| Author |
Message |
StarfleetCommand74656
Captain
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 653
Location: On STV
|
 Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:41 pm |
|
The Federation is the American government system, but in a perfect universe with better people
|
|
|
chaotica
Ensign
Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 51
Location: Earth's Surface
|
| Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:10 am |
|
I'm going to the trouble of answering you despite a bad eye disorder. I'm not out for sympathy, but I just hope you're listening.
| chaotica wrote: | | I said socialist, not communist. Don't confuse the terms. |
I know what you said, but there is little difference to me.
I realize that. People get emotionally involved in these issues based on what they grew up hearing, and it's hard in later years to go back and reappraise. We got some incomplete information growing up. Now's the time to start making up for lost time. We're both on the same side basically, I imagine.
| Quote: | | And yes, medicine for everyone, food for everyone, a utopia on Earth, that's just what socialism is going for. That's not an appropriation of other people's ideals, that was at the core of it from the beginning. that's the whole idea of it. That's where those ideals came from. The ideas of labor unions and Social Security were socialist ideas that were fought against by the status quo early in the 20th century. They were denounced as subversive and unworkable. |
So you're telling me you believe that Socialism created all of that? That those ideals did not come from others? That's not true.
Yes, only because "Socialism" is a very loose term, that basically just means that the society is organized to a certain extent to make up for economic inequities. Even when the term didn't exist, anyone who espoused those ideals could be described with that word. It's a semantic thing. You're over-reacting to a word. Again, Socialist, not Communist.
Part Two: It's a fact that, at least in the United States, the Socialist Party was the one supporting such ideas as labor unions and social security, early on. It was only later that mainstream parties adopted such ideas, with Roosevelt during the Depression. If you don't think corporations and government influenced by corporate donations didn't denounce and supress labor unions violently, as radical and dangerous, in the first part of the 20th century, or don't think Socialists were key in fighting it then, well, that's why history is a good thing. This stuff is all written down someplace.
Capalism, on the other hand, is about survival of the fittest. Competition, not looking out for others. The measures we have in place to look out for the disadvantaged happened in spite of capitalism, not because of it. Unrestrained pure capitalism=Ferengi.
The measures we have in placed to look for the disadvantage wasn't created solely to "spite capitalism".
Huh?! Why would anything be instituted to "spite capitalism"? Who or what do you think I am? You seem to be having a conversation with some imaginary entity who is not me!
They existed to help the disadvantage. Capitalism is not soley about killing others and hating the disadvantage. That's a rather...simplistic way of looking at it.
Ever hear the expression, "paper tiger"? It refers to creating in your mind an imaginary enemy to argue against, who is "evil" and is always obviously, stupidly wrong, because you're having trouble coming up with a good argument against your real opponent.
Who the hell railed against capitalism as hating and killing? You're reducing ME down to some insanely simplistic idiot, by accusing me of things you assume I must be saying but which I never said, and do not believe.
Well, back in the 1930s or so, there was a certain amount of roughing up of factory workers and organizers. Look it up. That became known and it became somewhat harder to do that sort of thing. Progress has been slow and difficult over the decades.
Try the 1978 film "Blue Collar" with Richard Pryor and Harvey Keitel by the way. Not a comedy.
It's simply a realistic form of government.
Capitalism and communism are economic systems, not forms of government. Socialism is, I don't know, sort of an economic philosophy that can become an economic system, not a form of government. Democracy and fascism are forms of government.
Lifeisabout survival of the fittest. Socialism sadly does not fill the void that capitalism leaves. History has proven that time and time again.
Again, I'm not defending the foul Soviet system that called itself Communist.
Not everything on TV and not everything you grew up hearing about the world is true.[/quote]
The last part made absolutely no sense. So I can't really comment on it.[/quote]
If that made no sense to you, it's only because you didn't bother to pay any attention. That's a nonsensical reply. My premise is that the Soviets perverted Socialism and even Communism, the latter being something I don't believe in probably, but they twisted that too. Veryconvenient to just declare a statement nonsensical for no reason, so you don't have to deal with it.
You grew up bombarded with a certain point of view on these things, that you accept uncritically. I'm questioning your assumptions. You can announce that that makes no sense, but that's clearly wrong, and dishonorable.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu Mar 22, 2007 4:36 am |
|
chaotica, it's painfully obvious you're new and need a lesson on the rules.
First of all, personal attacks are not accepted on this site. Your last post was chock filled with them. I sincerely suggest you watch it or you will get warned. Hopefully, that was clear enough for you.
Second of all, spare me that "you grew up with the propaganda" crap and that it's twisting my point of view. You don't know me and your presumptions of me are "wrong and dishonorable". Not to mention the fact you sound just as biased as I do, except on the opposite side.
I'm a Cuban American and I know Communism/Socialism well, as it's screwed up my home country. Now, before you go on your tirade on how communism does not equal socialism, just listen. If you honest believe that Socialism is not tied into Communism, then you're the one that needs a history lesson. I'm well aware they are not the same thing, nor am I arguing that point, but they are tied together rather heavily.
| chaotica wrote: | | I realize that. People get emotionally involved in these issues based on what they grew up hearing, and it's hard in later years to go back and reappraise. We got some incomplete information growing up. Now's the time to start making up for lost time. We're both on the same side basically, I imagine. |
I have no incomplete information. Just because I don't blindly say I love socialism does not mean I don't understand it. Just because I don't sit around saying that capitalism is mean doesn't mean I don't understand it. However, someone needs to point out that socialism is not the end all of idealogies.
| chaotica wrote: | | Yes, only because "Socialism" is a very loose term, that basically just means that the society is organized to a certain extent to make up for economic inequities. Even when the term didn't exist, anyone who espoused those ideals could be described with that word. It's a semantic thing. You're over-reacting to a word. Again, Socialist, not Communist. |
First of all, are you sitting next to me? No, you're not. Then how is it you think I'm overreacting? Again, not agreeing with you does not mean overreacting. Socialism is not a term that was "espoused" on people that had the ideals before the term existed. That's not true at all. After the term existed, one could go back and say "Hey, they have socialist beliefs. Thus, they are socialists...." WRONG. Socialism came after all those beliefs were ordered together. It's more convient to simply apply one word, rather then explain that the person did so and so. Under your logic, one could say that Zoroastrians held Christian beliefs. No they didn't. They preceeded Christianity by a lot, but they also have a savior story as well. It would be more accurate to say that Christians have Zoroastrian beliefs, not the other way around. Same thing with socialism. It's more accurate to say the socialists have the beliefs of certain people before the term existed, as it came after them. It is a semantic thing, but you're the one that has it backwards, not me.
Second of all, you're not understanding what I'm saying. Socialism organized the ideas that you listed, but are not responsible for the creation of the idea of being benevolent to your fellow man. They simply took the ideals, the good ones, from people in the past and simply organized it together into a political ideology. That is what I meant about how socialists took ideas that were already being done, but simply organized them and took the credit, claiming that it was what they stood for. Maybe it is the beliefs of the party, but I'm sick of them acting as if they created good will amongst men.
| chaotica wrote: | | Part Two: It's a fact that, at least in the United States, the Socialist Party was the one supporting such ideas as labor unions and social security, early on. It was only later that mainstream parties adopted such ideas, with Roosevelt during the Depression. |
You're right to a degree on this, but it doesn't really make sense as to why you brought it up rather then to score some more points for socialism. What? They tried to do some nice things, so now they're good? Socialists weren't the only groups that promoted labor unions and social security, BTW. It's funny because I'm learning about this era in history right now, so to my surprise, I've seen many groups from all spectrums supporting these beliefs. Christians, farmers (not socialists), and some people within the mainstream political parties were pushing for the ideas. However, as Communism was on the rise in Europe, anything that remotely mirrored these beliefs were quickly put down. See? Even back then people could see the connections between socialism and communism.
| chaotica wrote: | | If you don't think corporations and government influenced by corporate donations didn't denounce and supress labor unions violently, as radical and dangerous, in the first part of the 20th century, or don't think Socialists were key in fighting it then, well, that's why history is a good thing. This stuff is all written down someplace. |
I didn't argue that. Again, why are you bringing this up? Are we now having to look at socialists as poor, oppressed people that we're trying to do good things in the past? I didn't argue that corporations can be vicious and care only for themselves.
As for socialists being "key" in fighting them? No, I don't agree. They may have tried to want a change, but it was the Roosevelt Demorats that truly initiated these changes across America, not socialists. Although to be fair, socialists weren't given government positions, so it's not like they could change it the way Roosevelt did.
| chaotica wrote: | | Huh?! Why would anything be instituted to "spite capitalism"? Who or what do you think I am? You seem to be having a conversation with some imaginary entity who is not me! |
Oh good Lord.  I was responding to you saying that the measures made to protect the disadvantage weren't made in spite of capitalism or at least, not solely. In the post above it, which I suggest you read, you claimed that the measures made to look out for the disadvantage was implemented "in spite of capitalism, not because of it". I'm saying you're wrong. It's not really that complicated, IMO.
| chaotica wrote: | | Ever hear the expression, "paper tiger"? It refers to creating in your mind an imaginary enemy to argue against, who is "evil" and is always obviously, stupidly wrong, because you're having trouble coming up with a good argument against your real opponent. |
You honestly have the nerve to sit there and act like your arguments are not flawed and have merit, while I have none? You've got to be kidding me...
| chaotica wrote: | | Who the hell railed against capitalism as hating and killing? You're reducing ME down to some insanely simplistic idiot, by accusing me of things you assume I must be saying but which I never said, and do not believe. |
Socialists tend to be one that "rail" against capitalism. They regurgitate what you said earlier about how capitalism is "competition, not looking out for others". Your words, not mine. Thus, it seems like you're under the belief that capitalism is mean and against unity. However, if you feel otherwise, it might be pertinent for you to say so, as there wouldn't be anymore miscommunications.
| chaotica wrote: | Well, back in the 1930s or so, there was a certain amount of roughing up of factory workers and organizers. Look it up. That became known and it became somewhat harder to do that sort of thing. Progress has been slow and difficult over the decades.
Try the 1978 film "Blue Collar" with Richard Pryor and Harvey Keitel by the way. Not a comedy. |
Again, what is your point here? I never argued that workers were harassed or what not. Look, you seemed to believe that I think capitalism = perfect and has never done anything wrong. I'm well aware of the myriad of flaws from capitalism and I don't support anything that was done to hurt people in the past in order to protect capitalism, at least, to a degree.
| chaotica wrote: | | Capitalism and communism are economic systems, not forms of government. Socialism is, I don't know, sort of an economic philosophy that can become an economic system, not a form of government. Democracy and fascism are forms of government. |
You're kidding right? Communism is not an economic system, or at least, it's not solely one. It is also a political ideaology and form of government, not made soley on how to handle economics. Also, while capitalism is not a form of government, it's certainly the driving force in many democracies. Speaking of economics, I find it funny that communist nations opt to use capitalism, or tenants of it, for their economy, rather then any socialist ideas for the economy. 
Also, speaking of "nonsensical statements made for no reason, so you don't have to deal with it", I commented on how socialism and communism, both don't work in this day and age. Changing the subject to focus solely on arguing what communism is or isn't, does not help your arguments.
I was trying to say that we don't live in some brainless utopia where we obey one leader. We don't live in a society where medicine is given to everyone, at the expense of personal money. We don't live in a society where food and homes are given to the poor because we don't have nice little replicators to make everything for us like in Star Trek. We live in a world of science and as science grows, intelligence becomes the fore front of everything. We have to be pushed to our absolute best, to our very pearks, to contend with the competative world that exists out there. Capitalism isn't about "looking out only for yourself". You ask me to look at things from a different viewpoint, not the ones we were solely raised with. Ok, well if I do that, surely you can do that same, no? Capitalism is aspiring to reach your full potential. Capitalism is a better allegory to real life. Humanity wouldn't be where it is if it wasn't for "survival of the fittest" mind set. It's what allows us to survive in a hard and cruel world. There is nothing wrong with promoting that people so their absolute best. It's not about promoting you do better then other people so you're on top, but rather, that you aspire to greatness, well, as much as you can.
I'm willing to admit that socialism has it's good points, but for the most part, is highly flawed(so is capitalism). It's proven to not be fully workable and ironically, many nations that do adopt socialism compete with even each other(in economics, politically, etc). If that's not proof you can never get rid of competition...
| chatotica wrote: | If that made no sense to you, it's only because you didn't bother to pay any attention. That's a nonsensical reply. My premise is that the Soviets perverted Socialism and even Communism, the latter being something I don't believe in probably, but they twisted that too. Veryconvenient to just declare a statement nonsensical for no reason, so you don't have to deal with it.
You grew up bombarded with a certain point of view on these things, that you accept uncritically. I'm questioning your assumptions. You can announce that that makes no sense, but that's clearly wrong, and dishonorable. |
That's a shame. The rest of your post, for the most part, was intelligent, then you muck it all up with this attack on me.
The reason I said what you had told me made no sense was because it sounded like it came out of the mouth of a conpiracy theorist. You keep going on and on and on and on about how we're bombarded with all these beliefs and to not trust everything on the tv and blah blah blah. Enough, please. My views on not based off of something I watched on FOX news. I got them from having a personal interest with this subject and personal experiance.
So, as for the topic(which you need to get back onto eventually), I'd say that the Federation is...not socialist. If we use your argument and say that they do things socialists claim to have as their own, then yes, they're socialist. Although, under your view, we can say Jesus was a socialist as he attempted to feed everybody on the mountain top.
Many episodes showed that the Federation competed, at times economically, with other powers. Not to mention, the Federation is made up of over a 100 members. Surely not all of them have the so-called socialist beliefs of the Federation? To be honest, the only reason that "socialism" works in the Federation is because they have replicators and advanced technology. When you have anything at your finger tips, you tend to love your fellow man. Although, as I pointed out, the Federation is not every content with their way of life as we see them trying to buy wormholes from other aliens. Even going as far as competing with others to obtain it. I'd say at most, you can say the Federation is the perfect mix of capitalism and socialism...
BTW, I hope your eye gets better.
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:19 am |
|
Communism is an ideology. It isn't a Political Structure or Form of Government untill someone makes one out of it. Like Lenin and Stalin did.
Communism as the Ideology states comes very close to the system used in Star Trek. Why? because in star trek Fedearation everybodoy seems to agree on eachothers private property and don't seem to be devided into classes.
Thats all there is to it.
We do not know who a Factory worker works for in the federation, but i would think he would work for a boss that works for the Federation itself. Providing the Production for the Population, for free. He does that since the people he gives the products too are making products themselves(or do other things like protect neighborhoods, enforce the law, repair roads, health care, education).
The system of Star Trek is definilty not Capitalistic(which is just an economical structure) as there is no profit gained for privatizing Production in the federation(nobody could gain anything more then the person living next to him by having their own factory).
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:17 pm |
|
| lionhead wrote: | Communism is an ideology. It isn't a Political Structure or Form of Government untill someone makes one out of it. Like Lenin and Stalin did.
Communism as the Ideology states comes very close to the system used in Star Trek. Why? because in star trek Fedearation everybodoy seems to agree on eachothers private property and don't seem to be devided into classes.
Thats all there is to it.
We do not know who a Factory worker works for in the federation, but i would think he would work for a boss that works for the Federation itself. Providing the Production for the Population, for free. He does that since the people he gives the products too are making products themselves(or do other things like protect neighborhoods, enforce the law, repair roads, health care, education).
The system of Star Trek is definilty not Capitalistic(which is just an economical structure) as there is no profit gained for privatizing Production in the federation(nobody could gain anything more then the person living next to him by having their own factory). |
Ugh, would you all please look up communism? It's not solely an ideaology. Even in your post, you said that there are communist states. So why you all keep bringing that up is beyond me.
As for factory workers, I agree that on Earth people work solely for the benefit of mankind.
As for Star Trek defnitly not be capitalist(I know it's economics, but it is a driving force in some governments), I don't necessarily agree. In colonies outside of Earth, there is a currency system in the Federation. I think its only really Earth where people work for the benefit of mankind. However, everything we say is conjecture because we never got to see what life in Trek is for the common person, at least, not for long and when we did, it would usually conflict with what Starfleet officers said. For example, Jake Sisko clearly says that Humans don't have money, but Crusher bought something, using Federation credits, at the beginning of TNG. I really wish they'd simply answer this question.
I do have a question though for those who believe there is no money. Starships, how does one obtain one? Like a civilian ship, not a galaxy class starship or Defiant class starship. How can a person buy one? Also, how does he get to pick the size of it? If he wants a bigger one over a person, why does he get it/is rejected?
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:15 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | lionhead wrote: | Communism is an ideology. It isn't a Political Structure or Form of Government untill someone makes one out of it. Like Lenin and Stalin did.
Communism as the Ideology states comes very close to the system used in Star Trek. Why? because in star trek Fedearation everybodoy seems to agree on eachothers private property and don't seem to be devided into classes.
Thats all there is to it.
We do not know who a Factory worker works for in the federation, but i would think he would work for a boss that works for the Federation itself. Providing the Production for the Population, for free. He does that since the people he gives the products too are making products themselves(or do other things like protect neighborhoods, enforce the law, repair roads, health care, education).
The system of Star Trek is definilty not Capitalistic(which is just an economical structure) as there is no profit gained for privatizing Production in the federation(nobody could gain anything more then the person living next to him by having their own factory). |
Ugh, would you all please look up communism? It's not solely an ideaology. Even in your post, you said that there are communist states. So why you all keep bringing that up is beyond me.
As for factory workers, I agree that on Earth people work solely for the benefit of mankind.
As for Star Trek defnitly not be capitalist(I know it's economics, but it is a driving force in some governments), I don't necessarily agree. In colonies outside of Earth, there is a currency system in the Federation. I think its only really Earth where people work for the benefit of mankind. However, everything we say is conjecture because we never got to see what life in Trek is for the common person, at least, not for long and when we did, it would usually conflict with what Starfleet officers said. For example, Jake Sisko clearly says that Humans don't have money, but Crusher bought something, using Federation credits, at the beginning of TNG. I really wish they'd simply answer this question.
I do have a question though for those who believe there is no money. Starships, how does one obtain one? Like a civilian ship, not a galaxy class starship or Defiant class starship. How can a person buy one? Also, how does he get to pick the size of it? If he wants a bigger one over a person, why does he get it/is rejected? |
no no. I said the system in Star Trek is the same as the communism Ideologoy states, not that there are communist states(i don't even know what you mean by that).
I remember from Star Trek First Contact that Picard mentions there is no money in the federation either. So i think its safe to say that part with Crusher was an error in the show. Anyway, maybe the Federation works with currency to make deals between the federation planets(for resources and intelligence), as some species considder certain resources to be more valuable then other species considder them to be.
BTW, i don't think Vulcans have money iether.
As for the obtaining of luxuries like a space vessel. I guess it totally depends on the way the system works. They could either have one for all humans that exist(or want one). As they don't cost anything to build peope that want one could just get one, or even order one to be build. I guess that would work for all the luxury items like TV and a holodeck.
Or they could deflect from communism and put a certain value in luxury items and that your social class makes you "worthy"(or whatever word is better) to have a luxury item of that value. It could be that certain luxury items are restricted for people of a higher class while others for a lower class.
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:55 pm |
|
| lionhead wrote: | no no. I said the system in Star Trek is the same as the communism Ideologoy states, not that there are communist states(i don't even know what you mean by that).
I remember from Star Trek First Contact that Picard mentions there is no money in the federation either. So i think its safe to say that part with Crusher was an error in the show. Anyway, maybe the Federation works with currency to make deals between the federation planets(for resources and intelligence), as some species considder certain resources to be more valuable then other species considder them to be.
BTW, i don't think Vulcans have money iether.
As for the obtaining of luxuries like a space vessel. I guess it totally depends on the way the system works. They could either have one for all humans that exist(or want one). As they don't cost anything to build peope that want one could just get one, or even order one to be build. I guess that would work for all the luxury items like TV and a holodeck.
Or they could deflect from communism and put a certain value in luxury items and that your social class makes you "worthy"(or whatever word is better) to have a luxury item of that value. It could be that certain luxury items are restricted for people of a higher class while others for a lower class. |
Ok, sorry about the confusion on what you meant.
So, you're saying the part where Crusher talked about Federation credits was a mistake? That's fair to say as it was never mentioned again...
As for currency between species, why is it Jake Sisko was unable to use "Federation currency" and turned it into latinum to buy his father the baseball card? Because it seems the Starfleet officers can pay for stuff at Quark's. So there has to be some type of monetary system in place here...
That's an interesting theory on how to obtain starships in a possible communistic state. I'm not sure if that's the case though as it doesn't seem like one Human is more "worthy" or higher in "class" then another. 
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:18 pm |
|
There is currency system, just not like one we know, and life isn't based on it, people arent going to die/go homeless/hungry etc... if they don't have...'money'.
Many things are no longer 'charged' like, basic clothing, food, medical care etc...
The federation credit system works on a purely differnt scale, in fact, so differnt, this is why many currency system outside of the federation seems to be incompatible.
No, Vulcans do not have money, again at least not the way we know of it.
-------signature-------
When you cried I'd wipe away all of your tears
When you'd scream I'd fight away all of your fears
And I held your hand through all of these years
But you still have
All of me
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:54 am |
|
Aha, Lord Borg. So you are saying they only have a currency system for luxury items.
thats interesting. That would fit in my theory about obtaining a Space Vessel.
I ownder how you would get those credits though. Would they just be handing them out to people? Would be able to trade for them?
| Founder wrote: | | That's an interesting theory on how to obtain starships in a possible communistic state. I'm not sure if that's the case though as it doesn't seem like one Human is more "worthy" or higher in "class" then another. |
Interesting isn't it? Thats how i always pictured it. Though putting people in classes and giving certain value to the person instead of the product is a little bit more Capitalistic. In Communism it would just be a mutual agreement to everyones Private property, no questions asked. But of course that would never work. Well, maybe at first, but later it would mean anarchism on who owns what.
It requires a lot of research and monitoring, as people tend to lie. Even in star trek.
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
Sonic74205
Rear Admiral
Joined: 01 Feb 2004
Posts: 4081
Location: England
|
| Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:49 pm |
|
The whole currency system actually comes up quite a bit in star trek, mainly DS9. Off the top of my head i can remember an episode where jadzia buys something from a shop on the promenade. When she buys it she presses some buttons on a pad. Perhaps a code??? Similar to a credit card or a tab. Also in an episode sisko mentions to quark about all his bills for the bar and what he would owe the federation but the federation happily takes care of quarks bills. Theres also Siskos father on earth who owns his own restaurant...
I think for people in starfleet they have sort of a tab system. They would buy something and the starfleet later pays the vendor.
I also think that the federation doesnt have a currency system but rather a trade system. They have one thing and they trade it for another. In the terms of quarks bar that could work. The federation pays his maintenance bills and rent and in return quark has his bar and creates an environment for the travelers and possibly a reason for people to come to the station. It also helps set up a section of the station (promenade), give the starfleet crew a communal gathering place and creates an environment on the station which could encourage people to take up permanent residence on DS9.
From what i have seen on star trek this is the conclusion i have come to. Although im not too sure about the waiter on earth in Non Sequiter where he gives harry a drink completely free of charge and he apparently had been for some time. Perhaps he wanted something to take up his time and get away from his wife??? lol
-------signature-------
<a href="<img>http://sonic.11.forumer.com</a>
|
|
|
lifeguide
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 132
Location: AUSTRALIA
|
| Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:52 pm |
|
I will answer this by giving you all a scenario.
If an alien landed in your backyard and requested to see the outlines of all our political structures on this planet guess which one he would think is the best. That is right communism.
The problem with communism arises when you get humans who have feelings and character traits like greed, paranoia, arrogance and stupidity who feel that the centralised government system is there for thier own profit and ambition (Putin would be a good example at present).
Just like America does not have democracy (only a form of democracy), communism comes in many forms.
It is not the system that is flawed it is the humans that implement it.
As for the Federation, I do think that it exhibit traits of dictatorship, total control, but in some instances that is not a bad thing (in having everyone abide by one law, or everyone earn the same wage).
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
