While I would never accuse you of reading someone's remarks and deciding they mean something else entirely (Oh, I'm a wicked fascist today............whatever) I'm actually just pointing out that both the left and right BOTH think they have the answers to everything...............without the help of the other. Imperialism and the other -isms all have had smarter people than us analyse them theoretically and based on practicals as well. I'm not picking one over the other specifically.
Just like I never said it was OK for the Baku to be exploited or that Picard was instrinsically wrong to do what he did. My point is that the film could have been a lot meatier than it was in actuality. And despite your claim that there is nothing to debate (which is true within the finished film) there could have been if it had tried a bit harder.
What life is like and how it's structured in Star Trek is very vague. Political structure, electoral system etc are all undefined. That will never be answered now but it makes it hard to know just what the day to day is like at that point. Or how much monitoring is needed to keep it that way. It may be broadly self sustaining for the majority content with it's benefits. The driver and maintainer of the change seems generally to have been first contact but how smooth it all is...............I don't think we can fully say.
Income is an unanswered question, property etc all unclear. But in any developed society there will be people who want the challenge (all these manly real burly men I guess) and who wanna do their own thing. That seems to have been true of life in the Federation as well and maybe setting off for a remote world is the option left to form a colony. It's hard to say in an undefined society.
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'
courtesy of Saquist
Last edited by kevin : 06-03-2013 at 10:31 AM.