In what ways is the Federation Fascist?
- Thread starter Voodoowoman2
- Start date
I definitely don't think the Federation is fascist. Not even close.
Regarding assisted suicides by the doctors, I can understand why they are so hesitant about it, simply because it goes against their very training of preserving life. It's the pushing of their values and overriding a patient's wishes is what I have problem with. Specifically Crusher in "Ethics".
I give Bashir a lot of credit because he never put his beliefs over his patient's wishes like she did. The Doctor on VGR, too... a good example of him allowing quality of life vs. quantity of life being an overriding factor is the end of "SURVIVAL INSTINCT". (He did need to be convinced by Seven, but he did listen and understand.)
Phlox also would allow a patient to die if they so desired, like the scenario in "THE BREACH".
No matter what side of the fence you are on, it's a difficult subject to broach.
(Personally, I am for assisted suicides, for a very simple reason. It's their life and their decision. Whether I agree with it or not, it's not my place to impose a decision like that on anyone. I'll argue with them to not go through with it, but in the end, you respect the person's choices.)
There might also be a level of arrogance with Federation doctors because they seem to think they can cure anything, given enough time. Bashir's talk with Dax in the episode after they find out the devices made things worse in "THE QUICKENING" is a clear example of this. (And given how the shows depict them as always finding the solution by the end of the episode, the arrogance is sort of deserved.)
Regarding assisted suicides by the doctors, I can understand why they are so hesitant about it, simply because it goes against their very training of preserving life. It's the pushing of their values and overriding a patient's wishes is what I have problem with. Specifically Crusher in "Ethics".
I give Bashir a lot of credit because he never put his beliefs over his patient's wishes like she did. The Doctor on VGR, too... a good example of him allowing quality of life vs. quantity of life being an overriding factor is the end of "SURVIVAL INSTINCT". (He did need to be convinced by Seven, but he did listen and understand.)
Phlox also would allow a patient to die if they so desired, like the scenario in "THE BREACH".
No matter what side of the fence you are on, it's a difficult subject to broach.
(Personally, I am for assisted suicides, for a very simple reason. It's their life and their decision. Whether I agree with it or not, it's not my place to impose a decision like that on anyone. I'll argue with them to not go through with it, but in the end, you respect the person's choices.)
There might also be a level of arrogance with Federation doctors because they seem to think they can cure anything, given enough time. Bashir's talk with Dax in the episode after they find out the devices made things worse in "THE QUICKENING" is a clear example of this. (And given how the shows depict them as always finding the solution by the end of the episode, the arrogance is sort of deserved.)
The issue with Section 31 isn't that it "bends the rules." The problem is that it is a rogue organization that operates in the name of the democratic state but which is not answerable to the democratic state, or to the people. To make a comparison: SHIELD in the Marvel Cinematic Universe was sometimes willing to "bend the rules" in a crisis, but SHIELD ultimately answered to the World Security Council (and through the WSC, to the nations that apparently created SHIELD by treaty). Section 31 is not SHIELD; Starfleet is SHIELD. Section 31 is to Starfleet as Hydra is to SHIELD: an illegal, authoritarian conspiracy within a legitimate security service.
I'm very puzzled by that. What about the Romulans seems even nominally left-wing-ish? Left-wing politics is characterized by a preference, either nominal or legitimate, for political, economic, and social equality and hostility (again, sometimes nominal and sometimes real) towards hierarchy. But the he Romulan Star Empire, so far as we have seen, was not characterized by even a nominal concern for the idea of equality.
Canonically, as far as we know, the Romulan state before the supernova possessed a nominal monarchy (Q's reference to a Romulan empress in VOY "The Q and the Gray"), the ruling body being a Senate (TNG "Unification I"), with the de facto executive being a Praetor (TOS "Balance of Terror," DS9 "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges," SNW "A Quality of Mercy") who was appointed on the basis of support from the undemocratic Continuing Committee consisting of both Senators and other key members of the Romulan state such as the Tal Shiar Chair (DS9 "Inter Arma..."). We know that at least some Senators made a pretense of being "men of the people" and represent something called "Segments" (TNG "Unification II"), but we have no idea how Senators are selected or what a "Segment" constitutes (whether it is a geographic, ethnic, religious, institutional, national, racial, or other cohort).
That's not to say that there are not Romulan political actors whose beliefs could reasonably be characterized as left-wing in some way. The Qowat Milat, for instance, seem to believe in a level of egalitarianism that the Star Empire did not support; so too did the Unificationist underground movement. But these were not political actors generally acting with state power.
Overall, I would say that the Romulan Star Empire's institutions were very solidly hierarchical, not just in practice but also in ideology. It is, as far as we know, literally a monarchy. There's no sense of any sort of egalitarian ideological justification for state power or state hierarchy the way there was in the Soviet Union -- no sense of a deeply hierarchical system justifying itself on the basis of a supposed pursuit of equality or abolition of class inequality in the theoretical future. The Romulan state pre-supernova actively believed in the a priori legitimacy of at least some forms of inequality and did not seem to feel the need to rationalize its hierarchies on the basis of a supposed goal of establishing equality in the future.
Now, it is possible that the Romulan Star Empire was still a form of apartheid democracy or pseudo-democracy, or a hybrid regime like 18th Century Britain where the Senate was elected and shared power with an nominally neutral Emperor/Empress who appointed the Praetor. Maybe it was a sort of Burkean monarchist system.
I mean, yes and no? Like, obviously day-to-day power needs to be handled at the local level. But in terms of big decisions like war and peace, or fundamental rights of sentient beings, the Federation -- like any democracy -- has to decide those things at the level of the central government. You can't have a Federation where, say, Human/Vulcan marriages are legal on Andor but not Tellar, or where Vulcan gets to refuse to participate in the Dominion War.
I mean, that is all characteristic of authoritarianism, but I don't think it's fascist per se. Fascism is a particular kind of authoritarianism, after all. I would characterize the Klingons as feudalist and the Romulans as possibly a Burkean hybrid monarchy.
Yeah, the canon has been very clear that different Federation Members have their own elected governments.
Well. Maybe. They did engage in a systemic campaign against the Maquis in retaliation for seceding from the Federation.
That's a really good insight.
On the other hand, the Federation allows at least two forms of consensual ritual combat homicide -- the kal-if-fee on Vulcan and the ushaan on Andor. So Federation law about bodily autonomy is possibly inconsistent.
SNW has established that least in the 23rd Century, Federation culture is deeply prejudiced against genetic augmentation of any sort, even in non-Federation cultures. This doesn't rise to the level of apartheid or fascism, but it does at least mean the seeds for such things are present in Federation political culture.
In the novels, the Federation as a whole did not but individual Members sometimes did. Personally, I think the idea of a democracy without political parties is nonsensical on its face, and that democracy can and will never function without competitive political parties. I prefer to imagine instead that the Federation has a wide variety of political parties that form on the basis of rational combinations of stances along multiple axes (foreign relations: interventionist vs. isolationist, chauvinist vs. multilateralist; domestic politics: economic egalitarnianism vs. economic hierarchicalism, state authoritarianism vs. individual autonomy).
In the novels, each Federation Member State gets a single Federation Councillor, although the founding states (United Earth, Confederacy of Vulcan, Andorian Empire, United Planets of Tellar, Alpha Centauri Concordium) always have their councillors appointed to the Federation Council's security committee. The problem with that scenario, of course, is that then you might end up with Members that have drastically lower populations than others, giving those Members' voters much more power than voters from highly-populated Members.
Personally, I think it would be more democratic if each Federation Member State gets a percentage of Councillors that is proportional to the percentage that Member State's population makes up of the overall Federation population.
Not really.
Everybody knows who the Tal Shiar are, and indeed the entire Romulan population basically lives in total fear of them every single day of their lives. The Tal Shiar are external and internal police, existing not only to gather intelligence on foreign enemies, but to enforce discipline, quash dissent, and punish traitors to the State.
Conversely, most citizens of the Federation have never even heard of Section 31. Section 31 doesn't concern itself with internal Federation affairs (and is definitely not any kind of police, secret or otherwise), only external threats.
And even the Tal Shiar answers to the Romulan government...which, in some ways, makes Section 31 worse, since THEY DON'T!
Last edited:
Can't complain about something you aren't even aware of the existence of, I suppose
With the idea of population based, then you get planets with smaller populations telling the federation to pound sand if asked to join.
Why would you join a group when you know your voice and concerns won't be heard? Sure you'd hope they'd be. "Enlightened" but that hardly ever the case. Why be at the whim of some group of aliens when you barely have any voice In that forum?
Why? There are plenty of federal unions with population-based legislatures whose low-population member polities don't want out in real life. Add to that the benefits of Federation Membership, and add to that the simple fact that having a low population does not mean your interests are always going to be ignored or in conflict with others -- especially in an interstellar union where the economy does not exist in a state of scarcity -- and I'm just not at all convinced this is a deal-breaker.
Why do you assume that that is the case?
@Sci
Usually in some kind of dual chamber, like senate/ house or house of lords\ commons. Which is okay.
Let's take Oregon.
Right now 2/3 of the county's want to succeed from Oregon and join Idaho because those 2/3 are rural and are tired of the more populated cities calling the shots.
The minority, rural towns/ farmers don't have much say because there way outnumbered by the big cities. There needs which are different from cites arnt addressed.
Guess I'm basically saying that I would be worried that the majority would not listen to or run roughshod over the minority.
Usually in some kind of dual chamber, like senate/ house or house of lords\ commons. Which is okay.
Let's take Oregon.
Right now 2/3 of the county's want to succeed from Oregon and join Idaho because those 2/3 are rural and are tired of the more populated cities calling the shots.
The minority, rural towns/ farmers don't have much say because there way outnumbered by the big cities. There needs which are different from cites arnt addressed.
Guess I'm basically saying that I would be worried that the majority would not listen to or run roughshod over the minority.
It's not so much "controversial" (to turn against) as provocative (to challenge). Since you care about etymology, I thought I'd respond at a similar level.
I think, the Federation IS fascist, but only to the extent that the United Nations (in our humble universe) is so.
The irony?: The UN was formed as a response to Fascism when it erupted in our world in the mid-twentieth C. And within two decades we have TOS. Clearly, EWR was on to something.
Your observation is ... interesting.
The UN is fascist??
As bizarre as that claim is, best to keep that kind of thing in Miscellaneous or TNZ.
Yes!
And of course NO! I was going for an approximation, 1001001.
I believe what I said was that the Federation is fascist IF AND ONLY IF (or in my words, "only to the extent") that the UN is fascist. G5s and G7s and G8s are matters we know. And protocols which some countries can overstep, without fear of prosecution. While other countries will have embargos established. (Ask a third world country. One of which I belong to. A powerful one.) Irony.
I also mentioned the word "irony." Paradox, if you will. Star Trek's favourite trope.
The question was, my dear 1001001,: "In what ways is the Federation fascist?" NOT "is the Federation fascist?"
It was a brave exploratory question.
Which is why the American legislature is set up as a bicarmel system, to reflect the population (House of Representatives) and have equality (Senate). It would be my performance to avoid the majority controlling all the decisions.
The regret is because they found a cure not long after, it is in the dialogue of scene.
Wow, this topic has bounced...
Regarding assisted suicide, the policies of Dr. Crusher and Bashir may not be universal. They just both happen to take the Hippocratic Oath (specifically, premiere non nocere) seriously. In "Voyager", the EMH refuses to take Tuvix's life without his consent. This suggests that, possibly, his programming permits him to assist in suicide if the patient does consent. He's programmed in medicine from multiple cultures, some of which undoubtedly respect the right to die.
Just because a procedure is legal doesn't mean a doctor has to do it, especially one that would be questionable from an ethical standpoint. As a contemporary example, even when Roe v. Wade was active, many doctors refused to perform abortions.
Regarding assisted suicide, the policies of Dr. Crusher and Bashir may not be universal. They just both happen to take the Hippocratic Oath (specifically, premiere non nocere) seriously. In "Voyager", the EMH refuses to take Tuvix's life without his consent. This suggests that, possibly, his programming permits him to assist in suicide if the patient does consent. He's programmed in medicine from multiple cultures, some of which undoubtedly respect the right to die.
Just because a procedure is legal doesn't mean a doctor has to do it, especially one that would be questionable from an ethical standpoint. As a contemporary example, even when Roe v. Wade was active, many doctors refused to perform abortions.
I think the ethics of euthanasia (a most difficult topic philosophically) was portrayed remarkably well in VOY: Death Wish, where Q v. Quinn has to be decided upon by Janeway. Janeway ultimately grants Quinn asylum, with misgivings, but it is Q who finally "assists" the suicide. One of the best VOY episodes.
This episode basically demonstrates the limits of Federation principles. Such that only a "God," who until moments earlier had been arguing the opposite case, can free humanity from its self-important burdens.
In "Coda", Janeway at one point hallucinates that The Doctor euthanizes her without her consent after she appears to have contracted an aggressive form of the Vidiian phage. That seems to beg the question of how much of that was fabricated for Janeway's 'benefit' and how much latitude The Doctor might really have in such cases. Presumably he can't euthanize someone without their consent, but is he empowered to do so at their request? Given that he's a special case, what about flesh-and-blood doctors?
I believe that it was totally fabricated. There is a word for performing euthanasia on someone against their explicitly stated wishes: it's called "murder".
Indeed, one concern about legalized euthanasia (in addition to the numerous moral, ethical, and religious objections) is purely pragmatic: once it's deemed acceptable to terminate someone's life when they can't object, it soon becomes possible to rationalize doing so even when they do. And yes, it has happened.
Indeed, one concern about legalized euthanasia (in addition to the numerous moral, ethical, and religious objections) is purely pragmatic: once it's deemed acceptable to terminate someone's life when they can't object, it soon becomes possible to rationalize doing so even when they do. And yes, it has happened.
NO ya!
What is totally fabricated?! Worf asking Riker to let him die honorably?
Or Quinn asking Q for the same?
"Explicitly stated wishes?!" Where'd you get that from?
It's not "murder." But God knows what else it is.
(Apologies. I don't mean to offend. I like your posts.)
Capital punishment is 'murder' under that definition, too. (Not that I say it shouldn't fall under it).
Again, I’m not sure how this applies to fascism, but the actual ethical problem in this scenario is a medical provider refusing to treat a patient because of their religious beliefs.
I doubt very much anyone who is anti-abortion would go into the field that performs them, but if they do, and they refuse because of their religion, they should lose their license to practice.
Rule # 1 of ethical healthcare: keep your own shit out of it.
