But in the case of the Klingons joining the Federation wouldn't it be just the Klingon's? If they had granted independance to the worlds within their, then it would be up to those individual members to apply to join the Federation.
So for example if the population for it's member state is set at X what happens when it reaches X+1 does it get thrown out for exceeding the population limit?
The only government that obtains its right to exercise power from the consent of the governed is one that obtains a democratic mandate.
"relatively egalitarian social order" does not mean "single social level."
As a resident of Washington's seventh district I have only three, but as a resident of Washington State I have twelve people in my congressional delegation. And I understand quite well how this works, in matters directly effecting Washington State the 8 dems and 4 repubs will consult and often vote in unison.No matter what state you are from, you only ever have three representatives in Congress
Okay, then how can society place anyone in confinement for life, or even a protracted period of time, given that they might be innocent?No justice system is perfect, and having capital punishment inherently means you will be killing innocent people at some point.capital punishment
From the show, this isn't a given. Other than the Fed President (elected by the council itself?) when did we hear of elections?And within the Federation, these persons derive their authority from democratic mandate.this is the window on the future that is featured. A hierarchy power structure is very much on display, in addition to Starfleet we frequently see planetary leaders and others in positions of authority.
My mistake Sci, I meant T'Pau.I'd say she was about on the same social level as the Humans she served alongside.T'Pol was very much not on the same social level as those around her,
But you are advocating holding a entire population within a narrow social-economic enclosure, preventing anyone from falling below, and restraining those who would rise above. In a metaphoric building with a hundred floors, you have everyone restricted to one level.Strawman argument; "relatively egalitarian social order" does not mean "single social level."
Hey, those license plates have to come from somewhere.And forced prison labor should absolutely be abolished.
Not the dominate culture, but the essential sui generis of simply being Tellar.That Biological Species Representative for Tellarites may not represent his interests well at all if she reflects the dominant culture of Tellar.
And the show itself (DS9) establish that there are multiple reps from each Member.For the record, the novels have established that a single Federation Councillor represents each Federation Member State on the Council.
Amok Time (referring to the guy with the big blade).If the Most Serene Republic of Planet Zog wants to keep capital punishment when it applies for Federation Membership, then it shouldn't be allowed in.
By forcing a society to divide, it would definitely violate their right of free association. If a handful of Members thought different, then (hopefully) the majority of the Membership would disallow any expulsion. Majority rules, democracy in action.So for example if the population for it's member state is set at X what happens when it reaches X+1 does it get thrown out for exceeding the population limit? It's not very democratic to limit population.
There also seem to be a assumption that dozens/hundreds of alien species are all going to agree to governance rules largely (with few exceptions) derived from Earth's history and specifically the Westphalia system.You're making a lot of assumptions along the line of "This is how it works in the United States in 2014, therefore this is how this system inevitably works"
But by the 24th century the re-assembled High Command would presumably be one that operated by Federation values.From one Voyager episode, the Vulcan High Command is still in power in the 24th century, and they certainly weren't a democracy.
![]()
@Sci
You're making a lot of assumptions along the line of "This is how it works in the United States in 2014, therefore this is how this system inevitably works".
Freedom is not possible in any form of government if there are not limitations on the power the government can exercise over individuals.
The exact organization of authority is not nearly as important as having solid Constitutional protections. A monarchy where the rights of the individual are explicitly spelled out is far more free a society than a democracy where 51% of the people can vote the other 49% into slavery.
Also the structures that work and make sense for humans on Earth don't necessarily work for cultures with an entirely different biological and social structure.
Which is why I would say Federation membership focuses more on the Human Rights Index than it does on how the government is organized.
As for your concerns about population, I'm sure the system was designed with those kinds of concerns in mind.
Just like the United States deals with population discrepancies between states by having one body with equal representation for every state and one with population proportional representation and bills have to pass through both councils. The Federation does not necessarily have a Senate/House system but that is just one of many possible solutions to population differences.
And the council itself probably only makes decisions that deal with interplanetary matters, and internal matters are left to member planets. Any system is fine so long as it's designed so majorities can't force their will on unwilling minorities. Really, all the problems you're describing with unfair concentrations of authority due to population differences were solved in 1787.
I personally agree with you on the death penalty, but I think if you're going to make the argument that a person's life is not owned by the state, then a person's physical body isn't either and they shouldn't even have the right to incarcerate. A government does have the right to punish in order to protect people's natural rights to life, liberty, and property, and if the death penalty were more effective to that end than incarceration, then you can make an argument for it.
And you're right the government has the right to tax, but taxing one group disproportionately because we're just not particularly fond of them
No matter what state you are from, you only ever have three representatives in Congress
As a resident of Washington's seventh district I have only three, but as a resident of Washington State I have twelve people in my congressional delegation.
Okay, then how can society place anyone in confinement for life, or even a protracted period of time, given that they might be innocent?No justice system is perfect, and having capital punishment inherently means you will be killing innocent people at some point.
T'Girl said:Sci said:T'Girl said:this is the window on the future that is featured. A hierarchy power structure is very much on display, in addition to Starfleet we frequently see planetary leaders and others in positions of authority.
And within the Federation, these persons derive their authority from democratic mandate.
From the show, this isn't a given.
By forcing a society to divide, it would definitely violate their right of free association.[/quote]So for example if the population for it's member state is set at X what happens when it reaches X+1 does it get thrown out for exceeding the population limit? It's not very democratic to limit population.
From one Voyager episode, the Vulcan High Command is still in power in the 24th century, and they certainly weren't a democracy.
SOVAL: The Minister intends to pursue a less aggressive policy toward your people. The High Command will be dissolved.
But by the 24th century the re-assembled High Command would presumably be one that operated by Federation values.From one Voyager episode, the Vulcan High Command is still in power in the 24th century, and they certainly weren't a democracy.
Kirk: "And the highest of all our laws states that your world is yours and will always remain yours."
Why would Vulcan, a Federation Member, have to operated internally by Federation values?
Vulcan definitely would see to it that arranged marriages and death duels are not prohibited when it comes to Membership requirements.
As Sci pointed out, you've forgotten that the Vulcan High Command in ENT was dissolved. If it reformed by the 24th century, it would most certainly be in line with Federation laws.Kirk: "And the highest of all our laws states that your world is yours and will always remain yours."
Why would Vulcan, a Federation Member, have to operated internally by Federation values? As opposed to solely by their own cultural mandates, and (centuries old?) societal practices?
That was only ever shown on ENT. There's no evidence that it remained legal in the Federation era.IIRC, the Andorian also on occasion engaged in death duels. Regardless of how infrequently they occurred, the Andorians wouldn't allow them to be hindrance to membership.
That was only ever shown on ENT. There's no evidence that it remained legal in the Federation era.IIRC, the Andorian also on occasion engaged in death duels. Regardless of how infrequently they occurred, the Andorians wouldn't allow them to be hindrance to membership.
-No intra-species wars for at least three generations of the planet's inhabitants
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.