Imagining the Federation governmental structure
- Thread starter Penta
- Start date
Good point, access to other cultures and civilizations would be a prime reason to join any interstellar organization. A species without curiosity most likely would not create a warp drive and without a warp drive Starfleet wouldn't permit contact (after the prime directive).
The UN can barely function because it's hopelessly corrupt and internally mismanaged, by managing the flow of money into the UN the member nations exercise control over the UN leadership.
Those Members who are democracies (most) would have their policies toward the Federation and it's actions set by their populace through their representatives. If the Federation is in conflict with a worlds population and it's collective views, then that population can express it's displeasure through political means. Their Federation Councilperson would be the first step, protesting the Federation's position, maybe openly condemn it in council. Next step would be the voice of the Member government, using it's economic and diplomatic position with other Members to bring increasing levels of pressure on the Federation council.
The populace could also network with people on other member worlds, explaining their views and concerns. If enough councilpersons receive new instructions, Federation policy changes. If on the other hand the councilpersons are voting their own conscience this won't work.
A intractable position on the Federation Presidents part could lead to a recall election and the President being shown to the door. The denial of the ability to directly tax and the possible withholding of operating funds are just a few of the tools the Federation has over it's own (subservient) government.
Under my idea of the Federation government being a servant, not a master, the final step in a profound dispute would be the Federation council being simply dissolved and reconstituted.
Under your idea of the Federation government the final step might be the seceding of the Member state. Once upon a time the State of South Carolina did try that.
Good question.
Last edited:
Why doesn't the federation just give all it's member states replicator technology and have done with it? If they're widely available to humans, why not aliens
They would have to do it gradually, and ensure that they didn't use them to turn on the Federation, but they could just give them ones that will only churn out food and hospitals, not weapons.
It says in lonely among us that tolerance seems to be the main quality for membership.
They would have to do it gradually, and ensure that they didn't use them to turn on the Federation, but they could just give them ones that will only churn out food and hospitals, not weapons.
It says in lonely among us that tolerance seems to be the main quality for membership.
^^^
Actual I think that replicators technology is generally available, I mean Quark had one in his bar for God's sakes. I also think that there are limits and restriction on what they can do. A replicator could be programed not to produce a weapon, but then there is the problem of hacking that portion of the program language out. Redefining a phaser in the eyes of the replicator as a stick of butter.
One of the restrictions would be power, if you asked a replicator for a kilogram of antimatter, how much antimatter would be consumed in the reactor to produce what you just asked for? One for one? I think more like two or three to one. And if you wanted a machine tool that weighed a couple of kilos, it would consume more power than if you asked for the same weigh in styrofoam, because of molecular density.
The replicator can't make everything, latinum is one example, if you were to request a dilithium crystal I believe the replicator would present a piece of quartz crystal instead (dilithium is chemically quartz). A replicator can't make a pancreas or a liver for surgical transplant into a Human being. Although it might give you the liver with a nice side of fried onions.
I'm trying to remember a canon scene where Crusher or Bashir replicates medical pharmaceuticals. The dispensing machine we see doesn't appear to be a replicator. They may not yet trust replicator technology to do that, drugs arrive by cargo ship instead.
Food. There is at least some evidence that the food and drink made by the replicators is inferior to "real" or natural products. Is the food genetically the same or just tastes and looks close enough. I assume that the Enterprise's replicated food is perfectly nutritious, but does it taste as good as something that grew out of the ground, or that ran across it?
I don't think that a replicator can make things out of "pure" energy, they require base material. It might be just be carbon, oxygen, etc. More likely it "beams out" of stock bins the appropriate amounts of proteins, starches and fats, rearranges them into food and materializes the meal in your repilcator. Sorry, but after you go to the bathroom the replicator refills the stock bins.
Cheapjack, the 24th century will have replicators, They'll come in handy, certainly for emergencies. For the everyday, metal will be mined out of the ground, fed into a lesser machine than the replicator, after minutes or hours, tools and parts will arrive. Cheapjack you'll use the tools to assemble the parts into more machines. Put dead chickens and cotton tufts into a hopper in that machine, then get dinner and feather pillows out the far end.
___________________
While typing out the above post I misspelt the word "replicator" and my spell checker caught it, how cool is that?
.
Actual I think that replicators technology is generally available, I mean Quark had one in his bar for God's sakes. I also think that there are limits and restriction on what they can do. A replicator could be programed not to produce a weapon, but then there is the problem of hacking that portion of the program language out. Redefining a phaser in the eyes of the replicator as a stick of butter.
One of the restrictions would be power, if you asked a replicator for a kilogram of antimatter, how much antimatter would be consumed in the reactor to produce what you just asked for? One for one? I think more like two or three to one. And if you wanted a machine tool that weighed a couple of kilos, it would consume more power than if you asked for the same weigh in styrofoam, because of molecular density.
The replicator can't make everything, latinum is one example, if you were to request a dilithium crystal I believe the replicator would present a piece of quartz crystal instead (dilithium is chemically quartz). A replicator can't make a pancreas or a liver for surgical transplant into a Human being. Although it might give you the liver with a nice side of fried onions.
I'm trying to remember a canon scene where Crusher or Bashir replicates medical pharmaceuticals. The dispensing machine we see doesn't appear to be a replicator. They may not yet trust replicator technology to do that, drugs arrive by cargo ship instead.
Food. There is at least some evidence that the food and drink made by the replicators is inferior to "real" or natural products. Is the food genetically the same or just tastes and looks close enough. I assume that the Enterprise's replicated food is perfectly nutritious, but does it taste as good as something that grew out of the ground, or that ran across it?
I don't think that a replicator can make things out of "pure" energy, they require base material. It might be just be carbon, oxygen, etc. More likely it "beams out" of stock bins the appropriate amounts of proteins, starches and fats, rearranges them into food and materializes the meal in your repilcator. Sorry, but after you go to the bathroom the replicator refills the stock bins.
Cheapjack, the 24th century will have replicators, They'll come in handy, certainly for emergencies. For the everyday, metal will be mined out of the ground, fed into a lesser machine than the replicator, after minutes or hours, tools and parts will arrive. Cheapjack you'll use the tools to assemble the parts into more machines. Put dead chickens and cotton tufts into a hopper in that machine, then get dinner and feather pillows out the far end.
___________________
While typing out the above post I misspelt the word "replicator" and my spell checker caught it, how cool is that?
.
I think the main problem with interspecies relations will be whether or not they have the same level of technology, and whether or not they will be a threat if they do. Information will be the main trading currency. What happens if they have a better technology, will they give it to us? Will they give us their medicines? And, how do we avoid an Iraq type situation arising, where we give them weapons, and they turn on us? I don't think we will give them weapons, just technology.
A lot of the mechanisms of the federation goverment will be concerned with this.
A lot of the mechanisms of the federation goverment will be concerned with this.
Of course you do.
I hate to tell you this, but replicators don't create matter out of nothing. (Nothing is created from nothing; that's an essential law of physics.) They create matter out of energy, and that energy has to come from somewhere. Someone has to generate and channel the energy to every replicator, and they'll have to be compensated.
Further, somebody has to design the computer patterns used as templates to replicate objects. That information has to come from somewhere and be compensated for.
Further, has has been established time and again, when it comes to things like food, replicators produce poor substitutes for real matter.
Further, there are plenty of things that simply cannot be done by machine. Machines are very bad at creating art, at telling stories, at making decisions. Machines are not going to be good at cooking. Machines are not going to be good at regulating information, at conducting business. Machines -- and I'm not counting sentient artificial lifeforms like Data or the EMH in the definition of "machine" here -- cannot think, and therefore cannot do the numerous jobs out there that require creating thought... all of which must compensate their holders.
Replicators would almost certainly eliminate poverty and hunger. They would almost certainly grant to everyone a standard of living currently associated with the middle class of the major developed countries.
They would not end money.
Dude, even if it's at low cost, there's still a cost.
Sure. This is what we're all saying. (Though I question whether or not there would be enough millionaires/billionaires out there to really constitute a genuine economic class.)
It's just that we acknowledge that money will still exist. That's all.
That's already the challenge today.
And "The Neutral Zone" and other claims that the Federation does not use money contradicts numerous other episodes and films. One piece of evidence does not define this debate.
Plenty of Americans are, and plenty of Americans are not. For someone claiming to be a Trekkie, you're awfully big on stereotyping.
To be fair, there were numerous worlds that Starfleet contacted openly in TOS that lacked warp drive. The impression I get there is that if a species has not developed warp drive but it has already been contacted by other aliens, the Federation may contact them.
And because countries like the United States refuse to pay their dues if the U.N. dares to stand up to them when their policies, like the Iraq War, are in clear violation of international law.
God knows what would happen if a significant bloc of Federation Member States wanted to do something that violated Federation law (such as, say, claim Coridan as their internal territory and exploit its people and its dilithium resources as in "Journey to Babel") and the Federation were as helpless to stop them as the U.N. was to stop the U.S. invading Iraq.
Sure.
But, let's talk about the early Federation. Five Member States: United Earth, the Confederacy of Vulcan, the Andorian Empire, the United Planets of Tellar, and Alpha Centauri.
Let's say that the population works out this way:
United Earth: 6.5 billion
Confederacy of Vulcan: 6 billion
Andorian Empire: 2 billion
United Planets of Tellar: 4 billion
Alpha Centauri: 2.5 billion
Total Population: 20.5 billion
Now, let's say that Federation firms sometimes trade with firms from the People's Republic of Coridan. And let's say that Alpha Centauri, Andorian, and Tellarite firms have been taking advantage of the fact that Coridanite firms don't need to pay their workers decent wages to mine dilithium, making use of virtual slave labor to mine the dilithium used to construct Tellarite, Andorian, and Alpha Centauran ships. The Tellarite, Andorian, and Alpha Centauri Member State governments want this arrangement to continue. Starfleet has long since cut off its contracts with Coridanite firms for dilithium mining, as has the Federation government and the governments of Earth and Vulcan. Earth firms and Vulcan firms are banned under Member State law from trading with Coridanite firms.
As a result, the Federation Councillors from Earth and Vulcan have co-sponsored a bill banning all Federation firms from trading with Coridanite firms unless those Coridanite firms are paying their workers a decent minimum wage, but the Tellarite President, Andorian Chancellor, and Alpha Centauri Governor have all come out against it. The Federation Councillors from those worlds haven't yet said whether they'd back their home worlds' governments or side with the the new bill.
So, you have a situation where the majority of Federation citizens -- 12.5 billion Federates -- oppose continuing Federation trade with Coridan, yet the majority of Federation Member States -- Alpha Centauri, Andor, and Tellar, 3 out of 5 -- favor continuing it.
What should the Federation do in that instance? And who, for that matter, should the Federation Councillors from Tellar, Andor, and Alpha Centauri side with? The 12.5 billion Federates who oppose trade with Coridan, or the 8.5 billion who support it?
And what does the Federation do if, as in your system, Alpha Centauri, Andor, and Tellar all start withholding money?
You see why I say that Member State governments shouldn't necessarily have so much say themselves? You can have a situation where Member States with far lower populations end up setting Federation policy against the wills of the majority of Federation citizens.
No, the final step in your situation would be the dissolution of the Federation, permanently, because there would be no real mechanism for resolving conflicts with political actors unwilling to compromise.
I say the Federation works for all Federates everywhere -- not for its Member governments. After all, the Federation Charter did not say, "We the governments of the peoples of...," it said, "We the life forms of the United Federation of Planets..."
(And, yes, I say that the United States does not and should not work for its states, but for its people, too.)
There is no evidence that replicators are any less widely available in the rest of the Federation than they are on Earth.
Last edited:
'Of course you do.
I hate to tell you this, but replicators don't create matter out of nothing.'
But they have relatively cheap fusion power, that does it for them.
They may have credit, but I don't think they have money in the way that we have. There would be other ways of trading, and not barter. And they certainly wouldn't be as obsessed with the possession of it. Maybe only the biggest things, like starships and boats and luxuries, wold have to be paid for. There'll still be crime and death and you'll still have to go to the toilet, but life will be a lot different.
Sci:
You are still thinking in 20th Century terms, there will be no arguments over minimum wage, by humans at least, in the 24th Century.
The main currency would be knowledge. We're heading that way now. And rare medicines and dilithium, which cannot be replicated. Perhaps, in that instance, humans baser instincts would come into force.
I hate to tell you this, but replicators don't create matter out of nothing.'
But they have relatively cheap fusion power, that does it for them.
They may have credit, but I don't think they have money in the way that we have. There would be other ways of trading, and not barter. And they certainly wouldn't be as obsessed with the possession of it. Maybe only the biggest things, like starships and boats and luxuries, wold have to be paid for. There'll still be crime and death and you'll still have to go to the toilet, but life will be a lot different.
Sci:
You are still thinking in 20th Century terms, there will be no arguments over minimum wage, by humans at least, in the 24th Century.
The main currency would be knowledge. We're heading that way now. And rare medicines and dilithium, which cannot be replicated. Perhaps, in that instance, humans baser instincts would come into force.
Last edited:
Not only that - if you take into account the TNG Technical Manual (and simple logic) they also need other matter in the first place. They don't create matter out of energy, they rearrange matter using energy. Granted, waste can be used extensively, but you'll always need new matter as well.
Aside from currency, I'm not sure what these other ways might be.
And that's basically what we've all been saying from the start.
'And that's basically what we've all been saying from the start.'
Really?
I watched 'The Neutral Zone', again last night. Good episode.
'Not only that - if you take into account the TNG Technical Manual (and simple logic)'....
Rocks are fairly cheap, aren't they? Or soil, or water, or sand?
'Aside from currency, I'm not sure what these other ways might be'
Perhaps everyone would just be given a basic allowance, maybe even enough to go off-world on. You would still have bartenders and teachers and public servants. People would do jobs cos they wanted to, not cos they have to.
Really?
I watched 'The Neutral Zone', again last night. Good episode.
'Not only that - if you take into account the TNG Technical Manual (and simple logic)'....
Rocks are fairly cheap, aren't they? Or soil, or water, or sand?
'Aside from currency, I'm not sure what these other ways might be'
Perhaps everyone would just be given a basic allowance, maybe even enough to go off-world on. You would still have bartenders and teachers and public servants. People would do jobs cos they wanted to, not cos they have to.
'And that's basically what we've all been saying from the start.'
Really?
Yes. You're the one who's been trying to twist our words to make us sound like we're all Milton Friedmanites.
'And that's basically what we've all been saying from the start.'
Really?
Yes. You're the one who's been trying to twist our words to make us sound like we're all Milton Friedmanites.
The overwhelming opinion seemed to be, at first, that human nature would not be changed by man and that people will have exactly the same interests, motivations and government structures as people today and there would be no change. You seem to have come a little towards my thinking, and GR's. Good.
'And that's basically what we've all been saying from the start.'
Really?
Yes. You're the one who's been trying to twist our words to make us sound like we're all Milton Friedmanites.
The overwhelming opinion seemed to be, at first, that human nature would not be changed by man and that people will have exactly the same interests, motivations and government structures as people today and there would be no change. You seem to have come a little towards my thinking, and GR's. Good.
Dude, I haven't "come" towards your way of thinking; my opinions haven't changed in the course of this thread.
You just can't tell a difference between skepticism of utopianism (I don't think money will ever cease to exist, or that Human nature will ever change, or that there can exist a governmental structure superior to those found in modern liberal democracies) and a belief that the future will not get better and we're all doomed to all of the same problems we face today.
Uh, we did? Somehow, I don't see that.
GR believed his own propaganda of life imitating art. That's all it was - propaganda. Advertising puffery put out to satisfy an early Trek fandom who, in some cases, had a frighteningly tenuous grip on the difference between reality and fiction.
Swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. Despite the fact that it has no basis in reality or rationality.
Put plainly, it does not ring true. At all. It does not begin to.
Look, I don't like the replicator as a tech for a lot of reasons - it kills the drama of the show in a lot of ways, and makes innumerable plots, including plenty of plots shown on TNG, basically wall-bangers in logic terms - but what I especially dislike is being asked to presume that in less than 100 years (because a capitalist economy seemed incredibly well-entrenched in TOS, only...80 years before EAF?), human nature changed drastically. In 80 years, less time than one's *grandparents* would live according to TNG lifespans, the basics of human nature are supposed to have "evolved". Not subtly at all, but in a very drastic way.
To which I reply: BS, total and utter BS. Not merely in terms of just how much we're being asked to presume, but how fast it's supposed to have happened and how amazingly frictionless it's supposed to have been.
Here are some basic constants about social change over any group of planetary scale, to say nothing of larger scales:
1. Mass communication speeds up the process, but it still takes time - measured in decades at a minimum - for even the most subtle of changes to societal norms to take place. The larger the group, the longer it takes. The more drastic the change posited, the longer it takes. Overturning capitalism and basic economics would not take 80 years. It could not be completed in 300 years. It would be the replacement of thousands of years of accumulated structures, lifestyles, and even ways of thinking. (Yes, I know modern capitalism began pretty much with Adam Smith in 1776. But Smith was describing forces that had exerted influence upon human society since basically the dawn of civilization.) It would take a millennium at minimum, regardless of the cataclysms you visit upon human society to speed things up.
2. Change is never frictionless. Ever. Drastic changes in the social order are generally how civil wars happen in countries. (Or are the result of civil wars.) They are how wars break out between countries. Within societies, even changes as subtle as (and this is a really subtle example until maybe 50 years ago - it used to take technologies decades to go from intial introduction to full adoption, until after WW2, pretty much) the arrival of new technologies brings friction. Not always violent, no, but more often including violence than not. The rise of automation in the workforce was a process that still goes on today...And still provokes friction. Quite often violent friction; just look at the regular battles on picket lines to see an example. It started centuries ago. It's how we got the Luddites, people who destroyed machinery in an attempt to stop the mechanization of the workforce, in the 1800s.
3. Plus ca change.... Trite but true. You do realize why Winston Churchill made his comment about democracy being the worst of all systems, except all the others which had been tried?
Because humanity has at some point tried every system of government imaginable, and a few that would probably make your head spin. (They made my head spin.) Nany have been tried within the past 200 years.
Sure...Democracy sucks. It may not seem "futuristic" enough. It's messy as hell.
But here's the thing. Humans are an innately conservative species when it comes to government. It takes a lot to topple even the worst governments.
Plus...Look at the near future Trek posits.
The Eugenics War, first. Which by TOS's estimates was at least as deadly as WW2 a few times over.
Then...World War 3. *Including nuclear exchanges*.
Even with the Vulcans coming, we're supposed to believe that humanity somehow crawled out of the irradiated ashes and threw away all it knew?
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
That is not what humans do when disaster strikes. They look for strong men. They cling to old habits and old traditions.
It defies all of human history. All the thousands of years of it. I can see some pretty striking political changes happening after World War 3 and First Contact, which is why I don't entriely reject Trek's future history wholesale.
But I'm supposed to believe that after all that, humanity's basic nature somehow changes.
Again....WTF? Not how people work. Not how human psychology works.
There's more than this 3, but these 3 are fairly basic.
To believe GR's propaganda requires me to ignore human nature.
That, to me, is insane. It's not a storytelling conceit, because it strangles storytelling.
It's insane. It's ignorant.
Hence, I can't swallow it.
So why would I use it in trying to posit and explore what I believe to be a workable structure for the Federation Government?
tl;dr
Why are you watching ST if you think it's all propaganda? You're remarks are insulting. Everyone knows that technology has changed things for man. You apparently can't.And matter replicators and relatively cheap fusion power will change things even more. Things change, whether you like it or not. I haven't read one post, apart from my own, that addresses this. Things will be the same, but some bits will change. You say ww3 will have no impact on things as ww2 had little. What about the UN? that was brought about by WW2 and has had SOME influence on things, surely.
Information will be the main currency in the 24th Century. We're heading that way now. The standard of living will have increased enormously, beyond our recognition, as it has in the 20th Century. People will no longer have to work for the basics and will be free to pursue their interests. The powerful in the 20th Century will most likely adapt and survive, as the neutral zone has shown.Yes some power structures will be recognisable, but they will be derived from structures all over the world, not just American. British, Japanese, African,maybe even the American Indian's power structures will be used"
That's Star trek.Your knowledge of history is good, but please stop trying to turn ST into something it's not. you couldn't have thought of it. The fact that it is so popular shows that the average Joe believes, or wants to believe in all that 'propaganda'. You're just trying to jump on the bandwagon and steer it into a ditch.
Cynicism is good, in some ways. It helps you keep a level perspective. But, you can have too amuch of it.
If you told a 13th Century peasant of all the thingss his descendants would be able to do, in the 20th Century, he wouldn't believe you. He'd say you were fantasising. But, he'd be wrong. If you simply told him that the poorest in the 20th Century didn't have to smell of cabbage, and could even smell fragrant and could get washed every day, he would burst out laughing! what would he say if you told him he could be a millionaire, own a mansion? Would he say you were insane, ignorant? Yes, he would.
I have sometimes thought that they should do a show or a book about the seamier side of life in the ST universe, just to keep some people happy!
Last edited:
And this is why you can't argue with this guy. He's not here to share his interpretation, exchange ideas and reconcile canon with engaging theory and intellectual debate.
If you watch the same show, and have a different viewpoint than he does, hey, man, give it up. Because expressing your own opinions is INSULTING to him, and all you're trying to do is hijack the show and steer it into a ditch.
I find it unbelievable that someone so manifestly locked into his own opinions, and with an utter glass jaw when it comes to the possibility that someone might dare to have an alternate opinion, would be the one so adamantly cheer-leading the cause of Trek's humanity having evolved.
It is exactly the kind of inflexibly orthodox posturing, the unbendable conviction that his opinion is right and all other's are playing to baser motives (after all, as holder of the truth, his motives are pure) that mean that humanity WON'T evolve.
The Theory of the Leisure Class is a book by Thorstein Veblen that I read years ago. Some of your posts, both here and on the colony thread reminded me of it, Veblen argued that capitalism and conspicuous consumption were a form of barbarism. Veblen, in 1899, was actually the first person to coin the term "conspicuous consumption." Veblen advanced the theory that society could "better itself' and "improve" by moving away from consumerism. He had a poor view of money too. Cheapjack you might enjoy it.
You seem to be arguing in favor of the concept of the post-scarcity economy. Where both basic necessities and many luxury good would simply be provided, society existed in a environment of such abundance, of energy and other things, that no effort or labor was required in exchange for needs. Freed of the need for jobs, people spend their lives in intellectual pursuits, leisure and adventure.
Leisure class was also a sarcastic term in the nineteen thirties for the homeless and unemployed.
I might disagree with Penta and Sci on some points and interpretations , but I can also see that their opinions are based on observing the body of work it is Star Trek, not picking out a few isolated statements made by Picard and Odo in a small number of episodes. Utopia can have many meanings, mine would have lots of individualism and a minimalist, libertarian oriented government. Yours a steady state, post-governmental semi-anarchy. Our competing philosophies can both exist in a diverse future, possible on different worlds. But I reject your position of single interpretation.
When Picard told the Businessman to better himself, I feel that Picard was giving the Businessman a piece of personal advise, not proclaiming a galaxy wide philosophical truth. Similarly, the conversation with Lily during FC where Picard said: "The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. ...We work to better ourselves ...and the rest of humanity. Actually we're rather like yourself and Doctor Cochrane." Picard used we and our in that statement, interestingly, he compared his "we" to Doctor Cochrane, a man we now know was motivated by personal avarice. I believe once again Picard was making a personal statement, this time reflecting Picard's own philosophy belief system. This reveals that Picard is a idealist when it comes to Humanity as a species. Acquiring wealth isn't important to Picard, Picard has power, position and respect, these are Picard's wealth. When Picard announced he was assuming command of the fleet during the battle in FC, the other captains didn't hesitate to follow him, that is Picard's wealth.
To be honest with you, another reason I reject your views is that I personal do not want to live in your future. A dynamic somewhat insecure universe is how I see Star Trek. There will be a place on Earth for those people who don't wish to compete, it will be a safe place too. But it won't be my place.
He doesn't think it's all propaganda. He thinks that the pseudo-utopianism of TNG -- particularly early TNG -- was propaganda. Don't mistake a peculiarity of TNG for the entirety of Star Trek -- TOS's vision was of a better future, but it never claimed that Human nature would change in only a few centuries or that utopia was at hand. Kirk put it best: "We're killers... But we won't kill today."
Only to someone who can't interpret a disagreement as anything other than a personal attack.
I'm sorry, who was it that was insulting others again?
I'm sorry, but this part is just getting silly and demonstrates that you haven't been paying attention to this thread. When talking about governmental structures, the two structures cited by both sides have been the U.S.-style presidential and British-style parliamentary systems. Guess what? Every single country you just cited there -- Britain, Japan, and every democracy in Africa -- uses either the presidential or parliamentary system. You're literally saying nothing we haven't already covered.
As for "the American Indians'"... which ones? Which nation's governmental structures? Most of the Native American tribes today use a democratic system similar to those used in most other local American communities. Historically, many Native American tribes either used monarchal systems or adopted more formally-defined European-style democratic systems in response to European and European-American growth in North America. The earlier systems were adapted towards regulating much smaller populations -- it would be no more advisable to use those systems to govern the entire planet, or a multi-planet republic, than it would be to use the system of Ancient Athens.
'I'm sorry, but this part is just getting silly and demonstrates that you haven't been paying attention to this thread. When talking about governmental structures, the two structures cited by both sides have been the U.S.-style presidential and British-style parliamentary systems. Guess what? Every single country you just cited there -- Britain, Japan, and every democracy in Africa -- uses either the presidential or parliamentary system. You're literally saying nothing we haven't already covered.'
I don't Japan is TOTALLY like either the British system or the American. That's my point, they will borrow, but they will innovate too. Nobody here, apart from myself, has addressed that. We're talking 400 years down the line here. Admittedly, some bits of the Roman system were copied 1000+ years later,but they were adapted.
T'Girl, it states quite clearly in 'The Neutral Zone' that things are quite different in the 24th Century and that the 20th Century humans have some difficulty adapting, some even may never adapt. That was the entire point of the show, apart from bringing back the Romulans. You seem to have an amazing capacity for ignoring that which you don't like. Picard stated how the world had changed in First Contact, too, and in numerous other episode, particularly ones starring the Ferengi.
This is Science Fiction we're talking about here. It's supposed to discuss alternative futures, not ones where everything is exactly the same and nothing is as good as mommas apple pie. It may not come true, but that is what it is. GR has said so. So have other commentators. And I thrive on it. The opening dialogue makes me well up.If you don't like it, don't watch it. But don't try to turn it into something else.
I don't Japan is TOTALLY like either the British system or the American. That's my point, they will borrow, but they will innovate too. Nobody here, apart from myself, has addressed that. We're talking 400 years down the line here. Admittedly, some bits of the Roman system were copied 1000+ years later,but they were adapted.
T'Girl, it states quite clearly in 'The Neutral Zone' that things are quite different in the 24th Century and that the 20th Century humans have some difficulty adapting, some even may never adapt. That was the entire point of the show, apart from bringing back the Romulans. You seem to have an amazing capacity for ignoring that which you don't like. Picard stated how the world had changed in First Contact, too, and in numerous other episode, particularly ones starring the Ferengi.
This is Science Fiction we're talking about here. It's supposed to discuss alternative futures, not ones where everything is exactly the same and nothing is as good as mommas apple pie. It may not come true, but that is what it is. GR has said so. So have other commentators. And I thrive on it. The opening dialogue makes me well up.If you don't like it, don't watch it. But don't try to turn it into something else.
You still haven't
If you'll check past posts, I'm the one who encouraged you to fully explain what you meant by different, something which Cheapjack you still haven't really done. If you don't feel or haven't observed a parliamentary system or democracy republic on Star Trek in any form okay. It not like we're all in agreement on the Federation governments structure, I've been pushing my little confederacy idea pretty hard.
Innovate how? I mentioned the idea that as each new member was incorporated into the Federation there would be a blending of two into one, that the Federation would likely change at least slightly each time.
You do need to fully explain your own ideas. Not just protest that the ideas of others don't coincide with your (largely unknown) views.
This is blatantly false, people in the 24th century will still possess material needs. Food. Shelter. Clothing. Even if these thing are completely free, the need for them still exists. This statement by Picard is wrong.
Last night on SyFy The Inner Light was shown, in the last scene of the episode, Picard walks his quarters, examining his nick-nacks. Looking at the things he had accumulated over the course of his life. Perhaps what people discarded was the obsession, kept the things.
That first addition William Shakespeare that Picard keeps open and under glass in his ready room says otherwise.
Three hundred years, they've learned to grow food. Bravo.
I'll be the first to admit, Star Trek in general isn't the most innovative SF I've ever come across, it rarely takes chances. In terms of the economics of the future there is a lack of continuity, but this is true in a lot of in-universe areas.
Cheapjack, from what I understand, Gene Roddenberry was very interested in the accumulation of wealth.
