Is a Star Trek Society Possible ?
- Thread starter maccyj
- Start date
Uh-huh. So I give reasons for my statements, make actual arguments, and you respond with a content-less insult.
You're not helping your side.
Sure.
When I'm done writing my SOP's I'll be happy to prove my point.
But no amount of name dropping will cause a series of bad and unconstitutional programs nor amount of spin and lies around them to be any less in the order of a totalitarian gubment take over.
When I'm done writing my SOP's I'll be happy to prove my point.
But no amount of name dropping will cause a series of bad and unconstitutional programs nor amount of spin and lies around them to be any less in the order of a totalitarian gubment take over.
The names were mentioned to illustrate a point: These guys are all well-known capitalists. Most have libertarian leanings. There's nothing particularly socialistic about their programs. About the only way the Obama Administration could possibly be more capitalistic in its ideological leanings would be if its Treasury Secretary were Adam Smith himself.
Prove to me that someone's rights are being violated.
Every time you pay taxes and then that money is spent on some program like 'cash for clunkers' or 'a bailout' or ACORN, your rights are violated.
Ummm. No. We have free and fair, democratic elections every year. The majority of people in this country vote in legislators who support these programs. The majority of people support these programs. We are not subject to taxation without representation, and therefore no one's rights have been violated. (Well, except for the rights of residents of the District of Columbia and the territories, who don't get U.S. Representatives and Senators.)
Now, when Congress starts canceling elections and appropriates money without a democratic mandate every two years? Then our rights will have been violated, just like they were before the Revolution.
Every time I hear this line I invariably point out that a Sioux Indian nation COULD have been formed at the same time as the United States. So could a Choctaw nation, or a Navajo nation, or an Iroqouis nation, etc. Strictly speaking, each of these groups DID have their own sovereign nation before and after the Revolutionary War; what they didn't have was RECOGNITION by the United States, in which case their sovereignty meant exactly dick.
A Palestinian nation without recognition is as good as a Kurdish nation, or an independent tibet, or an independent Hawaii, or Argentina's claim on the falkland islands. The ability to claim something doesn't matter if the people who count--the people who have demonstrated a tendency to enter your claimed territory and boss you around--don't respect those claims. Therefore, Israel was able to become a nation because it made a claim on its own accord and was able to back it up with force. The Palestinians weren't; the Egyptians controlled half of their territory and the Jordanians controlled the other half, and that ended only when both were chased out by the Israelis.
In the end, occupation is occupation, whatever logic you use to justify it. When one group uses force of arms to impose its political/military/economic will on another group, the end result is ALWAYS oppression and degradation. True that not all occupations are equal, and some such situations can be judged in a positive light based on how long they last and how oppressive they really were. Then again, a victimless crime is still a crime.
You do not have a right not to pay taxes. We DO have a right to complain about how our tax dollars are spent and to choose not to vote for people who spend it on things we disagree with. We probably should have a right to vote people out of office if they screw up hugely between elections.
But "government spending money on things" no more violates your rights than my bank charging me seventeen bucks for a checkbook that had the wrong fucking address and spelled my name wrong.
A communist style society would be more likely to work out with unlimited resources to not end up with supermarkets with nothing on the shelves.
Also with unlimited resources including and endless supply of energy, precious metals, and other things would pretty much make money worthless anyway.
Also with unlimited resources including and endless supply of energy, precious metals, and other things would pretty much make money worthless anyway.
There is, however, a very serious question about how to prevent a small elite from dominating the political realm, as actually happened in the nations that attempted Leninism and its political spin-offs.
(I refuse to refer to any of the political systems used by so-called Communist countries "Communism;" Communism, the system described in broad terms by Karl Marx, has never existed. And Marx himself never finished developing his theories, so I refuse to refer to the systems people developed in an attempt to "finish" his work as Marxism.)
And plus Communism was supposed to occur after Capitalism, perhaps when resources become abundant.
Indeed. People tend to forget that Marx wasn't opposed to Capitalism per se -- it's just that he felt it was an intermediate stage of socio-economic development.
I would like to begin by answering the OP with a definite yes.
To elaborate, I would like to state that what a 'Star Trek' society is and is not must be clearly defined before discusion of its viability can be productive.
I think that nearly every person who has read this post has their own understanding of what a 'Star Trek' society really is. I would like to encourage a discussion of what defines a 'Star Trek' society by comparison with existing cultures of Earth.
For instance, one of the easiest traits of Star Trek Earth to describe is the fact that no one in Roddenberry's world works because they must in order to get food, or pay rent, or pay tuition...
To elaborate, I would like to state that what a 'Star Trek' society is and is not must be clearly defined before discusion of its viability can be productive.
I think that nearly every person who has read this post has their own understanding of what a 'Star Trek' society really is. I would like to encourage a discussion of what defines a 'Star Trek' society by comparison with existing cultures of Earth.
For instance, one of the easiest traits of Star Trek Earth to describe is the fact that no one in Roddenberry's world works because they must in order to get food, or pay rent, or pay tuition...
I strongly agree.
I find that people in general tend to approach political systems with a flash-card like mentality. Fascism = Hitler, Communism = Lenin, Capitalism = USA, Anarchy = Window-Bashing Rioters, etc.. On the surface, that doesn't seem like a big deal; but in the bigger scheme of things, it creates automatic bias which prevents well rounded socio-political evolution.
As I see it, all political systems must be embraced as correct as long as they remain within appropriate parameters. As an example, if parents tell their children that they must eat the food provided them, or that they cannot engage in a certain activity, is that not a form of fascism? You can't get more power-centric than suggesting that what you say is to be obeyed no matter what; yet that is, in one way or another, the essence of chain of command in family and business, and it is not evil if said power is balanced and not abused.
Anarchy in due form is individualism, or freedom; Capitalism, out of form, is another word for manipulation, or greed; Communism, in due form, is another word for equality. It seems unlikely that we can properly evolve while remaining convinced that the best course for humanity is represented by a single political term.
Even democracy has a dark side. By definition it is not equality; it is majority whim. If 51% wants to enslave or kill off the other 49%, democracy will not stop them. A little moral fascism might be the more ethical type of government under such a circumstance.
I think that if we're totally objective and ignore our personal views on particualr issues, this hits the nail on the head with regard to international politics. Whoever has the most power has the right to determine the agenda. People have mentioned Russia and the USA respectively using their veto in the UN Security Council as an example too.
Also look at how Robert Mugabe completely cocked up his country's economy when he forcibly ousted numerous 'occupying' white farmers without having a plan on how to install alternative farmers to produce food instead. He lives in luxury with millions stashed away while his people starve and his political opponents suffer threats, arrest, and beatings. Things only started to improve when a power sharing agreement was reached with his opponent Morgan Tsangeri (and even that was only after he survived a 'car crash' in which his wife was killed). You look at their situation and think what kind of human can Mugabe be carry on when his people are suffering so much directly as a result of his actions? He may be an extreme human but he isn't a unique human.
No nation can exist entirely in isolation in the face of globalisation and a Star Trek society can only exist once the entire globe is clothed and fed and healthy.
I think that strict population controls, renewable energy sources, hydrogen engines, and genetically modified crops are the only way we're going to achieve this - and the technology would have to be shared equally (like there is any chance of that happening!). There might be a lot of other unpalatable decsions to be taken along the way too.
Just because someone is voted into office doesn't mean they get cart blanche to do whatever the hell they want. Which these programs are, just some bad idea to spend tax payer. It's not right nor constitutional. Yup, that pesky thing keeps getting in the way.
Soft tyranny is still tyranny.
A government program is not unconstitutional or tyrannical just because you don't like it. Show me the part of the Constitution that says that the government can't do the things you're objecting to.
It may not be right (either objectivley or subjectively) but it is constitutional. There are even mechanisms in place for policies to be challenged if they are NOT constitutional. You have to differentiate between policies that breach the Constitution and policies that you and a significant number of other people just don't agree with.
Looking back at earlier comments about understandng what a Federation society consisted of, it is worth noting that not all members of the Federation agree with every Federation policy either. Several captains have breached the Prime Directive. The Maquis. I also recall Vice-Admiral Nechayev delivering orders that she didn't agree with because she was bound by the chain of command.
It is NOT constitutional.
Where is it cover in the constitution to redistribute wealth? Where in the constitution does it provide for the federal government to buy anything of luxury for anyone? Where in the constitution does is say it that the federal government can dump billions of dollars of tax payer, or in most cases created out of thin air, money to be given to a privately owned business in exchange for ownership in that company?
This is what the founders of this nation feared. An all powerful centralized government.
At what point has anything of a constitutional manner actually make it the the SC?
Where is it cover in the constitution to redistribute wealth? Where in the constitution does it provide for the federal government to buy anything of luxury for anyone? Where in the constitution does is say it that the federal government can dump billions of dollars of tax payer, or in most cases created out of thin air, money to be given to a privately owned business in exchange for ownership in that company?
This is what the founders of this nation feared. An all powerful centralized government.
At what point has anything of a constitutional manner actually make it the the SC?
And repeating a claim doesn't make it true. Prove it.
What the hell are you talking about? Obama won't even unequivocally commit to the idea of a government-administered insurance option paid for by its own users. No one's been talking about redistribution of wealth.
Where does it say that it can't?
And what if doing that is necessary to prevent, y'know, the next Great Depression?
And do bear in mind that that policy was begun by the Bush Administration. No Socialists, them.
The founders feared no such thing. Point me to the Federalist Paper where Alexander Hamilton mentioned not wanting the government to bail out AIG.
An all-powerful centralized government that doesn't even want half the power it's accumulated. Or are you laboring under the delusion that Obama wants to keep those businesses that the government has taken a stake in permanently under state control? And on what basis do you come to this conclusion?
Similar threads
