Yes, with the caveat that it will need to be coupled with a massive pendulum swing in favor of workers rights.

Sounds like we need more adjustment.

I love the description lol

https://factorioprints.com/

I’m about to repartition and reinstall everything. I’m very fucking tempted to drop this dual boot nonsense now that I have a good idea of what little I’d be losing.

For anyone interested in the actual mechanics on how to do this:

There are two things you must do in order to nullify:

1. You must get on a jury.

If you are called for jury duty, we recommend visiting our online guide Called for Jury Duty? to learn about jury selection and how to maximize your chances of being selected as a juror. It covers topics such as appearance, behavior, and how to answer questions during the jury selection process. Doing a little bit of preparation in advance will increase your odds of being able to save someone from being punished unjustly.

2. Vote ‘Not Guilty’.

If you have a conscientious belief that acquitting the defendant is a just verdict, even if you believe he or she has technically violated the law, there are only two words you need to know: Not Guilty.

In recent years we have seen some people suggest that you must identify your intention to nullify in order to do so. PLEASE DON’T! That is one of the worst things you could do. If a judge determines that you are considering not enforcing the law (for example, if one of your fellow jurors complains about you to the judge), then even as late as deliberations you can and most likely will be removed from the jury. This most likely will leave the defendant with no conscientious juror ready to contravene the judge’s instructions to convict against their best judgment of what would be a just verdict.

We recommend not openly discussing jury nullification during deliberations unless it is clear that several other jurors are also openly considering it. If there are too many such jurors for all of them to be removed and replaced by alternate jurors, then the most likely outcomes are either a mistrial or an acquittal. If it is just one or two jurors thinking along these lines and they can easily be replaced by alternates, the most likely outcome is that they will be replaced and the defendant will be convicted.

While you can be removed as a juror even as late as deliberations for indicating your intention to nullify, you cannot legally be removed for expressing doubt that the defendant is guilty. Neither are you required to explain your vote. You can participate in deliberations by expressing doubts about the defendant being guilty if you have them, asking questions, listening actively to your fellow jurors, and so on. If you feel the need to explain your vote, you can say something general such as that in your heart you cannot convict the defendant.

https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/jury-nullification-faq/how-do-i-conscientiously-acquit.html

A much more in depth guide:

https://beyondcourts.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/Jury-Nullification-Toolkit-English_0.pdf

Because there is no abstraction as leaky as a man waiting outside your hotel at 6:45 in the morning with a gun and murderous intent.

A leak like that is the type that keeps leaking. The system needs to change, and it eventually will, doubtfully but hopefully peacefully.

I still need to catch up on the latest season(s?) of lower decks. And given the fact that lower decks is a comedy, and borderline non-canon, I’d take that with a giant grain of salt.

That simplifies just about any economic system, which takes a lot of the complicated stuff out of government and class hierarchies.

Right, but they very clearly don’t get all of their food out of a replicator, nor do they use the holodeck for things like hair cuts. There is still people who serve as cooks, waitresses, barbers, etc despite the technology being there to not need those jobs.

And that’s what I want explored in more depth.

I’m a casual Trekkie, but I don’t recall much detail about the Federation’s or Earth’s government structure. Do people still vote? Is it a benevolent military dictatorship? Who knows? And who cares?

I’ve been dipping my toe in the books. At least in the first book for PIC, The Last Best Hope, they very clearly still have political struggles for power, corruption, tribalism, and voting. It ain’t a dictatorship, but the goals and views of the government leaders aren’t wholey benevolent.

A particularly good example was the Federation council member Olivia Quest. She’s a rep from a border planet, whos been facing some issues with the romulan star going supernova, and all the immigrants that are mayhaps being sent their way. So she raises a big stink over any and all help towards the romulans. It’s self serving, selfish, and tribalism, but she was voted in and she wasn’t alone.

All of this is very familiar to real life. But it’s the exact kind of details I want, but on one of the shows. They made it interesting in the books, they could just as easily make it interesting in the show.

That’s the very core of the entire franchise and I’m fine leaving it that way, unscrutinized, since it clearly doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

Maybe the tech of replicators/transporters/holodecks should be left unscrutinized, because ultimately it relies on technobable for it to be compatible with a suspension of disbelief. But I don’t think the same goes for the societal structures of the federation. It worked in the Last Best Hope, I think it could work on the screen.

That’s fucking stupid. (Not directed at you, directed at the admins)

They need to actually give a full look into the economics of the federation. Yeah, it’s space communism. But I want more specifics.

The point was to throw out some ways that one can push for change without murdering people

And that point is undermind by those ways not being viable.

I replied to another comment about one specific way to introduce licensure risk to insurance company doctors as a way to get them to change their policies

That’s a bandaid solution at best.

Long term, I think our best bet is to keep pushing for universal healthcare that will effectively make health insurance obsolete. It’s a winning message (something like 60% of America already supports it), and we’ve come close at least twice in recent history.

This country couldn’t even turn down the guy paraphrasing Hitler, whose promised to finish gutting the ACA. The chances of us seeing universal healthcare through “the right way” isn’t good.

the broad strategic decisions made by the executives aren’t going to factor in a remote likelihood of violence on a particular executive.

That only remains true so long as this doesn’t turn into a copycat situation, which it very well might given how numerous the people with motives are, how easy it is to get guns in this country, and how fervently the people of this country are supporting the gunman.

I’m not necessarily disagreeing that it’s a false dichotomy, but do you have viable alternatives?