test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
Conservative remakes
System
Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
A lot of talk about the neo-socialist ideals of Star Trekso......
If you could remake any episode or movie in Trek to reflect conservative, capitalist philosophies, what would it look like?
i know I would love to see Spock refuse to answer questions unless he gets a raise. Self interest is logical.
I'm actually giggling about what Star Trek 4 would look like.
If you could remake any episode or movie in Trek to reflect conservative, capitalist philosophies, what would it look like?
i know I would love to see Spock refuse to answer questions unless he gets a raise. Self interest is logical.
I'm actually giggling about what Star Trek 4 would look like.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Give us your dilithium or we blow you up.
Yeah, endless war from first contact to infinity pretty much sums it up.
They get in enough wars as it is.
I can get behind that idea.
...
...you mean that in the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war?!
See my above post.
Wars are profitable. Ask the Ferengi.
Rule of Acquisition #34: War is good for business.
Rule of Acquisition #35: Peace is good for business.
http://www.trekspace.org/video/star-trek-ivs-alternate-ending
Rule of Acquisition #36: War is good for peace.
Rule of Acquisition #37: Peace is good for war.
Kirk would have been fined and probably brought up on moral charges and tried in the media.
Sulu wouldn't have been asked, and wouldn't have been allowed to tell.
Checkov would have been shunned
Scotty would have been the highest paid guy on the ship, but would have incurred many fines for drinking and carousing.
Spock is different and would have been branded an intellectual and thus, somehow not someone we would ever want in charge.
McCoy would charged ridiculous fees for fixing simple scratches, and then denied coverage to those who came in already sick.
I'm not even going to start on Uhura.....
As for teh Next Generation....
They had those episodes, look up the Mirror Universe some time. Sarrah Palin would love it there.
I shudder to think that in the Mirror Universe, Sarah would not only have become Empress, but would have killed John McCain and made sense in the process.
I want to move there
To quote Quark:
"There's nothing beyond greed! Greed is the purest and most noble of emotions!"
No, the Ferengi Alliance is more like a Bedouin Caravan.
yes, totally.
WIN
Picard would've never commanded a star ship, cause he was a Frenchman. Instead, he'd be dead cause he didn't have enough money to pay for his heart transplant. Universal healthcare?! HELL NO! Pay up or die!
Captain Riker would be the All Alaskan poster boy, and would've posed nude in Federation Girl holozine
Data would be serving drinks in 10F, because that's where pin headed intellectuals belong
Worf would've been deported to Qonos because he didn't have proper identification ("He took Yar Job!!!!!")
can't think of anything else for anyone
My brain just exploded from trying to think of that scenario...
Technology and science advances faster in a capitalist society (see USA versus USSR) so...
Phasers are obsolete, replaced by Ultralasers, which are way more powerful then phasers. So powerful Borg Cubes are destroyed in one shot.
The remaining Klingons are moved onto reservations.
Medical science is further ahead. The rich have new, genetically engineered flawless bodies made every two years. The poor have to 'make do' with the wonder drugs and medical technologies that allow you to live 200 years. Darn.
The transwarp network is completed, allowing near instantaneous travel to anywhere in the galaxy.
We bring dinosaurs back for fun. Come to the amusement park kiddies and stay away from the raptor pen.
Tollbooth at the Bajoran Wormhole.
Data gets lured away from Starfleet to run a multiplanetary corporation.
...that sounds pretty sweet.
I'm glad I'm fairly conservative. :rolleyes:
Sorry, Hazard, but the rainbow bot just wouldn't be allowed.
as long as you can afford the transport.
JUST TO FEUL THE FIRE, WOULDN'T WE CALL THESE "TURBOLASERS"?
Lasers don't exist in Star Trek, so they would be Megaphasers. But those already existed on the Miranda class in ST:II
As for Ravenstein's ideas, I am all for it. lol.
I am tutoring a student from Nigeria on US History to 1865, and trying to explain the intricacies of White Male Suffrage, Abolitionists, Indian relocation, and other things is quite complicated at times. She doesn't like politics, but I told her that in order to understand US History on the broad scale, she has to understand the political system that has made up the US. She is finally getting it.
A corporation that produces androids that make data look like a fossil. these androids take over the federation to care for the humans that clearly must be protected from themselves.
Liberalism
Conservatism
Socialism
A quick definition of the three...
Liberalism - This is not the modern American definition of Liberalism; rather it is the classical definition of liberalism. Liberals tend to be supportive of minimalistic government regulation and oversight, preferring private regulation and public debate to resolve issues.
They tend to favor defensive military operations and can sometimes justify 'just wars' (American Civil War as an example) but in peacetime will drastically undercut the military.
Liberals will almost always try to peacefully integrate minorities into their culture while often adopting some aspects of the minority's culture. Positive liberal societies will have great social mobility and freedoms while stagnated societies can have a great amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of a few.
Liberals tend to either be very active in international politics promoting aspects of free trade and free enterprise or rather isolationist, focusing on improving their own economies and societies and taking a 'not my problem' approach to other countries. Liberals tend to play down corporate largess and the plight of the poor, whether real or perceived.
The current American political party that best symbolizes Liberalism is the Libertarian Party, however Republicans have historically been the 'Liberal' American Party and can still count on many moderates supporting them. The Tea Party movement has some very strong Liberal roots to it with it's support of decreased government spending, lower taxes, budget responsibility, and less government regulation.
Conservatism - Conservatism is marked by a feeling of needing to protect society from some threat, whether real or perceived. This can be a threat from another nation, another ethnic group, another religion, another culture, change in general, or a threat to their current way of life. They tend to favor larger armies and a moderately strong government to protect society from the perceived threat.
They tend to see 'their' society as some way superior to others and possibly be under threat from outsiders. They tend to limit the role of minorities (gender, racial, religious, etc) in government. Often they will try to integrate the minorities into their greater culture through more forcible methods then a Liberal will.
Internationally, Conservatives will engage other nations only if they have to and are more likely to threaten or use military force to achieve their goals.
A Positive Conservative Government will be stable, secure, and well responsive to the concerns of the majority. An oppressive conservative regime will be militaristic or highly theocratic, paranoid, and will stifle free speech in the name of security and stability.
In the United States, the Republican Party would be a good example of a moderate Conservative party, however the Constitutional Party would be another representative of Conservativism. However, historically the Democratic Party would have been the Conservative American party and as such many Conservatives are still registered Democrat.
Socialism - Socialism the relative newcomer, growing mostly out of Liberal movements of the mid-nineteenth century. The basic premise of Socialism is to share the benefits of everything equally and protect groups that may be threatened within society.
Socialists are very supportive of social programs and social welfare services, however tend to overtax and over-regulate society which may lead to economic downturns, unemployment, and slow economic growth which would be a major threat to the long term sustainability of their social programs.
Socialists tend to be very anti-military, unless it is an armed conflict they support in which case they will eagerly support it.
Socialists will often try to protect minorities and will actually oppose integration of a minority into a majority. A hallmark of Socialism is to create separate groups and classes and play them against each to prevent one group from amassing too much authority and abusing the other groups.
Internationally, Socialists are very involved diplomatically but usually hesitant to any military commitments.
A Positive Socialist Society would have an equalized society where there is no poverty or discrimination. However a stagnated Socialist Society would be an oppressive regime of nothing but poverty and cultural stagnation.
The Democratic Party would be an excellent example of an American Socialist party.
Now Raven... let the socialists have their fantasy future. Big meanie.
I'll take the future Raven describes.
I'm all for that too.
Although, according to Raven's other post, I'm a Liberal! :eek: