What a coincidence. That's similar to how most politicians come up with policies. Except they come up with shit out of more shit ...
Concerning the Articles of the Federation
- Thread starter Rush Limborg
- Start date
What a coincidence. That's similar to how most politicians come up with policies. Except they come up with shit out of more shit ...
The Starfleet charter provides for Section 31. The Federation Charter provides for a starfleet.
Aaron McGuire
Aaron McGuire
The United Earth Starfleet Charter Article 14, Section 31, was the original inspiration for The Bureau; it called for the legality of bending the rules during times of crisis. (ENT)
The Federation Starfleet Charter, Article 14, Section 31, had, more specifically, provisions for "an autonomous investigative agency" with non-specific discretionary powers over unspecified matters. (Section 31 novel: Cloak)
I suspect the Federation Starfleet Charter was pretty much copied from the UESPA Starfleet Charter.
So, at least fourteen articles in the Starfleet Charter, eh?
So, at least fourteen articles in the Starfleet Charter, eh?
Not neccesarily.
Under those circumstances, when workers feel they are being abused, they therefore can form a union, and this union can negotiate with the employer.
(Yes, I, a conservative, allow for unions. What I do not allow for is coerced union membership--and unions who lobby for political favors.)
See:
I suppose that goes for "benefits", as well.
Perhaps not...in theory. But governments have derived wierder--which is why the preferred wording, I.M.A.N.S.H.O., is "pursuit of leisure". That has less room for "loopholes" for govermental control.
Yup. And I'd imagine that Article 14 is for Starfleet Intelligence.
Isn't this Starfleet Charter stuff likely going to be worked out in the Romulan War series?
Anyway, the Rand Formula says you don't have to join a union, but do have to pay membership dues if most workers are in one, as you are receiving the benefit of the union's bargaining power anyway. No free rides.
But given Trek's money-free future economy, I suspect Federation law is several steps beyond this level of reasoning.
Anyway, the Rand Formula says you don't have to join a union, but do have to pay membership dues if most workers are in one, as you are receiving the benefit of the union's bargaining power anyway. No free rides.
But given Trek's money-free future economy, I suspect Federation law is several steps beyond this level of reasoning.
I doubt it would be worked out in detail in the text of a novel.
Just sayin' there is a series headed in that direction which covers the years on question.
I suspect the author who gets to do that *knocks on wood* won't be able to resist a Section 31 (both the org and the authorizing text) throwaway line.
Ooo, and while I'm here, I both purchased and enjoyed "Over a Torrent Sea", sir.
Rush:
Money-Free Economy - yeah, I know that's a whole barrel of issues right there.
I suspect the author who gets to do that *knocks on wood* won't be able to resist a Section 31 (both the org and the authorizing text) throwaway line.
Ooo, and while I'm here, I both purchased and enjoyed "Over a Torrent Sea", sir.
Rush:
Money-Free Economy - yeah, I know that's a whole barrel of issues right there.
Y'know, it might be useful if we hashed out the rough form of the Charter and Constitution, so that when it gets referred to in the future, there'll be something to actually refer to.
Save folks a lot of work later. And Rush already has the Preamble and all twenty Guarantees nailed down pretty well....
Save folks a lot of work later. And Rush already has the Preamble and all twenty Guarantees nailed down pretty well....
Actually, kids, Mike Friedman has already been there, with Starfleet: Year One.
DS9's "Inquisition" established that Section 31 was part of the "original Starfleet Charter." This seems to gel with ENT, whose "Affliction/Divergence" established that Section 31 got its name from Article 14, Section 31 of the United Earth Starfleet Charter.
Since the Federation Starfleet is by definition a separate organization than the United Earth Starfleet -- in the same way that the United States Navy is a separate organization from the Massachusetts State Navy -- it makes sense that it would have a separate charter, explaining the "original" part as referring to the U.E. Starfleet Charter.
Either way... Not something that would be found in the Articles of the Federation.
Cloak did not establish that the relevant 31st section in the Federation Starfleet Charter was located in Article 14; that's from ENT.
And meanwhile, in the real world, there are numerous companies that fire you the instant they get wind of unionization and replace you with someone else willing to work for your lower price or cheaper without asking for things they might need, like time off.
I'm sorry, but all private companies simply cannot be trusted to behave honorably on some issues. There has to be a mechanism in place to use the power of the state to force them to respect the rights of their employees -- and, yes, when the simple fact is that you need something to be healthy, that makes it a right under any reasonable conception of liberal democracy.
Then it's completely reasonable to campaign against a ridiculous interpretation of the right to leisure such as your theoretical example, without trying to say that there shouldn't be a right to leisure. You can use the democratic process to ensure a reasonable interpretation of the right to leisure without throwing out the right itself. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Absolutely. The idea that the free market can be counted on to protect the rights of workers is bizarrely naive. For most of history, workers have had few to no rights precisely because their employers -- or owners -- have had license to exploit them as much as they wanted. The only thing that changed that situation was government enacting laws to protect workers' rights.
After all, the market is about people looking out for their own interests, not the interests of others. It takes something other than the profit motive to get people to defer to other people's needs.
Exactly. And certainly, we can all agree that there are employers out there who are decent human beings who can and do care about their employees and enact policies that respect their employees' rights without being forced to.
But the simple fact of the matter is that not all employers are so honorable or logical (as evidenced by Enron, and then by the immoral and irresponsible lending and securitization practices that helped prompt the current economic crisis). Protecting the rights of workers is too important to just trust to the honor code.
Hell, I can just point to a former employer, Denver Public Schools, and their utter disregard for their bus drivers (in short, no benefits for part timers, inadequate pay during the school year, no pay during summer unless you're one of the lucky few to land a summer school route). And that's a government agency with a union in place.
I tend to think a lot of issues with government employees being underpaid, having benefits stripped, etc has to do with the attitude of the voters and elected officials. "Yeah, give me the services but don't raise my taxes pay for it". I just don't see someone in government doing it for personal gain, because it's not like that person is going get the cash for cheating someone else. That doesn't hold true in the private sector. Any one running a company can increase the bottom line by jacking the employees and some people will fall to temptation. The conservative idea of dumping all government oversight of private companies because in the free market everyone acts responsibly is just not what happens in the real world. There needs to be government oversight to protect investors, workers, the environment, etc because that's not going to happen in a total free market world.
Let me address the flaws within the arguments of many here:
You all, I think, agree that it is in the economic self-interest of employers to have the best work force possible. The building of this force is conducted by the best proposed treatment of employees enonomically possible--which included high wages, vacations, benefits, etc.
That some employers do not realze this is due to stupididty on their part--and this results in their going out of business, as this stupidity is not tolerated by the market.
But, as Sci pointed out, this only would happen if the employees could quit. That they could not...would only be a direct result of there being a lack of competition--i.e., a lack of profit in business starting up for the purpose of competing with the employer.
In a free market, the profit of this competition would be obvious: the competitors would profit from encouraging the disregarded employes to join their companies.
So what would cause a lack of incentive for other companies to compete with the abusive employer?
Here's another talking point: Regarding Sci's point that some employers would simply not be economically minded enough--or just too power hungry--to care about the employees.
Yet...it is assumed that somehow the government can be trusted to solve these problems.
Here is the problem: the government has more power than the employer, as it has a legal monopoly on force. It therefore has less of an economic incentive--indeed, no economic incentive--to be fair. This, indeed, is the reason for the oddity that Captain Robert April noticed a couple posts above. There is no profit motive with the government, and thus there is less incentive to build up the quality of the work force.
To the contrary: the idea that government knows best how to run the business is more naive, still.
Now, as ronny noted, there is a purpose for government oversight--the protection of rights. But this should be limited solely to the protection of individual rights--right which apply to all. This is what is meant by the Fourteenth Amendment's clause of "equal protection under the law".
This does not mean that the government should be given the power to effectively run one's business. It means only that the employee, like anyone else--including the employer, should be protected from infringements on their individual rights.
But the idea that workers should have the "right" to be provided things at the expense of the employers, is, frankly, an extention of the idea that rights are created by society, and that they are therefore not inalienable.
You all, I think, agree that it is in the economic self-interest of employers to have the best work force possible. The building of this force is conducted by the best proposed treatment of employees enonomically possible--which included high wages, vacations, benefits, etc.
That some employers do not realze this is due to stupididty on their part--and this results in their going out of business, as this stupidity is not tolerated by the market.
But, as Sci pointed out, this only would happen if the employees could quit. That they could not...would only be a direct result of there being a lack of competition--i.e., a lack of profit in business starting up for the purpose of competing with the employer.
In a free market, the profit of this competition would be obvious: the competitors would profit from encouraging the disregarded employes to join their companies.
So what would cause a lack of incentive for other companies to compete with the abusive employer?
Here's another talking point: Regarding Sci's point that some employers would simply not be economically minded enough--or just too power hungry--to care about the employees.
Yet...it is assumed that somehow the government can be trusted to solve these problems.
Here is the problem: the government has more power than the employer, as it has a legal monopoly on force. It therefore has less of an economic incentive--indeed, no economic incentive--to be fair. This, indeed, is the reason for the oddity that Captain Robert April noticed a couple posts above. There is no profit motive with the government, and thus there is less incentive to build up the quality of the work force.
To the contrary: the idea that government knows best how to run the business is more naive, still.
Now, as ronny noted, there is a purpose for government oversight--the protection of rights. But this should be limited solely to the protection of individual rights--right which apply to all. This is what is meant by the Fourteenth Amendment's clause of "equal protection under the law".
This does not mean that the government should be given the power to effectively run one's business. It means only that the employee, like anyone else--including the employer, should be protected from infringements on their individual rights.
But the idea that workers should have the "right" to be provided things at the expense of the employers, is, frankly, an extention of the idea that rights are created by society, and that they are therefore not inalienable.
I don't think that really was a conservative idea until the Reagan era. The modern definition of "conservative" is far more radical and reactionary than it used to be. Conservatism means wanting to place limits on government power. Wanting to eliminate government from the equation altogether -- well, that's just anarchism. It's oddly parallel to Marxism, really, except that Marxists naively believe that the workers can be counted on to make the system run fairly without oversight while the modern far right naively believes that management can be counted on to make the system run fairly without oversight.
In both cases, it's the "without oversight" part that makes it infeasible. The thing that's enabled the United States to endure as a generally fair and just society is its system of checks and balances. Any single institution given complete free rein will run out of control and commit its own excesses and injustices, no matter how good its intentions. What's needed is for every seat of power to have other seats of power to balance it out, to keep it from taking things too far. The fairest, healthiest system is one where government and business balance each other, neither one having too much power. There's a reason why the symbol of justice is a balance.
