At some levels, systemic discrimination must exist, as the Federation maintains standards for First Contact and entry into the Federation.
Organization of Federation Government
- Thread starter jmampilly
- Start date
I can see what you are saying, but are people with lower self-esteem/confidence, Intorverts, Shy people really discrimanted against? Perhaps in some repsects they might be, but the opposite might also be true.
Not relevant. We are talking about human society in the Federation.
The opposite is certainly true. Introverts and extroverts are discriminated against and I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, as I value the right to free association. In Barclay's case, Data specifically questioned the engineering staff as to why Barclay was clandestinely being referred to as a vegetable when a nickname generally denotes fondness.
One of the things I love about Star Trek is that despite the main characters having faults, they are willing to review and reassess their behavior when it is pointed out to them that they are behaving in a contradictory fashion to their ideals.
It is relevant, because humans have a stake in the Federation. For example, let us say that the Federation didn't have the Prime Directive and the Andorians were willing to intervene on the behalf of a pre-warp civilization whereas Humans sided with the Vulcans and didn't want to intervene. Because of their three-way Alliance, the Andorians would take a long-term risk committing not only their own resources to the pre-warp civilization should a problem arise, but also the resources of Humans and Vulcans that didn't want to associate with the pre-warp civilization. As a consequence, the work of Humans and Vulcans would be going to an effort that was against their will and that is a type of slavery. Systemic discrimination, such as the PD, helps guard against the development of involuntary servitude by reaffirming the principle of free association.
A nickname does not generally denote fondness. Nicknames generally come in several forms to name two:-
Between friends
As a form of Bullying/put down.
The PD could also result in the Federation adopting a culture of cruelty, feeling that the PD conveniently get them out of having to care for the plight of others. By recognizing that they indeed have the power and ability to selectively help non-warp societies and not hiding behind "no matter what we do, we'll fuck it up," the Federation could at times be of tremendious help.
In the case of the Human, Vulcan and Andorian problem, if the Federation is a alliance, the Andorians likely could not commit Huan and Vulcan resources to a project if the Humans and Vulcans did not wish to participate. Neither of the two could prevent the Andorians action (short of force), although they would be able to consol their partner on the matter.
Deciding between two courses of action is a form of discrimination. Making value judgements is a form of discrimination. And yes, discrimination could be making a decision against a action or person, hopefully your choice will be a positive one.
In "Hollow Pursuits", Data refers to the use of nicknames as denoting fondness. My whole point is that the nickname "Broccoli" was used in derogatory manner.
The PD could also result in the Federation adopting a culture of cruelty, feeling that the PD conveniently get them out of having to care for the plight of others. By recognizing that they indeed have the power and ability to selectively help non-warp societies and not hiding behind "no matter what we do, we'll fuck it up," the Federation could at times be of tremendious help.
In the case of the Human, Vulcan and Andorian problem, if the Federation is a alliance, the Andorians likely could not commit Huan and Vulcan resources to a project if the Humans and Vulcans did not wish to participate. Neither of the two could prevent the Andorians action (short of force), although they would be able to consol their partner on the matter.
I can't disagree more with the first part of your post. No individual bears any responsibility to help another person in plight unless said individual caused the plight through an aggressive act. If a Federation citizen wanted to use his personal property and resources to help a pre-warp civilization, then he should be allowed to do so on the basis that the civilization wants his help and he is prepared to personally compensate the civilization for any unforeseen consequences due to his interference. The Federation and its respective governments should not get involved, as such creates a moral hazard by risking the resources of those that would prefer to not associate with the pre-warp civilization. Forced association is slavery.
As to the second half of the post, it depends largely on the organization of the federation. The Prime Directive, as the highest law in the Federation, would imply that the Andorians can't interfere since they are Federation members and agreed to the Prime Directive. Of course, the Andorians could always secede if they really wanted to help a pre-warp society.
Discrimination, positive and negative, is the discerning use of judgement to promote free association or non aggressive interaction. For example, individuals are happy to sign random petitions for superficial causes that sound good, because signing one's name comes at virtually no cost. But ask an individual to donate money to that same cause, the individual becomes much more hesitant and discerning given that his money may just be going into a ponzi scheme.
Likewise, a business owner could deny his services to an aggressive individual that routinely violates the rights of others in their respective community. The aggressive individual is motivated to change his ways as several business owners band together to ostracize him. Ultimately, the individual is motivated to change or move.
Unlimited freedom of choice vs civil rights -which is more desirable......
It's ironic, but it seems like in order to grant fair treatment to all its (law biding) citizens, a government does have to limit choices.
If 24th century Earth does not allow institutionalized discrimination, then that means it is forbidding businesses/social institutions from exercising the choice to exclude certain groups.
And yet that is supposed to be one of the qualities that makes future Earth look so attractive--its lack of discrimination, and fair treatment of all its citizens.
Does a government that enforces equal and fair treatment of all its citizens trump one that allows freedom of choice that permits discrimination?
It's ironic, but it seems like in order to grant fair treatment to all its (law biding) citizens, a government does have to limit choices.
If 24th century Earth does not allow institutionalized discrimination, then that means it is forbidding businesses/social institutions from exercising the choice to exclude certain groups.
And yet that is supposed to be one of the qualities that makes future Earth look so attractive--its lack of discrimination, and fair treatment of all its citizens.
Does a government that enforces equal and fair treatment of all its citizens trump one that allows freedom of choice that permits discrimination?
Government by its very nature is a violation of the non-aggression principle, so I say that a government does not trump freedom of choice that permits discrimination, sexism, racism, etc... because the government commits these and other atrocities on a far greater scale than any individual ever could.
^ Without government, left to their own devices, people would be free to commit discrimination on a massive scale, worse than any government could.
No government is perfect; but generally, a proper one does not commit discrimination, but keeps the masses from same.
No government is perfect; but generally, a proper one does not commit discrimination, but keeps the masses from same.
I was about to write a rather long-winded response but Mr. Laser Beam was much more succinct and focused ... like a ... well, you know.
There is no reason to object to a government limiting people's freedom to commit atrocities.
There is no reason to object to a government limiting people's freedom to commit atrocities.
It was the U.S. government that interned Japanese citizens during World War II. It was the U.S. that denied Jewish refugees entry into the U.S. It was the NAZI government that killed millions of Jews. It was the Russian Government under Stalin that killed millions more. Moa Ze-Dong used his government forces to commit atrocities in the tens of millions... And that's just in the 20th Century. Shall we go back two millennia when the Roman Empire discriminated Christians? Shall I fill in the centuries in between? How is an individual suppose to match and exceed this?
There is no proper government, because government is inherently based on force and aggression. All governments have policies of do as I say, not as I do. They are parasites and harbingers of war that promote fear and violence for the consolidation of power.
The free market offers far more sound principles to regulate human interaction, such as the non-aggression principle, money (gold and silver), guns, free association, and private property, as opposed to government. Government is nothing more the sugar coated blunt force.
Mob rule is worse. However bad you think government is...anarchy and chaos are MUCH, much worse. Imagine The Purge 24/7, and you'll get an idea of it.
And for every violent action such as the ones you just listed, there are a thousand benevolent ones.
I love long winded responses.
And there is every reason to object to government, because individuals have an unalienable right to not be aggressed against.
Similar threads
