In The 24th Century, How Did They Do It?

[Misfit Toy]

Repeating:

To Everyone:

There is truly good discussion going on in this thread, but PLEASE keep it Trek-centered and don't drift off into non Trek political or religious territory.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Capitalism is clearly alive and well during the original Star Trek tv series. Kirk doesn't own a business? Neither do a lot of career military officers, duh.

Ah yes TOS, back when trek people were REAL people and not a bunch of holier-than-thou types looking down on everyone that didn't conform to them.

 

[Sci]

I have some questions.

What is Capitalism, exactly? Which variety of Capitalism are we talking about when we say it does or does not exist in the Federation?

What is Socialism, exactly? Which variety of Socialism are we talking about when we say it does or does not exist in the Federation?

Is there maybe a continuum, such that neither system in its most exact form can be said to exist, but perhaps both systems combine to create a mixed system in the Federation?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Ah yes TOS, back when trek people were REAL people...

"Real people?" Well no, not ever.

Star Trek characters are heroic stereotypes at best, suitable for adventure fiction.

Kirk was pretty good at looking down on people who didn't live according to what he considered correct values. He was forever overturning systems that he found morally objectionable...all of which seems almost reasonable until you apply real-world logic to it. The power that enables him to enforce his judgments, after all, is not his but entrusted to him to carry out assignments for his government; how would we feel about a nuclear submarine commander who decided those missiles were his to use to put the Iranians "back on a course of normal cultural development?"

You as an individual might even applaud that in the hypothetical; on this planet he'd be treated as the worst kind of criminal, and reasonably so.

What did happen to him occasionally that I enjoyed - and we saw less of this in later Trek series - is that he'd mess around in the wrong neighborhood and get his ass handed to him. "Errand Of Mercy" is one of my favorite TOS episodes for that reason.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Ah yes TOS, back when trek people were REAL people...

"Real people?" Well no, not ever.

Their a lot closer than TNG got.

Kirk was pretty good at looking down on people who didn't live according to what he considered correct values. He was forever overturning systems that he found morally objectionable...all of which seems almost reasonable until you apply real-world logic to it.

The cases in question I believe were

1) Rock computer god trying to kill him - self defense
2) Another Computer god brainwashing his crew members plus the locals asking him to kill the computer god.
3) The asteroid they were living on was going to crash into an inhabited planet and kill everyone and they only way to stop it is to kill their computer god.

So their still kind of reasonable.

how would we feel about a nuclear submarine commander who decided those missiles were his to use to put the Iranians "back on a course of normal cultural development?"

Depends would the Iranians being using said missiles to try to kill the sub Commander for just being in the area?

You as an individual might even applaud that in the hypothetical; on this planet he'd be treated as the worst kind of criminal, and reasonably so.

Unless they were kind of trying kill him with them just for being there which happened in Kirk's case several times.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Ah yes TOS, back when trek people were REAL people...

"Real people?" Well no, not ever.

Their[sic] a lot closer than TNG got.

Truly, damning with faint praise.

how would we feel about a nuclear submarine commander who decided those missiles were his to use to put the Iranians "back on a course of normal cultural development?"

Depends would the Iranians being using said missiles to try to kill the sub Commander for just being in the area?

Defending himself and his boat by overthrowing their government? With nuclear missiles as the threat? Sorry, he's still not allowed to do that.

You as an individual might even applaud that in the hypothetical; on this planet he'd be treated as the worst kind of criminal, and reasonably so.

Unless they were kind of trying kill him with them just for being there which happened in Kirk's case several times.

Again, not allowed in the real world.

 

[Nightdiamond]

There is truly good discussion going on in this thread, but PLEASE keep it Trek-centered and don't drift off into non Trek political or religious territory.

Thank you, Sorry, and understood, Misfit Toy lol

I have some questions.

What is Capitalism, exactly? Which variety of Capitalism are we talking about when we say it does or does not exist in the Federation?

What is Socialism, exactly? Which variety of Socialism are we talking about when we say it does or does not exist in the Federation?

Is there maybe a continuum, such that neither system in its most exact form can be said to exist, but perhaps both systems combine to create a mixed system in the Federation?

It's strange how some people (from other discussion boards) are quick to call something communist, capitalist etc, but can't even explain what they are!

I don't think Federation society is 100% anything, but a wise combination of ideas that work. Too much of anything usually tends to be dangerous.

I think there is a strong libertarian undercurrent running through Fed culture, but not to the point of being a haven for libertarians.

Take the Prime Directive for example--the law not to interfere in another culture's development or affairs, even to save an innocent, weaker culture from being brutalized by another culture.

I see a strong libertarian aspect to this rule.

Now, in our own time, it would be considered immoral or wrong to just watch and let one nation conquer and brutalize another.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You know what? The culture where I live is significantly different than the culture eight hundred miles from here in several directions, even though still in the same nation and sharing a more-or-less common language.

Most cultures ten to twelve thousand miles from where I'm posting have considerably different economic systems, despite living in nations participating in international trade.

The idea that any "culture" monolithic enough to be generalized about in any meaningful way would exist over distances spanning hundreds of light years - even allowing for virtually instantaneous communication - is one of the many ways in which Star Trek is too conceptually naive to take seriously as a vision of the future or a mirror to our own time.

 

[RandyS]

How did they do it? Like this:

They jailed all the Democrats
They hung all the Republicans
They committed all the evangilists
They shot all the lawyers
They stabbed all the New Yorkers

After all that, they only people left in the world were good people who built the world Kirk and Picard grew up in.

 

[xortex]

You know what? The culture where I live is significantly different than the culture eight hundred miles from here in several directions, even though still in the same nation and sharing a more-or-less common language.

Most cultures ten to twelve thousand miles from where I'm posting have considerably different economic systems, despite living in nations participating in international trade.

The idea that any "culture" monolithic enough to be generalized about in any meaningful way would exist over distances spanning hundreds of light years - even allowing for virtually instantaneous communication - is one of the many ways in which Star Trek is too conceptually naive to take seriously as a vision of the future or a mirror to our own time.

Kirk's purpose was very specific - the survival of his crew. A Captain would rather die than break the Prime directive but not sacrifice his crew. That's something different. The Federation might have been naive in thinking that they were dealing with aliens that were Human to begin with and that is something also very different or not.

 

[Sci]

Take the Prime Directive for example--the law not to interfere in another culture's development or affairs, even to save an innocent, weaker culture from being brutalized by another culture.

I see a strong libertarian aspect to this rule.

Well, Libertarianism is generally conceived of as an ideology about domestic policy -- about how the state relates to its citizenry. The Prime Directive is more an example of non-interventionism -- which is often strongly associated with Libertarianism, but which isn't actually the same thing.

Now, in our own time, it would be considered immoral or wrong to just watch and let one nation conquer and brutalize another.

Oh, nonsense, nations do that all the time. Just look at all the countries that sat by and watched the United States invade and conquer Iraq. And it's not as though the Russian occupation of Chechnya, or the Chinese occupation of Tibet, or the Russian occupation of Georgia, or the attempted Georgian occupation of South Ossetia, or the United States occupation of Haiti, or the Ethiopian occupation of Somalia, or the Israeli occupation of Palestine, or the the occupation of Azerbaijan territory by Armenia, or the United States occupation of Afghanistan, or numerous, numerous occupations in just the last sixty years, have automatically led to other nations refusing to stand by. Plenty of nations stand by and watch occupations unfold without it being considered immoral of them.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Defending himself and his boat by overthrowing their government? With nuclear missiles as the threat? Sorry, he's still not allowed to do that.

You raise a good point but by doing so I found a way in which your example doesn't really compare to those in TOS.

Basically the Iranian government isn't fused with the hypothetical nuclear weapons to the point where disarming them can only happen if you kill them.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Well, Libertarianism is generally conceived of as an ideology about domestic policy -- about how the state relates to its citizenry. The Prime Directive is more an example of non-interventionism -- which is often strongly associated with Libertarianism, but which isn't actually the same thing.

Now, in our own time, it would be considered immoral or wrong to just watch and let one nation conquer and brutalize another.

Oh, nonsense, nations do that all the time.

Let me put it another way, since you're right, actually.

There is generally an outcry when one country brutally oppresses another weaker country--particularly when the weaker country is seen as "innocent". Sometimes nothing is done about it, but at the very least there is a moral outcry.

Our world tends to be inconsistent about whether there is intervention when one power oppresses another.

An obvious Trek example is Bajor-- a peaceful, simple people who are occupied by the Cardassians who practically raped their culture for decades. The Fed did nothing.

I know it's about not influencing another culture's development, but Bajor was already alien-aware, and somewhat technologically developed.

Data: Starfleet has refused to prevent several civilizations from falling; we have sometimes let the violent and strong overcome the weak...

Starfleet will interfere to protect itself, even resorting to trickery, and whatever else, as we know, but at times it seems to have a slight libertarian form of foreign policy.

 

[Sci]

Well, Libertarianism is generally conceived of as an ideology about domestic policy -- about how the state relates to its citizenry. The Prime Directive is more an example of non-interventionism -- which is often strongly associated with Libertarianism, but which isn't actually the same thing.

Now, in our own time, it would be considered immoral or wrong to just watch and let one nation conquer and brutalize another.

Oh, nonsense, nations do that all the time.

Let me put it another way, since you're right, actually.

There is generally an outcry when one country brutally oppresses another weaker country--particularly when the weaker country is seen as "innocent". Sometimes nothing is done about it, but at the very least there is a moral outcry.

Our world tends to be inconsistent about whether there is intervention when one power oppresses another.

An obvious Trek example is Bajor-- a peaceful, simple people who are occupied by the Cardassians who practically raped their culture for decades. The Fed did nothing.

All true, but we don't know that the Federation did "nothing," nor do we know that there wasn't an outcry. It's entirely plausible that the Federation may have strenuously objected to the Cardassian Union's occupation of Bajor, and may have instituted a trade embargo or other economic sanctions.

I know it's about not influencing another culture's development, but Bajor was already alien-aware, and somewhat technologically developed.

Well, technically-speaking, the Prime Directive is inapplicable; the PD is just a Starfleet general order regulating what happens to pre-warp cultures. But the Federation Charter has a provision about banning interference in foreign states' internal affairs.

Data: Starfleet has refused to prevent several civilizations from falling; we have sometimes let the violent and strong overcome the weak...

Starfleet will interfere to protect itself, even resorting to trickery, and whatever else, as we know, but at times it seems to have a slight libertarian form of foreign policy.

1. Starfleet does not have or set foreign policy, any more than the United States Navy has or sets foreign policy. Starfleet implements Federation foreign policy (just as the U.S. Navy implements United States foreign policy).

2. It's fair to say that Federation foreign policy is generally non-interventionist. This is a function of the Federation's strong objection to traditional forms of imperialism and neo-imperialism (although the Federation is arguably not exempt from charges of cultural imperialism, since its goal is to peacefully persuade other cultures to adopt its liberal democratic values and then join the UFP eventually). But, again, non-interventionism is not the same thing as Libertarianism -- non-interventionism in fact is also strongly associated with Leftist and Socialist movements in addition to Libertarianism.

 

[horatio83]

It's funny to see how the anarcho-capitalists try to give stuff like liberal tolerance or the Prime Directive a libertarian label.

 

[The Castellan]

To me, the Prime Directive is the most non liberal and non libertarian thing in trek, more the opposite.

 

[T'Girl]

He was forever overturning systems that he found morally objectionable

And as has been pointed out, were also a threat to Kirk's ship and crew. A good example of this is "the gangster planet," where there was a threat to the landing party, but never a threat to the ship. Within moments of beaming down, Kirk witnessed a murder and was told that this was common. Kirk likely found this to be morally objectionable, yet when they left, the planet's culture was intact. Later intended efforts to change the culture may (or may not) have been successful.

The "Roman planet" was also left culturally intact, they were incapable of harming the ship.

a nuclear submarine commander who decided those missiles

While the main phasers could be used as WMD, Kirk never used them in that fashion. He never destroyed an entire city to effect "a regime change."

Depends would the Iranians being using said missiles to try to kill the sub Commander for just being in the area?

Modern day, if threaten a sub commander could use torpedoes or (non-nuclear) missiles on his own initiative, to destroy a attacker, and defend his boat. He would likely be publicly applauded for his response.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

He was forever overturning systems that he found morally objectionable

And as has been pointed out, were also a threat to Kirk's ship and crew. A good example of this is "the gangster planet," where there was a threat to the landing party, but never a threat to the ship. Within moments of beaming down, Kirk witnessed a murder and was told that this was common. Kirk likely found this to be morally objectionable, yet when they left, the planet's culture was intact. Later intended efforts to change the culture may (or may not) have been successful.

Plus the planet's current culture came from a book a previous Earth ship left and Kirk's mission was to fix the other guy's screw up.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

To me, the Prime Directive is the most non liberal and non libertarian thing in trek, more the opposite.

How is a policy partially based on don't tell other people what to do not liberal or libertarian.

 

[Sci]

To me, the Prime Directive is the most non liberal and non libertarian thing in trek, more the opposite.

How is a policy partially based on don't tell other people what to do not liberal or libertarian.

Well, "Libertarian" are concepts that apply to domestic policy, not international relations. "Liberal," on the other hand, is a term that has a number of definitions. There is a school of thought on international relations called Liberalism, but it's different from what the term Liberalism means in domestic policy--there are people who are domestic Conservatives but international Liberals, and people who are domestic Liberals but not international Liberals. Liberalism in terms of international relations generally refers to a tendency to work through international institutions such as the United Nations and to try to develop strong systems of international law rather than relying on brute force.