How would a society with no money work?

[T'Girl]

If you reject the premise that humans could ever move beyond their current conflicts and desires, you reject the premise of non-DS9 Star Trek.

The premise of Star Trek is action and adventure in outer space.

Let's assume that the whole population of the planet Earth now has no need for money, because the united government (through that wonderful invention the replicator) provides every citizen with their three square meals a day, and everybody lives rent free in studio apartments provided by same government, and that their entertainment is provided by the ...

But when have we ever seen this on the show? Adults on the show are show as having jobs (or are the spouse of such a person), I can immediately remember only one adult from within the Federation directly stating they were unemployed.

Where does this assumption come from, because it isn't from the show itself.

maybe in Star Trek's time, the people who "join up" do work without pay, on the understanding that their expenses are all taken care of

Which is great as long as you never leave/retire from Starfleet, and as long as you have no financial responsibilities or commitments outside of Starfleet while you are in Starfleet.

If humans have access to all these luxuries, probably for free

And there's that assumption again, why is it probably free?

Lots of massive dicks around on earth in the 24th century.

Umm, got any phone numbers?

Back in the 1960s Trek it is mentioned that most, if not all criminals with mental issues are treated via medication.

Not at all, are you thinking about the criminally insane? TOS mentions that Harry Mudd received psychological "treatment" which obviously didn't prevent repeat behavior, that treatment might have involved drugs. In the 24th century jails and penal colonies still exist.

Again, modern capitalist society doesn't translate well to a post-scarcity democratic socialist / communist society.

But it does translate well if what the Federation actually possesses is a recognizable market economy.

In the Trek society you could simply replicate one

Providing of course that you can both afford to purchase a replicator in the first place, and have the financial means to operate it. It's made clear in TNG and VOY that a replicator consumes a lot of power.

First, you're assuming everyone would want to live at the beach.

I think that "live on a beach" means obtaining something that is in limited supply and can't be casually created, it's like who gets to live in the penthouse of a residential tower. Is there going to be constructed a otherwise unoccupied residential tower just so you can live on top of it? Of course not, there is going to be some form of mechanism in place to determine who can acquire the more desirable property, today that's money.

Who gets passed the matire'd at that trendy new 5-star bistro? Anyone/everyone?

there's a good chance they reclaim all the matter they can for use in replicators

Accord to the ST: TNG tech manual (non-canon) the replicator reclaims "up to" 82% of materials.

Rather than letting the citizens struggle, fight, starve, and die to meet their basic needs, everyone is provided for

No, while there would be a low level societal safety net, the majority of people wouldn't require being provided for.

The vast majority of people will provide for themselves and their families, without any assistance

")

 

[Autistoid]

I think some of ya'll need to get some sense of reality.


I live in a part of canada where using welfare is the norm. Nobody where I'm from staves or has any need to work.

That being said it's considered socially pathetic to sit around and do nothing.

Regardless were living in a relative utopia now, and that's all utopia ever can be relative.

It's not an absolutist term, but if you aren't some paranoid wacko you'll quickly realize life is so much better than it was a century ago, or even since 1965.

 

[Stoo]

Another things occured to me with the talk of beaches... enough people want a beach they can probably just go make one.

The premise of Star Trek is action and adventure in outer space.

It also has particular ideas, fairly close to the heart of its philsophy, about how future society on earth works. That people have been able to put aside problems like greed, massive inequality and conflict over resources.

So really to try and twist it into something closer to present day attitudes and economies is basically making an argument dishonestly, or at least in the wrong way. You're really trying to say either this part of the premise is unrealistic (sure) or that you don't like a society that works that way (weird, but, okay).

 

[hux]

Who got there last? That's usually the one left out. That isn't status, that timing. Is there room to build another house? If so, they build one. If not, they go find another beach. They can still live by a beach, they just can't live by this one because they came too late. That's not the fault of an economics system nor defining status. That's time and space.

Slightly missing the point. Let me break it down further

There are five (5) million beach houses available (on the entire planet). There are seventy (70) million people who want to live in one

In this utopia, houses are free and not dependent upon anyone's wealth....right?

So who gets to live in them? What was the criteria that meant they got to live in one of these beach houses while others did not? Who decides? If a beach house becomes available, of those who want it, who is chosen and why? How did the people who already have a beach house get chosen?

The point here is that you cannot simply ask people to be nice and accept that society is unequal and has a limited supply of privileges.......we don't ask this of people today so why would we ask it of people in the trek future?

Just because everyone has a replicator and a sex holodeck, doesn't mean their basic sense of justice will go away (which is what this is really about....not greed). You qualifying for the beach house while I don't, simply isn't fair

I think that "live on a beach" means obtaining something that is in limited supply and can't be casually created, it's like who gets to live in the penthouse of a residential tower. Is there going to be constructed a otherwise unoccupied residential tower just so you can live on top of it? Of course not, there is going to be some form of mechanism in place to determine who can acquire the more desirable property, today that's money.

This

Who gets passed the matire'd at that trendy new 5-star bistro? Anyone/everyone?

And this

Sisko has a restaurant. What if I want it? It's a good location. It's got a nice view. It's not owed by him (cos everything is free). Why does he get to have it? I want it. My awesome chicken soup deserves to be given to the world. So who's gonna stop me? Who has the authority to tell me I can't have it. Who owns the land. Who gave Sisko the right to build there? etc etc etc etc

Another things occured to me with the talk of beaches... enough people want a beach they can probably just go make one

So we can literally all have whatever we want. Even a beach. Ah technology

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Another things occured to me with the talk of beaches... enough people want a beach they can probably just go make one.

And once you find a version of Earth with the infinite amount of space needed, you just go right ahead and tell us, OK sparky?

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Who got there last? That's usually the one left out. That isn't status, that timing. Is there room to build another house? If so, they build one. If not, they go find another beach. They can still live by a beach, they just can't live by this one because they came too late. That's not the fault of an economics system nor defining status. That's time and space.

Slightly missing the point. Let me break it down further

There are five (5) million beach houses available (on the entire planet). There are seventy (70) million people who want to live in one

In this utopia, houses are free and not dependent upon anyone's wealth....right?

So who gets to live in them? What was the criteria that meant they got to live in one of these beach houses while others did not? Who decides? If a beach house becomes available, of those who want it, who is chosen and why? How did the people who already have a beach house get chosen?

The point here is that you cannot simply ask people to be nice and accept that society is unequal and has a limited supply of privileges.......we don't ask this of people today so why would we ask it of people in the trek future?

Just because everyone has a replicator and a sex holodeck, doesn't mean their basic sense of justice will go away (which is what this is really about....not greed). You qualifying for the beach house while I don't, simply isn't fair

I think that "live on a beach" means obtaining something that is in limited supply and can't be casually created, it's like who gets to live in the penthouse of a residential tower. Is there going to be constructed a otherwise unoccupied residential tower just so you can live on top of it? Of course not, there is going to be some form of mechanism in place to determine who can acquire the more desirable property, today that's money.

This

Who gets passed the matire'd at that trendy new 5-star bistro? Anyone/everyone?

And this

Sisko has a restaurant. What if I want it? It's a good location. It's got a nice view. It's not owed by him (cos everything is free). Why does he get to have it? I want it. My awesome chicken soup deserves to be given to the world. So who's gonna stop me? Who has the authority to tell me I can't have it. Who owns the land. Who gave Sisko the right to build there? etc etc etc etc

Another things occured to me with the talk of beaches... enough people want a beach they can probably just go make one

So we can literally all have whatever we want. Even a beach. Ah technology

It's not technology, its Treknology

 

[Stoo]

I was just trying to be a bit more 24th century about the problem. What would data and geordi do. Find some bit of unwanted land and phaser it into sand.

Earth has a lot of coastline, plenty of technology to shape lands and environments in this time. Can make lots of homes if that's what's really wanted. Plenty of other people would rather live in the mountains or a trendy flat in downtown san francisco anyway.

Okay so Perhaps when demands for housing oustrip supply, in a location, there's a lottery. Or a first come first served waiting list.

Or maybe some homes are perks for particular prestigious jobs? So there's some small of inequality of homes I suppose, although it looks fairly trivial compared to anything the world faces today. And everyone had an equal opportunity to try for a high-level career in the first place.

re: sisko's restaurant, presumably there's some sort of entitlement to keep family items with historical and cultural value. Plus you can't just turf someone out of their home. The 24th century answer is probably "There's a vacant lot down the road. Or failing that, here's your free replicator bricks to build one. Here also is a holocookery course. And some more bricks for a beach house, since oh christ you wouldn't shut up about it despite your happy, opportunity-filled 24th century life. Go have fun making your own restaurant."

 

[bbjeg]

Slightly missing the point. Let me break it down further

There are five (5) million beach houses available (on the entire planet). There are seventy (70) million people who want to live in one

In this utopia, houses are free and not dependent upon anyone's wealth....right?

So who gets to live in them? What was the criteria that meant they got to live in one of these beach houses while others did not? Who decides? If a beach house becomes available, of those who want it, who is chosen and why? How did the people who already have a beach house get chosen?

The point here is that you cannot simply ask people to be nice and accept that society is unequal and has a limited supply of privileges.......we don't ask this of people today so why would we ask it of people in the trek future?

Just because everyone has a replicator and a sex holodeck, doesn't mean their basic sense of justice will go away (which is what this is really about....not greed). You qualifying for the beach house while I don't, simply isn't fair

I think that "live on a beach" means obtaining something that is in limited supply and can't be casually created, it's like who gets to live in the penthouse of a residential tower. Is there going to be constructed a otherwise unoccupied residential tower just so you can live on top of it? Of course not, there is going to be some form of mechanism in place to determine who can acquire the more desirable property, today that's money.

This

...

Another things occured to me with the talk of beaches... enough people want a beach they can probably just go make one

So we can literally all have whatever we want. Even a beach. Ah technology

Another things occured to me with the talk of beaches... enough people want a beach they can probably just go make one.

And once you find a version of Earth with the infinite amount of space needed, you just go right ahead and tell us, OK sparky?

Earth isn't the only planet in the Federation you know. Some colonies have only a few hundred and an entire planet to themselves. There are plenty of beaches.

 

[hux]

re: sisko's restaurant, presumably there's some sort of entitlement to keep family items with historical and cultural value. Plus you can't just turf someone out of their home

But that's the problem in a nutshell. It isn't their home. There is no ownership. Ownership means possessions and capital. In a society where wealth, possession and capital don't exist, who decides that they get that property? Who decides that I don't?

Earth isn't the only planet in the Federation you know. Some colonies have only a few hundred and an entire planet to themselves. There are plenty of beaches.

So people have to leave Earth to get the house they want? That doesn't strike me as very utopian. In fact, it reminds me of "brave new world". What if I don't want to leave Earth?

And you're right, Earth isn't the only planet in the Federation. There are countless Federation citizens from other worlds also migrating to Earth and further increasing the population and stretching the limits of supply.

So the question still remains.....who gets the house on the beach?

This discussion always has a tendency to move on to the subject of population. I'm happy to be the one who starts that ball rolling

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

There is still ownership of things in the Federation.

 

[Makarov]

The whole beach argument is flawed because we are told people aren't materialistic like that in the trek world anymore. It's assuming people would be materialistic like the dude in The Neutral Zone, which is what Picard says people are not motivated by anymore. So the answer to this beach house scenario is that people don't care about having it that much.

 

[Stoo]

But that's the problem in a nutshell. It isn't their home. There is no ownership. Ownership means possessions and capital. In a society where wealth, possession and capital don't exist, who decides that they get that property? Who decides that I don't?

Your original scenario was just throwing the guy out and taking over. I'm pretty sure something that cruel and disruptive wouldn't be allowed. More important is who gets it after he passes away - is it property that can be transferred to his next of kin. Or does it fall into some pool of free homes that anyone can apply for?

I'd be inclined to say his kids get first call, for reasons of family attachment and continuity. It's going to have more personal meaning to them and anyone else can start a restaurant somewhere else if they want.

 

[ManOnTheWave]

Another things occured to me with the talk of beaches... enough people want a beach they can probably just go make one.

In Family, Picard's old friend Louis is a supervisor on The Atlantis Project which intends to raise a whole subcontinent on Earth.

 

[hux]

The whole beach argument is flawed because we are told people aren't materialistic like that in the trek world anymore.

Well, we're also told that if you travel really fast, you turn into a salamander. Doesn't mean to say we shouldn't question it. Obviously there are some of us who strongly question the no money, non-materialistic stuff too. Plus, we've seen examples of materialism in the show which contradict the Trek brochure

More important is who gets it after he passes away - is it property that can be transferred to his next of kin. Or does it fall into some pool of free homes that anyone can apply for?

Well that's the question isn't it. More interestingly, how did the property end up in Sisko's hands in the first place.

I'd be inclined to say his kids get first call, for reasons of family attachment and continuity. It's going to have more personal meaning to them and anyone else can start a restaurant somewhere else if they want.

So there's no wealth but there is property ownership and inheritance? What if I'm inheriting crap while you're inheriting a mansion? How is that fair, considering you didn't earn that property? How many properties does each person own? One? Ten? Fifty?

Who decides new properties should be built (no one is homeless in this utopia so what's the incentive for building?). Since everyone has a home why would new homes ever be built? Do we all wait until our house is dilapidated then petition the government to build us a new one? Surely new homes would only ever be built because people owned more than one. Do we all own the same amount? Are all properties occupied? Are there empty houses just sitting there?

Men build houses for free (because they love their work obviously) but if we all have a home and don't need new ones, those poor builders (who love buildings houses for free) have nothing to do

 

[Makarov]

The whole beach argument is flawed because we are told people aren't materialistic like that in the trek world anymore.

Well, we're also told that if you travel really fast, you turn into a salamander. Doesn't mean to say we shouldn't question it. Obviously there are some of us who strongly question the no money, non-materialistic stuff too. Plus, we've seen examples of materialism in the show which contradict the Trek brochure

I wouldn't compare it to a one-off episode. You could however compare it to the rule of having a limit on warp speed, or the way the transporters work... maybe some contradictions but generally sticking to the rules. Since it's repeatedly brought up I'd say "no-money" is the rule and "materialism" would be the one-off salamander episode.

 

[Nightdiamond]

But when have we ever seen this on the show? Adults on the show are show as having jobs (or are the spouse of such a person), I can immediately remember only one adult from within the Federation directly stating they were unemployed.

Where does this assumption come from, because it isn't from the show itself.

And there's that assumption again, why is it probably free?

Oh, the usual.

Actually, I'm beginning to think it makes the most sense if humans work to pay into the replicator system.

But then Picard, Jake, and Tom Paris open their big mouths and say money is obsolete or human don't use any type of money anymore.

When Trek wanted to brag about how far humans have advanced, it tended to drop statements like this that suggested certain things. So that puts the concept back at square one.

Plus, there are some small insinuations from certain characters that humans are getting what they want really easy and free, courtesy of technology;

Examples--DS9-- "He that Is Without Sin"-- "Paradise"-- and "A Simple Investigation". In that one, Pay close attention to what the alien woman tells Odo about Federation society.

Umm, got any phone numbers? ")

Between TNG, DS9 and TOS alone, there have been at least 15 massive dicks on those shows.

And remember--they're pretty arrogant--they'll expect you to humbly get the numbers from them. After all, they're dicks.


The thing about crime and money--that's another thing that just seems outright dumb. We see humans breaking the law and risking prison just to make money as if they desperately needed it.

So unless Trek is implying that work and jobs on earth or in the Federation are not guaranteed, some humans have to resort to smuggling, being con artists, stealing, and hustling to get things they want.

Look at Kassidy-- she went to prison for smuggling things to the Maqui. According to Trek's view she doesn't have to--there's no want or need for things on earth.

Liam Bilby, the guy that wanted to join the Orion Syndicate--same deal. Why does he want to join the alien mafia in order to support his family. It's like he had no other choice.

If earth is such a place overflowing with abundance for all why is he there doing that?

Common, this stuff is just odd.

 

[Stoo]

Obviously there are some of us who strongly question the no money, non-materialistic stuff too.

It's a bit like questioning transporters. They're there. A part of trek. I mean, you can argue they're ridiculous magical technology that could never exist in reality, if you like. But not that they're somehow not really a-to-B teleportations devices.

So there's no wealth but there is property ownership and inheritance? What if I'm inheriting crap while you're inheriting a mansion? How is that fair, considering you didn't earn that property? How many properties does each person own? One? Ten? Fifty?

Probably no-one's has to worry about inheriting crap because everyone gets a good home as standard. Smart apartment in the city, or a country home if you want space for kids. Also, if materialism has been left behind, no-one really wants a massive mansion anymore. Or 10 homes. so everyone's on about the same level. It's like a planet where everyone has an upper middle class home. "inequality" comes back to fairly trivial matters like whether or not you have the view you really want, or your favourite restaurant within walking distance.

 

[Ithekro]

The point here is that you cannot simply ask people to be nice and accept that society is unequal and has a limited supply of privileges.......we don't ask this of people today so why would we ask it of people in the trek future?

Sure we do, they do it in Japan all the time. It is called limited goods. You stand in a line until they run out of the item. Once they have no more, those that got to the line late go home without getting one. First come, first serve. That's space and time, not ecomomics. If you want to get something that is limited, you need to get there first. If you don't, you don't get it. That is fairly simple to understand and has been in practise since before any sort of ecomonics existed in human society.

And as noted, there are lots of planets in the Federation. And seeming lots of people that want to move out there. Perhaps because of limited space. But off of Earth the utopia is not as vast. Not every world has unlimited power, nor replicators. Some because the colonies were setup before those technologies were introduced. Other because they want to go back to nature. We've seen several colonies that are relatively low tech, and others that are basically Earth level technology. With varying degrees of governement and sometimes economy.

As for the Marqui and Orion Syndicate. Those are outside the Federation. The Marqui are in Cardassian space and were on the border, so they likely didn't have access to better goods as there was a war on. Why did they stay (or why did a group of Native Americans travel to the edge of the Federation to get away from technological Earth)? Because they considered it home? Because they had fought for it and didn't want the Federation to just move them to satify a treaty.

The Orions are outside the Federation and work on their own rules. Even Captain Pike considered retiring there in the mid-23rd century. While there is utopia on Earth, the inticement of greed and wealth can still draw men to it. It is not something that human society does by Picard's time, but human failings still happen. As they say, we are still human. That they spend the time to better themselves does not mean they are perfect. Far from it. They know that all to well. But they strive to be better.

 

[Overgeeked]

Obviously there are some of us who strongly question the no money, non-materialistic stuff too.

It's a bit like questioning transporters. They're there. A part of trek. I mean, you can argue they're ridiculous magical technology that could never exist in reality, if you like. But not that they're somehow not really a-to-B teleportations devices.

It is a rather silly argument.

So there's no wealth but there is property ownership and inheritance? What if I'm inheriting crap while you're inheriting a mansion? How is that fair, considering you didn't earn that property? How many properties does each person own? One? Ten? Fifty?

Probably no-one's has to worry about inheriting crap because everyone gets a good home as standard. Smart apartment in the city, or a country home if you want space for kids. Also, if materialism has been left behind, no-one really wants a massive mansion anymore. Or 10 homes. so everyone's on about the same level. It's like a planet where everyone has an upper middle class home. "inequality" comes back to fairly trivial matters like whether or not you have the view you really want, or your favourite restaurant within walking distance.

I think the sticking point is that hux seems to think that in Trek it's either absolutely, perfectly, never-to-change, utterly, perfectly fair for all time or it's some kind of conspiracy theorist dystopian hell hole.

"Everyone wants 10 homes each so Trek won't work."

"The people in Trek are specifically depicted as not wanting 10 homes each."

"But everyone wants 10 homes each so Trek won't work."

"Once everyone's basic needs are met, things like greed and wanting 10 homes each will disappear."

"But everyone wants 10 homes each so Trek won't work."

"..."

 

[hux]

It's a bit like questioning transporters. They're there. A part of trek. I mean, you can argue they're ridiculous magical technology that could never exist in reality, if you like. But not that they're somehow not really a-to-B teleportations devices.

Not the same thing. Suspending disbelief for technology is one thing but suspending disbelief for a radical change in basic human nature and society as a whole is a lot harder. You can solve technology problems with a quick piece of techno-babble but you can't really solve human complexity and human problems by saying "people changed and became different". Well you can but I'm not sure I'll ever buy it.

Plus as already mentioned, we have seen contradictions to the no money, no materialism concept in various Trek. We have seen things that contradict the premise. As far as I'm aware, we have yet to see anything in the show that would contradict the existence of transporter technology

Probably no-one's has to worry about inheriting crap because everyone gets a good home as standard.
Smart apartment in the city, or a country home if you want space for kids. Also, if materialism has been left behind, no-one really wants a massive mansion anymore. Or 10 homes. so everyone's on about the same level. It's like a planet where everyone has an upper middle class home. "inequality" comes back to fairly trivial matters like whether or not you have the view you really want, or your favourite restaurant within walking distance.

First come, first serve. That's space and time, not ecomomics. If you want to get something that is limited, you need to get there first. If you don't, you don't get it. That is fairly simple to understand and has been in practise since before any sort of ecomonics existed in human society.

The problem with this in the context of housing is that they're being inherited so the same people/same families keep hold of the beach houses indefinitely. Where does that leave the first come, first serve policy? Surely this leads to a class system and inequality

I think the sticking point is that hux seems to think that in Trek it's either absolutely, perfectly, never-to-change, utterly, perfectly fair for all time or it's some kind of conspiracy theorist dystopian hell hole.

"Everyone wants 10 homes each so Trek won't work."

"The people in Trek are specifically depicted as not wanting 10 homes each."

"But everyone wants 10 homes each so Trek won't work."

"Once everyone's basic needs are met, things like greed and wanting 10 homes each will disappear."

"But everyone wants 10 homes each so Trek won't work."

"..."

Where did I say people will want 10 homes? Please stop attempting to put words in my mouth. I asked the question....how many homes do people get? One? Ten? Fifty?

Seriously dude