The Federation is Fascist!!!!

[Mr. Oragahn]

Hey, things picked up in here and I missed it! :(

I read over the "Vengeance Factor" episode, and while the Gatherers were wondering in space due to their initial unwillingness to sweep their remaining vendettas under the rug, the episode does try to paint a sympathetic, though undeniably brutish view of them. The Gatherers at least demonstrate no interest in further pursuing any centuries old clan rivalries, but don't trust the home world Acamarians, who in turn had been hunting and imprisoning those Gatherers they caught for years. From the dialog, it sounds like the Gatherers would be getting their own territory on the planet with which they could do what they pleased, along with seats on a central governing body consisting of an undisclosed number of total member seats. I can't really see this as a full on example of promoting "tribal ethnicity" so much as Picard legitimately mediating two fractured groups, both of whom seemed ready to stop fighting and merge but understandably didn't totally trust each other. While it does sound a bit ethnic minded, I think it did make sense for those two groups to step up and iron out the problems closest to home, in keeping with one of Roddenberry's quotes:

Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. […] If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, to take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there.

It's wording is a bit flowery for me, but the idea isn't invalid. If the native Acarmarians can't work out the differences of a century of separation, how are they going to work out the incompatibilities of millennia old otherworldly cultures? And especially since they were already halfway there, with both sides having finally given up the old clan wars. Well, with that one exception, heh.

The case appears clearer to me as details are revealed. I haven't seen the episode nor read any transcript or summary of it.
Essentially the idea seems to have been to promote an objective mediation between two sides that were perhaps only a split hair away from actually regrouping.
Now, while it appears to be a fair point for the Gatherers to be allowed back on the their native world and be granted a territory of their own, Trek –or the Federation there– does its typical assimilation thing; ergo, it federalizes two groups into one entity by having both of them represented by the same government.
This really does cultivate the planetary mono-government trope, which is essential to the centralization of power when the Federation isn't world bound but now spreading across different worlds by the thousand and more.
Gene's words sound both naïve and well-minded. He wants to promote sheer curiosity, diplmacy and peace, but this reminds me a tad about how Farscape's entire Peacekeepers system started until it became sour; leaving aside the fact that in Farscape, it was far more sinister although painted in a good light because said peace was totally artificially maintained by the use of mind tricks by one species acting as mediators, which is certainly not diplomacy in the slightest.
Trek's UFP does not go there, but it is certainly obsessed with centralization to some degree as an ideal, although does not seem to be willing to enforce it.
But that is the problem: it is its ideal. It does not seem to operate on the basis of only representing a pool of shared resources between worlds.
This is the undeniable seed of tyranny, and the more the UFP would tighten its grip by achieving this implied goal, it would indeed become a fascistic system. It does not because it appears to be bound by several in house rules that seem to strictly limit its powers. But this is an an odd process, essentially creating an entity to assimilate everything and then wedging a ton of caveats so as to delay as much as possible this outcome.

As for the growth of the Federation, I don't know about any official mission statement, but the Feds certainly like expansion. Getting Bajor to join was a major consideration, and recruiting a new world was the entire point behind the TNG episode "First Contact." In "Metamorphosis" Kirk said "We're on a thousand planets and spreading out." In the TNG episode "Neutral Zone" the Romulans noted distastefully that there was "expansion of the Federation everywhere."

The need for Bajor to join could have been purely geopolitical at that time. The UFP was threatened to its core. Imagine a stronger NATO wanting to "acquire" a key world, largely due to its position.
There's quite some fallacy here it seems in that you cannot have a world to collaborate with you to the fullest of its capabilities and volition, until it actually is willing to join your club. Why couldn't Bajor remain a main partner instead of becoming a member?
More specifically, what does a world gain and loses by entering the Federation?

I wouldn't say that's necessarily bad or nefarious though. It's pretty clear the Federation doesn't conquer worlds, and if they set up colonies on empty planets at a rapid rate, well, there's nothing particularly wrong with that either.

Let me argue that you don't need any obvious conquest to happen the way we imagine it; you simply need politicians more or less willing to trade sovereignty and indepedance for centralization and the lure of greater power under one unified system. You don't need guns for that, only lobbyists.

It would appear that member world's do retain a significant amount of autonomy and cultural identity as well, even if it's to their detriment, as the government of Yar's home world of Turkana IV evidently collapsed and simply fell away from the UFP. In the case of the member planet Ardana from TOS "The Cloud Minders" they even seem to have been overly lenient with the requirements for that world's admission into the Federation, seeing the apparent ignorance or top level indifference to the unethical government, which was evidently protected from interference by Starfleet.

On that note, I've been toying with an idea regarding the apparent contradiction as to whether the Federation uses "money." The clear existence of credits, along with the obvious presence and need for trade makes money unavoidable. The idea that they would dispose of currency in favor of some sort of barter system is ridiculous, but the use of money could possibly be optional at certain levels. Looking at the apparent autonomy planets are given within the Federation, along with the specific context of all the quotes that money no longer exists leads me to wonder if perhaps the rejection of currency is more of a human, and even more specifically Terran thing. The whole idea of mankind "bettering" himself and much of the admittedly communist sounding philosophies may be focused around Earth itself, rather than the Federation or even humanity as a whole. In this way Earth's new "hat" so to speak may be that of an intellectual's paradise where technology has significantly reduced the need of menial laborers and where artists, scientists and philosophers can thrive. To address an obvious concern, it could be considered that cultivating fine wine and specializing in Cajun cooking could qualify as art.

While this doesn't initially sound good for those who crave adventure or greater direct control over their surroundings, Starfleet would be an obvious avenue for expanding ones horizons and possibly an expedient source of surplus income in an otherwise expense free environment. There is also the multitude of colony worlds out there too, each apparently free to develop their societies with a significant amount of latitude. While Nimbus III was obviously a crock, the advertisements playing in the background referring to financing through Federation Federal gives some clue to how civilian off world operations may be facilitated.

It boils down to the clauses of membership really and how they're enforced AND protected from internal changes by zealous bureaucrats.

As for allegations of the Federation being "evil," I was serious about comparing the U.S. under the same criteria as the opening video as a means of dispelling the "evidence" of "fascism." Obviously there is money, but taking a few cherry picked snapshots from reality, it looks like communications must be under governmental control, because NASA was involved in placing (most) of the communication satellites in orbit, and what about the name of the American Broadcasting Company? AHA! Then transportation, the government owns and runs (most of) the road systems and requires registration to use them! And don't forget about eminent domain. Oh my, we're being controlled by government conspiracy!
Really though, I'd say that once society passes a certain scale/developmental level significant amounts centralized power is simply unavoidable. Having significant government involvement in some things is perfectly understandable even. Seeing as how interstellar travel of useful speed in 'Trek requires an antimatter powered warp drive, I imagine there would be significant regulation of such craft at the very least.

Agreed. There are benefits to centralization of organization. Sometimes the scale of projects and the magnitude of resources involved in their completion can simply not be managed at lower scales. There is a scale for each thing.

The real trick is ensuring that the power isn't abused. I don't really think that the Federation is a corrupt entity with malicious intent, I'm sure it's ideals are indeed everything they were written to be. My personal concern is that all those good and honorable intentions require maintenance, and the TNG era seems to feature a burgeoning decadence where they have lost a lot of their forward momentum. I think that it represents a critical time for the UFP, and if it's members aren't careful, it could deteriorate into an oppressive state full of shiny happy aliens -- or else. It even sounds a bit like an inadvertant case of art immitating life, thinking of the stories of early TNG where the official edict of 'Trek being a perfect place where everyone always gets along made for problems in production.

There also is the problem that if two words simply cannot come to an agreement over complicated matters and one of them is part of the Federation, as such that the situation escalates into open hostilities, one world will be alone whilst the other may have the UFP's assets on its side. What if, without meaning harm, you simply don't agree with the UFP's core tenets?
You're forced to either grow as an empire or side with an entity capable to match the UFP, regardless of the values of this entity, only to have the ability to stand against the UFP's military resources if push comes to shove.

Then there's Picard's tirade in ST:8 "First Contact." While I realize it was meant to reflect his personal issues, I have long felt it was indicative of something deeper, and unfortunately quite prevalent throughout the Federation. This one line in particular:

In my century we don't succumb to revenge. We have a more evolved sensibility.

That nugget of an "in my century-ism" espoused under stress, moments before totally losing it seems telling. When one's ideals become mantras used to reassure oneself of their own rectitude, that's a bad sign. That kind of blind "but we're the good guys" faith in the infallibility of the Prime Directive and their own moral incorruptibility just makes it easier to find loopholes and make little nudges to accomplish whatever is determined to be "for the best."

There are cultures wherein the concept of revenge is quite essential. One could argue that a lack of proper revenge breeds the best stemming grounds for further resentment and greater issues.
And really, what kind of pussy hipster position is that? Someomes rapes your mother and sister or destroys your house and you must remain "civilized"?
There is solid loss of freedom here in the curious idea that you don't have a right to intervene by yourself and always seek the opinion of big daddy had his organized central space police to decide for you. There were times in Europe when such revenges were perfectly legitimate and even required by the community's culture, and things worked rather very well back then under such rules. It is quite annoying to consider that a federalized government has a monopoly on law, executive power and violence. Regardless of how said entity legitimizes this sum of power, this just smells like tyranny, doesn't it? Is it how the UFP works ultimately?

Looking at the afore mentioned Boraalans from TNG "Homeward," similarly doomed by the same initial decision made regarding the Dreman's from TNG "Pen Pals," I notice that it's perfectly fine to establish covert surveillance on such primitives, that's for science! But using technology beyond their comprehension to save lives from a natural disaster is just evil. We don't have to know why, the established doctrine has given us our orders, and Nature has selected these primitives should die.

Is it a case of the Prime Directive preventing UFP members from helping a sentient species from dying because of a natural cause?
Funnily, as it loops on itself, the show's Prime Directive appears to be very bogus. By now, on Earth, we do have developed a lot of material that explores the outcomes of man going into space, of manking expanding throughout the galaxy and eventually encountering other species. Should we be left to die by the impact of a massive 20 km long asteroid headed for us simply because we haven't leaked effin' warp tech? :|

Then we come to Section 31. The group that attempted to commit xenocide in order to destabilize the opposing government which threatened the the Federation. Yep, while those insidious shadow organizations of the unscrupulous Cardassians and Romulans attempted to to wipe out the Founders with a large orbital bombardment, which at least some Federation brass was hopeful would work, it was Starfleet's own shadow organization which came closest to actually succeeding in killing every member of the threatening race. Of course, it was a Federation doctor who ultimately cured the engineered disease, and as a whole the Federation would certainly not approve of such actions, but it indicates to me how the Federation already shows signs of deterioration, and could easily slip into corruption far from the ideals it takes for granted.

That's my take on it anyway.

Thinking of it, the problem wasn't that this group existed, but that it was an element of the Federation.
Where do we go from there? Was this group disclosed and dismantled? Were its core leaders judged?
How far can the Federation go internally when it considers itself being threatened?
Obviously the case was extreme and then again, hypocrisy of the do-gooders aside, it seems there wasn't any other solution but the good old death note, so I'm not even against the xenocide per se when dealing with the entirety of an enemy that either kills you or enslaves you. There wasn't even a Founders' fifth column, was there?
This is not as ambiguous as V's case of a deadly species-targeting poison used against the space lizards by dumping it all over Earth or something similar, hoping for the lowest colletaral damage within the snaky rebels's ranks if they'd manage to escape the coordinated assault.
Isn't the problem the fact that Section 31 brewed from within the very intestines of the UFP?
If there were to be any public hearings and a considerable judicial procedure after that, what would the saints say? That they could have won without the anti-Founders plague? At the cost of how many soldiers, crew members and civilians? Or worlds? And where were the real outcomes? Even the geniuses projected that the UFP was screwed and strongly considered a surrender. Then, when the actions of Section 31 would actually prove absolutely essential to the safety of ALL the UFP's members, what would be left of the UFP?
By all means, after that war, there would be many concerns from members of the Federation to whether they should stay or opt out. They gain things by staying in because they know the Federation would have an obligation to help them against a large threat like the Dominion, but the very existence of Section 31 would trigger a whole series of resignations, if only because the official and honourable means the UFP could rely on during a war proved completely insufficient to protect its members.

[Praeothmin]

Dear god, anything but French! ;-)
.

Je ne vois pas ce qu'il y a de mal à etre français...

I mean, definitely not... ;-)

[2046]

Those divisions of left and right may seem totally arbitrary to some degree, but the divide always seems to hinge on defense of nation/race/ethnics on the right and the lack of that on the left (which makes the left internationalist by default), regardless of the validity of the claims.

While not an uninteresting place to mark the divide, that pretty much puts anything short of flower children on the right, and maybe them, too. It also might serve as an insult to leftists who want to pretend they are patriots . . . which isn't wrong, but still.

I'd tend to say that because of the pitfalls of its own doctrine, communism can't be applied without fascism.

Authoritarianism, yes. Fascism, no.

Also, if the UFP can seize one's belongings without any strong legal force to oppose it, we couldn't honestly say that its citizens can enjoy true property as it would be more than a precarious illusion.

At the end of the day, the same is true in any state. A thread of recent US political discord centered on eminent domain, for instance, and it's modern misapplication.

Oh, and as for Picard vs. Q, there is no discontinuity between a lack of belief in superstition versus an empirically based belief that mankind would continue to improve, becoming more and more powerful in tools, techniques, and character.

[2046]

Now if I have offended you or been obnoxious or anything of the sort I apologize.

No need to apologize. I found the arguments frustrating because it seemed like touchy-feely argumentation. Not to offend you again, but there is a stereotype argument between a man and a woman in which the man focuses on fact and the woman focuses on feeling and peculiar interpretation. It is a no-win scenario for both(*). I am not saying you or I were doing one or the other, but, to engage in the stereotypical female point, that is how it *felt* to me and why I was frustrated. At no point was I trying to offend you while showing disdain for the nature of the argument.

Starting from the top:

1.) Picard seemed reluctant to make value judgments in regards to the Gatherers treating the undesirable behavior, raiding people's outposts, as almost occidental rather than systemic of their way of life. He acted if there was no difference of legitimacy between the peaceful and more Federation like Acamarians and the thuggish Gatherers who argue over who gets your boots when you die.

Picard as diplomat or as Captain? There is an important distinction.

2.) Picard believes it is the Acamarians' responsibility to come to terms and accommodate with the Gatherers. That they would be a "divided society" until they did. That despite rejecting everything about the Acamarian way of life they still belonged on Acamar Three seemingly because both groups are racially Acamarian.

See, I don't see any evidence of racism there. Had the Confederate States of America won the American Civil War then become a bunch of smelly pirates, Picard's exact same arguments could have been applied simply on the grounds of both USA and CSA being "a people" with shared history.

3.) He never appears to consider the idea that the people of Acamar three may not want a bunch of refugee space pirates or that there are at least legitimate worries to bringing in a large, unvetted number of people opposed to your way of life into your society.

He is talking to their leader. It is the leader's job to do that. Picard is there to solve the Gatherer problem and, being Picard, do so without a Gatherer massacre or fleet destruction, which might have been more expedient.

4.) In keeping with his refusal to make a moral judgment in regards to Gatherer culture he sees nothing wrong and in fact slightly champions a distinct Gatherer state on Acamar Three, one with a disproportionate number of council seats if Chorgan has anything to say about it.

The Gatherers, under their leader Chorgan, in other words had little to no desire to assimilate into the broader Acamar culture but remain a distinct and separate state within Acamar Three with a say in the highest levels of government.

Again, once he got them talking and served as mediator, he was doing diplomacy. Had the Gatherers demanded the Acamarian leader's necklace or a lock of whatzerservantassassinhotty's hair in trade for agreement or concessions, Picard may have advocated it, but not out of a disbelief in property rights or personal hairstyle liberty.


(*) Just kidding ... the man loses, naturally.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Those divisions of left and right may seem totally arbitrary to some degree, but the divide always seems to hinge on defense of nation/race/ethnics on the right and the lack of that on the left (which makes the left internationalist by default), regardless of the validity of the claims.

While not an uninteresting place to mark the divide, that pretty much puts anything short of flower children on the right, and maybe them, too. It also might serve as an insult to leftists who want to pretend they are patriots . . . which isn't wrong, but still.

I was center-left but saw the core arguments making no sense, operating in a vacuum. Essentially, the patriotism of a trademarked left is an empty shell. You get a label, you're part of that kind of enabler club and that's it. The "culture" is something that is constantly... erm, engineered on the ruins of anything older. Older is in fact immediately pejorative. Any legacy is subdued and called anti-progres. The focus is on the state, the flag, and technically anything fundamentally virtual like slogans, just as much as it goes for advertising. The whole entity is some kind of hot air statism that isn't coy at becoming ruthless when deemed necessary. This is a strong trait shared with fascism. So to the next point...

I'd tend to say that because of the pitfalls of its own doctrine, communism can't be applied without fascism.

Authoritarianism, yes. Fascism, no.

Absolutely very true based on a majority of defintions of fascism. The problem being that this majority is largely left influenced.
If you put anti-communism as a criterion for fascism, it obviously excludes communism from the fascist group.
The thing is, you realize that communism gets spared the fascist label because of something almost like technicalities, moderate factors.
There are definitions also requiring the right-wing aspect, or more precisely the nationalistic aspect to be part of the essence.
Yet in all communistic regimes, the defense of the people/nation was put at the heart of the program. Let's take Russia as an example, because it may seem the less obvious (the cases in Asia are more obvious I'd say)/ When the white Russians fought in a disorganized way, with the help of external factions, to beat the red Russians (bolsheviks), the Party called upon the defense of Mother Russia against traitors and foreign nations, not some vague internationalist random concept.
Then, going back to the origins of the doctrine, many historians conveniently forget, for the sake of their academic funds and comfort, that Italy included quite some minorities. The Duce wasn't exactly concerned about them as the focus was put on the state, essentially updating the Roman model (with barely any fundamental change) at a time Rome already had a collection of peoples from many places outside of Europe. It already was a melting pot and that's no surprise the universal Christian faith grew there.
If anything, communism could be called a fascism minus the anti-communism. :)

Also, if the UFP can seize one's belongings without any strong legal force to oppose it, we couldn't honestly say that its citizens can enjoy true property as it would be more than a precarious illusion.

At the end of the day, the same is true in any state. A thread of recent US political discord centered on eminent domain, for instance, and it's modern misapplication.

Well. I mention an absence of strong legal force to stand against the state. Just to be clear, are we in agreement over the importance of what defines true property?
Ultimately, whether it is world wide spread or not, being about defenseless against a state that has decided to take anything you have by use of the(ir) law is certainly making meaningful property something that doesn't exist.
Without wanting to analyze what system we live under, I'm wondering if this applies to the UFP or not.

Oh, and as for Picard vs. Q, there is no discontinuity between a lack of belief in superstition versus an empirically based belief that mankind would continue to improve, becoming more and more powerful in tools, techniques, and character.

I don't think I need to quote the transcript in that Picard literally says he (absolutely) belives men would become gods, a claim that Q finds preposterous and nearly drives him mad.
The very notion of scoffing at superstition when the UFP has already encountered a whole collection of beings affecting space, time and destinies through invisible means beyond the scope of tools would certainly appear particularly hypocritical.
Especially when a mind-reading female sits besides Picard on the bridge most of the time.

Besides, if humanity had really been depleted of any tendency to superstition by the time of Picard's era, that when considering how today it still develops naturally within modern societies, one could easily make the argument that the UFP "educates" *cough* brainwashes *cough* its citizens in order to obliterate any possibility of superstition to grow; that is, builds a mental barrier against the idea of unseen forces and mechanics being capable of having any influence on one's life. That, again, would be very hypocritical since what's been observed in Trek in terms of supernatural events, but above all it would also basically rule out any ground for faith.
Just like in communism.

[sonofccn]

No need to apologize. I found the arguments frustrating because it seemed like touchy-feely argumentation. Not to offend you again, but there is a stereotype argument between a man and a woman in which the man focuses on fact and the woman focuses on feeling and peculiar interpretation. It is a no-win scenario for both(*). I am not saying you or I were doing one or the other, but, to engage in the stereotypical female point, that is how it *felt* to me and why I was frustrated. At no point was I trying to offend you while showing disdain for the nature of the argument.

No problem.

And no worries. My argumentation was certainly less tight than it could have been nor will I deny the Vengeance Factor isn't a hobby horse of mine which I probably should have brought up.

I'm just glad I haven't insulted you. Someone whose opinion I hold in no little regard even if, as in this case, I can not bring myself to agree.

On to the matters at hand

1. In this case I do not believe there is much of a distinction as opposed to when Picard became the arbiter of succession for example. He initiated the entire proceedings convincing first the Sovereign and then Chorgan to the talks.

2. I used the word "race" because if the Gatherers were Nausicaans instead of Acamarians, or the CSA swamp rats in your example were Somali instead of American in origin, no one would demand they brought into the fold. Perhaps Nationality would have been a better choice but I thought it captured the crux of what I disagreed with.

Namely that simply because they originated from it, a civilization is morally obligated to take in an alien culture without question. And the Gatherers, or the Confederate pirates, would be an alien culture having grown and developed in isolation from the progenitor civilization.

3. I don't disagree it is the Sovereign's job to worry about her people but this entire effort is Picard's brainchild. He came and convinced her this was a good idea and it never crossed him to worry or wonder if the actual people who will have to live with this decision want this to happen. Simply put, whether good or bad, I have issue with that.

I don't think I'm out of line to wonder what else Picard might discuss with my leaders, to help us of course. And I'm not sure where I can go to vote him out.

4. Diplomacy to what end? What do the Acamarians get out of the bargain besides an unruly, poorly skilled, barely educated and insular population in their midst. Again, this is Picard's idea. His judgment that these two people should be reunited. I ask what is accomplished that couldn't be with giving the Gatherers their own planet to ruin.

[Mr. Oragahn]

3. I don't disagree it is the Sovereign's job to worry about her people but this entire effort is Picard's brainchild. He came and convinced her this was a good idea and it never crossed him to worry or wonder if the actual people who will have to live with this decision want this to happen. Simply put, whether good or bad, I have issue with that.

I don't think I'm out of line to wonder what else Picard might discuss with my leaders, to help us of course. And I'm not sure where I can go to vote him out.

We may think that an unhappy populace may very well let itself be heard about such a decision. It really boils down to how many people would opt-in for the reunification and on what basis.

4. Diplomacy to what end? What do the Acamarians get out of the bargain besides an unruly, poorly skilled, barely educated and insular population in their midst. Again, this is Picard's idea. His judgment that these two people should be reunited. I ask what is accomplished that couldn't be with giving the Gatherers their own planet to ruin.

Picard may have judged the Gatherers and their culture as inferior, in a need of a shakedown / upgrade only achievable through reunification. Mind you, if the Gatherers acted as raiders and caused harm, short of waging a total war against them, it's understandable why out of kindness and with a little effort, something could be done to have the troublesome culture be toned down.
With time, the children belonging to the grounded Gatherers' culture could, in theory, get access to the resources the Acamarians consider almost natural.
Soon, although the real culture would never be totally forgotten nor diluted, the younger generations would get used to the comfort.
Of course this could only work if the reunification also meant a certain amount of socialization of the younger Gatherers. You cannot allot land to a people whose culture is simply not fit for diplomatic terrestrial life.
The space gypsies would need to get civilized or get the fuck out, again. I guess. In the Federation, Arbeit macht frei, rite?

[Mike DiCenso]

So I decided to give a little more of a chance than zero. By the time he starts making an argument, over five minutes in to the not-even-15-minute video, he so hideously fails to properly define fascism that whatever else he says is going to be pure crap.

So no, I was right the first time.

It isn't just that, this whole guy's playbook seems right out of some of the worst offenders on SDN, who cherrypick their evidence out of context to paint the Federation in the worst possible light.

I'm surprised that you didn't notice that the guy in the video claimed that the events of "The Galileo Seven" and "Court Martial" are all part of the same storyline and that Kirk is being court-martialed because of the events of TG7 when in fact, Kirk was being court-martialed for allegedly panicking during an ion storm and ejecting a crewman, Ben Finney, out into space and his death. As it turns out, Kirk is exonerated in the end when it is discovered that Ben Finney is still alive and had doctored the ship's records to fake his death and frame Kirk to get back at him for an incident when the two were cadets on the USS Republic that lead to Finney being reprimanded and consequently curtailing his career.

Another lie MattPat was caught in was his claim that the Federation owns all the ships, which isn't true as evidenced by people like Harry Mudd, Cyrano Jones, and Kassidy Yates all owning their own ships as well as dozens of other merchants seen at Deep Space Nine.

As people pointed out in the commentary over and over, the whole piece smells of being a sloppily put together clickbait.
-Mike

[2046]

I didn't watch the entire thing. By about six in, I saw it was pointless.

[Mike DiCenso]

Yes, watching the video is a waste of time because it is nothing more than crappy clickbait that is pretending to be smart.

Here's a few more things Mat lied about/got wrong that an excellent commentator, TazG2000, pointed out and I am quoting here:

- He talks about the episode titled "The Empath" being about a mining colony. The episode doesn't actually feature a mining colony at all, but it does contain a sarcastic comment ("I'm a doctor, not a coal miner"). The line "I'm a doctor, not a ..." is a running gag, so this is a popular enough line that it could be found by google searching for "mining" in Star Trek. I imagine that is what he did, without actually watching the episode in question.

- The first courtroom shown is from the movie "The Undiscovered Country". It is not government controlled, and in fact the movie features the Federation president actually talking about his inability to interfere. Can't really counter the argument any better than that! But again, this is a popular scene and is one of the top google results for a "courtroom" in Star Trek. Again, most likely lazy research and not actually watching anything. - He talks about two episodes, "The Galileo Seven" and "Court Martial", and describes them as the captain disobeying orders in the first episode, and then being tried for it in the second. In fact, these episodes had nothing to do with each other and he did not actually disobey orders in either of them. The trial occurred because he was framed, and the case was dismissed when that was revealed.


- The scene he keeps going back to where Kirk is stranded on a planet was certainly not evidence of officers having unilateral control. Immediately after it happens, Kirk cites the regulations that were broken, and the officer responsible (Spock) was forced to step down as a result.

So, this is just more proof that MatPat doesn't know a thing about Trek, even though he claims to have watched nearly all of it. Either that, or he is just deliberately lying.
-Mike

[sonofccn]

Picard may have judged the Gatherers and their culture as inferior, in a need of a shakedown / upgrade only achievable through reunification. Mind you, if the Gatherers acted as raiders and caused harm, short of waging a total war against them, it's understandable why out of kindness and with a little effort, something could be done to have the troublesome culture be toned down.
With time, the children belonging to the grounded Gatherers' culture could, in theory, get access to the resources the Acamarians consider almost natural.
Soon, although the real culture would never be totally forgotten nor diluted, the younger generations would get used to the comfort.
Of course this could only work if the reunification also meant a certain amount of socialization of the younger Gatherers. You cannot allot land to a people whose culture is simply not fit for diplomatic terrestrial life.

That's certainly is possible and I can certainly appreciate a bloodless solution. And if Picard had presented the case to the Gatherers as a ship up or ship out sort scenario, ie either integrate into Acamarian society or end up in the equivalent of a space Australia colony, I would have less issues with the episode.

As it is, per Picard's logic, expelling successive generations of "space gypsies" who can't or won't become civilized would only be reopening the supposed wound the Gatherer's leaving created.

That said it's only one example and quite possible a poor one. I really would be curious about hearing examples, good or bad, and opinions about Federation from everyone. Not just if its fascist, which I don't think anyone can seriously argue for, but what exactly it is and why.

Besides, if humanity had really been depleted of any tendency to superstition by the time of Picard's era, that when considering how today it still develops naturally within modern societies, one could easily make the argument that the UFP "educates" *cough* brainwashes *cough* its citizens in order to obliterate any possibility of superstition to grow; that is, builds a mental barrier against the idea of unseen forces and mechanics being capable of having any influence on one's life. That, again, would be very hypocritical since what's been observed in Trek in terms of supernatural events, but above all it would also basically rule out any ground for faith.

Well I can't speak for humanity in particular but the Federation doesn't appear to prohibit worship. Worf, a starfleet officer, was never shown to face any issue or penalty for his faith. Picard even encouraged him to go to a monastery once when he had a spiritual crisis.

Now it's possible the Federation does view religious faith as a "superstition" a race eventually outgrows in place of some kind of rational humanism but they don't seem anywhere as forceful about it as say the old Soviet Union was in fostering their own beliefs.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Picard may have judged the Gatherers and their culture as inferior, in a need of a shakedown / upgrade only achievable through reunification. Mind you, if the Gatherers acted as raiders and caused harm, short of waging a total war against them, it's understandable why out of kindness and with a little effort, something could be done to have the troublesome culture be toned down.
With time, the children belonging to the grounded Gatherers' culture could, in theory, get access to the resources the Acamarians consider almost natural.
Soon, although the real culture would never be totally forgotten nor diluted, the younger generations would get used to the comfort.
Of course this could only work if the reunification also meant a certain amount of socialization of the younger Gatherers. You cannot allot land to a people whose culture is simply not fit for diplomatic terrestrial life.

That's certainly is possible and I can certainly appreciate a bloodless solution. And if Picard had presented the case to the Gatherers as a ship up or ship out sort scenario, ie either integrate into Acamarian society or end up in the equivalent of a space Australia colony, I would have less issues with the episode.

As it is, per Picard's logic, expelling successive generations of "space gypsies" who can't or won't become civilized would only be reopening the supposed wound the Gatherer's leaving created.

It's definitely awkward, but perhaps he thought that with time, it would come down to Acamarians and their space cousins to iron out the tensions and progressively find a common ground, knowing that it would be a question of time before the Gatherer's culture would progressively vanish, although the one that would be created would be decidedly different from anything found on the planet. For example, they may hold festivities and frequently have young people go on space adventures and show a bit more recklessness than their grounded brethren.
However, that is not something he should just "assume". It should be stated openly. Did he? Was there any part of the deal that had the Gatherers accept to adapt their way of living to a more stable and communitary form?

That said it's only one example and quite possible a poor one. I really would be curious about hearing examples, good or bad, and opinions about Federation from everyone. Not just if its fascist, which I don't think anyone can seriously argue for, but what exactly it is and why.

Right about the first part. So what is it?
I think the sort of utopian laxism is only superficial and a lot of mind-shaping goes on during an entire youth's life within the UFP and through its schools and academies. All hardcore UFP representatives share the same values.
That said, the UFP allows for varying opinions, but if you want to get on board an UFP ship, you'll have to largely accept the UFP rules. The UFP is comprehensive but there's, on the other hand, a risk of the UFP existing only for the sake of growing in size and that is problematic.

Besides, if humanity had really been depleted of any tendency to superstition by the time of Picard's era, that when considering how today it still develops naturally within modern societies, one could easily make the argument that the UFP "educates" *cough* brainwashes *cough* its citizens in order to obliterate any possibility of superstition to grow; that is, builds a mental barrier against the idea of unseen forces and mechanics being capable of having any influence on one's life. That, again, would be very hypocritical since what's been observed in Trek in terms of supernatural events, but above all it would also basically rule out any ground for faith.

Well I can't speak for humanity in particular but the Federation doesn't appear to prohibit worship. Worf, a starfleet officer, was never shown to face any issue or penalty for his faith. Picard even encouraged him to go to a monastery once when he had a spiritual crisis.

Now it's possible the Federation does view religious faith as a "superstition" a race eventually outgrows in place of some kind of rational humanism but they don't seem anywhere as forceful about it as say the old Soviet Union was in fostering their own beliefs.

There may be no prohibition but I think there is a clear motivator to enforce an atheist doctrine. That, say, is the education the UFP offers, and it's up to its members to take or not.
The UFP being very human-centric, humans, especially those coming from Earth, seem to be exposed to the undiluted core tenants of said doctrine. They don't reject tolerance of faith but the official standpoint as far as the UFP goes seems to be equivocating faith with superstition.
Simply put, Picard would have thought, in his mind, that Worf's faith is BS but whatever makes him good is good for the top crew and the entire ship.
Like, you know, I don't approve of fucking goats but if that makes you good, then for the sake of our three years mission, go take some time in the holodeck. Just don't forget to clean the place after you're done.
Still, I'll stop being provocative, I've been pushing things far enough to get answers.

If anything, one looking into any potential clue about roots of strong authoritarianairnsaisiism existing in the UFP should think about what would truly happen in an edonistic society where there's little property and where anything that falls apart can be changed in a whim. You don't need to look any further than current time China to see that this is a recipe for disaster, unless you have a very, very strong regime hellbent on pushing people to work and do something of their ten fingers despite having ZERO reason to do so.