Organization of Federation Government

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ So without government, what protects individuals from aggression from other individuals? Because there'd sure be a lot of that. Would you want to live in a world where your neighbors could just come in and kill you and take your stuff whenever they wanted?

You can't expect everyone to turn their homes and communities into armed camps. Not everyone is a capable fighter and survivalist.

 

[lostshaker]

because government is inherently based on force and aggression.

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.

Mob rule is terrible. But mob rule completely ignores such things as private property, as I have previously described. Mob rule is democracy, which is nothing more than tyranny by the majority.

Do not confuse anarchy and chaos. The two are often misused as synonyms, but are not. I grant there are different forms of Anarchy, but I suggest researching Anarcho-Capitalism, which adheres to the principles of sound money, private property, and free association.

There are no benevolent actions by government, as government does not produce anything of value given that it has no property without first stealing it via taxation. Government is only capable of pleasing one group by first stealing from another.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

You didn't answer my question. If there is no government to protect individuals from each other, what will?

 

[lostshaker]

^ So without government, what protects individuals from aggression from other individuals? Because there'd sure be a lot of that. Would you want to live in a world where your neighbors could just come in and kill you and take your stuff whenever they wanted?

You can't expect everyone to turn their homes and communities into armed camps. Not everyone is a capable fighter and survivalist.

What protects individuals from their government aggressing against them? Nothing. I'd rather take on a single robber than an armed group of government trained assassins. Last I checked, it was the government that unconstitutionally sanctioned the Federal Reserve, granting to it the right monopolize and counterfeit the currency supply.

An armed society is a polite society. Guns are widely available, so an individual could easily protect themselves against home invasions and aggressors. Also, guns are an asset to weaker individuals. It's also likely that entrepreneurs and neighborhoods would employ privatized police. All government functions can be privatized and would result in far greater efficiency.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

What protects individuals from their government aggressing against them?

The law.

An armed society is a polite society.

Tell that to the thousands of victims of gun violence we see every day.

 

[lostshaker]

You didn't answer my question. If there is no government to protect individuals from each other, what will?

I did answer your question. Sound money, private property, contracts, guns, and the right to free association.

Government violates all of these and encourages violence by doing so. For example, government infringes upon free association with public education. Conflict will be inevitable when private individuals are forced to associate with one another when they would not ordinary associate of their own free will.

Another example is segregation in the South. Segregation was not devised by market entrepreneurs, but rather institutionalized by government politicians and their political beneficiaries.. There are many companies, particularly the bus companies, that objected to forcing blacks to sit in the back of the bus, because the policy would offend the primary customer base. But they had to comply, because otherwise the government would hit them with arbitrary fines and penalties.

Let's not forget that it was the Federal Government that institutionalized slavery with the Fugitive Slave Clause, thereby committing States that were working to end slavery to regress by aiding other States in the propagation of it.

Sound money is gold and silver. An economy that employs gold and silver experiences price deflation whereby gold and silver gain value against goods and services over time. Savers are rewarded as prices become cheaper. But the government robs us of sound money by unconstitutionally granting a monopoly to the Federal Reserve and permitting it to counterfeit its own currency with the effect of value dilution. Private citizens get robbed through inflation.

Contracts reaffirm voluntary agreements and the transfer of property. Courts for private arbitration exist rendering the need for government courts obsolete.

I discussed guns in the previous post.

 

[lostshaker]

What protects individuals from their government aggressing against them?

The law.

An armed society is a polite society.

Tell that to the thousands of victims of gun violence we see every day.

The law only slows governments down. The supreme law of the land in the United States is the Constitution, which does not grant power to 95% of existing government.

Gun violence is absurd. Individuals and especially governments kill with whatever weapon gives them a comparative advantage. The best option is to make weapons widely available so that an individual has a better chance to defend oneself against an aggressor.

 

[MacLeod]

^I'm curious what is a positive form of discrimination? Doesn't positive discrimination, discriminate against somebody/thing else?

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.

An example of positive discrimination would be all female shortlist for a position i.e. a MP. Which discriminates against all men, my view is it should be the best person regardless of gender, ethnic background etc..

Business esp. the likes of shops are free to refiuse business to anyone so long as they don't discrimate against a particualr group of people i.e. No French persons allowed. Because in general shops are private property.

 

[MacLeod]

^ 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.

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.

Nazi Germany was a dictatorship, and no it wasn't the Nazi government that killed millions of Jews, it was people that killed millions of Jews, committing genocide and crimes against humanity in which many were tried and convicted during the Nuremberg Trials.

So how is an individual brandising a gun and telling someone to do as I say and not what I do any different from a Government doing it? And if an armed society is so peaceful how come aside from a few exceptions such as Switzerland most have higher murder rates than those in which guns are very heavily regulated?

But aren't we moving way off topic?

 

[Nightdiamond]

When looking at the difference between the people who tried to defend segregation vs the ones who tried to fight it, the ones who tried to defend it resorted to terrorism, intimidation and violence.

The activists relied on peaceful protests and lawsuits.

It's one reason why the very concept of discrimination has left a bad taste and reputation in people's minds.

All government functions can be privatized and would result in far greater efficiency.

I think some of this is true. If you ever had to deal with people who work for a government agency, you can notice how annoyed, unmotivated they sound .

It's easy to be that way when you know it's harder to get fired for being rude or failing to provide proper service or making huge mistakes.

If they could get fired for not providing good 'customer service', totally different.

But too much of this and you can end up with a Marcus Crassus and his private fire fighting company.

I think the Federation and Earth has some libertarian laws in it. There is a lot freedoms its citizens enjoy, but at the same time there are certain restrictions in place.

Libertarian has some good points, but the problem is when people listen to some libertarians give their it views, it ends up freaking them out because of how 'far out' they can sound.

 

[Gov Kodos]

When looking at the difference between the people who tried to defend segregation vs the ones who tried to fight it, the ones who tried to defend it resorted to terrorism, intimidation and violence.

The activists relied on peaceful protests and lawsuits.

It's one reason why the very concept of discrimination has left a bad taste and reputation in people's minds.

Discrimination wouldn't have the bad reputation it does without the terrorism, intimidation and violence?

 

[Misfit Toy]

To All Concerned:

How about keep the political discussions to Misc and/or The Neutral Zone? TNZ in particular welcomes spirited discourse. I encourage the participants here to stay on the topic of the Federation government in particular.

 

[Nightdiamond]

When looking at the difference between the people who tried to defend segregation vs the ones who tried to fight it, the ones who tried to defend it resorted to terrorism, intimidation and violence.

The activists relied on peaceful protests and lawsuits.

It's one reason why the very concept of discrimination has left a bad taste and reputation in people's minds.

Discrimination wouldn't have the bad reputation it does without the terrorism, intimidation and violence?

It would, but seeing how far some went to preserve it, it guaranteed it would have a bad reputation, I think.

I think the Federation has a libertarian type government, (allows prostitution, polygamy etc) but at the same time, in order to be seen as a civilized and advanced society, obviously it has to outlaw or ban things like discrimination. caste based systems, etc.

Otherwise, you have no utopia.

 

[MacLeod]

You don't have to have a libertarian Government to allow Prostitution etc.. Any type government can in theory allow it, they simply have to past a law that permits it legally. For example in the UK legally speaking prostition is legal i.e exchanging money for sex, but it is illegal to engage in activites realted to it such as soliciting, kerb crawling, managin or owning a brothel. It might be more acurate to say that the Federation is a fairly Liberal form of Government.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

With the existence of holodecks, what need could there possibly be for prostitution?

And if you believe (as I don't) that the Federation doesn't use money...well, can't exchange sex for money if there is none of the latter.

 

[T'Girl]

... they simply have to past a law that permits it legally

Or, simply not have it appear in the legal code. Not legal, not illegal.

With the existence of holodecks, what need could there possibly be for prostitution?

Sex on the holodeck is with nothing more than a elaborate sex toy.

If you want to have sex with someone, you need more than a hologram.

 

[MacLeod]

... they simply have to past a law that permits it legally

Or, simply not have it appear in the legal code. Not legal, not illegal.

Fair point.

 

[Lantern]

Hey, long time lurker here, but I'm fascinated with how the UFP government might operate so I thought I'd chime in.

Re: Sarek, I've always thought of him as a member of the Federation Council, which operates basically as the American Congress. "Ambassador" could simply be the term they use for members of the Council. Today, our real life senators travel around on behalf of the government, meeting with other dignitaries and so on the same way we see Sarek do this occasionally.

Is there anything on-screen that rules this out? I realize there's nothing that really supports that idea either, but it works in my head.

 

[Nerys Myk]

My thought is Sarek has served on the council and as an Ambassador. Ambassador is the honorific he prefers.

 

[lostshaker]

To All Concerned:

How about keep the political discussions to Misc and/or The Neutral Zone? TNZ in particular welcomes spirited discourse. I encourage the participants here to stay on the topic of the Federation government in particular.

Since some are concerned about going off topic I will respond to several posts already made in a new thread. But the organization of the Federation is a highly abstract concept as any screen evidence exists in the margins and is largely second hand hear-say.

In any case, real or fiction, there are two ways to organize, either voluntarily or by force. Government is based on force. As that applies to Star Trek, the Federation follows a governmental model so some use of force is condoned. While the Prime Directive exists as a buffer to aggression and violence, the Federation has ignored (perhaps by ignorance or intent) its highest law. For example, it ignored the PD in "Insurrection" and Starfleet violated the PD in DS9 by trespassing upon Dominion Space.