Politics of Star Trek

Shifting away from money and more toward sociological: I think that in Star Trek there's a liberal and conservative viewpoint on Earth where conservatives think Human nature will always remain the same while liberals think Humanity has evolved. So TNG is more "liberal" but in DS9 and PIC it's turned more "conservative". TOS is probably "moderate".

 

In theory democracy is a wonderful thing, but in practise, let’s be real, it’s sadly an illusion. Where is the real democracy in our world today? A two party system that gives us the feeling of choice when in fact all of it is driven by corporate greed and psychopathic self-interest and, with the aid of the media (and Russian troll farms it would seem), using every kind of psychological manipulation possible to shape the hegemonic consensus. Where is the actual choice, the democracy, when it’s simply a case of the lesser of two evils?

 

Honestly, I think it depends on your point of view. People can find the elements, a self-fulfilling prophecy/confirmation bias type thing, in all media. I know that there is a liberal point of view, but ultimate it presents as very humanist and I think that there is something that can appeal to everyone.

 

Well, I'm trying to figure it out in the context of the 23rd/24th Century, without taking into account the 20th/21st Century. I'm assuming there's still some sort of left-right paradigm, even if it's not the same as the one today. Though maybe there isn't. But I do know those are the two conflicting ideas about human nature in Star Trek. It's what fuels the argument about "Gene's Vision". My solution is that both ideologies exist on Earth at the same time. It makes it feel a bit more "real world" that it's not all one thing.

 

I do wonder how prevalent Picard's displayed liberal philosophy is within Starfleet in general? During TNG there are times that Picard seems to be the odd man out as a senior Starfleet officer. He would be in a position to mold the attitudes of his senior officers, but not Starfleet as a whole.

One example, he (and Riker) insist that Starfleet isn't a military in a episode in which Starfleet command sends the Enterprise to engage in a wargame simulation. How many people in Starfleet share Picard's position that Starfleet isn't a military?

I am very much not trying to start a "is Starfleet a military" discussion, just using that as one example.

In Journey's End, Picard briefly faced having the Enterprise taken from him by a Admiral because he started to apply his personal ethics /philosophy to a mission plan. Picard got shut down.

This of course, and then expanded more to take in the Federation as a whole.

Trek-universe like the "real world" would have people on the far ends of the poltical scale, but the majority would be inbetween..

 

Your country, not our world. Many countries in our world don't have a 2-party system, for instance. Here, if you only count parties with seats in (federal) parliament, we have either a 10-party system (seats in the senate) or a 12-party system (seats in the chamber of representatives).

 

Its scary because Star Trek's economic system is not understood very well. Civil and personal liberties seem to be very high though. The majority of services/industries might be standardized or regulated. Meaning its not a total free market system.

Not everyone has to own a replicator. In fact, in the case of food, its noted that its not as good quality as something that is homegrown and prepared.

But the replicator makes it very easy to create materials when in need.

 

I'm in favor of a no-party system (for a whole host of reasons that I won't get into). People would run on their merits and their merits alone. Hopefully that's what they do in the Federation. I think it's just as well that Star Trek leaves it vague and doesn't get into it.

 

I'm trying to think of Captains and Admirals who Picard was on the same page with during TNG and there really weren't many, now that I think about it.

I feel like Starfleet put Picard in command of the Enterprise-D because he fit the PR message they wanted to promote with that ship. And then maybe Picard thought he could mold the rest of Starfleet by leading through example with the flagship.

That probably all went out the window by the time he took command of the Enterprise-E. They don't want him leading the fight against the Borg, he laments "Can anyone remember when we used to be explorers?", and he seems a little too eager to want to use those 318 days of shore leave he'd acquired as of Insurrection.

 

Sounds like a reach to me.

So the slang has persisted, even though the thing that the slang is based on has faded away? Again, this seems like a big reach when the simpler explanation is that there is still some monetary system in existence in TOS's time, even if it's one based on "credits" instead of dollars and cents.

 

All societies already do this. For instance, if me and my co-workers work 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week to produce a car, that car is designated by law to be the property of a legal corporation rather than our shared property, even though we're the ones whose labor created that car. Thus, there is an agency out there that decides what we do and do not get to own, even after we've poured our labor into it.

It's just that most people don't think of it this way because we've been socialized to think that that's "natural" or "normal." It's not -- it's an artifact of a legal system that regulates what you may and may not own.

 

And are compensated with pay, benefits, retirement?

If you're paid to flip burgers, there should be no expectation on your part that the resulting burger is your.

But at what cost? If I wanted a wooden chair would it be less expensive (value from my account) if a tree was cut and shaped into a chair, verses having a chair replicated?

Might have been a case of the Enterprise-E not being given the same assignments that the Enterprire-D had. The E could have assignments that were more typical of the average Starfleet vessel.

 

I understand why some people (mostly Americans, tbh) say that, but I think that's highly misguided. US politics are already way too much about charisma, "electability" and identity. At the end of the day, what matters isn't who smiles the most or who matches your identity best, politics should about policies.
The focus should be on a manifesto, not a person.

On "electability": that's basically voting for the person you think others will vote for. Aka strategic voting, which isn't a good thing for democracy.
Except it's even worse in the US, because the media tells you who is "electable", so it's voting for the person the media will tell you others will vote for. You end up with 2 corporate candidates (one of them in clown makeup), while the one candidate whose policies would have actually helped the American people is sidelined. Twice.

Anyway, then there's the issue of feasibily: a no-party system seems impossible to achieve. Just like having more than 2 dominant parties in a first past the post system, by the way.
A proportional system has issues (deadlocks being the most salient - and I should know), but at least it allows diversity of ideologies.

Anyway, I just wanted the person I was replying to to know that the US != the world. Roughly 200 other countries not to forget when talking about the world.

 

This is veering off-topic, so I'll respond to this and try to move on from it after I do.

The person's policies are what I'm talking about.

In 20 years of voting, I've never strategically voted. I vote for whoever I want in the primaries. Then I'm usually stuck with whoever I didn't vote for during the primaries in the general election. But if I really don't like one of the two main party choices somewhere in the ballot, or just want to give my support for third parties in general, I'll vote Third Party (which I haven't done at the Presidential level, I vote Democratic at the top of the ballot).

I'm not married to the idea of "no party". I just don't like the current two-party system in the US. Once again: for reasons I'm not going to get into because this isn't the place for it.

You weren't replying to me. Respectfully, you were replying to the idea you have of me, based on assumptions that you made. My father immigrated to this country in the '70s. I have family overseas. I know very well the world doesn't revolve around the US.

I think the Federation was originally intended to be modeled after the US, and has been depicted as the US in space, which is why I used it to figure out what its ideologies might be; using what's been shown to us across seven series and 13 films. If they want to depict it as something else in the future, I'll go with that.

 

Parties provide consistency of policy. Like it or not, without party affiliation, you'd have even more of a personality-based contest.

Oh, 2-party systems are heavily flawed, for well-known reasons: strategic voting, spoiler effect, ...
Unfortunately, with first past the post systems, they are also inevitable over time.
Electoral systems are a well-studied field (not my field, but I take an amateurish interest in it).

Arrow's impossibility theorem, for instance, shows that all non-proportional representation systems are flawed in one way or another. But proportional systems are prone to deadlocks, as we Belgians are currently experiencing, again.
Still, I prefer a proportional system. I'm on the left, so I really wouldn't want to have to choose between a right-wing (D) candidate and a far-right (R) candidate every election cycle, like in the US. I can understand the low turnout under those circumstances, you easily feel disenfranchised in such a system.

Neither, I was replying to Ananta. I wouldn't have said "the person I was replying to" to refer to you in a dialogue with you.

 

I've never encounter anyone (who would discuss their vote) who voted for a ceratin canidate because they wanted to vote for "the winning side."

No. I vote based on track record (if there is one), and experience, whether in business or politics.

 

And when no-party elected representatives find they can't accomplish everything themselves, and start to ally with others who have similar values and goals to their own, you're on your way to a party system. Maybe New Humans could operate politics some other way, but not the ones we know about.

 

Here's my current take on the lack of money on Earth in Star Trek, from the "What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?" thread [https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/wha...tar-trek-opinions.304751/page-4#post-13435398]:

No money means no money, not just no hard currency. As a human, or even as a guest alien, you can live comfortably on Earth without an money at all, you will never want for food, a place to live, free transportation around Earth, medical care, and a host of other things. But you will not be entitled to things that cost money, such as things sold by aliens on Earth, transportation to places not covered by your New World Economy entitlements. The economic relationship between Earth and the Federation is codified in its UFP membership. It involves trade and taxation of a fraction of Terran economic product measured according to terms specified there. A significant portion of Earth's economic output is labor. There are little known, seldom used conditions of New World citizenship, such as obligations to serve that have never been broadly invoked as far as we know, that form the backstop for the economic strength of Earth; post-atomic horror humanity has never become so leisurely despite wanting for nothing/little that pressed service has ever been necessary, except in special cases involving people who have already volunteered to serve in Federation organizations. ​

Some of that is obviously not canon, but everything there is, I think, either canon or an extrapolation of canon. Thoughts?

 

That is certainly an argument people can make. And by making that argument, you yourself are by definition arguing that there ought to be "someone or a agency who decide [sic] that you would be 'allowed' to possess personal property."

This is an inevitable feature of all economic systems. The government deciding who is allowed to own what is inescapable. It happens under capitalism just as surely as any other system.