YOU are involved in the events of INS

[Captain Seafort]

No.

1) a compulsory purchase order would provide plenty of money for a new house, albeit usually less than the market price.

2) B&Bs and motels are not suitable for long-term accommodation, but they will do in a pinch

3) social or council housing is available for those who have need of it, and medical conditions bump people up the priority list.

[Sonic Glitch]

No.

1) a compulsory purchase order would provide plenty of money for a new house, albeit usually less than the market price.

2) B&Bs and motels are not suitable for long-term accommodation, but they will do in a pinch

3) social or council housing is available for those who have need of it, and medical conditions bump people up the priority list.

Oddly enough, our school debate league topic last year was Eminent Domain, the American version of a "compulsory purchase order" apparently and one of the problems found with it is that the government tends to cut around the red tape and either use ED ( didn't think about that) improperly or not give the family enough funds for a new home. The house is supposed to be appraised and compensated for it's market value, but that rarely happens.
Another point is, there should be other space for a hospital or motorway. By the way, in the US motorways (roads and highways here ) don't fall under Eminant Domain but fall under Right-of-Way. Technically the first, I think 6 feet, of property at least in PA technically belongs to the D.O.T if they need to widen a road or put in a sidewalk. So atleast in the US, a highway is not a good example as it is governed by different laws.

[Mikey]

Again, that may be a legal right of the government - but as Reliant's hypothetical example illustrates, far from a moral one.

[Sonic Glitch]

Again, that may be a legal right of the government - but as Reliant's hypothetical example illustrates, far from a moral one.

True. As a believer in "kill one, save a thousand" I think it also depends on the motives for the action (ie, is the government putting a hospital there because it would provide more convenient care to citizens who otherwise may not make it or can't afford to go accros town, or are they putting a CVS/Rite Aid on the corner, despited the one 5 blocks away, because Rite Aid is paying the senator?).

[Coalition]

Depends - they're touch and go but they might have a sustainable population. In any event if they did die off it would no more be genocide than taking someone with no chance of recovery off life support is murder.

600 people? They are below long-term viability. Remember the 50/500 rule? That is why I said they should be put in a preserve, so they can continue inbreeding.


Given the value of the particles, I would compare it to finding out that there is a massive oil, gold, platinum, diamond, or other extremely valuable material under your property, which is in the middle of a desert. There are going to be several offers for your land, and you are living at low tech base because you don't want to improve, and nobody else wants to visit you to improve. As a government, given the potential riches from the resource, I wwould be offering you a very nice price for the land, tax free, and a good designer for your next house, also free and tax free. Of course I would wait until September-December to do it, so the accountants are available.


I wonder though, does the metaphasic radiation also allow the plants to bloom and produce fruit/seed faster? If so, that could be how they managed to thrive there without having to work their tails off every day (like humans had to on farms, paddies, etc before modern technology). That is annoying, seeing this Luddite group, that has no advanced technology (or even modern farm equipment) yet they still have lots of food being grown with minimal effort. Stargate: Atlantis "Epiphany" is another example of this.

[Sionnach Glic]

So...out of curiousity, would you support the government if it demolished my street, to put in a new motorway? us lot have no home, but the masses get places faster. Is that right?

That is in no way similar to what happened in INS.

Firstly, a motorway is just a system of convinience. The Ba'ku particles could save trillions of people's lives.
Secondly, they didn't just turf the Ba'ku off their planet, they moved them to a new one.

So a better analogy would be the government finding a miracle cure that could cure every disease and save billions lying under your house, and then seizing your house to begin mining it, but giving you a new home and paying for all the costs of movement and resettlement.

[Reliant121]

hmm. I would have to concede on that.

[Deepcrush]

Would anyone here mind if I just killed off the Sona so that we could keep the tech for ourselves? If you asked the Baku I doubt they'd mind. Since once you have the ringtechnostuff you can just treat the Baku with it. The Sona are just a pest that needs to go... along with anyone on the council that took part. I believe that the needs of the many out way that of the few. But, the few still have rights and those rights need to be protected. I also believe that any crime, large or small is still a crime no matter how someone tries to write it off.

[Sionnach Glic]

I think the UFP might have a problem with you starting a war without their consent.

[Captain Seafort]

But, the few still have rights and those rights need to be protected.

The rights of the Ba'ku are being protected - they're being moved with the minimum of disruption, and they're being given a whole new planet gratis.

I also believe that any crime, large or small is still a crime no matter how someone tries to write it off.

I quite agree, although I'd like to see evidence that the Ba'ku relocation was illegal. It was a compulsory purchase order, plain and simple.

[Sonic Glitch]

I quite agree, although I'd like to see evidence that the Ba'ku relocation was illegal. It was a compulsory purchase order, plain and simple.

The fact that the Bak'u had no say whatsoever in the Federations government. In the US (and UK as far as I understand) people participate in government by electing representatives and such so they could at least try protest the decisions of the government if/when necessary. Heck, I think even the Amish/Mennonites have some way to make their grievances known if they have them.

By your logic, was what the settlers did to the Indians legal? They tricked and cheated them out of the land which belonged to them. The Federation is doing the same thing to the Bak'u. Not only is any illegal act illegal no matter how small, neither is an immoral act less immoral if it is "only a small one."

"We're only moving 600 people." People who have adapted to conditions on the planet, people who are probably by now dependant on the radiation to survive, people where the Federation's only legal jurisdiction is: The planet is in their space. That's not enough.

[Sionnach Glic]

The Federation is doing the same thing to the Bak'u.

No, they aren't. For one, they're not actively trying to kill them. They have an interest in the Ba'ku's well-being, as shown by the extents they were willing to go through to relocate them quietly. If they were really that uncaring, they'd have just nuked the site with a Photorp and pretended there'd never been a settlement there at all.

"We're only moving 600 people." People who have adapted to conditions on the planet, people who are probably by now dependant on the radiation to survive, people where the Federation's only legal jurisdiction is: The planet is in their space. That's not enough.

As has been said repeatedly in this thread, the Feds are clearly interested in keeping them alive, and have the technology to bring them to (or modify) a world they can live on just fine. The whole reason they didn't bother talking to the Ba'ku was probably due to the PD preventing them from beaming down and chatting to them. Without the radiation, the Ba'ku become mortal, just like everyone else. The UFP can ship them enough of the resulting product from the radiation mining thing to keep them just fine. And as far as I'm concerned, the well-being of trillions of sapient beings outweigh the desires of 600.

[Captain Seafort]

By your logic, was what the settlers did to the Indians legal? They tricked and cheated them out of the land which belonged to them.

It was perfectly legal, because it was ordered by the US government. It was immoral, but that's a completely different subject.

The Federation is doing the same thing to the Bak'u.

Not even close.

People who have adapted to conditions on the planet, people who are probably by now dependant on the radiation to survive

The Son'a had been on the planet for a couple of centuries when they decided to leave, and were still alive a century later. The radiation eviently does not promote a physical dependency.

the Federation's only legal jurisdiction is: The planet is in their space. That's not enough.

Do you have a copy of the relevant Federation legislation to prove this assertion?

[Deepcrush]

It was perfectly legal, because it was ordered by the US government. It was immoral, but that's a completely different subject.

The Son'a had been on the planet for a couple of centuries when they decided to leave, and were still alive a century later. The radiation eviently does not promote a physical dependency.

The US Supreme Court ruled against the relocation and murder of Native Americans. So it WAS illegal. Those lands belong to the Native Americans. Most were taken by force.

The Baku world doesn't belong to the UFP. Never did. They were there before humans even left earth. What the UFP is doing is the same thing that European powers did around the world and the same thing that the US did when it felt like it wanted more farm land. It's still illegal.

I quite agree, although I'd like to see evidence that the Ba'ku relocation was illegal. It was a compulsory purchase order, plain and simple.

Your own statement above covers this well enough. The Baku had lived on that world before the UFP was even born. This was a land grab. Simple as that. The UFP decided that they wanted something and just took it by force.

For those here who don't understand what "Force" is and it seems there are a good number of you. Force is when you take without consent. That covers theft, rape, murder or any violation of a persons rights.

The Baku had no say and rights ignored and were taken by force. So its not a compulsory purchase, its theft. End of story. The ringtechnostuff would be better used for everyone instead of just 600 people. But, those 600 people still have rights.

People are asking for evidence that the stealing of a whole planet isn't against the law (retards that you may be) regardless of what is being given in return. Where's the evidence that the Baku wouldn't have been willing to support the project if someone had sat down and explained the project? Is there any reason that the Baku would have turned the UFP away?

Do you have a copy of the relevant Federation legislation to prove this assertion?

Do you have anything to state that the UFP has the right to invade any world they want just because it has something they want?

[Captain Seafort]

The US Supreme Court ruled against the relocation and murder of Native Americans. So it WAS illegal. Those lands belong to the Native Americans. Most were taken by force.

Fair enough. Have you got a link to the details - I think Wiki has summaries of most USSC judgements.

The Baku world doesn't belong to the UFP. Never did. They were there before humans even left earth. What the UFP is doing is the same thing that European powers did around the world and the same thing that the US did when it felt like it wanted more farm land. It's still illegal.

Prove it.

Your own statement above covers this well enough. The Baku had lived on that world before the UFP was even born. This was a land grab. Simple as that. The UFP decided that they wanted something and just took it by force.

Correct. Do you have any evidence that this was illegal?

The Baku had no say and rights ignored and were taken by force. So its not a compulsory purchase, its theft.

1) Prove that the Ba'ku had rights under Federation law.

2) They would have been compensated with the provision of a new planet, and the costs of relocating the population would have been borne by the UFP.

Where's the evidence that the Baku wouldn't have been willing to support the project if someone had sat down and explained the project? Is there any reason that the Baku would have turned the UFP away?

Yes - the fact that the Ba'ku proved singularly unsympathetic to the idea of moving after the Fed plan was revealed.

Do you have anything to state that the UFP has the right to invade any world they want just because it has something they want?

With regards to the Briar Patch planet, the facts that Dougherty's and Picard's conversation heavily implied that the planet was under UFP jurisdiction, and the only legal objection Picard raised was the PD.