Star Wars characters

[Marius Tr'Lorin 0]

Funny how this topic has turned into all sorts of directions (not to mention, revived.)

 

Humans or not humans: I confuse myself on this topic. It makes sense that they shouldn't be humans, since it's so far away, and so long ago. I just came up with this now, but maybe those people were humans: us humans lived in the SW universe, then one day, a group of explorers/adventurers/colonists crashed on this planet called Earth, lost most if not all of their technology, and were forgotten by the rest of the universe? And our planet is the descendants of those crashed humans...

 

Political theory: I actually agree with Images. From what I learned in my Civics class (a lot through discussion with a fellow nerd/theorist in my class; our teacher sucked), Communism is really a great form of government, but mostly just in theory. Communism, in the realistic world, is a lot harder to maintain, because 1: to give things out equally, and keep everyone happy, means a *whole* bunch of the stuff to actually give, which is impossible to get unless you have gigantic, self-working empire or something; and also 2: It relies on the idea that your leader is good leader, not just a selfish maniac who's taking advantage of the system to "take over the world." The leader has to be uncorrupted, and willing to serve the "good of the people."

Edited December 20, 2006 by Marius Tr'Lorin

[Joy 0]

People want to be governed, but they don't like to be ruled. Its a human weakness in its contradiction. We need the alpha male, top dog calling the shots or it doesn't seem right but that same animal instinct drives us to want to change the balance of power to a more equitable solution.

Dictatorships are great for control and stability as well as making long-term plans that can be overseen from start to finish without a change in policy but they're pitifully low on human rights to a terrible extent. Democracies allow growth of the arts, culture and public speech and allow a greater share of wealth but the bureaucracy is endless.

 

This is why Communism is a great idea in theory, a focussed collective, getting the best of both worlds but really, its impossible to implement on us mere animals. :P

 

I see communism as just another form of autocratic rule. Sure, if the people on top really had the interests of the working people at heart, it would be a good system. And if the kings and nobility had the teachings of Christ at heart, the divine right of kings would have been a good system too. The problem, of course, being that there are no mechanisms in either system to prevent the power hungry from acquiring power.

 

Representative democracy is hardly perfect. In principle, human rights limit the power of governments, and democracy provides a means short of revolution to get a ruling clique not showing sufficient concern for the interests of the common man out of power. These are sufficient advantages that democracy was a much more effective form of government than communism. Our economy ground theirs to failure. They could not compete.

 

In Star Trek role playing, Joy figures the Federation's most powerful tools driving the Federation's continued expansion and its major role in the galaxy are... the Prime Directive and the Guarantees. If one does not interfere with the development of other cultures, they feel free to join. While the martial cultures in the Star Trek galaxy must launch wars of conquest and occupy newly taken areas, the Federation can assimilate the diversity of numerous cultures without destroying said cultures, without dampening their energy.

 

If the Prime Directive protects cultures from outside interference, the Guaranteed Rights of Sentient Beings protects the individual from excessive control by governments at all levels. If the Prime Directive, if consistently practiced, allows diverse cultures to join the Federation, the Guarantees if reasonably enforced gives similar protection and confidence to the individual.

 

In various political sims, Ambassador Joy has clashed with various characters, both Federation and foreign, who think they know how to run other planet's cultures and other individual's lives. Joy aggressively preserves, protects and defends the Prime Directive and Guarantees, in part because she is an android lacking free will and she sort of has to at Priority Three, but also in a pragmatic practical knowledge that willing cooperation is the key difference between the Federation and the military cultures. The abstract ideals are the Federation's primary military advantage over the military cultures. The energy and diversity of an alliance of independent star systems trumps uniform forced autocratic systems.

 

In other group's political sims, the players seemed naturally to divide into two camps. Joy would be with the Idealists, the Doves, the Roddenbery fans. The opposition would be the Pragmatists, the Hawks, the Berman fans that cared more for immediate results than long term principles. This cultural tension seems to exist in many sims. I expect to run into Pragmatist characters who scorn the Idealists as naive, innocent, and unaware of how the real world has to work. Joy in turn finds many of the Pragmatists lazy or corrupt, seeking the easy way out rather than doing what is best for both the Federation and the specific cultures involved.

 

Anyway, that is one of the primary dialectics that defines Joy's political perspective. End rant. Sorry to ramble on...

[Dumbass 0]

I see communism as just another form of autocratic rule. Sure, if the people on top really had the interests of the working people at heart, it would be a good system. And if the kings and nobility had the teachings of Christ at heart, the divine right of kings would have been a good system too. The problem, of course, being that there are no mechanisms in either system to prevent the power hungry from acquiring power.

 

Well, since this was originally my topic, I will claim "Divine Right" and take the topic on a tangent of my choosing. So there! :P

 

Some people say that the theories of capitalism and free markets don't work, but the execution of these principles does. I will admit capitalism and free markets and Adam Smith's "Invisible Hands" are difficult concepts to explain to a non-economist type because they are abstract. There is no way to prove free markets work (Maybe that is why Smith used hands that can't be seen as his metaphor.) but you only need to visit a shopping mall around the holidays to see that it does work. Lots of people are buying, selling, working, and still squeasing in a little fun all of their own free will without the heavy hand of government forcing the issue.

 

Some people, perhaps the same ones, also say that communism and centrally-planned economies work in theory but fail in the execution. I suspect the reason these people think they work in theory (maybe even execution) is that something as all-inclusive as an economy can only exist if it is managed by *someone* and government seems a logical choice. Although communism and socialism are not the same I am grouping them together since the same mindset (government must control the economy) is found in both camps.

 

However, I reject the notion that communism / socialism works even in theory for one simple reason: to reverse paraphrase what the Declaration of Independence says, all men are NOT created equal. We are NOT all born with the same aptitudes, interests, and skill sets. Nor do we learn these skill sets to equal ability later in life. Nor are these skill sets in equal demand (by the economy) and supply (by those in the trade).

 

Neither communism or socialism theories do an adequate job of addressing this disparity in skill sets and aptitudes (or even acknologing they exist). Capitalism and free markets at least provide a mechanism through price-clearing for those in higher-end and even lower-end occupations to receive what society deems their skills and services to be worth when people put their money where their mouths are.

[Joy 0]

However, I reject the notion that communism / socialism works even in theory for one simple reason: to reverse paraphrase what the Declaration of Independence says, all men are NOT created equal. We are NOT all born with the same aptitudes, interests, and skill sets. Nor do we learn these skill sets to equal ability later in life. Nor are these skill sets in equal demand (by the economy) and supply (by those in the trade).

 

I'm no libertarian. The crash and boom economies so common before Keynesian economics proposed ways to soften the curves empirically shows the advantages of some government meddling in the economy.

 

But there is the old saw that 'power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' This too has been observed empirically often enough to make me distrust any autocratic form of government. I see current representative democracies as a failure if the goal is to have the government serve the people, but it is a partial success in allowing the People to get rid of the current bunch of bums when they travel too far down the path of corruption... as they always seem to do.

 

But on a Star Trek web site, one might also consider that other species might not be as corruptible as humans. It is possible to hypothesize a race where concern for the entire species might be stronger than concern for one's own power and status, or one's immediate peer group. It is legitimate Science Fiction in the Roddenberry tradition to discover a Libertarian planet with minimal government, or a post Communist utopian planet where the state has withered away.

 

I'd just want any author considering creating such planets to think through what genetic modifications or values driven education system might be necessary to create a world where power doesn't corrupt.

 

Oh, yes, and if the Star Wars people didn't want us to call the human looking humanoids human, they ought to have created a different name for them.

[Dumbass 0]

But on a Star Trek web site, one might also consider that other species might not be as corruptible as humans. It is possible to hypothesize a race where concern for the entire species might be stronger than concern for one's own power and status, or one's immediate peer group.

 

There is such a race in Star Trek, and they are definitely not Swedish.

 

Edited December 23, 2006 by Dumbass

[Dumbass 0]

I'm no libertarian. The crash and boom economies so common before Keynesian economics proposed ways to soften the curves empirically shows the advantages of some government meddling in the economy.

 

There were also changes in technology, specifically better communication about products and services and prices and a more mobile population in general. that could also account for the "smoothing" of the business cycle. What makes you think it was Keynes' theories alone?

[Dumbass 0]

Political intrigue, slavish greed, and moral crusading. What a glorious topic V'Roy!

 

My dear Ambassador, I'm so glad you enjoined the conversation. At least the Divine Right of Kings held the gate for a thousand years, now Europe is overrun.

 

So before the tugboat captain shuts us down...

 

Personally I'd like to see the Neocons hang and yes I am looking forward to January's political bloodbath.

 

But from a Romulan perspective, speeding along globalization at the point of a sword might have been a good thing. No need to thank us for the creation of the Federation but who can say when that first cube of drones will pass through Saturn's orbit?

 

With a ravenous and fanatical appetite for satellite tv and wireless networks which drive our bull-in-the-china-shop economy, the War of the Worlds may be closer than you think. Wouldn't that be a delicious irony! :lol:

 

Long Live Darth Tyranus!

 

I am pretty sure there was a message here, but for the life of me I can't tell what it was. :P