Communism - Just like Star Trek

citizen_142002 · 2006-09-25 21:08:37

As a libertarian, I believe that people have a right to act as they wish, so long as they do not infringe upon the equal rights of others.

It seems like a lot of people here believe that government is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Government isn't reason or right, it is simply force, plain and simple. Every government policy is ultimately enforced at the barrel of a gun. Socialism is necessarily a coercive system unless it is based on a voluntary commune set up.

There was a previous claim that Anarchy meant that people didn't show respect for the rights of others. True Anarchy simply means the absence of a government, or at least a coercive government. Voluntary associations could replace our primative force based systems.

I would not be opposed to a government that safeguarded against crimes of force and fraud, and provided defense, although frankly without major governments, war would be far less likely than here on Earth.

In a Free Market, which is not what the current US system is, people with ability and initiative do well, people with marginal skills do marginally well, and people with little ability of value to anyone else, don't do well.

Frankly, I don't see a global government for Mars, if and when it is made habitable. Settlers and developers will probably chose different locations and form their own governments, or government exclusive areas.

Introducing ideologies like fascism, socialism, and capitalism to Mars will likely result in warfare. We have seen the futility of militarism on Earth, and we don't need to repeat it. Armed settlements will be able to defend themselves from criminals and other aggressors without the need for a centralized government.

In short government is evil. Let's leave as much of it as possible behind, and move on.

Oh, and FYI. Of course they're militaristic on Startrek, they're on a military vessel. Not everyone in the Federation is in the service.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-25 22:17:51

Do you sir, ever remember learning about the fall of the Roman Empire? That big coercive oppressive government that ruled the land area around the Mediterreanean Sea and all the way up to the Southern half of Britian and Hadrian's wall? The Romans built roads, and under the Roman peace, interstate commerce developed, but what happened when the barbarians sacked Rome, when Rome broke apart? Is that what you call anarchy? Is what your advocating really a new Dark Ages. With the decline of Rome, the economy also shrank, it became dangerous to travel the Roman Built roads, and people settled into their own spots under the "protection" of their feudal lords. A new class system of peasants, nobility and kings was formed from the previous one of citizens, slaves, and Emperors. Rome had the Republican ideal, the idea that citizens can choose their government, even when that was mostly among the upper classes, but even that is better than the divine right of kings and feudal obligations.

The fact is that with the decline of Rome there was not less War but more. With many more tiny states around their was the constant din of battle while under the Romans, War was more of an occasional thing with periods of peace in between.

I think that in the absense of big government you'll always end up with smaller government. Small government can be just as tyrannical as big government, but what's worse is that small government discourages interstate commerce, because they have their own taxes, currency, import and export tarrifs, they control immigration and sometimes emmigration. I say government should not interfere in people's personal lives, they should let individuals make their own economic decisions, small governments often get more intrusive into people's personal affairs because they can. One example of a small government is a slave plantation in the Antebellum South. Slaves had no rights, and their masters were effectively their government since they had the power of life and death over them. During the Civil War, it was the big Federal government that freed the slaves, not the sessionists that were fighting that government.

Cobra Commander · 2006-09-26 06:01:53

As a libertarian, I believe that people have a right to act as they wish, so long as they do not infringe upon the equal rights of others.

With you there.

Government isn't reason or right, it is simply force, plain and simple. Every government policy is ultimately enforced at the barrel of a gun. Socialism is necessarily a coercive system unless it is based on a voluntary commune set up.

Yep, well said.

I would not be opposed to a government that safeguarded against crimes of force and fraud, and provided defense, although frankly without major governments, war would be far less likely than here on Earth.

No true. Such thinking is rooted in the relatively modern assumption that nation-states are the only entities that wage wars. Wars can be (and historically have been) waged by families, tribes, business interests, churches and other non-state entities. Such warfare is already making a comeback, see Hezbollah, al Qaeda et al. In military circles it's referred to as Fourth Generation Warfare.

War is a given, it's a function of human presence anywhere.

Moving on to the Roman comparison, that makes some good points. Some government is good, otherwise we're left with that "perfect state of nature" in which the strong prey upon the weak with no recourse for anyone. In the case of Mars it would be beneficial to have some government, some coherent rules for how colonies conduct their business and relate to each other, standards for communication, transport and such. But a government can be large in scope but small in footprint. That's what we need, a government that covers Mars as well as it's relations with Earth but without interfering in the day to day business of people's lives like nearly every functioning government on this planet currently does.

Government is good when it minds government's business. When it meddles in the business of the citizenry it is at best a burden and at worst a tyranny.

citizen_142002 · 2006-09-26 23:33:33

I understand that Anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism might not be entirely workable on Mars, especially in the early stages of development. I would agree with a universal system for land claims that would cut down on disputes, and I would also agree with safe passage and mutal nonagression requirements for the disparate colonies. Atmospheric emmissions taxes/credit could also be justified since they truely affect everybody in a planetary engineering environment.

The Rome comparison could only be used, in my mind, to justify minarchy. "Government is limited to keeping invaders out, keeping us free from oppression, and allowing us to trade freely.
Rome was for most of its span a military dictatorship, not a true Republic. When did I advocate living in tribal bands under the leadership of a king? Rome was an imperialistic state, and they had a lot of blood on their hands. Rome suceeded in building an infrastucture that allowed knoweledge to flourish, and the human condition to improve, but the government of Rome brought bureaucracy, despotism, and bloody power struggles. You don't need an emperor to secure a common defense.

I did say ARMED colonies for a reason, and I believe that a government's job is to keep invaders and oppressors at bay, but the people must not forget that their own government can often be just as big a threat to their life and liberty as foreign ones.

Personally I'd rather live under the Celtic system so far as we understand it, than the Roman one.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-27 08:30:47

The question is, how many time do you want to cross a border check point when traveling about Mars? My preffered answer is none, but with multiple border crossings, people are going to have to frequently stop and stand for cross border inspections, going to have to produce papers, and make sure all their Visas are in order. And then theirs going to be tariffs and duties, and a whole host of different laws that must be observed with each state that once passes through. There are obvious disadvantages to a multistate Earth, why would I want a multistate Mars?

Cobra Commander · 2006-09-27 08:58:41

There are obvious disadvantages to a multistate Earth, why would I want a multistate Mars?

The state is a rapidly eroding concept. It is not 100% certain that states will be the entities that develop Mars and it is certain that whoever does develop Mars will not hold the establishment of an independent planetary governmet as desireable.

National interests will want a piece, corporate interests their own zones of control, Martian interest will quickly grow and diverge as people live there. . . the best we can hope for is a basic level of standardization. Common medium of exchange, common standards for communication and travel, some commonality of equipment. If we try to establish a government-free zone of sorts governments will spontaneously form and probably not of a desirable sort. Too much government will only hinder efforts to develop the planet, hurt economic growth and annoy people.

Government does a handful of things well. Directing roadbuilding, raising armies, minting money. Everything else they tend to ruin as soon as their hands touch it. Bearing that in mind, what is needed is a government wide in reach but narrow in focus. Government that does what government does well and nothing else. The best of both arguments put forth here.

Or we could just let 'em fight it out. Be old fashioned about it.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-27 11:09:14

So if someone rapes and murders your sister, its "frontier justice", is that it?

Bill Clayton's sister was found raped and murdered yesterday, and Bill Clayton has a good idea of who did it, it must be that no good shifty-eyes George Martin, that's who! So what does Bill Clayton do? He calls up his friends and says, "George Martin, that no good SOB just raped and murdered my sister, and I want some justice, I know he has a safe in his house, so your all perfectly welcome to a share of it, but I want George Martin out their breathing Martian air, what say you?" "Yep, I'm in Bill, lets do it," says Fred. Wally says, "Well how do we know he did it? What evidence do we have?" Bill says, "None, but he looks darn right suspicious with his shifty eyes and all, so I say we kill him!" "I'm with you there," says Fred. Wally says, "Well shouldn't you call the police?" Bill looks at him, "What Police?" he says, "there ain't no government! There ain't no jails either. All we can do is shove him out the airlock without a spacesuit." Wally says, "But George has got family in these parts, they'll want revenge if we just up and kill him!" "Then we have to kill them all before they all kill us. That's Frontier Justice, the only kind we have here on Mars with no government," says Bill.

citizen_142002 · 2006-09-30 23:59:21

I'm not opposed to a constabulary force and judiciary to address crimes of force and fraud. Of course it is likely that even without such a judiciary, a type of common law would prevail. Common law garuntees the right to trial by jury, not vigilante justice. This is the system that was used in England for centuries, and for quite some time in the US until it was replaced with statutory law.

Government justice is not necessarily any more efficient at punishing the right person either. Have you followed the cases where a full 10% of a state's death row has been released in the light of DNA exoneration? It's OK for the state to execute on mere suspicion, let's be clear there is reasonable doubt in most cases and the jury just leans one way or the other, but if an individual did it then that would be worse?

Either way George Martin is dead, and people who disagree with the verdict are probably going to have it out for those who passed judgement, and whether by brute violence or trumped up charges, the Martins will have it out for the Clayton's. That is unless they think that George did it, in which case there is a good chance that guy was a likely candidate.

People in a settlement could voluntarily accept the community's system of justice or arbitration, and if they don't like it, they'll choose to setle in a colony that better matches their desires. People would sign a contract that says they will operate within the constraints of the legal system, whatever it is, and that they will settle their greivances within those boundarys, and be subject to prosecution under a prescribed burden or proof, and penalties. Gradually people would choose the systems that are most beneficial, and these systems will be chosen, not forced.

When did I advocate tight borders in a Martian society? I don't like global governments, but I don't like trade barriers either. Free trade and free movement, but between states that set local regulations and handle the defense of their citizens from violent criminals, theives, fraudlent practices, and the initiation of war by other colonies.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-01 08:36:55

Any way you slice it, any entity that enforces the law is by definition "the government". If people had total freedom to do what ever they wanted, some of that freedom would include making allies such as that posse I just mention. If that posse succeeded in getting rid of George Martin and his family, it would become the defacto government. Mob rule then becomes a clan or a tribe and the person who instigated this becomes the tribal leader, it is a form of government, not neccessarily a democratic form of government, its just that it has the guns or the force of arms necessary to rule and get everyone else to obey the laws they make. I'd rather not have governments decided this way. Anarchy is temporary, it lasts until one person decides to impose his will on another through brute force or through recruiting allies against him, governments evolve out of this, and you can't stop it, because people like to feel safe. If there is no authority, they will attempt to impose their own authority because they got no choice, and once they do they end up becoming the government. I'd rather have a global authority to protect peoples rights and to minimize conflict. If the global government enforces the law, there is less reason for people to form clans and tribal governments to enforce their own law. They say that people should not take the law into their own hands, but without a government people have no choice! Without justice, or at least a government trying to enforce the law, then people will have no choice but to form vigilante groups.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2007-01-21 06:05:28

Martian Republic, and others: Actually, communism does work, but only on a small scale, say 450 people or less. This is the way the kibbutzim were run in Israel in the early days (some of them still are), and how the early Baptist communities were run (based, of course, on the descriptions of early Christian communities in Acts).
For a system that would be able to administer an entire planet, we would have to look elsewhere.
Anarcho-syndicalism is one possibility - it may seem a contradiction in terms, but this is organised anarchism. Again, it may only work on a small scale (my brother-in-law lives in an anarcho-syndicalist community in Germany), but it's never been tried on a large scale. It may be instructive to read The Dispossessed, by Ursula le Guin; she imagines anarcho-syndicalism as a planet-wide system (well, a moon-wide system, actually), in opposition to capitalism on the main planet.

I can't see Anarcho-syndicalism working on Mars

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-21 09:01:12

Yep no 5-year plans and no goose-stepping soldiers in a Mayday parade, no "dear Leader" to worship either.

Eigon · 2007-01-22 06:50:46

Any particular reason you don't see anarcho-syndicalism working, Yang Liwei Rocket? It would be interesting to see what your objections are.

dreammaker · 2007-02-07 11:25:08

i say screw government.. and we should go to god worshiping... like in larry Nevin's ringworld .. how the engineers were worshiped as gods... and since we'll terraform mars, i think we sould worship the engineers as gods... the end..

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2007-04-13 17:33:14

Any particular reason you don't see anarcho-syndicalism working, Yang Liwei Rocket? It would be interesting to see what your objections are.

It might work later on in time, when cities are up and running and Mars becomes more self-sustaining, but trying to establish the labour/unionism deal when the first people are landing on Mars just isn't going to Mars. We are talking about the running of very critical Mars equipment, and keeping the red planet's colony/base running correctly. The class struggle will have to be fought another day, they will need Earth too much to just rebel, and the new industrial workers will have to make sacrifices.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-10-02 23:19:21

Any particular reason you don't see anarcho-syndicalism working, Yang Liwei Rocket? It would be interesting to see what your objections are.
It might work later on in time, when cities are up and running and Mars becomes more self-sustaining, but trying to establish the labour/unionism deal when the first people are landing on Mars just isn't going to Mars. We are talking about the running of very critical Mars equipment, and keeping the red planet's colony/base running correctly. The class struggle will have to be fought another day, they will need Earth too much to just rebel, and the new industrial workers will have to make sacrifices.

A colony on Mars is going to rely heavily on robot labor, since the first landings are in the 2030s, I suspect a full fledged colony won't be established until the 2040s. Ray Kurzwel estimates that computers will have the processing capability of the human brain in 2027, so by 2040 alot of artificially intelligent robots will be walking around. I for one do not want the robots being organized into labor unions or us having a class struggle with robot workers, as by that time they will most likely be our intellectual superiors and may drive us into extinction if they were allowed to have free will. I'd rather have servile robots that obey their masters and are programmed to be "happy" doing so. There are no "worker's paradises" in the future, instead we humans will be on top of the economic pyramid while the robots will be on the bottom doing all the heavy menial labor, and I find nothing wrong with this as robots are not beings or creatures with innate rights, they are rather things, and so long as we do not program them to be anything other than things, we should not have to worry about robot rebellions on Mars. A colonized Mars is also a MArs of the distance future, the era of men working on the assembly line in factories will be long over by then.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-10-14 23:03:41

"Space, the final frontier."
"These are the voyages of the Starship Proletariat."
"Who's Five Year plan is to seek to spread the Revolution of class struggle against the Borgeoise greedy capitalists exploiting the masses,
and to boldly overthrow those who have never been overthrown before!"

"You see unlike that other show, the comrade Captain and everyone else all wear red shirts, the result being that we have to replace our captain quite often as the aliens mistake him for some expendable extra."

martienne · 2015-10-11 15:55:24

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

"Space, the final frontier."
"These are the voyages of the Starship Proletariat."
"Who's Five Year plan is to seek to spread the Revolution of class struggle against the Borgeoise greedy capitalists exploiting the masses,
and to boldly overthrow those who have never been overthrown before!"
"You see unlike that other show, the comrade Captain and everyone else all wear red shirts, the result being that we have to replace our captain quite often as the aliens mistake him for some expendable extra."

Are you an NSA psy-ops agent with the objective to infiltrate the Mars community to spread US capitalist propaganda?

Imperialism, US exceptionalism or corporatism is in almost all your posts.

Give it a break with your 1950s CIA agitation! McCarthy is dead and the US system is being exposed for what it is, thanks to Snowden, Wikileaks and Russia's comeback.

And for what it's worth Tom, Mars is RED. Get over it.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-10-11 16:13:13

martienne wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
"Space, the final frontier."
"These are the voyages of the Starship Proletariat."
"Who's Five Year plan is to seek to spread the Revolution of class struggle against the Borgeoise greedy capitalists exploiting the masses,
and to boldly overthrow those who have never been overthrown before!"
"You see unlike that other show, the comrade Captain and everyone else all wear red shirts, the result being that we have to replace our captain quite often as the aliens mistake him for some expendable extra."

Are you an NSA psy-ops agent with the objective to infiltrate the Mars community to spread US capitalist propaganda?
Imperialism, US exceptionalism or corporatism is in almost all your posts.
Give it a break with your 1950s CIA agitation! McCarthy is dead and the US system is being exposed for what it is, thanks to Snowden, Wikileaks and Russia's comeback.
And for what it's worth Tom, Mars is RED. Get over it.

That post dates from 2007, and you know what, I don't remember posting it, it sounds quite clever though.

In Star Trek this is Communism.

These are communists, they live communally in Borg Cubes, they have suppressed their individuality and have become true Communists. Do you want to belong to a future that looks like this? The Borg are the Communists of the Star Trek Universe, they seek to assimulate every civilization they come in contact with, and you know what, so too did the Soviets!

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2015-10-11 16:15:05)

martienne · 2015-10-12 08:37:57

No, my dear Tom!
The communists are Picard, Janeway and the various crews.

Time and time throughout this franchise, the Captain of the different ships go on a bit of a rant about how the Federation has done away with money, eradicated poverty, dropped the concept of the nation state and achieved true equality.
What's this, if not communism?

These are the main goals of communism, and the signs of a society that has reached communism!

Communism was never reached in Eastern Europe as they never got close to doing away with money. As for the USSR, it went through "the dictatorship of the proletariat" for a while, it then things moved onto socialism / state capitalism. They never got particularly close to Communism.

Additionally in the Federation:
Women are clearly as emancipated as anyone could wish, and childcare seems to be a responsibilty of the collective. Communism, to some degree favours children raised collectively and independence for women (although never this radical feminism that has become the cause celebre for the "new left").

So there you have some more proof.

As for the Borg, they seem to exist to do the will of the Queen. Their behaviour is expansionist, imperialistic and destructive. Reminds me of a certain superpower I know, across the Atlantic... Either way, typical capitalism.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-10-12 13:09:42

No, my dear Tom!
The communists are Picard, Janeway and the various crews.

Oh you mean this Picard?

How about this guy?

Or this guy?
Picard is part of a military service called Star Fleet. You know in the military they do things differently. Not everybody in the United Federation of Planets is a part of Star Fleet, Harry Mudd wasn't, and neither was Quark.

martienne · 2015-10-13 08:40:59

At least I can argue my case based on the relevant literature, as opposed to stills from Star Trek!
Mars lovers in all countries — Unite!

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-10-13 20:47:20

martienne wrote:

At least I can argue my case based on the relevant literature, as opposed to stills from Star Trek!
Mars lovers in all countries — Unite!

Well were Quark and Harry Mudd Communists or Capitalists, what do you think it was that motivated them, was it greed?

Well fact is whatever was on Star Trek, doesn't prove anything about economic systems, as that was fiction, perhaps this post ought to have been in the Martian Chronicles, not in Martian politics and Economy, saying it worked in Star Trek doesn't prove a thing in the real world, if the writers wanted it to work, it would work!

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-06-09 13:52:43

10 Important Star Trek Details That Are Almost Never Mentioned

https://whatculture.com/tv/10-important … -mentioned

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-06-09 13:53:03)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2006-09-25 21:08:37

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#77 2006-09-25 22:17:51

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#78 2006-09-26 06:01:53

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#79 2006-09-26 23:33:33

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#80 2006-09-27 08:30:47

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#81 2006-09-27 08:58:41

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#82 2006-09-27 11:09:14

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#83 2006-09-30 23:59:21

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#84 2006-10-01 08:36:55

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#85 2007-01-21 06:05:28

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#86 2007-01-21 09:01:12

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#87 2007-01-22 06:50:46

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#88 2007-02-07 11:25:08

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#89 2007-04-13 17:33:14

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#90 2007-10-02 23:19:21

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#91 2007-10-14 23:03:41

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#92 2015-10-11 15:55:24

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#93 2015-10-11 16:13:13

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#94 2015-10-12 08:37:57

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#95 2015-10-12 13:09:42

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#96 2015-10-13 08:40:59

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#97 2015-10-13 20:47:20

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

#98 2022-06-09 13:52:43

Re: Communism - Just like Star Trek

Board footer