What "insurrection?" ?!

[darkwing_duck1]

"How many people does it take before it becomes wrong?" That's the point. If you can do it to 6 or 60 or 600 you can do it to 6000, 600000, 6000000...you can do it to anybody.

Picard's argument would be easier to accept if the planet wasn't so incredibly overpowered (the fountain of youth)

So if the boon we gain is big enough it's ok to abandon our basic principles to obtain it?

and the admiral hadn't established that "there is no other way" to tap into that power.

He established no such thing. He refused Picard's attempt to gain access for his people to the research to find an alternative method. He refused to consider establishing a colony elsewhere that ill people could come to for treatment. From what happened to Geordi and the others, it's clear that it would in fact NOT have taken all that long for effects to start showing up.

It's hard to see the admiral as selfish and wrong after just learning that basically mortality is a disease and a handful of people on a planet are hogging the cure while trillions throughout the galaxy suffer. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the 600.

Then none of those trillions are safe. What will they say when THEY are called upon to give up everything "for the greater good"?

The whole thing would have made more sense just by changing that one detail of the impossibly magical planet...

And thus weakened the film, because the moral point WAS the film.

 

[DonIago]

To be fair, while Geordi's eyes regenerated fairly quickly, that's not a reliable indicator of how quickly the Son'a might have healed.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Picard's argument would be easier to accept if the planet wasn't so incredibly overpowered (the fountain of youth) and the admiral hadn't established that "there is no other way" to tap into that power.

If there is no OTHER way, then there is NO way. The power does not deserve to be tapped into. No one is entitled to it except those who live there legitimately. The needs of the many are irrelevant.

 

[DonIago]

In this case who has a legitimate right to be on the planet seems to be somewhat of a muddled issue. Questions such as whether it's a Federation planet, whether the Baku have a right to claim it as theirs when it isn't their homeworld, whether the Son'a have a right to peaceably live there as it's arguably as much their world (originally) as it is the Baku's seem to merit consideration.

Things would be a bit more clear-cut, for better or worse, if the Baku had offered to let the Feds set-up a colony on the far side of the planet and the Son'a blatantly rejected the overture and still intended to render the planet uninhabitable.

 

[T'Girl]

RIKER: The Federation Council has asked me to inform you that the Ba'ku relocation will be halted, while they conduct a top-level review.

Which isn't the same as saying the Federation aren't eventually going to do it, after the review process the metaphasic particles surrounding the planet might still have been collected. By the time of the movie Nemesis the planet could have been uninhabitable.

"How many people does it take before it becomes wrong?" That's the point. If you can do it to 6 or 60 or 600 you can do it to 6000, 600000, 6000000...you can do it to anybody.

Picard's argument would be easier to accept if the planet wasn't so incredibly overpowered (the fountain of youth)

So if the boon we gain is big enough it's ok to abandon our basic principles to obtain it?

Going to the example of eminent domain. The government builds a hydro-electric dam at the end of your valley and intends to flood the valley to generate power. Why is the government removing you? Your presents won't interfere with the building of the dam, nor the flooding of the valley. You'll be remove because the flooding process could drowned you.

What many on this thread seem to have forgotten is that the Federation and the Son'a didn't want the planet at all, they wanted the metaphasic particles surrounding it. The whole idea of removing the Baku was to prevent them from being "drowned" when the particles were removed. If it was solely up to the Son'a, the Baku wouldn't have been removed, the removal was because of the Federation's desire that they not be killed.

The Baku could have simply been left there. The valley they lived in was theirs, debatably the entire planet as well, but the ring of metaphasic particles? Just because 600 people lived in a valley on the surface? Darkwing Duck1, even you have to admit that's stretching the concept of ownership a little far.
____

I know it would have "wreaked" the movie, but I can't help but wonder why the Baku weren't simply ask if they would leave voluntarily? The people on Tau Cygna Five (Ensigns of Command) were initially ask by Data to leave. Problem is that if the Baku are asked politely by Picard to leave so that many billion can be medically advantaged, and they said no, then the audience with then believe that they're a collective group of assholes, and the audience will stop caring about them.

The morally wrong party in the movie seizes to be the Federation and the Son'a at that point and becomes the Baku. Of course the Baku could have independently decided to leave without being asked, once Picard explained the situation to them. But that would have made too much sense.

Why would they volunteer to leave Darkwing Duck1? Why to help many billions of people of course. I guess the Baku are assholes after all.

-------

The power does not deserve to be tapped into. No one is entitled to it except those who live there legitimately. The needs of the many are irrelevant.

Forget metaphasic particles, let say that 600 people right here on Earth have a cure for all forms of cancer, they refuse to sell it and they refuse to give it away. Now if you go and live with them for a number of years they will give you the cure, but that won't help people who would die this year or next. the cure is kept in a unlocked drawer in the front room on one of their homes (unlocked door). the home is located on private property. No one in this community has broken any law.

Let's keep it simple. Can the government just walk in and take it. Yes? No? (Oh, and the cure for AIDS is in the same drawer)

Mr. Laser Beam, your answer would seem to be no.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Going to the example of eminent domain. The government builds a hydro-electric dam at the end of your valley and intends to flood the valley to generate power. Why is the government removing you? Your presents won't interfere with the building of the dam, nor the flooding of the valley. You'll be remove because the flooding process could drowned you.

The difference is that eminent domain is a legal proceeding. The government comes to you and explains exactly what is happening and why they're moving you. And, more importantly, they have to HELP you move and compensate you for the property they take. Dougherty wasn't giving the Ba'ku any of those protections. He didn't ask the Ba'ku to move, he attempted to force them to.

In your example, an equivalent would be if the government kidnapped you from your home in the middle of the night. They obviously don't have the right to do that...Same story here.

If it was solely up to the Son'a, the Baku wouldn't have been removed, the removal was because of the Federation's desire that they not be killed.

And like I said, Dougherty becomes complicit in the Son'a's crimes simply by his association with them.

Forget metaphasic particles, let say that 600 people right here on Earth have a cure for all forms of cancer, they refuse to sell it and they refuse to give it away. Now if you go and live with them for a number of years they will give you the cure, but that won't help people who would die this year or next. the cure is kept in a unlocked drawer in the front room on one of their homes (unlocked door). the home is located on private property. No one in this community has broken any law.

Let's keep it simple. Can the government just walk in and take it. Yes? No? (Oh, and the cure for AIDS is in the same drawer)

There would presumably be a way to take the cure without killing or otherwise harming the people there. Send in covert operatives to steal it, for example. No one would have to be moved.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Let's not forget, the effects were not permanent. Geordi was back to having prosthetic eyes once he left the planet. So, you may be cured of cancer but it'll come back once you leave. Same with AIDS. The rings are also a finite resource. Once they're gone, they're gone. For all we know the effect was caused by an interaction between the rings and something in the Briar Patch. Take the particles out of the area and they may be inert.

Just because something is valuable to you doesn't give you the right to go into their house and go through their drawers looking for valuables. We call that break & enter and theft.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

RIKER: The Federation Council has asked me to inform you that the Ba'ku relocation will be halted, while they conduct a top-level review.

Which isn't the same as saying the Federation aren't eventually going to do it, after the review process the metaphasic particles surrounding the planet might still have been collected. By the time of the movie Nemesis the planet could have been uninhabitable.

After what Picard uncovered about the Son'a? Doubtful in the extreme. Ruafo was absolutely right, the people of the Federation would have debated the question to death, and Picard would still be there to keep them honest.

So if the boon we gain is big enough it's ok to abandon our basic principles to obtain it?

Going to the example of eminent domain. The government builds a hydro-electric dam at the end of your valley and intends to flood the valley to generate power. Why is the government removing you? Your presents won't interfere with the building of the dam, nor the flooding of the valley. You'll be remove because the flooding process could drowned you.

And the government will pay you for your lost land and home (assuming you can't stop the project in the courts entirely). That was not the case here. The Federation was going to STEAL the Baku's world, and do it in such a way they'd never know until they started aging again.

What many on this thread seem to have forgotten is that the Federation and the Son'a didn't want the planet at all, they wanted the metaphasic particles surrounding it. The whole idea of removing the Baku was to prevent them from being "drowned" when the particles were removed. If it was solely up to the Son'a, the Baku wouldn't have been removed, the removal was because of the Federation's desire that they not be killed.

The Baku could have simply been left there. The valley they lived in was theirs, debatably the entire planet as well, but the ring of metaphasic particles?

You just contradicted yourself. The removal of the particles would have made the planet entirely uninhabitable.

Just because 600 people lived in a valley on the surface? Darkwing Duck1, even you have to admit that's stretching the concept of ownership a little far.

No, I don't. Take ONE man's rights away and ALL are chained. It just becomes a matter of who can assemble the most support.

I know it would have "wreaked" the movie, but I can't help but wonder why the Baku weren't simply ask if they would leave voluntarily? The people on Tau Cygna Five (Ensigns of Command) were initially ask by Data to leave. Problem is that if the Baku are asked politely by Picard to leave so that many billion can be medically advantaged, and they said no, then the audience with then believe that they're a collective group of assholes, and the audience will stop caring about them.

The Federation had no right to ask them to leave. It was their planet.

The morally wrong party in the movie seizes to be the Federation and the Son'a at that point and becomes the Baku.

No it doesn't. They have no obligation to move. Either the Federation believes in it's own rules or it doesn't. By your logic, Kirk should have taken the Halkaan's dilithium crystals in Mirror Mirror as well. Hail the Emperor!

Of course the Baku could have independently decided to leave without being asked, once Picard explained the situation to them. But that would have made too much sense.

The Son'a knew quite well what their kin would say...that's why they had to trick the Federation into doing their dirty work.

Why would they volunteer to leave Darkwing Duck1? Why to help many billions of people of course. I guess the Baku are assholes after all.

The Federation never even tried. And yes, asshole or not, if the Baku said no, then that's it. Period.

Forget metaphasic particles, let say that 600 people right here on Earth have a cure for all forms of cancer, they refuse to sell it and they refuse to give it away.

Now if you go and live with them for a number of years they will give you the cure, but that won't help people who would die this year or next. the cure is kept in a unlocked drawer in the front room on one of their homes (unlocked door). the home is located on private property. No one in this community has broken any law.

Let's keep it simple. Can the government just walk in and take it. Yes? No? (Oh, and the cure for AIDS is in the same drawer)

Mr. Laser Beam, your answer would seem to be no.

A case MIGHT be made for "no harm, no foul" Taking the formula would not harm them in this case, but moving the Baku WOULD harm them as they would start to age and die.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

What it all boils down to is this: The Federation does not have the luxury, or the right, to give up its moral principles. Principles should be absolute, or they do not exist at all.

 

[BillJ]

Dougherty was right.

There are times in life that you're harmed due to the numbers not being on your side (eminent domain anyone?). The Vulcans seem to have no problem understanding this... why do humans?

We're sitting her debating this because a bunch of white guys with questionable morals came over here and pushed the Native Americans off their land. Come back and talk to me about morals when you've given up your property to a Native American, because the land is really theirs.

The truth of the matter is that life sucks. Sometimes the weak fall to the strong. If the worse thing that happens to the Ba'ku is they're returned to their natural lifespans... they should consider themselves lucky. If the Klingons or Romulans had found them first... they'd have been toast.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

We're sitting her debating this because a bunch of white guys with questionable morals came over here and pushed the Native Americans off their land.

And people are still bitching that they were wrong to do that. Well, if they were, then the Federation is wrong here.

 

[DonIago]

People seem to be overlooking the fact that there's multiple layers of morality here.

Do the Feds have the right to ask the Baku to leave? Yes, they have the right to ask a question. Nobody's stopping them from saying no.

Do the Feds have the right to -force- the Baku no? Unclear. The planet isn't the Baku's homeworld, we have no hard evidence that the Baku leaving would cause permanent damage to their culture, we have no real evidence that the planet belongs to the Baku any more than it belongs to the Son'a other than "the Baku were there". Of course, the tendency would be to say that nobody has the right to force someone to leave their home, but the question of whether the planet technically -is- the Baku's home isn't settled. Even the Feds don't fully settle the question by the end of the film. If the Baku planet is in Fed space then technically the Baku stole it first and the Feds are "stealing" it back. Provided the Feds determine the Baku have a legal right to the planet, they should also, if they are going to invoke any level of preeminent domain, find some way to compensate the Baku for their losses.

Does Dougherty have the right to stealth-move the Baku without his superiors being in the loop? No. Hello chain-of-command.

Do the Baku have the right to refuse to be moved? Sure, they can say no.

Is morality on the side of the Baku? Yes and no. The Baku should acknowledge that if they refuse to let the harvesting go through and/or to allow people who could be healed to settle on their world that they are complicit in whatever injury those people continue to suffer. Just as the Halkans had every right to refuse the Feds access to their world, but then bore responsibility for the consequences of their refusal to grant access.

In the end I hope the Baku were satisfied with the fact that they get to live innocent, healthy, significantly long lives while denying the same to others.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Wouldn't the Prime Directive prohibit the Federation from interfering?

 

[BillJ]

And people are still bitching that they were wrong to do that. Well, if they were, then the Federation is wrong here.

Are you willing to give your property back to Native Americans, Mr. Laser Beam? If not, then you're encouraging the very practice that forced Native Americans off their land.

Does Dougherty have the right to stealth-move the Baku without his superiors being in the loop? No. Hello chain-of-command.

There is nothing in the film to indicate that Daugherty is acting on his own.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And people are still bitching that they were wrong to do that. Well, if they were, then the Federation is wrong here.

Are you willing to give your property back to Native Americans, Mr. Laser Beam? If not, then you're encouraging the very practice that forced Native Americans off their land.

No, because all that happened centuries before I was born. And I'm not encouraging anything, because this practice isn't continuing (not in the USA anyway).

 

[BillJ]

And people are still bitching that they were wrong to do that. Well, if they were, then the Federation is wrong here.

Are you willing to give your property back to Native Americans, Mr. Laser Beam? If not, then you're encouraging the very practice that forced Native Americans off their land.

No, because all that happened centuries before I was born. And I'm not encouraging anything, because this practice isn't continuing (not in the USA anyway).

I really think that that is a cop-out.

You're continuing to take part in a cycle where the original owner of said property was never compensated. So it's okay as long as you weren't the one who took it from the original owner.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

You're continuing to take part in a cycle where the original owner of said property was never compensated.

So you say. You have no idea who owned this land before I bought this house. You don't even know where I live. (thank God) So kindly quit judging me, okay?

 

[BillJ]

You're continuing to take part in a cycle where the original owner of said property was never compensated.

So you say. You have no idea who owned this land before I bought this house. You don't even know where I live. (thank God) So kindly quit judging me, okay?

Not trying to offend or judge you. Just trying to show how all of us (including me) have a 'selective' morality.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

We can point out, today, that the practices of the US government of centuries ago may have been morally wrong in taking the Native Americans' land. It does not obligate us, today, to give it back.

Besides, those specific people whose land was taken are long dead, and there aren't enough of their descendants left anyway.

To put it another way: If somebody steals my lawn mower, then sells it on Ebay, am I entitled to get it back from anyone who (legally) buys it FROM Ebay? No? Thought not.

 

[BillJ]

To put it another way: If somebody steals my lawn mower, then sells it on Ebay, am I entitled to get it back from anyone who (legally) buys it FROM Ebay? No? Thought not.

Actually depends on the state, the jurisdiction and whether you can prove the mower originally belonged to you.

Have to agree to disagree on the morality of the actions we witnessed in Insurrection.