Planetary Defenses and a Standing Army for Starfleet

[Star Wolf]

Dayton3 said:
Everything we've seen in Star Trek indicates that Earth is protected and governed by Star Fleet and the Federation.

We haven't seen a single thing to suggest that Earth has any kind of separate govt.

I would go with the "D.C. Theory".

Interesting theory. But D.C. has its own city government the citizens just have no say in national affairs because of the District's neutral status. But since the original intent was to push most functions down to the states and not have them with the federal government it mattered little in day to day life. It only really matter when a large minority population's potential electoral college vote would have made the then Vice President Gore, President.

Just what are the ariticles of confederation of the Federation? What are the powers given to the world, nations of member worlds, perhaps independent space stations and generational mega starships?

 

[Dayton3]

Remember all the Enterprise stuff occurrs before the founding of the Federation.

I figure that Earth does have a government that takes care of internal matters.

But what I do think is that Earth doesn't take care of its own defenses. I doubt there is an Earth Defense Force the same way we see "Vulcan Defense Forces" in "Unification II".

And as we see in "Paradise Lost" & "Homefront" it is pretty clear that the Federation can deploy Star Fleet troops on Earth to maintain internal security if the situation warrants it.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Dayton3 said:

I figure that Earth does have a government that takes care of internal matters.

Agreed.

But what I do think is that Earth doesn't take care of its own defenses. I doubt there is an Earth Defense Force the same way we see "Vulcan Defense Forces" in "Unification II".

That *might* be the case, if only for the fact that ENT already had Starfleet in place before the UFP was founded. It might be that afterward, a special unit or division of Starfleet remained to take care of Earth's local defense needs.

And as we see in "Paradise Lost" & "Homefront" it is pretty clear that the Federation can deploy Star Fleet troops on Earth to maintain internal security if the situation warrants it.

Remember what I said about those episodes, though. Here is a relevant quote (from RDM):

As for the Earth Govt vs. Fed Govt issue, this was something we wrestled with in the story break. We wanted to tell the story of an attempted military coup of the Federation and that meant dealing with the Fed president. However, that meant the troops "in the streets" had to be on Earth and that Earth itself had to be under martial law since the Fed is headquartered on Earth. We discussed having the Prez "federalize" the Earth defense forces or supersede the authority of an indigenous Earth Govt, but the story kept getting too complicated and we didn't want to start mentioning all these other players and organizations that we weren't going to see.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Timo said:
As for survival gear, that would be a matter of doctrine, and dependent on technology. The most efficient trooper in the 24th century might be one that carries nothing but his phaser, relying on timely resupply via transporters for his daily needs. A soldier lugging things like food, lodgings and medicine with him might be woefully disadvantaged in comparison, and an army sticking with 20th century infantry fighting doctrines could lose to a numerically inferior enemy that boldly abandons such hindrances as camouflage, armor and individual self-sustenance...

Timo Saloniemi

Sorry, but wrong..."Nor the Battle..." addresses this. One of the first things the Klingons did was to set up large scale transporter inhibitor fields. No mass beamings, no "instant resupply". You want it in the field, you NEED it in the field, you carry it into the field (on foot or [as in the ep] by "hopper"). A "personal force field" that can withstand a hand phaser blast may not be able to handle that of a vehicle/fixed mount weapon, so right there is the need for "armored vehicles".

It may never have been SHOWN, but the ground forces of the Federation are going to be fairly well recognizeable in terms of our armed ground forces today, they're going to have the same operational requirements, and be tasked to do the same jobs.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Temis the Vorta said:
I've also thought there was something screwy about how Star Trek focuses on the "navy" when the geography of the Milky Way is far more akin to a planet with unimaginably vast oceans that are worthless in and of themselves, punctuated by tiny, widely scatttered islands where everyone lives and that everyone fights over because they are the only thing of value.

On a planet like that, the islands would be heavily fortified and the oceans largely empty. You'd still want battleships, but they would patrol close to the islands.

The only exception would be bottlenecks like the DS9 wormhole - there's no good ocean analogy for that, but that area would also be highly fortified. The DS9 minefield was an example of that.

But to depict that kind of warfare simply wouldn't be Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry based TOS on his experience in the NAVY. So this is just another one of those things we have to accept, along with the odd lack of robots used for warfare.

Flaw in your reasoning: those "little islands" have ties of trade and migration that are important to their collective well being. He who controls the "worthless empty part around the islands" controls that trade and migration. Analogs to the DS9 wormhole "chokepoint" would be the Straights of Gibraltar, the Persian Gulf, the North Sea passages, the mouth of the English Channel, and so forth. Just like any planet bound military, a spacefaring one in order to do it's job right must have a multi-layered organization to hold ALL the key environments: planet-side land/sea/air (collectively, "ground ", near-space "air" (orbital and system), and "sea" (deep space).

 

[Dayton3]

Technically, you could see Star Fleet as the "Navy" of the Federation and sonsider this:

If you have a strong navy, you can choose when and where you want to fight.

If you control space, you have little need for ground combat.

Forget orbital bombardment. I doubt that the ethics of the Federation would allow it.

You could simply blockade a planet and not allow the ground forces to ever be resupplied. Starve them out if you will.

I doubt that the Jem'hadar would land on a world with several thousand troops...........and several years supply of Ketracel White.

All you have to do is prevent their resupply and all the Jem'hadar would die.

Similiar tactics would work on most opponents probably.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Dayton3 said:
If you control space, you have little need for ground combat.

I don't agree.

 

[Plum]

^^^
You're right... if you want to occupy another planet.

That's the difference.

 

[Delta1]

Occupy, or raid.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Of course if you just want to destroy a planet, you can do that from orbit. But what's the advantage in that? Taking and holding territory *requires* ground combat of some type.

 

[Star Wolf]

Babaganoosh said:
Of course if you just want to destroy a planet, you can do that from orbit. But what's the advantage in that? Taking and holding territory *requires* ground combat of some type.

What's the advantage of taking dirt in the first place?

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Star Wolf said:

Babaganoosh said:
Of course if you just want to destroy a planet, you can do that from orbit. But what's the advantage in that? Taking and holding territory *requires* ground combat of some type.

What's the advantage of taking dirt in the first place?

Because the "dirt" as you so dismissively put it, is the entire POINT of the exercise. The "dirt" is where the people live. The "dirt" is what holds the resources you need. The "dirt" is where your opposition has set up HIS operations.

It's ALL about who controls the "dirt".

 

[Delta1]

remember that its the united federation of -planets- and not the united federation of -interstellar space-. most citizens, for one reason or another, still live on the dirt.

also my keyboard is broken, so apologies for the goofy typing

 

[Timo]

We might consider, though, that while the TOS era Federation seems to teeter on the brink of destruction whenever a single mining or farming planet fails to deliver, the TNG era Federation has every chance of being different.

Replicators could basically make every planet self-sufficient as long as there is a powerplant down there. Indeed, there seems to be very little interstellar trade in the TNG era for industrial or consumer goods. All that the tiny freighters haul around is novelty items, luxuries, and medicine; ore hauling is a thing of the past, or something the underdeveloped neighbors have to do. So why should a TNG-level political entity like Federation care about conquering and controlling planets?

Such priorities can be expected to be in flux, by historical precedent. When it once was essential to control mountain passes, or waterways, or farmland, today those things are "nice to have" at very best, and not really worth a war. Underground natural riches are the real reason for holding dirt today, with the prestige of holding on to any and all previous acquisitions the close second, and the ability to project military power globally from distant colonial holdings the third (although rapidly waning due to the increasing range of power projectors).

For the TNG Federation, clinging on to previous possessions might be the only remaining reason out of those three to have a war over dirt. The additional and pressing one would be protecting Federation lives in case more primitive opponents wanted to threaten those in pursuit of the good old set of three. But there would be exceptions to that, too, because the Federation would lose nothing but face if it decided to, say, withdraw its colonies from the Demilitarized Zone at Cardassian border. The lives would be safe, the lost dirt as inconsequential as always, and the projection of power would in fact become easier with the simplified geometry of things.

Of course, that's just one way this thing could play out. Perhaps replicator economies don't work that way after all. But to say that they do is a valid argument in light of the evidence. If the goal is to claim that Starfleet doesn't need to pay much attention to planetary warfare, we can do that, and we can back it up with the fact that we don't see Starfleet pay much attention to planetary warfare. Or then we can choose to argue that we just didn't look when Starfleet did do dirt possession, and that Starfleet indeed cares very deeply about it. The source material works either way. But the "it must be this way because of extrapolation from today's reality" part doesn't work, not with the full possibilities of science fiction open to us.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mirror_Barclay]

A federation of many different species would function best as highly decentralized, but what we've seen of Earth doesn't seem to fit that.

Perhaps it's like Canada, where Quebec opts to do as much on its own as possible, and other provinces are often fine with the federal government centralizing things - e.g. Canada Pension Plan for 9 provinces, and Quebec Pension Plan for the other 1.

As for DC, it's inhabitants have rights. Not having a voting member of congress doesn't mean they aren't entitled to speak freely, bear arms (okay, that one is rather infringed upon, but they can still take it to the courts), etc.

DC also has 3 electoral votes, which is a vastly disproportionate say in the election of the president.

I'd be fine with DC getting 1 Representative and no electoral votes instead. But either way, it doesn't seem like a big deal.

 

[Sci]

timmy84 said:
I'm not to good at using tags, so forgive me on my response, but I'm gonna try to address them in order.

1. I personally disregard mentioned of UESPA in TOS. It was obviously a writers mistake with the show evolving over time to eventually becoming the Federation Starfleet instead.

It's not a mistake. At the time that UESPA was mentioned, the writers hadn't created the Federation or its Starfleet yet. At that time, the USS Enterprise was intended to be a United Earth ship (it's referred to as such in "The Corbomite Maneuver"). The writers later changed their minds. We can interpret references from pre-Federation episodes in the following ways:

1) Retcon. Pretend that they said "Starfleet or "Federation" instead of "UESPA" and "United Earth" when describing who Kirk and Co. worked for.

2) Assume that the Enterprise was temporarily detached to UESPA for some reason and that UESPA continued to exist within the Federation Starfleet (the same way state national guards continue to exist within the structure of the overall US Armed Forces).

And who says they have no representation. Earth is the Federation.

No. Earth is the capital planet of the Federation, and United Earth is apparently one of the founding Federation Member States. But Earth is no more the Federation than Virginia is the United States or England is Great Britain.

2. The District of Columbia is only a modern day example since thats what we all go with really. I'm not saying its exactly like DC, but it seems to me while all other worlds are members of a federation, Earth is not.

But the District of Columbia is a really stupid situation. WHY would the Federation imitate it, and what reason do you have to think that Earth is not a Member?

Oh and its already been established that if its not in video form, its not considered offical canon for Star Trek.

Yes. I noted that it's non-canonical evidence. But so what? It's consistent with the canon, and it's not as though the canon is likely to contradict the novels.

I've read those books you mentioned. I've also read others. I don't remember a single mention of the Earth government during the hologram strike. Wouldn't the government of a planet crippled by a strike take action? Wait, the Federation did take action....

I can't speak to the VOY relaunch novels, since I haven't read them. But the fact that they don't mention UE doesn't mean UE doesn't exist. You might as well argue that the fact that the US Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act must mean that state governments don't exist.

However, other novels have definitively mentioned United Earth -- and we know that the novels that have mentioned UE's continued existence take place in the same continuity as the VOY relaunch, since A Time for War, A Time for Peace, which referred to UE government regulations, contained a mention of the holostrike.

I just don't think Earth has a government anymore. It has no need for one.

Why do you think that? Even in a world that's a near-paradise, there's still going to be a need for law enforcement. There's still going to be a need for logistics -- who keeps the planetary power grid running? Who determines what happens to waste? Who keeps the water supply working? Who determines where new buildings can be constructed? Who preserves wildlife? Who sends out Social Security checks, or their 24th Century equivalents? And how would Earth be represented on the Federation Council if UE isn't a Member State?

The Federation takes care of Earth.

Which is a nice idea, except

A) The Federation has to deal with the collective concerns of one hundred fifty member states. Why on Earth would it willingly take on, in addition to that, all of the problems and concerns and responsibilities of one planet?

B) If Earth isn't a Member, then it would be incapable of being represented on the Federation Council. What you are describing is basically Earth losing all rights -- if it has no government of its own, then it has no rights. Earth residents would go unrepresented on the Federation Council; Earth would have no self-governance OR representation, and thus no freedom for itself. It would be a horrific violation of Earth's residents' democratic rights. It presents a vision of a Federation state that's disturbingly Orwellian.

On top of that, as much as you seem taken with the example of the District of Columbia, it's not an analogous situation. The District of Columbia did not exist before the US federal government created it, and no one lived there before then; when DC was created, no one anticipated that it would become a huge city the way it has, with its own community with a distinct identity from those of Maryland and Virginia. Earth, by contrast, existed before the Federation did. If the UE government was abolished, the UFP would be a unitary state -- but the NAME specifically says that the UFP is a federation. Meaning, it has a federal system of government like what the US or Canada or Germany or Australia have. It's in the name.

I still think that Earth ceded its independence to the UFP as an example to the others. Why else would they agree to have Earth be its capital. Because Johnny Archer made friends with all of them. Thats not enough.

Why would Earth ceding its independence change anything? If anything, that would make them LESS likely to join, for fear that they would have to lose their own governments and submit to direct rule from the Federation government, too. And, as has been noted before, if Earth is not a Member State, then Earth has no representation on the Federation Council. Earth having no representation on the Council that governs it would only scare the Vulcans and Andorians and Tellarites away.

A federal system of government, where Member States retain their own governments, is far more likely to persuade people to join than a unitary system.

Earth is the Federation. Vulcan and Andoria are not. They are members of the Federation.

Then what you're describing makes no sense. Why would Andor and Vulcan agree to, in essence, subordinate themselves to Earth ruling them?

Which also explains why humans are seen the most in Starfleet uniforms instead of other members,

Not really. We've only seen a very small percentage of Starfleet, and we have no way of knowing if half the extras we see are Humans or Betazoids or Ardanans or any of the other five hundred thousand human-looking species.

and why an alliance of 150 fully developed worlds failed to raise a fleet to take the Dominion and Cardassian fleets.

Erm, they did raise a fleet to take the Dominion on. And they won. Even though the Dominion had an easier time building ships because of superior technology and could breed Jem'Hadar very quickly. Plus, keep in mind that the Federation is so huge that it would be difficult for them to defend no matter what.

Starfleet is the Earth military but is also the Federation military. If it weren't, then their would be no reasonable excuse as to how the Romulans or Klingons could remain a threat after their alliance ended.

I don't even know what you mean here.

Babaganoosh said:

timmy84 said:
I just don't think Earth has a government anymore. It has no need for one.

That does not make sense either. Do city governments disappear because they are part of states? Do state governments cease to exist because they are part of the USA? No? Then why would United Earth no longer exist because of the founding of the Federation? Occam's Razor, people. Occam's Razor.

Exactly!

And no one has as yet answered my point. If there were no United Earth government, then no one on Earth would have any rights. You must have representation in the government before you can have any rights under that government.

Well, not exactly. There is a such thing as what Fareed Zakaria calls a "liberal autocracy" -- a government that has power without the consent of the governed but which nonetheless acknowledges and respects most of the human rights of its citizens. So you could have a situation where someone has no representation in government but nonetheless retains the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc. That's the situation that currently exists for residents of the District of Columbia, in fact; they have no real representation in Congress (beyond a non-voting Delegate), but they certainly retain rights under the US Constitution.

But, that's a nitpick, and I agree with you completely that denying people representation in their government is a travesty. You can have a liberal autocracy, and you can have an illiberal democracy, but neither government is what they ought to be; liberal democracy is the way to go.

As I recall, there are movements to make Washington, DC a full state. Why do you think they want this? I doubt its natives are very happy that they have no rights either. Because, unless they have voting representation in Congress, they DON'T.

There is, indeed, a movement to get DC representation in Congress. It's not that they have no rights -- they do. They have all of the rights articulated in the US Constitution... except the right to representation in government. But that, in and of itself is, it could be argued, a human right that they are being denied. That's why residents of DC and the DC government have been fighting so hard to get their Congressional Delegate in the House of Representatives a new status as a full United States Representative.

Why else would they agree to have Earth be its capital.

The capital has to be *somewhere*. Just because it's on Earth, doesn't make Earth special. Earth is one of the founding worlds of the Federation, true, but it's no more so than Vulcan, Tellar or Andor.

And, to be fair, one could argue that it became the capital because it was the "honest broker" that everyone trusted more than any of the others. Or, if you're going for a less cynical interpretation, because it had proven itself to be the bridge that held Vulcan, Andor, and Tellar together.

And another thing. If people insist on bringing up Washington, DC as an example, then that could still carry over into the UFP/Earth relationship. Is the entire surface of the Earth covered with Federation government buildings? Of course not. Then why would the entire planet need to be sectioned off? Just do what we're already doing: set aside however much land is needed for Federation government administration, but leave the whole rest of the Earth as the existing state of United Earth. Hell, for all we know, that's exactly the case.

Indeed. In fact, that's one of the suggestions to the "DC voting rights" issue -- some people have suggested that the City of Washington be made a part of the State of Maryland, with federal government buildings and the land they're on being the only remnants of the District of Columbia. DC residents don't tend to agree with this, though, because they have a very distinct identity from Maryland's, and want to preserve their own identity within the Union by getting all of the same rights to home rule that a state has in addition to getting representation in Congress.

Dayton3 said:
Everything we've seen in Star Trek indicates that Earth is protected and governed by Star Fleet and the Federation.

Everything we've seen would tend to indicate that Starfleet protects Earth, yes. But we've seen no canonical evidence that the Federation directly governs Earth, because we've never seen a situation where the Federation government ruled on something that only affected Earth.

Every time we've seen the Federation government reaching a policy decision in the canon, it's been on an issue that affected the entire UFP, not just Earth.

We haven't seen a single thing to suggest that Earth has any kind of separate govt.

Well, we know that United Earth existed before the Federation, and we know that the Federation is, well, a federation. And there's no evidence that UE has ceased to exist, and there is evidence, however controversial it may be, that UE continued to exist in the form of TOS references to UE and UESPA. And there is direct non-canonical evidence of UE existing. The preponderance of evidence seems to be that UE still exists within the Federation.

Babaganoosh said:
Also (THIS is canon, because it was onscreen), the "It's Federation Day!" portion of Picard's family album, states (among other things) that United Earth had an ambassador to the Federation. You can't have an ambassador if your government no longer exists.

So there.

Actually, the "It's Federation Day" article was never seen on-screen, even if the Picard album was. Plus, by that logic, the giant hamster in a wheel is also canonical, since it was on the Master Systems Display on engineering on the Enterprise-D.

Star Wolf said:

Dayton3 said:
<SNIP> I would go with the "D.C. Theory".

Interesting theory. But D.C. has its own city government the citizens just have no say in national affairs because of the District's neutral status.

DC did not used to have its own city government, though. Congress used to directly run the District of Columbia through its DC committee. But that committee was viewed as being a bad assignment. Invariably, the worst Members of Congress ended up being assigned to it, and so the District was run incompetently until Congress authorized the existence of local government for the District in 1973.

But since the original intent was to push most functions down to the states and not have them with the federal government it mattered little in day to day life. It only really matter when a large minority population's potential electoral college vote would have made the then Vice President Gore, President.

Um, if you really think that these issues didn't matter, I'd suggest you read about both the District of Columbia Home Rule and voting rights issues.

Also, the District was given its own electoral college vote back in the 70s, so that wasn't a factor in the 2000 election.

Just what are the ariticles of confederation of the Federation?

Well, TNG established the existence of a Federation Constitution ("The Drumhead," "The Perfect Mate"). DS9 and VOY have referred to a Federation Charter ("Accession," "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges," "The Void"). Presumably, they're the same thing. The novels have referred to the Articles of the Federation, which apparently are a third name -- presumably the formal one -- for the same document.

What are the powers given to the world, nations of member worlds, perhaps independent space stations and generational mega starships?

The exact distribution of power has never been established. However, we do know from TNG's "Attached" that a potential Member State has to have jurisdiction over a unified planet. (Presumably the Member State can have multiple planetary surfaces under its jurisdiction.) We know from the Federation's name that it is a federation, and, therefore, has a federal system of government. There is no evidence that space stations or ships can be considered separate Member States -- in part because there's no evidence that such structures exist in the Federation.

Mirror_Barclay said:
A federation of many different species would function best as highly decentralized, but what we've seen of Earth doesn't seem to fit that.

Perhaps it's like Canada, where Quebec opts to do as much on its own as possible, and other provinces are often fine with the federal government centralizing things - e.g. Canada Pension Plan for 9 provinces, and Quebec Pension Plan for the other 1.

That's a possibility.

As for DC, it's inhabitants have rights. Not having a voting member of congress doesn't mean they aren't entitled to speak freely, bear arms (okay, that one is rather infringed upon, but they can still take it to the courts), etc.

They have some rights, but lack the rights that a state enjoys, such as the right to have their own government. (They HAVE a local government, but that local government only exists at the pleasure of Congress.) See the links above to DC home and voting rights.

DC also has 3 electoral votes, which is a vastly disproportionate say in the election of the president.

It's proportionate. It's what they'd have if they were a state, which they ought to be.

I'd be fine with DC getting 1 Representative and no electoral votes instead. But either way, it doesn't seem like a big deal.

It would seem like a big deal if you were a District resident. Why should you have less of a say in your government just because of where you live?

The District of Columbia deserves a US Constitutional amendment giving it either statehood status or the legal equivalent thereof. DC ought to have two United States Senators and however many United States Representatives and electoral college votes as it would be legally entitled to if it was a state. It ought to have the same intrinsic right to self-governance that states have, and it shouldn't have to integrate itself into any other polities to do so.

Can you tell that I'm in favor of a 51-star flag? (Well, okay, a 56-star flag, since I think that the territories ought to be either given statehood or independence.)

 

[Mirror_Barclay]

Heavily snipping and hoping I don't screw up the tags.

Sci said:
At that time, the USS Enterprise was intended to be a United Earth ship (it's referred to as such in "The Corbomite Maneuver"). The writers later changed their minds. We can interpret references from pre-Federation episodes in the following ways:

1) Retcon. Pretend that they said "Starfleet or "Federation" instead of "UESPA" and "United Earth" when describing who Kirk and Co. worked for.

2) Assume that the Enterprise was temporarily detached to UESPA for some reason and that UESPA continued to exist within the Federation Starfleet (the same way state national guards continue to exist within the structure of the overall US Armed Forces).

Makes sense.

We've only seen a very small percentage of Starfleet, and we have no way of knowing if half the extras we see are Humans or Betazoids or Ardanans or any of the other five hundred thousand human-looking species.

I've always figured that having each starship assigned to a certain species makes sense - lighting, gravity and atmosphere have to be set for somebody. Clearly people serve on vessels mainly crewed by those of other species, but all the same it makes sense most wouldn't want to, at least not for most of their careers. So all we've seen is a few starships with Earth-based artificial gravity, lighting and atmospheres.

Well, not exactly. There is a such thing as what Fareed Zakaria calls a "liberal autocracy" -- a government that has power without the consent of the governed but which nonetheless acknowledges and respects most of the human rights of its citizens. So you could have a situation where someone has no representation in government but nonetheless retains the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc. That's the situation that currently exists for residents of the District of Columbia, in fact; they have no real representation in Congress (beyond a non-voting Delegate), but they certainly retain rights under the US Constitution.

A liberal autocracy is certainly possible, but I don't think it applies to the situation of a capital district within a democratic state.

But, that's a nitpick, and I agree with you completely that denying people representation in their government is a travesty. You can have a liberal autocracy, and you can have an illiberal democracy, but neither government is what they ought to be; liberal democracy is the way to go.

I still don't think having a capital district obviates being a liberal democracy.

There is, indeed, a movement to get DC representation in Congress. It's not that they have no rights -- they do. They have all of the rights articulated in the US Constitution... except the right to representation in government. But that, in and of itself is, it could be argued, a human right that they are being denied. That's why residents of DC and the DC government have been fighting so hard to get their Congressional Delegate in the House of Representatives a new status as a full United States Representative.

Except that DC is represented in the US government. They get to vote for the President. And by population, they have an enormous say.

In fact, that's one of the suggestions to the "DC voting rights" issue -- some people have suggested that the City of Washington be made a part of the State of Maryland, with federal government buildings and the land they're on being the only remnants of the District of Columbia. DC residents don't tend to agree with this, though, because they have a very distinct identity from Maryland's, and want to preserve their own identity within the Union by getting all of the same rights to home rule that a state has in addition to getting representation in Congress.

What if Buffalo, say, develops a distinct identity? Can any city demand 2 Senators and a Representative?

DC also has 3 electoral votes, which is a vastly disproportionate say in the election of the president.

It's proportionate. It's what they'd have if they were a state, which they ought to be.

It's vastly out of proportion with the population of DC.

I'd be fine with DC getting 1 Representative and no electoral votes instead. But either way, it doesn't seem like a big deal.

It would seem like a big deal if you were a District resident. Why should you have less of a say in your government just because of where you live?

The District of Columbia deserves a US Constitutional amendment giving it either statehood status or the legal equivalent thereof. DC ought to have two United States Senators and however many United States Representatives and electoral college votes as it would be legally entitled to if it was a state. It ought to have the same intrinsic right to self-governance that states have, and it shouldn't have to integrate itself into any other polities to do so.

DC residents have a large say (relative to population) in selection of the President, but no say in the makeup of Congress. It's not clear that this amounts to less say over the national government than residents of states have.

Can you tell that I'm in favor of a 51-star flag? (Well, okay, a 56-star flag, since I think that the territories ought to be either given statehood or independence.)

Puerto Rico, at least, has repeatedly rejected both independence and statehood. We could force them to choose one or the other, but I don't really see why that would benefit either the US or Puerto Rico.

On the whole, I agree with you to a certain extent - I don't see the necessity of a separate capital district. If I was devising a system of government from scratch, I wouldn't have one.

But it isn't true to say that DC residents have no say in the government, and even if it was, it wouldn't exclude the US from being a liberal democracy.

It's not a pressing issue (to me), but I'd like to see DC rejoined to Maryland.

As I said before, I also have no objection to the city of Washington, DC, trading it's 3 electoral votes for 1 Representative.

I do have a big problem with one city suddenly getting 2 Senators, 1 Representative and still having 3 electoral votes.

There are very good reasons why the US doesn't have strict representation by population. But there's such a thing as going too far.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Mirror_Barclay said:
A liberal autocracy is certainly possible, but I don't think it applies to the situation of a capital district within a democratic state.

I reject the notion that we even need a 'capital district' anyway. State capitals are within specific cities, and nobody really cares about that, do they? Why would this be any different?

Except that DC is represented in the US government. They get to vote for the President.

DC natives didn't always have that right. It was only in 1961, with the passage of the 23rd Amendment, that they got the right to vote. Before that, they had no say in anything at all. They were just one step removed from property.

It's not a pressing issue (to me), but I'd like to see DC rejoined to Maryland.

Agreed. Virginia already got *its* land back, Maryland should as well. I think it'd be less trouble than creating a whole new state.

 

[Sci]

Mirror_Barclay said:
Heavily snipping and hoping I don't screw up the tags.

You got the quotes just fine.

Sci said:
Well, not exactly. There is a such thing as what Fareed Zakaria calls a "liberal autocracy" -- a government that has power without the consent of the governed but which nonetheless acknowledges and respects most of the human rights of its citizens. So you could have a situation where someone has no representation in government but nonetheless retains the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc. That's the situation that currently exists for residents of the District of Columbia, in fact; they have no real representation in Congress (beyond a non-voting Delegate), but they certainly retain rights under the US Constitution.

A liberal autocracy is certainly possible, but I don't think it applies to the situation of a capital district within a democratic state.

Well, I'm not saying that the US is as a whole a liberal autocracy -- clearly, for the majority of US citizens, it is a liberal democracy. But it's hard to call a government that rules a city with no mandate to do so from that city's citizens anything other than an autocracy to those citizens.

There is, indeed, a movement to get DC representation in Congress. It's not that they have no rights -- they do. They have all of the rights articulated in the US Constitution... except the right to representation in government. But that, in and of itself is, it could be argued, a human right that they are being denied. That's why residents of DC and the DC government have been fighting so hard to get their Congressional Delegate in the House of Representatives a new status as a full United States Representative.

Except that DC is represented in the US government. They get to vote for the President.

And no say in the formulation of the laws that that President must enforce.

And by population, they have an enormous say.

They have three electoral college votes, which is the same amount they'd have if they were a state, and the same amount that the State of Wyoming has, in spite of its population actually being lower than that of the District. Are you going to claim that Wyoming's say is disproportionate?

In fact, that's one of the suggestions to the "DC voting rights" issue -- some people have suggested that the City of Washington be made a part of the State of Maryland, with federal government buildings and the land they're on being the only remnants of the District of Columbia. DC residents don't tend to agree with this, though, because they have a very distinct identity from Maryland's, and want to preserve their own identity within the Union by getting all of the same rights to home rule that a state has in addition to getting representation in Congress.

What if Buffalo, say, develops a distinct identity? Can any city demand 2 Senators and a Representative?

Sure, if they've been forcibly separated from the state that they were once a part of by the US federal government and then denied a voice in Congress for decades.

DC also has 3 electoral votes, which is a vastly disproportionate say in the election of the president.

It's proportionate. It's what they'd have if they were a state, which they ought to be.

It's vastly out of proportion with the population of DC.

If DC was a state, it would have one US Representative and two US Senators, same as states such as Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. As I noted above, Wyoming's population is even lower than the District's -- 493,782 to DC's 581,530. Would you favor Wyoming getting only 1 Representative and no electoral votes?

Why should Wyoming get preferential treatment to DC?

I'd be fine with DC getting 1 Representative and no electoral votes instead. But either way, it doesn't seem like a big deal.

It would seem like a big deal if you were a District resident. Why should you have less of a say in your government just because of where you live?

The District of Columbia deserves a US Constitutional amendment giving it either statehood status or the legal equivalent thereof. DC ought to have two United States Senators and however many United States Representatives and electoral college votes as it would be legally entitled to if it was a state. It ought to have the same intrinsic right to self-governance that states have, and it shouldn't have to integrate itself into any other polities to do so.

DC residents have a large say (relative to population) in selection of the President, but no say in the makeup of Congress. It's not clear that this amounts to less say over the national government than residents of states have.

Um, yes, it is. The residents of the states get two US Senators and a number of US Representatives based on their population but are entitled to at least one, and get as many electoral college votes as they have Members of Congress. The District of Columbia gets no US Senator, no US Representative, and as many electoral college votes as they would have if they were a state. It is demonstrably unequal representation.

Let's look at it in graphical form, comparing the District of Columbia to states with similar populations!

US REPS US SENS EC VOTES
Alaska 1 2 3
Delaware 1 2 3
Montana 1 2 3
North Dakota 1 2 3
South Dakota 1 2 3
Vermont 1 2 3
Wyoming 1 2 3
D.C. 0 0 3

Looks pretty unequal to me. Let's check out their populations, just to be safe.

ALASKA - 626,932; Ranked 47th
DELAWARE - 783,600; Ranked 45th
MONTANA - 997,195; Ranked 44th
NORTH DAKOTA - 642,200; Ranked 48th
SOUTH DAKOTA - 754,844; Ranked 46th
VERMONT - 608,827; Ranked 49th
WYOMING - 493,782; Ranked 50th (Would rank 51st behind DC)
D.C. - 581,530 (Would Rank 50th ahead of Wyoming)

So... You have some roughly similar populations, but some wholly dissimilar amounts of representation in government.

Can you tell that I'm in favor of a 51-star flag? (Well, okay, a 56-star flag, since I think that the territories ought to be either given statehood or independence.)

Puerto Rico, at least, has repeatedly rejected both independence and statehood.

Only because the companies based there would have to pay taxes if it was given statehood. And it's a pretty divisive issue for them.

We could force them to choose one or the other, but I don't really see why that would benefit either the US or Puerto Rico.

Simple: I don't think the US has the right to hold inhabited territory that isn't part of a state. Americans ought to have the same representation in their government that everyone else does -- a number of US Reps based on population, and two US Senators. Period. And if they don't want to be Americans, they shouldn't be compelled to be Americans.

As I said before, I also have no objection to the city of Washington, DC, trading it's 3 electoral votes for 1 Representative.

I do have a big problem with one city suddenly getting 2 Senators, 1 Representative and still having 3 electoral votes.

Why? It's the same amount of representation that Wyoming, which has fewer people, has. And it was separated from other states literally centuries ago now, creating a very distinct identity that causes neither the people of the District, nor the people of the State of Maryland, to wish for DC and Maryland to be reunited.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Timo said:
We might consider, though, that while the TOS era Federation seems to teeter on the brink of destruction whenever a single mining or farming planet fails to deliver, the TNG era Federation has every chance of being different.

Replicators could basically make every planet self-sufficient as long as there is a powerplant down there. Indeed, there seems to be very little interstellar trade in the TNG era for industrial or consumer goods. All that the tiny freighters haul around is novelty items, luxuries, and medicine; ore hauling is a thing of the past, or something the underdeveloped neighbors have to do. So why should a TNG-level political entity like Federation care about conquering and controlling planets?

Such priorities can be expected to be in flux, by historical precedent. When it once was essential to control mountain passes, or waterways, or farmland, today those things are "nice to have" at very best, and not really worth a war. Underground natural riches are the real reason for holding dirt today, with the prestige of holding on to any and all previous acquisitions the close second, and the ability to project military power globally from distant colonial holdings the third (although rapidly waning due to the increasing range of power projectors).

For the TNG Federation, clinging on to previous possessions might be the only remaining reason out of those three to have a war over dirt. The additional and pressing one would be protecting Federation lives in case more primitive opponents wanted to threaten those in pursuit of the good old set of three. But there would be exceptions to that, too, because the Federation would lose nothing but face if it decided to, say, withdraw its colonies from the Demilitarized Zone at Cardassian border. The lives would be safe, the lost dirt as inconsequential as always, and the projection of power would in fact become easier with the simplified geometry of things.

Of course, that's just one way this thing could play out. Perhaps replicator economies don't work that way after all. But to say that they do is a valid argument in light of the evidence. If the goal is to claim that Starfleet doesn't need to pay much attention to planetary warfare, we can do that, and we can back it up with the fact that we don't see Starfleet pay much attention to planetary warfare. Or then we can choose to argue that we just didn't look when Starfleet did do dirt possession, and that Starfleet indeed cares very deeply about it. The source material works either way. But the "it must be this way because of extrapolation from today's reality" part doesn't work, not with the full possibilities of science fiction open to us.

Timo Saloniemi

By your logic, Timo, the Federation should just abandon ALL planets and build a multi-million ship fleet to put the populations on, crowded in like 23rd century Gideonites. No starship should ever have to resupply or refuel. The almighty replicator solves all.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

Life-friendly planets are and always will be the simplest, most efficient and economical means for sustaining a population. They have self-maintining life-support systems, an abundance of raw materials for use even WITHOUT the "magic replicator", and plenty of room for growth. They have INTRENSIC value, beyond "face" or "stategic positioning".