Pacifism is an ideology centered on political change through nonviolence. Maybe you didn’t explicitly say it, but you might as well have. Can you provide a source on violence being a result of political breakdown and not intrinsic to politics itself? How do current regimes uphold their power?

Politics is, more or less, how decisions are made in groups. Making a decision doesn’t preclude violence. Wars are political and their entire point is violence. Colonialism was foundational to the politics of the last 3+ centuries and it was incredibly violent. Besides vibes, what evidence do you have to support the claim that politics aren’t violent?

All of human political activity boils down to violence. If pacifism were a legitimate strategy then we wouldn’t be in our current situation.

Excuse me, it’s called the USA Entrepreneur. Get it right, pleb

Gowron bless 🙏🙏

I don’t dislike Keiko. She didn’t necessarily have no redeeming qualities, but a lack of any qualities. They could’ve done more but it was painfully obvious they didn’t have any ideas for her character. To the point that I feel like it would’ve been better if they just left her out entirely

Keiko and O’Brien should’ve just divorced off camera when he came aboard DS9. Alternatively do the kid thing where she goes into a room one episode and never returns

Does guiker still fuck?

I’ll have you know there a plenty of insufferable internet communists who enjoy and comment on star trek posts. Especially if we they can drag our their politics into it

Broader socialism has its roots in the French revolution and liberalism too. But you don’t see anyone making a case that Marxists are liberals due to their common ideological heritage. Because it’s silly. It’s almost like divergent ideologies have to originate from somewhere and within a particular historical context. It’s unproductive and pointless to say “z came from y and y from x so z is the same as x”

Libertarians aren’t liberals

If your only exposure to the word libertarian is from tech bros and “don’t tread on me” bootlickers, then sure. But libertarianism goes all the way back to the French revolution and was one of the earliest forms of socialism. The right wingers co-opted it a while back and it’s been commonly associated with that ever since. Anarchism is the more familiar term nowadays despite only being a subset of left-libertarian thought

Usually communities that implement usufruct put systems in place to avoid pitfalls like nepotism. Agriculture is a very common area for usefruct or some similar system to be implemented too so we have plenty of realworld examples to draw comparison from. Lottery systems are popular, where all of the plots will be put into a pool every x amount of time (anywhere from 1-5 years usually) and randomly granted to people in the community. And there are often measures in place to make sure people aren’t given a plot that’s not too far from their house to avoid logistical/infrastructure complications.There’s plenty of other ways it’s handled as well, I’d be happy to link some stuff if you’re interested.

I’m not familiar with how this is handled with things like vineyards or other crops that are heavily dependent on certain soil and climate conditions and as such couldn’t be relocated as simply. Usufruct in its modern forms is largely considered within the scope of the degrowth movement, where local independence and sustaianability is heavily emphasized. So instead of large monocultures community members are encouraged to practice forms of subsistence farming, having more crops grown on one plot that would enable people to feed themselves and their community. Rather than a town having a vineyard, several people would have a handful of rows of grapes on their land. What they do with them after that is their prerogative. Towns could have a communal winery or perhaps those interested in making wine may just have a few barrels tucked away in their basement. It’s also worth mentioning that communities that implement a system like this would likely have very different ideas of personal and private property than you or I. Something like an estate may be consciously avoided to avoid the concentration of wealth or power within a given family.

To bring this back to star trek; they’re living in a post scarcity society that has food replicators. And as such picards home town may have done away with conceptions of usufruct in the way we know them today. They may be a-ok with family estates, perhaps with certain parameters in place to maintain equality in some manner. Land isnt intrinsically tied with wealth and power (at least on earth) at that time. I could go on for ages about axes of domination, inequality, the principles of free association and plenty of other stuff that could be involved with how picards family may have come to have a vineyard in an allegedly socialist, libertarian society but I’ll leave it here for now lol.

Thanks for commenting, it was fun being able to share some knowledge and chew on it a little!

Libertarian in the OG sense, more commonly called libertarian socialism or anarchism. Didn’t realize I left the socialism bit out. I hesitate to call the federation anarchist because there’s still plenty of hierarchy but it seems to be modeled after a vaguely left-libertarian ideology of some sort

Q showed up on voyager because he knew that Janeway would happily oblige on account of her being a bloodthirsty war criminal, chomping at the bit to extinguish more life in her eternal quest for caffeine

Pretty sure officers are provided with a stipend when they’re deployed to places that use money. I remember sisko mentioning something along the lines of receiving pay but not having much use for it. That’s reflected in how he handles situations where he has to pay for something, buying information from quark comes to mind. He barters as a formality/to keep quark from getting too big headed and then just kinda chucks latinum at him, like it doesn’t mean much at all.

As for siskos family restaurant, unless I’m remembering incorrectly, I think Benjamin’s dad was the first one to have it. In which case it doesn’t really contradict the private property aspect. This goes a bit into anarchist concepts of private property so fair warning. There’s this concept called usufruct, which is a progression of roman ideals of ownership. Basically “use it or lose it”, where you can occupy land for any given purpose (in this case a restaurant) so long as it’s being used you’re welcome to occupy it. When you die or decide to close up shop, the land isn’t passed to someone in your family, it goes back into the Commons for another person to use. Picards vineyard does throw a wrench into that though, because it’s clearly established that his family has owned the land for generations. Which is pretty wack

I never even thought about Picard’s vineyard like that. It is odd that a society that seems largely modeled off of libertarian values would include generational estates. The concept of usufruct may have been unknown by the writers of TNG when they were fleshing our Picard’s past. Or it was just a bit of our cultural bias bleeding into this “utopian” setting.

Raffis story doesn’t get a pass though. It seems like they were going for gritty and edgy in a way that was straight up contradictory to the federations ethos when they came up with that bs. The whole first season of Picard was pretty backwards in its portrayal of the federation imo. Haven’t watched the 2nd or 3rd season yet so idk if they unfucked any of the worst stuff

Unless the Kim² started out as lieutenant junior grade, further increasing the hurt for og kim

The last time I put myself in a CPU I got banned from best buy

Easy there, Shax

That’s my new head cannon lol. I take issue with Picard being fr*nch but that’s still better than English “people”