Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"I suppose that if everyone could have a replicator, a holodeck, and a little Romulan Ale there would no need to ever complain about anything."

Lol

I agree with that statement. The question tho is why would anyone DO anything? You could stay in the Holodeck all the time, (like the Internet) and never have to deal with people at all.

You wouldnt have to get food or to even cook it.

And if your hollow existence starts weighing you down, you can drink yourself into oblivion with Romulan aile.

Star Trek (and I believe you mean ST:The Next Gen) looks and sounds great. But, like all things that are too good to be true, this is.

ST:NG was a "Beneveolent Military Dictatorship" in that, while the people were soothed with, more than was needed, of the basic necessities, it did not allow for outside desire or thought.

You need more than the basic necessities to a human living a full, rich life. The government, any government, cannot provide for that.

Also, what should happen if you disagree with what the government is doing? Do you think the UFP would simply accept that and change? Or would they just pull the plug on your Holosuite and replicator? Let you twist until you came to their way of thinking?

The UFP takes away the God-given right for a man/woman to do for themselves without interference.

The UFP is NOT a free society. Its full of well-fed sheeple, broken to heel and lost of free thought.

Someone here said it best.. The UFP is the Alliance from the Alliance stand-point.

That said, I really liked the shows.

Just remember, Socialism cannot exist outside the rule of 150. (150 people is the max that can live in a Socialistic society before it starts to break down.)

And the liberal hippies tried to make communes work through the 1970's and 80s, but every last one of them FAILED. Due mostly to the fact that the liberals realized that they had to WORK to make it succeed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:


ESPECIALLY since you consider people viewing Star Trek differently as "fring extreemist" types.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"The hell if I am going to get involved in THAT mess, helm, get us somewhere else before we get dragged into this debacle, too."
But I can sure see an Andorian sayin it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Or maybe, just maybe, Firefly is how we SHOULD be.

Im speaking terms of the Browncoats of course.

Free to do, think, and act how we CHOOSE.

Without some "government/Alliance/UFP" telling us how to be, think or act we would truly be free.

How great would it be, to actually BE free? To know and count on your own strength and intelligence without the Nanny State babying?

NOONE on this earth has the right to tell/force me how to think, speak or behave.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I also understand the Maquis pretty well, as I mentioned, Eddington delivers probably the best verbal stripping on the Federation ever done.
(And was, in the end *completely* vindicated in that belief by Sisko's subsequent actions)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Yeah, if you didn't like it, you could just be on your merry at the next port. It was HIS ship, HIS home, so you respect him as the captain and stfu.

Or not, and get the fuck out.

I believe that was pretty freaking reasonable. My home, my business, my life, and my body. You don't like how I run things, get thee gone.

Go get your own spaceship, and run it how you like.

Freedom. Get it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Eric:
LOL, I was just thinking about that. It bears repeating:

"Why is the Federation so obsessed with the Maquis?
> We've never harmed you -and yet we're constantly
> arrested and charged with terrorism. Starships chase
> us through the Badlands, and our supporters are
> harassed and ridiculed. WHY? Because we've left the
> Federation -and that's the one thing you can't
> accept. Nobody leaves Paradise -everyone should want
> to be in the Federation. Hell, you even want the
> Cardassians to join; you're only sending them
> replicators because one day, they can take their
> rightful place on the Federation Council. You know,
> in some ways, you're even worse than the Borg. At
> least they tell you about their plans for
> assimilation. You're more insidious; you assimilate
> people, and they don't even know it."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
It is the same thing.

I love circular logic

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
No, heres the idea behind the whole show....

The BrownCoats fought for the right of EVEYONE to be left alone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Mal can have his own personal beliefs. Even if they disagree with others.

---

Quote:

---

Sort of like here I must say....You can ridicule my views, but Ill be damned if I let you try and force me not to have them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Citizen,

The Maquis surrendered Federation citizenship. They were no longer Federation citizens, precisely because the Federation had surrendered the colonies where they lived. The only persons the Feds had a right to pursue were the Fed officers who stole Fed gear and attacked the Cardies.

---

Quote:

---

The vast overwhelming majority of the Maquis were non-Fed citizens in non-Fed colonies fighting a non-Fed war of independence. Having had the Feds surrender their homes, they had NO INTEREST in being part of the Federation, and were now seeking autonomy.

---

Quote:

---

However, that war of independence threatened the stability of the border, and so the Fed got involved - not to prevent ethnic cleansing (which was stated to be occurring) but rather to make things quiet by supporting Cardie authority over the breakaway faction.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Technically he can FORCE her not to be a companion, by staying deep in the black where she can't have any clients.

He doesn't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
If he does, its a personal choice to do so.

I doubt Mal would, should he ever find himself in charge of everything, rid the Universe of companions.

He doesnt agree with the choice she makes. period. So what? Its never ok to force, by government, someone to change their views or actions.

And, don't get snarky with me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I've actually felt for some time that the United Federation of Planets is a Socialist government, holding dear many of the ideas of modern Liberalism.

Money and Greed have been eliminated...Medical care is free to all...There is no true military,

---

Quote:

---

What is your interpretation of the UFP?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Or, if you prefer, you can't tell me what to do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
It's always struck me that Star Trek represented what I'd call "Endgame Socialism" and our beloved Firefly represented "Endgame Capitalism." One could also call 'em "Endgame Optimism" and "Endgame Pessimism" concerning human nature. If the socialist point of view is correct about human nature, then Star Trek is a likely kind of end point. But if socialism is fundamentally wrong, because humans will never give up greed, jealousy and brutal ignorance as tools for living, then Firefly is the more likely scenario.

Will Human beings destroy the Earth utterly and finally? Or will we turn back from that abyss in the nick of time and say ENOUGH?

Star Trek represents the belief that human beings can finally get their shit together and stop doing deeply stupid stuff. Given this underlying belief, that the human race can GROW THE HELL UP, I don't see a dictatorship in these shows (even though Sisko's and, oh my heavenly God, Janeway's notions of authority are pretty pathetically absolutist at times--these post-Rodenberry iterations of the show lost a good deal of the optimism of TOS and NG--freakin' Janeway, man ).

I see Star Trek as being in line with the optimism at the heart of works like "2001" and "Stranger in a Strange Land" in terms of the human potential for healing and transcendence. Was the Star Child a dictator? Was Valentine Michael Smith? Of course not! They were simply metaphors for human evolution. Star Trek represents this idea of human evolution, while Firefly represents human devolution. I see Firefly as a cautionary tail, while Star Trek is a model to strive for. I presume these were the intentions of their creators.

I'm reminded of Whoopie Goldberg saying that when she was a kid, seeing Uhura on the bridge of the Enterprise told her that black people would eventually make it--she found that to be deeply inspiring and comforting. No child is gonna have that kind of reaction to Firefly. That's the difference.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I would join Starfleet in a second.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

You could be oneof Kirk's redshirts...

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Who?

---