www.ditl.org

I'm from California, and I didn't remember that. My US history is a bit rusty, except for the wars of the 20th century.

Lazar wrote:In the case of the British dominions like Canada and Australia, they did have a rather gradual evolution from colonies (mid to late 19th century) to nearly independent countries (late 19th, early 20th century) to fully independent countries (modern day), without an explicit declaration of independence.

That's because from a certain point of view they aren't independent - their governments certainly are, but the Queen is still Head of State.

-Que. "Rule Britannia-

Reliant121 wrote:-Que. "Rule Britannia-

There you go.

Captain Seafort wrote:That's because from a certain point of view they aren't independent - their governments certainly are, but the Queen is still Head of State.

Yes - we can still make fun of them for having Governor-Generals. The Daily Show did a really funny segment on this recently.

Lazar wrote:The E-nonexistent, because it never really happened and it doesn't appear in Picard's little ship display.

In a book I can't recall it was mentioned that the NX was now included in the display.

Hey, maybe they'll do a First Contact Special Edition where they add in the NX-01 model with CGI!

Phantom Renegade wrote:except for legal fineprint in the colony's charter.

But you can't make an exception of that fine print. Either it's a colony, or it isn't. If it succesfully declared independence, then it can make a bid for independent membership in the UFP. If not, then it is a protectorate of the homeworld in question, and is therefore subjugate to it (and a member of it, as New Jersey is a member of the UN only inasmuch as it's part of the US.)

Tsukiyumi wrote: Unless it declares it's independence, and later chooses to join, or if it was always independent, and grows powerful enough to be accepted as a member.

That's kind of what I was thinking, the whole declaring it's independence or the always independent stuff. It would be the same species as their homeworld but they'd be counted as a seperate member because they're independant of the government they split off of.

Phantom Renegade wrote:That's kind of what I was thinking, the whole declaring it's independence or the always independent stuff. It would be the same species as their homeworld but they'd be counted as a seperate member because they're independant of the government they split off of.

Again, it's an "if" - why would they declare independence only to be reabsorbed into a larger entity? Especially in a galaxy where mono-species political entities are overwhelmingly prevalent.

That's also not the situation that Phantom was originally referring to. Earlier, he mentioned that colonies can/would be able to be counted separately as member worlds because they may be "virtually" independent.

Okay, I think we're getting off track from my original point. My point was that a single species might inhabit multiple worlds. An earth example might be how the "white man"(sorry if that's politically incorrect) settled far away from their lands in Europe and established the mostly independent countries of the USA, Australia, and Canada but each are represented separately in the UN. My thought is that a species might settle on another world and after 50 years or probably longer, they'd establish their own independent government, military, and all that good stuff and could be recognized as a separate entity should they choose to join the federation for whatever reason.

My reason for thinking this is that all the information on the supposed physical size of the federation seems too small for an incredible 150 different species. But it's just a theory.

Yes, an independent world would be just that. The original situation you mentioned posited colonies, protectorates, or some other such possessions which might be "practically" independent. In that case, the fine print matters.

Mikey wrote:Yes, an independent world would be just that. The original situation you mentioned posited colonies, protectorates, or some other such possessions which might be "practically" independent. In that case, the fine print matters.

I could've sworn I said something to that effect. Well, anyway you're right of course and I hope that that and my theory explain what I'm thinking in a mannor that everyone understands. And that they also understand this is all just a theory

K. With no economy - and therefore presumably no taxation or tribute, little or no want in worlds of Fed-level tech - one has to wonder what would motivate a colony's desire for independence. There were folks like the Mariposans, of course, who wanted to live by an alternate ethos to that of the UFP at large; but surely they could have done so (before the whole cloning thing) without having to give up the auspices of the UFP's protection and help.