The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Star Trek Into Darkness
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 06-03-2013, 09:25 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

The problem with the off left position is that you cannot indefinitely suppress people that way either. You complain that right wingers want to beat down everyone else and achieve dominance that way nstead of a common good co-operative, but the common good co-operative is designed to replace individuality for the convenience of percieved civility and stability. You know where that runs the risk of going..................you don't have to be told.

Eventually, the desire to reassert raises it's head and you have your own troubles.

Of course, what the Federation really is is kept vague but Eddington himself pointed out the Federation' s biggest problem is it could not understand why someone would not want to live within it. It can't concieve of people saying 'No' to what it offers. If we even knew what it truly offered in day to day meaning.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 06-03-2013, 09:54 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

Aha, so eminent domain is the end of of individuality and the first step towards totalitarianism but imperialism, taking away property from people who are not citizens of your society like the Ba'ku is OK.

Ignoring your fascistoid stuff about real men and your right-wing defense of imperialism which are obviously utterly wicked, let me focus on your (hyper-)liberal argument.
Right now we live in a world with decreasing international but increasing intranational inequality, i.e. plenty of systemic economic violence, plus plenty of ordinary violence, wars. In the world of Trek there is neither massive income inequality nor much political violence on Earth.
We never saw how precisely the transition worked, all we know is that first contact with the Vulcans plus Earth being shattered after WWIII (not so much materially but ideologically, WWI created a blank slate in which ample of political experimentation happened in Europe) played a role. As indicated in my previous posts I am a fan of peaceful change: Ghandi, MLK, the revolutions in the Eastern Bloc, in South America and the Arab world. Most violent political changes failed to inscribe themselves into social reality, Napoleon came after the Jacobins.

And I guess the same happened in the case of Trek. Of course there were losers, rich people lose when you create a more equal society and every weapon producer loses when wars stop.
But then again they might just think that they lose. I faintly remember an interview with a Norwegian CEO who only makes four or five times as much as the cleaning lady yet he wouldn't wanna have it any other way. He enjoys being able to get home at 3PM on a friday, not having to live in a house that resembles a bunker and not having to worry about health insurance, in other words the kind of stuff he would have to worry about if he lives in the US and made 300 times as much as the cleaning lady.

So in the case of this CEO in a social democratic country or the colonists who lose their homes there is no loss of individuality, there is only a loss of property and this loss of property is more than counterbalanced via the benefits of leaving in a more peaceful society.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 06-03-2013, 10:10 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 06-03-2013, 10:55 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

OK, so your position is centrist, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Just because the corporate media plays this game ad infinitum does not mean that it is not wrong. You can take plenty of issues, from climate change to macroeconomic policies, to realize that one side constantly errs about facts.

Just to clarify my position, when I say that I am a lefty I do not mean authoritarian bullsh*t like Stalinism but social democracy with the emphasis being on democracy. Among all currently existing political models the vague world of Trek is closest to this.
But social democracy is not the same as liberalism. Being able to choose among twenty chemically virtually identical shampoos is not what I would call freedom and popular culture making me think about the Kardashians whenever I type Cardassians is hardly a sign of individuality.
And last but not least being a democrat doesn't imply that you cannot ignore the interests of a minority. On the contrary, you have to not merely ignore the interests of oligarchs to be a proper democrat, you have to crush them (meaning that you take away some of their political power and wealth, not that you physically hurt them).


About the Maquis, my spontaneous worldview is actually quite anarchic / libertarian so I totally understand these settlers. I even understand why they wanna secede from the UFP, their interests are not respected and interests hear mean not being raped and killed by Cardassians. I am quite sympathetic to most real world secessionist movements. But in a war and peace situation the Federation simply cannot allow some of its citizens to secede and lead a guerilla war against the Cardassians as they could easily interpret this as a proxy war against them.

I frankly admit that my positon comes from a land for peace / eminent domain angle, peace is far more important that some Federation citizens having to relocate. To turn around your argument about real men on the border and decadent Starfleet officers, I do not want Starfleet officers to die in an ongoing conflict with the Cardassians just to satisfy some Bohemians who do not wanna give up their lifestyle.
But this is an ex ante perspective, with the conflict going on the proper Federation policy would be to monitor the DMZ more tightly, prevent weapon smuggling and exerting political pressure upon the Cardassians. The colonists should do everything in their power to bring the Federation on the right path. But their prolonged use of violence is counterproductive, it just gives the Cardassians an excuse for an increase military presence and thus makes it easier for them to smuggle weapons into the DMZ.

So my main problem is not that these guys are violent, I advocate a limited period of violence to get the press into the DMZ. My problem is also not that they wanna secede and live their own way of life and I doubt that the Federation has a problem with members that wanna quit in ordinary times. My problem is that the Maquis do not have a strategy. They feel that they fight for a righteous cause but they do not think.
If you wanna be a fu*king revolutionary, secede from the Federation and kill everybody who stands in your path you might at least read your Lenin and follow his advice to "learn, learn, learn". And yes, this comparison is intentional, being a social democrat I always favour moderate over radical solutions.

Last edited by horatio : 06-03-2013 at 11:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 06-03-2013, 10:56 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

That's the ***** in the scenario though. They're driven to act because they become disenfranchised by the Federation. Nobody wants to die but it ends up inevitable because it's a situation that can't be reduced to a answer that works for everyone involved.

Violence ends up the recourse. Because humans don't always think before they do.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 06-03-2013, 11:14 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

I provided two answers, get out of there or strive for a political solution, that are objectively better for all three sides. Objectively better here means less corpses.
I doubt that you wanna go down the "real men" road gain and claim that preventing people from dying should not be a primary goal in every kind of political conflict.

Of course I know that the Maquis are ready for martyrdom. We all read our Ernest Becker, giving up one's life for what one perceives to be a noble goal can become one's personal 'immortality project' (more ordinary examples are children or work) and in this case the Maquis' new immortality project is the defense of their former one, building a colony.
So fewer corpses is a problematic criterion if you include the fact that humans are crazy and sometimes gain their life via losing it.
But then again I wanna stay out of this psychoanalytic territory, this is German / French / continental thinking. I rather wanna be a good Briton and focus on more rational and utilitarian arguments.

Last edited by horatio : 06-03-2013 at 11:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 06-03-2013, 11:19 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Yes, you provided alternative options. It doesn't mean any of them would have been taken if proposed to the colonists. It just adds more options. Whether they would have led to a more peaceful outcome or less death would never be knowable.

The Maquis become ready and willing to die rather than simply give up what's theirs. Sure, they can be called out for that instead of meekly walking away like they were told to. And it depends on your point of view what you think of that. But they stood up for what was their's at the end of the day. Even at the cost of their lives. And I guess there's a part of me thinks of them 'why do that?. And part of me answers 'That's why you'll never be Frontiersman'.
__________________
'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 11:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 06-03-2013, 11:21 AM
omegaman's Avatar
omegaman omegaman is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penrith NSW Australia
Posts: 4,603
Default

Interesting comments there guys. Gotta say its starting to feel like the old board is truly back!
__________________
TREK IS TREK. WHATEVER THE TIMELINE!

The next TV Series should be called STARFLEET!
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 06-03-2013, 11:43 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
Yes, you provided alternative options. It doesn't mean any of them would have been taken if proposed to the colonists. It just adds more options. Whether they would have led to a more peaceful outcome or less death would never be knowable.
No.

The first option, leaving your colonies, would have led to precisely zero deaths.
It could have had vague political implications, the Cardassians might have perceived it as a sign of Federation weakness (unless the treaty was an implicit/secret "land for peace" contract in the first place), and this could have an indirect second round effect if it makes the Cardassians start a new war ... but this is extremely conjectural and ignores "hard" facts that influence a war like how much Galaxy class starships the UFP keeps near the border.

The second option prevents what occurred during the Maquis campaign: more Cardassian bullying in the colonies (now they have an easy excuse), more deaths in the colonies because of the bullying and your on-the-ground fighting and more deaths of Maquis who die in starship battles.


Quote:
The Maquis become ready and willing to die rather than simply give up what's theirs. Sure, they can be called out for that instead of meekly walking away like they were told to. And it depends on your point of view what you think of that. But they stood up for what was their's at the end of the day. Even at the cost of their lives. And I guess there's a part of me thinks of them 'why do that?. And part of me answers 'That's why you'll never be Frontiersman'.
You just have to look at my signature to realize that I am very sympathetic to proper martyrdom. Jesus and MLK did not hurt a fly but they were ready to lose their life in their struggle. While the former is just a fictional-religious character and served mainly as inspiration for his followers the latter, one of his followers, has achieved real change for the better.
Killing the enemy because he killed you is not martyrdom or even courageous, it is just the reptilian part of your brain taking over and exercising revenge. If the mammalian part were in control you would realize that killing the enemy just makes the situation worse.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 06-03-2013, 11:44 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

You still can't rule out a smaller band of Maquis emerging even if the majority decided to leave and start over. Number of deaths may have been lower but if people felt that strongly it's unlikely 100% would have gone. It would just run the risk of fracturing the DMZ colonists a bit differently.

The second option doesn't rule out secondary issues like a Federation starship and a Cardassian ship skirmishing by accident in the zone itself.

Your plans may have fewer deaths, but you cannot assure precisely none.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:12 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.