RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,397
Posts: 5,358,753
Members: 24,627
Currently online: 514
Newest member: space2050


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 30 2013, 11:45 PM   #586
Crazyewok
Commander
 
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Charles Phipps wrote: View Post
Bluntly, part of why I dislike this argument is that many times the individuals involved fall back on "The Couch Potato" argument which exists solely to serve his own needs and will exist as a drain on society unless motivated by fear of starvation.

The problem is, we have plenty of examples this flat out is not true in RL from people who are rich yet continue to work and people who are taken care of by socialist governments yet continue to work.

The thing is, many times arguers don't rebuttle these points, they flat out ignore them. This page is filled with mentions of these various RL incidents and the pro-money group's response is, "People won't work if they're not paid." It's like none of these things are even mentioned.

I'm a proponent of capitalism in RL but even I think people are SLIGHTLY more complex than this.
And you havent refuted my point.

Yes people will work for fun if the jobs rewarding and intresting.


But they wont work for free if they are paper clip pushers or doing a dirty smelly job or being a maid or butler for someone else. Especialy the last example who the hell is going to do a job or servitude for fun?

There has to be some incentive somewere.
Crazyewok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2013, 11:50 PM   #587
Charles Phipps
Commander
 
Charles Phipps's Avatar
 
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

But they wont work for free if they are paper clip pushers or doing a dirty smelly job or being a maid or butler for someone else. Especialy the last example who the hell is going to do a job or servitude for fun?
Social pressure, self-fulfillment, and/or opporunity for advancement. Also, I mentioned earlier that tough jobs might be easier with tech invented for them.
__________________
Check out the United Federation of Charles:
http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
Charles Phipps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2013, 12:14 AM   #588
marksound
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Planet Carcazed
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Charles Phipps wrote: View Post
Bluntly, part of why I dislike this argument is that many times the individuals involved fall back on "The Couch Potato" argument which exists solely to serve his own needs and will exist as a drain on society unless motivated by fear of starvation.

The problem is, we have plenty of examples this flat out is not true in RL from people who are rich yet continue to work and people who are taken care of by socialist governments yet continue to work.

The thing is, many times arguers don't rebuttle these points, they flat out ignore them. This page is filled with mentions of these various RL incidents and the pro-money group's response is, "People won't work if they're not paid." It's like none of these things are even mentioned.

I'm a proponent of capitalism in RL but even I think people are SLIGHTLY more complex than this.
I think you're wrong.

In real life, there is no scenario I've ever seen where this works.

If no one volunteers to do a particularly nasty but necessary job, who would assign someone to do it against his will?

If a person gets lazy and decides he doesn't want to work, would society cut off his food? Evict him from his home? If he is not contributing, is his life worth supporting? Then what? Exterminate the non-contributors and the undesirables?

Don't think it hasn't been proposed. George Bernard Shaw said, "Sir or madam, will you be kind enough to justify your existence?" Look into the early 20th century progressive movement, including eugenics. Yes, eugenics.

It's crazy, but it's true. How many people right here on this forum would eventually agree with a proposal like that if it meant not having to deal with people who don't think the way they do? People like me?
marksound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2013, 12:35 AM   #589
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Third Nacelle wrote: View Post
No, that's not currency at all. Exchanging one thing that has intrinsic value (be it grain or latinum) for another thing that has intrinsic value is bartering.
If latinum, and therefore gold, can't be considered a currency, and therefore money, I don't know what else we can talk about, here.
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2013, 12:55 AM   #590
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Charles Phipps wrote: View Post
The problem is, we have plenty of examples this flat out is not true in RL from people who are rich yet continue to work ...
Work for free? Some might volunteer their efforts for a charity, but when they work, they're still being paid aren't they?

... and people who are taken care of by socialist governments yet continue to work.
Again, are these people you speak of working at employment with no compensation?

Not hobbies, not volunteering, actual jobs.

The thing is, many times arguers don't rebuttle these points, they flat out ignore them.
Okay, I just now responded. Your turn.

Carcazoid wrote: View Post
If a person gets lazy and decides he doesn't want to work, would society cut off his food?
If it was society that was providing his food in the first place, maybe they would be cut back to good basic (really basic) nutritious food and clean water only. If they wish more than that, they can obtain employment somewhere.

Evict him from his home?
If it's his house? Not simply for not working, although in time he might lose it, mortgage and taxes.

On the other hand, if the house was being provided to him in exchange for the work he is now no longer performing, then a bed down at the local shelter can be allocated to him until he reacquires another job.

If he is not contributing, is his life worth supporting?
A minimum social safety net is reasonable, but it should never be so comfortable that people would desire to remain on it.

T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2013, 01:13 AM   #591
Charles Phipps
Commander
 
Charles Phipps's Avatar
 
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Work for free? Some might volunteer their efforts for a charity, but when they work, they're still being paid aren't they?
At a charity?

No.

Again, are these people you speak of working at employment with no compensation?

Not hobbies, not volunteering, actual jobs.
Internships.
__________________
Check out the United Federation of Charles:
http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
Charles Phipps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2013, 02:15 AM   #592
Third Nacelle
Captain
 
Third Nacelle's Avatar
 
Location: The Denorios Belt
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Just looking across this thread it's quite clear to me that a number of people would work for nothing, just to better themselves.

It also seems a large number of people would not work at all without compensation, and while that would be a big problem here in 2013, with the level of automation the Federation seems to have in the 23rd/24th centuries, those people probably would not be needed to work in that era.

So why is everyone so concerned with convincing these people to work?
Third Nacelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2013, 02:41 AM   #593
marksound
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Planet Carcazed
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Charles Phipps wrote: View Post
The problem is, we have plenty of examples this flat out is not true in RL from people who are rich yet continue to work ...
Work for free? Some might volunteer their efforts for a charity, but when they work, they're still being paid aren't they?

... and people who are taken care of by socialist governments yet continue to work.
Again, are these people you speak of working at employment with no compensation?

Not hobbies, not volunteering, actual jobs.

Okay, I just now responded. Your turn.

If it was society that was providing his food in the first place, maybe they would be cut back to good basic (really basic) nutritious food and clean water only. If they wish more than that, they can obtain employment somewhere.

Evict him from his home?
If it's his house? Not simply for not working, although in time he might lose it, mortgage and taxes.

On the other hand, if the house was being provided to him in exchange for the work he is now no longer performing, then a bed down at the local shelter can be allocated to him until he reacquires another job.

If he is not contributing, is his life worth supporting?
A minimum social safety net is reasonable, but it should never be so comfortable that people would desire to remain on it.

You stopped before the last part, which is inevitable in a "progressive" society. It has been proposed before. It has been done before. It will be done again unless we are aware of it and prevent it. I see the attitude here in these fora, just in discussion about a freaking tv/movie franchise. Read what people post, and tell me it isn't so.

Charles Phipps wrote: View Post
Work for free? Some might volunteer their efforts for a charity, but when they work, they're still being paid aren't they?
At a charity?

No.

Again, are these people you speak of working at employment with no compensation?

Not hobbies, not volunteering, actual jobs.
Internships.
Unpaid internships are volunteer work programs. People work for no pay in order to gain experience in their desired field so they may enter that field, for pay, with the gained experience.

Recently there have been lawsuits filed by people who have gained experience through unpaid internships who now want to be compensated for that work.

These people apparently place no value on the time spent learning how to work in their field. This will eventually kill the internship opportunities available, since companies won't want to be exposed to possible litigation.

But back to the topic ...
marksound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2013, 02:48 AM   #594
Charles Phipps
Commander
 
Charles Phipps's Avatar
 
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Unpaid internships are volunteer work programs. People work for no pay in order to gain experience in their desired field so they may enter that field, for pay, with the gained experience.

Recently there have been lawsuits filed by people who have gained experience through unpaid internships who now want to be compensated for that work.

These people apparently place no value on the time spent learning how to work in their field. This will eventually kill the internship opportunities available, since companies won't want to be exposed to possible litigation.

But back to the topic ...
So what would qualify as an unpaid job to you?

And the aforementioned people who violate the contract don't invalidate it.
__________________
Check out the United Federation of Charles:
http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
Charles Phipps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2013, 03:32 AM   #595
yousirname
Commander
 
yousirname's Avatar
 
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Charles Phipps wrote: View Post
Work for free? Some might volunteer their efforts for a charity, but when they work, they're still being paid aren't they?
At a charity?

No.
Just to say, many people who work for charities are paid for the work they do (I am, for example).
yousirname is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2013, 03:52 AM   #596
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Carcazoid wrote: View Post
Charles Phipps wrote: View Post
Bluntly, part of why I dislike this argument is that many times the individuals involved fall back on "The Couch Potato" argument which exists solely to serve his own needs and will exist as a drain on society unless motivated by fear of starvation.

The problem is, we have plenty of examples this flat out is not true in RL from people who are rich yet continue to work and people who are taken care of by socialist governments yet continue to work.

The thing is, many times arguers don't rebuttle these points, they flat out ignore them. This page is filled with mentions of these various RL incidents and the pro-money group's response is, "People won't work if they're not paid." It's like none of these things are even mentioned.

I'm a proponent of capitalism in RL but even I think people are SLIGHTLY more complex than this.
I think you're wrong.

In real life, there is no scenario I've ever seen where this works.

If no one volunteers to do a particularly nasty but necessary job, who would assign someone to do it against his will?

If a person gets lazy and decides he doesn't want to work, would society cut off his food? Evict him from his home? If he is not contributing, is his life worth supporting? Then what? Exterminate the non-contributors and the undesirables?

Don't think it hasn't been proposed. George Bernard Shaw said, "Sir or madam, will you be kind enough to justify your existence?" Look into the early 20th century progressive movement, including eugenics. Yes, eugenics.

It's crazy, but it's true. How many people right here on this forum would eventually agree with a proposal like that if it meant not having to deal with people who don't think the way they do? People like me?

er, you do realize that there are millions of people that don't work AT THIS VERY MOMENT who get support through welfare, right?

So WHY, in a post-scarcity future, where there's LESS NEED for work, would there be pressure to "get rid of those not contributing?" That makes no sense. I suspect that those who voluntarily chose not to work would be greeted with shrugs, since everyone would have enough resources to go around.


As to the "who does the crappy jobs?" argument, it's an easily taken care of one. Either technology would eliminate the need for those jobs, or they'd be rotated on a fair and democratic basis.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2013, 03:55 AM   #597
teacake
Admiral
 
teacake's Avatar
 
Location: Militant Janeway True Path Devotees Compound. With Sehlats.
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

sonak wrote: View Post
As to the "who does the crappy jobs?" argument, it's an easily taken care of one. Either technology would eliminate the need for those jobs, or they'd be rotated on a fair and democratic basis.
There would be a roster on the fridge.

I'd just get me an EMH Mark 1 and make him do it.
__________________

"Damnit Spock. God damnit!" Kirk ST:V
■ ■ ■
Janeway does Melbourne
teacake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2013, 04:00 AM   #598
marksound
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Planet Carcazed
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

sonak wrote: View Post
Carcazoid wrote: View Post
Charles Phipps wrote: View Post
Bluntly, part of why I dislike this argument is that many times the individuals involved fall back on "The Couch Potato" argument which exists solely to serve his own needs and will exist as a drain on society unless motivated by fear of starvation.

The problem is, we have plenty of examples this flat out is not true in RL from people who are rich yet continue to work and people who are taken care of by socialist governments yet continue to work.

The thing is, many times arguers don't rebuttle these points, they flat out ignore them. This page is filled with mentions of these various RL incidents and the pro-money group's response is, "People won't work if they're not paid." It's like none of these things are even mentioned.

I'm a proponent of capitalism in RL but even I think people are SLIGHTLY more complex than this.
I think you're wrong.

In real life, there is no scenario I've ever seen where this works.

If no one volunteers to do a particularly nasty but necessary job, who would assign someone to do it against his will?

If a person gets lazy and decides he doesn't want to work, would society cut off his food? Evict him from his home? If he is not contributing, is his life worth supporting? Then what? Exterminate the non-contributors and the undesirables?

Don't think it hasn't been proposed. George Bernard Shaw said, "Sir or madam, will you be kind enough to justify your existence?" Look into the early 20th century progressive movement, including eugenics. Yes, eugenics.

It's crazy, but it's true. How many people right here on this forum would eventually agree with a proposal like that if it meant not having to deal with people who don't think the way they do? People like me?

er, you do realize that there are millions of people that don't work AT THIS VERY MOMENT who get support through welfare, right?

So WHY, in a post-scarcity future, where there's LESS NEED for work, would there be pressure to "get rid of those not contributing?" That makes no sense. I suspect that those who voluntarily chose not to work would be greeted with shrugs, since everyone would have enough resources to go around.


As to the "who does the crappy jobs?" argument, it's an easily taken care of one. Either technology would eliminate the need for those jobs, or they'd be rotated on a fair and democratic basis.
You'd have to ask Mr. Shaw and his contemporaries. He asked, paraphrasing, "if your life is not contributing to society, what good is it to you?"

Look it up. Progressivism isn't the cure-all it's touted to be.
marksound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2013, 04:06 AM   #599
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Carcazoid wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
Carcazoid wrote: View Post

I think you're wrong.

In real life, there is no scenario I've ever seen where this works.

If no one volunteers to do a particularly nasty but necessary job, who would assign someone to do it against his will?

If a person gets lazy and decides he doesn't want to work, would society cut off his food? Evict him from his home? If he is not contributing, is his life worth supporting? Then what? Exterminate the non-contributors and the undesirables?

Don't think it hasn't been proposed. George Bernard Shaw said, "Sir or madam, will you be kind enough to justify your existence?" Look into the early 20th century progressive movement, including eugenics. Yes, eugenics.

It's crazy, but it's true. How many people right here on this forum would eventually agree with a proposal like that if it meant not having to deal with people who don't think the way they do? People like me?

er, you do realize that there are millions of people that don't work AT THIS VERY MOMENT who get support through welfare, right?

So WHY, in a post-scarcity future, where there's LESS NEED for work, would there be pressure to "get rid of those not contributing?" That makes no sense. I suspect that those who voluntarily chose not to work would be greeted with shrugs, since everyone would have enough resources to go around.


As to the "who does the crappy jobs?" argument, it's an easily taken care of one. Either technology would eliminate the need for those jobs, or they'd be rotated on a fair and democratic basis.
You'd have to ask Mr. Shaw and his contemporaries. He asked, paraphrasing, "if your life is not contributing to society, what good is it to you?"

Look it up. Progressivism isn't the cure-all it's touted to be.

what do Shaw's beliefs have to do with this thread? Why would I bother trying to defend them?
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2013, 04:30 AM   #600
Charles Phipps
Commander
 
Charles Phipps's Avatar
 
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

To offer a new subject: I dislike Roddenberry's feelings on religion disappearing in the future.

I also felt his view point on humanity no longer grieving and being "so perfect they're not human" was ludicrous.
__________________
Check out the United Federation of Charles:
http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
Charles Phipps is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.