RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,218
Posts: 5,347,043
Members: 24,607
Currently online: 686
Newest member: lueth2048

TrekToday headlines

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

IDW Publishing Comic Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

A Baby For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

Klingon Beer Arrives In The US
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Star Trek: Prelude To Axanar
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Abrams Announces Star Wars: Force For Change Sweepstakes
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

New Funko Trek Figure
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Saldana As A Role Model
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

San Diego Comic-Con Trek Fan Guide
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Cumberbatch As Turing
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21


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 March 22 2014, 07:51 PM   #121
Nightdiamond
Fleet Captain
 
Nightdiamond's Avatar
 
Location: California
Re: What is civlian life like in the Federation?

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
*This continues even into the 24th century. There is a late TNG episode, for example, where Riker cashes in all of his Federation credit vouchers at Quark's bar so he can get some information. (And yes, he uses that phrase.) And don't forget the very FIRST TNG ep, where Beverly buys that fabric and says they should put it on her "account". Seems pretty cut-and-dried: to have an "account", you have to have a monetary system of SOME kind.
But I noticed that it is only Starfleet officers using credits-- My guess is that Starfleet officers are given an account where they earn credits to use with other cultures that use money.

For things like shore leave, purchasing special items, conventions, alien space stations. It's a must.

Jake on the other hand being a civilian, doesn't have any money--not even Federation credits. As long as he used the Starfleet replicators, he's fine. Otherwise, he was pretty much helpless to do anything that required money.

It's times like this that I wish one of the Trek shows was still airing on TV because it's so much fun when you notice certain things that stick out.

You just have to appreciate how odd some of this looks in light of what the characters sometimes claim.

It's like Humans apparently go through all the motions of a work/commerce without actually doing it.

Jake sells his stories to the Fed News Service--but they pay him nothing because Earth has no currency system. He uses the words, describes the process, but he was not paid anything.

So then you have to wonder--in the 24th century, where all needs and wants are met easily...no poverty, no need for money.....

...if there are maids or janitors--and there is no money or compensation to be earned and at times you have to clean up disgusting things, or put up with an obnoxious boss who talks down to you--why would they do it?

It's just interesting to watch.

Last edited by Nightdiamond; March 22 2014 at 08:02 PM.
Nightdiamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 22 2014, 08:14 PM   #122
bbjeg
Vice Admiral
 
bbjeg's Avatar
 
Location: ˙ɐlnqǝu sıɥʇ uı ʞɔnʇS
Re: What is civlian life like in the Federation?

Nightdiamond wrote: View Post
But I noticed that it is only Starfleet officers using credits-- My guess is that Starfleet officers are given an account where they earn credits to use with other cultures that use money.

For things like shore leave, purchasing special items, conventions, alien space stations. It's a must.

Jake on the other hand being a civilian, doesn't have any money--not even Federation credits. As long as he used the Starfleet replicators, he's fine. Otherwise, he was pretty much helpless to do anything that required money.
...
Then why call them Federation credits instead of Starfleet credits?

In Jake's case, at the time when he said he had no money, he didn't have a job as well.

I think Mr. Laser Beam and T'Girl have a point with the Federation credits. Maybe in the Federation, food, transportation, and shelter is free but Holodeck usage, interplanetary travel (or a shuttle), or obtaining scientific equipment costs Federation credits which are obtained by working but you don't have to work..

Last edited by bbjeg; March 22 2014 at 09:20 PM.
bbjeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 22 2014, 10:24 PM   #123
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: What is civlian life like in the Federation?

Nightdiamond wrote: View Post
But I noticed that it is only Starfleet officers using credits
No, Cyrano Jones and the Bartender negotiated in credits, and they're both civilians, on what is apparently a civilian space station.

Jake on the other hand being a civilian, doesn't have any money--not even Federation credits.
In the episode Progress, Jake and Nog conduit a business deal that earn them each a equal share of Latinum. Jake at this point has money.

Jake's later denouncement of money, and his avocation of "I don't need money," is paper thin. Jake has obtained money when it suited his needs.

Jake sells his stories to the Fed News Service--but they pay him nothing ...
Jake admitted to Quark that he was employing a euphemism. While Jake did said they weren't going to pay him, he didn't say that the Fed News Service doesn't pay anyone.

Arpy wrote: View Post
What irks me most about today's society is the inequity of it more than the inequality.
The notion of fairness is tied to the work of fiction that somehow we're all equal. Equal in abilities, talents, drive, intelligence.

Saying that everyone should have the same chances in business, is like saying everyone should have the same chances in the music industry.

Society (like life itself) isn't fair.

If you're sixty years old and out of shape you can try out for the Olympic Team, but it's doubtful you'll be selected.

We don't all have the same opportunities.
Nor do we all have the same attributes.

Oh Gene couldn't explain how the moneyless economy worked? Oh. Could he explain explain the FTL?
The thing there is they did attempt a (admittedly technobabble) explanation. A shorter versions on the show, later a more lengthy explanation in the (non-canon) TNG tech manual. Warp drives, transporters, replicators, weapons, etc..

With the economic system they didn't even try.

T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 23 2014, 04:42 AM   #124
PhoenixClass
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: What is civlian life like in the Federation?

T'Girl wrote: View Post

The notion of fairness is tied to the work of fiction that somehow we're all equal. Equal in abilities, talents, drive, intelligence.

Saying that everyone should have the same chances in business, is like saying everyone should have the same chances in the music industry.

Society (like life itself) isn't fair.

If you're sixty years old and out of shape you can try out for the Olympic Team, but it's doubtful you'll be selected.
Your responses are strawmen. You're arguing against points Arpy didn't even make. He was talking about inefficient and harmful maldistribution of wealth. He did not say anything about economic differences per se.

Maybe you mistyped something, but your point about the music industry doesn't make any sense. Neither does your point about the Olympics. Again, Arpy didn't say anything about people being chosen for jobs they are not capable of.

Arpy was arguing that oligarchs and billionaires have more money than they deserve given the work those individuals actually do - an unfair and economically nonsensical result.

The notion of fairness is tied to the fact that we're all equal in dignity.
PhoenixClass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 23 2014, 05:07 AM   #125
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: What is civlian life like in the Federation?

Nightdiamond wrote: View Post
Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
*This continues even into the 24th century. There is a late TNG episode, for example, where Riker cashes in all of his Federation credit vouchers at Quark's bar so he can get some information. (And yes, he uses that phrase.) And don't forget the very FIRST TNG ep, where Beverly buys that fabric and says they should put it on her "account". Seems pretty cut-and-dried: to have an "account", you have to have a monetary system of SOME kind.
But I noticed that it is only Starfleet officers using credits
That's just because most of the regular characters are Starfleet.

Jake sells his stories to the Fed News Service--but they pay him nothing because Earth has no currency system. He uses the words, describes the process, but he was not paid anything.
Apparently Jake's a masochist, then, because I'd wager that journalism is hard work. You wouldn't do something like that without a kind of compensation.
__________________
In labor news: Longshoremen walked off the piers today. Rescue operations are continuing.
Mr. Laser Beam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 23 2014, 03:03 PM   #126
RandyS
Vice Admiral
 
RandyS's Avatar
 
Location: Randyland
View RandyS's Twitter Profile
Re: What is civlian life like in the Federation?

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Nightdiamond wrote: View Post
But I noticed that it is only Starfleet officers using credits
No, Cyrano Jones and the Bartender negotiated in credits, and they're both civilians, on what is apparently a civilian space station.
The whole "No money" thing originated with Nick Meyer, not Gene Roddenberry. It was a joke line in Star Trek IV:

Taylor: Don't tell me, they don't use money in the 23rd century.

Kirk: Well, we don't.

Meyer wrote the 1986 parts of IV, so the (supposed to be) one-off joke originated with him. For some reason, the TNG and other spin-off writers latched onto this.

There WAS money in TOS, which we saw in a partial conversation between Spock and Kirk. I forget which episode, but it went something like this:

Kirk: Do you know how much the Federation has invested in your Starfleet training?

Spock: Aproximately seven thousand--

Then he got interrupted.
RandyS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 23 2014, 03:20 PM   #127
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: What is civlian life like in the Federation?

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
Nightdiamond wrote: View Post
Jake sells his stories to the Fed News Service--but they pay him nothing because Earth has no currency system. He uses the words, describes the process, but he was not paid anything.
Apparently Jake's a masochist, then, because I'd wager that journalism is hard work. You wouldn't do something like that without a kind of compensation.
The local news stations here in Seattle accept stories submitted by their viewers.

The submitters don't get paid, although the professional reporters who work directly for the station do get paid. Students can sometimes get temporary press credentials through the stations to obtain access to press events.

But they still don't get paid.

Jake Sisko's situation might be similar, he did get some kind of credentials eventually didn't he?

PhoenixClass wrote: View Post
Your responses are strawmen. You're arguing against points Arpy didn't even make.
What irks me most about today's society is the inequity of it more than the inequality.

Arpy spoke of being irritated by the lack of fairness in our modern society, my response was addressed to that. I used examples that I felt presented my position and made my point.

My position on his assertion concerning inequity.

Strawman where?

He was talking about inefficient and harmful maldistribution of wealth.
I was addressing Arpy's statement specifically concerning social fairness.

He did not say anything about economic differences per se.
But he did write about people not having "the same opportunities." Of course people don't have the same opportunities, how could we?

The notion of fairness is tied to the fact that we're all equal in dignity
I don't see that particular tie. And dignity has to do with being worthy of honor or respect, so no we're not "all" equal there. It has to do with what kind of person each of us are.

T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 23 2014, 04:17 PM   #128
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: What is civlian life like in the Federation?

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Nightdiamond wrote: View Post
But I noticed that it is only Starfleet officers using credits
No, Cyrano Jones and the Bartender negotiated in credits, and they're both civilians, on what is apparently a civilian space station.

Jake on the other hand being a civilian, doesn't have any money--not even Federation credits.
In the episode Progress, Jake and Nog conduit a business deal that earn them each a equal share of Latinum. Jake at this point has money.

Jake's later denouncement of money, and his avocation of "I don't need money," is paper thin. Jake has obtained money when it suited his needs.

Jake admitted to Quark that he was employing a euphemism. While Jake did said they weren't going to pay him, he didn't say that the Fed News Service doesn't pay anyone.

The notion of fairness is tied to the work of fiction that somehow we're all equal. Equal in abilities, talents, drive, intelligence.

Saying that everyone should have the same chances in business, is like saying everyone should have the same chances in the music industry.

Society (like life itself) isn't fair.

If you're sixty years old and out of shape you can try out for the Olympic Team, but it's doubtful you'll be selected.

We don't all have the same opportunities.
Nor do we all have the same attributes.

Oh Gene couldn't explain how the moneyless economy worked? Oh. Could he explain explain the FTL?
The thing there is they did attempt a (admittedly technobabble) explanation. A shorter versions on the show, later a more lengthy explanation in the (non-canon) TNG tech manual. Warp drives, transporters, replicators, weapons, etc..

With the economic system they didn't even try.



your response is the typical rationalization given to anyone who has ever questioned an unfair or unequal order or system: point out the undeniable truth that life is unfair and then go from that to pull off the sleight of hand that the unfairness represented in a SYSTEM is actually just a reflection of the natural inequality of nature.


translation: just because someone is rich, DOESN'T mean that they're smarter, faster, or harder-working than a teacher, policeman, or firefighter.


"life is unfair" is not a trump card when someone asks why a woman should have to work 70 hours and two jobs to make ends meet while a guy with a trust fund doesn't because he had the "natural ability" to be born to the right parents.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 23 2014, 04:43 PM   #129
PhoenixClass
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: What is civlian life like in the Federation?

I'll try to rephrase:

T'Girl wrote: View Post
The notion of fairness is tied to the work of fiction that somehow we're all equal. Equal in abilities, talents, drive, intelligence.

Your point about the fiction of equality in abilities is a strawman because Arpy never claimed that.

Fairness is being "just or appropriate in the circumstances." It does not mean that people in different circumstances should be treated the same. He was saying that people that don't work harder or differently than anyone else get way more money than people doing comparable levels of work. His point about lack of opportunity and safeguards was intended to highlight factors other than drive or ability that affect success. Thus, Arpy concluded that wealth is distributed unfairly.


Saying that everyone should have the same chances in business, is like saying everyone should have the same chances in the music industry.
Since the music industry is a business, what you said is, "Saying that everyone should have the same chances in business, is like saying everyone should have the same chances in business." I don't know what you are trying to say.

If you're sixty years old and out of shape you can try out for the Olympic Team, but it's doubtful you'll be selected.
Strawman as I explained above.

What I was trying to say about fairness and dignity was said best by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.
PhoenixClass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 24 2014, 06:52 PM   #130
Arpy
Rear Admiral
 
Re: What is civlian life like in the Federation?

What Phoenix and sonak said. ...We need a Worf-nods-with-admiration emoticon.

"Life isn't fair" is an observation not an aspiration.
Arpy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 24 2014, 09:33 PM   #131
BMariner
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: What is civlian life like in the Federation?

Arpy wrote: View Post
What Phoenix and sonak said. ...We need a Worf-nods-with-admiration emoticon.

"Life isn't fair" is an observation not an aspiration.
I think fairness should be an aspiration. The question is in the definition of "fairness" and how it is to be achieved. Too bad Trek, for all its social evangelizing, didn't even touch it.
BMariner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 25 2014, 08:25 PM   #132
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Re: What is civlian life like in the Federation?

BMariner wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
that's a stupid way of "poking fun."
I think it's an awesome way of poking fun.
Then you are not responding to actual socialist arguments, but are instead attributing false claims to the socialist argument for you to dismantle. The term for this is "strawman."

sonak wrote: View Post
Even hard-core socialists respect personal property that's actively being used for something and by someone.
You just keep telling yourself that.
I am a socialist (a member of Democratic Socialists of America, to be precise), and I spend a lot of time reading socialist and socialist-leaning opinion sites. I have never encountered a socialist who thinks that personal property should be subject to arbitrary confiscation.

T'Girl wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
That's like saying "in a socialist society I could just take your car from you while you're asleep!"
So if I owned let's say a newspaper business, you (hypothetically) the socialist government could not simply nationalize that newspaper, and use it to spread the governments version of the "truth?"
There are two separate issues at play here:

1. The right of the government to confiscate property and what circumstances should govern such confiscation.

2. The use of media by elites to spread propaganda.

With regards to #2, let's make one thing very clear: Media is used under capitalist systems to spread propaganda just as clearly as it was under Stalinist or Maoist systems. The only variable is which piece of rhetoric the particular set of elites in question used to justify their undemocratic domination of society.

With regards to #1, let's not pretend that capitalist systems actually view the right of personal property as sacrosanct. Eminent domain was placed into the Constitution itself exist for a reason -- even the 18th century oligarchs who wrote the United States Constitution recognized that sometimes the right of the people to receive a public good outweighed the right of an individual to a piece of property. So if you think the government should never, ever be able to confiscate a piece of property, then let's be fair in our condemnations; this is a "sin" all societies share equally.

Meanwhile, goodness knows that capitalist police forces feel free to confiscate personal property from citizens for completely arbitrary reasons, with no real due process, if those persons are poor and the police claim to be conducting a drug-related investigation. Just read this account of police confiscating the personal property of a woman whose estranged husband was a suspect in a drug investigation -- including things like a PlayStation -- to see how little the capitalist system actually cares for the personal property rights of those without wealth and power.

So, the questions are: Are there any circumstances under which it is appropriate for the state to confiscate property, and, if so, under what circumstances can such confiscation be appropriate?

As a democratic socialist, I do not think your scenario -- the government nationalizing a newspaper in order to spread propaganda and suppress dissent -- is appropriate at all. However, I also do not recognize the so-called "right" of a person to "own" a firm whose wealth is actually created by the labor of its employees. In my view, such an "ownership" system -- the private ownership of social wealth -- is a work of legal fiction.

I would view it as appropriate for the government to make the firm publishing this newspaper into an employee-owned cooperative subject to democratic management, with a board of directors and upper management elected by all employees in a one-person-one-vote system.

All other things being equal, if one particular person wishes to have a media platform that reflects his views and his views alone, then I think he has an obligation to run and maintain such a platform himself -- a possibility that has become exceedingly plausible in the modern world, where we can all obtain and maintain media platforms with no real barriers to large audiences for free or at minimal costs. But if he requires the labor of others to maintain his media platform, then he should carry a legal obligation to run that platform democratically and reflect their policy agenda in the product, too.

I am open to the idea that maybe someone who founds a firm by taking the risk of investing her own capital ought to receive a greater share of the profits and have the firm reflect her individual vision -- at least for a time. But I think that as a firm grows larger and larger, there comes a point where the labor of the employees is more important than the initial risk undertaken by the firm's initiator; at that point, the firm should be switched into a democratically-managed cooperative. I'm open to different ideas about when that point is reached, however.

BMariner wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
I will, because it's the truth, and something that one could find out by researching the subject for about five minutes.
Graduated with a poli sci major, thank you very much.
I hold a Bachelor of the Arts in Political Science with a Concentration in International Relations, thank you very much. And sonak is right -- your scenario is specious and can be debunked by a very small amount of research into actual socialist proposals.

Phoenix class is correct in that there are different manifestations of socialism. I would call it different degrees of socialism-- different points along the same spectrum.
Differences in points along the spectrum matter. Otherwise, you'd be forced to conflate Augusto Pinochet with Winston Churchill just because they both happen to have been capitalists. Democratic capitalism is very different from authoritarian capitalism -- just as democratic socialism is very different from authoritarian socialism.

And, no, not all socialist visions involve state ownership of firms. The communal ownership of the means of production can be accomplished through employee-owned cooperatives, for instance.

I think American pop culture, including Trek, is so quick and eager to praise socialistic societies, yet leaves the darker sides of that economic system completely unexplored.
Oh, please. "Socialism" has been a dirty word in American popular culture for decades. One of the most reliable rhetorical devices used to suppress those who dissent from laissez-faire capitalist arguments has been to engage in red-baiting. Socialism is constantly demonized and conflated with authoritarian communism or with fascism. The only relevant center-left party in the United States isn't even a member of the Socialist International, and has spent thirty years moving steadily further and further to the political right (to the point where its signature health-care law was actually invented by a right-wing think tank and first implemented on the state level by an avowed capitalist).

What you're reacting to is a trend in the more liberal -- not socialist, but liberal; liberals believe in capitalism with some socialistic modifications to curb its worst excesses, but still believe in the private ownership of the means of production -- content creators in U.S. popular culture to use their platforms to criticize the worst aspects of laissez-faire capitalism. But most influential people in American popular culture are opponents of laissez-faire capitalism, not capitalism period. (Once again -- differences in points along a spectrum matter.)

You want to brag about your tech socialism? Fine, but give me an episode or two where we delve into its darker sides too. Sci Fi should have no sacred cows.
I think this is fair. No economic system will ever be perfect; all systems have their costs and benefits. Showing these costs and benefits would make for compelling drama.

Arpy wrote: View Post
I don't know how I ultimately feel about there not being any money in the Federation. What irks me most about today's society is the inequity of it more than the inequality. The meritocracy is a falsehood to maintain order. We don't all have the same opportunities. We don't all have the sane safeguards.
Exactly. The system is rigged and always has been, and it merely uses the rhetoric of equal opportunity to justify economic exploitation.

I would in fact go one step further: I would argue that it is inherent to any meritocratic system that those who benefit from the meritocracy will eventually find ways to subvert the rules of fair competition in order to benefit themselves and their allies. Meritocracy cannot function in the long term, because it will always be subverted and produce an oligarchical class. As Christopher Hayes argues in his book Twilight of the Elites: America After Meritocracy, "He who says meritocracy says oligarchy."

Dunno. I love Ron Moore but he's a twat to ridicule something he doesn't understand. Oh Gene couldn't explain how the moneyless economy worked? Oh. Could he explain explain the FTL?
I don't think Moore was being a twat; I think it's legitimate to make fun of poorly thought-out pieces of worldbuilding. I wonder if Moore might have worked to develop a more science-fictional economic system that reconciled the various seemingly contradictory clues throughout Star Trek if he had been the showrunner on TNG or DSN.

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
Nightdiamond wrote: View Post
Jake sells his stories to the Fed News Service--but they pay him nothing because Earth has no currency system. He uses the words, describes the process, but he was not paid anything.
Apparently Jake's a masochist, then, because I'd wager that journalism is hard work. You wouldn't do something like that without a kind of compensation.
The local news stations here in Seattle accept stories submitted by their viewers.
Which I rather object to -- it's an act of exploitation to accept a story produced by someone's labor without compensating him or her for that labor. The fact that this person is blinded by the media attention does not make it any less exploitative.

T'Girl wrote:
The notion of fairness is tied to the fact that we're all equal in dignity
I don't see that particular tie.
And thus T'Girl once again reveals her hierarchical political agenda that seeks to find rhetorical justification for policies that are blatantly designed to enrich some at the expense of many -- her constant agenda to justify oppression and injustice. "Some people are just better than others, they should benefit from other people suffering."

* * *

I'm going to end by quoting a previous post of mine wherein I speculate about how the Federation economy works, attempting to reconcile various contradictory pieces of evidence, and to reconcile them with Gene Roddenberry's anti-capitalist inclinations:

Star Trek is full of contradictory information about whether or not the Federation uses money or engages in economic exchanges using currency. You have Picard declaring that humanity does not use money in "The Neutral Zone;" you have Crusher charging a purchase to her account in "Encounter at Farpoint;" you have Scotty buying a boat in Star Trek VI and Kirk selling a house in GEN; you have Tom Paris talking about money going the way of the dinosaur in "Dark Frontier," and the Federation offering to pay for access to the Barzan Wormhole in TNG. It's all over the place.

To me, the simplest way to reconcile this is to assume that the Federation uses electronic currency (called "credits") rather than physical currency, and to assume that the Federation's welfare system is so extensive and can so easily provide so much that Federates can live in conditions we would today consider to be middle-class comfort without having to work for a living.

The Federation being therefore able to guarantee such a high standard of living to everyone on its core planets, the "playing field" is therefore finally truly level -- unlike the so-called "meritocratic" capitalism that exists today, in which the game is clearly rigged to redistribute wealth to the top. (Just ask the residents of Camden, New Jersey, or rural West Virginia, how much of an "equal opportunity" they ever had.)

So starting from that level playing field, Federates do seem to engage in some competitive economic activities, as demonstrated by things like Joseph's restaurant in New Orleans, or Quark needing to purchase passage back to DS9 from Earth, Scotty's buying a boat, etc. I imagine that for luxuries that cannot be easily replicated or otherwise provided for in the welfare system -- a beachfront mansion, for instance -- citizens do compete to gain such wealth. This would provide incentives for innovation, the biggest advantage of capitalism. Presuming an extensive welfare state, however, accounts for canonical references to money no longer being the driving force in society, to people working to improve themselves and humanity rather than for mere economic gain, and accounts for the idea of money as people of the 20th and mid-21st Centuries understand it, no longer existing.

(Ironically, only by starting from a perspective of wealth redistribution to create some equality can a truly competitive system of economic exchange emerge. Of course, as David Brin argues, this might not have surprised Adam Smith -- who favored an economy of mostly-equal economic actors competing with one-another, but investing their profits into the commons and preventing too much wealth accumulation. Adam Smith and Karl Marx may have had more in common than people imagine.)

The following is my speculation on how the Federation would seek to preserve the advantages of limited economic inequality and competition while preserving its broadly egalitarian welfare economy:

I imagine that the Federation likely has several systems in place to prevent the rise of an aristocracy -- limits on wealth inheritance; taxation to redistribute some wealth back to the lower income brackets; a limit to how much wealth a person may accumulate, etc.

And I imagine the Federation also structures business entities very differently than they do today. Modern private businesses are usually bottom-up redistribution machines -- they take the wealth employees generate each day in the form of their labor, compensate employees with a value that is less than the wealth they generate, and then redistribute the rest to the owners of the business in the form of "profits." A Federation dedicated to economic justice, I argue, would require business entities to compensate employees with value equal to that which they create: an equitable distribution of profits to all employees, with ownership of the business being shared equally by all employees.

After all, the justification for a business being "owned" by someone at the top (in spite of his business being utterly dependent upon the labor of many other people called "employees") is that he took a financial risk by investing capital into the business -- but in a society in which wealth is much more broadly equal than it is today, it seems unlikely that society would need a class who own greater capital to invest such capital in order to create businesses. Worker-owned cooperatives seem like they'd be much more common, once society is freed from the existing systems of inequality that require a capitalist class to initiate an enterprise.

Broadly-speaking, therefore, I am presuming that the Federation can be described as a socialist society. Not in the sense of there being state ownership of all enterprises, but in the sense of the private ownership of the means of production being broadly ended, and social ownership of the means of production (in the form of democratically-controlled worker-owned cooperatives) being the new norm.

So what does that mean for Star Trek? Well, I am presuming, for instance, that there is a strong possibility that Sisko's Creole Kitchen in New Orleans is not actually owned by Joseph Sisko, but that it is in fact a worker-owned cooperative of which Joseph is the founder and head -- sharing ownership of the restaurant with the waiters and kitchen staff, democratically elected to lead it, but not owning it per se, and sharing all profits equitably with his staff. Same, perhaps, with Broht & Forrester, the holonovel-publishing company in "Author, Author." Same, perhaps, with the mining company on Janus IV in "The Devil in the Dark." Etc. To be honest, I can't recall any character in ST being described as "owning" a business himself -- nor can I recall any reference to "shareholders."

Of course, as anyone who recognizes the logo I'm currently using as my avatar might surmise, I myself am a socialist, so of course I'd be inclined to view the Federation as a socialist democracy.

Still, I think this can all be summed up best by this image, taken from Young Democratic Socialists's Facebook page:

__________________
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." - George Orwell, 1946
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 25 2014, 09:01 PM   #133
BMariner
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: What is civlian life like in the Federation?

I love when people choose to tout their own view primarily by trashing another's. (Capitalism sucks. Go socialism!!)

Sci, you have way too much time on your hands.
BMariner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 25 2014, 09:17 PM   #134
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Re: What is civlian life like in the Federation?

BMariner wrote: View Post
I love when people choose to tout their own view primarily by trashing another's.
We cannot discuss what civilian life in the Federation is like without discussing the economic system. Because the Federation is explicitly supposed to have a social structure that is more enlightened and provides greater freedom than our own, we cannot do this without discussing how we think the economic system ought to be organized.

I spent time in that post discussing what I think is wrong with capitalism. I spent time in that post discussing how I think an enlightened economy ought to work -- and particularly by trying to reconcile canonical clues about the Federation economy with one-another and with Roddenberry's explicitly anti-capitalist views.

Both efforts made up a significant portion of the post; if you claim that it was "primarily" one or the other, than you didn't pay attention to the content of the posts.

Sci, you have way too much time on your hands.
Don't forget to accuse me of having cooties. An attempt to change the topic needs to have more teeth than that!
__________________
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." - George Orwell, 1946
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 25 2014, 09:31 PM   #135
BMariner
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: What is civlian life like in the Federation?

Sci wrote: View Post
Don't forget to accuse me of having cooties. An attempt to change the topic needs to have more teeth than that!
Not trying to change the topic at all. I did read your post thoroughly, and while you did address how an "enlightened" society might work within the scope of Trek, you didn't balance your general criticism of capitalism with a defense of (or praise for) socialism. By all means, enlighten me. What is awesome about socialism?
BMariner 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 06:53 PM.

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