Political systems in Star Trek

[Sci]

I did not intend to be ironic but serious. This is your era of expertise so your answers to your question will naturally be better than mine.

I don't think there is an answer, per se -- states will always be tempted to engage in unnecessary wars because they lust for both power and survival and view war as a means to both, and drafts will always sometimes be necessary if the state faces a truly existential threat.

I just object to the idea that it's either an egalitarian draft or a ruling class that will always engage in unnecessary wars. My goal was to suggest that the debate had drifted to the point where you and Paradon both seemed to be adopting unreasonably extreme positions, and that a false dichotomy had developed.

 

[horatio83]

His point about freedom of occupation is totally valid, I merely wanted to make him think about whether people who join the military do it freely or because they are basically economically forced into it.
I am by the way not for drafts in an era where Western military fights asymmetric wars and requires fewer, specialized soldiers instead of large masses of soldiers for territorial wars like in the old days.

 

[Sci]

His point about freedom of occupation is totally valid, I merely wanted to make him think about whether people who join the military do it freely or because they are basically economically forced into it.
I am by the way not for drafts in an era where Western military fights asymmetric wars and requires fewer, specialized soldiers instead of large masses of soldiers for territorial wars like in the old days.

Fair enough then.

 

[Paradon]

I don't see how any of this is relevent.

What I am trying to say is starting a war and forcing people to serve in the military should be illegal...the same as eminent domain. People shouldn't be forced to die in a war. Furthermore, no war ever benefited a nation; it weakens the economy. Unless our lives are dependant on we shouldn't send young men out to war...even the ones that joins the military willingly.

An I dont see how eminent could apply to the whole planet. What are they going to do build a space station through the planet? [laughing] It's evil. Not only that it seems the Federation has a problem with the native people of the AMerica.

Eminent domain and drafting people into the military against their will is unconstitutional.

Much easier for the ruling class to send young men into war when they mainly come from the lower class.
Whether you are juristically or economically forced into the military makes little difference.

So the choice is between forcing people to undertake military service without their consent, and a constant waging of unnecessary wars?

Yes, I'm saying war is unecessary. You can't wage war to achieve peace because that's not how you win someone's respect. If you want people to respect you, you have to show good will and that you are serious about peace. That's how you achieve an everlasting peace. When people die, that's when everybody starts to a hold grudges. Angry people can be made happy again, but you can't bring back dead people. Not only that...war drain a country's economy because all the capital are diverted from its most useful and productive use to fund the war.

Furthermore, the Constitutions empower the people and it is in fact illegal to draft people into the military against their will.

 

[horatio83]

Is it unconstitutional? Well, that I am happy that you guys had an illegal draft during the '40s and defeated Hitler. War can never be just but sometimes it is necessary.

 

[Paradon]

At the time we either go to war or be subjected to Nazis' rule. That was different. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor remember? and we knew the Axis Powers would eventually take the war over here to the U.S. after they were done with Europe and the rest of the world.

So, we need to ask this question seriously... Why should be go to war? It is costing tax payers billions and billions of dollars to go to war. Is it wise?

 

[T'Girl]

Switzerland was a confederation for what? Five and a half centuries.

Now you're changing goal-posts. The Federation is no longer an alliance you, say, but is now a confederation?

Umm Sci, the old Swiss Confederacy was a alliance. Swizerland was founded on Das Bundesbrief, the "Eternal Alliance." I brought Switzerland up because of your point that such types of organizations can not last.

And meanwhile, do try to remember that you have yet to provide any evidence for your assertion.

We do have a character (Kirk) overtly stating that the United Federation of Planets is an "Alliance." And never has it ever been said by any character the it is a "Federal State."

We do have a Federation member with a foreign Ambassador to that member home planet (and not the federation), and the embassy of a frequently hostile foreign power on their soil. Betazed had a military that was capable of holding off the Jem'Hadar for a period of time. The Vulcans possess starships capable of responding to a reported "invasion force" of a strong foreign power, that doesn't sound like a handful of patrol boats.

The modern state of Virgina doesn't have colonies, future Earth has many.

I did earlier say that the Federation was very likely different than a strickly Human organized alliance. Collectively constructing their military, for their collective security, would be an example of such. This isn't completely without precedent, prior to America changing into a federal state, a Continental Navy was brought into existence, under the control of Congress.

The term federation has a few different meanings, including the one you provided a link too. A federation can just as equally be an organization formed by merging several groups or parties. Plus it's also synonymous with league, alliance and confederacy. So your contention that "it's called a federation" isn't conclusive.

 

[Paradon]

Is it unconstitutional? Well, that I am happy that you guys had an illegal draft during the '40s and defeated Hitler. War can never be just but sometimes it is necessary.

I think war is unecessary. I don't think we had to go to war if the Nazi would only see that. War is terrible because people die. Imgine if your mom or your dad or your little brother got blown to pieces. That's what I meant to say. I made a mistake. I'm have brain fog all the time because of my meds.

 

[horatio83]

Chamberlain tried to reason with the fascists but they only understood one language.
About relatives dieing in war, my great-grandfather actually died somewhere in Russia.
War is horrible and that's precisely why a draft might not be the worst idea in the world. In Europe the politicians who actually fought during the second World War have been very eager to create a Europe in which war will never happen again, in your country the guy who commanded your troops during WWII and later became president warned about the military–industrial(-congressional) complex.
Nowadays the very people who decide about war and peace have never personally experienced the horrors into which they send young people.

 

[Sci]

Switzerland was a confederation for what? Five and a half centuries.

Now you're changing goal-posts. The Federation is no longer an alliance you, say, but is now a confederation?

Umm Sci, the old Swiss Confederacy was a alliance.

It began as an alliance, sure. But within a century, it had adopted the traits of a confederation, rather than an alliance. And Switzerland certainly couldn't survive as a mere alliance of cantons today.

And meanwhile, do try to remember that you have yet to provide any evidence for your assertion.

We do have a character (Kirk) overtly stating that the United Federation of Planets is an "Alliance."

Once, in an early episode, where it's unclear if he's speaking formally or simplifying things.

And never has it ever been said by any character the it is a "Federal State."

A federation in possession of its own military, borders, Constitution that overrides local law, legislature, president, and Supreme Court with the power of judicial review is by definition a federal state.

We do have a Federation member with a foreign Ambassador to that member home planet (and not the federation), and the embassy of a frequently hostile foreign power on their soil.

Yes. And Quebec and Hong Kong maintain their own diplomatic missions in Washington, D.C.; that doesn't mean that Canada and the People's Republic of China are mere alliances.

Betazed had a military that was capable of holding off the Jem'Hadar for a period of time.

And I have every confidence that the New York Guard would be capable of holding off an invading army for a period of time. That doesn't make the State of New York a sovereign state.

Also, you are mis-remembering the dialogue from "In the Pale Moonlight":

SISKO
There's plenty of blame to go
around. The Tenth Fleet was
supposed to be protecting Betazed
and its outlying colonies, but
they were caught out of position
on a training exercise. What's
worse, Betazed's own defense
systems are obsolete and
undermanned.
(beat)
The planet was theirs in less than
ten hours.

He doesn't explicitly say that Betazed had its own military; he uses the phrase "defense systems." That MIGHT mean its own military... or it MIGHT mean something as simple as orbital defense satellites.

The Vulcans possess starships capable of responding to a reported "invasion force" of a strong foreign power, that doesn't sound like a handful of patrol boats.

Which does not preclude the Federation being a federal state, as I've repeated several times. Federal states' constituent polities are more than capable of maintaining their own military forces without invalidating the union's nature as a federal state.

The modern state of Virgina doesn't have colonies,

But there's no particular constitutional reason it couldn't, either.

I did earlier say that the Federation was very likely different than a strickly Human organized alliance. Collectively constructing their military, for their collective security, would be an example of such.

No, that's fundamental. If it has its own military, then it is by definition not an alliance anymore.

This isn't completely without precedent, prior to America changing into a federal state, a Continental Navy was brought into existence, under the control of Congress.

Yeah, for the duration of the Revolutionary War. The Congress of the Confederation did not raise a standing army or navy.

And all that means is that the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation was a polity that had no real identity -- it was somewhere between an alliance of sovereign states and a confederation, and it was destined to die because of it. Until the states clearly accepted that they had yielded their sovereignty to a federal state, they were never going to stop trying to reassert dominance over the Congress of the Confederation, and that's why it did not survive -- and why a Federation modeled on the Articles of Confederation would also not survive.

The term federation has a few different meanings, including the one you provided a link too. A federation can just as equally be an organization formed by merging several groups or parties. Plus it's also synonymous with league, alliance and confederacy. So your contention that "it's called a federation" isn't conclusive.

It is conclusive when considered in the context of that federation possessing every single trait of a sovereign state in addition to being called a federation.

 

[Paradon]

In "ST VI: The Undiscovered Country" Gorkan's daughter mention that the Federation is no more than a homosapien club only. So I still think it's an alliance...a tight one perhaps.

 

[Sci]

In "ST VI: The Undiscovered Country" Gorkan's daughter mention that the Federation is no more than a homosapien club only.

Yeah -- and the film depicts her as being wrong for thinking that. I mean, hell, that same film depicts the Federation President as a non-Human.

Azetbur's line is an example of Klingon prejudices against the Federation, the same way "only top-of-the-line models can even talk" was an example of Federation prejudices against Klingons.

 

[Paradon]

I think the point is: maybe the Klingons aren't as bad as humans think. LIke the way Americans tends to think about the Natives of the America and that they are superior than other people. I think that's what that movie was trying to portray.

 

[matsuiny2004]

There is no such thing as a communist dictatorship. Communism is a society without a state or classes, where the workers own the means of production; the ultimate democracy.

Still sounds like the Borg to me. In the Communist Manifesto Marx argued that the ideal communist system would be run by the dictatorship of the proletariat--ie the workers have all the power, I am unsure how democratically that was supposed to work beyond the level of the factory. Instead communist states perverted and became dictatorships over the proletariat.

But at any rate, the Borg "government" would be exactly like what Marx would want.

Actually i owuld say the borg are more based off of stalin, hitler and totalitarianism. As a borg you have no freedom and are just a cog same goes for totalitarianism.

 

[Sci]

In "ST VI: The Undiscovered Country" Gorkan's daughter mention that the Federation is no more than a homosapien club only.

Yeah -- and the film depicts her as being wrong for thinking that. I mean, hell, that same film depicts the Federation President as a non-Human.

Azetbur's line is an example of Klingon prejudices against the Federation, the same way "only top-of-the-line models can even talk" was an example of Federation prejudices against Klingons.

I think the point is: maybe the Klingons aren't as bad as humans think.

Well, yeah, that's what I just said: That in Star Trek VI, both sides are depicted as being prejudiced towards the other and making unfair claims about the other. Klingons are more intelligent than some bigoted Humans think, and the Federation is more than just a "Homo sapiens only club" the way some bigoted Klingons think.

LIke the way Americans tends to think about the Natives of the America

Excuse me?

What, exactly, do Americans tend to think about Native Americans? Do tell.

 

[horatio83]

Indian is a better word than the PCish "Native American" as it is an eternal monument to white man's stupidity.

 

[Sci]

Indian is a better word than the PCish "Native American" as it is an eternal monument to white man's stupidity.

I mean, at the end of the day, there's no adequate system to use to describe different "races," because race is a social construction rather than a biological reality. Any term you use will be inadequate -- "African Americans" clearly aren't from Africa, even if their ancestors were (but, if you go back far enough, all our ancestors were from Africa), and the term also ignores Americans descended from recent immigrants from Africa rather than from enslaved Africans of the 17th through 19th Centuries; "Native American" is accurate as far as it goes, but ignores the fact that there are plenty of people of other "races" who are also now native to America; "white" is just blatantly false, since the numerous different skin tones found in peoples of European descent are not the color white... etc.

With regards to that specific issue, almost any system you can come up with has problems and ambiguities. "Native American," as I noted above, ignores the fact that plenty of people who are not Native Americans are in fact native to America. "Indian" ignores the existence of India and its actual Indians. "American Indian" runs the risk of being confused with "Indian American" (that is, an American descended from people from India), and also ignores the phenomenon of Indians (in India) who are descended from people from America.

The only clear and unambiguous term I can think of for the collection of different nations that existed in North America, South America, Central America, and the Caribbean before the arrival of Christopher Columbus would be "Amerindian" -- but even that is arguably offensive for incorporating the word "Indian."

Frankly, that's why I prefer to use the name of a specific Native American nation whenever possible.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Any term you use will be inadequate -- "African Americans" clearly aren't from Africa, even if their ancestors were

And white natives of, say, South Africa can be technically described as "African-American" even though no one would ever actually do such a thing. So that further underscores the folly of terms like this.

 

[horatio83]

I don't like this obsession with finding the least racist word. Over here the last PC innovation is "persons with a migration background". At the first glance it sounds less offensive than "foreigner" but on the second glance it is far worse as you are forever the guy with a "migration background".
I doubt that decaffeinating language solves any problems. If MLK were alive he would not care about whether he is called negro, black or African-American, he would care about real problems like e.g. thousands of his brothers and sisters being incarcerated.

 

[Sci]

I don't like this obsession with finding the least racist word. Over here the last PC innovation is "persons with a migration background". At the first glance it sounds less offensive than "foreigner" but on the second glance it is far worse as you are forever the guy with a "migration background".
I doubt that decaffeinating language solves any problems.

*shrugs* Like I said, there's no adequate system to describe these differentiations we humans invent for ourselves, because of the very fact that they're purely imaginary differences.

I use the term "Native American" for a couple of reasons. One, for better or for worse, it is less potentially confusing than "American Indian;" two, it doesn't use another culture's name; three, it fits in with the general linguistic theme of unifying diverse communities under the "American" identity: Native American, African American, Italian American, Jewish American, LGBT American, English American, Mexican American, Japanese American, Filipino American, etc.