The Federation, what would it take for you to join?

[T'Girl]

Replicators, star travel, interaction with aliens, a future private business or a dictatorship government could provide all these things. On what basis would you support your country joining a United Earth-type planetary state, or your planet joining a Federation interstellar organization or political state?

For myself, the new organization-nation-state would have to be at least as free as the current society I find myself in, not just in terms of government, that's part of it yes, but the overall society. Reverse the question, what would you be willing to surrender to obtain a membership or a citizenship? You might no longer claim to be a sovereign Yank or Brit or Aussie or ...

This Federation. Can I move around without being protected? Can I move around without getting permission? Can I get a job, house, food, clothes, education, health care without these things being provided or authorized by "The State?" What legal and constitutional protections that I currently enjoy might be consider unnecessary or obsolete?

Would you trade liberty for security?
How much can be taken from you, to provide for me?
Would you want government entitlements, or obligatory personal self-reliance?
Would you want a common melting pot group identity, or a million intermixed pocket cultures?
Should the highest charter of principals be carved in stone, or a living document that changes with the breeze.
How much philosophical diversity can you really entertain before the collective group breaks down?

And who should be keep out?

The city I live in has a police force, but I can walk around at night without needing a escort through most of it. I've gone to both public and private schools, I think this Federation should have both, and keep it's hands off the latter. I own (and carry) a firearm, I didn't need government permission to purchase it. Would this Federation feel threaten by a armed populace, and would that be a good thing? I can leave my country without authorization, but need a enhanced driver's license or a passport to re-enter. Should this Federation place more restrictions on my travel, or fewer?

Here on Earth, there are many nations and cultures I can see the United States joining with into a "Federation."
But right now, certainly not with all of them.

 

[JarodRussell]

You might no longer claim to be a sovereign Yank or Brit or Aussie or ...

That's exactly what I'd hope the UFP to be. A society that has gotten rid of silly nationalism.

And I'd also prefer a Federation where civilians are not allowed to have firearms.

How much philosophical diversity can you really entertain before the collective group breaks down?

With out current society's and people's attitudes? Not much. But with a future society that had 300 years to get rid of stupid? A lot.

 

[iguana_tonante]

What's with all the smiles at the end of you every post?

 

[indolover]

If I were a planet/species that attained warp drive, then all of a sudden a Picard/Sisko comes and wants to make first contact on behalf of his Federation, then I'd be sceptical at first. Who are these people? And why are they so eager for me to want to be their friend?

I think in reality though, and as we see in the series, the Federation never forces planets/species to join or to curry favour with it. If a planet wishes to be sovereign/independent, so be it. Even if the planet told the Federation to f off and never come back, the Federation would honour that request.

I think in reality also, prospective member planets see that the Federation would not infringe on their own culture/values, provided they did not conflict with general Federation principles. Perhaps this is why they chose a federal model. All member planets pool technological and military resources, but are generally left to rule their own internal affairs. Only Vulcans can best determine laws regarding pon farr, or only Betazoids can best determine the laws regarding unethical telepahty, etc.

I think as far as a United Earth goes, well the WWIII backdrop lays much of the Foundation of Trek human history. Perhaps as the world faced an abyss, nationalism took a back burner, and people sought to limit negative aspects of human nature. This is perhaps why Earth in Picard/Sisko/Janeway's day is seen as a paradise. There is no war, no prejudice, no poverty and no hunger. Perhaps this is also the reason why there are no nation-states again, and there is a one world government in Archer's day, humanity at that time had evolved beyond nationalism.

 

[Chick_McGeester]

And I'd also prefer a Federation where civilians are not allowed to have firearms.

That would be great when you needed to protect yourself from a bear or some other wild animal.

 

[JarodRussell]

And I'd also prefer a Federation where civilians are not allowed to have firearms.

That would be great when you needed to protect yourself from a bear or some other wild animal.

 

[Sci]

And I'd also prefer a Federation where civilians are not allowed to have firearms.

So you want a Federation where nobody is allowed to hunt for their own food?

 

[Nick086]

Your not allow to own guns.... sounds like communism and fascism. Death to the fascist and the communist

 

[iguana_tonante]

And I'd also prefer a Federation where civilians are not allowed to have firearms.

So you want a Federation where nobody is allowed to hunt for their own food?

They could always do it with arrows and spears, like Chakotay's tribe.

Your not allow to own guns.... sounds like communism and fascism. Death to the fascist and the communist

lol wut

 

[Sci]

Your not allow to own guns.... sounds like communism and fascism. Death to the fascist and the communist

Um, no. While banning private ownership of firearms is certainly possible under Communism and Fascism, it's not inherent to either one. It is, in fact, a condition that can occur under Democracy and Capitalism, too -- Great Britain is neither Fascist nor Communist, but private gun ownership is mostly banned.

 

[Nick086]

Your not allow to own guns.... sounds like communism and fascism. Death to the fascist and the communist

Um, no. While banning private ownership of firearms is certainly possible under Communism and Fascism, it's not inherent to either one. It is, in fact, a condition that can occur under Democracy and Capitalism, too -- Great Britain is neither Fascist nor Communist, but private gun ownership is mostly banned.

oh no the people would overthrow the governmnet if they had guns in those type of countries

 

[iguana_tonante]

Mmmh. I don't know where to start here.

 

[T'Girl]

I think that's one of the reasons that the American founding fathers wanted the populace to be able to possess arms, so they could do just that. Basically that's what we did in 1776, well not overthrow, but fought the government of the time with private firearms.

 

[JarodRussell]

Great Britain is neither Fascist nor Communist, but private gun ownership is mostly banned.

People must be starving over there.

 

[Nick086]

Great Britain is neither Fascist nor Communist, but private gun ownership is mostly banned.

People must be starving over there.

or defenseless if there ever is inside threat inside the country.

 

[JarodRussell]

Great Britain is neither Fascist nor Communist, but private gun ownership is mostly banned.

People must be starving over there.

or defenseless if there ever is inside threat inside the country.

lol

 

[Sci]

Great Britain is neither Fascist nor Communist, but private gun ownership is mostly banned.

People must be starving over there.

No. But neither do I think it a reasonable extension of government power to prevent people from owning firearms for the purposes of hunting. Nor, for that matter, for the purposes of self-defense.

Gun ownership isn't the problem. Look at the United States and Canada -- very similar levels of gun ownership per capita, yet Canada has far fewer gun deaths. It's a matter of whether or not you have an overly-violent culture, not a matter of gun ownership.

A better question:

If private phaser ownership is allowed in the Federation, are private citizens' models restricted to stun settings?

 

[JarodRussell]

Great Britain is neither Fascist nor Communist, but private gun ownership is mostly banned.

People must be starving over there.

No. But neither do I think it a reasonable extension of government power to prevent people from owning firearms for the purposes of hunting. Nor, for that matter, for the purposes of self-defense.

lol, then get a licence that you have to renew every year, if you really can't live without a gun (btw, what's with hunting? 24th century, replicators, no meat from animals as stated by Riker once, what do you want to hunt for?). US firearm laws are a retarded joke, antiquated leftovers from the wild west and the war of independence. That was over 200 years ago.

You say it's a culture thing, and you're partially right. But you won't change the culture by keeping those silly laws and everything else as it is are right now.

 

[Myasishchev]

or defenseless if there ever is inside threat inside the country.

Gun control can be summed up thusly: as a government, you might as well let people have personal firearms, because it won't matter one whit in the event of a serious rebellion, when they aren't allowed anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons.

Matters even less for an interplanetary government with a star fleet. I'm sure the hand phaser they let you have will be mightily effective against the orbital bombardment.

 

[JarodRussell]

I think that's one of the reasons that the American founding fathers wanted the populace to be able to possess arms, so they could do just that. Basically that's what we did in 1776, well not overthrow, but fought the government of the time with private firearms.

Gun control can be summed up thusly: as a government, you might as well let people have guns, because it won't matter one whit in the event of a serious rebellion, when they aren't allowed anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons.

Matters even less for an interplanetary government with a star fleet. I'm sure the hand phaser they let you have will be mightily effective against the orbital bombardment.

That, and the idea that people would start defending their country against some sort of rebellion or start overthrowing a dictatorship just because they are legally allowed to have a gazillion guns at home is also pretty silly. That works without guns, too. We can witness that live right now.

The American founding fathers lived over 200 years ago. Times changed.