NationStates Jolt Archive

This topic came up during a conversation with a friend of mine (political sciences student). As part of a class project, he had the idea of writing a political platform based on trek principles, philosophical premises and the actual political structure of the Federation.

What do you guys think? It is feasible? Would it significantly differ from today's political beliefs? Would you be interested in it? Any suggestions for issues?

The federation appears, IMHO, to be run as a (Marxist) Social Technocracy - No-one has any money and you never hear of elections - The people that rule in the Council appear to be people of learning rather than popularist politicians (ie not what you would expect in a democracy).

I think it would be very different to the society we live in now and quite difficult to produce, but it is exactly in line with my own political ideals so I think it would be possible - plus I believe that the only way the human race is going to see the 24th century is by adopting some form of global socialist rule so it might be almost prophetic.

I think it would be very different to the society we live in now and quite difficult to produce, but it is exactly in line with my own political ideals so I think it would be possible - plus I believe that the only way the human race is going to see the 24th century is by adopting some form of global socialist rule so it might be almost prophetic.

But what should be the basic premises of such a political platform? What do we really have to change to make it happen?

I don't know the priciples but I would listen to them.

The federation appears, IMHO, to be run as a (Marxist) Social Technocracy - No-one has any money and you never hear of elections - The people that rule in the Council appear to be people of learning rather than popularist politicians (ie not what you would expect in a democracy).

I think it would be very different to the society we live in now and quite difficult to produce, but it is exactly in line with my own political ideals so I think it would be possible - plus I believe that the only way the human race is going to see the 24th century is by adopting some form of global socialist rule so it might be almost prophetic.

In Star Trek, there is no money unless there is. I found this rather confusing, and perhaps a DS9'er might be able to clue us all in on it. As for the rest of the Star Trek universe, their government has no corruption or mean people in it unless it's a plot point. I see this concept of government having about the same potential as any other distant, unworkable utopia.

I think it would be very different to the society we live in now and quite difficult to produce, but it is exactly in line with my own political ideals so I think it would be possible - plus I believe that the only way the human race is going to see the 24th century is by adopting some form of global socialist rule so it might be almost prophetic.

But what should be the basic premises of such a political platform? What do we really have to change to make it happen?

The suppression of all individual, cultural, religious and national differences in support of global uniformity. The creation of a global economy, meaning the destruction of native markets or ways of life to enable shared resources and technology (think of what happened in the Ukraine...). The removal of democratic rights to vote in favour of a dictatorial government (benign or otherwise) that awards comformity to its ideals and beliefs, rather than popular opinion, with positions of power and influence. Basically its what liberalism will give us, if let unchecked, by the 24th century.

Star Trek's Earth does indeed seem like a true communist technocracy.
No money appears to change hands, people just work for the benefit of the society at whole.
A paradise :)

If he could clarify exactly the founding principles of the Federation, he might have a decent chance. It all depends on how clearly he expounds his theoretical reasoning, and how much (or perchance, more appropriately, how LITTLE) he depends on the source material available for Star-Trek. If your friend has an open minded prof and can draw on whatever philosophical base Trek drew on, it should be ok. But, FWIW, as a Poli Sci/Political Theory major and a Trek fan; and I would have difficulty giving a clear outline of the Federation government...
I*d go with the polls and say bad idea...
Sorry... :(

Basically its what liberalism will give us, if let unchecked, by the 24th century.

Actually, it's what liberalism promises to give us, after waving the magic replicator at such bedrock economic principles as scarcity.

who needs money if you can materialize whatever you need at any time?

I don't care what the downfalls are. If I can have a holodeck I would be there in a split second.

WHo wouldnt want to live with the the best health, housing, and education there is to offer while getting to make yrou dreams come to life on a holodeck?

If only they were anarchist. I never noticed the lack of elections, before, actually.

--------------------
Free your mind!

I'm not an expert on the topic (in fact I know practically nothing) but I wonder if the moneyless system isn't simply the military and exploration vessels. After all there is no way to have a constant monetary system people of different planets will accept so why pay your recruits. Just give them unlimited resources and free access to entertainment and there you go! That would also explain the DS9 conundrum since it is more of a civilian way-station.

I also think that we don't have enough information to judge the systems benefits, but I think an empire that massive could not possibly manage a democratic society.

My understanding re the DS9 question is that whilst the UFP and affliated members don't use currency, other races do, such as the Bajorans and the Ferengi obviously. I'm sure Quark wouldn't accept the excuse "But we don't have currency" when Federation citizens passed into his bar. Not that he was much fond of his Hew-mon customers.

The main problem with the Ferengi however is, why don't they just replicate as much latinum as they want?

My understanding re the DS9 question is that whilst the UFP and affliated members don't use currency, other races do, such as the Bajorans and the Ferengi obviously. I'm sure Quark wouldn't accept the excuse "But we don't have currency" when Federation citizens passed into his bar. Not that he was much fond of his Hew-mon customers.

The main problem with the Ferengi however is, why don't they just replicate as much latinum as they want?

And how is it that Federation officers can blow a week's pay gambling with Quark if they don't get paid?

Also, what happens to people who aren't famers, eccentric researchers, starfleet officers, and redshirts? What is the purpose of the population that now makes it's money by producing things or serving people now that replicators and Computer can handle it all?
*Hums the theme song to Monty Python's "Meaning of Life".*

And how is it that Federation officers can blow a week's pay gambling with Quark if they don't get paid?

I always thought they replicated it which was why I didn't understand why the Ferengi didn't do the same thing!

I get the feeling the writers nicked much about the Federation from the Technocratic movement.. because the answer to these questions are right here:

http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/Technocracy_FAQ_1.x.htm#5.3.3

Especially since Star Trek's industrial replicators have to get energy from somewhere. Energy accounting makes sense for our society; but something as advanced as the Federation could quite literally not use anything else.

This topic came up during a conversation with a friend of mine (political sciences student). As part of a class project, he had the idea of writing a political platform based on trek principles, philosophical premises and the actual political structure of the Federation.

What do you guys think? It is feasible? Would it significantly differ from today's political beliefs? Would you be interested in it? Any suggestions for issues?
I think you have a lot of material to work with. You can find out a lot of things about the economic and political structure of the UFP. We know that there is no money in the UFP. That would suggest that capitalism has gone the way of the dodo. People aren't obsessed with the accumulation of wealth.
As Captain Picard says in First Contact, "We work to better ourselves and humanity."
There doesn't seem to be a class society. A lot of humanist philosophy is evident in Star Trek. For me, there is also Marxist overtones. See Star Trek: DS9, Past Tense, Bar Association and the Dogs of War.
There are plenty of episodes across all the trek to come up with a political theory. There is also a book called the Ethics of Star trek.

Personally, I think a political theory involving Star Trek would be similar to the utopian socialists of the 19th century

I also think that we don't have enough information to judge the systems benefits, but I think an empire that massive could not possibly manage a democratic society.

Why not? Why can't massive 'empires' or federations be democratically run? How would size limit democratic control, majority rule and guarantee of individual rights. Remember the federation is a federal system, meaning the 'states' (earth? vulcan?...) have a great deal of autonomy. Which would certainly favor democratic stability.

Paradise Lost from DS9 showed that the Federation had a president, so did have some degree of democracy, yet also that Starfleet could veeeery easily make it a police state.

First you'd have to settle on what the Trek principles actually ARE... and there'll be a fair ol' debate about some of those!

First you'd have to settle on what the Trek principles actually ARE... and there'll be a fair ol' debate about some of those!

Yes, yes, yes!!!

And what primary documents do you propose to use? The original TV series? The later series? (those were under different direction from Gene Roddenbery) The movies? The books? The various manuals? (Note the books and manuals are supposedly not cannon....) Fandom?
Those soruces sometimes (often) contradict each other...

Plus there may be difficulties in getting a prof to accept this...

I'm no trekkie, but it seems to be the principles are pretty feel-good.

Peace, love, equality, freedom.

Aren't there morals to each of the shows?

I'm no trekkie, but it seems to be the principles are pretty feel-good.

Peace, love, equality, freedom.

Aren't there morals to each of the shows?

Yes, the general principles ARE that simple, but it's the interpretation of their application that is cause for debate, eg treatment of race and gender.

I'm no trekkie, but it seems to be the principles are pretty feel-good.

Peace, love, equality, freedom.

Aren't there morals to each of the shows?

Yes, the general principles ARE that simple, but it's the interpretation of their application that is cause for debate, eg treatment of race and gender.

*has no idea how Gaspode is keeping a straight face*

Have you ever been to a convention?

I'm no trekkie, but it seems to be the principles are pretty feel-good.

Peace, love, equality, freedom.

Aren't there morals to each of the shows?

Yes, the general principles ARE that simple, but it's the interpretation of their application that is cause for debate, eg treatment of race and gender.

*has no idea how Gaspode is keeping a straight face*

Have you ever been to a convention?

who me? no.

I just think that in the early episodes particularly the 'equal' treatment of race and gender isn't so 'equal'.

this seems to be about federation principles, what about klingon principles, or ferengi rules of acquition or the borgs rather single mantra "resistance is futile prepare to be assilimated".

While I might agree with many of the principles of the UFP and I would support a similar government form on a country, I wouldn't support the ideology on a planetary level. The UFP is an utopian dream of a perfect globalizated earth (from a yanquee perspective), and I'm against globalization.
No money - I agree
Work for societies' benefit - I agree
Equality - I agree
A globalized world - Disagree

Rather than the UFP I support the zapatista guerrilla in Mexico, it has similar principles but without all the technocratic, globalization bullsh*t.

Anyway, I don't think its going to work out. Specially if the political party has the name "Star Trek" on it. While it's an interesting idea, not many people would take it serously.

Subcommandante Marcos is a former LA cabbie. :twisted: :P :twisted:

LOL! It could be. you never know, you never know :wink:

LOL! It could be. you never know, you never know :wink:


actually someone told me he said that once in an interview to an anarchist newspaper, maybe he was a cabbie in the bay, i can't remember which.

My understanding re the DS9 question is that whilst the UFP and affliated members don't use currency, other races do, such as the Bajorans and the Ferengi obviously. I'm sure Quark wouldn't accept the excuse "But we don't have currency" when Federation citizens passed into his bar. Not that he was much fond of his Hew-mon customers.

The main problem with the Ferengi however is, why don't they just replicate as much latinum as they want?
Probably for the same reason why synthetic diamonts aren't as valuable as natural ones.

Hmm . . . Live long and prosper!!

(the fingers of a hand)
\\//|

Hmm . . . Live long and prosper!!

(the fingers of a hand)
\\//|

Paradise Lost from DS9 showed that the Federation had a president, so did have some degree of democracy, yet also that Starfleet could veeeery easily make it a police state.
Yes, they do have a president. Kirk saved him in: Startrek VI: The undiscovered country.

My understanding re the DS9 question is that whilst the UFP and affliated members don't use currency, other races do, such as the Bajorans and the Ferengi obviously. I'm sure Quark wouldn't accept the excuse "But we don't have currency" when Federation citizens passed into his bar. Not that he was much fond of his Hew-mon customers.

The main problem with the Ferengi however is, why don't they just replicate as much latinum as they want?

And how is it that Federation officers can blow a week's pay gambling with Quark if they don't get paid?
They probably can get payed to do things like that. Plus DS9 wasn't a Federation Station but a Bajoran one.

Also, what happens to people who aren't famers, eccentric researchers, starfleet officers, and redshirts? What is the purpose of the population that now makes it's money by producing things or serving people now that replicators and Computer can handle it all?
*Hums the theme song to Monty Python's "Meaning of Life".*
Captain Cisko's father had his own restaurant. Picards brother was a wine farmer. They can do whatever they like cause they like doing it.

Michæl Wong believes they are Marxist.


-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Surfing randomly (well, not so randomly :wink: ) though the internet I found a great site related to this: http://home.swbell.net/so2001/index.html
enjoy! :P

Well, time to add my two cents (wonder where that came from?) in. First of all, replicators in that society change everything. Everyone is kind and good etc. because they no longer need for anything in their society, and pursue philosophical interests, the "good of humanity". Lacking such a miracle technology, I highly doubt that people will be benign to work with one another out of the goodness of their hearts, unless we evolve radically as a society, and with massive conditioning.

Second, such a society wouldnt just "spring up" without a word or a mutter. To create such a state, take all ALL national sovreignty "for the greater good" and such would cause, beleive, a war; a very, very big war. Realize, Trekkie society came about AFTER they discovered an alien race and after a massive nuclear war; a focal point for their shared commonality as a species. "Hey, were not really that different compared to THESE guys from Planet X.". That would be another galvanizing effect to unite the species as a whole.

Those are jsut two ideas why it wouldnt work, much as I wish it could. However, people would have to change drastically from their base instincts towards self-preservation, greed, and the need to perpetuate their genes before such a society would evolve. However, the first step WOULD be a global community, a socialist ste. However, what price would have to be paid to create such a structure, and would it be worth it at the cost of many human lives? Thats a bigger concern, I think.

-Crownguard

Paradise Lost from DS9 showed that the Federation had a president, so did have some degree of democracy, yet also that Starfleet could veeeery easily make it a police state.
Yes, they do have a president. Kirk saved him in: Startrek VI: The undiscovered country.

Ahh yes I remember now.. Haven't seen much TOS since I was a kid

Michæl Wong believes they are Marxist.



And I disagree. IMO it is very well possible, even likely, that the federation is a ultra-capitalist democratic republic. I don't see why the federation HAS to be a planned economy. Even on the contrary, the mere fact that living standards are so high in the federation, IMO 'proves' the federation is not socialist, but capitalist. Any thoughts?

My understanding re the DS9 question is that whilst the UFP and affliated members don't use currency, other races do, such as the Bajorans and the Ferengi obviously. I'm sure Quark wouldn't accept the excuse "But we don't have currency" when Federation citizens passed into his bar. Not that he was much fond of his Hew-mon customers.

The main problem with the Ferengi however is, why don't they just replicate as much latinum as they want?
Probably for the same reason why synthetic diamonts aren't as valuable as natural ones.

*slaps palm to forehead*

Such an obvious answer! I shoulda thought of that.

I'm no trekkie, but it seems to be the principles are pretty feel-good.

Peace, love, equality, freedom.

Aren't there morals to each of the shows?

Yes, the general principles ARE that simple, but it's the interpretation of their application that is cause for debate, eg treatment of race and gender.

I personally support a political platform which requires hotties to walk around in mini skirts.

Bygones

:lol:

I personally support a political platform which requires hotties to walk around in mini skirts.

Bygones

:lol:

Wouldn't we all? :D

And I disagree. IMO it is very well possible, even likely, that the federation is a ultra-capitalist democratic republic. I don't see why the federation HAS to be a planned economy. Even on the contrary, the mere fact that living standards are so high in the federation, IMO 'proves' the federation is not socialist, but capitalist. Any thoughts?

:roll: I suppose you subscribe to the myth that quasi-voluntary slavery and poverty lead to high living standards.


-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

:roll: I suppose you subscribe to the myth that quasi-voluntary slavery and poverty lead to high living standards.


Quasi-voluntary slavery? Where do you see quasi-voluntary slavery in the federation? :shock:

Quasi-voluntary slavery? Where do you see quasi-voluntary slavery in the federation?

I'm talking about capitalism. Capitalism has quasi-voluntary slavery.


-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

I'm talking about capitalism. Capitalism has quasi-voluntary slavery.


Slavery imlies coercive forced labor. Capitalism depends on volunary transactions. Therefore, capitalism is ipso facto not slavery.

Slavery imlies coercive forced labor. Capitalism depends on volunary transactions. Therefore, capitalism is ipso facto not slavery.

You don't do what your boss tells you, you starve on the streets. That's slavery. You have a choice where you work, but it doesn't change the fact that you are a slave to whoever you work for.


-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Slavery imlies coercive forced labor. Capitalism depends on volunary transactions. Therefore, capitalism is ipso facto not slavery.

You don't do what your boss tells you, you starve on the streets. That's slavery. You have a choice where you work, but it doesn't change the fact that you are a slave to whoever you work for.

ACtually, that's NOT slavery. Your boss didn't starve you- you chose not to work for him. For all he knows you have other money, or you found another job, or you're out on the street- it's not his problem.

So go work for yourself, or don't work. And, if you're a slave to whoever you work for, maybe you should have thought over the terms of hiring. You're not a slave because unlike a slave you have the choice to leave; your boss can hardly be said to be responsible for what happens to you after you quit. I've worked at a lot of different places, and most of the time I like my bosses. They're pretty nice, they're interested in my satisfaction (happy workers=productive workers) and I've certainly never been in a position where I've felt like a slave.

I reject this entire analogy. I think when people say capitalism=slavery they are not only being inaccurate, but needlessly inflamatory.

So go work for yourself, or don't work. And, if you're a slave to whoever you work for, maybe you should have thought over the terms of hiring. You're not a slave because unlike a slave you have the choice to leave; your boss can hardly be said to be responsible for what happens to you after you quit. I've worked at a lot of different places, and most of the time I like my bosses. They're pretty nice, they're interested in my satisfaction (happy workers=productive workers) and I've certainly never been in a position where I've felt like a slave.

If you don't have the tools to work, and in most cases, you don't, you have allow capitalists to rob you or die. That is slavery and robbery. The link in my sig explains it in more detail.


-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

If you don't have the tools to work, and in most cases, you don't, you have allow capitalists to rob you or die. That is slavery and robbery. The link in my sig explains it in more detail.


Again, I reject the idea that wage= robbery. You can't be volunatirly robbed. Period. Upon careful consideration, if you choose to work, that's fine, and if you don't, that's fine too. This work or starve analogy is simply false, especially in North America.

Again, I reject the idea that wage= robbery. You can't be volunatirly robbed. Period. Upon careful consideration, if you choose to work, that's fine, and if you don't, that's fine too. This work or starve analogy is simply false, especially in North America.

It is robbery. I suppose a boss doesn't take part of the result of your production for himself.


-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

It is robbery. I suppose a boss doesn't take part of the result of your production for himself.



But by the act of production you've effectively taken part of the results of HIS labour (i.e. the equipment depreciates, you consume inputs)! This claim makes no sense, especially in a complex manufacturing process: are you saying that if you help make a car, you have a moral claim over that car despite the fact that you've only added some labor, and have added no capital, to the production? You are paid for a percentage of the production based on negotiations prior to the act which are in turn dictated in part by the market.

But by the act of production you've effectively taken part of the results of HIS labour (i.e. the equipment depreciates, you consume inputs)! This claim makes no sense, especially in a complex manufacturing process: are you saying that if you help make a car, you have a moral claim over that car despite the fact that you've only added some labor, and have added no capital, to the production? You are paid for a percentage of the production based on negotiations prior to the act which are in turn dictated in part by the market.

Owning stuff isn't labor. All he has to do is allow the use of it in exchange for doing whatever he says.


-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Owning stuff isn't labor. All he has to do is allow the use of it in exchange for doing whatever he says.


Owning stuff is a result of labor (labor being any legitimate action used to accure capital; i.e. both manufacturers and consultants produce a level of labour output). The owner also pays for ALL the inputs; try making a car without any steel. He is entitled to rent his capital (if it is fairly accrued); otherwise there would be no point in him creating it. No one's going to put up the money to build a factory if it is not going to be profitable.

Owning stuff is a result of labor (labor being any legitimate action used to accure capital; i.e. both manufacturers and consultants produce a level of labour output). The owner also pays for ALL the inputs; try making a car without any steel. He is entitled to rent his capital (if it is fairly accrued); otherwise there would be no point in him creating it. No one's going to put up the money to build a factory if it is not going to be profitable.

Buying stuff isn't work. The real work is done by workers. The owner doesn't really have to do anything. Work needs workers, it doesn't need people who do nothing but steal the results of people's work.


-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Buying stuff isn't work. The real work is done by workers. The owner doesn't really have to do anything. Work needs workers, it doesn't need people who do nothing but steal the results of people's work.



Currency is a measure of value (as determined by labor); buying stuff results in ane exchange in currency, and consequently value, and consequently labor. By spending money, you are effectively exchanging labor for goods. Work is pointless if the production is not needed; capitalism is an excellent system to efficiently produce what is needed. Owners don't 'steal' anything- if you're not willing to exchange your labor for the offered price, then don't accept the offer. It's that simple. You can keep calling it theft, but simply declaring a thing doesn't make it so.

Currency is a measure of value (as determined by labor); buying stuff results in ane exchange in currency, and consequently value, and consequently labor. By spending money, you are effectively exchanging labor for goods. Work is pointless if the production is not needed; capitalism is an excellent system to efficiently produce what is needed. Owners don't 'steal' anything- if you're not willing to exchange your labor for the offered price, then don't accept the offer. It's that simple. You can keep calling it theft, but simply declaring a thing doesn't make it so.


Owners get paid to tell the workers what to do and they get paid significantly more than the workers. They simply don't do anything useful. It doesn't matter how much economic mumbo-jumbo you bring in, they are paid to be lazy dictators. You have to accept the offer. If you don't, you don't eat. It's a choice between slavery and death.


-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Buying stuff isn't work. The real work is done by workers. The owner doesn't really have to do anything. Work needs workers, it doesn't need people who do nothing but steal the results of people's work.


Workers need people in charge to pull in orders for goods. If theres no one around to do so the work of the workers is pointless. Cause theres no one to sell those products to other companies. Theres no profit. Without profit no pay. Without pay no work for the workers. Then they don't have money to buy goods, food, health services etc....

Workers need people in charge to pull in orders for goods. If theres no one around to do so the work of the workers is pointless. Cause theres no one to sell those products to other companies. Theres no profit. Without profit no pay. Without pay no work for the workers. Then they don't have money to buy goods, food, health services etc....

They can manage work through discussion and democracy. The workplace is a dictatorship, now.


-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Owners get paid to tell the workers what to do and they get paid significantly more than the workers.
Owners don't get paid at all. They sell the output of production for (hopefully) a profit. If they don't make a profit, there is no production. Period.

They simply don't do anything useful. It doesn't matter how much economic mumbo-jumbo you bring in, they are paid to be lazy dictators.
Again, they aren't paid by anyone. For example, when a farmer sells some grain he maid, he is not being 'paid' in a wage sense. Owners provide the impetus, capital, and desire to produce. Management deals with the logisitics and planning aspects, which are very complex- economics is not an easy field, and recquires a depth of knowledge and considerable talent. Also, you seem to be cofusing managment and ownership, which are almost totally alientated. For example, virtually everyone in the US is an owner in some capacity, via pension plans.

Finally, just because you don't understand economics doesn't make it false.

You have to accept the offer. If you don't, you don't eat. It's a choice between slavery and death.


Again, you've failed to show how voluntarily agreeing to work in exchange for a wage consititutes slavery. You've also failed to show how someone has a moral obligation to feed someone who refuses to reciprocate on any level.

Owners get paid to tell the workers what to do and they get paid significantly more than the workers.
Owners don't get paid at all. They sell the output of production for (hopefully) a profit. If they don't make a profit, there is no production. Period.

They simply don't do anything useful. It doesn't matter how much economic mumbo-jumbo you bring in, they are paid to be lazy dictators.
Again, they aren't paid by anyone. For example, when a farmer sells some grain he maid, he is not being 'paid' in a wage sense. Owners provide the impetus, capital, and desire to produce. Management deals with the logisitics and planning aspects, which are very complex- economics is not an easy field, and recquires a depth of knowledge and considerable talent. Also, you seem to be cofusing managment and ownership, which are almost totally alientated. For example, virtually everyone in the US is an owner in some capacity, via pension plans.

Finally, just because you don't understand economics doesn't make it false.

You have to accept the offer. If you don't, you don't eat. It's a choice between slavery and death.


Again, you've failed to show how voluntarily agreeing to work in exchange for a wage consititutes slavery. You've also failed to show how someone has a moral obligation to feed someone who refuses to reciprocate on any level.

Owners get paid to tell the workers what to do and they get paid significantly more than the workers.
Owners don't get paid at all. They sell the output of production for (hopefully) a profit. If they don't make a profit, there is no production. Period.

They simply don't do anything useful. It doesn't matter how much economic mumbo-jumbo you bring in, they are paid to be lazy dictators.
Again, they aren't paid by anyone. For example, when a farmer sells some grain he maid, he is not being 'paid' in a wage sense. Owners provide the impetus, capital, and desire to produce. Management deals with the logisitics and planning aspects, which are very complex- economics is not an easy field, and recquires a depth of knowledge and considerable talent. Also, you seem to be cofusing managment and ownership, which are almost totally alientated. For example, virtually everyone in the US is an owner in some capacity, via pension plans.

Finally, just because you don't understand economics doesn't make it false.

You have to accept the offer. If you don't, you don't eat. It's a choice between slavery and death.


Again, you've failed to show how voluntarily agreeing to work in exchange for a wage consititutes slavery. You've also failed to show how someone has a moral obligation to feed someone who refuses to reciprocate on any level.

Owners don't get paid at all. They sell the output of production for (hopefully) a profit. If they don't make a profit, there is no production. Period

But they get most of the money.

Again, you've failed to show how voluntarily agreeing to work in exchange for a wage consititutes slavery. You've also failed to show how someone has a moral obligation to feed someone who refuses to reciprocate on any level.

This quote will explain it:

"So, while it is definitely the case that no one forces you to work for them, the capitalist system is such that you have little choice but to sell your liberty and labour on the "free market." Not only this, but the labour market (which is what makes capitalism capitalism) is (usually) skewed in favour of the employer, so ensuring that any "free agreements" made on it favour the boss and result in the workers submitting to domination and exploitation."

You have to sell yourself into slavery to live.


-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

But they get most of the money.


They provided all of the inputs and all of the fixed capital. Moreover, individual owners (which take the form of stockholders) only make a return on investment relative to the amount of investment they've contributed.

Specifically, are you talking about management or shareholders?


"So, while it is definitely the case that no one forces you to work for them, the capitalist system is such that you have little choice but to sell your liberty and labour on the "free market." Not only this, but the labour market (which is what makes capitalism capitalism) is (usually) skewed in favour of the employer, so ensuring that any "free agreements" made on it favour the boss and result in the workers submitting to domination and exploitation."

You have to sell yourself into slavery to live.


This doesn't present any reason why an individual is obligated to feed someone who is unwilling to reciprocate.

You aren't selling your liberty, you are selling your labour (since you have the option to quit or leave at any time, you can't be said to have lost your liberty, barring contractual obligations that are freely entered into and thus cannot be construed as a violation of liberty) at your leisure, to whoever you want. I don't see why this is a problem for you, since clearly in any economic system there is labour and restrictions on leisure time. In capitalism you are given compensation for your labour. The labour market is often skewed, this is true, but not due to capitalism itself, but thanks to government intervention, whetehr to protect buisness or unions. This whole argument is such hogwash. I've worked in many fields, including industrial work, and have never felt exploited. I'm simply providing a service in exchange for compensation. It is mutually benefical and mutually voluntary.

no

They provided all of the inputs and all of the fixed capital. Moreover, individual owners (which take the form of stockholders) only make a return on investment relative to the amount of investment they've contributed.

And the capital was made by workers, not them.

This doesn't present any reason why an individual is obligated to feed someone who is unwilling to reciprocate.

That isn't the point.

You aren't selling your liberty, you are selling your labour (since you have the option to quit or leave at any time, you can't be said to have lost your liberty, barring contractual obligations that are freely entered into and thus cannot be construed as a violation of liberty) at your leisure, to whoever you want. I don't see why this is a problem for you, since clearly in any economic system there is labour and restrictions on leisure time. In capitalism you are given compensation for your labour. The labour market is often skewed, this is true, but not due to capitalism itself, but thanks to government intervention, whetehr to protect buisness or unions. This whole argument is such hogwash. I've worked in many fields, including industrial work, and have never felt exploited. I'm simply providing a service in exchange for compensation. It is mutually benefical and mutually voluntary.

Maybe you don't feel it, but it's there. How is the wealth gap justified, anyway?


-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

And the capital was made by workers, not them.

Some of the capital may have been; however, everyone is doing this voluntarily

This doesn't present any reason why an individual is obligated to feed someone who is unwilling to reciprocate.

That isn't the point.


Of course it is. You're saying that work or starve is wrong; this implies that receiving a good isn't dependent on providing a good or service in exchange for it, and that in fact the owner is obligated to give food or goods of some kind to people who are unwilling to reciprocate in some fashion. I'm wondering how you justify this.


Maybe you don't feel it, but it's there. How is the wealth gap justified, anyway?

Non-estate based wealth is based on meritocratic principles (you get what you work for).

Estate based wealth is much harder to justify, but a libertarian would say that we all have the right to dispose of our farily gained income as we want.

Some of the capital may have been; however, everyone is doing this voluntarily

All of it was made by workers.

Non-estate based wealth is based on meritocratic principles (you get what you work for).

You actually believe the capitalist works thousands of times harder than the poor person who has 3 jobs? How many capitalists even earn their money this way?

based wealth is much harder to justify, but a libertarian would say that we all have the right to dispose of our farily gained income as we want.

Much harder? I'd say impossible. If you expect me to justify feeding the unemployed, then you should at least try to justify that.


-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Some of the capital may have been; however, everyone is doing this voluntarily

All of it was made by workers.

Non-estate based wealth is based on meritocratic principles (you get what you work for).

You actually believe the capitalist works thousands of times harder than the poor person who has 3 jobs? How many capitalists even earn their money this way?


Some of the capital may have been; however, everyone is doing this voluntarily

All of it was made by workers.


erm, i AM a worker, and i am a capitalist. you seem to be under the misconception that the working class contains no capitalists...i have 2 jobs and am a "starving student," but i am a full-on capitalist. i am going to earn ALL my money through the capitalist system, and i wouldn't have it any other way. even when i was homeless i NEVER wanted a communist or socialist system, and i was insulted by those who told me that i was a "worker" and should support some stupid communist "revolution" of theirs.

erm, i AM a worker, and i am a capitalist. you seem to be under the misconception that the working class contains no capitalists...i have 2 jobs and am a "starving student," but i am a full-on capitalist. i am going to earn ALL my money through the capitalist system, and i wouldn't have it any other way. even when i was homeless i NEVER wanted a communist or socialist system, and i was insulted by those who told me that i was a "worker" and should support some stupid communist "revolution" of theirs.
Thats basicly the anarchist crap Letila is trying to spread. By the use of his capitalistic created computer, operating system and internet account.

All of it was made by workers.

So what? they agreed to exchange their labor for money. Thus, their labour belongs, as agreed, to the person who provided the money.


You actually believe the capitalist works thousands of times harder than the poor person who has 3 jobs? How many capitalists even earn their money this way?


Most entrepeneurs earn their money this way; its not just about 'working harder', but deciding what you want and striving to accomplish it. IF the poor person who has 3 jobs is poor because they dropped out of high school, that's their problem. If they're poor becaue they didn't have any opportunity, that IS a societal problem.


Much harder? I'd say impossible. If you expect me to justify feeding the unemployed, then you should at least try to justify that.


I didn't say feeding the unemployed was unjustifiable, merely that you'd failed to show how an owner owes anything to someone who is not prepared to return the favor.

Estate wealth could be considered just because it is the result of just transactions; as Robert Nozick put it:

Whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just. The means of change specified bu the priniple of just in transfer presrve justice. As correct rules of inference are truth-preserving, and any conclusion deduced via repeated application of such rules from only true premisses is itself true, so the means of transition from one situation to another specificed by the priniciple of justice in transfer are justive-preserving, and any situation actually arising from a just situation is itself just.

The following inductive definitions exhaustively cover the subject of justice in holdings (as proposed by Nozick)
1 A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding
2 A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding
3 No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2

Ok.....much as I am usually moderate about such things as this, I cant help but see this crap.

A) The world SUCKS, Letila. No one said anything about fairness involved. People arent fair to each other, disease isnt fair, war isnt fair, NOTHING is fair.

B) People are inherently greedy. All revolutions show that the names change, but the people stay the same. A worker revolution would create a NEW set of elite to run things, just as eager to protect their new wealth.

C) You sure are a hypocrite, possessing items such as a computer when others are starving. Sell it, sell everything, live on welfare. Put your beliefs to ACTION.

D) We do the best we can in this country to make thigns right. But basically you advocate STEALING what belongs to others to give evenly. Except, for you of course. You wouldnt want YOUR items all taken to be shared, or YOUR work to be taken from you, with no possessions of your own. Easy to just say "loot the rich".

E) A worker would be jsut as willing to be rich as any other person, but aren't. Thats the ONLY difference, luck, and maybe some hard work. Otherwise, they would be capitalists too, and often ARE. a revolution is a thinly disguised attempt at redistributing wealth in one's favor. If you think it would be different this time around, you dont know basic human sociology and psychology.

In summary, everyone WANTS to live in a utopia. But giving all the wealth away evenly WONT produce that. People are driven bvy basic instincts which cannot be quelled by such artificial methods. Evidently, some people DO deserve to own things, you know. Leeching from the rich ALL the time isnt the solution. What is, is sound economics and government aid to the poor. A capitalist is a pragmatist, a communist, an idealist.

Please understand this, if nothing else. People are far too greedy to ever, EVER live in a fair society. Thats life, its wrong..but its true. We do the best we can, and thats all that can be expected.

Props to Mallberta for his posts as well.

-Crownguard

Give me all your pungent bulbs!

I shall fatten myself on your poverty, MWAHAHAHAAAA!! :twisted:

A) The world SUCKS, Letila. No one said anything about fairness involved. People arent fair to each other, disease isnt fair, war isnt fair, NOTHING is fair.

B) People are inherently greedy. All revolutions show that the names change, but the people stay the same. A worker revolution would create a NEW set of elite to run things, just as eager to protect their new wealth.

C) You sure are a hypocrite, possessing items such as a computer when others are starving. Sell it, sell everything, live on welfare. Put your beliefs to ACTION.

D) We do the best we can in this country to make thigns right. But basically you advocate STEALING what belongs to others to give evenly. Except, for you of course. You wouldnt want YOUR items all taken to be shared, or YOUR work to be taken from you, with no possessions of your own. Easy to just say "loot the rich".

E) A worker would be jsut as willing to be rich as any other person, but aren't. Thats the ONLY difference, luck, and maybe some hard work. Otherwise, they would be capitalists too, and often ARE. a revolution is a thinly disguised attempt at redistributing wealth in one's favor. If you think it would be different this time around, you dont know basic human sociology and psychology.

In summary, everyone WANTS to live in a utopia. But giving all the wealth away evenly WONT produce that. People are driven bvy basic instincts which cannot be quelled by such artificial methods. Evidently, some people DO deserve to own things, you know. Leeching from the rich ALL the time isnt the solution. What is, is sound economics and government aid to the poor. A capitalist is a pragmatist, a communist, an idealist.

Please understand this, if nothing else. People are far too greedy to ever, EVER live in a fair society. Thats life, its wrong..but its true. We do the best we can, and thats all that can be expected.

Props to Mallberta for his posts as well.

You certainly like to assume the worst about everyone. I really don't care if I get more stuff out of it. I just hate social classes.


-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

A) The world SUCKS, Letila. No one said anything about fairness involved. People arent fair to each other, disease isnt fair, war isnt fair, NOTHING is fair.

B) People are inherently greedy. All revolutions show that the names change, but the people stay the same. A worker revolution would create a NEW set of elite to run things, just as eager to protect their new wealth.

C) You sure are a hypocrite, possessing items such as a computer when others are starving. Sell it, sell everything, live on welfare. Put your beliefs to ACTION.

D) We do the best we can in this country to make thigns right. But basically you advocate STEALING what belongs to others to give evenly. Except, for you of course. You wouldnt want YOUR items all taken to be shared, or YOUR work to be taken from you, with no possessions of your own. Easy to just say "loot the rich".

E) A worker would be jsut as willing to be rich as any other person, but aren't. Thats the ONLY difference, luck, and maybe some hard work. Otherwise, they would be capitalists too, and often ARE. a revolution is a thinly disguised attempt at redistributing wealth in one's favor. If you think it would be different this time around, you dont know basic human sociology and psychology.

In summary, everyone WANTS to live in a utopia. But giving all the wealth away evenly WONT produce that. People are driven bvy basic instincts which cannot be quelled by such artificial methods. Evidently, some people DO deserve to own things, you know. Leeching from the rich ALL the time isnt the solution. What is, is sound economics and government aid to the poor. A capitalist is a pragmatist, a communist, an idealist.

Please understand this, if nothing else. People are far too greedy to ever, EVER live in a fair society. Thats life, its wrong..but its true. We do the best we can, and thats all that can be expected.

Props to Mallberta for his posts as well.

You certainly like to assume the worst about everyone. I really don't care if I get more stuff out of it. I just hate social classes.


-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

wow, Letila, that has to be your worst response to date. you utterly failed to respond to a single thing in Crownguard's cogent, well-thought post, and you basically confirmed my suspicions that you are nothing more than a pampered suburban kid with too much time on your hands. i would strongly encourage you to take a solid look at your platforms (if you actually have any) and to take some introductory economics and political science courses, before you reach the real world and fall flat on your face.

wow, Letila, that has to be your worst response to date. you utterly failed to respond to a single thing in Crownguard's cogent, well-thought post, and you basically confirmed my suspicions that you are nothing more than a pampered suburban kid with too much time on your hands. i would strongly encourage you to take a solid look at your platforms (if you actually have any) and to take some introductory economics and political science courses, before you reach the real world and fall flat on your face.

A pampered suburban kid? Hardly. I work hard. I clean a chicken house every week. His post was another "humans are too greedy for anything but capitalism to work" thing. What about societies that didn't have money? They couldn't possibly be capitalist.


-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

A pampered suburban kid? Hardly. I work hard. I clean a chicken house every week. His post was another "humans are too greedy for anything but capitalism to work" thing. What about societies that didn't have money? They couldn't possibly be capitalist.

No, no way. :roll: They didn´t have wealthy farmers, merchants, chieftains or landowners who had more sheep, goats, chickens, cows or land then others.

No, no way. They didn´t have wealthy farmers, merchants, chieftains or landowners who had more sheep, goats, chickens, cows or land then others.

Not all cultures have those. For most of history, we didn't have any of that. We hunted and gathered food.


-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

No, no way. They didn´t have wealthy farmers, merchants, chieftains or landowners who had more sheep, goats, chickens, cows or land then others.

Not all cultures have those. For most of history, we didn't have any of that. We hunted and gathered food.

And the biggest and strongest Ogre, usualy the head of the Clan, kept most of it wheter he caught it or not.
So, since you seem to like the hunter gatherer society so much, what are you doing behind a computer screen anyway? Why aren't you in a Tipi somewhere on the prairi hunting the Big Buffalo?

So, since you seem to like the hunter gatherer society so much, what are you doing behind a computer screen anyway? Why aren't you in a Tipi somewhere on the prairi hunting the Big Buffalo?

My point is that they are generally examples of stateless societies.


-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

A) The world SUCKS, Letila. No one said anything about fairness involved. People arent fair to each other, disease isnt fair, war isnt fair, NOTHING is fair.

B) People are inherently greedy. All revolutions show that the names change, but the people stay the same. A worker revolution would create a NEW set of elite to run things, just as eager to protect their new wealth.

C) You sure are a hypocrite, possessing items such as a computer when others are starving. Sell it, sell everything, live on welfare. Put your beliefs to ACTION.

D) We do the best we can in this country to make thigns right. But basically you advocate STEALING what belongs to others to give evenly. Except, for you of course. You wouldnt want YOUR items all taken to be shared, or YOUR work to be taken from you, with no possessions of your own. Easy to just say "loot the rich".

E) A worker would be jsut as willing to be rich as any other person, but aren't. Thats the ONLY difference, luck, and maybe some hard work. Otherwise, they would be capitalists too, and often ARE. a revolution is a thinly disguised attempt at redistributing wealth in one's favor. If you think it would be different this time around, you dont know basic human sociology and psychology.

In summary, everyone WANTS to live in a utopia. But giving all the wealth away evenly WONT produce that. People are driven bvy basic instincts which cannot be quelled by such artificial methods. Evidently, some people DO deserve to own things, you know. Leeching from the rich ALL the time isnt the solution. What is, is sound economics and government aid to the poor. A capitalist is a pragmatist, a communist, an idealist.

Please understand this, if nothing else. People are far too greedy to ever, EVER live in a fair society. Thats life, its wrong..but its true. We do the best we can, and thats all that can be expected.

Props to Mallberta for his posts as well.

You certainly like to assume the worst about everyone. I really don't care if I get more stuff out of it. I just hate social classes.


-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

wow, Letila, that has to be your worst response to date. you utterly failed to respond to a single thing in Crownguard's cogent, well-thought post, and you basically confirmed my suspicions that you are nothing more than a pampered suburban kid with too much time on your hands. i would strongly encourage you to take a solid look at your platforms (if you actually have any) and to take some introductory economics and political science courses, before you reach the real world and fall flat on your face.

*Laughs* You really msut follow me around. Or else, "great minds.." etc, you get the idea. :P

Anyways...to respond to Letila...what you propose is the same social class. Conformity. Stasis. People inevitably are smarter, faster, stronger, healthier, more skilled etc. Its in our genetics, a predisposition towards certain traits. Thus the human race has a wide variety of skilled people. Eliminate classes, and what? Make a person who is skilled with computers, farm? Make a laborer in a factory a scientist?

Same socioeconomic status (wealth etc) for different amounts of work? What if someone is too lazy to work, do you deserve to pick up their share because they dont pull their weight?

In short, classes, though with faults, are a way for people to fall where their talents lie. You are "good" at something, admit it. That is where your talent lies. You also failt or ealzie, life wasnt pretty back in hunter-gatherer times. Why, you could be bashed with a rock, freeze, starve easily, be eaten by your family and friends while sick, etc. Also, dont you assume tribal eladers came from somewhere/ That some people were more successful than others?

In short, no system is perfect.

A) The world SUCKS, Letila. No one said anything about fairness involved. People arent fair to each other, disease isnt fair, war isnt fair, NOTHING is fair.

B) People are inherently greedy. All revolutions show that the names change, but the people stay the same. A worker revolution would create a NEW set of elite to run things, just as eager to protect their new wealth.

C) You sure are a hypocrite, possessing items such as a computer when others are starving. Sell it, sell everything, live on welfare. Put your beliefs to ACTION.

D) We do the best we can in this country to make thigns right. But basically you advocate STEALING what belongs to others to give evenly. Except, for you of course. You wouldnt want YOUR items all taken to be shared, or YOUR work to be taken from you, with no possessions of your own. Easy to just say "loot the rich".

E) A worker would be jsut as willing to be rich as any other person, but aren't. Thats the ONLY difference, luck, and maybe some hard work. Otherwise, they would be capitalists too, and often ARE. a revolution is a thinly disguised attempt at redistributing wealth in one's favor. If you think it would be different this time around, you dont know basic human sociology and psychology.

In summary, everyone WANTS to live in a utopia. But giving all the wealth away evenly WONT produce that. People are driven bvy basic instincts which cannot be quelled by such artificial methods. Evidently, some people DO deserve to own things, you know. Leeching from the rich ALL the time isnt the solution. What is, is sound economics and government aid to the poor. A capitalist is a pragmatist, a communist, an idealist.

Please understand this, if nothing else. People are far too greedy to ever, EVER live in a fair society. Thats life, its wrong..but its true. We do the best we can, and thats all that can be expected.

Props to Mallberta for his posts as well.

You certainly like to assume the worst about everyone. I really don't care if I get more stuff out of it. I just hate social classes.


-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

wow, Letila, that has to be your worst response to date. you utterly failed to respond to a single thing in Crownguard's cogent, well-thought post, and you basically confirmed my suspicions that you are nothing more than a pampered suburban kid with too much time on your hands. i would strongly encourage you to take a solid look at your platforms (if you actually have any) and to take some introductory economics and political science courses, before you reach the real world and fall flat on your face.

So, since you seem to like the hunter gatherer society so much, what are you doing behind a computer screen anyway? Why aren't you in a Tipi somewhere on the prairi hunting the Big Buffalo?

My point is that they are generally examples of stateless societies.

Yeah, I'm sure Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse were just thrilled when their warriors didn't do as they were told.

Just a quick interjection. The State of Nature (in which the state does not exist, ie the stateless society, without social dominance hierarchies) does not exist among any humans. Social dominance heirarchies appear in all social species. It is built in genetically.

Just a quick interjection. The State of Nature (in which the state does not exist, ie the stateless society, without social dominance hierarchies) does not exist among any humans. Social dominance heirarchies appear in all social species. It is built in genetically.
Short yet strong.

:D

"Scotty. We. Appear. To. Have. Gone. Off. Topic"

"I canea change the laws o' NationStates Cap'n"

"Scotty. We. Appear. To. Have. Gone. Off. Topic"

"I canea change the laws o' NationStates Cap'n"

Star Trek goes where no man has gone before. NationStates debates go nowhere. :?

Remember when this thread was about the political philosophies of Star Trek and not the political philosophies of Letila? Ah, memories....

Remember when this thread was about the political philosophies of Star Trek and not the political philosophies of Letila? Ah, memories....

Aye, a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far.....

Wait, wrong one.

Remember when this thread was about the political philosophies of Star Trek and not the political philosophies of Letila? Ah, memories....

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

This all turns on whether ST does have a clear and coherent political philosophy, which is layed out and consistant. As it is, I would have to give a resounding NO!
Why?
The Star trek Universe is full of contradictory ideas on the nature of the government. According to Paramount's Star Trek Canon Policy (http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~randers2/STSWstcanon.html), only what is on live screen is canon. This means anything you read in the books or the animated series are not canon. Will the paper in question go by this strict definition?
Even the canon consistant. The various shows and movies have been written by teams of writers. Gene Roddenberry did not control all the stories (especially and obviously those in the later series). Contradictions creep in. (see this interview for examples: http://www.startrekanimated.com/tas_david_gerrold.html ) And if you open it to the novels and various tech manuals and the like, you will find further contradictions. I think the debate here makes clear what kind of contradictions you will find.

I will note I am a Trekker, but, as I said above, this is a bad idea. Even if you are able to sort out the problems of clarifying the ST political philosophy (if there is one), you will have to overcome the likely (and IMHO justified) prejudice of the prof towards basing a paper on a non-serious bit of entertainment fluff.

I hope this will all be taken as constructive criticism. I will note that I did draw on parts of RA Heinlein's works for my senior constitutional design class, and I had to defend it pretty hard. I made sure to use only a little, to back up what I said, and not to base anything only on Heinlein.

So, my suggestions:
1) Make sure you can draw on the words of one ST canon writer. The ideas of Gene Roddenberry make a better topic.
2) Try to find out what ideas and phiolsophies GR built on, and use them.
3) Don't use just ST. Especially if the prof is not a fan. In fact, sound him out on the idea. That would be best.

Anyways, good luck! :D

This all turns on whether ST does have a clear and coherent political philosophy, which is layed out and consistant. As it is, I would have to give a resounding NO!


I totally agree. There is no consistent philosophy is trek because there was no consistent philosophy intended. Well the writers did intend to tackle moral and philosophical issues but although they did picture the federation as a quasi-perfect society (or at least more perfect than modern-day society) they did not explain WHY the federation is actually a better society to live in.

So maybe it's up to us, to think of which aspects of the federation are better than today's world's and why.

I totally agree. There is no consistent philosophy is trek because there was no consistent philosophy intended. Well the writers did intend to tackle moral and philosophical issues but although they did picture the federation as a quasi-perfect society (or at least more perfect than modern-day society) they did not explain WHY the federation is actually a better society to live in.

The Federation is a humancentric organisation, and most of the wars it's gotten involved in where it's own fault!

I totally agree. There is no consistent philosophy is trek because there was no consistent philosophy intended. Well the writers did intend to tackle moral and philosophical issues but although they did picture the federation as a quasi-perfect society (or at least more perfect than modern-day society) they did not explain WHY the federation is actually a better society to live in.

The Federation is a humancentric organisation, and most of the wars it's gotten involved in where it's own fault!
No, it's the Americans fault. Since most Admirals and other high ranking Federation officials you see seem to be of American decent.

I totally agree. There is no consistent philosophy is trek because there was no consistent philosophy intended. Well the writers did intend to tackle moral and philosophical issues but although they did picture the federation as a quasi-perfect society (or at least more perfect than modern-day society) they did not explain WHY the federation is actually a better society to live in.

The Federation is a humancentric organisation, and most of the wars it's gotten involved in where it's own fault!
No, it's the Americans fault. Since most Admirals and other high ranking Federation officials you see seem to be of American decent.

It's interesting of course that the UFP launched a pre-emptive strike against the Dominion...

I totally agree. There is no consistent philosophy is trek because there was no consistent philosophy intended. Well the writers did intend to tackle moral and philosophical issues but although they did picture the federation as a quasi-perfect society (or at least more perfect than modern-day society) they did not explain WHY the federation is actually a better society to live in.

The Federation is a humancentric organisation, and most of the wars it's gotten involved in where it's own fault!
No, it's the Americans fault. Since most Admirals and other high ranking Federation officials you see seem to be of American decent.

It's interesting of course that the UFP launched a pre-emptive strike against the Dominion...
Wasn't that pre-emptive strike launched by the Tal Shiar and the Obsidian Order?

I totally agree. There is no consistent philosophy is trek because there was no consistent philosophy intended. Well the writers did intend to tackle moral and philosophical issues but although they did picture the federation as a quasi-perfect society (or at least more perfect than modern-day society) they did not explain WHY the federation is actually a better society to live in.

The Federation is a humancentric organisation, and most of the wars it's gotten involved in where it's own fault!
No, it's the Americans fault. Since most Admirals and other high ranking Federation officials you see seem to be of American decent.

It's interesting of course that the UFP launched a pre-emptive strike against the Dominion...
Wasn't that pre-emptive strike launched by the Tal Shiar and the Obsidian Order?

It's interesting of course that the UFP launched a pre-emptive strike against the Dominion...
Wasn't that pre-emptive strike launched by the Tal Shiar and the Obsidian Order?

That wasn't the strike I was referring to.

In The Jem'Hadar Sisko is informed that the Dominion lay claim to this area of space and consider incursions through the anomoly (ie Wormhole) as a violation of this territory. The UFP however don't want to give up exploring the Gamma Quadrant and presumably the Bajorans don't want to lose the one thing that recovered their economy after the Cardassian occupation.

The Dominion are clearly initially hostile, as they show in acts of violence against New Bajor. The UFP's diplomatic solution? Sneak into Dominion territory in a heavily armed invisible warship. Surely a negotiating team on a neutral vessle would have been more appropriate.

The UFP continues to violate Dominion territory for the next three years. Is it any wonder the Founders feel justified in their persecution complex. Then when Cardassia allies with them, The UFP and her allies refuse to allow the Dominion access through the wormhole, even though they didn't give a jot about the Dominions territory being violated by them. (The First who appeared in The Jem'Hadar quite clearly stated that coming through the wormhole was violation in itself).

So what does the UFP do? Blockade the wormhole which they know will probably spark a war, and then get their shots in first by crossing the Cardassian border and taking out a number of bases and colonies as seen in A Call to Arms

Not only that but the UFP is guilty of provoking war between the Dominion and the Romulan Star Empire.

Warmongers the lot of them. :wink:

It's interesting of course that the UFP launched a pre-emptive strike against the Dominion...
Wasn't that pre-emptive strike launched by the Tal Shiar and the Obsidian Order?

That wasn't the strike I was referring to.

In The Jem'Hadar Sisko is informed that the Dominion lay claim to this area of space and consider incursions through the anomoly (ie Wormhole) as a violation of this territory. The UFP however don't want to give up exploring the Gamma Quadrant and presumably the Bajorans don't want to lose the one thing that recovered their economy after the Cardassian occupation.

The Dominion are clearly initially hostile, as they show in acts of violence against New Bajor. The UFP's diplomatic solution? Sneak into Dominion territory in a heavily armed invisible warship. Surely a negotiating team on a neutral vessle would have been more appropriate.

The UFP continues to violate Dominion territory for the next three years. Is it any wonder the Founders feel justified in their persecution complex. Then when Cardassia allies with them, The UFP and her allies refuse to allow the Dominion access through the wormhole, even though they didn't give a jot about the Dominions territory being violated by them. (The First who appeared in The Jem'Hadar quite clearly stated that coming through the wormhole was violation in itself).

So what does the UFP do? Blockade the wormhole which they know will probably spark a war, and then get their shots in first by crossing the Cardassian border and taking out a number of bases and colonies as seen in A Call to Arms

Not only that but the UFP is guilty of provoking war between the Dominion and the Romulan Star Empire.

Warmongers the lot of them. :wink:
Oh yeah.
And who was the Federation officer in charge of that sector of space?
Benjamin Cisko, from New Orleans, USA.

And who was the Federation officer in charge of that sector of space?
Benjamin Cisko, from New Orleans, USA.

Ben just had his nose out of joint because he'd be losing the one thing that added prestige to his assignment ie the Wormhole. He seems to have forgotten that DS9 was hardly a plum assignment.

And who was the Federation officer in charge of that sector of space?
Benjamin Cisko, from New Orleans, USA.

Ben just had his nose out of joint because he'd be losing the one thing that added prestige to his assignment ie the Wormhole. He seems to have forgotten that DS9 was hardly a plum assignment.
Yeah. So beeing the all American guy he started a war of which he secretly hoped he would emerge as an Admiral. Plus I bet there was plenty of oil in the Gamma Quadrant.

And who was the Federation officer in charge of that sector of space?
Benjamin Cisko, from New Orleans, USA.

Ben just had his nose out of joint because he'd be losing the one thing that added prestige to his assignment ie the Wormhole. He seems to have forgotten that DS9 was hardly a plum assignment.
Yeah. So beeing the all American guy he started a war of which he secretly hoped he would emerge as an Admiral. Plus I bet there was plenty of oil in the Gamma Quadrant.

Damn that George Bush in the 24th century!!!!


I dread the fact you may be serious..Im very bad at ascertaining seriousness online. Please, PLEASE tell me your joking. Please.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Also..Picard actually was from France, of all places, hence the last name. THe head of the United Federation of Planets is based out of Paris. Kind of makes you wonder, eh? :)

I don*t mean to be down on this in a bad way, and I do wish your friend (or you) well.
That being said:

This topic came up during a conversation with a friend of mine (political sciences student). As part of a class project, he had the idea of writing a political platform based on trek principles, philosophical premises and the actual political structure of the Federation.

What do you guys think? It is feasible? Would it significantly differ from today's political beliefs? Would you be interested in it? Any suggestions for issues?

Ahem, let me ask this - what class? And more important, what level - High School, undergraduate, or graduate? (I sincerely hope it is not the latter. I will be severly dissaponted if it is.... :cry:)

If it is HS, your friend will have lots of play room. If university, less so. And if grad school, let me know what school to curse...

The federation appears, IMHO, to be run as a (Marxist) Social Technocracy - No-one has any money and you never hear of elections - The people that rule in the Council appear to be people of learning rather than popularist politicians (ie not what you would expect in a democracy).

I think it would be very different to the society we live in now and quite difficult to produce, but it is exactly in line with my own political ideals so I think it would be possible - plus I believe that the only way the human race is going to see the 24th century is by adopting some form of global socialist rule so it might be almost prophetic.

In Star Trek, there is no money unless there is. I found this rather confusing, and perhaps a DS9'er might be able to clue us all in on it. As for the rest of the Star Trek universe, their government has no corruption or mean people in it unless it's a plot point. I see this concept of government having about the same potential as any other distant, unworkable utopia.

Addressing the nature of the Federation, our nation is run on these lines as much as possible, given that the game constantly presents every issue in terms that are contrary to the Federation. It is workable -- just -- but it results in the nation then being re-interpreted from the viewpoint of the old economics and old politics.

As for money in the Federation, DS9 is indeed the clue. Money is a necessary (in)convenience for interfacing with monetary-based societies. Forgive this metaphor, but it is in effect, a "universal translator" for the "language" of worth. When you meet a culture in which that language is spoken by referring to property and spendable assets, you drag out the gold-pressed latinum. When you deal with a more enlightened culture, you don't.

It's like their weaponry. If they were never attacked, their phasers would do nothing more strenuous than warm rocks so they can have a "campfire" at night in a wilderness, or do some mineral extraction from a rock face. Their photon torpedoes would do nothing more aggressive than control a dangerous meteor or do something for some research purposes. But when they meet hostile or aggressive species, these tools become weapons.

PT

I think it would be very different to the society we live in now and quite difficult to produce, but it is exactly in line with my own political ideals so I think it would be possible - plus I believe that the only way the human race is going to see the 24th century is by adopting some form of global socialist rule so it might be almost prophetic.

But what should be the basic premises of such a political platform? What do we really have to change to make it happen?

The suppression of all individual, cultural, religious and national differences in support of global uniformity. The creation of a global economy, meaning the destruction of native markets or ways of life to enable shared resources and technology (think of what happened in the Ukraine...). The removal of democratic rights to vote in favour of a dictatorial government (benign or otherwise) that awards comformity to its ideals and beliefs, rather than popular opinion, with positions of power and influence. Basically its what liberalism will give us, if let unchecked, by the 24th century.

This is such an inaccurate description of the program I can't suppose you've watched much of it.

Differences aren't suppressed; they're learned, embraced and enjoyed. "Global uniformity" is a myth; you may as well talk about "national uniformity". The Federation's earth base is simply a global nation, and as with any very large nation, uniformity simply describes their ability to cooperate globally, instead of making their tribal heads disappear up their tribal rectums.

As for saying they don't vote, that isn't valid. The whole Federation structure is based on voting. What they don't do is "fix" voting, suppress voting, or withhold voting privileges from anyone on account of things like race, colour or creed (or planetary origin). They don't make a big thing about people going to the toilet either; they assume it.

And if you didn't have this hang-up with "liberalism" -- whatever you mean by that -- you would have more time to think about the question in terms of the Federation instead of trying to pretend the Federation is just some 21st century political phenomenon, grown old. Who knows? You might end up knowing what you were talking about.

PT

this seems to be about federation principles, what about klingon principles, or ferengi rules of acquition or the borgs rather single mantra "resistance is futile prepare to be assilimated".

*re-reads original post* "...As part of a class project, he had the idea of writing a political platform based on trek principles, philosophical premises and the actual political structure of the Federation. ..."

What about them? We're trying to answer the question.

PT

no

:lol:

I'm going to guess that arguments like this one are part of why Federation folks always appear, to people like Quark, to look so smug. Because UFP people don't have to have them anymore.

PT

Also..Picard actually was from France, of all places, hence the last name. THe head of the United Federation of Planets is based out of Paris. Kind of makes you wonder, eh? :)
No, not realy. The Federation is loosely based on the UN. Starfleet, the military arm of the Federation, "assists" the Federation Council. The Governing body of the UFP. Both are based in San Francisko.

UFPI Academy (http://www.ufpi.org/academy/index.html)
In case anyone is interested.

Star Trek's Earth does indeed seem like a true communist technocracy.
No money appears to change hands, people just work for the benefit of the society at whole.
A paradise :) Hell actually.

Also..Picard actually was from France, of all places, hence the last name. THe head of the United Federation of Planets is based out of Paris. Kind of makes you wonder, eh? :)
No, not realy. The Federation is loosely based on the UN. Starfleet, the military arm of the Federation, "assists" the Federation Council. The Governing body of the UFP. Both are based in San Francisko.

Actually..Yes Starfleet is in San Fran. However, the office of the Federation President and the Council are in Paris.

Its interesting to note that we assume Earth was a founding member of the UFP but as far as I'm aware we've never catagorically had this stated on screen

Its interesting to note that we assume Earth was a founding member of the UFP but as far as I'm aware we've never catagorically had this stated on screen
The federations original members were earth vulcan andor alpha centauri and tellar. The federation was originally formed in a response to attacks from the Romulan Star Empire.

Its interesting to note that we assume Earth was a founding member of the UFP but as far as I'm aware we've never catagorically had this stated on screen
The federations original members were earth vulcan andor alpha centauri and tellar. The federation was originally formed in a response to attacks from the Romulan Star Empire.

Episode please?

Its interesting to note that we assume Earth was a founding member of the UFP but as far as I'm aware we've never catagorically had this stated on screen
The federations original members were earth vulcan andor alpha centauri and tellar. The federation was originally formed in a response to attacks from the Romulan Star Empire.

Episode please?

If it says this in Enterprise I wouldn't know, Voyager pretty much put more off the franchise

Its interesting to note that we assume Earth was a founding member of the UFP but as far as I'm aware we've never catagorically had this stated on screen

I think it was stated in a TOS episode...

I think it was stated in a TOS episode...

I'm not a hard core Trekkie so I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the assumption that Earth was a founding member of the UFP was exactly that, an assumption. One of those myths along with "Beam me up Scotty". I'm sure Earth quite probably was involved, but I don't think thats ever been stated on screen, either explicitly or implicity.

I think it was stated in a TOS episode...

I'm not a hard core Trekkie so I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the assumption that Earth was a founding member of the UFP was exactly that, an assumption. One of those myths along with "Beam me up Scotty". I'm sure Earth quite probably was involved, but I don't think thats ever been stated on screen, either explicitly or implicity.

I'm not a trekkie either. So I assume you're right that it is only an assumption. But a plausible assumption I think.

Its interesting to note that we assume Earth was a founding member of the UFP but as far as I'm aware we've never catagorically had this stated on screen
The federations original members were earth vulcan andor alpha centauri and tellar. The federation was originally formed in a response to attacks from the Romulan Star Empire.

Episode please?


The closest thing to a reference I can remember is an episode of The Next Generation ("The Outcast", perhaps?) that refers to Federation Day being celebrated. I think the UFP is founded pre-TOS, and either post-Enterprise or in a later series, so I don't expect an episode showed it unless to review a historic occasion.

Maybe one of the semi-authoritative books could help?

"Live Long and Prosper!"

PT

Its interesting to note that we assume Earth was a founding member of the UFP but as far as I'm aware we've never catagorically had this stated on screen
The federations original members were earth vulcan andor alpha centauri and tellar. The federation was originally formed in a response to attacks from the Romulan Star Empire.

Episode please?


The closest thing to a reference I can remember is an episode of The Next Generation ("The Outcast", perhaps?) that refers to Federation Day being celebrated. I think the UFP is founded pre-TOS, and either post-Enterprise or in a later series, so I don't expect an episode showed it unless to review a historic occasion.

Maybe one of the semi-authoritative books could help?

"Live Long and Prosper!"

PT

The Federation is definitely pre-TOS but the writers for Enterprise have messed with the continuity of the series so much that its hard to figure out what is the timeline anymore

EX: The Federation had a war with the Romulans and never saw their ships, they negotiated the peace treaty over subspace radio. Yet in Enterprise they encounter two Romulan attack ships and communicate with them.

The Federation itself is supposed to formed sometime in the Enterprise series I think.

As for the question about moral philosophies on Star Trek, we get our asses handed to us everytime we try and be peacefull. We only win when we utilize our inherent violence to protect our galactic geopolitical possessions.

Its interesting to note that we assume Earth was a founding member of the UFP but as far as I'm aware we've never catagorically had this stated on screen
The federations original members were earth vulcan andor alpha centauri and tellar. The federation was originally formed in a response to attacks from the Romulan Star Empire.

Episode please?


The closest thing to a reference I can remember is an episode of The Next Generation ("The Outcast", perhaps?) that refers to Federation Day being celebrated. I think the UFP is founded pre-TOS, and either post-Enterprise or in a later series, so I don't expect an episode showed it unless to review a historic occasion.

Maybe one of the semi-authoritative books could help?

"Live Long and Prosper!"

PT

The Federation is definitely pre-TOS but the writers for Enterprise have messed with the continuity of the series so much that its hard to figure out what is the timeline anymore

EX: The Federation had a war with the Romulans and never saw their ships, they negotiated the peace treaty over subspace radio. Yet in Enterprise they encounter two Romulan attack ships and communicate with them.

The Federation itself is supposed to formed sometime in the Enterprise series I think.

As for the question about moral philosophies on Star Trek, we get our asses handed to us everytime we try and be peacefull. We only win when we utilize our inherent violence to protect our galactic geopolitical possessions.

Sounds like even in the future, we suffer from a failure to develop our mental and intellectual abilities beyond our current inadequate levels, combined with a distinct lack of imagination.

Pity.

PT

Its interesting to note that we assume Earth was a founding member of the UFP but as far as I'm aware we've never catagorically had this stated on screen
The federations original members were earth vulcan andor alpha centauri and tellar. The federation was originally formed in a response to attacks from the Romulan Star Empire.

Episode please?


The closest thing to a reference I can remember is an episode of The Next Generation ("The Outcast", perhaps?) that refers to Federation Day being celebrated. I think the UFP is founded pre-TOS, and either post-Enterprise or in a later series, so I don't expect an episode showed it unless to review a historic occasion.

Maybe one of the semi-authoritative books could help?

"Live Long and Prosper!"

PT

The Federation is definitely pre-TOS but the writers for Enterprise have messed with the continuity of the series so much that its hard to figure out what is the timeline anymore

EX: The Federation had a war with the Romulans and never saw their ships, they negotiated the peace treaty over subspace radio. Yet in Enterprise they encounter two Romulan attack ships and communicate with them.

The Federation itself is supposed to formed sometime in the Enterprise series I think.

As for the question about moral philosophies on Star Trek, we get our asses handed to us everytime we try and be peacefull. We only win when we utilize our inherent violence to protect our galactic geopolitical possessions.

Arrr, that be sounding like proper philosophy to us, aye.

Blimey.

This threads a blast from the past

Blimey.

This threads a blast from the past

aye, and a retarded one at that :D

Blimey.

This threads a blast from the past

aye, and a retarded one at that :D

What's retarded about it?

Blimey.

This threads a blast from the past

aye, and a retarded one at that :D

What's retarded about it?

i can see it now, a bunch of trek geeks running the country :roll:

Blimey.

This threads a blast from the past

aye, and a retarded one at that :D

What's retarded about it?

i can see it now, a bunch of trek geeks running the country :roll:

Could they be any worse than a bunch of oil tycoons totally out of touch with reality?

Blimey.

This threads a blast from the past

aye, and a retarded one at that :D

What's retarded about it?

i can see it now, a bunch of trek geeks running the country :roll:

Could they be any worse than a bunch of oil tycoons totally out of touch with reality? i'd rather have that then a bunch of pizza faced fat bald men in thier fortys who still live at home that are totally out of touch with reality :roll:

Blimey.

This threads a blast from the past

aye, and a retarded one at that :D

What's retarded about it?

i can see it now, a bunch of trek geeks running the country :roll:

Could they be any worse than a bunch of oil tycoons totally out of touch with reality? i'd rather have that then a bunch of pizza faced fat bald men in thier fortys who still live at home that are totally out of touch with reality :roll:

Hmmm... I wonder if you're missing the point here.

First, things wouldn't be run by "trek geeks", but by people who happen to share in real life the kinds of principles, values, aspirations and goals being illustrated by that part of the fictional world in the StarTrek series that is called the UFP. (I'm leaving aside the rogue element that wants to hold onto the intrigues, the "cold war" mentality towards everyone, and all that; they are rogues).

Second, among the aspirations in such a world is the desire to keep the level of political debate on a higher level than engaging in stereotyping and name-calling regarding one's ideological opponents.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised if someone who doesn't hope for anything more than what we have now sinks to that level, but I am sorry to see someone who sees the value of eliminating the shortcomings of our current society and culture responding in kind. We can't hope to get past our self-serving, biased way of approaching problems if we prefer ad hominem attacks to reasoned arguments and careful debate.

As for the "oil tycoons", the problem with them isn't that their fat and out of touch, it's that the only reality they are in touch with is self-centered.

...Oh yes, and they've had a long time to prove that their way works, and it doesn't. It's time to give someone else a chance to demonstrate an alternative approach. For my part, I'd like to see what we could do if the human race (and eventually other races, if they're out there and close enough for us to interact) decided to work together.

PT

PS: I'm not fat, bald or pizza-faced. And the home I "still live in" (what the heck was that sad attempt at being clever supposed to mean?) is the home I'm paying for, and sharing with my wife and family. :D