I think the moral is that I should be allowed to purchase an Exocet missile and a Mirage III to carry it on, just in case the British come again and try to take away my freedoms.
The Federation, what would it take for you to join?
- Thread starter T'Girl
- Start date
I think every year might be an unworkable time frame, but I don't object to the idea of regulating firearm ownership with renewable licenses. I'd certainly agree that gun ownership should be more strongly regulated than it often is today.
But, by the same token, I'm not one who believes that prohibition ever works -- it didn't work for booze, it doesn't work for drugs, and it wouldn't work for guns. If there's a large enough market for something, a black market will emerge to supply it. It's a far better use of the government's time, resources, and popular legitimacy to channel and regulate such things than to try to ban them outright.
1. It's been stated many times that replicators do not create perfect replicas of the food they copy. Replicated food just doesn't taste as good as the real thing.
2. Plenty of people just want to hunt because it is a part of their culture.
3. Hunting is a very effective mechanism for population control. I grew up in an area where there would end up being entirely too many deer if the law had not allowed for hunting -- there would have been a lot of deer starving to death and pushing further into human settlements looking for food if their numbers had not been culled by hunting.
4. Unless we're talking about an endangered species or a sentient species being game, why should someone have to justify their desire to hunt to anyone else?
While I agree that U.S. firearm laws are insufficient for the kinds of regulation we ought to have, to say that they're left over from the Wild West and the Revolutionary War is simply not accurate. Most gun control laws have been crafted in the last thirty years.
Unless you meant the Second Amendment when you referred to "firearm laws." Which is an amendment from the late 18th Century, but it's not a law, it's part of the Constitution.
Pointless point, but the Constitution's still a law.
Explaining how setting a single, stupid, defenseless animal against the accumulated technological knowledge of a hundred billion humans is supposed to be a fun pastime would be a start.
Even with the disturbing psychological implications, I suppose it's better than overpopulation and starvation.
I have to renew my concealed pistol license every five years (about thirty bucks), but I don't need a license or permit just to have a firearm in my home. Or to buy one, although the purchase was registered with the police after the fact.
No doubt you've met adults, women and other men, who are smaller than you are. Guns (along with other euphemisms) are referred to as equalizers. They enable people to protect themselves from other people,
who they can't compete with physically.
In addition to a lovely day walking in the forest, there is a enjoyable challenge and difficulty to it, the deer are sometime hard to find. That's why it called hunting.
And if it make you feel any better, the deer that I killed two years ago was shot with a bow and arrow.
Well try and find venison in a regular store.
Not specifically referring to weapons now. But moving from the government I have now to a Federation, should my rights increases? You would think so, wouldn't you?
Why "bother" to make the change if there isn't a positive advantage to the move. If all we do is maintain the current list of rights and protections, then stay as we are. If one right is exchange for another superior right, then there would be an advantage to that.
If the move were to join, not a government, but a interstellar organization, then the very idea of reducing rights and protections as a price of membership would be out of the question. So why would joining a government be different?
What could we possibility gain with the reduction?
Not trying to derail the thread, but you do realize that many countries in Europe still have laws that predate even the founding of the US? And you want to talk about our wild west laws?
For example, In Denmark there is an old law which says that if the Øresund sea freezes, and a Swede walks over to Denmark, Danes are allowed to hit them with sticks.
Once the Federation fixes their pesky "when our shields get hit all the consoles explode and steam starts coming from everywhere" problem, then I'll join.
Yes, I realized that long ago, and yes, I want to talk about your wild west laws, and yes, that Danish law is incredibly stupid, too.
We had this prohibition discussion some time ago already, didn't we? I guess we'll better agree to disagree then.
Well, I think some form of nationalism is in the UFP, at least for some time, because, doesn't the TOS canon list Uhura as being from the "United States of Africa"? IDK if that's regarded as canon or not, but if it is, it would indicate that while the UFP as a whole generalizes worlds, various nations or nation-states can exist on UFP worlds, so long as they are all united in global peace.
I think it's completely safe to say that the Federation and its Member States have (mostly) learned how to have immense pride in all of their communities -- local, regional, national, continental, planetary, religious, ideological, etc., and Federation -- without that pride leading to xenophobia or conflict amongst one-another.
Nonsense. The Swede can only be met with force. It is the only language he understands.
Sci said:
Just to emphasize, since fantastic racism is a major source of humor in Trek. But it generally seems like it's in good fun, although it's frankly amazing that humans manage to get along with people who would have empirically justified grounds for claims of superiority.
T'Girl said:
Good thing he stopped before he got to the terrible parts. I wonder if the Yangs had a Thirteenth Amendment.
Last edited:
The Commerce Clause?
The commerce clause is the best part.
On what basis would you support your country joining a United Earth-type planetary state, or your planet joining a Federation interstellar organization or political state?
Freedom of expression and freedom of movement. The ability to pursue my own interests, and to be held accountable only for my own individual actions.
What would you be willing to surrender to obtain a membership or a citizenship? You might no longer claim to be a sovereign Yank or Brit or Aussie or ...
If paid medical insurance reduced the overall cost and availability for everyone I’d be willing to give up free health care.
Would you trade liberty for security?
No. Without liberty there is no security. Without security there is no liberty.
How much can be taken from you, to provide for me?
No more or less than I receive in return.
Would you want government entitlements, or obligatory personal self-reliance?
Government entitlements are necessary for law and order
Would you want a common melting pot group identity, or a million intermixed pocket cultures?
Intermixed pocket.
Should the highest charter of principals be carved in stone, or a living document that changes with the breeze.
Carved in stone with room for exceptions as determined by a court of law.
How much philosophical diversity can you really entertain before the collective group breaks down?
None. Philosophical diversity should be encouraged on condition an all-tolerance policy is maintained within work and living environments. If people wish to isolate themselves among members only of their own group – i.e. a community consisting only of Brothers of the Sacred Faith – let them!
And who should be keep out?
Any overall group known to be aggressive, deluded, or needlessly self-serving. However, asylum and/or individual citizenship should be made available for those who warrant it.
Freedom of expression and freedom of movement. The ability to pursue my own interests, and to be held accountable only for my own individual actions.
What would you be willing to surrender to obtain a membership or a citizenship? You might no longer claim to be a sovereign Yank or Brit or Aussie or ...
If paid medical insurance reduced the overall cost and availability for everyone I’d be willing to give up free health care.
Would you trade liberty for security?
No. Without liberty there is no security. Without security there is no liberty.
How much can be taken from you, to provide for me?
No more or less than I receive in return.
Would you want government entitlements, or obligatory personal self-reliance?
Government entitlements are necessary for law and order
Would you want a common melting pot group identity, or a million intermixed pocket cultures?
Intermixed pocket.
Should the highest charter of principals be carved in stone, or a living document that changes with the breeze.
Carved in stone with room for exceptions as determined by a court of law.
How much philosophical diversity can you really entertain before the collective group breaks down?
None. Philosophical diversity should be encouraged on condition an all-tolerance policy is maintained within work and living environments. If people wish to isolate themselves among members only of their own group – i.e. a community consisting only of Brothers of the Sacred Faith – let them!
And who should be keep out?
Any overall group known to be aggressive, deluded, or needlessly self-serving. However, asylum and/or individual citizenship should be made available for those who warrant it.
Taking a cue from Spirit and using T'Girl's original questions...
That's a very broad question, but in general, I would support the United States joining a United Earth if the U.E. government were being designed as a constitutional republican liberal democracy. That is to say: as a planetary state based upon the rule of law, with binding legal protections for individual and minority rights; as a planetary republic, with no form of monarchy; and as a representative democracy containing binding legal guarantees of basic civil rights and liberties and human rights.
I'd not support any United Earth Constitution that does not explicitly state, as the United States Constitution does, that the enumeration of some rights should be construed as to mean that other rights do not exist. In general, the rights I would want to see enumerated would be those enumerated in the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including:
- Freedom of religion
- Separation of church and state
- Freedom of speech excepting acts of child pornography
- Freedom of the press
- Right to peaceably assemble
- Right to petition the government
- Right to bear arms excepting weapons of mass destruction
- Freedom from compulsory quartering of troops
- Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures
- Right to due process of the law
- Equality of all persons before the law
- Right to a trial by jury
- Freedom from double jeopardy
- Freedom from self-incrimination
- Right to fair market value in eminent domain
- Right to habeas corpus
- Freedom from arbitrary detention or imprisonment
- Right to legal counsel
- Presumption of innocence until proven guilty
- Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment
- Enumeration of some rights does not mean others do not exist
- Freedom from torture
- Freedom from any form of slavery
- Right to form and join a labor union without reprisal
- Right to birthright citizenship
- Freedom from racial, ethnic, linguistic, sexual, religious, color, political, national origin, social origin, minority, property, or sexual orientation discrimination by the government and by businesses
- Guarantee that all citizens be represented in the legislature
- Universal suffrage for all legal adults
- Universal eligibility for public office by all legal adults
- Freedom of movement
- Right to an interpreter in a court proceeding held in another language than one’s own
- Right to the provision of government services in a language one understands
- Freedom from capital punishment
- Right to an abortion during first trimester of a pregnancy, or in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother
- Freedom from conscription
- Freedom from ex post facto laws
- Right to privacy
- Right of any two or more consenting adults to marry and begin a family
- Right of all citizens to regular, free, and fair elections
- Freedom from exile
- Right to recognition as a person before the law
- Right to equal protection under the law
- Right to a judicial remedy when other rights have been violated
- Right to leave and return to United Earth
- Right to social security
- Right to work and to freedom of choice in employment
- Right to protection against unemployment
- Right to safe and healthy working conditions
- Right to equal pay for equal work
- Right to remuneration for employment sufficient to sustain a dignified life
- Freedom from poverty
- Right to rest and leisure (limitations of working hours and right to periodic paid holidays)
- Right to highest quality medical care free of charge
- Right to equal access to a compulsory, quality primary and secondary education when in one’s minority
- Right to educate one’s own children in a private facility or at one’s home
- Right to private property subject to reasonable limitations to ensure other rights are maintained
- Right to consensual sexual relations between adults
- Right to control of one’s own body
- Right to paid parental leave of a reasonable amount of time from one’s employment
- Right of all children to be provided with a healthy upbringing
- Right to adequate food and water
- Right to adequate shelter
- Right to an adequate standard of living
- Right to use of contraception
- Right to ingest or otherwise use any substance by a consenting adult
ETA:
In terms of governmental structures, I'd prefer something roughly akin to the semi-presidential structure that the French Republic uses. In my view, this system would combine the best advantages of both U.S.-style presidentialism and the U.K.-style Westminster system -- giving us a democratically-elected head of state and head of government, but adding a necessity for Parliamentary support for his Cabinet and policies in order for the President's agenda to advance. But I don't consider this to be as important as the issues I outlined above.
T'Girl said:
That's a very broad question, but in general, I would support the United States joining a United Earth if the U.E. government were being designed as a constitutional republican liberal democracy. That is to say: as a planetary state based upon the rule of law, with binding legal protections for individual and minority rights; as a planetary republic, with no form of monarchy; and as a representative democracy containing binding legal guarantees of basic civil rights and liberties and human rights.
I'd not support any United Earth Constitution that does not explicitly state, as the United States Constitution does, that the enumeration of some rights should be construed as to mean that other rights do not exist. In general, the rights I would want to see enumerated would be those enumerated in the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including:
- Freedom of religion
- Separation of church and state
- Freedom of speech excepting acts of child pornography
- Freedom of the press
- Right to peaceably assemble
- Right to petition the government
- Right to bear arms excepting weapons of mass destruction
- Freedom from compulsory quartering of troops
- Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures
- Right to due process of the law
- Equality of all persons before the law
- Right to a trial by jury
- Freedom from double jeopardy
- Freedom from self-incrimination
- Right to fair market value in eminent domain
- Right to habeas corpus
- Freedom from arbitrary detention or imprisonment
- Right to legal counsel
- Presumption of innocence until proven guilty
- Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment
- Enumeration of some rights does not mean others do not exist
- Freedom from torture
- Freedom from any form of slavery
- Right to form and join a labor union without reprisal
- Right to birthright citizenship
- Freedom from racial, ethnic, linguistic, sexual, religious, color, political, national origin, social origin, minority, property, or sexual orientation discrimination by the government and by businesses
- Guarantee that all citizens be represented in the legislature
- Universal suffrage for all legal adults
- Universal eligibility for public office by all legal adults
- Freedom of movement
- Right to an interpreter in a court proceeding held in another language than one’s own
- Right to the provision of government services in a language one understands
- Freedom from capital punishment
- Right to an abortion during first trimester of a pregnancy, or in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother
- Freedom from conscription
- Freedom from ex post facto laws
- Right to privacy
- Right of any two or more consenting adults to marry and begin a family
- Right of all citizens to regular, free, and fair elections
- Freedom from exile
- Right to recognition as a person before the law
- Right to equal protection under the law
- Right to a judicial remedy when other rights have been violated
- Right to leave and return to United Earth
- Right to social security
- Right to work and to freedom of choice in employment
- Right to protection against unemployment
- Right to safe and healthy working conditions
- Right to equal pay for equal work
- Right to remuneration for employment sufficient to sustain a dignified life
- Freedom from poverty
- Right to rest and leisure (limitations of working hours and right to periodic paid holidays)
- Right to highest quality medical care free of charge
- Right to equal access to a compulsory, quality primary and secondary education when in one’s minority
- Right to educate one’s own children in a private facility or at one’s home
- Right to private property subject to reasonable limitations to ensure other rights are maintained
- Right to consensual sexual relations between adults
- Right to control of one’s own body
- Right to paid parental leave of a reasonable amount of time from one’s employment
- Right of all children to be provided with a healthy upbringing
- Right to adequate food and water
- Right to adequate shelter
- Right to an adequate standard of living
- Right to use of contraception
- Right to ingest or otherwise use any substance by a consenting adult
I'd be willing to surrender the sovereignty of the United States if United Earth were to guarantee its citizens the same rights and freedoms they currently enjoy, or more rights and freedoms in addition to those currently enjoyed. The United States is a means to an end -- the liberty and rights of its citizenry -- not an end in and of itself.
This is a very broad and ill-defined question, but, in general, no, I would not trade liberty for security, nor support a United Earth which would do so.
Again, a very broad and ill-defined question. My suspicion is that this is the sort of issue which would need to be defined legislatively and judicially and could not be defined constitutionally, in part because it would probably require periodic revision. In general, though, I would support a system that ensures a "Middle Class" lifestyle for all citizens and which places the primary tax burden on the richer classes, and which would not allow a situation where an extremely small percentage of the population receives and controls the vast majority of the wealth.
I want both self-reliance and guarantees for when the market fails you.
Yes.
False dichotomy. The exact manner of executing those principles will inherently always be subject to interpretation; there is no way to avoid this. If we were to never engage in re-interpretation, for instance, it would be unconstitutional for women to serve as U.S. President, since the President is always referred to as a man in the U.S. Constitution, and the Ninth Amendment would be both irrelevant and nonsensical.
I think that's an overly-broad question whose answer is never universal and always depends upon the given situation and its contexts.
Any state which is not a constitutional liberal democracy. Any state which does not protect, in word and deed, the rights outlined above.
ETA:
In terms of governmental structures, I'd prefer something roughly akin to the semi-presidential structure that the French Republic uses. In my view, this system would combine the best advantages of both U.S.-style presidentialism and the U.K.-style Westminster system -- giving us a democratically-elected head of state and head of government, but adding a necessity for Parliamentary support for his Cabinet and policies in order for the President's agenda to advance. But I don't consider this to be as important as the issues I outlined above.
Last edited:
Under all except one of the conditions stated by Sci, I'd have no problem with my country joining a United Earth and/or Federation-type state. I'm not particularly fond of nationalism and patriotism and if it'd be for the unification of a civilisation, I say go for it. I'd of course like to have mainly liberal laws put into place and a professional government to organize things. I wouldn't mind the earth becoming one nation only, as long as it's liberal, professional and constitutional enough.
That said, I strongly disagree with
I say no. Except for an even better general quality of education, as in you pay more you get more, private schools are to be outlawed and homeschooling with it. No religious schools, no ideological schools, no alternative quack schools. The state has - through a council of teachers, scientific advisors and experts in all the subjects - to professionally dictate what you learn in what grade and that's it.
That said, I strongly disagree with
. Why should that be your "right"? So you can treat children like your belongings and indoctrinate them into every quack you "believe" in? "Faith Schools"? Christian and muslim indoctrination (see the US/UK), where children are being taught not to question anything, that sexuality is a sinful thing or that the earth is 6000 years old and dinosaur fossils were put into earth by god to mislead us?Sci said:
I say no. Except for an even better general quality of education, as in you pay more you get more, private schools are to be outlawed and homeschooling with it. No religious schools, no ideological schools, no alternative quack schools. The state has - through a council of teachers, scientific advisors and experts in all the subjects - to professionally dictate what you learn in what grade and that's it.
T'Girl said:
Not all private schools are religious. I personally agree with you on the religious ones, as I've known several people who went to such schools and they were... ill prepared for adult life to put it mildly.
However, there are private schools out there that do teach more then public schools, and if you can afford them I say go for it!
@Kaziarl
Alright, it depends. If you mean just additional stuff that the child can handle, e.g. economy, specialised stuff for overly intelligent kids, high schools with a focus on sports, biology or mathematics, courses of computer sciences etc., then I agree. I just don't want any Montessori or Waldorf schools. Not 1.
Alright, it depends. If you mean just additional stuff that the child can handle, e.g. economy, specialised stuff for overly intelligent kids, high schools with a focus on sports, biology or mathematics, courses of computer sciences etc., then I agree. I just don't want any Montessori or Waldorf schools. Not 1.
