Federation governance

[Sci]

Continuing from this thread...

Why would the peoples of Earth, Vulcan, Andor, Tellar, and Alpha Centauri create and consent to a system that limits their democratic input into the selection of the President? Why wouldn't you want a direct, popular election?

I know this isn't what you're asking, but direct election undermines democracy by giving all the power to the majority. It ensures that minority voices will never have a say. That's why we have an electoral college in the US. If you break it down into a lot of little elections by state, by region, by neighborhood, then it balances things out.

Well, let me put it this way:

If we're talking legislative elections, I agree with you. I agree that it's a good idea to do something to stack the votes up for people in sparsely-populated areas to make sure that their interests aren't ignored in the legislature. Because legislatures are all about forming policy, and it's important to make sure that the majority doesn't ignore, or roll right over, the minority. Tyranny of the majority and all that. That's why, even though it's not strictly democratic, I think that the situation we have in the United States, where there's a House of Representatives whose districts are all equal in population and a Senate where all the states are equally represented, is a good idea. Sure, the Senate isn't strictly democratic because, say, a Vermonter's vote is much more determinative than a Texan's.

But when it comes to the election of the head of government, I absolutely reject that notion. Formulating legislation is not inherently a zero-sum game; that's why I think it's appropriate to stack the decks a little bit to ensure that the minority is not ignored. But electing the head of government is a zero-sum game, and the idea that any one person's vote in that contest should be more valuable than anyone else's is just offensive and unegalitarian. It's fair to say that we should make sure Vermont or Wyoming aren't ignored in Congress; it is not legitimate to say that Vermonters' or Wyomingites' votes are worth more than mine just because they happen to have fewer neighbors than I do.

And, further, it's not like there's a single set of Jurors that determine the guilt or not-guilt of every single person on trial in the United States; each Juror is charged with determining the guilt or not-guilt of the accused, based upon evidence admitted to the Court by the Judge, under the Judge's instructions of how to proceed, and then goes back to his or her life. It's a very different, much more limited, much more supervised, situation.

Well, who's to say this legislature wouldn't be supervised?

Christopher, I like you, I respect you, you're a good guy with an open mind, and you're brilliant. But you keep saying things that are more and more horrifying.

A supervised legislature? Legislatures aren't supposed to be supervised. They are supposed to have the absolute right to propose bills and pass acts, and in conjunction with the other branches that are co-equal, to make law. They are never, ever supposed to be supervised, because no one else should ever have authority over them.

Otherwise, you're essentially saying that there's just going to be a new, unelected elite in control of an unelected legislature whose members are chosen randomly in imitation of ancient Athens. You're essentially saying that the people who will hold real power won't have a mandate from the people.

How about a bicameral system with one house chosen as discussed from among the general population and the other consisting of more experienced professional legislators?

That doesn't address the fundamental problem of a legislature chosen by lot: That you'd have lots of legislators holding office with no mandate from the people.

The first problem with that idea, as I said before, is that legislating effectively requires a set of skills not equally distributed amongst the population; the people should be the judges of who is qualified, not random chance.

Jury service isn't random chance either. Jury candidates are summoned from the general public, but there are a lot of factors that go into determining whether they're eligible to sit on a given jury. In this proposed citizen legislature, there might be a similar vetting process.

And who decides who gets to vet? On what basis? Who elected the vetters? By whose authority do they get to decide who gets to become a legislator and who doesn't?

You can't compare becoming a legislator to becoming a juror. Jurors don't have power over all of society, just one particular case. Hell, just to make them equivalent, you'd have to have a new legislature for every single bill in the same way there needs to be a new jury for every single case.

The third, and most fundamental, problem with that idea, however, is this:

No one elected them.

You're arguing that someone should be able to hold office and make law without the consent of the governed. That he or she should be able to hold office and make law with no democratic mandate.

But they are the governed. They're chosen by lot from the general population, they serve for a year or two, then they're replaced by another batch chosen by lot from the general population.

That is an absolute non sequitor, Christopher. Everyone who holds office under any system is part of the general population. Hosni Mubarak is an Egyptian citizen, too, but that doesn't mean that he held the consent of the governed.

Because the instant you assume office, you cease to be part of the governed and become one of the governors. That's just the reality of the situation.

If you have a legislature full of people chosen by lot from among the general population, that just means you have a group of legislators holding office without the clearly-expressed consent of the people whom they are legislating. It just means you have a legislature full of office-holders whom the people did not choose. You would be taking away the inherent right of the people to choose their own legislators.

Democracy isn't magic. It's got as many flaws and potentials for abuse as any other system of government. It's better than most of the known alternatives, but that doesn't mean it's smart to cling to it as a religious dogma and refuse to consider whether blending it with other approaches might produce a more functional and fair system.

And who decides what's "fair" or "functional?" By whose authority should such evaluations be made?

Democracy has its flaws, certainly. In fact, I don't favor pure democracy -- I favor liberal democracy. But that doesn't mean that a system whose office-holders do not obtain a mandate from the people is ever legitimate.

At least in this proposed model, nobody is kept in office long enough to do any lasting harm.

This is another problem with the idea of an "Athenian democracy" with legislators chosen by lot. If no one is able to stay in office long enough to do lasting harm, then no one is able to stay in office long enough to do lasting good, either.

Like you, Christopher, I'm originally from Ohio. And in Ohio, we had term limits for members of the Ohio General Assembly. And you know what? It was a bad, bad idea. It led to an amateur legislature full of State Representatives and State Senators who regularly resigned from office before their terms were up, because they knew that they were lame ducks and could advance their careers by jumping ship early. It damaged the process of institutional memory, and prevented legislators from holding office long enough to develop any real expertise in any given area of policy. And worst of all, it led to a vast increase in the influence of unelected lobbyists, who, after all, would necessarily have been in Columbus far longer than the state legislators and would have more legislative and issue expertise.

The cumulative effect of having an amateur legislature is that power ends up falling into the hands of unelected people -- paid advisers who work behind-the-scenes and aren't accountable to the people, and lobbyists who work for the wealthy elite. It actually undermines liberal democracy. It's a horrible idea.

And sure, you need professional-level skills, but there could be advisors put in place for that.

So, in other words, unelected advisers would have actual power and setting policy, with the randomly chosen citizen as a figurehead?

How is that democratic?

You're making a caricature of this, and that's beneath you.

No, I'm not, I'm describing the realistic effect of having a legislature that is so inexperienced -- advisers would be the people with real power, the ones making the real decisions, not the legislators.

"Citizen?" Singular?

Yes, citizen. Singular. The legislator at the head of his or her office, for whom the advisers work, in the same way that, for instance, you today have someone who is the Chief of Staff for the Office of Untied States Senator Harry Reid.

What the hell? I'm not talking about picking one person to be king, I'm talking about one house of the legislature consisting of a large number of individuals selected by lot from the general population, for a single term at a time.

Yes. And what you're describing would lead to those legislators' advisers being the people who develop real expertise and experience, and, therefore, real power.

True. Though, to be fair, that does present a reasonable question about the nature of Federation democracy. If we assume that most Federation Members have more or less an equal population, it's all good -- but if you have a situation where the typical Federation Member has, say, 6 billion citizens, but Members like Deneva suddenly have maybe 1 million or fewer, you basically have a situation where a Denevan Federate's vote is much more influential, much more determinative, than, say, a United Earth Federate's.

That's why, like I discussed before, you don't have a single planetwide election, but a bunch of local elections whose cumulative results determine the winner. That way everyone's more fairly represented.

That doesn't address the fact that a Federate from a less-populated Member will inherently have a more-determinative vote than a Federate from a more-populated Member, if every Member is represented equally on the Council. There's just no way around that. The only solution is to do what the U.S. does and balance it out with a legislative house whose members do not represent all of the Members equally, but instead represent all of the citizens equally.

Like I said above, I don't object to a legislature where some people's votes are worth more than others, because I think that's the only way to make sure that the minority isn't rolled over in the legislature. I just object to it in elections for the executive.

Yes, all Federation Members need to be democracies. If they're not, then the Federation itself is not a democracy -- and not worth a damn.

Where has it been stated that all Federation members must be democracies?

In the canon? It hasn't. I'm making that assertion, right now, because if the Federation does not make liberal democracy a requirement for Membership, then it's a worthless union. Liberal democracy is the only legitimate form of government.

I think that's a very narrow-minded attitude.

I am, indeed, an absolutist on this issue.

Now, I don't think the United States has the right to tell other cultures how they ought to govern themselves, and I don't think the U.S. ought to just withdraw diplomatic recognition from every non-liberal democracy out there.

(Hell, frankly, given recent developments, I'm not entirely confident the United States still qualifies as a liberal democracy.)

But I absolutely reject the idea that other governmental systems have any moral legitimacy, or that the Federation should have any other governmental system.

It may be one of the most effective ones we've managed to cobble together to date, but it's got a lot of flaws, and we shouldn't rule out the possibility that someone could invent a better one in the future. Things like this shouldn't be treated as matters of ideology and dogma. We should be open to finding whatever system works best based on evidence, not on rigid ideology.

Christopher, politics and governance are not a science, because there is no such thing as objectivity in them. Any system of government is inherently a matter of ideology, because systems of government are all about making choices and determining priorities.

Liberal democracy is the only legitimate form of government because it is the only form of government that combines a strong set of legal protections for the rights of the individual and of minorities with a requirement that the office-holders obtain a mandate from the people whom they govern. It is, frankly, the only system of government that can combine protections for rights and the consent of the governed. Every other system of government inherently requires disregarding one or the other -- even though you need both for a government to have any legitimacy.

Now, what form liberal democracy takes can certainly vary. The United Kingdom is a liberal democracy that has taken over the old mechanisms of an absolute monarchy, for instance; even though there is a Queen, real power lies with the democratically-elected Parliament and its Prime Minister and Cabinet. It is, in other words, a liberal democracy dressed up in a monarchy suit. That's fine.

And, hell, if we get all science fiction-y, something like the Caeliar gestalt in Star Trek: Destiny could certainly qualify as a liberal democracy, even if they don't go through the process of holding physical elections: If everyone is telepathically linked to the Gestalt chooses their preferred office-holder, and everyone can tell who has the most supporters, and there's a binding law protecting everyone's rights, then, hey, you have a liberal democracy on your hands.

But, no, I absolutely reject the idea that any other form of government is legitimate. Any government that does not protect the rights of the individual or of minorities is illegitimate, even if it is popularly elected; that sort of government would be an illiberal democracy. A good example of that would be Putin's Russia. And any government that does not hold office with the consent of the governed is also illegitimate, even if it has strong protections for the rights of the individual or of minorities. (A good example of that one might be the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.)

Like I said, checks and balances are the key. Democracies without adequate checks and balances can easily become unjust and tyrannical -- a democratically elected president may be free to dissolve the legislature and suspend due process at a whim.

That would be an illiberal democracy, not a liberal democracy. They are distinct political systems.

There is absolutely no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship. The entire concept is self-contradictory and absurd.

Well, that depends. Do you mean a dictator in the modern sense, or in the original Roman sense of a magistrate given absolute power in an emergency, like Cincinnatus?

1. It's pretty obvious from context that I meant it in the modern sense.

2. My statement accurately describes the old Roman concept of a magistrate given absolute power in an emergency. After all, the last man to hold the Roman dictatorate never gave it up.

The second thing I'd ask is: On what basis would such candidates be chosen? By whom? Who gives those people the authority to determine who may stand for election? I haven't read Imperial Earth, but that sounds very ominous to me.

I think in the novel the candidates were chosen by a computer based on an unbiased assessment of their qualifications.

In other words, on the basis of whatever qualities the programmers of that computer system (and their bosses) viewed as positive and important, according to their biases.

I don't think that's a reasonable argument at all. Plenty of people want power for specific purposes, not just for the sake of having power.

But personal political ambition does blind a lot of people from serving the good of the public. Just look at members of Congress who deliberately scuttle valuable reforms or deliberately force the government to shut down just so they can make the party in power look bad and improve their chances of gaining power in the next election. Our current system is terribly corrupt and dysfunctional, and it's largely because of ambition and self-interest trumping responsibility.

Sure -- but there's no way to be absolutely certain you can stop that that unless you're willing to take away people's rights to chose their own legislators.

And who decides when a legislator is blocking a bill because he's out to hurt the other side, and when a legislator is blocking a bill because he honestly thinks it's a bad idea? How do we determine that?

Indeed, there's canonical evidence that such a system applies to some extent in the Federation: in "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost," President Jaresh-Inyo said that his fellow councillors asked him to run for president. It wasn't his idea.

Actually, his exact line was, "I never sought this job. I was content to simply represent my people on the Federation Council. When they asked me to submit my name for election, I almost said no. Today I wish I had."

So we don't know who asked him to run -- only that "they" did.

Given the sentence structure, the intended antecedent is clearly either "my people" or "the Federation Council." Proximity suggests the latter. In general, if you follow a proper noun with a pronoun, and are skilled in speaking clearly as a politician presumably would be, then it's a safe assumption that the proper noun is the antecedent of the succeeding pronoun. If Jaresh-Inyo did intend some other, unspecified "they," if he was suddenly changing the subject without letting his listeners know, then his communication skills are sorely lacking for a president. True, we've had presidents who abused the English language horribly, but nothing else in Jaresh-Inyo's dialogue suggests a Bush-like ineptitude.

Yeah, but he was obviously thinking aloud to himself in a moment of stress, not trying to be an effective communicator at that moment. I don't think it's reasonable to come to any conclusions about who asked him to run for President. It could be other members of the Council, it could be the majority of Grazerites, it could be the Federation Civil Liberties Union or Amnesty Interstellar or Sentient Rights Watch, it could be his aunt and uncle Jadra- and Rifna-Inyo. We just don't know.

 

[Sci]

Continuing...

If you're referring to the UFP medallions that most people in the TVH Council Chamber scenes were wearing, those were explained in some behind-the-scenes material as being visitors' badges, essentially -- they were worn to show you were authorized to be there.

That would work except not everyone is wearing them. The people who seem to be councillors or members of Starfleeet are, Sarek is, but Spock (who wasn't charged with anything and was sitting with Sarek, apprently as an observer) isn't wearing one and neither is Gillian Taylor, also sitting with Sarek. The Enterprise crew, being the accused are not but they would also be authorized to be there, would they not? In short, everyone who is weating the medallions seems to be doing so in some sort of official capacity. They're not just visitors badges.

In other words: We don't know what they are.

How about a bicameral system with one house chosen as discussed from among the general population and the other consisting of more experienced professional legislators? (Which I believe is pretty much the form the Martian government took in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy, which I strongly recommend. He explains the principles a lot better than I can here.)

Perhaps that's why there's two of most of the various races in the council chambers? One is the directly elected member and the other is the one chosen from the professional legislators on their home planet.Perhaps every two years the Council member for Vulcan, for instance, steps down and a replacement is chosen by lot of the current Vulcan world government. That's how T'Pau could have been chosen. She then turns it down to continue with her current position, staying on the planet rather than travelling to Earth. She did seem to be rather a stay at home type.

I'm not sure how that differs from the idea that a Federation Councillor might be chosen by a democratically-elected Federation Member government, which was one of the ideas I originally proposed, except insofar as you're assuming two Councillors from each Member instead of one.

(Also, another reason not to assume the people in the bleachers are Federation Councillors: Spock and Gillian were sitting in the bleachers when Kirk and Company entered the Chambers, and we know they're not Councillors. So we already know that not everyone in the bleachers is a Councillor -- that opens the door to not assuming that any of them must necessarily be Councillors.)

Individual planets could choose their "elected" representative by whatever means they choose.

... isn't that what the novels have already established? That each Federation Member gets to determine for itself how its Councillor will be determined -- some do direct popular elections (Betazed), some have their political parties run a Councillor as part of the party's "Shadow Cabinet" (Andor), and some have their heads of government appoint the Councillor with the confirmation of their legislature (Bajor).

I can't really see Vulcans with "Vote for Spork" signs in the front yard and attack ads on the holo-displays "T'Bonz - She is NOT logical".

Why not? We've seen plenty of times that Vulcans can be just as political and irrational as any other culture.
I can.

The Federation President seems to have a fair bit of power over Earth, at least, and perhaps over other planets as well. Why would the Federation President be the one to issue a planetary distress call instead of the leader of the United Earth government?

What makes you think there need have only been one planetary distress call? In real life, declarations of states of emergency can occur at both the federal and provincial/state levels, simultaneously. I see no reason to assume that the United Earth Prime Minister couldn't have been sending out a planetary distress call at the same time as the Federation President. And it's perfectly reasonable for the Federation President to send one, too, since the effects of the Probe threatened the Federation government, too, not just the U.E. government.

Is Earth the UFP's District of Columbia?

Sweet Zombie Jesus, I hope not. Few political set-ups in nominal liberal democacies are as fundamentally unjust, unegalitarian, illiberal, and undemocratic as the wanton violation of the right of residents of the District of Columbia to run their District the way they want without undue federal interference and to be equally represented in the United States Congress.

(Can you tell I'm an advocate for D.C. statehood)?

Earth could still have the ability to make individual treaties regarding trade and cultural exchanges but may be more limited in it's ability to control anything off planet.

Well, I think that any Federation Member would by definition have to accept limits on the conduct of their foreign affairs. That's inherently a right of the sovereign state, not its constituent polities. We know that Federation Members conduct some forms of foreign relations with non-Federation worlds and with other Federation worlds, but by definition major foreign policy decisions, like going to war, would fall to the Federation government (as seen in TOS, ST6, TNG, and DS9).

A limit to keep Earth from becoming too powerful with all the big guns of the Federation at it's fingertips?

I think that's silly. Earth houses Starfleet Headquarters, but the Federation is so large that its forces would by definition have to be spread far and wide across many Federation Members' worlds in order to effectively defend Federation territory. And being housed on Earth does not mean the Federation government would be dominated by it; the Federation Councillor from United Earth would by definition be only one of over 100 Councillors.

There are going to be as many new forms of government we encounter as there are new civilizations.

Not necessarily. Similar pressures, as I noted before, could easily prompt the independent evolution of similar forms of government to cope with those pressures.

Let's not forget the Prime Directive.

Firstly, the Prime Directive, first off, is a Starfleet General Order, not binding Federation law. That's why Federation citizens were able to interfere with the internal affairs of Angel One -- they weren't Starfleet officers.

Secondly, the Federation's civil equivalent to the Prime Directive was established in "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges." And it is a provision of the Federation Charter that bans the Federation government from interfering in the internal affairs of foreign cultures.

Foreign cultures. As in, not-Federation.

Now, the Federation is, of course, a federation. As a federation, they almost certainly practice federalism: The division of authorities between the Federation and Member governments. So, yeah, there are probably some areas where the Federation can't interfere. Consensual homicide seems to be legal on Vulcan, for instance, so long as you both agree to participate in the Koon-ut-kal-if-fee.

But there's no evidence the Federation does not have the authority to ban certain practices if they are deemed violations of the Guarantees of the Federation Constitution. In fact, Constitutional Guarantees that can't be so backed would be inherently useless. And we've already seen that Federation law over-rides local law when we saw that the Federation Council can ban speeds above Warp 5.

Ardana may have been allowed to keep it;s caste system when it joined but it also agreed to treat it's citizens fairly and provide for the health and welfare of all.

That's like saying Ardana got to keep separate-but-equal.

At the end of the day, what we're running into here is that there's a contradiction between saying that there are certain rights that are universal and sacrosanct, and saying that every individual culture's practices are all equal and should all be respected.

 

[Christopher]

But when it comes to the election of the head of government, I absolutely reject that notion. Formulating legislation is not inherently a zero-sum game; that's why I think it's appropriate to stack the decks a little bit to ensure that the minority is not ignored. But electing the head of government is a zero-sum game, and the idea that any one person's vote in that contest should be more valuable than anyone else's is just offensive and unegalitarian. It's fair to say that we should make sure Vermont or Wyoming aren't ignored in Congress; it is not legitimate to say that Vermonters' or Wyomingites' votes are worth more than mine just because they happen to have fewer neighbors than I do.

You're wrong. The electoral college system is far more fair and egalitarian than a single direct election would be. Like I said, it's simple statistics. The smaller the pool in an election, the higher the probability that a single person's vote will be the deciding one. So a bunch of small elections gives more potential power to the individual than a single big election. A single big election would always be won by the majority, so the minorities would be perpetually powerless; that would be what gave some people disproportionately more power than others and undermined democracy. So you've got it completely backward here. I don't think the electoral college system I'm talking about has anything to do with whatever state-based thing you're talking about.

Christopher, I like you, I respect you, you're a good guy with an open mind, and you're brilliant. But you keep saying things that are more and more horrifying.

Your mind is terribly closed. All I'm doing is saying, let's not take things for granted. Let's be open to alternative possibilities. Let's be smart enough to admit we don't know everything. I'm not saying I'm certain any of these things would work, but I think they're interesting enough to be worth giving a hearing to. You don't seem to be willing to do even that. You're fanatical about your political views. And I think that's far more dangerous, no matter what views you're advocating, than keeping an open mind, which is the only thing I'm advocating.

And I have no interest in continuing a debate with someone so hostile to keeping an open mind.

 

[Sci]

But when it comes to the election of the head of government, I absolutely reject that notion. Formulating legislation is not inherently a zero-sum game; that's why I think it's appropriate to stack the decks a little bit to ensure that the minority is not ignored. But electing the head of government is a zero-sum game, and the idea that any one person's vote in that contest should be more valuable than anyone else's is just offensive and unegalitarian. It's fair to say that we should make sure Vermont or Wyoming aren't ignored in Congress; it is not legitimate to say that Vermonters' or Wyomingites' votes are worth more than mine just because they happen to have fewer neighbors than I do.

You're wrong. The electoral college system is far more fair and egalitarian than a single direct election would be.

In a zero-sum contest for who gets to be the head of government, there is nothing egalitarian about making one person's vote more valuable than another person's vote.

A single big election would always be won by the majority, so the minorities would be perpetually powerless;

That's true in legislative elections, but that's not true of executive elections. Seeing the person you opposed elected President (or First Speaker, or Castellan, or whatever) does not automatically render you powerless. It just means that your favored candidate did not win the election.

Christopher, I like you, I respect you, you're a good guy with an open mind, and you're brilliant. But you keep saying things that are more and more horrifying.

Your mind is terribly closed. All I'm doing is saying, let's not take things for granted. Let's be open to alternative possibilities. Let's be smart enough to admit we don't know everything. I'm not saying I'm certain any of these things would work, but I think they're interesting enough to be worth giving a hearing to. You don't seem to be willing to do even that.

Christopher, that is patently false. I gave a hearing to every single proposal you and DrBashir made. When I disagreed with them, I gave detailed reasons why I disagreed with them. It wasn't a matter of, "This is bad because I say so."

You are confusing someone disagreeing with you with someone not listening.

You're fanatical about your political views.
And I think that's far more dangerous, no matter what views you're advocating, than keeping an open mind, which is the only thing I'm advocating.

And now you're resorting to calling me names? That's beneath you, Christopher. And saying that a system of government that does not obtain a mandate from the people it governs and/or does not strongly protect the rights of the individual and of minorities does not make someone a fanatic.

 

[DimesDan]

I really am not sure this mass debate between the two of you should belong here, shouldn't it be in say General Trek or TNZ as the theoretical speculation encompasses more than just Lit.

 

[Relayer1]

Part II.

Where has it been stated that all Federation members must be democracies? That's a more stringent requirement than even states in the United States must meet; the Constitution merely requires a "republican form of government." For example, a state governed by a military junta would, technically, be a republic since, in poly-sci terms, a republic is a state not governed by an hereditary monarch. Even China is a republic.

I can see no reason why an anarchic state could not be a member (apart from the fact that anarchists aren't great 'joiners' !)

Well, that's a pretty good reason right off the bat. And there's also a very simple fact: Anarchy is just as oppressive as authoritarianism. If there is no government, life becomes nothing less than the rule of the strong over the weak. The exercise of naked power becomes the only law. That quickly degenerates into elitism, deprivation, poverty, tyranny.

If you want a good luck at an anarchic state today, look at Somalia. Somehow I doubt they'd qualify for Federation Membership.

There is absolutely no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship. The entire concept is self-contradictory and absurd.

Make no mistake: Any dictatorship, of any sort, inherently requires abuses of human rights (in the Star Trekkian context, I suppose we'd call them sentient rights). Any dictatorship inherently means violating the inherent right of the people to choose their own government democratically. It inherently means being unaccountable to anyone. It inherently means that there is no rule of law, only the rule of the dictator. And because it is impossible for a dictator to hold onto power without doing it, it means suppressing dissident movements, stifling free speech, and violating the right of freedom of association.

There is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship. All dictatorships are inherently tyrannical.

What you describe is not anarchy, it is a lack of central control resulting in oppression by the strong - essentially authoritariasm. We are discussing a fantasy universe here - is it so hard to imagine a race that does not prey on each other simply because they can ? Unlikely yes, impossible no. An old and wise race that have moved beyond the need to be governed and restrained perhaps ? Certainly not human.

You seem to favour democracy - most do, me included. Fair enough - in reality it is the lesser of several evils, but there is no inherent right for people to choose their own government nor any guarantee that it will have better results than the alternative.

Picture this - enough resources so that everyone has enough for a very comfortable and satisfied life. One person is in charge and goes to great pains to ensure their subjects are provided for. The population have no say in who this person is and the position is permenant. You either live happily under their rule or leave. Dictator yes, but tyrant ?

 

[Sci]

I really am not sure this mass debate between the two of you should belong here, shouldn't it be in say General Trek or TNZ as the theoretical speculation encompasses more than just Lit.

I wasn't sure whether to put it here or in Gen Trek, but settled on Trek Lit because it spun off from a Lit discussion. If a mod decides it belongs in Gen Trek, I'd have no objections.

What you describe is not anarchy, it is a lack of central control resulting in oppression by the strong - essentially authoritariasm. We are discussing a fantasy universe here - is it so hard to imagine a race that does not prey on each other simply because they can ? Unlikely yes, impossible no. An old and wise race that have moved beyond the need to be governed and restrained perhaps ?

Even if we accept the idea that a race that does not require a government to prevent the strong from abusing the weak, I'm afraid there'd still need to be a government of some kind. Someone has to pick up the trash, after all, and there has to be some way for them to make decisions as a planet. And there would certainly need to be a government in place if they joined the Federation, since they'd necessarily have to deal with intra-Federation immigrants who are less socially "mature."

You seem to favour democracy - most do, me included. Fair enough - in reality it is the lesser of several evils, but there is no inherent right for people to choose their own government

Yes, there is. That's a basic right. Thomas Jefferson put it best: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Bold added.

nor any guarantee that it will have better results than the alternative.

There's never any guarantee that a democratic government will succeed, no. For that matter, there are lots of things that aren't guaranteed to produce good results; there's no guarantee that a marriage will last, for instance. But the people have a right to choose their own government, just like individuals have a right to marry. This is sacrosanct.

Picture this - enough resources so that everyone has enough for a very comfortable and satisfied life. One person is in charge and goes to great pains to ensure their subjects are provided for. The population have no say in who this person is and the position is permenant. You either live happily under their rule or leave. Dictator yes, but tyrant ?

Yes, a tyrant. He is denying his people their right to choose their own government, and he is forcing any who oppose him into exile. That is not the behavior of a leader who is respecting his people's rights.

 

[Relayer1]

This is the future - there is no need to manufacture goods or produce energy - replicators deal with everything, even taking out the trash. They wouldn't want to make decisions as a planet and wouldn't need a government at all.

Of course, without one they could hardly represent themselves to, or join the federation, but it would be discriminatory to say they couldn't !

The choosing of your government is only a 'right' if you subscribe to that political viewpoint - it is hardly a physical law. In fact the attempt to impose that viewpoint on others could be considered oppression of the alternatives. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it's all down to spin and viewpoint !

I get the distinct impression that given a choice you would rather live an unhappy and difficult life in a democracy than a contented and comfortable life in a dictatorship. Look at the end result, not the philosophy.

 

[Sci]

This is the future - there is no need to manufacture goods or produce energy - replicators deal with everything, even taking out the trash. They wouldn't want to make decisions as a planet and wouldn't need a government at all.

Of course, without one they could hardly represent themselves to or join the federation, but it would be discriminatory to say they couldn't !

Well, yes, but being discriminatory isn't always an oppressive thing. It's just as discriminatory to say that a world that allows slavery can't join the Federation, but that's not a bad thing. It's perfectly reasonable of the Federation to say that it does not trust that any society lacking a government would not degenerate into tyranny of the strong over the weak, and that therefore no world lacking a government can join.

The choosing of your government is only a 'right' if you subscribe to that political viewpoint - it is hardly a physical law.

Yes, but that's true of all rights, including the right to freedom of speech, the right to freedom of religion, the right not to be enslaved, the right not to be sexually assaulted, etc.

In fact the attempt to impose that viewpoint on others could be considered oppression of the alternatives. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it's all down to spin and viewpoint !

I'm not sure what you mean by "oppression of the alternatives." Do you mean oppressive against those who oppose liberal democracy, or oppressive against the idea of something other than liberal democracy?

 

[Relayer1]

In fact the attempt to impose that viewpoint on others could be considered oppression of the alternatives. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it's all down to spin and viewpoint !

I'm not sure what you mean by "oppression of the alternatives." Do you mean oppressive against those who oppose liberal democracy, or oppressive against the idea of something other than liberal democracy?

It could be both tbh. The bottom line is usually that peoples views of their rights usually overlap and conflict with others views of theirs.

I am playing Devils Advocate a little too hard here - I could easily find myself standing up for things I don't believe in ! Our democracies are flawed in many ways but they are still the best options available to us.

That does not mean that better alternatives might not exist elsewhere/when.

 

[Sci]

In fact the attempt to impose that viewpoint on others could be considered oppression of the alternatives. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it's all down to spin and viewpoint !

I'm not sure what you mean by "oppression of the alternatives." Do you mean oppressive against those who oppose liberal democracy, or oppressive against the idea of something other than liberal democracy?

It could be both tbh. The bottom line is usually that peoples views of their rights usually overlap and conflict with others views of theirs.

It's true that people's views of their rights sometimes overlap or conflict with others' views of their rights -- look at all the people who object to same-sex marriage because they think it somehow infringes upon their marriages. But I strongly object to the idea that if, say, the dictator of the Planet Zog is removed from office because the vast majority of the Zog Monsters don't want him holding office, its rights have somehow been violated. No one has a right to hold office -- holding office is a privilege earned by obtaining a mandate from the people.

I am playing Devils Advocate a little too hard here - I could easily find myself standing up for things I don't believe in ! Our democracies are flawed in many ways but they are still the best options available to us.

That does not mean that better alternatives might not exist elsewhere/when.

Let me put it this way:

When I'm talking about liberal democracy, I am not necessarily talking about representative democracy. I'll accept the idea that there might be systems other than representative democracy that can be valid, so long as those other systems are still liberal democracies. If we look at, say, the Caeliar from Star Trek: Destiny, all Caeliar are part of their telepathic gestalt. If all Caeliar regularly vote when making decisions, and they all have strong legal protections for the rights of individuals and minorities? I'd say that we'd have a direct democracy rather than a representative democracy, but that that direct democracy would still constitute a liberal democracy and still be legitimate.

But, no, I don't think that any government where the people do not choose their leaders and where the rights of individuals and minorities are not protected, is legitimate. And I don't see how any government that does not do those two things could be legitimate.

 

[Cicero]

Sweet Zombie Jesus, I hope not. Few political set-ups in nominal liberal democacies are as fundamentally unjust, unegalitarian, illiberal, and undemocratic as the wanton violation of the right of residents of the District of Columbia to run their District the way they want without undue federal interference and to be equally represented in the United States Congress.

(Can you tell I'm an advocate for D.C. statehood)?

I disagree. To my thinking, the District of Columbia belongs to the people of the United States, not merely to those who live within it, and it should be governed on our combined behalf. (I do think that Congress should delegate most authority to an appointed supervising officer.)

The District was established as an area under national authority from the outset - no one was deprived of their rights of self-government. Persons who later came to live there, under the established system of national rule, have no right, as I see it, to demand representation of any kind in the government of the area which belongs to the people of the United States as a whole (aside from their Constitutional right to vote for Presidential and Vice Presidential electors).

If they desire their natural rights to representation, they should move to a part of the United States not ab initio under Congressional rule. (I can say from experience that Maryland and Virginia are within easy commuting distance of the District.)

But, no, I don't think that any government where the people do not choose their leaders and where the rights of individuals and minorities are not protected, is legitimate. And I don't see how any government that does not do those two things could be legitimate.

Would a popular liberal dictatorship, (i.e. a dictatorship limited by guaranteed rights and supported by a majority the people), be legitimate in your estimation? So long as it observed the rights of individuals and minorities, it would seem to meet your second requirement, and so long as it enjoyed popular support, it could be argued to meet the first requirement (if choice were equated with Jefferson's consent, along the lines of the broad popular support for Napoleon's dictatorship).

I suppose the crux of the matter might be the nature of democracy. Is the right to formally vote essential, or merely the right to withhold consent?

 

[Sci]

But, no, I don't think that any government where the people do not choose their leaders and where the rights of individuals and minorities are not protected, is legitimate. And I don't see how any government that does not do those two things could be legitimate.

Would a popular liberal dictatorship, (i.e. a dictatorship limited by guaranteed rights and supported by a majority the people), be legitimate in your estimation? So long as it observed the rights of individuals and minorities, it would seem to meet your second requirement, and so long as it enjoyed popular support, it could be argued to meet the first requirement (if choice were equated with Jefferson's consent, along the lines of the broad popular support for Napoleon's dictatorship).

I suppose the crux of the matter might be the nature of democracy. Is the right to formally vote essential, or merely the right to withhold consent?

I think the right to withhold consent is not enough; the people have to actively chose their government in order for it to be said to have a mandate.

The more interesting question though is, would a democratically-elected person given executive, legislative, and judicial authorities be legitimate if his actions were constrained, by law and constitution, so as to protect the rights of the individual and minorities? If it were, in other words, to be a situation in which all of the powers of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary are invested in a single person rather than a group of people?

I'm not sure what I think of that. It's an interesting question. I suppose on some level, it's an irrelevant abstraction, because such a system would never actually function; this elected Leader would inherently have to delegate at least some legislative functions, and almost all judicial functions, just to be able to carry out the executive functions.

To me, that brings up the question Christopher raised earlier -- is it a democratic if a minority, in the process of formulating legislation, is consistently ignored by the majority? As I said earlier, I would tend to argue that it's democratic to stack the decks a bit in legislatures but not in executive elections. If we have a situation where the two are one and the same, however, then there's conflict.

I suppose that the question boils down to, is this elected Executive-Legislature-Judiciary-All-In-One constrained by law to make sure that the interests of minorities are given special weight and aren't ignored whilst in the process of formulating policy (in the same sense that, say, the U.S. Senate stacks the decks a bit for states with low populations)? If the answer is yes, and if, again, this elected All-In-One is legally and constitutionally bound to not infringe upon individual and minority rights, I would tentatively say that this set-up would constitute a liberal democracy, and thus possesses legitimacy. Given that, I would argue it would probably qualify for Federation Membership.

Sweet Zombie Jesus, I hope not. Few political set-ups in nominal liberal democacies are as fundamentally unjust, unegalitarian, illiberal, and undemocratic as the wanton violation of the right of residents of the District of Columbia to run their District the way they want without undue federal interference and to be equally represented in the United States Congress.

(Can you tell I'm an advocate for D.C. statehood)?

I disagree. To my thinking, the District of Columbia belongs to the people of the United States, not merely to those who live within it, and it should be governed on our combined behalf. (I do think that Congress should delegate most authority to an appointed supervising officer.)

Cicero, I want to emphasize that this is not a personal attack. But as a Washingtonian who lives just outside the District only because of constraints finding affordable housing within it, I've gotta say, that argument makes me angry as all hell.

This is our District, no one else's. The rest of this country has no legitimate interest in controlling the District's internal affairs. We are a distinct political culture from Maryland or Virginia, and we should not be deprived of the same rights to govern our internal affairs and to be represented in the Congress as everybody else.

The District was established as an area under national authority from the outset - no one was deprived of their rights of self-government.

Yeah, because no one lived there at the time. Then a distinct community of people developed, and now there are people who are born and raised here. They are being deprived of their right to self-government.

Persons who later came to live there, under the established system of national rule, have no right, as I see it, to demand representation of any kind in the government of the area which belongs to the people of the United States as a whole (aside from their Constitutional right to vote for Presidential and Vice Presidential electors).

That's just absurd. Why would they have a right to vote for President but not representation in Congress? Why should someone born in D.C., who loves D.C., for whom D.C. is their home, have to leave D.C. in order to be represented in Congress? Why should some Congressman from Arizona get to tell D.C. whether or not it can, for instance, use city taxes to fund abortion clinics, or allow same-sex marriage?

If they desire their natural rights to representation, they should move to a part of the United States not ab initio under Congressional rule. (I can say from experience that Maryland and Virginia are within easy commuting distance of the District.)

There are half a million people living in the District of Columbia, and more than a few of them are too poor to move. The idea that they should all just move to Maryland or NoVa is just absurd and impractical -- to say nothing of the fact that D.C. citizens don't want to be Marylanders or Virginians, nor do Virginians or Marylanders want to absorb D.C. citizens. Indeed, D.C. citizens have held two constitutional conventions in the last forty years voting for statehood, and produced two draft state constitutions.

The rest of the country has no legitimate interest in keeping D.C. as a federal district. None. That was a legitimate concern two hundred years ago, when there was a legitimate concern over one state dominating the Union. But the political culture has changed, and no one state possibly can dominate the Union anymore. Other federations have been able to have their capital city be a state given complete equality with other states -- Berlin is a land that's co-equal with all the other lander in the Federal Republic of Germany, for instance. And to top it off, more people reside within the District of Columbia than reside within the State of Wyoming.

D.C. deserves statehood. Period.

And the idea of the United Federation of Planets imitating such a grossly unequal, undemocratic system is just horrible.