How Did Viewers in the '60s Perceive the Federation?

[uniderth]

Let's not forget Kirk's reference to the Earth Federation in "Friday's Child."

Then JtB established that the Federation is in fact mutli-species, but it comes off as a rather loose political alliance between sovereign states, each maintaining their own military in the same way Germany has their own army despite being part of NATO and the EU. Starfleet, then, is part of the Federation, but still a human organization (Spock being a special case).

I initially misinterpreted your comment but it brings up a distinction that I think is worth discussing. Note you said Starfleet is still a human organization. I initially read that as "earth" organization and I disagreed with that because early on the operating organization is presented as UESPA. But after thinking about it I agree that Starfleet is a Federation organization that is primarily human; while UESPA is the Earth space organization that is also human, obviously.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Never really thought much about it back then. It was mostly in the background or something to get a plot going. (Escort a Federation ambassador to planet X to solve problem Y).

 

[Damian]

Can you think of any examples of socialism in TOS? Obviously there are plenty in TNG, but when did TOS promote or show positive examples of socialism?

Even in TNG though I'm not sure I'd call the Federation socialist. Everyone had the requirements of life but they didn't really seem to have "money" in the future.

In a way it's probably the ultimate utopia where anyone can be anything they wish to be. If you wanted to be a capitalist and make money (gold pressed latinum I guess), for instance, you could be a capitalist. Socialism really wouldn't allow that, I don't believe the two can co-exist.

You didn't have to worry about food and the necessities of life, so it freed people up to pursue their own interests.

I think it helps that people in the future were more enlightened in general (as always there are some exceptions). I think people in the future wanted to live in harmony with each other and with the planet. In a sense that would make socialism unnecessary.

But I never got the impression it was actually socialist, where the government had firm control over the Earth's economy through heavy taxation and regulations. It actually didn't seem necessary on Earth at that time. Because the citizens of Earth were more enlightened, socialism wasn't needed, at least as we understand it today.

In fact I'd almost call Earth and the Federation libertarian, because anyone could be anything they wanted to be.

 

[1001001]

The Federation was definitely not Libertarian.

 

[XCV330]

If the Federation had any kind of political system with a western equivalent, it might have been Georgist, but there's so little on screen details about the UFP, even now, that it's all guesswork. I suspect the member states especially in the early days maintain their own space navies, their own economies, their own cultures, etc. Sometime during the lost era, Federation became more cohesive. Whether that would have been due to diffusion or some outside pressure is up to someone to put in a movie or tv show someday.

As for it being more human centric: wombs win in the long term. Maybe humans outbred everyone else.

 

[Christopher]

In a way it's probably the ultimate utopia where anyone can be anything they wish to be. If you wanted to be a capitalist and make money (gold pressed latinum I guess), for instance, you could be a capitalist. Socialism really wouldn't allow that, I don't believe the two can co-exist.

Of course capitalism and socialism can coexist -- they've done so for generations in the US and Europe, although conservatives in the US and probably in Europe too are now doing their best to tear down the socialist programs in favor of pure, heartless capitalism. Socialism, in the democratic sense as opposed to the Marxist sense, is simply any government program that regulates the free market in order to prioritize the well-being of the public or the national interest over the profit of business owners -- environmental regulations, national health care programs, federal infrastructure programs, food stamps and other assistance programs for the poor, etc. A healthy balance between capitalist and socialist elements has allowed Western economies to thrive for generations. Not only can they coexist, but they need to coexist, for a system that fully embraces one without the other is too imbalanced and too prone to extremes -- such as the extreme and worsening income inequality in the US after conservatives have spent decades eroding the social safety net that was built after the Great Depression.

In fact I'd almost call Earth and the Federation libertarian, because anyone could be anything they wanted to be.

That's only true in Diane Carey novels.

 

[Damian]

Of course capitalism and socialism can coexist -- they've done so for generations in the US and Europe, although conservatives in the US and probably in Europe too are now doing their best to tear down the socialist programs in favor of pure, heartless capitalism. Socialism, in the democratic sense as opposed to the Marxist sense, is simply any government program that regulates the free market in order to prioritize the well-being of the public or the national interest over the profit of business owners -- environmental regulations, national health care programs, federal infrastructure programs, food stamps and other assistance programs for the poor, etc. A healthy balance between capitalist and socialist elements has allowed Western economies to thrive for generations. Not only can they coexist, but they need to coexist, for a system that fully embraces one without the other is too imbalanced and too prone to extremes -- such as the extreme and worsening income inequality in the US after conservatives have spent decades eroding the social safety net that was built after the Great Depression.




That's only true in Diane Carey novels.

My main point was that I don't think you could apply current philosophical labels to the future depicted in Star Trek shows. I don't feel socialism as seen today is really the right word for the Federation of the future. Maybe in the pure sense of the word. But I don't even feel that would fit. Since all the needs of the people of Earth, and probably most of the Federation, are met, there's no need for government to get involved. What I mean by libertarian is that people of Earth are free to pursue their interests whatever they may be with little if any government involvement, because it seems unnecessary. In DS9 they refer to Earth as a paradise and I think that's a good word for it. Since they eliminated many of the problems that plague us today, the government can be more hands off when it comes to people's day to day lives and affairs. It's simply not necessary.

Is it a bit of a fantasy? Maybe. But one of the things that attract me to Star Trek in the first place was it was a futuristic show where humanity didn't destroy ourselves in some fashion. A show where we overcame those difficulties that plague us today. Simply put, it's a nice future for a change. Troi's speech in First Contact summed it up perfectly, when she tells Cochrane that after First Contact mankind will eliminate wars, poverty and hunger.

 

[Christopher]

My main point was that I don't think you could apply current philosophical labels to the future depicted in Star Trek shows. I don't feel socialism as seen today is really the right word for the Federation of the future.

Well, for one thing, these aren't philosophies, they're economic models. What I've never understood about economic systems is how some people treat them as ideologies, almost like religions, and fanatically oppose any system other than the one they believe in. I mean, economics is practical, not abstract. It should be more like science than religion or politics -- the systems that get used should be the ones that work, and they should be adjusted to fit the evidence. If the best results come from combining elements of two or more economic models, then it's insane to reject that fact because it clashes with one's sense of ideological purity.

Otherwise, though, I agree. Capitalism, socialism, and other extant economic models are based on an economy of scarcity, dealing with the question of how best to distribute and manage finite resources. Replicators would create a post-scarcity society where most resources were no longer finite, and thus it would be necessary to create new economic models. Again, it's stupid to look on them as if they were religious doctrines or immutable laws of nature.

Since all the needs of the people of Earth, and probably most of the Federation, are met, there's no need for government to get involved. What I mean by libertarian is that people of Earth are free to pursue their interests whatever they may be with little if any government involvement, because it seems unnecessary.

That's not what libertarianism means. Libertarianism isn't the idea that the government is harmless, it's the idea that government and shared responsibility of any form are active threats to individual liberty. The Federation clearly does have a central government, one whose policies and laws maximize individual freedom rather than destroying it. People can do whatever they want because the government protects and maintains a system that ensures they have the freedom and resources to do whatever they want (for instance, by operating Starfleet to defend the Federation from conquest and expand its science and technology for the betterment of its citizens). That is anathema to libertarian beliefs.

In DS9 they refer to Earth as a paradise and I think that's a good word for it. Since they eliminated many of the problems that plague us today, the government can be more hands off when it comes to people's day to day lives and affairs. It's simply not necessary.

It's entirely necessary -- it's just generally invisible. Individuals can't thrive without the support of programs that individuals are unable to organize and manage on their own -- infrastructure, schools, medical research and public health programs, etc. Libertarianism is such a self-absorbed and childish fantasy because its proponents don't realize how many nationwide, collective programs they rely on every day of their lives. They'd be nowhere if they had to build their own houses and cars and educate themselves and make their own clothes and tools and medicines and so on. Nobody could survive that way. The freedom for individuals to thrive requires collective, societal effort to do big, important things that can't be managed by individuals. The ideal is for the federal government to handle all those big collective things well enough that people can take them for granted and benefit from them as they pursue their own individual freedoms without interference.

 

[XCV330]

It's entirely necessary -- it's just generally invisible. Individuals can't thrive without the support of programs that individuals are unable to organize and manage on their own -- infrastructure, schools, medical research and public health programs, etc. Libertarianism is such a self-absorbed and childish fantasy because its proponents don't realize how many nationwide, collective programs they rely on every day of their lives. They'd be nowhere if they had to build their own houses and cars and educate themselves and make their own clothes and tools and medicines and so on. Nobody could survive that way. The freedom for individuals to thrive requires collective, societal effort to do big, important things that can't be managed by individuals. The ideal is for the federal government to handle all those big collective things well enough that people can take them for granted and benefit from them as they pursue their own individual freedoms without interference.

Applauds. You hit the bullseye. Repeatedly.

I used to be a Libertarian. Capitol "L" card carrying Libertarian, party-member, actually. I was an idiot . After reading "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do" in college, I fell for the trap of finding what I thought was this easy answer that would fix everything if people just opened their eyes. That never works out. It preys on a desire we have to feel like we've figured it out while the preceding old fogeys never had a clue. It belies the fact that life is a lot more complicated. I also totally misunderstood a decent book.

We're a social species. We've done as well as we have because we need one another and can pool talents. The urge for having elbow room, personal freedom, self-reliance will only grow as we feel, if we reach a post-scarcity economy without much need for human labor, that we're not needed and subject to whims, but whereas the state can be a threat to freedom, it's also the only practicable way to uphold it. We don't need private firefighting companies fighting each other on the streets while cities burn. We've been through that nonsense already. It's rough to find a balance, but a guaranteed standard of living and a free market don't have to be juxtaposed. They work well together.

 

[1001001]

Applauds. You hit the bullseye. Repeatedly.

I used to be a Libertarian. Capitol "L" card carrying Libertarian, party-member, actually. I was an idiot . After reading "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do" in college, I fell for the trap of finding what I thought was this easy answer that would fix everything if people just opened their eyes. That never works out. It preys on a desire we have to feel like we've figured it out while the preceding old fogeys never had a clue. It belies the fact that life is a lot more complicated. I also totally misunderstood a decent book.

We're a social species. We've done as well as we have because we need one another and can pool talents. The urge for having elbow room, personal freedom, self-reliance will only grow as we feel, if we reach a post-scarcity economy without much need for human labor, that we're not needed and subject to whims, but whereas the state can be a threat to freedom, it's also the only practicable way to uphold it. We don't need private firefighting companies fighting each other on the streets while cities burn. We've been through that nonsense already. It's rough to find a balance, but a guaranteed standard of living and a free market don't have to be juxtaposed. They work well together.

"Every man for himself" works great...if you're healthy, wealthy, and/or privileged.

That is pretty much the opposite of Star Trek.

 

[Christopher]

My thinking has long been influenced by a Larry Niven story called "Cloak of Anarchy," set in a park on a future Earth where all laws were suspended and people could do anything they wanted except hurt each other, with that one rule enforced by security drones who'd stun anyone who got out of line. In the story, an industrious saboteur shuts down the security drones, and it takes mere hours for the resultant "absolute freedom" to degenerate into violent chaos, which quickly gives way to strongman rule as the toughest bullies impose feudal tyranny over everyone else. It's basically a microcosm for why libertarianism (or communism in its idealized form, for that matter) can't work. Freedom for everyone is only possible if there's some authority to prevent the strong from bullying the weak.

 

[Noname Given]

Maybe the other races in the Federation (TOS era) were all mostly humanoid peoples that and the fact that it cost big bucks to alter the look of their actors week in and week out kept the look very much Terran!
JB

I always took it as logical (no pun intended) that you would group crews together based on common life support requirements - IE You'd have ship crews of mostly Humans, or Vulcans (like the U.S.S. Intrepid) or Andorians, etc. Spock was in with a Human crew because yes, life support requirements were similar, but he was also half Human - so he would still 'fit in' on a ship of Humans.

I thought TNG started to get ridiculous with the occasional mention of crew members on board with different life support requirements as it would be dangerous for them if the ship was not 100% (IE their particular life support systems would have a better chance of failing, etc. when compared to the 'bulk' of the rest of the ship.)

 

[Christopher]

I don't think it's ridiculous to make an environment accessible for species with different life-support needs, any more than it's ridiculous to make a sign readable to the blind or a building accessible for a person in a wheelchair. It may take more effort to bridge the difference, but it's an effort that it's ethically appropriate to make. Using difference as an excuse to exclude or divide people is pretty much the opposite of how the Federation is supposed to work.

 

[Damian]

Well, for one thing, these aren't philosophies, they're economic models. What I've never understood about economic systems is how some people treat them as ideologies, almost like religions, and fanatically oppose any system other than the one they believe in. I mean, economics is practical, not abstract. It should be more like science than religion or politics -- the systems that get used should be the ones that work, and they should be adjusted to fit the evidence. If the best results come from combining elements of two or more economic models, then it's insane to reject that fact because it clashes with one's sense of ideological purity.

Otherwise, though, I agree. Capitalism, socialism, and other extant economic models are based on an economy of scarcity, dealing with the question of how best to distribute and manage finite resources. Replicators would create a post-scarcity society where most resources were no longer finite, and thus it would be necessary to create new economic models. Again, it's stupid to look on them as if they were religious doctrines or immutable laws of nature.




That's not what libertarianism means. Libertarianism isn't the idea that the government is harmless, it's the idea that government and shared responsibility of any form are active threats to individual liberty. The Federation clearly does have a central government, one whose policies and laws maximize individual freedom rather than destroying it. People can do whatever they want because the government protects and maintains a system that ensures they have the freedom and resources to do whatever they want (for instance, by operating Starfleet to defend the Federation from conquest and expand its science and technology for the betterment of its citizens). That is anathema to libertarian beliefs.




It's entirely necessary -- it's just generally invisible. Individuals can't thrive without the support of programs that individuals are unable to organize and manage on their own -- infrastructure, schools, medical research and public health programs, etc. Libertarianism is such a self-absorbed and childish fantasy because its proponents don't realize how many nationwide, collective programs they rely on every day of their lives. They'd be nowhere if they had to build their own houses and cars and educate themselves and make their own clothes and tools and medicines and so on. Nobody could survive that way. The freedom for individuals to thrive requires collective, societal effort to do big, important things that can't be managed by individuals. The ideal is for the federal government to handle all those big collective things well enough that people can take them for granted and benefit from them as they pursue their own individual freedoms without interference.

I wasn't trying to debate the merits of different models of today so much as what the future Federation might look like. It seemed to me that the Federation had evolved beyond those types of models altogether. On most of the worlds of the Federation, and on Earth in particular socialism isn't necessary because there is no longer want or need. Capitalism isn't necessary really because the acquisition of wealth is no longer considered desirable (though that is an option available to you if you desire it but that's not even really the same because in general people of the Federation aren't stepping on others to acquire that wealth, capitalism without exploitation). Libertarianism as we know it today doesn't seem necessary either because the government and the people seem to live more in harmony. When you eliminate money as a necessary means to survive, a lot of those issues that we have today disappear.

I was discussing libertarianism more from the idea of people pursuing their own interests without government interference. Less so from an economic standpoint, or even political. A small 'l' libertarianism as opposed to Libertarianism as a political/economic model. But in a sense that would be as unnecessary in the Federation as socialism and capitalism (or combination).

 

[Lieut. Arex]

Watching TOS, I always got the feel the Federation was a much younger body than the later shows present.

The fragile state of the alliance in"Journey to Babel", I'd say supports a young Federation interpretation

 

[Christopher]

I wasn't trying to debate the merits of different models of today so much as what the future Federation might look like. It seemed to me that the Federation had evolved beyond those types of models altogether.

Yes, that's just what I'm saying -- that it would be unreasonable to expect existing economic models based on scarcity to be applicable to a post-scarcity society. They would have to be replaced by new models.

On most of the worlds of the Federation, and on Earth in particular socialism isn't necessary because there is no longer want or need.

Of course there's still need -- there's a need for the government to keep the peace and preserve the order and infrastructure that allow individuals to thrive and live freely. That's exactly what socialism is about. We know that the Federation in the 23rd century uses a system of credits, which means electronic currency. That system can't function unless there's a stable electronic infrastructure, an information network that operates freely, reliably, and with full neutrality. Somebody has to maintain, regulate, and secure that infrasturcture. It wouldn't just magically happen. There would have to be a central government making sure the system works smoothly and ensures everyone's equal access. There would probably need to be some kind of universal basic income system to ensure that resources are distributed evenly rather than hoarded or misallocated; that wouldn't just randomly happen either. There's also transportation infrastructure to consider -- the shipping of goods from planet to planet, the building and maintenance of ultra-complicated systems like starships and transporters and subspace transponders. Plus other "socialist" programs like universal health care, free education, everything in which a centrally regulated infrastructure would be needed to provide services to the citizenry on an equal basis.

 

[Tenacity]

because the acquisition of wealth is no longer considered desirable

To people like Picard, it is desirable to people like Vash.

 

[Lieut. Arex]

In fact I'd almost call Earth and the Federation libertarian, because anyone could be anything they wanted to be.

I think a case can be made for a strong libertarian impulse in the TOS-era UFP, we see capitalist economics, and a regular emphasis on the importance of the individual and his right to exercise his free will to chose his path through life, similarly, the prime directive recognizes the right of cultures to organize themselves as they see fit and to conduct their affairs free from interference from outside provided they respect the right of other peoples and cultures to do likewise, perhaps not libertarian, but certainly a more classically liberal society, thsn the one we see in TNG

 

[Damian]

Yes, that's just what I'm saying -- that it would be unreasonable to expect existing economic models based on scarcity to be applicable to a post-scarcity society. They would have to be replaced by new models.




Of course there's still need -- there's a need for the government to keep the peace and preserve the order and infrastructure that allow individuals to thrive and live freely. That's exactly what socialism is about. We know that the Federation in the 23rd century uses a system of credits, which means electronic currency. That system can't function unless there's a stable electronic infrastructure, an information network that operates freely, reliably, and with full neutrality. Somebody has to maintain, regulate, and secure that infrasturcture. It wouldn't just magically happen. There would have to be a central government making sure the system works smoothly and ensures everyone's equal access. There would probably need to be some kind of universal basic income system to ensure that resources are distributed evenly rather than hoarded or misallocated; that wouldn't just randomly happen either. There's also transportation infrastructure to consider -- the shipping of goods from planet to planet, the building and maintenance of ultra-complicated systems like starships and transporters and subspace transponders. Plus other "socialist" programs like universal health care, free education, everything in which a centrally regulated infrastructure would be needed to provide services to the citizenry on an equal basis.

Yes, and I agree with that. I just don't think it would be very recognizable to socialists today. I'm not saying they're anarchists, or even Libertarian as it would be defined today. But that as far as needing money for the basics of life like food, water, medicine, things of that nature, that's no longer necessary. What I was trying to point out is that frees up people to do what they truly want in life, hence my argument that it's a more libertarian society from that end of things, or as Arex pointed out above, a more classicly liberal society. That you don't need a job so you can pay the bills. You get a career because it's something you're passionate about.

To people like Picard, it is desirable to people like Vash.

True, but I was speaking of the Federation in general. And because there is no scarcity as it exists today in the Federation, Vash is free to engage in the pursuit of material wealth if she wishes too. That really wasn't her problem. Her problem is when she broke the laws of various worlds and stole things.

 

[Christopher]

I think a case can be made for a strong libertarian impulse in the TOS-era UFP, we see capitalist economics, and a regular emphasis on the importance of the individual and his right to exercise his free will to chose his path through life

I don't see the connection there. Libertarians hardly have a monopoly on the concept of individual rights. That concept is intrinsic in every form of democracy. Libertarianism just takes it to an irrational extreme in which it's the only consideration, rather than being balanced with other responsibilities and realistic needs like you'd have in an actually viable and functional real-world system.

What I was trying to point out is that frees up people to do what they truly want in life, hence my argument that it's a more libertarian society from that end of things.

Same response. Individual liberty is not synonymous with libertarianism. They don't own the idea.