What are the requirements for the joining the Federation?

[Ensign_Redshirt]

Ardana is an example for a Federation member with a rather tyrannical government:
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Ardana

Then again, depiction of the Federation in TOS significantly differed from the one in TNG/DS9/VOY. In TOS, the Federation was the United Nations... in space (with Earth acting as the United States in space)! From TNG onwards, the Federation as a whole was depicted as the United States... in space!

It's easily explainable in-universe though, because it isn't too far-fetched too asume that the nature and structure of the Federation had evolved over the centuries. (Again comparable to the evolution of the United States: In the very beginning, the U.S. was a merely a loose confederation of states. Sometime later, it was an actual nation-state, but one that allowed slavery in it constituent states. Nowadays, it has a black president.)

That being said, it's hard to imagine that the 24th century Federation had allowed Ardana to become a member planet.

 

[T'Cal]

All I know is we are far from the point when such a Federation would allow us in.

 

[R. Star]

In Insurrection Picard mentioned they basically watered down the requirements during the Dominion War being the Federation needed all the help they could get. Those slug people at the beginning were mentioned to be pre-warp if I recall correctly.

 

[T'Girl]

Say a planet is like Earth that has two hundred or so nations--one or some want to join the Federation, but the other nations do not or rather join someone else.

Raises the question, who (or what) joins the Federation? If it's the people who populate the planet, then whether to join would be a matter of a referendum of the population, regardless of the number of nations.

If it's the current political state, what would happen if the population replaced the government (or government type) that existed at the time of joining?

If say Vulcan entered the Federation as a autocratic state, changes at some point into a democracy, then morphs back to a auotocracy over time, what happens? If it was the Vulcan people who joined the Federation, then they as a group remain a part of the Federation. Regardless of whatever government type they have at any one point in time. If the Vulcan political state is what joins the Federation, when that state disappears (but the people/planet remain) the membership would also disappear, and the new state has to apply for membership from scratch?

the existence of a planetary government really has to be used as a yardstick for determining just how unified a world is

So if we (hypothedically) give modern day Earth a single planetary government, but change nothing else, how would this make us any different than a Earth with multiple hundreds of governments?

A single government is hardly a cure all, easily could make things worst.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Say a planet is like Earth that has two hundred or so nations--one or some want to join the Federation, but the other nations do not or rather join someone else.

Raises the question, who (or what) joins the Federation? If it's the people who populate the planet, then whether to join would be a matter of a referendum of the population, regardless of the number of nations.

If it's the current political state, what would happen if the population replaced the government (or government type) that existed at the time of joining?

If say Vulcan entered the Federation as a autocratic state, changes at some point into a democracy, then morphs back to a auotocracy over time, what happens? If it was the Vulcan people who joined the Federation, then they as a group remain a part of the Federation. Regardless of whatever government type they have at any one point in time. If the Vulcan political state is what joins the Federation, when that state disappears (but the people/planet remain) the membership would also disappear, and the new state has to apply for membership from scratch?

See what happens when you don't have a unified planet?

the existence of a planetary government really has to be used as a yardstick for determining just how unified a world is

So if we (hypothedically) give modern day Earth a single planetary government, but change nothing else, how would this make us any different than a Earth with multiple hundreds of governments?

A single government is hardly a cure all, easily could make things worst.

Which is why potential members are evaluated, but a single planetary government would make things a lot more easier, and does say a lot about that world.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Sisko said (iirc) that there can't be caste based discrimination. Not that there couldn't be castes

Perhaps there's something I'm not getting, but doesn't discrimination come with the very existence of castes?

Obviously there was discrimination in Bajor's old caste system, as we personally saw a man being EXECUTED for not following his caste!

 

[Sci]

In Insurrection Picard mentioned they basically watered down the requirements during the Dominion War being the Federation needed all the help they could get. Those slug people at the beginning were mentioned to be pre-warp if I recall correctly.

No, INS did not establish this. The Evora -- the foreign dignitaries seen at the beginning of the film -- were being welcomed at a reception to commemorate their becoming protectorates of the Federation. A protectorate is a sovereign, independent state that allows itself to become the protected ally of a stronger foreign state; both states remain sovereign and independent, and can unilaterally terminate the relationship at any point. The Evora were not becoming Federation Members.

Further, Troi referred to them as having developed warp drive the prior year, not as being pre-warp.

 

[Timo]

Um, that was exactly what Picard said, so why are you calling it false?

Hmm. What I'm saying is true to what Picard is saying. What you are saying is false.

Namely, your claim that

"Having a unified planetary government" aren't my words, those are the actual words actually spoken onscreen by Picard in "Attached."

is untrue. The actual words are yours, not Picard's. See above for the actual words of Picard, the ones that do not contain the words "planetary" or "government" at all.

Perhaps there's something I'm not getting, but doesn't discrimination come with the very existence of castes?

Depends on the definition of discrimination, I guess. Today, it's atypical to yell "discrimination" if only people of a select gender are allowed to become pregnant or only those with a certain nationality are allowed to vote in certain elections. The "lot in life" inherent in being born to a caste might not warrant moral outrage amounting to discrimination charges, not in all cases.

That Bajor's caste system was discriminatory by UFP standards was obvious. Which is a pity, because it obscures whether the UFP would tolerate less discriminatory caste systems or not.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[T'Girl]

If say Vulcan entered the Federation as a autocratic state, changes at some point into a democracy, then morphs back to a autocracy over time, what happens?

See what happens when you don't have a unified planet?

That hypothedical was of a planet with a mono-government.

If a planet's population radically changes it's government type, does the planetary population remain a federation member?

That Bajor's caste system was discriminatory by UFP standards was obvious. Which is a pity, because it obscures whether the UFP would tolerate less discriminatory caste systems or not.

I think you can go back to Sisko's choice of words. He didn't say merely having a caste based system would in of itself prevent Bajor from becoming a federation member, he specifically said caste based discrimination.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Um, that was exactly what Picard said, so why are you calling it false?

Hmm. What I'm saying is true to what Picard is saying. What you are saying is false.

Namely, your claim that

"Having a unified planetary government" aren't my words, those are the actual words actually spoken onscreen by Picard in "Attached."

is untrue. The actual words are yours, not Picard's. See above for the actual words of Picard, the ones that do not contain the words "planetary" or "government" at all.

Doesn't change a thing, really.

The situation in question was still about a world applying for Federation membership that wasn't united under a single government. You can quibble that a "unified world" can mean anything, but my point still stands.

If say Vulcan entered the Federation as a autocratic state, changes at some point into a democracy, then morphs back to a autocracy over time, what happens?

See what happens when you don't have a unified planet?

That hypothedical was of a planet with a mono-government.

Sorry, my response was actually in regards to what came before that.

If a planet's population radically changes it's government type, does the planetary population remain a federation member?

If it no longer abides by the Federation charter, I don't think it would, but if it still does, then the type of government--rule by one or rule by committee--shouldn't matter at all. I think the only exception would be a government in which the guaranteed rights under the Federation Constitution (such as the Seventh Guarantee, for example) were being denied to its people.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'm sticking with my assumption that there can't be a caste system without discrimination. It seems inherent in the very concept of it.

 

[Shawnster]

Depends on the definition of discrimination, I guess. Today, it's atypical to yell "discrimination" if only people of a select gender are allowed to become pregnant or only those with a certain nationality are allowed to vote in certain elections. The "lot in life" inherent in being born to a caste might not warrant moral outrage amounting to discrimination charges, not in all cases.

Um, what? Are there massive amounts of people complaining that only women can become pregnant? Is there some vast conspiracy that is preventing men from becoming pregnant?

You got me lost here...

I'm sticking with my assumption that there can't be a caste system without discrimination. It seems inherent in the very concept of it.

Yes, I, too, would like to understand how a caste system can work without any form of discrimination.

 

[Sci]

I'm sticking with my assumption that there can't be a caste system without discrimination. It seems inherent in the very concept of it.

Yes, I, too, would like to understand how a caste system can work without any form of discrimination.

It doesn't. Discrimination is inherent to the very concept of caste.

"Separate but equal" is a lie, pure and simple.

 

[Timo]

So is the idea that something could be "not discriminatory".

Everything we ever do, discriminates. Everything we ever think, discriminates. "Equality" doesn't exist. If you see it somewhere, you are just being blind or biased.

Thus, it is a very relevant point whether the discrimination inherent in a caste system would be less tolerable than that inherent in all other systems. You can't vote in a Finnish election, Sci. That is discrimination, but that is good discrimination we all support, with arms if necessary. In turn, I can't vote for or against my favorite US Presidential candidate. A caste system need not be too different from this: different rights for different people, but none of it particularly malevolent or detrimental.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Sci]

So is the idea that something could be "not discriminatory". <SNIP> Thus, it is a very relevant point whether the discrimination inherent in a caste system would be less tolerable than that inherent in all other systems.

The relevant question is, "Is it oppressive?"

Caste-based discrimination is oppressive, and there is no such thing as caste without oppression. Thus it is banned by the Federation.

A caste system need not be too different from this: different rights for different people, but none of it particularly malevolent or detrimental.

This is sophistry in search for a rhetoric to justify the unjustifiable, to make palatable the idea of a system that would in reality be inherently oppressive. Your argument is, in other words, pure bullshit.

ETA:

You can't vote in a Finnish election, Sci. That is discrimination, but that is good discrimination we all support, with arms if necessary. In turn, I can't vote for or against my favorite US Presidential candidate.

And neither the Republic of Finland nor the United States of America would be ready for Membership in the United Federation of Planets were it real.

Also, this is hardly the same as caste-based discrimination. If I wanted, I could apply to become a Finnish citizen; if you wanted, you could apply to become a United States citizen. While the process would be difficult, neither of us is irrevocably prevented from voting in one-another's elections.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

different rights for different people, but none of it particularly malevolent or detrimental

That is a contradiction in terms.

Rights must be shared by all. Equality that is not absolute has no meaning.

 

[Pavonis]

Clearly the most fundamental requirement for a society or species to join the Federation as a member is humanoid appearance. The citizens of the Federation are only comfortable with aliens that look like them - one face, two arms, two legs, a torso, genitals where they belong, and maybe some specific idiosyncrasy so that the other members can mock them for having that trait or roll their eyes when they display it.

Seriously, though, were there any grossly non-humanoid aliens that were UFP members?

 

[Sci]

Seriously, though, were there any grossly non-humanoid aliens that were UFP members?

Canonically, Arcadians, the Ariolo, the Bzzit Khaht, the Kasheeta, and the Zaranites are Federation Members, and they're awfully alien. Then there are the Antedeans, the Anticans, and the Selay were all in the process of gaining Federation Membership.

In the novels, the Federation also includes species like the multi-tentacled Sulamid, the jellyfish-like Selenans, the repilian Saurians, the teddy bear-ike S'ti'ach, the tripedal Triexians, the aquatic amphibious Selkies, the Velociraptor-like Pahkwa-thanh, the pillbug-like Nasat, the hideous Medusans, the diminutive Evora, the merpeople-like Aonis, and, of course, the famous rock-eating Horta.

 

[Timo]

The relevant question is, "Is it oppressive?"

Well, taxes are. We find them a good thing to have around nevertheless.

The real question is, "Is it so oppressive that the UFP would object?". Everybody is in the business of oppressing, and just as you say, everybody then uses sophistry to defend one's personal brand of oppressing, and to defile the opposition's.

Discrimination is a prerequisite for equality: if everybody were really treated the same, the weak would suffer and perish, and the strong would triumph. Discriminating for equality is fighting for peace. Or raping for virginity, if your personal brand of equality differs from the one your opponent is trying to reach through his discriminatory acts; there can be no objective view on the issue, only competing opinions, because no brand of equality is inherently better than any other.

Rights must be shared by all.

...Yet tailored for everybody, in a balanced manner, or else "rights" would merely set in stone the survival of the meanest.

Equality that is not absolute has no meaning.

Now that can only be accomplished by severe eugenics. And only for one generation, because you'd then have to choose whether your equal individual was a male or a female.

The shorter and truer form of the above is "Equality has no meaning". We are not born equal, we don't die equal. We can be given various levels of discriminating support to live more or less equal, but it takes a complex system of government and legislation to get the discrimination just right, or anywhere approaching right.

Naturally, the very same mechanisms we use to strive for practical equality are the ones used when we strive for inequality or personal benefit. We turn necessity into virtue so that the biggest inequalities would be leveled out and some sort of societal stability would emerge. The UFP would be facing more pressing necessities than the Earth, given the greater diversity of species and cultures and environments, but the mechanisms for leveling out inequality would be the same: discrimination, with a partial feedback loop so that the discriminated can help adjust for even more beneficial discrimination, but not freely so because otherwise the selfish desires of the individual would ruin the balance.

It's very difficult to imagine how else things could ever work out. Except, of course, through the already mentioned eugenics trick where individuality is completely eliminated and true equality finally attained.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Pavonis]

Seriously, though, were there any grossly non-humanoid aliens that were UFP members?

Canonically, Arcadians, the Ariolo, the Bzzit Khaht, the Kasheeta, and the Zaranites are Federation Members, and they're awfully alien. Then there are the Antedeans, the Anticans, and the Selay were all in the process of gaining Federation Membership.

But all those examples are clearly humanoid, even described as such in the links you provided. Canonically, it appears the other Federation members just can't stretch enough to accept radically non-humanoid members.

In the novels, the Federation also includes species like the multi-tentacled Sulamid, the jellyfish-like Selenans, the repilian Saurians, the teddy bear-ike S'ti'ach, the tripedal Triexians, the aquatic amphibious Selkies, the Velociraptor-like Pahkwa-thanh, the pillbug-like Nasat, the hideous Medusans, the diminutive Evora, the merpeople-like Aonis, and, of course, the famous rock-eating Horta.

OK, while most of those examples are non-humanoid, what are the Evora doing in there? They're definitely humanoid. Being shorter than average isn't radically alien. Hell, the Evora's diminutiveness probably prompted the Federation to take them on as a protectorate. "Aww, they're so short, it's cute! Let's protect them!"