Of the ones you posted these are the ones I don't necessarily agree with.
- Minimum and maximum population levels, to ensure relative equality of representation on the Federation Council
Having some kind of maximum population seems kind of silly, so long as the Federation has some kind of equivalent to the 14th amendment to prevent majoritarianism.
Here's the most basic example of why I think a population limit is necessary for individual Federation Member States:
What if the Klingon Empire -- a polity nearly as large in size and population as the Federation itself -- applied to join the Federation?
Set aside the other things that might disqualify the Klingon Empire for Federation Membership. Let us presume for a moment that the Empire has undergone liberal democratic reform -- that it has instituted political democracy, that it has a set of enumerated, protected civil rights and liberties that apply to all sentients within its borders, that it has granted either independence or status within the Empire equal to Qo'noS's to all of its conquered worlds, that it has abolished caste-based oppression, etc., etc.
So, this Klingon Empire -- still nearly as large itself as the Federation, in terms of both territory and population -- applies to join the Federation as a Member State.
Having no upper ceiling on Member State population creates some major problems, here.
If we assume that Federation Member States are represented by one Federation Councillor each in a unicameral Federation Council -- which is how it works in the novels -- then the Federation Councillor for the Klingon Empire is sitting in the Palais, representing something in the area of 100 billion people... yet his vote is no more valuable on the Council than the Federation Councillor for the Confederacy of Vulcan (population 6 billion).
This is deeply, deeply unequal representation that absolutely screws over Klingon Empire Federates. Their votes are 16 2/3rds times less valuable than the votes of Confederacy of Vulcan Federates.
But, then, let us presume that the Federation Council has representation based upon population rather than upon an equal basis -- that the Council is more like the U.S. House of Representatives than the U.S. Senate, in other words.
If we presume this, then we're in a situation where the Federation Councillors for the Klingon Empire will vastly, vastly outnumber the Federation Councillors for every other Member State. It would give the newly-Federated Klingon Empire a position of complete dominance over the rest of the Federation Council, and by extension over the rest of the UFP. All of which is to say nothing of the informal mechanisms of dominance that a single unified Klingon Empire as Member State would exercise.
Such a wildly unbalanced situation is simply not tenable. It would inevitably lead to the marginalization of other Federation Member States, especially since most of them seem to be single-planet or single-star system polities.
That's why I argue the UFP would have both a minimum and maximum population size for Membership applicants. If the Klingon Empire wants to join the UFP, it needs to break itself down into multiple smaller polities, and then each polity can individually petition for Membership.
- Government must be a constitutional liberal democracy (meaning, it must function according to law, it must guarantee certain inalienable rights, and it must obtain a democratic mandate which regularly expires and must be renewed)
I don't think democracy is a strict necessity so long as the system protects individual rights.
No such thing. Legitimate authority naturally belongs to the people as a whole, who then delegate it to a government to exercise it on their behalf. Legitimate governments therefore derive their authority from the consent of the governed. The only government that obtains its right to exercise power from the consent of the governed is one that obtains a democratic mandate. The exercise of power without a democratic mandate is the exercise of unchecked, unauthorized power; it will inevitably corrupt and lead to violations of individual rights.
Hell, a government that does not obtain the consent of the governed in the form of a democratic mandate is
inherently violating individual rights, because the right to vote is an individual right.
And, obviously, a democratic government that still violates individual rights -- and "illiberal democracy" -- is itself just as illegitimate. "300 tyrants one mile away vs. 1 tyrant 300 miles away" and all that jazz we're all familiar with.
Governments only have the right to govern if they have the consent of the populace over which it governs and if they are obliged to protect civil rights and liberties. This inherently requires a constitutional liberal democracy.
For example, a Constitutional Monarchy that limits the powers of the monarch could also be sufficient.
Well, what do you mean by that?
If you mean something like the Westminster system --
a democratically elected Parliament selects
a Prime Minister from amongst themselves as the M.P. with the confidence of the majority of Parliament, with
a ceremonial Monarch who is obliged to
rubber-stamp Parliament's choices and then to obey the Prime Minister -- then that
is a form of constitutional liberal democracy, and is completely legitimate.
If, on the other hand, you're talking about
a ceremonial Monarch whose powers are limited because he just obeys
a military junta? This is obviously not any form of constitutional liberal democracy and is completely illegitimate.
- Maintenance of a welfare state ensuring minimum wealth for all citizens and residents
I would argue that equal opportunity is a better metric than equal wealth. So long as everybody has a chance to attain wealth the government need not enforce that everybody has the same outcome.
1. Note that I said "minimum wealth," not "equal wealth."
2. The problem, again, is that too much inequality of outcome undermines equality of opportunity. It's not as though we're playing a game in which the points revert back to "zero" for everyone every so often. The playing field is already uneven, and it becomes more uneven as wealth concentrates into fewer and fewer hands. The empirical evidence supports this -- we live in a society today where the top 1% own 35% of the nation's total net worth and the bottom 85% -- aka, the vast majority of people -- collectively own only 11% of the nation's total net worth.
- Maximum limit to the amount of wealth any citizen or resident may accumulate to prevent the evolution of an oligarchy
Seizing people's wealth for being too wealthy is a pretty big violation of basic freedoms.
By that logic, any form of taxation is a violation.
There ought to be limits to the amount of wealth one may own because otherwise, there will inevitably develop an oligarchy capable of dominating society and undermining democracy.
Prime example:
George Jetson goes to work for Mr. Spacely at Spacely's Sprockets, making
N number of sprockets per day. As a result of George's labor, Spacely Sprockets earns
P amount of profit -- profit directly created by George's labor. Yet that wealth which George created goes to Mr. Spacely instead of to George: the redistribution of wealth to the top. George is forced to accept this deal because he has no capital of his own, and can only create wealth through is labor -- and because all of Mr. Spacely's compatriots in the capital-owning class require the same deal. Having a powerful need to eat, George must accept the wage system, though it is little more than legalized thievery.
This system is essentially seizing someone's wealth for being too poor. It is, as you say, a violation of basic freedoms -- yet we accept it. Even though George and his laboring comrades clearly did not have an equal say in setting up this economy, even though it extracts wealth from them to give to the owners of capital. Because having that wealth and that capital mean that Mr. Spacely and his friends get to dominate the social order.
This is not freedom, and it is not what an enlightened Federation should accept.
- Presence of either an advanced social democratic economy (capitalism with strong socialist programs to curb excess inequality) or a democratic market socialist economy (socialism with capitalist traits to curb excesses), both designed to minimize economic oppression
Socialist economy is far more oppressive than a well managed capitalist one, which has protections against the wealthy preventing fair competition.
What you describe is social democracy, which I listed above.
The problem with social democracy, though, is that it is still dominated by the capitalist class, who, as I outlined above, set the terms for the social order. It also relies upon the exploited labor of less-wealth foreign societies (e.g., sweatshop labor, etc.). It is much better than a pure capitalism, but it is still oppressive.
A democratic market socialism -- not state ownership of all firms, not state control of all wealth, but democratically-operated worker-owned firms that equitably distribute profits to all their employees while competing with one-another -- is a far, far less oppressive social order. Capitalism is essentially kleptocracy; democratic market socialism would return wealth to the people whose labor created it.
Absence of social structures built around or perpetuating privilege
I would think the rules focus more on how the poor are treated more than systematically shaming the successful.
"When someone says he got rich through hard work, ask him whose."
Your statement here relies upon the
a priori assumption that wealth is inherently legitimately gained.
You are also ignoring the presence of systems of privilege that are completely unearned -- white privilege, male privilege, inherited class privilege, straight privilege, religious privilege, cisgender privilege, etc. It is not "shaming the successful" for a society to embrace an anti-racist social order rather than accepting white privilege, for instance.
-History of social policies of serious reparations and restitution if such oppressions have existed in the past
This one is hugely debatable, especially if you try to apply it generationally.
No. Any society that has a history of such oppressions which is not willing to enact reparations and restitutions is a society that has not come to terms with its own past, with its prior abuses, and which is likely trying to avoid acknowledging its current inequities and oppressions. Such a society is not ready to join the Federation.
- Absence of capital punishment
I'm personally against capital punishment, but I don't think that having capital punishment for capital crimes is enough to disqualify somebody from membership.
It ought to be, for two simple facts:
1. No justice system is perfect, and having capital punishment inherently means you will be killing innocent people at some point.
2. An individual's life is not the property of the state, and therefore the state has no authority to end it unless acting in defense against an immediate danger.
Your list seems to be "All members must agree with your personal politics". I would think the requirements are far simpler.
My exact words were, "Personally, if I'm writing the Articles of the Federation, my criteria would be..." I make no secret about the fact that I think these are the policies that would be necessary for any society to avoid oppression.
I don't think that your species has anything to do with the kind of representation you get on the Federation Council. And I don't think Star Trek has anything as bloated and useless as the council we see in Phantom Menace.
Suppose that I'm one eighth human, one eighth vulcan, one eighth romulan, one eighth klingon, one eighth betazoid, one eighth cardassian, one eighth bajoran, and one eighth trill. Do I have eight representatives, or zero?
Excellent point!
... created by the left-leaning Gene Roddenberry -- and his entire notion of what the UFP would be like was based on the triumph of egalitarianism over hierarchy, and on an understanding that real freedom is not possible without egalitarianism.
Star Trek focuses on Starfleet,
A specialized agency on the frontier, in service to an egalitarian society.
this is the window on the future that is featured. A hierarchy power structure is very much on display, in addition to Starfleet we frequently see planetary leaders and others in positions of authority.
And within the Federation, these persons derive their authority from democratic mandate.
T'Pol was very much not on the same social level as those around her,
Imperious, speciesist, emotionally immature, in denial about her own reactions to things....
I'd say she was about on the same social level as the Humans she served alongside.
should Vulcan be expelled from the Federation because of this? Of course not.
Straw man argument; no one has said that an entire society should be excluded from Federation Membership because of one individual.
Freedom includes the ability, right and power to achieve and grow to the best of their ability as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
Absolutely. And only a relatively egalitarian social order can enable this.
Freedom also includes the freedom to fail.
The problem is that "freedom to fall" inevitably degenerates into entire classes of people not being able to get back up due to external power structures, and then their children never being allowed to rise.
Maintain a society of individuals on single societal level
Strawman argument; "relatively egalitarian social order" does not mean "single social level."
Because I'm sure the Federation and its Members understand that compelling forced labor merely creates an incentive for the state to unjustly imprison people in order to profit off of their unpaid labor.
So the people alongside the public roads being compelled
by court order to pickup debris is wrong?
Interesting question and I hadn't considered that particular manifestation. I'm open to the possibility that some forms of court-ordered community service are legitimate for minor crimes, if they are enacted as an alternative to either jail time or fines. But I'm inclined to say that these forms of community service should be very restricted, to prevent judicial abuses. And forced prison labor should absolutely be abolished.
... aliens who have lived their entire lives on worlds other than their own and consider themselves citizens of that world (a Tellarite from Mars, for example).
But that individual could still refer to himself as a Tellarite couldn't he, no matter how long he lived on Mars? No matter where he traveled, he'd still be covered by the Tellarite rep.
But what if that man considers himself part of Martian culture rather than Tellarite culture? That Biological Species Representative for Tellarites may not represent his interests well at all if she reflects the dominant culture of Tellar.
Suppose that I'm one eighth ... Do I have eight representatives, or zero?
If you had a problem that need to be addressed, I think you'd be able to lobby/communicate with any (or all) of the eight species reps, so the answer to your question would be eight.
So you'd get more representation in the Species Representatives Chamber than someone who is just biologically Andorian? Unequal representation and more of a voice in that chamber than others?
What makes you so much more valuable than others that you should have this privilege? It's not like you accomplished anything through your accident of birth.
Between senators and representatives, someone from the state of California has 55 people in Congress, individuals from seven states only have 3.
No, you have fundamentally misunderstood how representation in Congress works. No matter what state you are from, you only ever have
three representatives in Congress -- the United States Representative for your congressional district, and your state's two United States Senators.
Yeah, the idea of that chamber was a bit flimsy. I will say that there could be a pretty big Federation Council. Maybe not as big as Star Wars, but the only one we've was in TVH, right? That might have been a smaller chamber or even just a committee.
For the record, the novels have established that a single Federation Councillor represents each Federation Member State on the Council. There are, as of 2380, 155 Federation Member States. They meet in the Palais de la Concorde in Paris.
I'm not sure if this is based on clear statements from canon or not, but the novels make it pretty clear that a Federation citizen is covered by the councillor of the member state where they reside, not by species.
Ex: the humans of the Alpha Centauri Concordium aren't covered by United Earth's councillor
Ex: Rugal, the Cardassian boy from "Cardassians" re-obtains Bajoran citizenship and thus becomes first Cardassian citizen of the Federation
Yep. Meaning Rugal, upon obtaining Federation citizenship, was represented on the Federation Council by Krim Aldos, then-Federation Councillor for the Republic of Bajor. As a resident of Earth when not aboard a starship, Worf receives his representation through the Federation Councillor for United Earth -- as would, presumably, Data, if he were to be granted UFP citizenship, since he was "born" on a colony world that's part of United Earth's territory.
