman. Seeing all these characters in different stages of their lives, and would make fans even more excited for Legacy. Maybe we would have gotten the Luna-class Titan going on one final mission, instead of the Connie III Titan-A that get rechristened into the Ent-G.

And even with S3, some fans complained about Beverly’s use of a phaser rifle, when we saw Beverly use a phaser and was the heroine in “Conspiracy”, and was involved in the black ops mission with Pciard and Worf, and has always been badass.

Its hard to get anything new when a number of fans don't want to try anything new.

 

[Sci]

This was a recent event, The Fixed Term Parliment Act 2011, prior to this the P.M could call a general election whenever they wanted to , so if the polls were in their favour they could call a GE, it is what Thatcher did after the Falklands War gave her a stomping victory. Boris Johson's government repealed the act in 2022 so there no longer has to be a GE every five years anymore.

Okay, this is on me; I was aware that the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011 had been repealed, and what I had meant to convey was that a Parliament can last no more than five years without a General Election except in existential crises like World War II. But the language I used sounds like I meant that a Parliament's term is always five years, and as you correctly note, that is not true. I apologize for the confusion.

However, Section 4 of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 (which repealed the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011) reads:

If it has not been dissolved earlier, a Parliament dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it first met.​

So there does still have to be a General Election after five years if none has been called sooner.

 

[Sci]

This is still all fundamentally assuming that systems can only exist in the configurations we know them. Star Trek is a fictional world full of literal alien civilizations that could very easily have the technology and/or genuinely alien cultural tendencies to make theoretical systems that we can't accomplish possible.

Maybe, but the vast majority of aliens we see in Star Trek are essentially so similar to Humans that another system seems unfeasible.

For instance, they could have the capability to allow all citizens to respond directly to Govt. decisions in a way that can't be stifled, and so might find it eminently democratic to say that their ruler can rule for as long as the majority accepts that rule and will be removed as soon as the majority wants it to happen, without ever holding anything we would recognize as an election.

I dunno. I think that is basically an election, isn't it? It's an election held instantly via some form of telepathic communication. Seems to me that all they'd need to fulfill any Federation Membership requirement for democracy would be to periodically issue some sort of legal certification of what that collective decision was for the non-telepathic people in the Federation to read.

I call it a 'parliamentary dictatorship' because I was sure they have a Chancellor, than an Emperor, much like the Klingon Empire, at least, the Andorian Emperor is non-existent by the time of the Federation.

Ah, see, I just assumed that the Andorian had a democratically-accountable Chancellor in the same way Germany does today.

It does not consider that these various planets approach democracy like the Klingons do; that they experimented with them once, consider them “the dark times” and won’t look back. So, they’ll created a political system that works for themselves, like suggested above with an election every twenty years, or have rotating monarchs have unlimited non-consecutive seven-year terms. And for whatever reason, democratic mandates of 4/5/6/7 years are unreasonable and off the table.

I'm sorry, but in real life things change far too fast and people's evaluations of how to respond to changing situations vary far too much too fast for me to buy that it can be a true democracy if a democratic mandate extends too much past half a decade.

Some planets might be completely fine with a democratic dictatorship, and do not view the Federation ideals as absolute.

Then they don't have to join the Federation. No reason the UFP can't enjoy a peaceful, happy relationship with them as a foreign power instead of as a Member.

And how much democracy does the Federation need in order for a planet to be a member then?

I think the Federation would not accept as a Member a hybrid regime like Iran's.

Another thing to remember is that different races have much longer lifespans than humans. Vulcans, for example, can live to be over 200 years old, easily. So while holding an election every 4-6 years might make sense for humans, that might be too chaotic for others with much longer lifespans.

Again, the problem is that in real life, situations change far faster than that.

I hated the ending of PIC S1. If Picard is now just an synthetic golem version of the original Jean-Luc Picard, why should I care about anything that happens to him from that point on?

He is no more "just a synthetic golem version of the original Jean-Luc Picard" at the end of PIC S1 than Spock is "just a clone version of the original Spock" at the end of TSFS. It's still the original Picard; it's still the original Spock. His consciousness was transferred from his original body to a new body. Just like with Spock.

 

[at Quark's]

I don't know. Is being a democracy a requirement for joining the UFP? I only recall having a 'unified planetary government' in that respect.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I don't know. Is being a democracy a requirement for joining the UFP? I only recall having a 'unified planetary government' in that respect.

As per Memory Alpha, in Prodigy "Starstruck" [https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Starstruck_(episode)]:

Janeway explains that the United Federation of Planets is an interstellar union of different worlds and species, with shared principles of universal liberty, rights, and equality.​

From https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/United_Federation_of_Planets#Membership:

Membership

Admittance into the Federation can be granted either by invitation or successful petition submitted by a world, civilization, or government desiring to join voluntarily. In the second case, membership was granted only upon satisfaction of meeting certain requirements and conditions. Firstly, the government of the prospective member submitted an official petition to the Federation Council, outlining its desire to join. A lengthy, thorough investigation of the prospective member's culture followed, including copying records from the applicant's central computer. (TNG: "The Hunted") This investigation could last several years, and was done to ascertain whether or not the culture genuinely shared the values of the Federation: values of benevolence, peaceful co-existence and co-operation, the rule of law, justice, and equal rights and freedoms. (DS9: "Rapture"; TNG: "The Measure Of A Man", "Attached") For example, the discovery on the petitioning planet, Angosia III, of enhanced soldiers being unjustly and indefinitely imprisoned without treatment in times of peace was considered unacceptable in Captain Jean-Luc Picard's official evaluation of the planet for the Federation. (TNG: "The Hunted")

Even before the investigation, the prospective member had to meet certain requirements. These included the following:

• It had to have an "advanced level of technology." The Federation's baseline definition of this term was the capability for faster-than-light space travel. (TNG: "First Contact"; Star Trek: Insurrection)
• Its government should have achieved stable planetary political unity, demonstrating a resolution of social and political differences and a respect of the rights of the individual. Membership was still considered if there was an isolated faction present that did not want membership, but this was a rare case. (TNG: "The Hunted", "Attached")
• No form of caste discrimination was to be practiced. (DS9: "Accession")

There's maybe not a requirement to be a democracy, but basic rights must be guaranteed. That's more than just a unified planetary government.

 

[at Quark's]

That's more than just a unified planetary government.

Oh, it wasn't my intention to imply that just having a unified planetary government would be enough. Wouldn't seem likely either, as in that case, any world dictator, no matter how ruthless, could qualify. I just meant that I didn't recall any mention of explicit criteria other than that 'unified planetary government', but it's highly likely there's a long list of them.

 

[Tallguy]

Really we need to see more non-Fed worlds (centrally located to Earth / Vulcan / etc. would make it more exciting) who are technologically advanced AF but are a collection of nations who still practice 9th century Earth feudalism. I mean, I suppose we saw that in SNW last year. Not 9th century mores, but techy and incompatible with Fed values.

Heck, that's A Taste of Armageddon. (Gadzooks! I've learned to spell Armageddon without spell check! Next up: Millennium and Massachusetts!)

 

[Citiprime]

Really we need to see more non-Fed worlds (centrally located to Earth / Vulcan / etc. would make it more exciting) who are technologically advanced AF but are a collection of nations who still practice 9th century Earth feudalism. I mean, I suppose we saw that in SNW last year. Not 9th century mores, but techy and incompatible with Fed values.

Heck, that's A Taste of Armageddon. (Gadzooks! I've learned to spell Armageddon without spell check! Next up: Millennium and Massachusetts!)

Presumably Vulcan is a democracy, but given the example of "Amok Time" it also seems a-OK under Federation law for a planet to resolve marital matters with personal combat to the death.

 

[Farscape One]

To be fair, the pon farr and surrounding ceremonies of it are not widely known... at least, not in TOS era. So there wouldn't be any judgment since almost no one outside of Vulcan knew about it.

Besides, it's an internal law matter for Vulcan. The Federation couldn't really intervene, anyway. Not legally.

 

[Tallguy]

To be fair, the pon farr and surrounding ceremonies of it are not widely known... at least, not in TOS era. So there wouldn't be any judgment since almost no one outside of Vulcan knew about it.

Besides, it's an internal law matter for Vulcan. The Federation couldn't really intervene, anyway. Not legally.

We're not talking about intervention. We're talking about things the Fed has to be hunky-dory with its members getting up to. In Vulcan's case this apparently means "wives as property".

You know, it's been over 30 years and I just now thought of the implications when Picard says he attended Sarek's son's wedding. I wonder if Kirk's participation in Spock's wedding to T'Pring ever became public knowledge?

 

[fireproof78]

You know, it's been over 30 years and I just now thought of the implications when Picard says he attended Sarek's son's wedding. I wonder if Kirk's participation in Spock's wedding to T'Pring ever became public knowledge?

Probably not, since Kirk was not there in any official capacity, but as a friend.

 

[Farscape One]

We're not talking about intervention. We're talking about things the Fed has to be hunky-dory with its members getting up to. In Vulcan's case this apparently means "wives as property".

You know, it's been over 30 years and I just now thought of the implications when Picard says he attended Sarek's son's wedding. I wonder if Kirk's participation in Spock's wedding to T'Pring ever became public knowledge?

I don't think Vulcan wives are property in the way we think it means, like how Ferengi women are treated. Otherwise, they wouldn't have women like T'Pau or the leader of Ni'Var on DISCO be in positions of such great power.

 

[FederationHistorian]

I'm sorry, but in real life things change far too fast and people's evaluations of how to respond to changing situations vary far too much too fast for me to buy that it can be a true democracy if a democratic mandate extends too much past half a decade.

Then they don't have to join the Federation. No reason the UFP can't enjoy a peaceful, happy relationship with them as a foreign power instead of as a Member.

I think the Federation would not accept as a Member a hybrid regime like Iran's.

Are you saying that the Federation should prioritize political freedoms over social and economic freedoms?

 

[Sci]

There's maybe not a requirement to be a democracy, but basic rights must be guaranteed. That's more than just a unified planetary government.

The right of the people to chose their own leaders is a pretty basic right.

Presumably Vulcan is a democracy, but given the example of "Amok Time" it also seems a-OK under Federation law for a planet to resolve marital matters with personal combat to the death.

Sure. And if such combat occurs on the basis of mutual consent according to a prescribed legal process, there's no reason such a practice couldn't be compatible with democracy and other fundamental rights.

(Andor has the ushaan, too.)

Are you saying that the Federation should prioritize political freedoms over social and economic freedoms?

I do not believe I have addressed the question of social or economic freedoms, nor have I prescribed which should be prioritized. I have simply asserted that the Federation in my view almost certainly does not allow Members who are not democracies of some sort.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The right of the people to chose their own leaders is a pretty basic right.

For humans today, I agree. But this is science fiction.

It's not difficult to imagine a species for whom leadership is genetically determined and selection against that is biologically impossible for them. I'm not talking benevolent dictator necessarily; it could be as simple as... mom.

If I were, for whatever reason, forced to choose between the right of every citizen to select their leader democratically and the right of every citizen to have their government act in their interest, with the understanding that the government would have to actually act in the interests of all its citizens and never misdefine interest to benefit some at the expense of others, I'd have to say that I'd be leaning awfully hard towards the latter.

Another alternative that might make a great science fiction story is choosing the leader randomly, once per year, like jury duty. A species that did that might do it because they have better outcomes than allowing the majority to decide who rules.

A third is rule by computer. I've seen Star Trek, so I'm fully aware of "Return of the Archons" and "The Apple," and I've seen the film Logan's Run, which tell stories of people enslaved by computers that limit and subjugate the citizenry. Again, this is science fiction, and it's entirely plausible that sometime in the future some colony or group of people will attempt to have their community essentially governed by computer. If the Federation were to judge the merits of such a system, they would be looking at whether the sacrifices that were demanded of people were reasonable and just, and what their quality of life was, whether they were free to leave (and if not, why not).

A thought that comes to mind is that we don't really know anything about the Bynar form of government. Perhaps they have no leader, and every decision is made by direct democracy, so that every citizen is a leader, and there's a fourth alternative.

 

[fireproof78]

Or, in Invader Zim, were it is the tallest who lead.

 

[FederationHistorian]

I do not believe I have addressed the question of social or economic freedoms, nor have I prescribed which should be prioritized. I have simply asserted that the Federation in my view almost certainly does not allow Members who are not democracies of some sort.

I ask as, as long as those planets adhere to certain Federation standards such as no caste system and no slavery, nothing really stops those planets from being extremely strict societies that outlaw as much as possible. And the Federation would then be okay with these conservative democracies, moralistic democracies, or even authoritarian democracies so as long as they have elections every half decade.

 

[BillJ]

We could have seen Kira in the Vadic role, and Harry Kim in the Liam Shaw role. One of those cadets could have been replaced by Jake Sisko. One of the Fenris Rangers that boarded the Eleos could have been Naomi Wildman.