A country without Money how it's work?

[JES]

Okay, here is my thoughts thus far:

Merry Christmas hit a point that I have to agree with (the post I am referring to is I believe 5 posts up), and that is for any sort of communist (by any other name)/Venus Project-Type economic system to gain popularity, people will have to feel that they are not sacrificing anything important to them. If people are told to give up their property, even if it is for the common good, they will resist, perhaps even violently, if they think this is a part of Big Brother's or the New World Order's plan to drag them to the work camps. So instead, they should be allowed to keep their property, unless it is to an unfair extent (slavery must absolutely be exempt from this consideration of course). I think this would help things go over much easier for the wealthy/"elite", if they were allowed to keep their fancy cars, their mansions, etc. One of the thorniest parts of a United Earth will be getting all of the countries to join such a world government, because if I remember right, I read something on the Venus Project website that said in order for this to work effectively, all countries will have to pitch in, otherwise we might fall short on the amount of resources available to distribute. If the dis-proportionment of resources didn't do Soviet Russia in, then it was probably not having enough resources to fairly sustain the entire population that did Soviet Russia in. People don't like to feel like they are being forced to do anything; if they are under the impression that it was their idea in the first place, or if they get to do things under their own terms, they will be much more prone to cooperating, and hopefully, everyone will end up happy.

These are my thoughts so far. I think I should read the other 4 pages first for any more insight before continuing any further.

[KamenRiderBlade]

JES wrote:

---

Okay, here is my thoughts thus far:

Merry Christmas hit a point that I have to agree with (the post I am referring to is I believe 5 posts up), and that is for any sort of communist (by any other name)/Venus Project-Type economic system to gain popularity, people will have to feel that they are not sacrificing anything important to them. If people are told to give up their property, even if it is for the common good, they will resist, perhaps even violently, if they think this is a part of Big Brother's or the New World Order's plan to drag them to the work camps. So instead, they should be allowed to keep their property, unless it is to an unfair extent (slavery must absolutely be exempt from this consideration of course). I think this would help things go over much easier for the wealthy/"elite", if they were allowed to keep their fancy cars, their mansions, etc. One of the thorniest parts of a United Earth will be getting all of the countries to join such a world government, because if I remember right, I read something on the Venus Project website that said in order for this to work effectively, all countries will have to pitch in, otherwise we might fall short on the amount of resources available to distribute. If the dis-proportionment of resources didn't do Soviet Russia in, then it was probably not having enough resources to fairly sustain the entire population that did Soviet Russia in. People don't like to feel like they are being forced to do anything; if they are under the impression that it was their idea in the first place, or if they get to do things under their own terms, they will be much more prone to cooperating, and hopefully, everyone will end up happy.

These are my thoughts so far. I think I should read the other 4 pages first for any more insight before continuing any further.

That was alot of arguing back and forth.

Deks hasn't bothered to return to continue the arguing either.

[T'Girl]

JES wrote:

---

One of the thorniest parts of a United Earth will be getting all of the countries to join such a world government ...

There would have to be a compelling reason to unite under a single government, other than simply just to do it. Today nations can enter into multiple international organizations, trading blocks, defense agreements, etc. they don't have to become one government to receive those benefits.

Fifty years ago there were 163 sovereign nation on Earth, today there are (debatably) 195. The current move is toward more nations, not towards a single worldwide state.

I read something on the Venus Project website that said in order for this to work effectively, all countries will have to pitch in, otherwise we might fall short on the amount of resources available to distribute.

To me it kind of sounds like they (TVP) don't want there to be a "competing" system running side by side with theirs. Something that could be used to comparison test their system, and it's performance.

It would be something like with the peoples in eastern Europe during the cold war. They were situated between two competing economic systems (and forced to live under one), when they were finally able to choose which system to live under, the choice was an easy one. They picked the one shown to actually work in the real world, and not the one that worked in theory.

[Brainsucker]

JirinPanthosa wrote:

---

(Responding to OP not reading rest of thread first)

Sounds to me you don't accept the basic premise of the show. Yes, whenever they tried to abolish money and private property in the real world people got lazy and things went to crap. But in the future, nobody is lazy and everybody wants to improve themselves. Realistic? Maybe not, but that's the premise of the show.

I do think having no economy makes a little more sense in a world of abundance where scarcity of resources has been eliminated due to replicators. On Earth in Star Trek there is literally enough so that everybody can have everything they need.

Ah thank you for coming.
Yes, I didn't agree with the basic premise of the show, honestly. Because it's too idealistic and won't work for me with my logic (even when it's only a fiction)

Merry Christmas wrote:

---

That would depend on how much it cost to operate your replicator. The water that comes out of my kitchen faucet might seem to be free, but I do pay for it once a month.

Yes, it is. That's why I thought that maybe the people in Trek's Earth is paid by the energy allocation.
For example, I work as Closet Cleaner and I get 20 energy allocation, the other work as Starfleet Admiral and get 1000 energy allocation to use in replicator.
But someone here said that everything is free and they are all free loader. That's why I confused with how would the government control their civilization and make them responsible with their action? Everything need limit. Even with the use of Replicator, they need limitation, or else the energy distribution won't be enough.


Look at these two people.

One work as Closet Cleaner, the other as a doctor. Looking at these two, we would know that a Doctor is more important for the society than the closet cleaner (hell, who can prevent somebody from working as closet cleaner? if it is his / her choice? At least, closet cleaner is better than a vagabond). Then, the Closet Cleaner uses the energy allocation for a lot of useless things.

What prevent the doctor to think :
1. Hell, I'm cleverer than him (the closet cleaner), I worked hard with my study to become a doctor. And why would I got the same reward as that useless closet cleaner and the free loader? Shouldn't I just to become the free loader myself?
2. This is crazy. Why everyone are lazy? Why won't they become responsible like me? Look at me, a doctor. Work for the society. Why won't they work? Why The Government doesn't whip these useless Freeloader and make them more useful for the society? Yes, I have received appreciation. People rewards me with praise. But everyone can praise everyone else. and they gave me medal. Oh hell medal. I have a collection of them, but still, why I'm the only one who work here?

Because people have envy. They want equality, but everyone have their own capacity and work ethic. So how the Trek Earth give these useful doctor reward for their willingness to work hard and study for the society? A medal? A praise? or what? In today world, there is social status. A doctor would be have better social status than a beggar. But what about the Trek Earth?

Now there are two officers in the same ship

Officer A is very diligent, he is very dedicated and vigilant in his work. Nobody on the ship could work more than him. While Officer B is lazy. He's prefer to be in a holodeck more than in his work. Or maybe he work, but only because his commanding officer scold him periodically. Now, in our timeline, we could handle this matter by giving reward and punishment. We could give the diligent worker with bonus, wage raise, etc. In the end, the diligent worker would have better house, car, and other luxury that the world can provide, while the lazy one will never get anything.

But in the future? (in Trek world?)

The lazy one will think about this : Ah, the diligent get medal again. Well yes, congratulation for him. Cheer! Now, let me make a beer from the replicator for him. Well, I can give him whatever I want as it's free for both of us. So, when will I receive a medal like him? Ah go to hell. As long as I can masturbate in the holodeck I don't need anything else.

A medal? Common, just look at your surrounding school. Could you motivate the lazy students with only a medal? Yes, you can motivate the diligent one with medal, but you won't be able to whip the lazy people with only a medal.

and what about the punishment the lazy one? To be fired from the Starfleet? Common, there is no difference for him to being having a job or not. So no body would actually be afraid to be fired from the job.

Court Martial him? Well, it's work. But... are you sure that you'll be court martial ed by your superior just because you are lazy?

Now, please tell me how to handle this situation. And don't tell me the same "People in the future are diligent. Nobody are lazy, etc, etc, etc, again.

Or Genetic Engineered them by removing the lazy genes and putting the diligent one? Brainwash them with telepathic technology? Well, it's work. But you are no longer a whole human anymore if they are doing that to you.

One thing more :

Why limitation is important?

1. There is always limit for everybody energy reserve. The citizen should understand that their energy ration won't disturb the distribution of energy to the entire planet. Now let me ask you. what happen to you if I take your right of being able to use the replicator? If I use too much energy reserve in the world, there is a chance that I would taking the other people's energy for my own purpose.

2. To reward diligent people and person who contribute the society
2.

[Xhiandra]

Is it me or is the OP just engrigh McCarthyism101, replete with false dichotomies and oversimplifications?


Look, Brainsucker. I know modern society bashes into our skulls from a very young age that laziness is the ultimate crime (sadly, intellectual laziness isn't frowned upon, though) but have you ever examined that belief?
I used to think like you, when I was a teenager: ultra-capitalism "just made sense": it was a beautiful, self-regulated system with no discernible theoretical exploitable flaws (the past 4 years sure have proven the theory wrong on that aspect); but then I matured and discovered the meaning of "empathy": any system that leaves so many on its fringes, in dismal poverty, cannot be very good; any system where one man has to live in the streets so that another can live in decadent luxury cannot be very good.
Nobody deserves the former man's fate; nobody needs the latter man's riches, diligence or lack thereof be damned*.

*Clarification: I am not implying the poor are lazy; just pointing out that even if that was the case, their fate is undeserved.


Truth is, not only is "diligent vs lazy" a false dichotomy, it's not even true.
Nobody is "lazy" or "diligent", people are differently motivated to do different things; we might label those motivated to do X lazy and those motivated to do Y diligent, but those labels simply rely on the evaluated productivity of the action.
Nobody likes "doing nothing", over time boredom even leads to depression and eventually death (by suicide).

Maybe in the 23rd/24th century, the contemplative philosopher will be valued as much as (or even more than) the field labourer: he might not contribute to the community's material wealth, but his ponderings validate us all as a species; regardless of outcome.

[Brainsucker]

Xhiandra wrote:

---

Is it me or is the OP just engrigh McCarthyism101, replete with false dichotomies and oversimplifications?


Look, Brainsucker. I know modern society bashes into our skulls from a very young age that laziness is the ultimate crime (sadly, intellectual laziness isn't frowned upon, though) but have you ever examined that belief?
I used to think like you, when I was a teenager: ultra-capitalism "just made sense": it was a beautiful, self-regulated system with no discernible theoretical exploitable flaws (the past 4 years sure have proven the theory wrong on that aspect); but then I matured and discovered the meaning of "empathy": any system that leaves so many on its fringes, in dismal poverty, cannot be very good; any system where one man has to live in the streets so that another can live in decadent luxury cannot be very good.
Nobody deserves the former man's fate; nobody needs the latter man's riches, diligence or lack thereof be damned*.

*Clarification: I am not implying the poor are lazy; just pointing out that even if that was the case, their fate is undeserved.


Truth is, not only is "diligent vs lazy" a false dichotomy, it's not even true.
Nobody is "lazy" or "diligent", people are differently motivated to do different things; we might label those motivated to do X lazy and those motivated to do Y diligent, but those labels simply rely on the evaluated productivity of the action.
Nobody likes "doing nothing", over time boredom even leads to depression and eventually death (by suicide).

Maybe in the 23rd/24th century, the contemplative philosopher will be valued as much as (or even more than) the field labourer: he might not contribute to the community's material wealth, but his ponderings validate us all as a species; regardless of outcome.

It is interesting post, thanks. And now I'm an oversimplifications McCarthyism (although I'm not familiar with that name until I open Wikipedia. Well consider me an uneducated person; but I'm really not familiar with this man called Joseph McCarthy nor care about him prior this post. He is not even in any historical book that I have read until today. Or maybe I just lack of interest to American history in general. But thanks, this is indeed give me new insight).

And now I'm a person who lack of Empathy and compassion. So thank you. But still, I don't believe that having empathy and compassion would make us to give a person who work hard and people who isn't with the same reward. But I agree with you that "any system where one man has to live in the streets so that another can live in decadent luxury cannot be very good."

Remember, it is about a man has to live in the street SO that another CAN live in decadent luxury. It is different to a man who work hard and become rich, while the other being lazy and become poor.

It is not about lazy = poor. But, how to motivate this Lazy People to work / give contribution to the society. If he wants better house, better holodeck, etc, then work harder / contribute to the society more. You won't get anything if you just lock yourself inside your room and masturbate in the holodeck everyday.

"Maybe in the 23rd/24th century, the contemplative philosopher will be valued as much as (or even more than) the field labourer: he might not contribute to the community's material wealth, but his ponderings validate us all as a species; regardless of outcome"

Well yes, Philosopher is a man with a job being philosopher, not somebody lazy who love only masturbate in the holodeck all days long.

Nobody is "lazy" or "diligent", people are differently motivated to do different things; we might label those motivated to do X lazy and those motivated to do Y diligent, but those labels simply rely on the evaluated productivity of the action.
Nobody likes "doing nothing", over time boredom even leads to depression and eventually death (by suicide).

And what about people who hide in their room and masturbate / play game all day long? Their interest is play their thing or just play game without thinking about anything else? Ah, yes, you're right. They are not lazy, but diligent too. but in their own way.

Alright, because you give me "McCarthyism101", an American Term. A word that foreign to me. So now I give you Hikikomori, a Japanese term. Just googling it.

[T'Girl]

Xhiandra wrote:

---

any system where one man has to live in the streets so that another can live in decadent luxury cannot be very good

Except the mere presence of a wealth person doesn't necessitate that the one man "has" to live in the streets. There no direct connection. If you take the wealth person and all their money/possessions and somehow delete them from existence, the one man is still where he was before.

If you stipulate that the wealth person has a vendetta against the one man, and is purposely ruining his life, then that is something different. But simply being wealth doesn't mean the first person is the cause of the one man's street existence. Again, there is no direct connection.

What is the actual reason for the one man living on the streets? Is there drug and alcohol use? Are there psychological problems? I doubt it's because Donald Trump has a real nice house.

*****

scape·goat·ism

the act or practice of assigning blame or failure to others,
to deflect attention or responsibility away from oneself.

*****

[Brainsucker]

Merry Christmas wrote:

---

Except the mere presence of a wealth person doesn't necessitate that the one man "has" to live in the streets. There no direct connection. If you take the wealth person and all their money/possessions and somehow delete them from existence, the one man is still where he was before.

If you stipulate that the wealth person has a vendetta against the one man, and is purposely ruining his life, then that is something different. But simply being wealth doesn't mean the first person is the cause of the one man's street existence. Again, there is no direct connection.

What is the actual reason for the one man living on the streets? Is there drug and alcohol use? Are there psychological problems? I doubt it's because Donald Trump has a real nice house.

*****

scape·goat·ism

the act or practice of assigning blame or failure to others,
to deflect attention or responsibility away from oneself.

*****

I agree with you

But, the world is full of surprise. Everything can happen. Even Donald Trump can cause you to live on the street just because he has a very nice house. Maybe... just maybe, you went to a gambling den, meet Donald Trump there, play a high stage poker game, lost everything and have to live on the street after that. Who know, he used your money to build his new nice house.

[KamenRiderBlade]

Brainsucker wrote:

---

I agree with you

But, the world is full of surprise. Everything can happen. Even Donald Trump can cause you to live on the street just because he has a very nice house. Maybe... just maybe, you went to a gambling den, meet Donald Trump there, play a high stage poker game, lost everything and have to live on the street after that. Who know, he used your money to build his new nice house.

Then that is user stupidity.
The user made a bad choice in deciding to gamble at all.

[R. Star]

No! It's Donald Trump's fault! He opened that casino, MADE that poor man walk in and spend his rent money on it. That poor man did not actively make a choice and certainly under no circumstances should have to take responsibility for his actions. Perish the thought!

[T'Girl]

Brainsucker wrote:

---

just maybe, you went to a gambling den, meet Donald Trump there, play a high stage poker game, lost everything and have to live on the street after that. Who know, he used your money to build his new nice house.

Or, Donald Trump uses that money (and other money) to construct yet another casino/hotel. Employing thousands of high wage union construction workers, who spend their wages in the local economy. After construction, the casino/hotel employs several hundred staff employees for years on end, pumping even more money into the economy.

Wealth people hire others, homeless man in the streets hires no one.

Thank you wealthy people.

Star Grinch wrote:

---

under no circumstances should have to take responsibility for his actions

He really is the victim here. Don't believe me? Just ask him.

(sometime when he's sober)

[R. Star]

Merry Christmas wrote:

---

Or, Donald Trump uses that money (and other money) to construct yet another casino/hotel. Employing thousands of high wage union construction workers, who spend their wages in the local economy. After construction, the casino/hotel employs several hundred staff employees for years on end, pumping even more money into the economy.

Wealth people hire others, homeless man in the streets hires no one.

Thank you wealthy people.

He really is the victim here. Don't believe me? Just ask him.

(sometime when he's sober)

I love wealthy people. I get a check made out to me signed by one twice a month. It's great, I can pay my own bills, buy my own things, and not ask for handouts. All he asks is I show up to work every day and do a few things for him.

If the people who rail the most against rich people really believed in their convictions, they wouldn't cash those payroll checks, or accept handouts from taxpayers who worked for their "dirty money." But no, it's a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

Curse Donald Trump, he hates poor people and victimizes them with his wealth! Then again what do I know? I always think the people pointing the finger the most are just trying to get attention away from their own failings.

[Brainsucker]

I have a question here, regarding Star Trek Earth Society :

So, according to someone here that because there is no money so there won't be private company in the 24th century.

My question is... then, all companies are belong to the government? Why remind me of China and Soviet in '70?

[KamenRiderBlade]

Brainsucker wrote:

---

I have a question here, regarding Star Trek Earth Society :

So, according to someone here that because there is no money so there won't be private company in the 24th century.

My question is... then, all companies are belong to the government? Why remind me of China and Soviet in '70?

All because there isn't money doesn't mean everybody works for the state.

I don't even understand how you came to that logic.

[Brainsucker]

KamenRiderBlade wrote:

---

All because there isn't money doesn't mean everybody works for the state.

I don't even understand how you came to that logic.

Well, yes, not everyone works for the state. But all the companies belong to the state.