Insurrection as an episode...

[horatio83]

Which part of "kidnapping a people and rob them" is pragmatic and ethical?
One political entity forces its will upon another. Happened numerous times in history and the word for this is imperialism.

No idea where you are from but on my continent we got rid of this one nations attacks another BS after WWII and we are better off because of it. Leading war, violating the sovereignty of another nation and the freedom and dignity of its people, is evil and so is warmongering, advocating such crimes.

 

[sonak]

Which part of "kidnapping a people and rob them" is pragmatic and ethical?
One political entity forces its will upon another. Happened numerous times in history and the word for this is imperialism.

the kidnapping is the pragmatic part, the use of the resources for the general welfare is the ethical part.

And again, I agree that the way they were going to go about it was problematic. But remember, Dougherty ONLY proceeded that way because of the false assumption that the Baku were agrarian primitives. He should have immediately opened negotiations and changed strategy after discovering the truth from Picard. But then we go back to the "either the Baku say no and the audience loses sympathy or there's no movie" problem.


I mean really, Horatio83, what would you think of a movie where Picard is fighting on behalf of the Baku after they've openly refused to leave under any circumstances? What's the tagline?

"This November, Picard and co. fight on behalf of a small group of smug, selfish pacifists who refuse to either fight for their own homes or leave them to help anyone else!"


Oh, and I'm from the U.S. btw. And yes, warmongering is bad.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Which part of "kidnapping a people and rob them" is pragmatic and ethical?
One political entity forces its will upon another. Happened numerous times in history and the word for this is imperialism.

the kidnapping is the pragmatic part, the use of the resources for the general welfare is the ethical part.

Actually its kidnapping and THEFT of resources. Remember you pretty much agreed that this wasn't a federation planet earlier

Besides kidnapping is still a crime last I checked.

And again, I agree that the way they were going to go about it was problematic. But remember, Dougherty ONLY proceeded that way because of the false assumption that the Baku were agrarian primitives.

Oh so it all right to do the very thing the federation came up with the Prime Directive to prevent now?

So you're basically saying its all right for the federation and really any nation to hypocritically piss all over every thing were founded on and acting no better than an expansionist empire who crushes anyone who gets in their way if they don't kindly take it in the rear.

 

[sonak]

Which part of "kidnapping a people and rob them" is pragmatic and ethical?
One political entity forces its will upon another. Happened numerous times in history and the word for this is imperialism.

the kidnapping is the pragmatic part, the use of the resources for the general welfare is the ethical part.

Actually its kidnapping and THEFT of resources. Remember you pretty much agreed that this wasn't a federation planet earlier

Besides kidnapping is still a crime last I checked.

And again, I agree that the way they were going to go about it was problematic. But remember, Dougherty ONLY proceeded that way because of the false assumption that the Baku were agrarian primitives.

Oh so it all right to do the very thing the federation came up with the Prime Directive to prevent now?

So you're basically saying its all right for the federation and really any nation to hypocritically piss all over every thing were founded on and acting no better than an expansionist empire who crushes anyone who gets in their way if they don't kindly take it in the rear.

even if you say the planet's not Federation by location, the PD still doesn't apply, not even under the broadest definitions, since the Baku aren't pre-contact, or even FROM that planet originally.

If you apply the PD to the Baku, you make it so all-encompassing that it would basically paralyze the UFP.

 

[CaptainStoner]

The story would be essentially the same if the baku said yes to negotiation, because the immovable object is the sona leader, who simply would have killed dougherty a bit sooner.

INS is certainly a succesful film at getting people to talk about it, though more out of confusion...

Diplomacy, and further study, is what was needed. You cant reason with nuts, so a fight ensues. The whole thing about moving the baku, or not moving, isnt really the problem in INS, which becomes clear when rualfo kills dougherty.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

even if you say the planet's not Federation by location, the PD still doesn't apply, not even under the broadest definitions, since the Baku aren't pre-contact, or even FROM that planet originally.

If you apply the PD to the Baku, you make it so all-encompassing that it would basically paralyze the UFP.

Um didn't you just say

But remember, Dougherty ONLY proceeded that way because of the false assumption that the Baku were agrarian primitives.

Seeing as they were planning to move the Ba'ku before Picard arrived and found out they were warp capable this would mean that at the time they would believe that the Ba'ku were pre-warp

What that means is that from Dougherty's perspective at the time the Prime Directive would in fact apply and as such he would be planning to violate it.

 

[sonak]

even if you say the planet's not Federation by location, the PD still doesn't apply, not even under the broadest definitions, since the Baku aren't pre-contact, or even FROM that planet originally.

If you apply the PD to the Baku, you make it so all-encompassing that it would basically paralyze the UFP.

Um didn't you just say

But remember, Dougherty ONLY proceeded that way because of the false assumption that the Baku were agrarian primitives.

Seeing as they were planning to move the Ba'ku before Picard arrived and found out they were warp capable this would mean that at the time they would believe that the Ba'ku were pre-warp

What that means is that from Dougherty's perspective at the time the Prime Directive would in fact apply and as such he would be planning to violate it.

yes, Dougherty WOULD have been violating it under the incorrect assumptions about the Baku.

 

[DonIago]

That being said, if Dougherty was telling the truth and operating under orders from the Federation Council, then the question becomes whether the Council has the right to waive the PD.

 

[horatio83]

Having to point out that violating the sovereignty of another nation, kidnapping its citizens and stealing their resources is imperialism feels like having to point out that forcing somebody against his will to do something sexual is rape or that simulating drowning is torture. It shouldn't be necessary to have these kind of pseudo-discussions in a civilized society.

By the way, I am totally for the Cardassian land for peace treaty (the Feds once abandoned cloaking technolgoy for peace). The Maquis are Federation citizens and subject to the laws and treaties of their government. If they don't wanna leave the dangerous border region they gotta live with the consequences.
The Ba'ku /S'ona on the other hand are not Federation citizens so the Federation has no right to mess with them. Pre-warp or post-warp doesn't matter and you don't need the Prime Directive to realize that taking the land of resources of other folks is wrong. Gee, children learn these rules in the sandbox!
In short, there is no moral dilemma of any kind, INS is a simple, old-school, Picard vs. the evil admiral morality tale like The Drumhead. Like TFF it is essentially a small screen story, something thematically familiar from the series that doesn't work perfectly on the big screen.

 

[DonIago]

I agree that taking the Baku off the planet by force is morally questionable. That said, the Baku monopolizing the planet also strikes me as morally questionable.

There's apparently a lot of information that we don't have about the situation. Including who actually authorized the operation and whether they had any legitimate (if not moral) authority to do so.

I still think it would have been amusing on one level if Our Heroes had made their case only for the Council to say, "We knew what Dougherty was doing...why are you screwing with this?"

 

[sonak]

Having to point out that violating the sovereignty of another nation, kidnapping its citizens and stealing their resources is imperialism feels like having to point out that forcing somebody against his will to do something sexual is rape or that simulating drowning is torture. It shouldn't be necessary to have these kind of pseudo-discussions in a civilized society.

By the way, I am totally for the Cardassian land for peace treaty (the Feds once abandoned cloaking technolgoy for peace). The Maquis are Federation citizens and subject to the laws and treaties of their government. If they don't wanna leave the dangerous border region they gotta live with the consequences.
The Ba'ku /S'ona on the other hand are not Federation citizens so the Federation has no right to mess with them. Pre-warp or post-warp doesn't matter and you don't need the Prime Directive to realize that taking the land of resources of other folks is wrong. Gee, children learn these rules in the sandbox!
In short, there is no moral dilemma of any kind, INS is a simple, old-school, Picard vs. the evil admiral morality tale like The Drumhead. Like TFF it is essentially a small screen story, something thematically familiar from the series that doesn't work perfectly on the big screen.

again, if this were the case, there would be no debate on it, it would be a factual matter on the level of "2+2=4." Since the movie has stirred MUCH debate, including critics and cast members as well as fans, and since many have taken a view on the issue that is the opposite of yours, it is clearly not the case that "there is no dilemma."

Again, your rigid regard for and elevation of property rights to such a level of paramount importance makes me wonder if you are entirely clear about the very philosophy and political orientation you claim to adhere to. Perhaps you are really a very confused conservative?

 

[horatio83]

Ah, another appeal to majority. Seems you really need such crutches to defend a position which is simply wrong. I don't care how many people view imperialism as something good, they are wrong.
And more of the "I am flexible and you are rigid" nonsense. If not wanting to kidnap, rob, relocate and (let's not beat around the bush, we all know what follows after relocation) murder other people makes me rigid and dogmatic I am gladly a dogmatic defender of common sense and decency.


Enough polemics, now back to the actual arguments.

In my last post I made very clear that I am quite sympathetic to centralized progressive rule. I have no problems with a government that forces its OWN people to do something which goes against their narrow interests but serves the general good. I want to live among citoyens and not among bourgeois.

Property rights are not the issue and I am anything but a conservative. Nice attempt to deflect from the core of the issue though, that you want one nation / political entity to force ANOTHER ONE to do its bidding. You simply ignore the fact that we are dealing with TWO nations and pretend that the well-being of one is more important than the well-being of the other simply because it is more populous. As a fellow leftist you should know better from history what such an attitude implies.

 

[sonak]

Ah, another appeal to majority. Seems you really need such crutches to defend a position which is simply wrong. I don't care how many people view imperialism as something good, they are wrong.
And more of the "I am flexible and you are rigid" nonsense. If not wanting to kidnap, rob, relocate and (let's not beat around the bush, we all know what follows after relocation) murder other people makes me rigid and dogmatic I am gladly a dogmatic defender of common sense and decency.


Enough polemics, now back to the actual arguments.

In my last post I made very clear that I am quite sympathetic to centralized progressive rule. I have no problems with a government that forces its OWN people to do something which goes against their narrow interests but serves the general good. I want to live among citoyens and not among bourgeois.

Property rights are not the issue and I am anything but a conservative. Nice attempt to deflect from the core of the issue though, that you want one nation / political entity to force ANOTHER ONE to do its bidding. You simply ignore the fact that we are dealing with TWO nations and pretend that the well-being of one is more important than the well-being of the other simply because it is more populous. As a fellow leftist you should know better from history what such an attitude implies.

I wasn't appealing to the majority, I was pointing out that you are incorrect about there not being a dilemma. And I don't know why you draw such an arbitrary line between different nations or governments. Are you an isolationist? What difference from an ETHICAL perspective does it make if the Baku are UFP citizens or not? It makes a difference politically, but ethics don't change based on borders.

Also, the Baku aren't much of a nation. They are a tiny group of pacifists who, if left on their own and undefended by the UFP or outside group, would be conquered/removed fairly quickly. And as I like to point out in this debate, if you think it's a PD issue, then Picard STILL shouldn't be defending the Baku, he should let them fight it out with the Son'a.

And of course the Baku would lose. Either way, they lose.

 

[horatio83]

In the real world I am no isolationist, there is international law that regulates when the sovereignty of a nation can be violated. Withholding medical assets is not a trigger, otherwise you could invade any country that has pharmaceutical companies.
Trek is what you call isolationist, the Federation has no right to mess with other cultures in any case. Not when there is are devastating wars and certainly not because they withhold a medical asset.

So your position is violating law in the Trekverse as well as in the real world. To pretend that you are actually doing something ethical while ravaging and raping people is a bad joke at best.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I agree that taking the Baku off the planet by force is morally questionable. That said, the Baku monopolizing the planet also strikes me as morally questionable.

Of course this assumes the Ba'ku are monopolizing the planet.

There's apparently a lot of information that we don't have about the situation. Including who actually authorized the operation and whether they had any legitimate (if not moral) authority to do so.

Well seeing as how fast the council backtracked on the relocation plan and the fact that Dougherty feared this possibility enough to let the Son'a attack the federation flagship with the possible intent to destroy it.

I still think it would have been amusing on one level if Our Heroes had made their case only for the Council to say, "We knew what Dougherty was doing...why are you screwing with this?"

But they didn't so it looks like Dougherty may not have had much of a leg to stand on.

 

[sonak]

In the real world I am no isolationist, there is international law that regulates when the sovereignty of a nation can be violated. Withholding medical assets is not a trigger, otherwise you could invade any country that has pharmaceutical companies.
Trek is what you call isolationist, the Federation has no right to mess with other cultures in any case. Not when there is are devastating wars and certainly not because they withhold a medical asset.

So your position is violating law in the Trekverse as well as in the real world. To pretend that you are actually doing something ethical while ravaging and raping people is a bad joke at best.

again, you're dealing only in abstracts rather than the concrete facts of the situation presented in INS. I understand why you frame the argument in that manner, because then you don't have to address the absurdities of the ACTUAL "dilemma," you just talk in abstracts like Picard did.


By the way, what is your response to my point on the PD and the Baku? If it's violating the law to intefere with them, why isn't Picard violating it by taking sides in a "blood feud?"

Why doesn't Dougherty just take Ru'afo aside when he learns the truth and say "hey buddy, we're going to pull out, do what you have to with the Baku, just don't kill them, and then you can trade the particles you harvested from the planet with us later, ok?"


I don't see how the PD allows Picard to do what he did in helping the Baku. But the best part is, it's only an issue to YOUR side, not mine, because I don't think the PD even applies, and even if it did, the PD is stupid to me anyway and it would make no difference.


Ball's in your court.(Or on your side of the football field. Whichever)

 

[horatio83]

Sorry but I do not play your game. What Picard does is a reaction to a Federation action.
We are still debating the action, whether the imperialist behaviour of the Federation constitutes a crime or not. And I am getting tired of your stupid accusations of dogmatism or being too abstract just because I point out that kidnapping, stealing (and ultimately murdering) people from another nation is utterly criminal under the Federation rules and any real world law or rule of peacefully living together.

As you value concreteness so deeply, feel free to point out just one example from history where what you advocate, relocating the citizens of another nations and stealing from them, has lead to a good result.

 

[Sindatur]

I've never seem "V" but the scenario you described doesn't seem equivalent.

Also, "the greater good" is NOT the same thing as "might makes right."

I disagree, The Baku don't answer to Starfleet, they owed them nothing. They said NO to relations. Kirk (And most every other Captain we've seen in Star Fleet) always told us that "NO" meant the Federation would go away, and take nothing from you, or exact any price for rejection. So, an Independent Society, who said no to the Almighty Starfleet, is ignored when they say no, and Forced to comply, through might, because they had the audacity to not join up or bow down to the Federation? This isn't a colony, or a territory we're talking about here, it's an Independent Society, not beholden to the decisions of the Federation. Starfleet taking what they want, without consent, and after refusal, is a brutal act of Invasion/War

Sure, you could make all these claims, if they were Federation Citizens or Protectorates, but, they're not, they're outsiders, that have chosen not to bask in the benevolence of the Federation, and are being bullied

Again, in most circumstances, I'd agree with you. The UFP doesn't go around stealing planets and relocating cultures just to get something it wants.

But there are exceptions to rules and this situation is one of them for many reasons:

1. The Baku aren't native to the planet
2. They are an artificial "culture" of 600, only sustained in their way of life by the magical properties of the planet.
3. The Son'a have just as much right to the planet as they do, and the Son'a were partners of the Federation


All that doesn't even touch on the larger issue of again, whether the property rights of a tiny minority outweighs the improved well-being of billions across the galaxy. For me, obviously, the answer is that the well-being of billions outweighs property rights of a group that's not even native to the planet.

It's interesting to see so many argue the opposite, though-I wonder if people would argue the same way in the abstract, and removed from the specific scenario of a Star Trek movie.

I'm not really sure why it matters if they're native to the Planet? They've been living there for 300 years, I believe. How many Federation Colonies are there, where the Citizens aren't native and have only lived there 50 or 100 years? So, if one of those Federation Colonies is the only place that will grow a certain flower, that will cure a plague The Romulans are fighting, is it cool for the Romulans to take that Planet?

What kind of defense is it that they're only maintained by the "Magical Properties of the planet"? Seems to me that's a reason not to move them, because you'll be killing them.

As far as the Son'a having a claim to the planet as well, well, I didn't see The Federation helping the Bajorans get rid of their invaders, who were actually already enemies of the Federation

 

[sonak]

Sorry but I do not play your game. What Picard does is a reaction to a Federation action.
We are still debating the action, whether the imperialist behaviour of the Federation constitutes a crime or not. And I am getting tired of your stupid accusations of dogmatism or being too abstract just because I point out that kidnapping, stealing (and ultimately murdering) people from another nation is utterly criminal under the Federation rules and any real world law or rule of peacefully living together.

As you value concreteness so deeply, feel free to point out just one example from history where what you advocate, relocating the citizens of another nations and stealing from them, has lead to a good result.

indeed, what Picard did is a reaction to UFP actions. But once he realized that it was a "blood feud" and that the Son'a had a legitimate claim to the planet, if he were being consistent and not the colossal hypocrite that he was being, he'd have said "well, this is no longer an issue of forced relocation, it's now a civil war."


And civil wars fall under the PD, as we see in "redemption." So again, the Baku would lose if Picard were being written consistently.

If horatio83 won't take it, somebody else want to field that? How is Picard NOT violating the PD once he discovers the truth about the Baku and Son'a?


As to your question, there are many examples throughout history of relocations and resettlements of large groups of people. National boundaries aren't written in the sky. They're created by militaries, politicians, and people. I guess "good result" depends on one's point of view or what you mean.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Sorry but I do not play your game. What Picard does is a reaction to a Federation action.
We are still debating the action, whether the imperialist behaviour of the Federation constitutes a crime or not. And I am getting tired of your stupid accusations of dogmatism or being too abstract just because I point out that kidnapping, stealing (and ultimately murdering) people from another nation is utterly criminal under the Federation rules and any real world law or rule of peacefully living together.

As you value concreteness so deeply, feel free to point out just one example from history where what you advocate, relocating the citizens of another nations and stealing from them, has lead to a good result.

indeed, what Picard did is a reaction to UFP actions. But once he realized that it was a "blood feud" and that the Son'a had a legitimate claim to the planet, if he were being consistent and not the colossal hypocrite that he was being, he'd have said "well, this is no longer an issue of forced relocation, it's now a civil war."


And civil wars fall under the PD, as we see in "redemption." So again, the Baku would lose if Picard were being written consistently.

If horatio83 won't take it, somebody else want to field that? How is Picard NOT violating the PD once he discovers the truth about the Baku and Son'a?

You mean the Son'a who were in the process of planning to murder him and the other Starfleet officers at the time AFTER attacking the Enterprise, because at that point its more of the Son'a are attacking them and the Prime Directive doesn't prevent them from kicking the crap out of people trying to kill them.