Star Trek is Socialist

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Monday, August 25, 2008 20:25
VIEWED: 3621
PAGE 1 of 1

ANTHONYT

Thursday, August 21, 2008 6:14 AM

Hello,

In another thread there was a passing mention of the nature of Star Trek, where it was described as a 'Benevolent Military Dictatorship.'

I've actually felt for some time that the United Federation of Planets is a Socialist government, holding dear many of the ideas of modern Liberalism.

Money and Greed have been eliminated, with the resources of the state distributed according to need.

Medical care is free to all, provided by the government.

There is no true military, but rather an ever-present interstellar police force with a side mission of providing humanitarian aid to persons who are not at risk of cultural contamination.

Star Trek is a socialist ideal, in my opinion. And like all socialist models, it assumes that human weakness has been largely eliminated.

What is your interpretation of the UFP?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, August 21, 2008 8:14 AM

Bunch of troublesome, idealistic meddlers ?

About the only culture in that whole genre that I can identify with is the Andorians, who are remarkably similar in belief, outlook and demeanor.

I also understand the Maquis pretty well, as I mentioned, Eddington delivers probably the best verbal stripping on the Federation ever done.
(And was, in the end *completely* vindicated in that belief by Sisko's subsequent actions)

But when it comes right down to it, the Andorian mindset and attitude are the closest match, despite which, they ARE founding members of the Federation, and yet a far cry from Starfleet in behavior - which perhaps brings up the concept that maybe the UFP viewpoint from an exclusively Starfleet perspective is not entirely accurate.

You don't ever really see a Starfleet officer say..
"The hell if I am going to get involved in THAT mess, helm, get us somewhere else before we get dragged into this debacle, too."
But I can sure see an Andorian sayin it.

Humans do love to meddle, don't they ?
Andorians know when to leave well the hell enough alone.

-Frem

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:50 AM

I suppose that if everyone could have a replicator, a holodeck, and a little Romulan Ale there would no need to ever complain about anything.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:34 PM

"I suppose that if everyone could have a replicator, a holodeck, and a little Romulan Ale there would no need to ever complain about anything."

Lol

I agree with that statement. The question tho is why would anyone DO anything? You could stay in the Holodeck all the time, (like the Internet) and never have to deal with people at all.

You wouldnt have to get food or to even cook it.

And if your hollow existence starts weighing you down, you can drink yourself into oblivion with Romulan aile.

Star Trek (and I believe you mean ST:The Next Gen) looks and sounds great. But, like all things that are too good to be true, this is.

ST:NG was a "Beneveolent Military Dictatorship" in that, while the people were soothed with, more than was needed, of the basic necessities, it did not allow for outside desire or thought.

You need more than the basic necessities to a human living a full, rich life. The government, any government, cannot provide for that.

Also, what should happen if you disagree with what the government is doing? Do you think the UFP would simply accept that and change? Or would they just pull the plug on your Holosuite and replicator? Let you twist until you came to their way of thinking?

The UFP takes away the God-given right for a man/woman to do for themselves without interference.

The UFP is NOT a free society. Its full of well-fed sheeple, broken to heel and lost of free thought.

Someone here said it best.. The UFP is the Alliance from the Alliance stand-point.

That said, I really liked the shows.

Just remember, Socialism cannot exist outside the rule of 150. (150 people is the max that can live in a Socialistic society before it starts to break down.)

And the liberal hippies tried to make communes work through the 1970's and 80s, but every last one of them FAILED. Due mostly to the fact that the liberals realized that they had to WORK to make it succeed.

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"I suppose that if everyone could have a replicator, a holodeck, and a little Romulan Ale there would no need to ever complain about anything."

Lol

I agree with that statement. The question tho is why would anyone DO anything? You could stay in the Holodeck all the time, (like the Internet) and never have to deal with people at all.

You wouldnt have to get food or to even cook it.

And if your hollow existence starts weighing you down, you can drink yourself into oblivion with Romulan aile.

Star Trek (and I believe you mean ST:The Next Gen) looks and sounds great. But, like all things that are too good to be true, this is.

ST:NG was a "Beneveolent Military Dictatorship" in that, while the people were soothed with, more than was needed, of the basic necessities, it did not allow for outside desire or thought.

You need more than the basic necessities to a human living a full, rich life. The government, any government, cannot provide for that.

Also, what should happen if you disagree with what the government is doing? Do you think the UFP would simply accept that and change? Or would they just pull the plug on your Holosuite and replicator? Let you twist until you came to their way of thinking?

The UFP takes away the God-given right for a man/woman to do for themselves without interference.

The UFP is NOT a free society. Its full of well-fed sheeple, broken to heel and lost of free thought.

Someone here said it best.. The UFP is the Alliance from the Alliance stand-point.

That said, I really liked the shows.

Just remember, Socialism cannot exist outside the rule of 150. (150 people is the max that can live in a Socialistic society before it starts to break down.)

And the liberal hippies tried to make communes work through the 1970's and 80s, but every last one of them FAILED. Due mostly to the fact that the liberals realized that they had to WORK to make it succeed.

The holodeck was actually introduced long before ST Next Generation. It goes back to the 1973 animated Star Trek series, and in the epsiode The Practical Joker it makes its' first appearance anywhere. As for the rest it is unclear how the Federation governs the common folks. One gets the sense that their raison d'etre is all about personal achievement and fulfillment by participating in the Arts & Sciences.

And there were hippies in the Star Trek world. Led by Dr. Severan (Skip Homeier) they rejected the comforts and sterility of Federation society and sought the primitive and simpler life. When they found their Eden it turned out to be not what they expected either. I believe Roddenberry wanted to draw a parallel to what was happening across America with the Hippie movement of the 60's.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 21, 2008 2:08 PM

Star Trek was middle of the road Liberalism mixed with common sense Conservativism.
Just watch Way To Eden & Omega Glory.

Anyone, and I mean ANYONE that sees it different is a fringe-y extremist themselves.

Chrisisall

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, August 21, 2008 2:21 PM

"Anyone, and I mean ANYONE that sees it different is a fringe-y extremist themselves."

Lol

Anyone who disagrees with you on Star Trek is a fring-y extreemist?

....wow.

Well, I hope that you are joking...but if not...

THANK YOU.

You've just proven why words and titles like "etremist" "racist" and "anti-smite" have lost ALL meaning.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 21, 2008 2:39 PM

Wulf, you've already proven yourself to be a fringe-y extremist on OTHER threads, this here is kind of redundant.

Smiteisall

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, August 21, 2008 2:46 PM

Whatever you say Chrissy.

I'm sure your opinion holds MUCH weight in both this arena and the world at large.

ESPECIALLY since you consider people viewing Star Trek differently as "fring extreemist" types.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 21, 2008 2:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

ESPECIALLY since you consider people viewing Star Trek differently as "fring extreemist" types.

Okay, I must say that you are a fringe- extremist IN MY OPINION. See, peeps that like to watch Trek can call it utopian socialist, or see it as benign fascist dictatorship, but what it really is is optimistic evolved co-operation.

Also, it's a show.

It's an ideal human existence, where the Harry Mudds are few & far between.

Lighten up, Fringeman.

Chrisisall

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, August 21, 2008 2:58 PM

Well, at least you realize that it is YOUR OPINION.

Not fact.

There may yet be hope...but I have been wrong before.

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, August 21, 2008 2:58 PM

It's always struck me that Star Trek represented what I'd call "Endgame Socialism" and our beloved Firefly represented "Endgame Capitalism." One could also call 'em "Endgame Optimism" and "Endgame Pessimism" concerning human nature. If the socialist point of view is correct about human nature, then Star Trek is a likely kind of end point. But if socialism is fundamentally wrong, because humans will never give up greed, jealousy and brutal ignorance as tools for living, then Firefly is the more likely scenario.

Will Human beings destroy the Earth utterly and finally? Or will we turn back from that abyss in the nick of time and say ENOUGH?

Star Trek represents the belief that human beings can finally get their shit together and stop doing deeply stupid stuff. Given this underlying belief, that the human race can GROW THE HELL UP, I don't see a dictatorship in these shows (even though Sisko's and, oh my heavenly God, Janeway's notions of authority are pretty pathetically absolutist at times--these post-Rodenberry iterations of the show lost a good deal of the optimism of TOS and NG--freakin' Janeway, man ).

I see Star Trek as being in line with the optimism at the heart of works like "2001" and "Stranger in a Strange Land" in terms of the human potential for healing and transcendence. Was the Star Child a dictator? Was Valentine Michael Smith? Of course not! They were simply metaphors for human evolution. Star Trek represents this idea of human evolution, while Firefly represents human devolution. I see Firefly as a cautionary tail, while Star Trek is a model to strive for. I presume these were the intentions of their creators.

I'm reminded of Whoopie Goldberg saying that when she was a kid, seeing Uhura on the bridge of the Enterprise told her that black people would eventually make it--she found that to be deeply inspiring and comforting. No child is gonna have that kind of reaction to Firefly. That's the difference.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, August 21, 2008 3:09 PM

Or maybe, just maybe, Firefly is how we SHOULD be.

Im speaking terms of the Browncoats of course.

Free to do, think, and act how we CHOOSE.

Without some "government/Alliance/UFP" telling us how to be, think or act we would truly be free.

How great would it be, to actually BE free? To know and count on your own strength and intelligence without the Nanny State babying?

NOONE on this earth has the right to tell/force me how to think, speak or behave.

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 21, 2008 3:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"The hell if I am going to get involved in THAT mess, helm, get us somewhere else before we get dragged into this debacle, too."
But I can sure see an Andorian sayin it.

You obviously didn't watch the TNG episode "Redemption" Part 1, where Picard says damn near exactly that, to prevent the Federation being dragged into a Civil war.

To be honest, at least from TNG on, the decision to meddle or not was largely not, what with the prime directive, and even when they did it was a big moral question, and was usually explored in depth in the episodes. To see the Federation as big meddlers sticking their noses in everywhere at all times, seems to require some rather one sided and unfavourable parsing of the available information.

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 21, 2008 3:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Or maybe, just maybe, Firefly is how we SHOULD be.

Im speaking terms of the Browncoats of course.

Free to do, think, and act how we CHOOSE.

Without some "government/Alliance/UFP" telling us how to be, think or act we would truly be free.

How great would it be, to actually BE free? To know and count on your own strength and intelligence without the Nanny State babying?

NOONE on this earth has the right to tell/force me how to think, speak or behave.

Yeah, I don't see much in the way of do think act choose in the Browncoats. I don't see any real evidence for a fully authoritarian fascist state lacking basic freedoms in the Alliance either.

Mal believed very strongly in letting people making up their own mind of course, so much that his word was final, and no one could question it, because "his boat wasn't the rutting town hall". A real paradigm of enlightened libertarianism was our Mal, as long as you agreed with him, that is.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

ERIC

Thursday, August 21, 2008 3:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I also understand the Maquis pretty well, as I mentioned, Eddington delivers probably the best verbal stripping on the Federation ever done.
(And was, in the end *completely* vindicated in that belief by Sisko's subsequent actions)

LOL, I was just thinking about that. It bears repeating:

"Why is the Federation so obsessed with the Maquis?
> We've never harmed you -and yet we're constantly
> arrested and charged with terrorism. Starships chase
> us through the Badlands, and our supporters are
> harassed and ridiculed. WHY? Because we've left the
> Federation -and that's the one thing you can't
> accept. Nobody leaves Paradise -everyone should want
> to be in the Federation. Hell, you even want the
> Cardassians to join; you're only sending them
> replicators because one day, they can take their
> rightful place on the Federation Council. You know,
> in some ways, you're even worse than the Borg. At
> least they tell you about their plans for
> assimilation. You're more insidious; you assimilate
> people, and they don't even know it."

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, August 21, 2008 4:08 PM

"Yeah, I don't see much in the way of do think act choose in the Browncoats. I don't see any real evidence for a fully authoritarian fascist state lacking basic freedoms in the Alliance either.

Mal believed very strongly in letting people making up their own mind of course, so much that his word was final, and no one could question it, because "his boat wasn't the rutting town hall". A real paradigm of enlightened libertarianism was our Mal, as long as you agreed with him, that is."

Yeah, if you didn't like it, you could just be on your merry at the next port. It was HIS ship, HIS home, so you respect him as the captain and stfu.

Or not, and get the fuck out.

I believe that was pretty freaking reasonable. My home, my business, my life, and my body. You don't like how I run things, get thee gone.

Go get your own spaceship, and run it how you like.

Freedom. Get it?

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, August 21, 2008 4:12 PM

Lol

One of my favorite NG lines was from Capt. Picard...

"I will not sacrifice the Enterprise. We've made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further! And *I* will make them pay for what they've done!"

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 21, 2008 4:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Yeah, if you didn't like it, you could just be on your merry at the next port. It was HIS ship, HIS home, so you respect him as the captain and stfu.

Or not, and get the fuck out.

I believe that was pretty freaking reasonable. My home, my business, my life, and my body. You don't like how I run things, get thee gone.

Go get your own spaceship, and run it how you like.

Freedom. Get it?

I don't have a problem with it, what I'm pointing out is that the Browncoats weren't into letting anyone do what they wanted, they were into being left to do what ever they themselves wanted to do. That's not the same thing.

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 21, 2008 4:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
LOL, I was just thinking about that. It bears repeating:

"Why is the Federation so obsessed with the Maquis?
> We've never harmed you -and yet we're constantly
> arrested and charged with terrorism. Starships chase
> us through the Badlands, and our supporters are
> harassed and ridiculed. WHY? Because we've left the
> Federation -and that's the one thing you can't
> accept. Nobody leaves Paradise -everyone should want
> to be in the Federation. Hell, you even want the
> Cardassians to join; you're only sending them
> replicators because one day, they can take their
> rightful place on the Federation Council. You know,
> in some ways, you're even worse than the Borg. At
> least they tell you about their plans for
> assimilation. You're more insidious; you assimilate
> people, and they don't even know it."

Of course, that's a terrorist talking. Just because the terrorist thinks his done nothing wrong, doesn't mean he's done nothing wrong, yanno.

Here's the situation:
The Federation and the Cardassian Empire went to war. The war ended with an armistice, that put some Cardassian colonies in Federation territory, and some Federation colonies in Cardassian territory. The Federation colonists didn't want to leave their homes, but inorder to do this, they had to stop being Federation citizens.

The Marqui originally formed from those colonists, citing unfair treatment by the Cardassians, when the Federation refused to help, because they couldn't. In fact the Federation didn't really get involved until Federation Citizens started joining and aiding the Marqui.

The fact is, the Federation went after the Marqui because they were Federation terrorists, attacking the Cardassians, and operating sometimes from Federation space. If they didn't go after the Marqui, it would probably have meant war with Cardassia. The Marqui were, in a very real way, attacking the Federation, indirectly through their terrorist attacks on the Cardassians.

The Federation went after the Marqui, because in the end they were Federation citizens committing acts of terrorism, that although not aimed at the Federation, did harm it. It's nothing to do being pissed because they left the Federation. When the original colonists left the Federation, they were fine with it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, August 21, 2008 4:35 PM

"the Browncoats weren't into letting anyone do what they wanted, they were into being left to do what ever they themselves wanted to do. That's not the same thing."

It is the same thing.

I love circular logic

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 21, 2008 4:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
It is the same thing.

I love circular logic

Actually, no it isn't. The Browncoats, in what little we've seen of them, were perfectly prepared to force their way on others, they just didn't want the Alliance forcing theirs on them. They only cared about themselves, everyone else could go hang, believing YOU should be left to do whatever you want, is not the same thing as believing EVERYONE should.

Of course, you're declarative that you love circular logic isn't really required. It's all you got to base what little argument you've given on, so it's fairly evident you have a big thing for circular reasoning

.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, August 21, 2008 4:56 PM

No, heres the idea behind the whole show....

The BrownCoats fought for the right of EVEYONE to be left alone.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, August 21, 2008 4:59 PM

Hello Citizen,

The Maquis surrendered Federation citizenship. They were no longer Federation citizens, precisely because the Federation had surrendered the colonies where they lived. The only persons the Feds had a right to pursue were the Fed officers who stole Fed gear and attacked the Cardies.

The vast overwhelming majority of the Maquis were non-Fed citizens in non-Fed colonies fighting a non-Fed war of independence. Having had the Feds surrender their homes, they had NO INTEREST in being part of the Federation, and were now seeking autonomy.

However, that war of independence threatened the stability of the border, and so the Fed got involved - not to prevent ethnic cleansing (which was stated to be occurring) but rather to make things quiet by supporting Cardie authority over the breakaway faction.

In the case of the Maquis, I'd have signed up with them when they were formed.

Unfortunately, their mission gradually devolved from protecting what was theirs towards destroying their erstwhile overseers, and that's where I feel they lost the moral high ground. It's like if the US invaded England as part of its war of independence. Or if Israel, threatened with extinction, decided to exterminate all the other Arab nations first. It swings the pendulum too far in the other direction.

--Ant

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 21, 2008 5:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
No, heres the idea behind the whole show....

The BrownCoats fought for the right of EVEYONE to be left alone.

Wow, did you miss the point of the show.

So Mal thinks everyone should go their own way, huh? So why the huge hostility to Inara's companion Career? She's not harming him, or anyone else. She's going her own way, yet Mal is forever rubbishing her choice, and is clearly disrespectful of it.

If he truely believed EVERYONE should be able to go their own way, he would react the way he does to Inara.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, August 21, 2008 5:13 PM

Mal can have his own personal beliefs. Even if they disagree with others.

The point is, he doesnt have the right to MAKE her stop.

He can wish it, ridicule it, speak against it, but he knows he doesnt have the right to STOP her at all.

Freedom requires personal accountability, not laws.

Sort of like here I must say....You can ridicule my views, but Ill be damned if I let you try and force me not to have them.

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 21, 2008 5:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Mal can have his own personal beliefs. Even if they disagree with others.

I didn't say he didn't, I said he obviously doesn't RESPECT choices he doesn't agree with. For your idea, that he believes anyone should be able to do what they like as long as it hurts no one, he'd have to respect other peoples choices, even if he doesn't agree with them. His open and constant hostility to Inara's choices eloquently show that he does not respect others choices that he doesn't agree with. He doesn't even consider it none of his business, since he's constantly poking his nose in. If he had the power to stop her from being a companion, he probably would. He doesn't have the power, and he does everything he realistically can to make pursuing her choice as difficult as possible as it is.

Quote:
Sort of like here I must say....You can ridicule my views, but Ill be damned if I let you try and force me not to have them.

If it makes you feel good to paint me with your brush, have at it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, August 21, 2008 5:36 PM

Technically he can FORCE her not to be a companion, by staying deep in the black where she can't have any clients.

He doesn't.

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 21, 2008 5:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Citizen,

The Maquis surrendered Federation citizenship. They were no longer Federation citizens, precisely because the Federation had surrendered the colonies where they lived. The only persons the Feds had a right to pursue were the Fed officers who stole Fed gear and attacked the Cardies.

Hi Anthony.

As I said, the Marqui started life as a non Federation organisation, and at that stage, the Federation had little to no actual involvement with them. However, that situation later changed dramatically, for instance Michael Eddington was a Federation citizen, and not only did he Spy on Starfleet (a rather heavy offence) but he also became LEADER of the Marqui. The Federation had every right to go after him, and at that time, going after him meant going after the whole of the Marqui, since he was the head of the organisation.

Quote:
The vast overwhelming majority of the Maquis were non-Fed citizens in non-Fed colonies fighting a non-Fed war of independence. Having had the Feds surrender their homes, they had NO INTEREST in being part of the Federation, and were now seeking autonomy.

By the time the later series the Marqui are portrayed as more prominently Federation citizens. Look at the Marqui ship in Voayger, all the major characters were either Federation operatives, Cardassian operatives, or Federation Citizens fighting for the Marqui.

Quote:

However, that war of independence threatened the stability of the border, and so the Fed got involved - not to prevent ethnic cleansing (which was stated to be occurring) but rather to make things quiet by supporting Cardie authority over the breakaway faction.

I think that's a good enough reason. The Federation has a strong interest in having a stable border with an empire it was recently at war with, and none in tacitly supporting criminals and terrorists.

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 21, 2008 5:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Technically he can FORCE her not to be a companion, by staying deep in the black where she can't have any clients.

He doesn't.

Actually he does. Inara pulled him up on it in Trash.

What's more, in episodes like Shindig we see where he's prepared to openly interfere with Inara's choices. The fact is, it's a constant battle for Inara to follow her chosen career, because she's constantly having to butt heads with Mal to get him to get out of her way.

Thanks for playing.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, August 21, 2008 5:48 PM

If he does, its a personal choice to do so.

I doubt Mal would, should he ever find himself in charge of everything, rid the Universe of companions.

He doesnt agree with the choice she makes. period. So what? Its never ok to force, by government, someone to change their views or actions.

And, don't get snarky with me.

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 21, 2008 6:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
If he does, its a personal choice to do so.

I doubt Mal would, should he ever find himself in charge of everything, rid the Universe of companions.

He doesnt agree with the choice she makes. period. So what? Its never ok to force, by government, someone to change their views or actions.

And, don't get snarky with me.

I'm getting snarky with you, because that's how your getting with me. If you don't like it, don't do. Or, if you prefer, you can't tell me what to do.

In any case it's clear that Mal does obstruct Inara's choices, and it's not his place to do so. It wasn't his place to disrupt Inara's time with Atherton, which he did.

Furthermore, you yourself said that if he wanted he could stop Inara from following her choices, then said he doesn't do it. It's clear, however that he does do that. You counter saying it's his personal choice to do so, but that's just like saying it's the Alliances personal choice to enforce their will on the Independent faction. If he really believed anyone could follow their own choice it wouldn't be his own personal choice to obstruct that.

Given that he's constantly obstructing and belittling Inara's profession in anyway he can, I think it's clear that if he was in the position to do so, he would outlaw companions.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

HERO

Thursday, August 21, 2008 6:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I've actually felt for some time that the United Federation of Planets is a Socialist government, holding dear many of the ideas of modern Liberalism.

Money and Greed have been eliminated...Medical care is free to all...There is no true military,

Didn't you ever watch Deep Space Nine?

Quote:

What is your interpretation of the UFP?

The Federation has a number of strict rules. But if you ever watch certain episodes of Voyager, STNG, and DS9 you get a very clear picture of life outside of Starfleet.

For example, in one episode they visit a Bajoran refugee camp in Federation space. Despite repilcator technology the conditions are terrible. Picard orders Worf to issue blankets to everybody.

DS9 is all about the money and you'll recall the 'Federation Credit' used to purchase furry little Klingon-hating munch machines in the old Star Trek.

Starfleet proved ready, willing, and able to fight a large scale war against the Dominion AND trample civil rights following terrorist attacks on Federation property.

Th Prime Directive forbids intervention to assist the weak, the sick, or victims of violence or oppression.

And then there's Article 2, sec. 7:
"Nothing within these articles of Federation shall authorize the Federation to intervene in matters which are essentially the domestic jurisdiction of any planetary social system, or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under these articles of Federation; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII."

The Federation is not a socialist state. It is a political/military/economic alliance along the lines of the EU.

That means that while member planets may be socialist, there are also monarchies, technocracies, republics, etc.

I think your confusing the goody-goodyness of Starfleet with the larger picture. For all the shiny comm badges and fancy ships there were also penal colonies and interplanetary trade disputes.

H

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, August 21, 2008 6:50 PM

And blood must always be spilt to defeat such tyrants.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 21, 2008 6:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Or, if you prefer, you can't tell me what to do.

He's a Browncoat, so he can tell you what to...wait- isn't he going back on something he stated earl-

???

Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 21, 2008 6:54 PM

I would join Starfleet in a second.

Captain James T. Chrisisall

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, August 21, 2008 7:35 PM

"The "Book" tells us how to settle things. Someone hits you, you hit back hard." JoJo Krako

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 21, 2008 7:47 PM

I think your behavior is arrested.

Chrisisall

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, August 21, 2008 7:52 PM

It would seem unlikely Jim. A few moments ago I read my obituary in the newspaper, some sort of traffic accident. I can't have two futures, can I? Unless..FFFans is the focal point in time we've been searching for. The point in time we've been drawn to, and depending on what we do all of history will be changed.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 21, 2008 8:06 PM

Find out.
I must know if you live or die.
I...believe I'm in love.....

Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 21, 2008 8:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
It's always struck me that Star Trek represented what I'd call "Endgame Socialism" and our beloved Firefly represented "Endgame Capitalism." One could also call 'em "Endgame Optimism" and "Endgame Pessimism" concerning human nature. If the socialist point of view is correct about human nature, then Star Trek is a likely kind of end point. But if socialism is fundamentally wrong, because humans will never give up greed, jealousy and brutal ignorance as tools for living, then Firefly is the more likely scenario.

Will Human beings destroy the Earth utterly and finally? Or will we turn back from that abyss in the nick of time and say ENOUGH?

Star Trek represents the belief that human beings can finally get their shit together and stop doing deeply stupid stuff. Given this underlying belief, that the human race can GROW THE HELL UP, I don't see a dictatorship in these shows (even though Sisko's and, oh my heavenly God, Janeway's notions of authority are pretty pathetically absolutist at times--these post-Rodenberry iterations of the show lost a good deal of the optimism of TOS and NG--freakin' Janeway, man ).

I see Star Trek as being in line with the optimism at the heart of works like "2001" and "Stranger in a Strange Land" in terms of the human potential for healing and transcendence. Was the Star Child a dictator? Was Valentine Michael Smith? Of course not! They were simply metaphors for human evolution. Star Trek represents this idea of human evolution, while Firefly represents human devolution. I see Firefly as a cautionary tail, while Star Trek is a model to strive for. I presume these were the intentions of their creators.

I'm reminded of Whoopie Goldberg saying that when she was a kid, seeing Uhura on the bridge of the Enterprise told her that black people would eventually make it--she found that to be deeply inspiring and comforting. No child is gonna have that kind of reaction to Firefly. That's the difference.

Now THIS should be required reading at EVERY Academy.

Excellentisall

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, August 21, 2008 8:22 PM

There's a Clark Gable picture playing tonite. Would you like to take me?

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 21, 2008 8:31 PM

Who?

HERO

Thursday, August 21, 2008 8:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I would join Starfleet in a second.

You could be oneof Kirk's redshirts...

H

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 21, 2008 8:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

You could be oneof Kirk's redshirts...

H

Okay, Herbert.

Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 21, 2008 8:47 PM

Master Po says:

Star Trek is all things to all people!

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, August 21, 2008 8:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Who?

A Clark Ga... You know, Dr. McHorrible said the same thing!

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 21, 2008 8:56 PM

Stay right there!

WULFENSTAR!

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, August 21, 2008 9:10 PM

Yes?

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, August 21, 2008 9:11 PM

Well, when it comes right down to it, Mal is a pretty broken person - all he ever stood for, believed in, even fought for, was in the end kicked right back in his teeth, leaving him quite bitter about it and forever hostile and suspicious of people in general since so many were willing to ram their ways down his throat on a bayonet.

He doesn't like them, their culture or their society, so what's a guy in that position to do, really ?

Get a ship, and get the hell AWAY from them, is what, which was fine in principle but upon closer examination much of the actions of the crew in the series were dictated far more by necessity than desire - poverty tends to have this effect on folk, yanno.

And sure, he claims top authority, it's HIS boat - and while he's willing to listen to suggestions or debate, in the end, it's HIS boat, and HIS decision, a boat can only have one captain...

Don't like it, get yer own boat.

Now, far as the Mal/Inara thing - I don't think he actively, consciously chose to screw with Inaras business, but yes, I DO believe somewhere in the back of his subconscious it was nudging his decisionmaking.

And she did shellack him for it, and he did indeed have it comin.

Remember, you have a really tangled personal relationship issue goin on with that between two people who are so utterly incompatible otherwise that it would never work (been here, done this, personally) on top of which his responsibility to the ship and her career just about preclude personal relationships of this type.

And Inara's pretty broken too - we never really do get the details of all that, but she most certainly has her own issues, worst and most obvious is a growing attachment to a man she doesn't think she should respect or even like, kicking her into the denial tailspin and causing it's own set of issues.

I see where Mal is coming from, he does not respect what she does "It's the lie of it.." as practiced, yet became angry cause Atherton did not respect HER personally - also note that he has no issue with the work when it's up front about what it is, but this is in part due to his ignorance of the social role of a Companion in a society he hates too much to bother to understand in any depth beyond making a buck off them.

I don't agree with him, mind you, but I do see what his point is - hers too.

Everyone on Firefly is broken, at least a little bit, and that is always what has made it real to me - people are not perfect, ain't likely ever gonna be, and the Miranda incident is a dire warning about trying to force that point.

My issue with Trek is that it makes some pretty broad and unsustainable assumptions about the innate differences between folk, there's a lot less characterisation because the viewpoint is most often from Starfleet, a highly regimented society filled with folk who pretty much all believe the same way, which is fine - for Starfleet, but some folk don't wanna live that way, and the show always struck me as having a subtle derision for the folk who didn't, even in Roddenberrys day...

Which is why Eddingtons speech struck me as so accurate.
Also, follow up with Sisko's subsequent actions, and tell me he didn't have a point, even if Eddington WAS (imho) crazy as a bedbug otherwise.

I threw in the towel on watching Trek as the quality of the writing declined and it's moral messages got rather Anvilicious - I would have much preffered seeing the storyline of Enterprise run with the original ball of breaking the Vulcan strangehold and the birth of the Federation rather than the cheesy direction it went in, requiring a lot of Deus Ex Machina and Retconning to hold the crummy writing together.

But yanno - it wouldn't do them and their franchise harm to throw us some exterior perspective, human viewpoints from OUTSIDE the Federation, that are not subtly chided is ignorant or misguided... for once.

Not everyone agrees, not everyone is GONNA agree - don't make em any more right or wrong, most times - and the fact that Trek doesn't hold to that has always grated on me.

-Frem

CHRISISALL

Thursday, August 21, 2008 9:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

I threw in the towel on watching Trek as the quality of the writing declined and it's moral messages got rather Anvilicious

The real Trek died with Gene. Here & there, some good stuff, entertaining a bit of it, but give me the original series any day.

I'm mostly with Bruce Campbell here:

Quote:
4. Star Trek or Star Wars?
Star Trek. The original...with William Shatner. Everything else blows.

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/57515/bruce-campbell/

Yeah babyisall

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 21, 2008 9:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Which is why Eddingtons speech struck me as so accurate.
Also, follow up with Sisko's subsequent actions, and tell me he didn't have a point, even if Eddington WAS (imho) crazy as a bedbug otherwise.

But even then it's wrong. Sure Eddington might see it like that, but Sisko took a close and trusted officer, a friend, turning out to be a spy and a terrorist personally. How could he not? He was personally betrayed, it still had nothing to do with 'leaving the Federation'.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RIVERLOVE

Friday, August 22, 2008 12:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

I'm mostly with Bruce Campbell here:
Star Trek or Star Wars?
Star Trek. The original...with William Shatner. Everything else blows.
Yeah babyisall

Amen. Truer words have never been spoken. Roddenberry & Kirk's Trek was groundbreaking, and acutely intellectually critical of the times. Many of the episodes are of such a high quality that nothing else in 40 years has come close. And by the way, there is Firefly, and then everything else. Star Trek is in the everything else bracket, but it's the top seed.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Friday, August 22, 2008 12:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I would join Starfleet in a second.

Captain James T. Chrisisall
]

Can I be Uhura? Cause I dig the little red dress and the ear piece thingy!

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, August 22, 2008 12:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Given that he's constantly obstructing and belittling Inara's profession in anyway he can, I think it's clear that if he was in the position to do so, he would outlaw companions.

Hey Citizen,
Did you happen to catch the "Heart of Gold" episode?

ANTHONYT

Friday, August 22, 2008 2:31 AM

Hello Citizen,

I disagree with you on some points about the Maquis.

First, while Eddington was A leader of the Maquis, he was not THE leader of the Maquis. In TNG, it's clear that the Maquis do not have a command structure unified under a single leader. This is evident in (I believe) the final season of TNG when Ro goes rogue after being assigned an undercover infiltration job.

Eddington's presence did not entitle the Feds, in my opinion, to mark the entire organization up for grabs.

Further, if any Federation citizens want to move to Maquis space and live the life of a freedom fighter, that should be their decision. It should not be inherently criminal to move out of a country and fight in the wars of another country. Federation citizens were being declared criminals for leaving the Federation, just as Eddington said. Note that the many Maquis members captured and put in prison were not all charged with sabotage, theft, and treachery, as Eddington might be. They were simply 'Members of the Maquis.' That was enough to brand them criminals.

This is the best analogy I can make for the Maquis situation:

A) The U.S. fights a war with the U.S.S.R. where it surrenders Alaska in a Peace Accord.

B) The willing residents of Alaska are relocated. Others choose to remain.

C) Those who remain are treated poorly (in their opinion) by the U.S.S.R.

D) The remaining Alaskans start a resistance movement to obtain independence for Alaska.

E) Some U.S. citizens sympathize with the Alaskans and move to Alaska to help their war effort.

F) The U.S. begins invading Alaska and arresting Alaskans.

G) A U.S. Navy Captain defects to Alaska.

H) The U.S. steps up its operations in Alaska, arresting many more Alaskans and putting them in U.S. jails.

That being the case... I sympathize with the Alaskans. They didn't have the voting power to prevent their lands from being given away. Then, when they decided to fight for independence, they got clobbered by the people who gave them up to begin with.

Sad.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CITIZEN

Friday, August 22, 2008 8:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Citizen,
This is the best analogy I can make for the Maquis situation:

A) The U.S. fights a war with the U.S.S.R. where it surrenders Alaska in a Peace Accord.

B) The willing residents of Alaska are relocated. Others choose to remain.

C) Those who remain are treated poorly (in their opinion) by the U.S.S.R.

D) The remaining Alaskans start a resistance movement to obtain independence for Alaska.

E) Some U.S. citizens sympathize with the Alaskans and move to Alaska to help their war effort.

F) The U.S. begins invading Alaska and arresting Alaskans.

G) A U.S. Navy Captain defects to Alaska.

H) The U.S. steps up its operations in Alaska, arresting many more Alaskans and putting them in U.S. jails.

You forgot the one between E and F:

The USSR demands US assistance to keep people it considers it's citizens in line, threatening war if it does not.

Quote:

That being the case... I sympathize with the Alaskans. They didn't have the voting power to prevent their lands from being given away. Then, when they decided to fight for independence, they got clobbered by the people who gave them up to begin with.

I think your analysis is rather trite. The Federation didn't give anyone up. They gave up the Federation. Was the Federation supposed to abduct them all or something? Would that have been a better solution? They chose to stay, and it occurred in an episode, and Picard was very clear what that meant, I.E. no Federation assistance in the future. What happens to personal responsibility in the Future anyway?

It wasn't about voting power, it was about war. Lines were drawn, and couldn't be redrawn, were these Federation settlers so selfish they'd rather the destruction of the Federation and the Deaths of millions, rather than a few thousand of them lose their homes? If that's true, I have no sympathy, let them fend for themselves and see what the real worlds like for a change.

The United States is now acting to prevent it's citizens from engaging in and supporting overseas terrorism, and it's about bloody time, because how many innocent blood is on American money in all the unofficial and official American sponsorship of Terrorism around the world?

Lets not romanticise the Marqui as freedom fighters, they were terrorists. They didn't limit themselves to military targets, they're very first targets were Cardassian civilians settling the same worlds. The Marqui started attacking the military when it started moving to arm and defend Cardassian settlers. The Marqui are terrorists. They probably see themselves as freedom fighters, but lets think of another analogy. Al Qaeda. There's a group who the US sees as Terrorists, and they themselves and others see as freedom fighters, fighting against US tyranny and oppression. The US demands that nations of the middle east, the same nations whose populations fund and fight for Al Qaeda, the same nations whose populations probably see it as a group of Freedom Fighters, fight Al Qaeda.

You're looking at the Marqui from the freedom fighters side, so too you Federation involvement is unwarranted, because they're not directly fighting them. But what about from the other side, the terrorism aspect? Is it wrong for the US to demand Saudi Arabia joins the war on terror against Al Qaeda, despite Al Qaeda focusing on the US and not Saudi Arabia? Is it wrong for Saudi Arabia to acquiesce? Do you feel sympathy for the unfortunate freedom fighters of Al Qaeda, simply fighting for independence from American Imperial hegemony?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, August 22, 2008 12:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Stay right there!

Can one gather from the story that Kirk was destined by history to be the one that was influential in causing her death? When McCoy went back before Kirk and history changed, was Edith in the same spot under similar circumstances that would lead her to getting run over by a truck? Can one also extrapolate that Kirk was indirectly responsible for the Allies victory over Nazi Germany? We know that without her death, her leadership of the peace movement would have delayed America's entry into WWII and allowed Germany to develop the A-bomb first. That didn't happen, so did it maybe actually happen that way the "first" time?. In time travel, is there even a first time for anything? If history gets changed & a new future is created, then it wasn't ever history to begin with, right?

CHRISISALL

Friday, August 22, 2008 1:30 PM

Fascinating.

Spockisall

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, August 22, 2008 3:25 PM

Quote:
The Federation didn't give anyone up. They gave up the Federation.

Not the way I see it - the Federation abandoned them, in spite of it's endless promises, and to be blunt, they were ok with that, if the Federation wasn't gonna stand with them as it's citizens, then the Federation could very well fuck off.

Quote:
They chose to stay, and it occurred in an episode, and Picard was very clear what that meant, I.E. no Federation assistance in the future.

See above - also, the Federation demanded they leave their homes, no matter how you slice it, that is a tyrannical act, and after that rather rude wakeup call, I kinda doubt they WANTED "Federation Assistance" given it's nature.

Quote:
What happens to personal responsibility in the Future anyway?

The Maqui did take personal responsibility - far more than the Federation did, they never made any bones about it, this was their HOME, and they were gonna defend it, come hell or high water, and where's the personal responsibility in the Federations abandonment of their own citizens for not giving up their home to be relocated somewhere against their will ?

Quote:
were these Federation settlers so selfish they'd rather the destruction of the Federation and the Deaths of millions, rather than a few thousand of them lose their homes?

All for the greater good, right ? the cry of Tyrants everywhere.
I know *I* would fight any effort to forcibly relocate me too, fuck the Federation, for all that they demand for membership, leaving them to swing like that when the chips came down was morally reprehensible.
In the situation as presented, letting them out of the Federation was the only sane thing TO do, and given their feelings on the matter, and towards the Feddies, I rather doubt the Maquis were that sad to see em gone.

Quote:
Lets not romanticise the Marqui as freedom fighters, they were terrorists. They didn't limit themselves to military targets, they're very first targets were Cardassian civilians settling the same worlds.

Come onto MY property and start setting up a settlement, see what happens to your thieving, tresspassing ass...

Quote:
The Marqui started attacking the military when it started moving to arm and defend Cardassian settlers.

Damn right they did - it was THEIR turf, and they were gonna defend it.

Quote:
They probably see themselves as freedom fighters, but lets think of another analogy. Al Qaeda.

Only we never moved into Al Qaeda's land and forcibly displaced them, the proper analogy here would go to Palestinian Terrorists kicking the shit out of Israeli settlers, and vice versa - which is a situation every bit as ugly, or even uglier, but with me, the line gets drawn when someone starts TAKING YOUR LAND.

I know folks are probably utterly horrified that I don't suck up to the Zionistas with fawning affection like I am supposed to, but fuck it, the anology still applies, and right/wrong in instances like that gets really grey and murky, but I generally do side with the folks who's land it was in the first place.

If someone is on YOUR land, trying to take it and/or it's resources from you, or deny you it's use for farming (*Ask me how my buddy Little died, go on, ask...) or any other purpose, killing your people and destroying your infrastructure, they are the bad guys, yes.

I'll not gainsay the Federation involvement in pursuing them, once they began committing acts against the Federation to procure resources and equipment, but the fact is that the Federation involved themselves by providing to the Cardassians - like Finn said, they brought the chair to the table, the Maquis just forced them to sit in it, is all.

And I'd like to see you try to justify Siskos actions toward them, go on and try to justify that one, if you will.

-Frem
*My buddy Little, he bought it trying to clean OUR cluster bombs (which we were at the time trying to deny using) out of a locals field so he could safely plant something for his family to eat, he knew his job would eventually catch up with him, and

CITIZEN

Friday, August 22, 2008 8:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Not the way I see it - the Federation abandoned them, in spite of it's endless promises, and to be blunt, they were ok with that, if the Federation wasn't gonna stand with them as it's citizens, then the Federation could very well fuck off.
...
See above - also, the Federation demanded they leave their homes, no matter how you slice it, that is a tyrannical act, and after that rather rude wakeup call, I kinda doubt they WANTED "Federation Assistance" given it's nature.
...
The Maqui did take personal responsibility - far more than the Federation did, they never made any bones about it, this was their HOME, and they were gonna defend it, come hell or high water, and where's the personal responsibility in the Federations abandonment of their own citizens for not giving up their home to be relocated somewhere against their will ?

You have a remarkably black and white view of it.

The Federation had no choice. They didn't abandon the Settlers, they had no choice, it wasn't Federation territory. You're advocating a war of aggression to take territory that didn't belong to them.

Furthermore, your colouring of it as being a tyrannical "for the greater good" is bullshit. In fact your position is far closer to that than what I'm saying. The Federation was trying to avoid a massive interstellar war that would have killed millions, you want that so some settlers that landed on planets another Government had laid claim too can stay. You're then one advocating a terrible war of aggression, and you say you don't side with the Zionists, right?

I justify the Federation leaving the colonists because that's what they wanted, and the only other choice was to abandon the peace process and start war with Cardassia. Before you start telling me to justify that, how about you justify starting a war that would kill millions?

Quote:

All for the greater good, right ? the cry of Tyrants everywhere.

It's ours, and well keep or take it at any cost, the cry of megalomaniac dictators everywhere.

Quote:
I know *I* would fight any effort to forcibly relocate me too, fuck the Federation, for all that they demand for membership, leaving them to swing like that when the chips came down was morally reprehensible.

No, it was choosing the lesser of two evils. Choosing the most evil and destructive path, starting an interstellar war, as you advocate, would be moral reprehensible. I had no idea you were such a war hawk.

Quote:
In the situation as presented, letting them out of the Federation was the only sane thing TO do

So you agree with me now? There were three possible paths, The Federation stands by the treaty, and evacuates the settlers from Cardassian space, they let them stay under Cardassian jurisdiction, or they start and interstellar war. Everything up to this point has had you advocating interstellar war, so which is it?

Quote:
Come onto MY property and start setting up a settlement, see what happens to your thieving, tresspassing ass...

The ends justify the means, the cry of Terrorists everywhere...

Quote:
Only we never moved into Al Qaeda's land and forcibly displaced them, the proper analogy here would go to Palestinian Terrorists kicking the shit out of Israeli settlers, and vice versa - which is a situation every bit as ugly, or even uglier, but with me, the line gets drawn when someone starts TAKING YOUR LAND.

Time you look up your facts Frem. Osama Bin Landen focused on the US, because of US military bases on Muslim land, which he saw as an occupation. The US has been practising soft colonialism in the Middle East for the best part of a century. Of course for part of that time other powers were practising hard colonialism, but Al Qaeda was totally setup because the US was "on their land".

Quote:
I'll not gainsay the Federation involvement in pursuing them, once they began committing acts against the Federation to procure resources and equipment, but the fact is that the Federation involved themselve

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, August 22, 2008 11:36 PM

Apparently you don't get what I was saying.

The Federation had little choice BUT to let them go - it was indeed the least of all evils, sure.

Doesn't make it right, but sometimes there just ISN'T any "right" choice to make.

But logically the Maquis were gonna be a bit pissed about that given the strict standards one has to abide by for Federation membership, which in the end left them swinging in the breeze.

Humans being humans, no way they were gonna take that with a smile, were they ?

And hell yes, having broken with the Federation over it, the Maquis damn straight were gonna fight for their turf, whether it was in the opinion of anyone ELSE morally right or not, considering they told the Federation to piss off over it, like they were just gonna LET the Cardassians come in and set up shop ?

People ain't like that, I suspect they never will be - hell, most of the wars of the last couple centuries prettymuch amount to "Hey y'all, git offa mah LAND! *BOOM*"

And yeah, I know what Al Qeadas bitch is, but the situation of the Maquis far more closely resembles that of the Palestinians, if you were going to draw that kind of analogy about it, why not use the more accurate one ?

A military base isn't (usually) a colonisation and displacement attempt, putting up a settlement and burning the nearby crops to drive the locals out... that is.

And as for the Federation "getting involved" - well, they were ALREADY involved, by providing material support to the Cardassians, something the Maquis took issue with and proceeded with aggression against the Federation over, sure.

At which point they and the Federation were clearly redefined as enemies rather than non-neutrals, and it was quite proper for the Federation to pursue them.

What I dispute, mainly, is calling them Terrorists OR Freedom Fighters, cause I don't think they fit neatly into either category.

Calling them terrorists is a pretense to deny the fact that they had a fairly legit gripe that initially had nothing to do with Starfleet, and then later on, did.

We don't let OUR enemies determine if OUR Government is legitimate or not, so why would the Maquis be any different ?

And what I would like to see someone try to justify - is Sisko's intentional use of bioweapons against the Maquis.

Yes, for him it was personal, but he fired them from a Starfleet ship, and while wearing a Starfleet uniform, something that for damned sure should have gotten him stripped of rank and formally charged, but it's all ok when Starfleet does it ?

No, the ends do NOT justify the means, not for the Maquis, not for the Cardassians, and not even for Starfleet.

Mostly I wanted to put it across to you from the MAQUIS viewpoint - the whole screwup was not the fault of any particular individual or race, and always seemed more of a diplomacy failure than anything else - and the Cardassians were idiots for not taking advantage of Starfleets stupidity.

And yeah, sure, from the Cardassian viewpoint these guys were a buncha tresspassing assholes who refused to leave territory no longer rightfully belonging to them, I am aware of that.

But the SMART thing for them to have done is to have signed a seperate treaty with the Maquis giving them the turf in return for cut rate goods and services, freeing up that many of their own trained people on the other end, and letting the Maquis field their own vessels and personnel to defend that section of the perimeter.

Anyhows, mostly I wanted to put the issue forward from the perspective of the Maquis themselves, in a situation where it's NOT that black and white, rather than the standard-issue Starfleet "They just don't know any better, the poor ignorant savages.." line of drivel.

Every factor involved had a legit gripe, especially when the Maquis started aggression against Starfleet as well, and just because the Maquis were not an empire like the other two, doesn't make THEIR gripe any less legit, you know.

It's one of those situations where everyone on every side is, to THEM, doing the right

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, August 23, 2008 12:24 AM

Correction, apparently the Cardassians DID agree to a similar set of terms.

"Ultimately, an agreement was made whereby the Dorvan colonists were permitted to remain in their colony under Cardassian jurisdiction. The arrangement was approved by Gul Evek, the Cardassian official in charge of affairs in the Demilitarized Zone.

Following the Dorvan agreement, colonists on many other worlds also refused to abandon their homes and demanded to be permitted to stay on their colonies. Both the Federation Council and the Cardassian Central Command acquiesced."

... and then reneged on it ...

"However, the resolution of the dispute did not prove to be a practical solution. Although Starfleet assigned an attaché, Lt. Commander Calvin Hudson, to the Demilitarized Zone, resentment began to fester as hardships mounted. Although the Cardassian government had officially pledged to leave the Federation colonists alone, a wide campaign of oppression began at practically the same time. Food replicators were poisoned, mobs were organized, and general harassment of the Federation colonists made life difficult at best.

At the same time, the Central Command secretly began arming their own colonists on the Demilitarized Zone. By shipping the weapons through intermediaries such as the Lissepians, they managed to avoid the attention of Starfleet. The Cardassian colonists mounted the weapons – including Galor -class heavy disruptors – onto shuttlecraft-sized vessels and used them to attack Federation interests."

I think that last line should read Maquis interests, since the Maquis were no longer under Federation jurisdiction, but Cardassian.

That changes things in fact very little, but it's worth the mention that initially the Cardassians DID agree to them being there, and then broke that trust.

-Frem
*Credit to Memory Alpha, for the quotes.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Portal:Main

CITIZEN

Saturday, August 23, 2008 1:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Apparently you don't get what I was saying.

Yeah, because you're saying a bunch of things that are largely mutually exclusive. How can doing the best possible thing you can, be morally reprehensible?

Quote:
And yeah, I know what Al Qeadas bitch is, but the situation of the Maquis far more closely resembles that of the Palestinians, if you were going to draw that kind of analogy about it, why not use the more accurate one ?

A military base isn't (usually) a colonisation and displacement attempt, putting up a settlement and burning the nearby crops to drive the locals out... that is.

Because Al Qaeda is more personal, so easier to sympathies with. Beyond that, it's not important how you see it, the important factor is how Al Qaeda sees it. They do see military bases across the middle east as an occupation. They see the encroaching 'soft colonialism' through culture and soft political interference as an attack. Blankly saying it isn't, is funny given that your the one saying we should also look at the Marqui's actions from their point of view. The point I was making is that every Terrorist has reasons for their actions, and see themselves as righteous.

Quote:

And as for the Federation "getting involved" - well, they were ALREADY involved, by providing material support to the Cardassians, something the Maquis took issue with and proceeded with aggression against the Federation over, sure.

I wasn't aware they did.

Quote:
What I dispute, mainly, is calling them Terrorists OR Freedom Fighters, cause I don't think they fit neatly into either category.

Calling them terrorists is a pretense to deny the fact that they had a fairly legit gripe that initially had nothing to do with Starfleet, and then later on, did.

I fail to see how you couldn't fit them into either category. A terrorist organisation can mean many things. The IRA were terrorists, and they were entirely unlike Al Qaeda, another terrorist organisation. A terrorist organisation could be defined as a non-state military organisation, that aims to fulfil political goals through violence.

Far from being a pretence to deny they have a legitimate grievance, on some level all terrorist organisations have a legitimate grievance, at least in their own minds.

Quote:
And what I would like to see someone try to justify - is Sisko's intentional use of bioweapons against the Maquis.

I'd forgotten about that, though I'm not sure there was any widespread damage. Wasn't it Marqui bioweapons being used though? How can you portray the Marqui the victim because their tactics were used against them?

Quote:
Mostly I wanted to put it across to you from the MAQUIS viewpoint - the whole screwup was not the fault of any particular individual or race, and always seemed more of a diplomacy failure than anything else - and the Cardassians were idiots for not taking advantage of Starfleets stupidity.

As you say, Sisko's actions were his, not authorised by Starfleet. I'm not sure of the resolution beyond that. How is it a question of "is it okay when starfleet does it" when in fact, Starfleet didn't do it?

Quote:
And yeah, sure, from the Cardassian viewpoint these guys were a buncha tresspassing assholes who refused to leave territory no longer rightfully belonging to them, I am aware of that.

But the SMART thing for them to have done is to have signed a seperate treaty with the Maquis giving them the turf in return for cut rate goods and services, freeing up that many of their own trained people on the other end, and letting the Maquis field their own vessels and personnel to defend that section of the perimeter.

That may have been the smart thing to do, but why is it ok for the Marqui to fight for their territory, but not the Cardassians?

As I remember it, the episodes concerned considered deeply the moral aspects of Federation involvement.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No on

ANTHONYT

Saturday, August 23, 2008 3:13 PM

Hello,

Here's how I see things.

The Federation abandoned territory as part of a peace treaty. The citizens who chose to remain were similarly abandoned. They were promised that the Federation would take no action to protect them. In other words, they were no longer Federation citizens. The Federation chose to sever all responsibility for these holdouts, and the holdouts similarly could not be perceived to have any responsibility to the Federation.

So, a clean split between the Feds and their erstwhile colonies, right?

Wrong.

The Cardies started stepping on these ex-Fed-colonies, and the colonies started hitting back.

It should have been a matter between the ex-colonies and their new overlords, the Cardies. The Feds were definitely not going to help their ex-colonies, so the Cardies were free to abuse them however they pleased. Indeed, this is exactly what the Cardies proceeded to do.

HOWEVER, the Feds got involved again. They started up undercover operations and joint strikes with the Cardies to get these Freedom Fighters under control. Why? No Fed assets were involved at this point. Why were the Feds helping the Cardies?

To preserve their treaty. The Cardies must have said, "If you don't get these ex-colonies under control, the deal is off."

What SHOULD have been the Fed response?

"Hey bud, you wanted those planets, and now they're yours. Enjoy. Oh, and if you can't handle these brand new citizens of yours, these men, women, and children fighting you with spare parts and scraps... You sure as HELL can't handle us. So tend to your business, and we'll tend to ours."

And without the Feds providing material aid to the Cardies in the form of intel and joint operations, there would have been no incentive for the colonists to conduct operations against the Feds.

I'll shock you a bit further, Citizen. I don't think the world is black and white. It's a very gray place where I can completely sympathize with and understand my enemies, even when I recognize the necessity of killing them.

Somewhere in Iraq, there is a dude with a Makarov, an AK-47, and a kilo of plastic explosive. He's setting up an IED to blow up an American Humvee. He's just some dude doing what he thinks is necessary to expel foreign invaders. Invaders who took over his country and installed what he must believe is a puppet government. And while I hope we kill him and foil his plan, I'm not pompous enough to call him a terrorist. I know exactly what he is, and what we are, too. After we put some lead in his skull, and the skull of all his friends, I hope they get the consolation they are looking for in the afterlife. And I hope we do, too. God save all of us bastards.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, August 23, 2008 3:52 PM

I see Anthony covered most of the turf I was going to, so I'll cut to down to two points.

The greater bulk of my point Cit, is that there are situations where there just ain't any "right" choices, and you have to go with what does the least harm - but harm is still done, the choice is morally flawed, and it still sucks.

And many a time in those situations, everyone involved is doing what is right by them, and yet still at the end of it you wind up with a pile of bodies - it's rarely as simple as any one side would paint it for you.

And yes, the Maquis did use bioweapons, an utterly unacceptable thing to do by any standard, but that in no way justifies Sisko also using them from a Starfleet vessel, while serving in Starfleet and wearing the uniform - those kind of justifications always lead to the ends-means discussion, in which my stand is as ironclad as it always was, as stated in the posts above.

The fact that Sisko wasn't stripped of his rank and cashiered for that incident has always bothered me, it sets an ugly precedent, doesn't it ?

No, it's NOT ok - no matter who does it, but apparently the Federation was all A-OK with Sisko doing it, despite their horror at the Maquis doing so.

As Mal would say "I don't hold with that."

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CITIZEN

Saturday, August 23, 2008 10:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The Federation abandoned territory as part of a peace treaty. The citizens who chose to remain were similarly abandoned. They were promised that the Federation would take no action to protect them. In other words, they were no longer Federation citizens. The Federation chose to sever all responsibility for these holdouts, and the holdouts similarly could not be perceived to have any responsibility to the Federation.

So, a clean split between the Feds and their erstwhile colonies, right?

Wrong.

Hi.

Wrong indeed, but not simply because the Federation was pissed because the Colonists dared leave their utopia. Cardassia blamed the Federation for the Marqui, they held them responsible for the Marqui attacks. The Cardassians tried to frame Miles O'Brien for smuggling weapons to the Marqui, and although a trumped up charge and a load of crap, it shows that the Marqui were a real threat to the Federation-Cardassian peace treaty. They had to act against them, the choice between hunting down some disparate terrorist cells in the badlands, or waging an interstellar war against Cardassia, is a pretty simple choice to make.

Quote:
HOWEVER, the Feds got involved again. They started up undercover operations and joint strikes with the Cardies to get these Freedom Fighters under control. Why? No Fed assets were involved at this point. Why were the Feds helping the Cardies?

Federation joint operations started AFTER Marqui terrorist attacks within Federation territory, and was largely an effort to prevent war with Cardassia.

Quote:
To preserve their treaty. The Cardies must have said, "If you don't get these ex-colonies under control, the deal is off."

What SHOULD have been the Fed response?

"Hey bud, you wanted those planets, and now they're yours. Enjoy. Oh, and if you can't handle these brand new citizens of yours, these men, women, and children fighting you with spare parts and scraps... You sure as HELL can't handle us. So tend to your business, and we'll tend to ours."

Which is exactly what the Cardassians said. As for your Federation response? It would have meant war, so you're tacitly backing interstellar war, which is the worst option no matter what way you cut it. Diplomacy tends to be trying to make the best and least destructive course in a bad situation, not saying "fuck you buddy, cause I'm gonna shootchya". Well, unless you're George Bush, and if he was Federation president, that's probably what he'd say. Still the stupidest course of action the Federation could have taken.

Quote:
And without the Feds providing material aid to the Cardies in the form of intel and joint operations, there would have been no incentive for the colonists to conduct operations against the Feds.

They'd already committed acts of terrorism within Federation territory. The first appearance the Marqui make in the show was an attack on a Cardassian freighter at DS9, a Terrorist attack on Federation soil. Before you dismiss it, do you think Al Qaeda blowing up a Spanish freighter in a US port wouldn't be seen as an attack on the United States?

Quote:
Somewhere in Iraq, there is a dude with a Makarov, an AK-47, and a kilo of plastic explosive. He's setting up an IED to blow up an American Humvee. He's just some dude doing what he thinks is necessary to expel foreign invaders. Invaders who took over his country and installed what he must believe is a puppet government. And while I hope we kill him and foil his plan, I'm not pompous enough to call him a terrorist. I know exactly what he is, and what we are, too. After we put some lead in his skull, and the skull of all his friends, I hope they get the consolation they are looking for in the afterlife. And I hope we do, too. God save all of us bastards.

So I'm pompus for calling Terrorists, terrorists? The Marqui are terrorists, whether you or anyone else agrees with that label doesn't make much odds to me. It's not pomposity at all, it's

CITIZEN

Saturday, August 23, 2008 11:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
The greater bulk of my point Cit, is that there are situations where there just ain't any "right" choices, and you have to go with what does the least harm - but harm is still done, the choice is morally flawed, and it still sucks.

If your making the best possible choice, doing everything possible to get the best situation out of whatever mess you find yourself in, your actions aren't morally reprehensible. Harm might be still done, and in some perfect world the same actions may be 'wrong', and for sure doing it in a context where it's the best possible course, doesn't make it right, but morally reprehensible? That's what I'd call rather black and white thinking, yeah.

Part of black and white thinking is saying "this is morally reprehensible, no matter what" isn't it?

Quote:
And yes, the Maquis did use bioweapons, an utterly unacceptable thing to do by any standard, but that in no way justifies Sisko also using them from a Starfleet vessel, while serving in Starfleet and wearing the uniform - those kind of justifications always lead to the ends-means discussion, in which my stand is as ironclad as it always was, as stated in the posts above.

Like I said, I'm not sure what the resolution is. Did Starfleet turn a blind eye?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, August 25, 2008 8:25 PM

Quote:
I'm not sure what the resolution is. Did Starfleet turn a blind eye?

Yes, they did.

That alone would remove any moral high ground they might have had, imho.

-F