Why do so many people hate 'Insurrection' so much?

And if I did that I wouldn't blame people for considering me morally repugnant.

It's just like the (let's assume factions of) Maquis who'd rather start a full-fledged war with the Cardassians than leave their precious little colonies when they live in a world where there's the technology to recreate their homes in nigh-exacting detail.

Hell, even "Family Guy" did an episode where Carter had come up with the Cure for Cancer but wasn't going to sell it to anyone except for a steep cost. Does he have the legal right to do that? Sure. That doesn't mean he should do it, or that it's ethical for him to do so.

 

Not necessarily. We don't know what the legal status of the planet was at the time the Baku started shacking up on it, nor what Interstellar Law may say about such a matter, assuming it says anything.

The Baku could have squatted on a Klingon-owned planet for the proverbial nine years, eleven months before the Klingons traded the area to the Federation.

 

Where Insurrection's entire moral argument falls apart is that it's based on circular logic - Insurrection claims that it's wrong to forcibly relocate people regardless of the underlying motive, therefore it's wrong to move the Ba'ku, but never actually bothers justifying the former part of the argument.

Heck, the very fact that the film's premise can produce such a huge debate, whereas the film itself simplifies things down to "moving people is wrong, and any government that would do so is so evil that one should take up arms against it" kinda illustrates how badly wrong it went.

 

I don't recall how the episode ends, but he's clearly no hero for choosing legality over morality. Nor are the Baku, if the best defense they have is "We don't wanna move, and we're not going to let anyone else live on the entire surface of this planet we're not even using ten percent of."

If the only person who could possibly save my loved one refused to do so, I don't think I'd resort to threatening their life, but I might try to find a way to take them to court. And I'd find them morally reprehensible for refusing to help.

Let's say when the British started to colonize North America that there wasn't anybody living on the portion of the continent where they made landfall, or within a five hundred mile radius. Should the Native Americans be able to come along and say "Hey, we were here first, you need to leave"? What if the British are there for over a century before contact occurs?

 

I'm not sure the Ba'ku go that far. They banned the So'na a century ago after their rebellion, yes, but I don't think the script states the Ba'ku would be against the foundation, of, say, a Federation resort for "people of good will" on the other side of the planet. Rather, I have the idea that Dougherty doesn't expect anybody wants to live in the Briar patch for much longer than a holiday.

If the other extreme were true --trillions flocking to the planet -- that would of course be unworkable, too.

 

Here is a question for those that are ok with forcibly relocating the Ba'ku against their will.

Is there a number at which it becomes wrong and if so what is that number? secondly subtract one from that number and explain why that is acceptable but not the number one higher?

 

So I'm allowed to squat in an abandoned house but the English aren't allowed to squat on unused land?

 

On the other hand they (the federation) did have jurisdiction over the planet and the rings.

Don't forget, the federation wanted to move the Ba'ku to prevent them from being harmed as the federation and the S'ona collected the federation's natural resource.

But the Ba'ku weren't indigious.

No, but the USA can. If a group of people moved into a area of what one day would become the USA, that doesn't mean that the area isn't part of the USA later.

"We got here first" doesn't make for the best of claims, especially if that all you got. Otherwise the UK would still belong to the Celts.

 

I'm admittedly asking this part somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but what if I'm an illegal alien who's squatting, then?

No Star Trek puns on "alien" intended...

 

You mean the Federation wanted to forcible relocate the Ba'ku and steal the Ba'ku's natural resource. Just because the planet fell within Federation Space doesn't make it the Federations planet to do with as it pleases.

Let's say the Halkan homeworld from TOS is within Federation space does that mean the Federation can come and take the Dilithium reserves on the planet against the wishes of they Halkan's?

If the Federation truely held their beliefs if the Ba'ku told them to go away and never come back, then they should go away and never come back.

 

As opposed to leaving the Ba'ku to burn when the rings are collected?

Federation's natural resource.

Otherwise why did the S'ona want to partner with the federation in the first place? If the fedration didn't own the resource, then the S'ona could have simply move the Ba'ku themselves and avoided federation participation.

Answer this, does the federation council consider the planet to be the federation's or the Ba'ku's? The movie indicates that the federation council think it to be theirs, as does Picard.

Halkan are (apparently) indigious to their planet, the So'na aren't.

That presumes the federation council thinks the planet to be the Ba'ku's. Which the movies doesn't support.

Who does the council think the planet belongs too?

 

I think that's the problem with the movie, it's too 1 dimensional where the plot can only go 1 way.
MacLeod, what if there were millions of people who were dying and this disease or plague was spreading, and you and your loved ones and shipmates were infected. The Ba'ku's homeworld was only place where it can cure everyone, but they refused to share there resource, what would you do?
Should the Federation still hold on to their beliefs if its a matter of life and death???

 

Isn't that the true test of a belief that you will hold true to it regardless of the outcome?