Imagining the Federation governmental structure

[Sci]

There is something i woukld like to point out... In dS9 during the dominion war i heard two sinteresting things (couldn't name the epis) .
once, a reference about fighting "alonf the vulcan border"
And once, the dominion establishing a supply line "into betazoid territory"

This implies that members may not just be planets. Each of them may have a chunk of space, several star systems.

Oh, certainly Federation Members encompass more than just their capital planets. Just like the State of Ohio encompasses more than just the City of Columbus and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts encompasses more than just the City of Boston, United Earth almost certainly encompasses more than just the Planet Earth and the Confederacy of Vulcan surely encompasses more than just Planet Vulcan.

(For my money, I'm sure that United Earth encompasses Earth, Luna, any colonies on Jupiter's moons, and possibly even the Vega colony.)

How come, then, have we seen precisely two officers, in one episode, who've come out of SFA campuses other than San Francisco?

Presumably because the Federation is big and we've only ever gotten a good look at four crews.

I realize this is its own debate, but...How big is big, Sci?

Good question.

We know from ST09 that Vulcan had a population of approximately six billion in the 2250s.

Let's presume that that population is stable over time into the 24th Century, and let's presume that 6 billion is the average population of the capital planet of a Federation Member State. Some Member States encompass multiple well-developed planets, others encompass only one inhabited planet, but it all evens out.

So, 6 billion people per Member State capital planet, multiplied by 155 Member States (number taken from Articles of the Federation novel): 900 billion.

Let's presume that most Member States have at least three other planets in their territory with at least 500,000,000 people. 500 million times 3: 1,500,000,000. 1.5 billion times 150: 232.5 billion.

Add 232.5 billion to 900 billion... We're looking at 1,132,500,000,000. 1.1325 trillion sentient individuals, spread out across 8,000 light-years of space on over 600 inhabited planets.

Seems to me that Starfleet would need a huge number of active officers. If Starfleet maintains the same percentage of the Federation population in its service as the United States Armed Forces do of the American population, we're looking at a Federation Starfleet comprised of .4% of the population -- 4.53 billion officers.

Maybe that's a little too extreme, but I think I'm being fairly conservative there.

So, in all of that... We've gotten a good look at four crews. Specifically, we've gotten a good look at the senior officers of four crews -- meaning, we've only gotten a good look at about 30 or so people out of a Starfleet of possibly over 1 billion.

I'd say it's pretty big.

 

[Penta]

When you put it that way, I feel silly given that I had guesstimated most starships as of 2383 (Prime) as carrying under 500 people, and so presumed around a million or so servicemembers, maybe 10% of those of Ensign or higher rank.

 

[T'Girl]

Most of all, in "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost," we see the Federation President declare martial law on a Federation Member State's capital planet

Declaring martial law isn't a power exclusively in the hands of a head of state. State Governors, of course, can declare martial law. As can military leaders, military leaders can declare martial law ( Andrew Jackson at New Orleans) because the power to do so was delegated to them by their political superiors. In a like manner the ability to declare martial law in emergencies is among the powers delegated to the office of Federation President by the member states. Jaresh-Inyo would have at some point communicated with the UE government. They certainly would have been calling him.

Ronald Moore has said in interviews that the EU government was originally in the Homefront script, but was removed because of time and for simplicity (memory alpha)

Strictly speaking, the American President can't declare martial law, only congress can.

and we hear other Federation Members being spoken of as regarding the Federation President as "their" president.

And I refer to President Obama as "my" president, meaning he works for me.

The Communist states of Eastern Europe handed over their sovereignty to the newly-created Soviet Union in the early 20th Century.

Russia took their sovereignty away using it massive army. You were talking about post-WWII right?

* Not all member states are democracies. But they all do possess a single stable government.

How could a Federation based on the ideas of freedom and self-determination not require its Member States to gain democratic mandates from their citizens?

So if the Vulcan High Command was still governing Vulcan at the time, Vulcan wouldn't have been a founding member of the Federation? Freedom. The High Command was either a authoritative or a military dictatorship. Self-determination. The High Command killed Vulcans involved with the Syrranites (T'Pau).

Ardana appears to have a aristocracy government. Kirk clearly says "Ardana is a member of the Federation."

Some additional thoughts.
* The Federation lacks the power to directly tax the member states.

This part is just absurd.

This actual works under both yours and my ideas about the Federation government.

The Federation not having the ability to tax is part of the checks and balances between the members and the Federation. Separating the Federation from it's source of finance puts the power of the purse in the hands of the members. It's part of the separation of powers, even under you interpretation of the Federation Sci, there has to be some limits set by the members on the Federation's power.

Penta, as I understand it, did not give the Federation a lower house, only the council. In a way this gives the individual member states collectively the power of a lower house. Powers often possessed by a lower house include:

1) Given total or original control over budget and monetary laws.
2) Able to override the upper house in some ways.
3) Given the sole power to impeach the executive.(I think the council can also impeach)

The members have ambassadors, they communicate with each other directly, not solely through the Federation. Should the central government move in directions the member governments disapprove of, the members can de-fund the Federation. Financially starve it.

The Federation budget would be created in the council, if the members approve, they fund it. This would give the members some of the attributes of the IRS and the federal reserve. The actual payment into the Federation's operating fund would appear as a line item on the UE government's yearly budget. There can also be supplemental appropriations.

The American President is the CinC of the military, however the congress also has a measure of control over the military, by way of budgets and appropriations.

 

[Penta]

I should note, T'Girl, that the only reason I didn't give the UFP a lower house is because I could find no canon reason for their to be one. Politically, I see a whole horde of reasons for there to be a lower house.

I just couldn't find justification for one in canon, only reference to the FedCouncil...And nor did I really want to ponder how the hell one would structure a lower house in a Federation with a trillion beings represented over 150 members.

 

[Sci]

Most of all, in "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost," we see the Federation President declare martial law on a Federation Member State's capital planet

Declaring martial law isn't a power exclusively in the hands of a head of state. State Governors, of course, can declare martial law. As can military leaders, military leaders can declare martial law ( Andrew Jackson at New Orleans) because the power to do so was delegated to them by their political superiors. In a like manner the ability to declare martial law in emergencies is among the powers delegated to the office of Federation President by the member states. Jaresh-Inyo declared martial law on Earth strangely without going through the council.

Except that there's no evidence whatsoever that Jaresh-Inyo's declaration was strange or in any way legally questionable.

Military leaders can declare martial law... when they have been delegated that authority by the state.

State governors can declare martial law within their states because they have dual sovereignty.

But an entity that is not sovereign cannot declare martial law, period.

The Federation would not be able to declare martial law were it not a federal state in its own right rather than a mere alliance or confederation. Its authorities are delegated to it by the people of the Federation, not by its Member States.

Evidence? We've seen the Federation Charter onscreen. Its preamble read as follows:

"We the life forms of the United Federation of Planets determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, and to reaffirm faith in the fundamental rights of sentient beings, in the dignity and worth of all life forms, in the equal rights of members of planetary systems large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of interstellar law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of living on all worlds..."

The opening sentence is very clear. The Federation derives its authority from the people of the Federation, not from the Member States which the people have also formed. The Federation Charter is a contract amongst all Federation citizens, not amongst the Member State governments.

Ronald Moore has said in interviews that the EU government was originally in the Homefront script, but was removed because of time and for simplicity (memory alpha)

Yes, though he gave no indication of what role the U.E. government would play. Also, he didn't cite time, just simplicity.

Strictly speaking, the American President can't declare martial law, only congress can.

Whichever organ of state does it, it remains that the United States can declare martial law because it is a federal state that derives its authority from the consent of its people, not its member state governments. That's why the United States government can declare martial law and the European Union cannot.

* Not all member states are democracies. But they all do possess a single stable government.

How could a Federation based on the ideas of freedom and self-determination not require its Member States to gain democratic mandates from their citizens?

So if the Vulcan High Command was still governing Vulcan at the time, Vulcan wouldn't have been a founding member of the Federation?

Yep! Vulcan under V'Las's regime would certainly not have qualified for Federation Membership.

Ardana appears to have a aristocracy government. Kirk clearly says "Ardana is a member of the Federation."

If I'm remembering "The Cloud Minders" correctly, this fact seems to have been unknown to most Federation authorities before the Enterprise's visit there in 2269 -- implying that their Membership was rushed through, possibly in violation of established procedures, for political reasons. DS9's "Accession" makes it clear that Ardana's social policies are in direct violation of the Federation Charter -- which is presumably part of the reason that Kirk and Spock chose to hand breathing masks over to the dissidents that they could use to protect themselves from the mental damaged caused by mine gases. The episode ends with the Ardanans being reported to the Federation Bureau of Industrialization -- making it very clear that the Federation was going to force them to change their ways. Hardly something the Federation could do if it were only able to do things its Member States allowed it to do, as no Member State would willingly allow the Federation to start fundamentally altering its society against its will.

Some additional thoughts.
* The Federation lacks the power to directly tax the member states.

This part is just absurd.

This actual works under both yours and my ideas about the Federation government.

The Federation not having the ability to tax is part of the checks and balances between the members and the Federation. Separating the Federation from it's source of finance puts the power of the purse in the hands of the members. It's part of the separation of powers, even under you interpretation of the Federation Sci, there has to be some limits set by the members on the Federation's power.

Certainly. And as I said above, I'd say that the specific areas in which the Federation is to have authority and in which the Member States are to have authority should be as clearly delineated as possible in the Federation Charter/Constitution/Articles of the Federation/whatever you want to call it.

But, as I said above, a government that lacks the power of taxation will not function. It didn't work in the 1780s, it wouldn't work today, and it won't work in the 24th Century. A government that cannot control its own supply of money will inevitably collapse; that's not a check on the Federation government's power, that's a wholesale removal of any real power on its part. The Member States would inevitably fracture and the Federation would collapse into rival factions.

Penta, as I understand it, did not give the Federation a lower house, only the council. In a way this gives the individual member states collectively the power of a lower house.

In what sense? How so? I'm not sure I follow your logic here. Isn't that a bit like saying that if there were no House of Representatives, the United States Senate would grant to all the states the powers of the House?

The members have ambassadors, they communicate with each other directly, not solely through the Federation. Should the central government move in directions the member governments disapprove of, the members can de-fund the Federation. Financially starve it.

Which is why I say that the Federation would inevitably collapse if it cannot ensure its own financial survival. A Federation dealing with interstellar responsibilities will inevitably come into conflict with its constituent Members' more provincial concerns.

Again, your idea has been tried in real life: The Articles of Confederation. They didn't work. Had they not been replaced with a Constitution that granted the new U.S. government the right to raise its own taxes, the Union would have dissolved and the states fragmented.

ETA:

Interesting, the depiction of the Federation as being able to force Ardana to abandon its caste system is consistent with the Federation's authority to control how wealth is distributed within a Member States, which was established in "Journey to Babel." Clearly, Federation law overrides Member law when the two conflict -- and clearly, the Federation's authority, while restricted in some areas for the Member States, exceeds that of the Member States. The Federation is clearly a federal state whom its Member States may not defy.

 

[Cheapjack]

I think you're all thinking too much in 20th Century terms.

I don't think that there will be taxation in the 24th Century.

They have large amounts of relatively free power and food replicators. It has been stated numerable times that they have eliminated want. They don't have an economy based on buying and selling. (Vonda Mcintyre's ST4 novelisation). They're not as aquisitive. I think that people will be given an allowance by the government and they will be able to do what only middle class people can do today. If you want a lot, and some do, you will have to expend some effort.

The government will exist to ensure freedoms and preserve this society. I think it will have little similarity to governments today, even the American one.

It is not the only template that exists and is not a universal truth. What about the British system of government? Thats been around since 1300. What bits of that will survive and what will Change?

Just going on what I see in Star Trek.

It is stated in 'The Making of Star Trek', that was written in the 60's, that Roddenberry didn't want to go back to Earth, because it would lead to arguments about how Earth's Political and social systems would evolve. I suppose it's daring that people are trying to do it, here, but I think that they are being a little unimaginative and ignoring some bits of ST that have been stated.

You're not addressing the CHANGE aspect. Humans will be more powerful and successful and will be able to care for the less fortunate better than they do today. They will be more tolerant. At least, that's what I have seen mentioned in ST when I watch it. And, if it's propaganda, who does it benefit? A load of people that don't exist, yet? The forward looking people of today?

It has been stated that Earth is a virtual paradise in the 24th Century. It might not even have a government,as we know it, just a sort of council of elders. Imagine that! Government only exists control people for the common good, and there would be no need for it in that world.

 

[neozeks]

Seems to me that Starfleet would need a huge number of active officers. If Starfleet maintains the same percentage of the Federation population in its service as the United States Armed Forces do of the American population, we're looking at a Federation Starfleet comprised of .4% of the population -- 4.53 billion officers.

When you put it that way, I feel silly given that I had guesstimated most starships as of 2383 (Prime) as carrying under 500 people, and so presumed around a million or so servicemembers, maybe 10% of those of Ensign or higher rank.

Billions of officers is way too huge for Starfleet. Nothing demands that the present relation of people-in-service/the general population stays the same in the future. With the increase of firepower and greater automation I can definitely see the percentage falling down.
Even more important, it seems to me it isn't so much that Starfleet couldn't have so many personnel, but that it simply has no ships to put them on. Shipbuilding is the limiting factor, then. And evidence points to a ship number of say, 20,000 tops. Multiplying with say, 500 crew gives 10,000,000. Now triple that to include various starbase and planetside personnel (plus some ground forces, if you think they exist) and you still only get 30,000,000 people.

I still agree with Sci's general sentiment though.

 

[Sci]

I think you're all thinking too much in 20th Century terms.

I don't think that there will be taxation in the 24th Century.

They have large amounts of relatively free power and food replicators. It has been stated numerable times that they have eliminated want. They don't have an economy based on buying and selling. (Vonda Mcintyre's ST4 novelisation). They're not as aquisitive.

Yeah, that's absolute nonsense.

Here is an article that nicely outlines why it is that there will always, always be trade and always, always be money.

I don't doubt that Star Trek's vision of an egalitarian world without poverty and without class is possible.

But the idea that there's no more money and people don't want stuff anymore? That's not painting an optimistic portrait of the future, that's painting a dishonest portrait of the future.

It is not the only template that exists and is not a universal truth. What about the British system of government? Thats been around since 1300.

Actually, the modern British system, with a Prime Minister who is the real person in charge, only began in the 18th Century. And the Monarchy didn't become truly politically neutral until Victoria's time.

You're not addressing the CHANGE aspect. Humans will be more powerful and successful and will be able to care for the less fortunate better than they do today. They will be more tolerant. At least, that's what I have seen mentioned in ST when I watch it.

And nothing we've been discussing here contradicts that. We're discussing the details of how the Federation system works, not arguing for a system that doesn't help people.

It has been stated that Earth is a virtual paradise in the 24th Century. It might not even have a government,as we know it, just a sort of council of elders.

Dude, a council of elders is a government. In fact, the word "Senate" means exactly that -- a council of elders. There's nothing unknown about it.

Government only exists control people for the common good

No, it exists to serve as the official decision-making mechanism for communities that have to take collective action.

 

[Penta]

30M still seems huge to me, but compared to the scale of the UFP, that's definitely just me.

30M means, though:

1. There's no way everybody in SF is an officer. There simply must be an enlisted force. I struggle to figure out a good proportion of officers to enlisted, but 10% of the force being officers makes sense.

2. There's no chance SFA alone, even across 150-odd campuses, really works as a sole source of commissioned officers. Each campus would need to graduate about 20 thousand officers each academic year. SFA SanFran Never ever ever seems that big. Not in canon, not even in Fanon, not even in the RPGs. Ergo, some form of ROTC seems required. The commissioning source pool of Starfleet will look a lot more like the US Army (which gets 56% of its officers from ROTC) than the US Navy (20%), simply because it somehow has to fill its ranks, and SFA doesn't seem likely to be that big.

3. Most of these officers muster out after their obligated term is up. Thus, there are a metric ton of enlisted and junior officers, not so much for midgrade and higher, and there actually wouldn't be many admirals.

 

[neozeks]

1. There's no way everybody in SF is an officer. There simply must be an enlisted force. I struggle to figure out a good proportion of officers to enlisted, but 10% of the force being officers makes sense.

Nah, i'd say it's bigger, if only for the great number of scientific personnel who, if modern militaries are to go by, are mostly commissioned officers.

 

[Penta]

That's the case today mostly because scientific types have specialized skills for the force.

I'm not so sure that's the case by the time of Trek. Certainly, everybody seems much more scientifically-capable.

I think it drifts back to the specialist-generalist distinction that usually underpins the decision between enlisted and officer. The enlisted member might well have a doctorate, compared to the officer's BS - but the officer is more trained in areas outside their specialty.

The officer is a historian, for instance. The enlisted history division guy in the science dept might be an expert in a specific era of history.

 

[T'Girl]

A few quotations from Cloud Minders.

Kirk: "I would like to offer them a supply of these filter masks in exchange for the zenite consignment."

Plasus: "Your Federation orders do not entitle you to defy local governments."
Plasus: "You will return to your ship at once or I shall ... report your interference with this planet's government."

Kirk: "Perhaps some form of mediation can be helpful in your difficulties. The Federation Bureau of Industrialization may be of aid to you.
Plasus: "I will tolerate absolutely no interference! You will not set foot here as long as I rule!"

Interesting, the depiction of the Federation as being able to force Ardana to abandon its caste system.

When did Ardana abandon anything? The only thing High Advisor Plasus agreed to was to let Kirk provide filter masks to the troglytes in exchange for the Zenite ore.

Clearly, Federation law overrides Member law when the two conflict.

Clearly Federation law is secondary to any Members local law.

The Federation is clearly a federal state whom its Member States may not defy.

Ardana is the one in the position of power, Plasus would have been arrested other wise, Plasus wants to keep good relations with fellow member planets, but show no interest in having his planetary government interfered with. After Kirk's departure everything remained the same.
_______________________________________________

A Federation dealing with interstellar responsibilities will inevitably come into conflict with its constituent Members' more provincial concerns.

The Federation sole responsibility are it's Member's concerns. That's why it was brought into existence in the first place. If the Federation is in conflict with the majority of the Members, the Federation is automatically wrong. Just as if the American government was in conflict with the majority of it's citizens, it would be wrong.

But, as I said above, a government that lacks the power of taxation will not function.

The Members handle all taxation necessary for the running of the Federation, taxation does take place. While the Federation's budget is trillions of today's dollars, that's only a fraction of the combined yearly budgets of all the Members. The Federation is on a allowance.
_________________________________________________

Just because I'm referring to the Members as STATES that does not equate them with the American states. Member NATIONS would most likely be a better term. Each of the Members are advanced industrialized worlds, technological enough to build warp driven ship by themselves, their one world governments provide the services their people require. The only things they need from their assembled Federation neighbors is what they can't do all by themselves.

Think for a moment about all the things they just plain do not need from the Federation.. They don't need their neighbors to give them laws (already have them), education (got schools), money, courts, industry, medical, food, starships.

Without membership they can still have trade with the closer Fed members, non-members too. Unless the Federation embargoes trade with non members and it's hard to see them doing this.

 

[Sci]

Interesting, the depiction of the Federation as being able to force Ardana to abandon its caste system.

When did Ardana abandon anything? The only thing High Advisor Plasus agreed to was to let Kirk provide filter masks to the troglytes in exchange for the Zenite ore.

The episode made it very clear that the Federation was going to butt in and force them to change, and that's consistent with the Federation Charter's ban on caste-based discrimination (which Ardana obviously had in abundance).

Clearly, Federation law overrides Member law when the two conflict.

Clearly Federation law is secondary to any Members local law.

Then why did Sarek cite Federation law as being able to force a more equitable distribution of wealth if Coridan were to be admitted as a Federation Member State?

Ardana is the one in the position of power, Plasus would have been arrested other wise, Plasus wants to keep good relations with fellow member planets, but show no interest in having his planetary government interfered with.

And once upon a time, the Governor of the State of South Carolina had no interest in allowing the federal government to end slavery -- or to impose tariffs he didn't like. A local government's protestations of local authority and federal overreach are not automatically reliable.

A Federation dealing with interstellar responsibilities will inevitably come into conflict with its constituent Members' more provincial concerns.

The Federation sole responsibility are it's Member's concerns.

Ask the United States how well that works in reality.

That's why it was brought into existence in the first place. If the Federation is in conflict with the majority of the Members, the Federation is automatically wrong.

And what if the Federation government is in conflict with the majority of its Member State governments but not the majority of its overall citizens?

Who does the Federation work for, anyway -- the Member States or the overall populace? From whom does the Federation derive its authority, from the Member States or from the people?

But, as I said above, a government that lacks the power of taxation will not function.

The Members handle all taxation necessary for the running of the Federation, taxation does take place. While the Federation's budget is trillions of today's dollars, that's only a fraction of the combined yearly budgets of all the Members. The Federation is on a allowance.

Which is why the Federation would fracture or be rendered helpless. The United Nations can barely function within its boundaries today because so many of its member states withhold money, and the U.N. doesn't have any of the powers of a federal state that the Federation has.

Just because I'm referring to the Members as STATES that does not equate them with the American states.

I have a degree in political science; I am aware of the multiple meanings of the word "state," including the definition that encompasses a dual sovereignty arrangement with regional governments called "states" and the definition referring to fully sovereign, independent polities, thank you.

I understand what you're saying. That's not the issue. The issue is that I think you're wrong and that what you are saying contradicts the preponderance of canonical evidence.

Think for a moment about all the things they just plain do not need from the Federation.. They don't need their neighbors to give them laws (already have them), education (got schools), money, courts, industry, medical, food, starships.

How do you know that? There could be any number of types of foods that can't be grown or cultivated except on certain worlds, or worlds that rely on financial support from the rest of the Federation to maintain their public services simply due to having a lower population base. And it's almost certainly probable that the various universities of the Federation would need to set up exchange programs to spread knowledge of one-another's histories, cultures, languages, arts, sciences, etc.

And it is a canonical fact that some worlds are rich in dilithium but most are not; that is always going to lead to the worlds of the Federation needing to import dilithium from those rich in it. Meaning, yes, most Federation Member States are going to end up being dependent on a small number of Federation Member States to build their own starship fleets.

Without membership they can still have trade with the closer Fed members, non-members too. Unless the Federation embargoes trade with non members and it's hard to see them doing this.

It's a canonical fact that the Federation does not embargo trade from non-Member States.

 

[Cheapjack]

I think you're all thinking too much in 20th Century terms.

I don't think that there will be taxation in the 24th Century.

They have large amounts of relatively free power and food replicators. It has been stated numerable times that they have eliminated want. They don't have an economy based on buying and selling. (Vonda Mcintyre's ST4 novelisation). They're not as aquisitive.

Yeah, that's absolute nonsense.

Sci:

Your article proves nothing. If you can replicate just about anything at low cost, you have no need for money, and it does not break down when you have nothing to trade that anyone wants.
Want is eliminated,as anyone can get the just about anything they need, at low cost. There are still class structures and still power structures and still millionaires, but the average Joe can feed himself, clothe himself,house himself, educate himself, travel and do all the things only middle class people can do today. If you want to buy a starship, you would need a few bucks, but it may be possible to travel even off planet, for the average Joe, in ST times.

I know it's a difficult concept for some, particularly some Americans, but Gene Roddenberry managed it.

'But the idea that there's no more money and people don't want stuff anymore?'

Again, it was stated in the Neutral Zone episode that the challenge is to improve yourself. You seem to have this idea that humans will turn into a species of couch potato, if they do not have to 'grunt and sweat under a weary life'. It will FREE them, free them to do the things that only aristocrats and the rich could do in the 20th century. Only the rich could educate themselve in the 10th Century, by the 20th the opportunity is there for all.By the 24th Century, imagine what will be possible.

If it makes you feel any better, it has been capitalism that brought about this change, from the 10th to the 20th and probably to the 24th. But capitalism will fade away, as slavery has. Once you needed slavery to get anything done, and so that a few could live in comfort that the 20th century gives to all. Now, we don't.

 

[Matt4511]

I know it's a difficult concept for some, particularly some Americans, but Gene Roddenberry managed it.

You're coming very close to turning this conversation into something else. Given your comments and attitude towards other posters, that you'd head down this path doesn't surprise me, but it still might be worth taking a moment to reconsider your future posts.

Just a bit of free (in the 21st century capitalist framework of capitalism) advice from a Canadian who's delighted to think like the stereotypical contemporary American.

 

[Cheapjack]

I know it's a difficult concept for some, particularly some Americans, but Gene Roddenberry managed it.

You're coming very close to turning this conversation into something else. Given your comments and attitude towards other posters, that you'd head down this path doesn't surprise me, but it still might be worth taking a moment to reconsider your future posts.

Just a bit of free (in the 21st century capitalist framework of capitalism) advice from a Canadian who's delighted to think like the stereotypical contemporary American.

My apologies, but I thought these sort of things were obvious to a Trekkie! Things seemed to have changed since the 80's in Trekkie world!

I've given supporting arguments to my case. Answer them, rather than threatening.

 

[Matt4511]

I know it's a difficult concept for some, particularly some Americans, but Gene Roddenberry managed it.

You're coming very close to turning this conversation into something else. Given your comments and attitude towards other posters, that you'd head down this path doesn't surprise me, but it still might be worth taking a moment to reconsider your future posts.

Just a bit of free (in the 21st century capitalist framework of capitalism) advice from a Canadian who's delighted to think like the stereotypical contemporary American.

My apologies, but I thought these sort of things were obvious to a Trekkie! Things seemed to have changed since the 80's in Trekkie world!

I've given supporting arguments to my case. Answer them, rather than threatening.

You must be antsy indeed to find that threatening. And I'm not sure how calling into question the ability of Americans to envision a money-free future supports any argument a respectable person would care to make.

 

[Cheapjack]

'And I'm not sure how calling into question the ability of Americans to envision a money-free future supports any argument a respectable person would care to make. '

Aren't Americans presently champions of the free market? Is that a respectable view?

 

[Penta]

Both of you, how the hell is a pissing match over 1980s Trek and RL stereotypes relevant to the Federation Governmental Structure?

 

[Cheapjack]

The fact that humans live in a relative paradise, infers something of it's governmental structure, I think. And why it is a paradise is something I have tried to address.

The title of the thread begins with the word 'imagining'. Most of the posts just detail what is already true, not addressin the changes that will occur.