Pondering Ferengi Philosophy - II

BLOGGING ABOUT WHATEVER

ENTRY - 18

TITLE: "Pondering Ferengi Philosophy - II"

AUTHOUR: J. William Bell

DATE POSTED: 2026-01-07

Eventually, everybody wants to talk about racism. Sometimes they get interested in the subject because they believe they have been mistreated because of it. Sometimes, someone or a whole bunch of somebodies, including busybodies, are worried that the definition of racism is not accurate; and certain discriminations being performed in this world are being done because racism is wearing a convenient and clever disguise.

So, I thought it might be best to look at three of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition that might be construed as being built upon a foundation of racism (or possibly even ^speciesism^). Then put them through my three-dimension assessment system. And also some Esperanto translation, because; that's my thing!

Rule #192:

Never cheat a Klingon, unless you are sure that you can get away with it.

Neniam trompu Klingon, krom se vi certas, ke vi povas fari gxin sukcese.

So, why would someone agree with this rule? If they have interacted with a Klingon, and have first-hand experience of a Klingon's volatile personality and passion for violence; this is a rule that makes sense. Also, any rule that encourages fair and honest dealing is technically a good rule; right?

Why would someone disagree with this rule? They might make that old: "Not all Klingons are like that," argument; which would make me curious as to what kind of Klingons have they been interacting with? Or if they have actually ever met a Klingon. It is also possible that the person taking this position believes in hoping and expecting the best in others whom they have not yet met.

The person who takes a neutral position on this rule would probably rationalize it like this: "I don't know any Klingons, and I doubt I ever will. So, this means nothing to me."

Rule #79:

Beware the Vulcan's need for knowledge.

Zorgi pri Vulkan-a scivolemo.

Why would someone agree with this rule? The obvious reason would be because they are afraid of being exposed as some kind of fraud. Highly intelligent and curious people are inconveniently talented at finding things that are intentionally hidden. There is also the fear that interacting with a very curious person puts an ambitious merchant at a disadvantage when it is time to bargain/haggle.

Why would someone disagree with this rule? To a certain kind of clever and conniving personality; curiosity is not something to be feared, it is something to be exploited. This strategy might sabotage itself, of course, but I imagine a strategy where a profit-minded entreperneur wishes to exploit someone else's desire for knowledge would be dependant upon having a product or service which the target customer has no prior knowledge of and interaction with. And access to a foolproof escape plan, of course.

Why would someone take a neutral position to this rule? A person or party with a non/anti-capitalistic philosophical foundation to their practices would have no interest whatsoever in the consideration and teaching of trade interaction traditions.

Rule #17:

A contract is a contract is a contract-- but only between Ferengi.

Kontrakto estas kontrakto estas kontrakto-- sed nur inter Ferengi.

Why would someone agree with this rule? In my admittedly limited understanding of such things; contractual law is built upon a mutual agreement between contractually-bound and bonded parties. All persons and parties involved are mutually expected to respect the word and spirit of the contract. In theory, it is easier for a Ferengi to understand the values of another Ferengi; they come from the same culture, they come from the same foundational education of the aforementioned culture, and the probably have similar motivations. Therefore: It is easier for two Ferengi to work out a contract dispute than it is for one Ferengi and a non-Ferengi; it is probable that they can easily recognize each other as equals-- mostly.

Why would someone disagree with this rule? The argument could be made that this rule excludes certain rights a protections granted by Ferengi contractual law to Non-Ferengi participants who have entered into some form of a contractual agreement with a Ferengi. The absence of these rights and protections puts this theoretical person/party at risk of being exploited/enslaved/unfairly denied of reasonable compensation for services rendered and products delivered. I would then wonder if this person championing the disagreement has bothered to read all the other rules of acquisition; some of them are very clear on what forms of exploitation are acceptable, to Ferengi.

Someone who would take a neutral position to this rule would probably ask questions like: What rights and protections under Ferengi law and traditions are extended to Non-Ferengi? Are they better in comparison and practice to what is expected in Ferengi-exclusive business matters?

As far as I can tell, in the real world; rules such as this only come into existence because someone decided to learn from their mistakes. Just like the lawmaker who decided to create and enforce a law that forbids explosive-testing sites from being relatively near to areas with a high population. Even the smallest of errors could lead to a very massive and damaging blow-up.

Excelsior!