Concerning the Articles of the Federation

[Captain Robert April]

Of course, the government works in Star Trek because the people involved are better, more enlightened human beings that have evolved past the brutish passions that are found amongst us poor primitive, selfish shlubs here in the early 21st Century.

Which is probably a wilder science fiction concept than warp drive and the transporter combined.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Again, this is just the sort of stuff that makes me think it's best not to get into the particulars of politics of 23rd and 24th century Earth and the federation. If they had to live in said utopia, dittoheads would suffer a Glenn Beck-style aneurysm, sputtering "communist! communist!"

Depends on the utopia. If it's "From Each According To His Ability..." than we will. If it's a truly free society, of course not; we would rejoyce with everyone else.

So, in the end, who can be relied upon to oversee all this, and regulate such corruption?

No one person can be relied upon to oversee all this. Nor even any one agency. That's why governments are often designed with checks and balances. That's why we elect Presidents rather than Kings.

That's the great thing about liberal democracy -- really, there isn't a government. There's a collection of governmental agencies, but the overall government is so divided that it can't reasonably be described as a single entity. The government is actually a collection of agencies, not an institution in its own right.

To be technical, not a democracy; remember, "Democracy" is pure majority rule. In a true democracy, the rights of minorities could be infringed, in the name of the "public good". We have a republic, which protects the minorities--and the smallest minority on Earth is the individual.

Of course, the government works in Star Trek because the people involved are better, more enlightened human beings that have evolved past the brutish passions that are found amongst us poor primitive, selfish shlubs here in the early 21st Century.

Which is probably a wilder science fiction concept than warp drive and the transporter combined.

And yet, even in the future, the UFP is a Federal Republic--with division of power among the federal government and the several Members Worlds.

 

[Sci]

No one person can be relied upon to oversee all this. Nor even any one agency. That's why governments are often designed with checks and balances. That's why we elect Presidents rather than Kings.

That's the great thing about liberal democracy -- really, there isn't a government. There's a collection of governmental agencies, but the overall government is so divided that it can't reasonably be described as a single entity. The government is actually a collection of agencies, not an institution in its own right.

To be technical, not a democracy; remember, "Democracy" is pure majority rule. In a true democracy, the rights of minorities could be infringed, in the name of the "public good". We have a republic, which protects the minorities--and the smallest minority on Earth is the individual.

Dude, the term "liberal democracy" is a standard political science term for republics based on ideas like constitutional governance, the rule of law, free and fair elections, and individual rights. It is the accepted technical term, because the term "republic" encompasses any number of other systems, including Communism (the People's Republic of China) or dictatorships (the Argentine Republic under the military junta).

 

[Allyn Gibson]

To be technical, not a democracy; remember, "Democracy" is pure majority rule. In a true democracy, the rights of minorities could be infringed, in the name of the "public good". We have a republic, which protects the minorities--and the smallest minority on Earth is the individual.

You are using a bizarre definition of republic. A republic is a form of government that's not headed by a monarch and is governed, to varying extents, by "the people." Anything more than that -- as you posit -- is a possibility for a republic, but it's not a defining feature.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Just because the ChiComms call it a republic doesn't mean it is one. Same with the rest of 'em.

 

[ronny]

Just because the ChiComms call it a republic doesn't mean it is one. Same with the rest of 'em.

Note to self: Stop hitting "view post" for people you are ignoring. All it does is remind you why you are ignoring them in the first place.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Just because the ChiComms call it a republic doesn't mean it is one. Same with the rest of 'em.

Are you arguing the defintion of "republic"? Rush's definition was factually wrong. I can't even mince words on that. It's simply wrong.

Merriam-Webster's definition: "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president."

Protecting the rights of minorities is not a defining feature of a republic. For that matter, neither is free elections. In the classic Roman definition, yes, elections and a representative body are parts of a republic. But they aren't required.

You could argue that the United States is today a mercantile oligarchy; this does not mean that the United States is no longer a republic. By definition -- the United States has no monarch -- it is.

China likewise has no monarch, even though it is a Communist nation. By definition, China is also a republic.

You can say the definition of "republic" is wrong. But that doesn't make it so.

 

[LightningStorm]

Just because the ChiComms call it a republic doesn't mean it is one. Same with the rest of 'em.

Note to self: Stop hitting "view post" for people you are ignoring. All it does is remind you why you are ignoring them in the first place.

Here's another note you should remember, "Stop announcing who you have on ignore" it serves no purpose and is technically warnable (or infractable as the case may be).

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Of course, the government works in Star Trek because the people involved are better, more enlightened human beings that have evolved past the brutish passions that are found amongst us poor primitive, selfish shlubs here in the early 21st Century.

No, it works because the people involved are fictional characters.

 

[DimesDan]

To be technical, not a democracy; remember, "Democracy" is pure majority rule. In a true democracy, the rights of minorities could be infringed, in the name of the "public good". We have a republic, which protects the minorities--and the smallest minority on Earth is the individual.

You are using a bizarre definition of republic. A republic is a form of government that's not headed by a monarch and is governed, to varying extents, by "the people." Anything more than that -- as you posit -- is a possibility for a republic, but it's not a defining feature.

Indeed Allyn, countries like Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom all vote for their Prime Minister, so they should all be Republics, they arn't though, each of those countries has (for ceremonial purposes) Queen Elizabeth II as their Head of State and thus, because of this unelected individual, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom aren't republics - yet anyway!

 

[Rush Limborg]

All right. I messed up on the term republic. It's a lot more vauge than I let on. Hence, the defining terms such as "federal republic", or "representative republic", etc. Nonetheless, that does not diminish the literal definition of the term "democracy."

Now, as for Sci's assertion that it is the "accepted" term for our sort of society--I would like to remind him that the term "nation" is also commonly accepted as applicable to the US. And yet, he asserts that that it is not applicable--that technically, the US is more properly a "multinational state".

I am simply making a similar literal-minded statement. While "democracy" is accepted as meaning "free society", it literally means complete majority rule.

 

[Sci]

All right. I messed up on the term republic. It's a lot more vauge than I let on. Hence, the defining terms such as "federal republic", or "representative republic", etc. Nonetheless, that does not diminish the literal definition of the term "democracy."

Now, as for Sci's assertion that it is the "accepted" term for our sort of society

I did not claim that "democracy" is the accepted term for our society. I said that the term "liberal democracy" is the accepted technical term in the field of Political Science for our society.

--I would like to remind him that the term "nation" is also commonly accepted as applicable to the US.

Not in Political Science.

And yet, he asserts that that it is not applicable--that technically, the US is more properly a "multinational state".

I am simply making a similar literal-minded statement. While "democracy" is accepted as meaning "free society", it literally means complete majority rule.

Which would matter if I had used the term "democracy." I did not. I used the term "liberal democracy." The term "liberal democracy" is an entirely separate concept from the term "democracy."

It is, as I noted, the standard technical term for a republic -- or, now that I think of it, a constitutional monarchy -- that is built on the principles of classical liberalism (i.e., the rule of law, free and fair elections, human rights, etc.). "liberal democracy" is not a mere adjectival modification of the term "democracy."

You are arguing against a term I never used.

Furthermore, the fact that the United States uses elected non-monarchs as its rulers means that it is both a republic and a democracy. The two systems are not mutually incompatible.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I would like to remind him that the term "nation" is also commonly accepted as applicable to the US.

Not in Political Science.

Just to elaborate, Rush (and I fear that my PolySci knowledge is faded from disuse)...

A State, in the PolySci sense, is a country.

A Nation, in the PolySci sense, is a people of shared ethnicity and cultural heritage.

A Nation-State, in the PolySci sense, is a country of a single people of shared ethnicity/cultural heritage.

A Multinational State, in the PolySci sense, is a country with multiple peoples.

The United States is very much not a Nation, in the PolySci sense.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Of course, the government works in Star Trek because the people involved are better, more enlightened human beings that have evolved past the brutish passions that are found amongst us poor primitive, selfish shlubs here in the early 21st Century.

No, it works because the people involved are fictional characters.

I believe that was my point.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I would like to remind him that the term "nation" is also commonly accepted as applicable to the US.

Not in Political Science.

Just to elaborate, Rush (and I fear that my PolySci knowledge is faded from disuse)...

A State, in the PolySci sense, is a country.

A Nation, in the PolySci sense, is a people of shared ethnicity and cultural heritage.

A Nation-State, in the PolySci sense, is a country of a single people of shared ethnicity/cultural heritage.

A Multinational State, in the PolySci sense, is a country with multiple peoples.

The United States is very much not a Nation, in the PolySci sense.

So, in Political Science terms, just how is the United States categorized?

 

[Rush Limborg]

All right. I messed up on the term republic. It's a lot more vauge than I let on. Hence, the defining terms such as "federal republic", or "representative republic", etc. Nonetheless, that does not diminish the literal definition of the term "democracy."

Now, as for Sci's assertion that it is the "accepted" term for our sort of society

I did not claim that "democracy" is the accepted term for our society. I said that the term "liberal democracy" is the accepted technical term in the field of Political Science for our society.

--I would like to remind him that the term "nation" is also commonly accepted as applicable to the US.

Not in Political Science.

And yet, he asserts that that it is not applicable--that technically, the US is more properly a "multinational state".

I am simply making a similar literal-minded statement. While "democracy" is accepted as meaning "free society", it literally means complete majority rule.

Which would matter if I had used the term "democracy." I did not. I used the term "liberal democracy." The term "liberal democracy" is an entirely separate concept from the term "democracy."

It is, as I noted, the standard technical term for a republic -- or, now that I think of it, a constitutional monarchy -- that is built on the principles of classical liberalism (i.e., the rule of law, free and fair elections, human rights, etc.). "liberal democracy" is not a mere adjectival modification of the term "democracy."

You are arguing against a term I never used.

Furthermore, the fact that the United States uses elected non-monarchs as its rulers means that it is both a republic and a democracy. The two systems are not mutually incompatible.

I would think, however, that a new term is warranted--especially considering the changed definition of "liberal", as indicated by the adjective "classical".

Also, confusion is of course to be expected, as is indicated by "liberal democracy". The second word, of course, conjures up the image of "democracy". The fact that "liberal democracy" is a different concept surely warrents a seperate term, to avoid confusion.

Now, I accept that the US is considered, as the Patriot's Creed states, "a Democracy in a Republic"--or, as you assert, a "liberal democracy". But it is not a "democracy", per se.

Frankly, I note a possible contradiction: after arguing that the US is a "liberal democracy"--and that the concept identified with that term is different than that identified with "democracy"--you then claim that the US is a democracy.

 

[DimesDan]

Not in Political Science.

Just to elaborate, Rush (and I fear that my PolySci knowledge is faded from disuse)...

A State, in the PolySci sense, is a country.

A Nation, in the PolySci sense, is a people of shared ethnicity and cultural heritage.

A Nation-State, in the PolySci sense, is a country of a single people of shared ethnicity/cultural heritage.

A Multinational State, in the PolySci sense, is a country with multiple peoples.

The United States is very much not a Nation, in the PolySci sense.

So, in Political Science terms, just how is the United States categorized?

Awkward.

 

[Sci]

Not in Political Science.

Just to elaborate, Rush (and I fear that my PolySci knowledge is faded from disuse)...

A State, in the PolySci sense, is a country.

A Nation, in the PolySci sense, is a people of shared ethnicity and cultural heritage.

A Nation-State, in the PolySci sense, is a country of a single people of shared ethnicity/cultural heritage.

A Multinational State, in the PolySci sense, is a country with multiple peoples.

The United States is very much not a Nation, in the PolySci sense.

So, in Political Science terms, just how is the United States categorized?

It can be categorized any number of ways. It's a federation, it's a liberal democracy, it's a multinational state, it's a republic, it's a constitutional republic, it's a democracy, and it's a multinational state. I suppose if you want a particularly exhaustive classification, you could call it a multinational constitutional federal republican liberal democracy.

All right. I messed up on the term republic. It's a lot more vauge than I let on. Hence, the defining terms such as "federal republic", or "representative republic", etc. Nonetheless, that does not diminish the literal definition of the term "democracy."

Now, as for Sci's assertion that it is the "accepted" term for our sort of society

I did not claim that "democracy" is the accepted term for our society. I said that the term "liberal democracy" is the accepted technical term in the field of Political Science for our society.

Not in Political Science.

And yet, he asserts that that it is not applicable--that technically, the US is more properly a "multinational state".

I am simply making a similar literal-minded statement. While "democracy" is accepted as meaning "free society", it literally means complete majority rule.

Which would matter if I had used the term "democracy." I did not. I used the term "liberal democracy." The term "liberal democracy" is an entirely separate concept from the term "democracy."

It is, as I noted, the standard technical term for a republic -- or, now that I think of it, a constitutional monarchy -- that is built on the principles of classical liberalism (i.e., the rule of law, free and fair elections, human rights, etc.). "liberal democracy" is not a mere adjectival modification of the term "democracy."

You are arguing against a term I never used.

Furthermore, the fact that the United States uses elected non-monarchs as its rulers means that it is both a republic and a democracy. The two systems are not mutually incompatible.

I would think, however, that a new term is warranted--especially considering the changed definition of "liberal", as indicated by the adjective "classical".

1. That term's meaning has only changed in the United States. Outside the U.S., and especially in Europe, "liberal" tends to retain more of the connotations of classical liberalism than it does in the U.S., where it has been applied to center-left and left-leaning political groups.

2. When you have earned your Bachelor's, Master's, and Ph.D. in Political Science, you're welcome to tell the Poli Sci establishment how they ought to classify their terminology. Until then, you and I should be going by the systems used by professional political scientists.

Also, confusion is of course to be expected, as is indicated by "liberal democracy". The second word, of course, conjures up the image of "democracy". The fact that "liberal democracy" is a different concept surely warrents a seperate term, to avoid confusion.

The only people who are confused are people who make assumptions and speak from ignorance.

Now, I accept that the US is considered, as the Patriot's Creed states, "a Democracy in a Republic"--or, as you assert, a "liberal democracy". But it is not a "democracy", per se.

Democracy:

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

There is no contradiction between being a democracy and being a republic. The United States is both, simultaneously.

Frankly, I note a possible contradiction: after arguing that the US is a "liberal democracy"--and that the concept identified with that term is different than that identified with "democracy"--you then claim that the US is a democracy.

Because it is both. I asserted first that it is a liberal democracy, then that it is a democracy, and I made those assertions consecutively. There is no contradiction between a state being a liberal democracy and being a democracy, but one must understand that they are two separate assertions.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Now, I accept that the US is considered, as the Patriot's Creed states, "a Democracy in a Republic"--or, as you assert, a "liberal democracy". But it is not a "democracy", per se.

It took me a couple of minutes to figure out what you were talking about. The "Patriot's Creeds" I can find online are rather reactionary.

You're referring to "The American's Creed," which is the official creed of the United States and was written by William Tyler Page.

 

[William Leisner]

Note to self: Stop hitting "view post" for people you are ignoring. All it does is remind you why you are ignoring them in the first place.

QFT...

Here's another note you should remember, "Stop announcing who you have on ignore" it serves no purpose and is technically warnable (or infractable as the case may be).

... without mentioning any names, of course.