Is the Federation an Empire?

[velour]

How equal the Member planets are in comparison to each other is unclear.

I'm rather pleased, by the way, that by Trek's time, they have gotten over this (IMHO, ridiculous) notion that the apparatus of national government has to be separate from any of its states.

Couple of things.

First, it's not a given that the Federation building/buildings would not be considered separate from United Earth. The area around the Federation's collection of buildings could formally be consider "extra-territorial." Not only separate from United Earth, but legally "not on Earth."

Second, I don't see the Federation as a "national government," and United Earth and the other Member worlds certainly aren't "states." They're sovereign entities that have agreed on mutual co-operation in certain areas.

Apparently, some members are more equal than others.

Remember the dinner scene between Kirk & crew and the Klingons in ST6. The chancellor's daughter mocked the Federation as a "homo sapiens' only club". From that scene and from everything else that I've seen, I get the impression that Earth is the dominant planet and that humans are the leading species and driving force of the Federation.

I don't know the reason for this. It could be that Earth has the strongest economy, largest population, best technology and/or that humans are the most assertive member of the Fed. And/or it could be something else.

Maybe that something else is that humans run Starfleet.

Also in ST6, during the classified meeting of Starfleet bigwigs, except for Spock, everyone else there was human, as far as I could tell. Earth/humans essentially own and operate Starfleet. It seems like Earth provides the infrastructure of Starfleet, the ships and almost all the personnel, the command officers and the academy.

Because Starfleet is the most important institution in the Fed, Earth/humans have the greatest clout within the Fed. Without Starfleet, the Federation wouldn't amount to much.

This is somewhat similar to the U.S. leadership position and role in NATO.

Is there a distinction between United Earth's Starfleet and the Fed's Starfleet? Or is it really a distinction without a difference?

On the matter of the Fed buildings on Earth, it could be similar to the arrangement between the U.S. and the U.N. regarding the U.N. headquarters in NYC.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

No, it isn't. They say they are, but they're obviously lying.

Their very name is from the portion of the Federation charter that established them. One can argue that they no longer answer to the authorities that they were intended to, but the same can be said for the NSA and CIA, and I don't think anyone would be arguing that they aren't parts of our governmental apparatus.

The name comes from the charter of Earth's Starfleet. Not the Federation or it's Starfleet.

And said article doesn't say anything about starting a secret organization, just that in extreme emergencies extraordinary measures can be taken.

So really they don't even have legal ground under the Earth Starfleet charter either.

 

[T'Girl]

Is there a distinction between United Earth's Starfleet and the Fed's Starfleet? Or is it really a distinction without a difference?

It depends on how Starfleet is organized after the formation of the Federation. And also how the organization evolved over the course of more than two centuries.

Today, when the UN needs a naval fleet, individual or groups of ships are deployed from various UN member fleets. These ships refer to themselves as "UN warship" or "UN ship" for the duration of their time in the UN formation of ships. However the ships never leave the control and ownership of their respective home navies. The Federation could have a similar arrangement with it's planetary members, the ships we see are from various Federation member. Strictly speaking, the Federation has no starships of it own (except perhaps small ones).

Today, few nations have the capacity to build large warships (cruisers and carriers), a few more can build something the size of a destroyer, most can only build ships the size of patrol boats. So many navies buy from those nations that can build larger ships.

It might be the same with starships in the future, a small number of member worlds (like Humans) build and export the larger starships to other Federation members and outside the Federation as well.

This is why the starships we see look the same.

Both United Earth and the Federation (in the 22nd/23rd/24th centuries) use the term "Starfleet." Possibly other member planets also use the term to refer to their home fleets. Starfleet could be generically used like "Navy" is today.

Apparently, some members are more equal than others.

In addition to Earth, Vulcan also sees to hold a high (higher?) position. This could be due to them being among the "Founders" of the Federation.

I don't know the reason for this. It could be that Earth has the strongest economy, largest population, best technology and/or that humans are the most assertive member of the Fed.

Assertive could be part of the answer, if Humans were more aggressive than the majority of other members, this could lead them to hold a more prominent place in the chambers of power.

Without Starfleet, the Federation wouldn't amount to much.

I believe one of the prime reasons the Federation was formed was for mutual defense (other reason too). this would also be a reason new species would choose to join the Federation.

And later to stay a member.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

And how does that gel with your idea that the Federation simply wouldn't give a damn about the sovereignty of a pre-contact world with a non-indigenous but long established (pre-federation) sapient species?

Non-indigenous being the difference. It's not even clear if the Baku held the planet to be theirs, the Federation Council obviously considered it the Federation's.

Well, it's not really clear how much of the Federation council was even aware of this project at all, but that goes back to the problem of the movie being just oddly inconclusive to start with.

More importantly: what reason is there to consider 'indigenous' vs 'non-indigenous' even remotely relevant, especially in a context where the 'non-indigenous' population is extremely well rooted? The vast majority of the peoples in the modern world are not truly indigenous to their own countries, if you look far enough back in history, but that does not mean that they have no claim to their own country.

 

[T'Girl]

especially in a context where the 'non-indigenous' population is extremely well rooted

There were 600 of them in a single valley.

 

[fireproof78]

The tribal group was the main one, being the tribe of the leader of the 12 tribes of Capella.

Twelve tribes, so the size of Scotland then?

Even if they were not the only people on the planet, they were obviously the more dominant ones.

Or the only one sitting on top of whatever minerals the Federation and the Klingons both wanted. The other peoples on that planet never heard or saw the sky-aliens because they had nothing to offer.

Also, there might be a difference between negotiating for trade and Federation membership.

I would assume so, but I didn't think we were discussing Membership, only the Federation and natives interacting.

If I recall correctly, I think the Federation would prefer the world be unified for membership consideration.

At least in Picard's time. During Kirk's time that might not be the case.

I realize we are discussing native interaction, but I was also considering the policy towards cultures in regards to membership. Basically, the stepwise fashion the Federation would take towards native cultures.

In Kirk's time, the Prime Directive did not seem as stringent, or they were more embattled over resources and willing to make contact in order to open negotiations.

Regardless, I am in agreement with you over the construction of the Federation being similar to the UN. Earth's preeminence may be due to the rapid expansion and colonization by humans may require more policing than other races, who may already have established colonies.

 

[martok2112]

Have the Federation take major losses in the next movie, so that in the movie following that, we have: "Star Trek The Federation Strikes Back".

 

[T'Girl]

I realize we are discussing native interaction, but I was also considering the policy towards cultures in regards to membership.

The single governemt planet might be a deal-breaker in a lot of cases of a species or culture that would otherwise make a excellent addition to the Federation.

It might be enough that the multiple nations on a given planet had some kind of international organization to speak with a single voice in interstellar matters, even if that all it was capable of doing.

Nor do I (unlike some here) believe that applicant would have to be pure as the driven snow in order to be offered a membership in the federation, in many cases it would be more a matter of what they might bring to the federation, Ardana being a example. They possessed a resource not found elsewhere, and they used this as a barganing chip to gain entry.

Another civilization might possess a vast territory of over a hundred star systems. Their membership would expand the federation significantly.

Or a mighty fleet just at the time when the federation was facing a new agressive enemy.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Folks, let's face it. Until this song

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbWOVfY-rxU[/yt]

starts playing every time the Enterprise shows up on camera, the Federation isn't an Empire.

 

[fireproof78]

I realize we are discussing native interaction, but I was also considering the policy towards cultures in regards to membership.

The single governemt planet might be a deal-breaker in a lot of cases of a species or culture that would otherwise make a excellent addition to the Federation.

It might be enough that the multiple nations on a given planet had some kind of international organization to speak with a single voice in interstellar matters, even if that all it was capable of doing.

Nor do I (unlike some here) believe that applicant would have to be pure as the driven snow in order to be offered a membership in the federation, in many cases it would be more a matter of what they might bring to the federation, Ardana being a example. They possessed a resource not found elsewhere, and they used this as a barganing chip to gain entry.

Another civilization might possess a vast territory of over a hundred star systems. Their membership would expand the federation significantly.

Or a mighty fleet just at the time when the federation was facing a new agressive enemy.

I think it would be interesting if there was a power that was a long the same lines as the Federation, in terms of being a multi-planet or a monarchy, and the two attempt to negotiate. Instead of the hostilities from the start, such as the other Alpha Quadrant powers, this power is more benevolent, like the Federation.

Membership sounds like it would be a long process. But, I would imagine that the cooperative Federation would be looking at what resources could be brought to the table.

 

[Jedi_Master]

So do people in the Mirror Universe sit and argue about whether or not the Terran Empire is a Federation?

 

[Nerys Myk]

So do people in the Mirror Universe sit and argue about whether or not the Terran Empire is a Federation?

Not if they want to live. They take their canon seriously there.

 

[Jedi_Master]

So do people in the Mirror Universe sit and argue about whether or not the Terran Empire is a Federation?

Not if they want to live. They take their canon seriously there.

Their version of the "forum-that-shall-not-be-named" is the Agony Booth.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Particularly because Section 31 is a part of the Federation

No, it isn't. They say they are, but they're obviously lying. Section 31 has no legitimacy whatsoever. It's a criminal conspiracy with hints of terrorism. Nothing more. It's no more part of the Federation than ISIS is a part of Syria or Iraq.

That's absurd. Not only is there no evidence of that, they are shown working in tandem with Starfleet personal (e.g., Admiral Ross). Second, you're accepting at face value those who say the Federation only does good things while ignoring what Section 31 says even though they both say it. More importantly, it's circular reasoning. Your evidence that the government of the Federation doesn't have Section 31 is that the government of the Federation only has those who do good things. Since Section 31 doesn't do good things, they must not be a member of the Federation's government. Once you do that, you can then point to the absence of those that do bad things in the Federation's government and say that the Federation's government doesn't have people who do bad things.

However, even that's not true because we have been shown members of the Federation (the Admiral in Insurrection) with no evidence of ties to Section 31 doing bad things. You've gone to the extreme of not only saying that there can't be bad people doing bad things in the Federation but that anyone who does must be Section 31.

It's like saying all horses are brown and all white hoofed animals are Zebras. Then someone shows you a white horse and you say it can't be a horse because it's not brown (and all horses are brown) and it is white so it must be a zebra.

 

[JeffinOakland]

Zebras are black with white stripes.

 

[fireproof78]

Particularly because Section 31 is a part of the Federation

No, it isn't. They say they are, but they're obviously lying. Section 31 has no legitimacy whatsoever. It's a criminal conspiracy with hints of terrorism. Nothing more. It's no more part of the Federation than ISIS is a part of Syria or Iraq.

That's absurd. Not only is there no evidence of that, they are shown working in tandem with Starfleet personal (e.g., Admiral Ross). Second, you're accepting at face value those who say the Federation only does good things while ignoring what Section 31 says even though they both say it. More importantly, it's circular reasoning. Your evidence that the government of the Federation doesn't have Section 31 is that the government of the Federation only has those who do good things. Since Section 31 doesn't do good things, they must not be a member of the Federation's government. Once you do that, you can then point to the absence of those that do bad things in the Federation's government and say that the Federation's government doesn't have people who do bad things.

However, even that's not true because we have been shown members of the Federation (the Admiral in Insurrection) with no evidence of ties to Section 31 doing bad things. You've gone to the extreme of not only saying that there can't be bad people doing bad things in the Federation but that anyone who does must be Section 31.

It's like saying all horses are brown and all white hoofed animals are Zebras. Then someone shows you a white horse and you say it can't be a horse because it's not brown (and all horses are brown) and it is white so it must be a zebra.

Logical fallacies for the win!

The whole idea of Section 31 is the same as all shadow organizations. They do the things that the government cannot do, in the name of preserving the peace. Again, they are not always evil means, but they are often behind the scenes, working to subvert rather than negotiate. Again, Admiral Ross worked with Sloan.

It would be nice to see a Federation police force (of some kind), or more about Starfleet Intelligence, which seems to only be referenced, and not seen.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

especially in a context where the 'non-indigenous' population is extremely well rooted

There were 600 of them in a single valley.

*cough*Endangered species*cough*... ;P

But seriously, that's a completely separate argument. If it's just about the fact that there are only 600 of them, then it has absolutely nothing to do with indigenous vs non-indigenous. Or would you say an indigenous species with a population of 600 would have its sovereignty recognized by the federation? (In which case, I ask again, why does indigenous v. non-indigenous even matter here?)

In regards to the numbers, though: there are only 2 of us in my house, but that still doesn't give anyone the right to secretly kidnap us and take the house for themselves.

 

[T'Girl]

Membership sounds like it would be a long process. But, I would imagine that the cooperative Federation would be looking at what resources could be brought to the table.

I could see a multi-year process as the Federation investigates the applicant, and of course the applicant investigates the Federation. There might be exceptions, if the applicant and the Federation had a previous long term knowledge of each other, a relationship with trade, diplomatic ties and perhaps tourism, then the possess could be relatively brief.

Or would you say an indigenous species with a population of 600 would have its sovereignty recognized by the federation?

Being indigenous, yes.

there are only 2 of us in my house, but that still doesn't give anyone the right to secretly kidnap us and take the house for themselves.

However if it's someone's else house, they can have the authorities remove you (perfectly legally) and then do what they want with their house, including destroying it.

It makes no difference if the two people were living in the house prior to it's purchase.

As I understand the DS9 storyline, the the ring planet region was in Klingon space prior to being in Federation space.

population is extremely well rooted

If it's just about the fact that there are only 600 of them, then ...

My post was a refute of only 600 people in a single valley being "extremely well rooted."

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Or would you say an indigenous species with a population of 600 would have its sovereignty recognized by the federation?

Being indigenous, yes.

Again, why? If the planet didn't belong to anyone, then it doesn't matter if they were indigenous or not.

However if it's someone's else house, they can have the authorities remove you (perfectly legally) and then do what they want with their house, including destroying it.

It makes no difference if the two people were living in the house prior to it's purchase.

As I understand the DS9 storyline, the the ring planet region was in Klingon space prior to being in Federation space.

What DS9 storyline? Regardless, the Ent augment storyline implies that the entire briar patch is unclaimed just 200 years before tng, so the evidence points to the Baku being the earliest claimants.

population is extremely well rooted

If it's just about the fact that there are only 600 of them, then ...

My post was a refute of only 600 people in a single valley being "extremely well rooted."

Having a thriving society for 300 years is well rooted, even if it is only 600 of them.

 

[USS Triumphant]

I find it personally offensive that you imply here that an Emperor cannot have high principles and an intention to implement them.

Errr...you're kidding around, right? Or maybe you're French? or an emperor?

You have it in three. I am the Imperial Majesty Norton II, Emperor of These United States of America, Protector of Mexico. But I'll forgive you, since you did not know an emperor was reading.

A empire isn't alway governed by the scum of the earth, nor are their social practices automatically contemptible. Throughout history some empires have certainly been more advanced socially than the barbarians surrounding them. Empires had the beginnigs of democracy, education, sanitation, architecture, medicine. You can point at the negatives and yes they were there, but these negative never wipe away the positives, the advancement and the growth of Human culture.

Thank you. Continue to speak with this attitude toward Our Benevolence, and We shall consider bestowing a title upon you.