Why the Star Trek Universe is secretly horrifying

[uniderth]

I agree with @CorporalClegg. Freedom is not what you can scrounge for yourself with the barrel of a gun - that way lies madness, chaos

Agreed.

Freedom is ensured for you by a benevolent government, because that is the only way that anyone can be guaranteed justice and freedom (good luck getting justice from a mob). And there is zero evidence that the Federation is anything but benevolent, Section 31 be damned.

I would rephrase that freedom should be ensured for you by a benevolent government. The problem is when government decides to look out for it's interests instead of yours. What is government but a collection of humans. When those humans put their needs ahead of the freedoms of the populace there is a problem. And in such cases how does one, or a group of people defend themselves and their freedoms a stronger oppressive government? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm actually interested in your proposed solution.

As for the Federation it may seem good at the moment. But with that amount of power, what happens when they are no longer benevolent? I think we saw a good example of this with the Maquis. The Federation and Cardassians imposed their will on those people without regard for their freedoms.

Another good example is in "The Apple" or any number of other Star Trek episodes. Where Federation representatives willing destroy unique cultures, becasue they didn't fit within their view of what the culture should be.

That seems far from benevolent to me.

- Without government, there can be no law.
- Without law, there can be no order.
- Without order, there can be only chaos.
- With chaos, there can be only fear.
- With fear, there can be only death.

That, my friend, depends on what you mean by government.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Where does freedom fall in to that?

Order is freedom, because chaos is the ultimate dictatorship.

And yes, by "order" I still do mean a benevolent, democratic government. A dictatorial or authoritarian regime is not order, it's just fear.

As for the Maquis: I believe the Federation was being benevolent in that regard, as well. The treaty that established the DMZ and placed former Federation citizens under Cardassian rule (by their own agreement, it should be noted) was established to prevent war with Cardassia.

I'm not trying to justify anything that happened in the DMZ after that - if Cardassian colonists treated others harshly, I'd expect them to be brought to justice. But it's not like the Federation just went "LOL you're now ruled by Cardies" on a whim. The treaty was established to protect the greater good. Without that treaty, the Federation would be at war with Cardassia.

Given this, I find it impossible to blame the Federation government, as a whole, for what happened. They acted on behalf of the greatest good for the greatest number, and that's all anyone can ask of them.

 

[The Old Mixer]

It's always useful to keep in mind that TOS took place in its own era. "The Apple" is an example of that "cowboy diplomacy" that Picard was talking about in "Unification."

- Without government, there can be no law.
- Without law, there can be no order.
- Without order, there can be only chaos.
- With chaos, there can be only fear.
- With fear, there can be only death.

The Dark Side in there, somewhere should be.

 

[fireproof78]

Order is freedom, because chaos is the ultimate dictatorship.

And yes, by "order" I still do mean a benevolent, democratic government. A dictatorial or authoritarian regime is not order, it's just fear.

As for the Maquis: I believe the Federation was being benevolent in that regard, as well. The treaty that established the DMZ and placed former Federation citizens under Cardassian rule (by their own agreement, it should be noted) was established to prevent war with Cardassia.

I'm not trying to justify anything that happened in the DMZ after that - if Cardassian colonists treated others harshly, I'd expect them to be brought to justice. But it's not like the Federation just went "LOL you're now Cardassian citizens" on a whim. The treaty was established to protect the greater good. Without that treaty, the Federation would be at war with Cardassia.

Given this, I find it hard to blame the Federation government as a whole for what happened. They acted on behalf of the greatest good for the greatest number, and that's all anyone can ask of them.

This is interesting, because there is a larger argument (not to rehash but I'm just looking at it through this lens) that the greater good would be to move the Ba'ku in INS. In my opinion, that is where the film dropped the ball. You have the benevolent Federation trying to do the best by it's citizens, who are torn apart by the Dominion War.

Also, the Maquis are interesting, because Sisko never really has an answer to Eddington's argument that the Federation is fine, as long as you don't try to leave. I mean, that's an interesting dilemma that wasn't really tackled in any of the series-what if a member world decides to leave the Federation.

Not to draw real world politics in to it, but it would kind of be like a Brexit situation in the Federation. And, yes, I know that's an emotional topic, so please don't throw real world emotions at this hypothetical. Just wondering if the new series could explore that concept. If the Federation forces them to stay, do they become more like the Alliance from Firefly?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The problem with moving the Ba'ku re: Insurrection is twofold:

1) There is no guarantee that it would work. For all we know, the unique properties of the system where they live, work only IN that system.
2) Like I said, the treaty in the DMZ was established to prevent war. No such situation exists vis-a-vis the Ba'ku.

As for Eddington's claim that no one leaves the Federation: It can be easily dismissed as the rantings of a paranoid, egotistical would-be-revolutionary. Where is there any PROOF that no one leaves, or is allowed to leave? Eddington threw the lure, let him reel it in.

Besides, we've seen multiple instances of worlds inhabited by (some) humans which are not, and never have been, part of the Federation. If the UFP were as evil as Eddington believed, then why would they have allowed that state of affairs to continue? A Federation that was so "evil" would have forced those worlds to become part of it. Since the Federation has never forced a world to join, then logic suggests it would not keep one from leaving.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Oh, good lord...if this becomes an Insurrection thread, I can't promise to be fair and impartial...! Insurrection threads are the spawn of .

 

[uniderth]

Order is freedom, because chaos is the ultimate dictatorship.

And yes, by "order" I still do mean a benevolent, democratic government. A dictatorial or authoritarian regime is not order, it's just fear.

As for the Maquis: I believe the Federation was being benevolent in that regard, as well. The treaty that established the DMZ and placed former Federation citizens under Cardassian rule (by their own agreement, it should be noted) was established to prevent war with Cardassia.

I'm not trying to justify anything that happened in the DMZ after that - if Cardassian colonists treated others harshly, I'd expect them to be brought to justice. But it's not like the Federation just went "LOL you're now Cardassian citizens" on a whim. The treaty was established to protect the greater good. Without that treaty, the Federation would be at war with Cardassia.

Given this, I find it hard to blame the Federation government as a whole for what happened. They acted on behalf of the greatest good for the greatest number, and that's all anyone can ask of them.

this still seems far from benevolent to me. In fact it's downright scary. Democracy is just the rule of the majority over the minority. Democracy IS a dictatorship

Protecting the greater good has been the cry of the oppressor for millennia. What happens to the minority when the majority decides they need to be sacrificed for the "greater good"?

That's the problem. When there is a conflict between to or more people somebody has to be sacrificed. That is why there can be such a thing as a benevolent government, because benevolence is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If you believe all government is a dictatorship, what's your alternative, then?

Without a government to at least protect the majority, there will be nothing to protect anyone. Like I said, the tyranny of mob rule - of chaos, of anarchy - is in itself a dictatorship.

 

[uniderth]

If you believe all government is a dictatorship, what's your alternative, then?.

No. I said democracy is a dictatorship.

I believe that government must be derived from the consent of the people. Not the majority, but all people. If a people do not consent to the government, then the government turns oppressive when they force their will upon them.

But since you asked my alternative I'll give it to you.

I believe the humanity should gather into tribal family communities of no more than about 200 people. This is close to Dunbar's number and thus can foster a caring environment for people to live in. These tribal groups may then cooperate with larger extended family groups. Each of these groups can be group into larger and larger groupings until we arrive at the global level. the global level of government would have the least amount of power, while the tribal level would have the most. People who wish to leave a tribe may do so and establish their own.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Not to draw real world politics in to it, but it would kind of be like a Brexit situation in the Federation. And, yes, I know that's an emotional topic, so please don't throw real world emotions at this hypothetical. Just wondering if the new series could explore that concept. If the Federation forces them to stay, do they become more like the Alliance from Firefly?

That's an interesting point, because Joss Whedon himself admitted that the Alliance is not wholly evil. I believe his analogy was that at some times, the Alliance is capable of promoting peace, freedom and democracy (like the USA in World War II), and at other times it engages in very shady black ops and power-grabbing (like the USA in Vietnam).

To take the Firefly analogy to another level, I would be very interested in seeing existing episodes of that show...but retold from the point of view of the Alliance. I think we'd get a VERY different result. I mean, most of what we see of the Alliance - and of course the entire show - is told from the POV of Mal and his gang. And of course they're fair, impartial and objective at all times, aren't they?

No. I said democracy is a dictatorship.

Since democracy is the only legitimate form of government, your result is the same.

Edit: Paging @Sci! Paging @Sci! I summon thee!

I believe that government must be derived from the consent of the people. Not the majority, but all people.

That can, and will, never happen, simply because there are too many people. That's why your preferred model of government will never work. It's simply too inefficient.

 

[uniderth]

That can, and will, never happen, simply because there are too many people. That's why your preferred model of government will never work. It's simply too inefficient.

Too inefficient? How is it any more inefficient than the government today(which isn't saying much)?

The problem is when a government becomes to centralized it fails to benefit people because it is too distant. If a government becomes too decentralized it becomes sluggish and unable to respond efficiently.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If a government becomes too decentralized it becomes sluggish and unable to respond efficiently.

And yet, that is exactly what you just described - a government composed of nothing but loose tribal groupings IS sluggish and inefficient.

Heck, I'm not saying our own government is the very model of perfection or anything like that, but at least it tries. And with the level of technology we now enjoy, no one need ever be "distant".

 

[fireproof78]

That's an interesting point, because Joss Whedon himself admitted that the Alliance is not wholly evil. I believe his analogy was that at some times, the Alliance is capable of promoting peace, freedom and democracy (like the USA in World War II), and at other times it engages in very shady black ops and power-grabbing (like the USA in Vietnam).

To take the Firefly analogy to another level, I would be very interested in seeing existing episodes of that show...but retold from the point of view of the Alliance. I think we'd get a VERY different result. I mean, most of what we see of the Alliance - and of course the entire show - is told from the POV of Mal and his gang. And of course they're fair, impartial and objective at all times, aren't they?

I would love to see that.

Also, despite developments in technology, there is still people who feel disenfranchised in the government system in the US. Many feel that the politicians are too disconnected from life within their states to be effective in communicating their wishes.

 

[uniderth]

And yet, that is exactly what you just described - a government composed of nothing but loose tribal groupings IS sluggish and inefficient.

I suppose I didn't communicate clearly. This system would operate through a similar representative system. Each smaller unit having representation within larger ones. Additionally with today's technology voting among large numbers of people can be accomplished fairly quickly. So while more direct representation may have been impossible in the past it is no longer impossible today.

Also, despite developments in technology, there is still people who feel disenfranchised in the government system in the US. Many feel that the politicians are too disconnected from life within their states to be effective in communicating their wishes.

That's because of corruption. People can more easily see the wrongdoings of politicians and see them get off scot free.


I guess one of the main issues is that where positions of power are available, eventually people who desire power will fill them. And when they do they will put their will ahead of those they govern. When that happens it is necessary to change or from a new government. It has been that way and always will be that way, so long as men give others power over them.

 

[Frontier]

This entire video requires ignoring DS9, Voyager and Enterprise. They even state it up front. So it's a totally selective argument that can only be made in a vacuum of the arguers perimeters? Hmmm...

 

[Arpy]

Democracy IS a dictatorship.

No, democracy is rule by all. Dictatorship is rule by one. You have issue not with rule by all, but with the idea of "rule," period. You're saying that everyone should be free [of anyone else] to "inalienably" "pursue their happiness." The problem is a fetishizing of the idea of "freedom."

If you were omnipotent, would you like to be able to kill people at will? Maybe you would. Maybe the truth of human nature, of nature, is that though we're not all bad, we do have limits to our abilities to focus. Maybe at some point you'd kill someone with a snap of your fingers without even noticing you did it, say because they were distracting you from something. Maybe upon noticing what you did you'd feel bad about it...the first time, or the 100,000th, but you might be surprised to find that you would eventually not. Despite who you are today, you would change as your freedom would realign your morality, robbing you of your caring about their rights. As it would rob them were they in your place. Freedom should matter to us to the extent that it doesn't rob us of our perspective.

 

[Arpy]

No. I said democracy is a dictatorship.

I believe that government must be derived from the consent of the people. Not the majority, but all people. If a people do not consent to the government, then the government turns oppressive when they force their will upon them.

Do you know that quote by I think Abraham Lincoln about how "you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time"? I think that that's only true when people can have differing views from each other. It's not always the same people disagreeing with the same others in the same ways, but there's maybe never 100% agreement on anything the larger a group is. Perhaps in this way we constantly keep each other in check, forcing us to be accurate when we do come to consensuses, and helping us to be able to attack different problems from wildly different vectors.

If this is the case, a government in which everybody completely agrees on something should be of some concern.

 

[jaime]

No, democracy is rule by all. Dictatorship is rule by one. You have issue not with rule by all, but with the idea of "rule," period. You're saying that everyone should be free [of anyone else] to "inalienably" "pursue their happiness." The problem is a fetishizing of the idea of "freedom."

If you were omnipotent, would you like to be able to kill people at will? Maybe you would. Maybe the truth of human nature, of nature, is that though we're not all bad, we do have limits to our abilities to focus. Maybe at some point you'd kill someone with a snap of your fingers without even noticing you did it, say because they were distracting you from something. Maybe upon noticing what you did you'd feel bad about it...the first time, or the 100,000th, but you might be surprised to find that you would eventually not. Despite who you are today, you would change as your freedom would realign your morality, robbing you of your caring about their rights. As it would rob them were they in your place. Freedom should matter to us to the extent that it doesn't rob us of our perspective.

Hide and Q

 

[BillJ]

1) There is no guarantee that it would work. For all we know, the unique properties of the system where they live, work only IN that system.

Much like the virus in "I, Borg", the audience is suppose to go with the assumption that it will work. That assumption has to be there for the moral dilemma to work.

 

[The Wormhole]

So it's a totally selective argument that can only be made in a vacuum of the arguers perimeters? Hmmm...

Not unlike most posts on this very forum.