Where is the proof of democratic process in the Federation?

[Mike DiCenso]

especially given their desire to make the Federation out to be a UN in space.

That explains a LOT about the Federation. *shakes head in disgust*

Yes and no, because the UN does not even have a third of the teeth the federation seems to have nor does it have it's own armed forces either to enforce UN policy, all that they do is pass resolution after mostly worthless resolution. And no one is a UN citizen, UN citizenship does not exist. If anything it resembles more the European Union council than the UN. But still we have no idea as to how the council representatives are elected if at all...

Trying to cite the UN or any one organization as the model for the Federation is probably a bad idea. What we have seen is a mish-mash of concepts; The Federation as United States of America; United Nations; NATO, and so on depending on the writers and when they were writing a particular episode and what message they were trying to get across. What we do know:

* There is an elected president, though the process is fuzzy, we do know that the Council has a part in the appointment process.

* There are representatives on a council, though how they are elected or appointed is still largely unknown, or if they follow a parliamentary process, or one like the U.S.A congressional process or what, or are appointed ambassadors ala the U.N..

* Each planet in the Federation has a highly respected sovereignty, implying a strong democratic system.

* We often hear characters speak of the importance of individual freedom and self-determination.

So whatever else, the Federation does not appear to be a dictatorship at all.
-Mike

[Who is like God arbour]

• How much proof do you need to be convinced, that the United Federation of Planets is a democratic body?
  
  Is the from an enemy undisputed declaration of a Starfleet captain enough?
  
  • Errand of Mercy:
    
    • KOR:
      • You of the Federation, you are much like us.
      KIRK:
      • We're nothing like you. We're a democratic body.
      KOR:
      • Come now. I'm not referring to minor ideological differences. I mean that we are similar as a species. Here we are on a planet of sheep. Two tigers, predators, hunters, killers, and it is precisely that which makes us great. And there is a universe to be taken.
  Or do you demand to see the whole elections process onscreen?
  
  Remember: Star Trek are series centered on the crew of Starfleet ships or a station, managed by Starfleet. There are many things, we will never see; even things, that are happening aboard but a fortiori things, that are happening offboard.
  
  But nevertheless, we assume, because there is an absence of contradictory evidence, that they exist. And that especially, if there are explicit indications for their existence.
  
  Insofar, I would ask you to provide evidence, that the United Federation of Planets is, contradictory to what Kirk has said, not a democratic body.

[PunkMaister]

• How much proof do you need to be convinced, that the United Federation of Planets is a democratic body?
  
  Is the from an enemy undisputed declaration of a Starfleet captain enough?
  
  • Errand of Mercy:
    
    • KOR:
      • You of the Federation, you are much like us.
      KIRK:
      • We're nothing like you. We're a democratic body.
      KOR:
      • Come now. I'm not referring to minor ideological differences. I mean that we are similar as a species. Here we are on a planet of sheep. Two tigers, predators, hunters, killers, and it is precisely that which makes us great. And there is a universe to be taken.
  Or do you demand to see the whole elections process onscreen?
  
  Remember: Star Trek are series centered on the crew of Starfleet ships or a station, managed by Starfleet. There are many things, we will never see; even things, that are happening aboard but a fortiori things, that are happening offboard.
  
  But nevertheless, we assume, because there is an absence of contradictory evidence, that they exist. And that especially, if there are explicit indications for their existence.
  
  Insofar, I would ask you to provide evidence, that the United Federation of Planets is, contradictory to what Kirk has said, not a democratic body.

Common now we know that the TOS UFP and the one by TNG era are very different beasts. The UFP at TOS era was still a capitalist society for the most part. The sweeping socialist reforms we see in TNG's era had not taken place as of yet, by the same token we cannot assume that TNG era UFP is still a democratic body, we just don't know.

[Praeothmin]

The sweeping socialist reforms we see in TNG's era had not taken place as of yet, by the same token we cannot assume that TNG era UFP is still a democratic body, we just don't know.

And since the Federation still espouses ideals of freedom and self-determination, we have no reason whatsoever to believe that it is not a Democratic body.
Contrary to what Mr. Lucas believes, people would not respond well to even a "good" Emperor who is not elected... :)

[Mr. Oragahn]

And no one is a UN citizen, UN citizenship does not exist.

Not yet.

That organization is so inept that for anyone to even think it could become some kind of world government is ludicrous.

Yes, there are so many unions being inept at serving the people... I tend to think the same about the EU, and yet...

Besides, getting info on the UFP's Council is quite a priority here.

[PunkMaister]

And since the Federation still espouses ideals of freedom and self-determination, we have no reason whatsoever to believe that it is not a Democratic body.
Contrary to what Mr. Lucas believes, people would not respond well to even a "good" Emperor who is not elected... :)

Sorry but that is no proof whatsoever that it remains a society where the leadership is democratically elected in one form or another...

[Who is like God arbour]

Common now we know that the TOS UFP and the one by TNG era are very different beasts. The UFP at TOS era was still a capitalist society for the most part. The sweeping socialist reforms we see in TNG's era had not taken place as of yet, by the same token we cannot assume that TNG era UFP is still a democratic body, we just don't know.

You still don't quite understand the burden of proof.

We know now, that the United Federation of Planets was a democratic body. That's our initial point.

Now there are some, who are claiming, that this has changed. It is their burden, to provide evidence for it.

You for example are claiming, that a change in their society has occurred - from a capitalist society to a socialist society.

But you fail on the one hand to provide evidence, that such a change has indeed occurred and on the other hand you fail to show why, assuming such a change, it would mean, that the United Federation of Planets has ceased to be a democratic body. Where is it written, that a socialist society can't be democratic?

[PunkMaister]

Common now we know that the TOS UFP and the one by TNG era are very different beasts. The UFP at TOS era was still a capitalist society for the most part. The sweeping socialist reforms we see in TNG's era had not taken place as of yet, by the same token we cannot assume that TNG era UFP is still a democratic body, we just don't know.

You still don't quite understand the burden of proof.

We know now, that the United Federation of Planets was a democratic body. That's our initial point.

Now there are some, who are claiming, that this has changed. It is their burden, to provide evidence for it.

You for example are claiming, that a change in their society has occurred - from a capitalist society to a socialist society.

But you fail on the one hand to provide evidence, that such a change has indeed occurred and on the other hand you fail to show why, assuming such a change, it would mean, that the United Federation of Planets has ceased to be a democratic body. Where is it written, that a socialist society can't be democratic?

In just about every past and present day example all socialist societies have ceased to be democratic, be it Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea you name it...

[Praeothmin]

Punkmaister, where exactly do you get the idea that the Federation was a Capitalistic society in TOS, when Kirk himself says, in ST IV: The Voyage Home, that the Federation doesn't use money?

Even in TOS, they only seem to use "credits" when on colony planets, just as in TNG.
TNG still uses "credits", as witnessed when Beverly Crusher "purchases" a bundle of cloth on Farpoint Station.

And, as WILGA stated, since you say the Federation has changed, you should prove that assertion.
What I'm saying is that it was a Democracy in TOS, and it should still be one in TNG (as we have no proof to the contrary).

[PunkMaister]

Punkmaister, where exactly do you get the idea that the Federation was a Capitalistic society in TOS, when Kirk himself says, in ST IV: The Voyage Home, that the Federation doesn't use money?

Even in TOS, they only seem to use "credits" when on colony planets, just as in TNG.
TNG still uses "credits", as witnessed when Beverly Crusher "purchases" a bundle of cloth on Farpoint Station.

And, as WILGA stated, since you say the Federation has changed, you should prove that assertion.
What I'm saying is that it was a Democracy in TOS, and it should still be one in TNG (as we have no proof to the contrary).

OK first of all Cashless does not equal not Capitalistic. Remember that originally the idea of Credit Cards and ATM cards was to create a cashless but still capitalistic society. Off course it never quite worked that way...

[Who is like God arbour]

In just about every past and present day example all socialist societies have ceased to be democratic, be it Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea you name it...

1. Not only have you ignored my objections, your further arguments are wrong.
2. These states were not socialist societies. There is no example in history for a real socialist or communist society in the Marxian sense.
   We have only states, who have claimed to be it. But what they have been, hasn't met the Marxian definition of the one or the other.
3. Even if it would be so, it wouldn't prove anything. It would merely be a spurious correlation.
4. "Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life [1].
5. Democratic socialism is a political movement propagating the ideals of socialism within the framework of a parliamentary democracy. [2].

[PunkMaister]

In just about every past and present day example all socialist societies have ceased to be democratic, be it Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea you name it...

1. Not only have you ignored my objections, your further arguments are wrong.
2. These states were not socialist societies. There is no example in history for a real socialist or communist society in the Marxian sense.
   We have only states, who have claimed to be it. But what they have been, hasn't met the Marxian definition of the one or the other.
3. Even if it would be so, it wouldn't prove anything. It would merely be a spurious correlation.
4. "Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life [1].
5. Democratic socialism is a political movement propagating the ideals of socialism within the framework of a parliamentary democracy. [2].

Andthat is the problem Marxism socialism is for the most part a really bad joke just like the Islsmists dreamed perfect Sharia law state...


And your objections are noted but none of them offer evidence of a representational and democratically elected form of government. Kirk makes refference tio democracy but no evidence of a democratic process is anywhere to be seen. At least in SW and NBSG we get to see that process in one form or another...

[Praeothmin]

Kirk makes refference tio democracy but no evidence of a democratic process is anywhere to be seen.

Let's see:
Arguments in favor of the Federation being a Democratic society:
-Elected President
-A Starfleet Captain says it is democratic;
-It espouses Democratic values (or values often closely associated to Democracy);

Arguments against the Federaton being Democratic:
-We haven't seen an election yet;
-?????

You haven't got much to go on, Punkmaister.
You assume, because it hasn't been seen, but where did you see the opposite when every character speaking of the Federation describes it as Democratic?
They're all lying????

[Who is like God arbour]

And that is the problem Marxism socialism is for the most part a really bad joke just like the Islsmists dreamed perfect Sharia law state...

That's a bad joke, isn't it?

And your objections are noted but none of them offer evidence of a representational and democratically elected form of government. Kirk makes refference tio democracy but no evidence of a democratic process is anywhere to be seen. At least in SW and NBSG we get to see that process in one form or another...

You still don't understand the principle of burden of proof.

According to your logic, the in nearly every US. series of film portraited USA is not a democratic nation because we never see any democratic process.

How many U.S. series do you know, where any democratic process was shown?

I can't remember even one single one - although I don't watch much TV.

But most series I know are showing every day life of civilians and not the adventurous life of the crew on a ship, far away from Earth.

[Mike DiCenso]

OK first of all Cashless does not equal not Capitalistic. Remember that originally the idea of Credit Cards and ATM cards was to create a cashless but still capitalistic society. Off course it never quite worked that way...

How does stating this prove your assertion that that Federation has changed in some fundamental way since the TOS-era? Nothing you have claimed so far has been backed up with any real evidence so far, just wild generalized sweeping assertions. On the other hand, in this thread and others, people have provided numerous pieces of evidence against your claims. Your only response has been to largely ignore that evidence and cling to your wild accusations.

In short, either concede or put some real evidence up.
-Mike