Does the Federation ban incest?

[Sci]

How does setting the voting age at, say 28, rather than 18 or 21 make it not a Democracy?

Because you're denying adults who are supposed to be equal under the law their basic rights, obviously. It's undemocratic age discrimination if you deny the right to vote to people who have reached the age of majority.

Voter discrimination amongst adults based on their age is no more legitimate than voter discrimination based upon their skin color or sex.

Why is it OK to deprive 20 year olds the right to vote, if voting age is set at 21,

It isn't.

or denying 17 year olds to vote if voting age is 18,

Because 17-year-olds are minors who have not reached the age of majority. The essence of liberal democracy is the premise that all persons who have reached the age of majority are equal; that doesn't mean you give all rights of adults to minors, you means you give equal rights to all adults.

Apparently, by Sci's reasoning, the U.S. isn't a democracy because most of the rights and responsibilities of adulthood are conferred at age 18 -- but you can drive a car at 16 and you have to wait until you're 21 to legally consume alcohol.

A strange leap to make. Denying 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds the right to drink does not mean the United States is not a democracy, because the relevant question -- "Are they adults whose basic right to vote is respected?" -- is "Yes."

However, 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old adults are discriminated against unjustly by denying them the right to consume alcohol, yes. There's no logic in saying you can fight and die for your country at 18 but not have a beer.

Setting different legal ages for different activities isn't age discrimination,

No, but denying adults basic rights is.

 

[Sindatur]

Where does this Democracy Requirement even come from? I recall the "One World Government" Requirement, which makes sense, so the Government speaks with a single voice, but, I don't recall anything about what form that Government needs to take.

If you're giving all Adults all the same Rights, then it is absolutely UnDemocratic to denying 18, 19, and 20 year olds the right to consume alcohol.

 

[Sector 7]

In the United States (my native land):
- at 16 years old one may get a driver's license and operate a 2,000 pound automobile
- at 18 years old one must register for Selective Service, become a soldier, die for his country and may vote
- at 21 years old one may go into a bar and/or purchase alcohol

Decades ago, the age for all of the above was 18. The age of 'maturity' was set and it was a goal to reach 18 with all of the above privileges our society held. Now it is more confusing... when is the goal of adulthood truly attained today?

As for the original topic of incest, I can only say "Ewwww, yuuuuuck!"

TRUE STORY: A business associate and friend went on a 3-day trip. I could not reach him at the office (pre-cell phone days). A week later he returned a married man. She was a sweet girl from West Virginia, USA and I was happy for him.

While chatting about his trip, he told me, "At one point I got cold feet. We went to the courthouse to get the marriage license and the first question asked was, 'Are you two already related?' I almost bolted for the door!"

Last I heard they are happily married, but he still remembers that scary day.

 

[Sci]

Where does this Democracy Requirement even come from? I recall the "One World Government" Requirement, which makes sense, so the Government speaks with a single voice, but, I don't recall anything about what form that Government needs to take.

The Federation President is established to be democratically-elected in DS9's "Paradise Lost." And we know from "The Best of Both Worlds, Part I" that the Federation is based upon the principles of freedom and self-determination. So I think we can reasonably infer from these items that the Federation is a liberal democracy and requires its Members to be such.

If you're giving all Adults all the same Rights, then it is absolutely UnDemocratic to denying 18, 19, and 20 year olds the right to consume alcohol.

Well, no, it's not undemocratic. It's illiberal. There's a distinction. Liberal democracy has two basic components to it: Liberalism (that is, liberalism in the classical sense -- the idea that people have inalienable civil rights and civil liberties and that all people ought to be equal under the law), and democracy (the idea that the people get to choose their representatives in the government on the basis of the principle of universal adult suffrage, with one person getting one vote).

when is the goal of adulthood truly attained today?

The age of majority in the United States is 18 years. Some privileges are extended to some minors earlier than that, and adults between the ages of 18 and 21 are discriminated against by denying them their right to consume alcohol on the basis of age.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

There are some very intersting points arising from this topic. The whole incest topic I believe would be something that would be the decision of each member world. Though all members of the Federation, each would have their own government and structure to rule how things are done on their planet--though some things would have to correspond with UFP law (murder, rape, theft, etc). So depending on each species customs and beliefs , anything is possible.

The Deltans immediately spring to mind. Seeing as how sex is supposed to plan a major role in all their relationships this could likely include family as well. Without knowing more on Deltan biology though it would be impossible to say how they prevent pregnancies that could cause problems in the gene pool (for example, maybe females can control their fertility, opting only to procreate when they wish, rather than on a monthly cycle--just a thought).

As for this topic:

Another complication, IMHO, for voting Age Rights would be, if a member world was a Geritocracy, who view the Wisdon age above all else. I can't really see that Society wanting folks barely into adulthood voting, before they had gained any Adult Wisdom.

The Federation would have an over-arching ruling that once of a mature age, then it would be universal suffrage.

I say "of a mature age" as not all species will age as humans do. For example, if the Ocampa were part of the UFP, they could likely have the vote at the age of 1 1/2 to two years old, whilst the Rhaandarite (who are a very long-lived species apparantly) may only have the right to vote at 150 years old.

With 150 species in the mix, it would be impossible for come up with one age at which all can vote--some may never reach it and others may be considered little more than a toddler at that level.

But again, thats just my thoughts.

 

[Sindatur]

Where does this Democracy Requirement even come from? I recall the "One World Government" Requirement, which makes sense, so the Government speaks with a single voice, but, I don't recall anything about what form that Government needs to take.

The Federation President is established to be democratically-elected in DS9's "Paradise Lost." And we know from "The Best of Both Worlds, Part I" that the Federation is based upon the principles of freedom and self-determination. So I think we can reasonably infer from these items that the Federation is a liberal democracy and requires its Members to be such.

If you're giving all Adults all the same Rights, then it is absolutely UnDemocratic to denying 18, 19, and 20 year olds the right to consume alcohol.

Well, no, it's not undemocratic. It's illiberal. There's a distinction. Liberal democracy has two basic components to it: Liberalism (that is, liberalism in the classical sense -- the idea that people have inalienable civil rights and civil liberties and that all people ought to be equal under the law), and democracy (the idea that the people get to choose their representatives in the government on the basis of the principle of universal adult suffrage, with one person getting one vote).

when is the goal of adulthood truly attained today?

The age of majority in the United States is 18 years. Some privileges are extended to some minors earlier than that, and adults between the ages of 18 and 21 are discriminated against by denying them their right to consume alcohol on the basis of age.

Self Determination to me, suggests, there is no such requirement to be a Democracy. How can you tout self determination, yet, deny membership to other types of Governments? That's not liberal, nor is it supportive of self-determination, it is dictating how others run their Government.

Also, back to the age thing, physical maturity into adulthood doesn't decide Age of majority, so, in the case of a Geritocracy, the people may indeed physically mature into Adulthood after 18 years, but, due to the respect for the Wisdom of Age, the Age of Majority may be delayed until 28 years, when you have acquired 10 years of Adult Wisdom. I don't see how this can be Undemocratic, since it's the same for everyone, but, I don't buy the requirement of Democracy anyways. I can't imagine a society that is perfect in every way, except they have an Aristocracy would be denied membership, if they didn't let the Federation bully them into throwing away their way of life and governing and adopt Democracy. Furthermore, I can't imagine anyone calling themselves a Democracy or liberalists making that demand.

 

[Sci]

Where does this Democracy Requirement even come from? I recall the "One World Government" Requirement, which makes sense, so the Government speaks with a single voice, but, I don't recall anything about what form that Government needs to take.

The Federation President is established to be democratically-elected in DS9's "Paradise Lost." And we know from "The Best of Both Worlds, Part I" that the Federation is based upon the principles of freedom and self-determination. So I think we can reasonably infer from these items that the Federation is a liberal democracy and requires its Members to be such.

Well, no, it's not undemocratic. It's illiberal. There's a distinction. Liberal democracy has two basic components to it: Liberalism (that is, liberalism in the classical sense -- the idea that people have inalienable civil rights and civil liberties and that all people ought to be equal under the law), and democracy (the idea that the people get to choose their representatives in the government on the basis of the principle of universal adult suffrage, with one person getting one vote).

when is the goal of adulthood truly attained today?

The age of majority in the United States is 18 years. Some privileges are extended to some minors earlier than that, and adults between the ages of 18 and 21 are discriminated against by denying them their right to consume alcohol on the basis of age.

Self Determination to me, suggests, there is no such requirement to be a Democracy.

That's an oddly Orwellian statement.

How can you tout self determination, yet, deny membership to other types of Governments?

Because no government has the right to govern without the consent of the populace over which it governs, which can only be obtained in the form of a democratic mandate.

Liberal democracy is the only sort of government that has a moral right to exist.

And denying Federation Membership to non-liberal democracies does not violate those societies' sovereignty. It's just saying, "Listen: These are our values. Your values violate our values, so you're not going to be a part of our society."

That's not liberal, nor is it supportive of self-determination,

Only a democracy can be truly liberal or supportive of self-determination, because only democracy respects the right of each individual to be represented in their government by an official they helped elect by voting, and only democracies require governments to obtain mandates from the populace.

it is dictating how others run their Government.

No, it is not. If the government of the Autocracy of Slaveworld wants to retain its status as an absolute hereditary dictatorship where 70% of the populace is held in bondage as the property of the other 30%, well, hey, the Federation isn't going to make you change. But you don't get to be in the club if that's how you run your society.

Also, back to the age thing, physical maturity into adulthood doesn't decide Age of majority, so, in the case of a Geritocracy, the people may indeed physically mature into Adulthood after 18 years, but, due to the respect for the Wisdom of Age, the Age of Majority may be delayed until 28 years,

Well, the issue here is that there's no exact definition of "biological adulthood." "Adulthood" is a legal construct, just like the age of minority, and the exact point at which someone is physically mature is impossible to define -- even though we all know there IS a point at which a person is an adult and no longer young enough not to be considered an adult.

What you proposed was not a system in which the age of majority is defined as occurring later than in our system; what you'd previously proposed was a situation in which the age of majority is reached yet voting rights are still denied.

However, I think the Federation would probably put to strict scrutiny a society that wishes to join whose age of majority occurs so long after most of its members reach what looks like physical maturity. That applying society would need to demonstrate that these citizens should not be considered to be legal adults for some compelling reason -- not some vague "wisdom" nonsense, which is completely subjective.

 

[Sindatur]

Wow, you must not live in the united States. We have a Representative Democracy, but, it's not even close to representing the will of the people, it is beholden to Business, Big Money and Party Power, on both sides of the aisle. There is no real difference between them, despite the "flowery things" they say to their individual constituents. Both Republicans and Democrats are purchased by the same entities. In fact, many of those entities purchase both Democrats and Republicans at the same time. Take the Medical Care Reform for isntance. Sweetheart deal for Big Pharma, Requirement for everyone to purchase Insurance, wether they can afford it or not (Sweetheart deal for the Insurance Companies, while screwing the barely making it) or be fined (which they won't be able to afford), nothing in the bill to reduce costs, such as streamlining Claims forms and procedures, which Medical Employees were calling for as a major cost saver, and CBO numbers show no reduction in the number of uncovered people. Why didn't they just expand Medicare/Medicaid to absorb all the uncovered, and implement things the Medical Care Workers say are driving up prices, like the 150 different Claim forms and claim processes? That wouldn't have cost anywhere near what the monstrostity that was passed is going to cost, and wouldn't have needed to be 1000+ pages of payoffs to various donors and purchasing votes from individual Politicians. And...maybe they would've read the darned thing before it was passed instead of coming right and saying "We have to pass it before we can know what is in it"

I hoenstly am flabbergasted that anyone could say with such certainty that no Government other than liberal Democracy has a moral right to exist, what gives you or I the moral authority to make that proclamation? Where do you get the idea that an Aristocracy must be a slaving culture?

I'd be willing to bet, if Saudi Arabia Prime has Dylithium Crystals that the Federation can't do without, and/or territory they need in War, despite their abuse of women (And no, I absolutely would not support their entry into the Federation, and I absolutely would support their denial for entrance)

 

[Sci]

Wow, you must not live in the united States. We have a Representative Democracy,

I'm from Ohio and live in Washington, DC. I am under no illusion that the United States is a liberal democracy in any meaningful sense of the term. It's a pseudo-democratic plutocracy where the game is mostly rigged by the rich and by large corporations, with only a marginal role for the actual people.

it is beholden to Business, Big Money and Party Power, on both sides of the aisle. There is no real difference between them, despite the "flowery things" they say to their individual constituents. Both Republicans and Democrats are purchased by the same entities. In fact, many of those entities purchase both Democrats and Republicans at the same time.

Exactly. Which is why the United States is not a liberal democracy, even though it likes to think of itself as one.

I hoenstly am flabbergasted that anyone could say with such certainty that no Government other than liberal Democracy has a moral right to exist, what gives you or I the moral authority to make that proclamation?

Simple logic. How can a government have a right to exist if it doesn't have the consent of the governed?

I'm not saying the U.S. -- or the Federation -- has the right to impose liberal democracy on other cultures, mind you. That is imperialism, and it is also immoral. But that doesn't mean that illiberal, undemocratic systems have any legitimacy.

Where do you get the idea that an Aristocracy must be a slaving culture?

?

I didn't, I was making a point using an extreme example.

But, no, that doesn't mean aristocracies are legitimate, either. They are by nature oppressive as well.

 

[Sindatur]

Wow, you must not live in the united States. We have a Representative Democracy,

I'm from Ohio and live in Washington, DC. I am under no illusion that the United States is a liberal democracy in any meaningful sense of the term. It's a pseudo-democratic plutocracy where the game is mostly rigged by the rich and by large corporations, with only a marginal role for the actual people.

it is beholden to Business, Big Money and Party Power, on both sides of the aisle. There is no real difference between them, despite the "flowery things" they say to their individual constituents. Both Republicans and Democrats are purchased by the same entities. In fact, many of those entities purchase both Democrats and Republicans at the same time.

Exactly. Which is why the United States is not a liberal democracy, even though it likes to think of itself as one.

I hoenstly am flabbergasted that anyone could say with such certainty that no Government other than liberal Democracy has a moral right to exist, what gives you or I the moral authority to make that proclamation?

Simple logic. How can a government have a right to exist if it doesn't have the consent of the governed?

I'm not saying the U.S. -- or the Federation -- has the right to impose liberal democracy on other cultures, mind you. That is imperialism, and it is also immoral. But that doesn't mean that illiberal, undemocratic systems have any legitimacy.

Where do you get the idea that an Aristocracy must be a slaving culture?

?

I didn't, I was making a point using an extreme example.

But, no, that doesn't mean aristocracies are legitimate, either. They are by nature oppressive as well.

If there's no protesting in the street, no attempted coups and everyone's happy with an Aristocracy, to me, that legitimizes it, that is consent. I am speaking of a Government that is perfect in everyway for entry into the Federation, aside from your one requirement of Democracy. If the people don't rise up (We're not talking Dictatorship here where you get shot for complaining, you ahve every right to protest and you have every right to your freedoms) these are consenting. I don't believe Aristrocracy is opporessive by it's very nature, I believe Humans have been very oppressive in some of their Aristocracies, but, an Alien culture need not be.

 

[Sci]

If there's no protesting in the street,

This is a poor measure of popular consent. People can be too intimidated to protest in the street.

no attempted coups

This is also a poor measure, because attempted coups can have any number of motivations -- including a desire to overthrow a democracy and replace it with an autocracy.

and everyone's happy with an Aristocracy,

The problem here is that there is no way to measure that without taking a vote. At which point, you become a form of liberal democracy.

Having said all that, bear in mind that an aristocracy is as much a matter of how wealth and informal social power are distributed as it is a matter of how the government itself is structured. Systems can be oppressive without being governmental -- just look at the example of 19th Century Britain, with its four hundred or so aristocratic families controlling the destinies of millions of their fellow Britons, who were forced into subservient roles in order to survive.

I am speaking of a Government that is perfect in everyway for entry into the Federation, aside from your one requirement of Democracy.

That's like talking about a man who is perfect in every way to be a husband, except that he never seeks his wife's consent to have sex. Being a liberal democracy is the key to all those other things that make a society acceptable to the Federation; it is the cornerstone upon which the progress that make a society worthwhile is built.

If the people don't rise up (We're not talking Dictatorship here where you get shot for complaining, you ahve every right to protest and you have every right to your freedoms)

"No, I can't go out and protest."

"Why, are you afraid you'll get shot?"

"No, I'm afraid my employer will find out and I'll lose my job. I live paycheck to paycheck; I can't afford to make him angry and risk losing my job."

Not all forms of intimidation are about governmental violence. It's entirely possible to have a "right" to protest, but for that right to only exist on paper.

I don't believe Aristrocracy is opporessive by it's very nature

I really don't see how granting extreme wealth and power to a hereditary class while forcing the rest of society into subservient roles in order to survive could possibly not be considered oppressive. It sounds to me to be the very essence of "caste-based discrimination" that DS9's "Accession" established to be in violation of the Federation Charter.

 

[Sindatur]

Again, why must inherited rulership be oppressive? The reason Human Aristocracies have been oppressive is because of the greed of those Aristocratic Humans, an alien Aristocracy need not be so. We're not talking about Earth here, we are talking about an entirely alien culture, they can't be convicted on our history.

 

[Sci]

Again, why must inherited rulership be oppressive?

Because it's denying the people the right to choose their ruler.

That's like asking why non-consensual sex has to be rape. It's intrinsic to the definition.

 

[scotpens]

In the United States (my native land):
- at 16 years old one may get a driver's license and operate a 2,000 pound automobile
- at 18 years old one must register for Selective Service, become a soldier, die for his country and may vote
- at 21 years old one may go into a bar and/or purchase alcohol

Decades ago, the age for all of the above was 18.

When was that ever the case? The voting age in the U.S. was uniformly 21 until the ratification of the 26th Amendment in 1971, which lowered it to 18. Legal driving ages and drinking ages have historically varied from state to state. Even today, despite the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, 40 states still permit the consumption of alcohol by persons younger than 21 under certain conditions.

Anyway, this thread has drifted so far off-topic that it’s off-planet.

 

[T'Girl]

Anyway, this thread has drifted so far off-topic that it’s off-planet.

On that matter, the topic of the OP, the consensus (of those posting) would seem to be a flat no.

Maybe there should have been a poll?