Old Issue: We Don't Use money

[Birdog]

Well, looks like this thread has been hijacked now.

Moving in the direction of getting back on topic: Keeping money from the government would be irrelevant if the government didn't use money to begin with. For all we know, Federation citizens pay zero taxes.

Then how do they acquire starships?

Can you be more specific please about what you mean by acquire?

We know they are manufactured, and we know that the places they are manufactured have been characterized using grammatical constructions that suggest fairly clearly that the Federation owns the shipyards.

But how can I answer something about a fictitious universe that that hasn't explained on screen, without pulling something out of my ass? How can any of us?

The big revolution seems anyway to be replicator technology. If you have a replicator with an indefinite power supply then you're covered for a lot of things. Using my imagination, I'd think that the Federation would be wise to focus more directly on keeping energy flowing, rather than focusing on the flow of money. Owning the means of producing energy would therefore seem essential. This would keep the replicators operating without needing to trade outside the Federation.

Fact is, it's supposed to seem incomprehensible to us. Star Trek has pretty much come out and said that we of this time are primitive.

For Star Fleet to get a ship, someone has to build it. What is the incentive to build the ship? Prestige does not feed the family.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

For Star Fleet to get a ship, someone has to build it. What is the incentive to build the ship? Prestige does not feed the family.

Very unrestricted access to replicators maybe [though obviously not infinitely unrestricted access].

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Perhaps in the future, progressive economists will regard money as the primitive and oversimplifying instrument of trade that it is, and more advanced economic procedures will allocate what people need. A simple, clear, and completely plausible idea.

What, exactly, does "progressive" mean?

Well, it does have a real meaning. In general, the term gets used as nothing more than a "term of approval" from some folks, but the term's meaning is pretty unambiguous.

In all cases, we are talking about "change." When someone is "conservative" about something, it means that they don't want change in that particular area. When someone is "liberal" on that same subject, it means that they are in favor of change.

People who want to cause a change to occur promote one of two different processes for creating change. They either want immediate change ... we can call those people "revolutionaries"... or they want gradual change... we can call those people "progressives"

Now, there is NO MORAL WEIGHT behind those terms. All "morality" related to these terms comes from "what are we changing from" and "what are we changing to?"

For example, at the time of the founding of America, the "conservatives" were the ones who wanted to continue to be subject of the British Empire, exactly as they'd always been. On the other hand, our founders were "progressives," as they were promoting gradual, peaceable "shifting" to a position of greater independence. Once King George decided to try to put this movement down with force, that's when they transformed into revolutionaries.

So, we got the American revolution.

But once that revolution was over, and NEW system was instituted. And at that point, the founders wanted to keep and preserve their newly-created system. Which meant that they were suddenly "conservatives." Meanwhile, those who wanted to change that system into something else were "liberals." Many wanted the new system to collapse, so that the former colonies would revert to British rule. These people, who were formerly the "conservatives," were now "revolutionaries."

See my point? The terms "conservative," "liberal," "revolutionary," and yes, the term you just used, "progressive," are MEANINGLESS except in context.

So... what is a "progressive economist?" It is an economist who wants to change from SOMETHING to SOMETHING ELSE, through a gradual process of change.

The question isn't "is change good?" The question is, "is what we're changing to better than what we're changing from?"

Lots of "progressive economists" have had very good ideas... and lots of them have had TERRIBLE ideas.

You need to define your terms better.

And the comment you're referring to really isn't "clear, or plausible" for the very simple reason that NOBODY IS TRULY DEFINING WHAT WE'D BE MOVING TOWARDS.

We know where we are today. I'd argue that some folks misrepresent elements of what we have today, but we do have SOMETHING we can discuss, with real, logical arguments being able to be made.

On the other hand, NOBODY CAN DEFINE what the "idealized utopian vision of a money-less society" would actually be like. Well, nobody arguing in favor of it, anyway...

I've asked Deks, and I'm passing this along to others as well... if you can define the mechanism by which you propose this "moneyless society" to work through, we can discuss it rationally.

But that requires you to think it through, and to defend your ideas on the basis of practical logic. It's a lot harder to do that then it is to talk about some nebulous fantasy concept.

I do believe it's possible to have a "moneyless society" (as opposed to a "cashless one"), but I do NOT believe that it's possible to have such a society except through absolute and utter tyranny.

We, the people, "own" nothing. "Society" (which means "those who rule society") own everything. We, the people, have all our needs provided for by "society" (which means "those who rule society"), but someone (not US) gets to decide what those "needs" are, and what we "deserve" to have.

We're basically talking about the same rules that Feudal lords had over their kingdoms. Every person in the kingdom may have "owned" some land or property, but the lord owned those people, and thus owned what those people had. Everything that they had was really his, and he could decide what sort of house they'd have, what "obligations to society" they'd have, and so forth.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Perhaps in the future, progressive economists will regard money as the primitive and oversimplifying instrument of trade that it is, and more advanced economic procedures will allocate what people need. A simple, clear, and completely plausible idea.

(...)

Lots of "progressive economists" have had very good ideas... and lots of them have had TERRIBLE ideas.

You need to define your terms better.

No, I think what I said is in perfect agreement with how you propose to use these terms. Read what I wrote there as

some progressive economists

as opposed to all of them.

I was discussing something that was not only "progressive", but also "more advanced" and implicitly workable. I did not imply that the reason the method was adopted was simply because it was progressive.

I agree that not all progressive ideas are good and workable.

However, characterizing the economists who come up with the idea as progressive, even in their own time, is something that I thought was reasonable, given that money is still widely used in the galaxy.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Like traveling at FTL velocities, the fact that we have no idea how to do it doesn't make it impossible. It just means we don't know how to do it. It may be impossible, but we don't know that.

But unless you propose a way that it MAY at least be possible, you're dealing with nothing but pure fantasy in either case. PURE fantasy, not even "science fiction" in the classical sense.

That's why I see the dispute as quite silly. First, it is clearly possible to have a fair distribution system that meets basic needs. Scarcity isn't a major issue.

Is it? How is it "clearly so" except that Gene Roddenberry, late in life (and with failing mental faculties) became insistent on it (yet was utterly unable to explain how it would work)?

You say it's "clearly quite possible" but there is nothing "clear" about that whatsoever, except that you've said it.

I could say that it's "clearly quite possible" for the bizarre "artificial gravity" seen in the Russian Space Station in "Armageddon" to work that way... heck, we see it on-screen, don't we, so it must be?

But just because you see something on screen does not make it "possible," does it?

"Possible" means IN REALITY. The scene in Armageddon was "clearly quite impossible."

So, how do you conclude that this is "clearly quite possible?" Even the production and writing staff in Trek were unable to make any of that work, despite some of them really trying on occasion. So, neither in real life, nor in "canon Star Trek," is there any indication that such a thing is "clearly quite possible."

Second, artificial scaricity--including that caused by coveting specific items--can be handled by an appropriate economic abstraction.

"Artificial scarcity?" Really? You really want to use arbitrary labels to try to denigrate an argument, so you don't have to address the argument? That's, seriously, the tact you're taking?

Scarcity means that there is less of an object, item, or resource than there is demand for that object, item, or resource.

I suppose "artificial scarcity" might be used to describe how a government might declare certain widely available resources "off limits," say, by preventing drilling for oil, but neither of the example I gave (and which you seem to be responding to) are "artificial" in any way. Both are TRUE scarcities.

I'm sorry, except in some irrational fantasy world, everyone on Earth can't live in their own "Tony Stark's Malibu-cliffs mansion."

For all we know, the Federation, with it's massive computing power, uses a master economic program to see to the distribution of wealth beyond basic needs. Perhaps if you want a book owned by another person, you have barter a deal.

Really? SO, you're going back to the days before there was any such thing as an economy at all. "Bartering" is the oldest form of trade in existence. The creation of an "intermediate store of value" (aka MONEY) was a huge leap forward from what the cave-men did, and which you seem to be proposing as the alternative solution.

Sorry, that's sort of on the same level as proposing the elimination of the flush toilet by having us all just run behind the nearest tree. There may be a better solution than the flush toilet, but making us all live like animals isn't it. And while I won't say that it's impossible to come up with another form of economic system which does not involve the intermediate store of value (which we call "money"), I have never seen one. Have any of you?

If you want a mansion, and John Q. Competition also wants it, the Resource Management System evaluates your petitions and decides.

Wow... just wow.

So, you've just said exactly what I was worried someone would say. You've just said that "everything belongs to the rulers, who mete out benefits according to their own whims."

You've just described utter, complete tyranny. If you want to live in that situation, feel free. Give up your freedom and rights entirely. It's your right to do so, if you so choose. You can become a slave, if that's really what you want. But most of us won't go along with that, and so your "protector/provider" tyrant will have to use force to make us.

History is replete with examples of that, isn't it?

For all we know, accomplishment is akin to wealth in the UFP, explaining why everyone strives to better themselves. That system could be the seed of something workable. It combines the benefits of socially just system with the benefits of a purely capitalist system.

But, what you just described is really "pure capitalism."

Mind you, "pure capitalism" has never been implemented. There is enough corruption inherent in this system, like with any system, that there are flaws in it. Most of us gain our wealth through making contributions to society. (Some get rewarded more than I, personally, think that they should be rewarded... ie, "Lady Gaga" for example... but it is not my place, or anyone else's for that matter, to make that decision for anyone else).

There are those who obtain wealth through "crooked" means, of course, but we already have laws, and common morality, which is intended to preclude that. The only real defect in our current system is that those who are responsible for ENFORCING the rules are, at present, those who seem to benefit most from the breaking of the rules. Thus, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who were tasked with oversight of the US Mortgage system, and in particular with oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who failed UTTERLY (and thus bear the majority of the responsibility for the "mortgage meltdown" crisis), and who were, and still are, directly and personally benefiting from the very abuses of the system which brought about the collapse, are the "poster children" for what's wrong with our current system. And "best" of all, they're the ones who are now being asked to "ensure that it never happens again."

If we can ensure that the rules are followed... and the best way to do this is by ensuring that those responsible for enforcing the rules cannot profit by violations of the rules... then the current system will work.

And what you just described, which is the "theoretical ideal" of capitalism and free-market economy, would be implemented for real.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Well, looks like this thread has been hijacked now.

Moving in the direction of getting back on topic: Keeping money from the government would be irrelevant if the government didn't use money to begin with. For all we know, Federation citizens pay zero taxes.

Then how do they acquire starships?

It goes, again, back to the idea of "ownership."

"Society" is supposedly owned by the members of that society.

In theory, at least on average, you may consider that every citizen of the Federation "owns" an equal share of the total value of the Federation. Just like you, and I, own equal shares of the Interstate Highway system. The government doesn't own it, we do.

So, every "dollar" or "credit" or whatever unit of measurement of value we use, which is earned as part of my share of society, and which is spent for any "societal" purpose, is effectively a tax. Whether or not the "credits" ever pass through my pocket is irrelevant. Some portion of what I, as a "shareholder in society," own, is spent on "societally-determined" expenditures.

You can argue that "every credit is spent by the government" and that I don't get any direct access to my share, except as determined by the government. I get some portion, doled out to me, as some bureaucrat determines is appropriate.

Even if everyone has replicators... replicators aren't "free." There is a cost to using replicators... they're very energy-intensive. This is canonically-established in TNG, DS9, and Voyager alike. And there is not, and CAN NOT, simply be "infinite, unlimited energy." Even if that were practical from a power-generation standpoint, imagine the environmental effects if everyone could consume as much energy as they can possibly demand!

So... maybe "food" isn't the resource which becomes scarce, but rather energy. (Oh, and real-estate, of course.)

Otherwise, there is NOTHING to prevent everyone from "replicating" their own CASTLES, is there? Their own huge, palatial estates?

Everyone will replicate their own yachts. And then they'll all want to be in their yachts off of Honolulu for sunset... and they'll all be bumping into one another.

There are simply practical concerns which, when you declare all scarcity to be "artificial scarcity" really only means that you're ignoring facts. Scarcity is real... and always will be real. It's not an artificial concept.

Just because everyone may get a "daily state-issued replicator ration" or a "daily, state-issued energy ration" doesn't mean that there is no scarcity.

 

[Deks]

Why would they replicate castles or yachts in the first place?
Majority of humans in trek were stated to have moved beyond desiring such material aspects, and there's more than enough room for everyone.
They can practically pick and choose desired planets and locations.
Those that have not 'moved on' were usually shown to live in systems that rely on currency and accumulation of wealth.

As for energy... while replicators ARE energy intensive, this particular energy limitation is usually star-ship bound (because you have to provide power to other systems), not necessarily planet bound though.
Also, numerous homes (whether on Earth, colonies, etc...) could easily be powered by solar power (highly evolved version/efficiency of course), wind power, or other energy sources they might have developed.

Think about potential/viable energy sources that WE could have utilized over the past several decades for example but did not.
Now, think of what Trek humans with 400 years more advanced technology would be able to come up with for energy sources.
I doubt matter/antimatter reactors would be the only source of power. Those are primarily used on ships...

Even in real life, solar power would be enough to solve energy requirements in private homes (despite the lower efficiency). Essentially, you install enough solar panels that surpasses your own energy needs, you can store this extra energy, or share it with others.
A whole community of civilians that generate this kind of power without a need of being connected to the 'main energy grid' would mean that you can channel the energy currently provided to homes for other uses, such as industry, scientific experiments, etc.

In Trek, especially in colonies, I would surmise that this kind of a system would work nicely.
Organizations on colonies would likely have fusion generators and other sources of power to provide defensive aspects for example such as shields, automated defenses, etc.

We've seen Earth being connected to the main power grid for example, but that's only to be expected since they have large infrastructures there and cities, etc...

Bottom line is, planets in Trek could have a plethora of diverse energy generating methods that create many times the power that star-ships do, hence rendering the 'power issue' moot.

Besides, these people were shown to police themselves and exercise restraint.
You are effectively saying that they would go 'rampant' and just replicate the heck out of everything.
Sure, they could do that, but the way they were portrayed, it simply isn't done.
It could be seen as a taboo of sorts... or something that is highly discouraged.
They can probably have even more than the upper-middle class currently enjoys, or virtual luxury, but for those who develop a sense for accumulating material wealth in a greedy capacity, then those individuals usually leave and pursue their own interests most likely.

'Scarcity' as we know it IS mostly an artificial construct.
We have the ability to provide for everyone, but it's not in anyone's interest to do that.
The system we live in was not devised on 'equality' ... the very hard reality of the situation is the opposite.
There is NO equality in the system we currently have.
Resources aren't distributed properly.
Technologies in circulation are dabbling in obscurity and revisionism for decades (that which is often touted as 'innovation' and 'substantial progress' is nothing more than revision upon revision of things that came before with no powerful change), not to mention that they aren't even used properly or to their fullest potential.

Technology as such in the real world HAS it's limits of course, but, point is, we could have solved most of our problems some time ago if there was a will for it. We certainly had the means to do so.
Or, it's entirely possible that they simply don't know how to go about this, but I suspect that while there are genuine individuals in positions of power who want to help but don't know how, the great majority that don't enjoy change would probably discourage any such efforts in the first place.
Considering how 'profits' come first in capitalism for those in power and in the industry, they predominantly look at how much money they will spend.
Resources (as in materials) aren't the problem... there's more than enough to do what needs to be done (and in the long run it would probably result in something far better), but being worried about 'costs' is what's often slowed progress down to a crawl.

 

[Maverisms]

Ah, fair enough... except that, at least as far as I'm concerned, I've made it quite clear that "money" is not the same thing as "currency."

Right. Then you are still arguing over what to label a system we have no definitions for. Complaining about what is the crux of the argument as if it is a major point is irrational. Call it money, call it currency, call it charge account against resources that only exists as a massive Excel file maintained by a central program. So what? You could call it H.R. Puffinstuff. I don’t think anyone is arguing that there isn't some form of basis of trade. The argument boils down to whether it can be called money or not.

That is silly.

But it would save time if you simply purchased it from it's current owner with money. I mean, what if you don't possess any items the current owner wants in exchange. With money, the former owner of the book can just buy what he wanted.

Stop waiting for the political system to build the power source, there's an idea.

Or you can employ the "won't someone do this for me" system.

Yes! Of course! I'll get right on that. Let's see, I have a total net worth of about seven grand, give or take. That ought to be enough for...

Nothing.

But I guess you've got it figured out, eh? Refine your own gasoline do you? I'm sure you laid the last mile of copper to your home yourself, and are happily running your own ISP. Grow all of your own food, too?

Or is it possible that you, like everyone else, depend on others for your day to day life? Nah. Couldn't be that. How large is your personal national defense budget, btw?

We have enough fissionable material available to power the US for several hundred years. (Several thousand, at current levels, but one has to expect current levels to rise.) The reason we don't is not technical, it is political. To get this efficiency one has to "capture" wasted radiation. This is a fairly trivial exercise. Pack spent fuel around the active reactor core and it will absorb neutrons that otherwise don't contribute to power generation.

This enriches the spent fuel. It also generates weapons grade materials. THAT is the problem. No amount of moxie and individualism on my part will alter the fact that the government frowns on the production of weapons grade fissionables. I can't get rich and buy an island either. Israel is ready to attack Iran over enrichment; you think any number of nation states wouldn't bomb a private citizen to soothe their fears of proliferation?

The energy crisis is political. Fixing it without resorting to new technologies requires modifying popular perceptions thus enabling politicians to act without fear of losing their cushy jobs. That isn't going to happen any time soon.

And Libertarians accuse everyone else of living in a fantasy world.

But unless you propose a way that it MAY at least be possible, you're dealing with nothing but pure fantasy in either case. PURE fantasy, not even "science fiction" in the classical sense.

And Star Trek isn't pure fantasy? They HAVE FTL. It is absurd to accept that fantasy but claim that the fantasy economics in Trek are bad. Why is one fantasy more equal than the other?

You say it's "clearly quite possible" but there is nothing "clear" about that whatsoever, except that you've said it.

I've already addressed post-scarcity. We have the resources, we have the infrastructure. The issue is one of how to manage it. And we know HOW to do that, we just don't know how to keep the managers from cheating.

I don't feel any need to prove the blindingly obvious. Communism, in fact, works even with the corruption at the top. The fall of the Soviets was a result of the corruption, not an inherent flaw in communism. Just because I don't want to live in that economic system doesn't mean it is failure.

Capitalism is simply equipped to grow faster. This doesn't make it better, because that growth is capitalism's only purpose. That's why there is little to no industry left in the US. Capitalism means moving the labor to the cheapest market. The result has left the US in a very bad economic position.

"Artificial scarcity?" Really? You really want to use arbitrary labels to try to denigrate an argument, so you don't have to address the argument? That's, seriously, the tact you're taking?

All labels are arbitrary. And I wasn't using that label to denigrate an argument. In fact I wasn't denigrating at all. I addressed your objection. Your personal dislike of my response is not a counter argument.

"Really? SO, you're going back to the days before there was any such thing as an economy at all. "Bartering" is the oldest form of trade in existence. The creation of an "intermediate store of value" (aka MONEY) was a huge leap forward from what the cave-men did, and which you seem to be proposing as the alternative solution.

No. I'm dealing with your silly objection that the owner of the book should be forced to give it up just because someone else wants it. I'm saying that, like today, the person who wants will have make him an offer he does not want to refuse. He might barter for an object the other person has, which oddly enough happens today when there is money. Or he might barter for resource rights under the theoretic management system.

You've made the fatal assumption that I'm advocating here. I'm not. I'm deconstructing the stupidity of the argument. Whatever objection you offer in favor of the label "money" can be countered with a reasonable alternative.

You've just described utter, complete tyranny. If you want to live in that situation, feel free. Give up your freedom and rights entirely. It's your right to do so, if you so choose. You can become a slave, if that's really what you want. But most of us won't go along with that, and so your "protector/provider" tyrant will have to use force to make us.

But, what you just described is really "pure capitalism."

You make a lot of assumptions. You shouldn't do that. When you assume, you make an ass out of...yourself.

I don't want to live in the Trek universe. It would be horrible place to live. Always threatened with assimilation, planet killers, Klingon. Death awaiting you around every corner, unless you happen to be main character.

That would suck.

Tyranny? BFD. I'm not invested in Trek as my ideal future. I'm just describing how it might work. Why should I give a rat's ass about fictionaly tyranny? For that matter, why do you? Division of resources REQUIRES an absolute tyranny. If you think the capitalist system doesn't work that way, I suggest classes in economics, because it does. Over seventy-five percent of the wealth in the US is controlled by 1% of the population. Of that three-quarters, HALF is controlled by less than 1000 individuals. Welcome to tyranny. Your freedom is an illusion. (Those who don't live in the US, sorry. The US controls 75% of the world's wealth. Full more than 28.125% of EARTH's wealth is in the hands of a thousand individuals.)

If any one of those 1000 wanted you dead, you would die. End of story. They wouldn't even do time over it. They own politicians, and thanks to Citizens United, they have exceptional power over the election process. How is this not tyranny?

If you are asking whether I would trust a computer more than I would a person, well, yes. So long as I could vet the source code.

Like it or don't the UFP is a communist state. It is also a "rich" and successful communist state, so it must have somehow avoided the tyranny of the masters that has been the hallmark of communism historically. They only way I can see that happening is if the real tyrant is a machine. Utterly impartial.

Pure capitalism is not what I described. Pure capitalism allows the market to control everything. There are no external controls. We had something akin to that, before unions. It sucked. It concentrated wealth into the hands of the robber barons and everyone lived and died by the whim of the company.

Then fit hit the shan. We called it the Great Depression. Afterward, we took steps to regulate the markets and that worked okay for 50 years. It wasn't perfect, we still had recessions, but we went from a two bit nation to THE superpower in that time. Then, someone got the idea that pure capitalism could work. I have no idea who, but I suspect they went on to write for Bean Books. The major controls meant to keep capitalism honest were withdrawn and in less than 15 years we got the Great Recession.

Yeah. Pure capitalism works. If by works, you mean concentrates wealth in the hands of the few.

As economic systems, capitalism and communism lead to the same place. The difference is that in communism wealth is concentrated by fiat. In capitalism it is done via market manipulation. Even the economic minds at the Wall Street Journal will admit this. Their argument against regulation is that it can't keep up with the market. Regulators are always fixing the last loophole, while the market is busy inventing a new cheat code.

Your argument is emotional. It is illogical.

Also, read up on the mortgage meltdown. Dodd and Frank didn't cause it. Banks should never have been allowed to do what they did in the first place. The repeal of Glass-Steagall set up the housing bubble. Bank policies of offering sub-prime loans even when they weren't the best thing for the customers' credit rating caused it. The market panic when it became general knowledge what these banks had been doing caused it. Had everyone sat still and let the situation play out, it literally wouldn't have happened. Two politicians couldn't have done a damn thing to stop it had they known it was going on. At most they could have made a stink about it and caused the recession themselves. Instead, investigative reporting was the trigger. Investigative reporting had to be the trigger because the banks were doing everything they could to keep it quite. That's how Glass-Steagall come in. The point of that act was to keep investment banks (who rate commercial banks) from having a conflict of interest. Neither type of bank was allowed to own the other. When the investment banks owned the lenders we had the seeds of the crisis. If they were still prohibited by Glass-Steagall, they could not have leveraged the loans the way they did. They couldn't have sold securities against those loans, and they certainly couldn't have claimed everything was okay.

Capitalism sans regulation is a broken system. It is unsustainable. With regulation it is still broken, but managed intelligently it can limp along indefinitely. But then, intelligently managed communism could do the same thing.

What I described was an economy based on something other than money. So long as money is confused with value, as it is today, it becomes the object of the effort. An accomplishment based economy might be based on creating value. Suddenly simply manipulating money is no longer the objective.

None of this makes the argument any less silly, but it is entertaining.

 

[tighr]

I don't want to live in the Trek universe. It would be horrible place to live. Always threatened with assimilation, planet killers, Klingon. Death awaiting you around every corner, unless you happen to be main character.

That would suck.

I hope this is a joke.

Someone from 400 years in our past would similarly freak out about the 21st Century... "Nuclear weapons? Assault rifles in the hands of gang members? AIDS, crack, Bernie Goetz? Why would I live in a world like that?" But you'd be hard pressed to find many people from the 21st Century who would be happy to live in the 1600s, a time when life was "simpler".

Star Trek focuses on people who are at the frontier, in the unknown. Plus, its good drama to see things happen every week. We rarely saw Earth, but on some of the occasions that we did see Earth, it was a paradise.

In DS9 The Maquis, Pt II, we hear Sisko talk about Earth vs. colonies near the Cardassian border:

On Earth there's no poverty, no crime, no war. You look out the window of Starfleet headquarters and you see... paradise. Well, it's easy to be a saint in paradise. But the Maquis don't live in paradise. Out there in the Demilitarized Zone, all the problems haven't been solved yet. Out there, there are no saints... just people. Angry, scared, determined people who are going to do whatever it takes to survive. Whether it meets with Federation approval or not.

It's entirely possible that when they're talking about Earth of the future having no disease, poverty, war, no need for money, they are talking about Earth specifically. In a future where the planet is unified under one government, and all Earth citizens are working TOGETHER, and everyone's basic needs are supplied for (via replicators/advanced tech), why would we even need war? There would be no poverty, because there would be no money.

I am willing to concede that not all planets and colonies in the Federation are sufficiently advanced to have eradicated those problems like Earth has been able to do.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Why would they replicate castles or yachts in the first place?

Why WOULDN'T they?

Majority of humans in trek were stated to have moved beyond desiring such material aspects, and there's more than enough room for everyone.

Nonsense.

BY INTENT, the people shown in Trek, with the exception of the first couple of years of TNG, were shown to be "just like us" in every meaningful way.

This is not unreasonable. The show was written by people living in our time, and was intended for people living in our time. The characters were intended to be people we, in our time, could related to.

What we do know is that nobody we see seems to be in "poverty." Everyone has "enough." Basically, everyone has at least a "lower-middle-class" lifestyle. And most of them seem to be perfectly satisfied with that, just as most of us are today as long as we don't have major financial worries.

This is not a BINARY equation... ie, you do not have to choose between "living for personal growth and development" or "living for income." The argument that these are contradictory positions is absolutely, demonstrably untrue.

They can practically pick and choose desired planets and locations.

Can they? Can you prove that? Or is that just more "wishful thinking?" Show me anything... ANYTHING... in-canon, which supports that.

Those that have not 'moved on' were usually shown to live in systems that rely on currency and accumulation of wealth.

Really? So, in ST-III, when Dr. McCoy is trying to book a flight to Genesis... "ship you got, money I got!"... where did he get that "money?"

I'd call that a clear indication of Dr. McCoy having money, wouldn't you?

If Dr. McCoy didn't have money, and if money wasn't needed, what would be the point of that scene? And if human culture had no money, where, exactly, did McCoy come into enough wealth to pay this pilot for such an obviously expensive undertaking?

As for energy... while replicators ARE energy intensive, this particular energy limitation is usually star-ship bound (because you have to provide power to other systems), not necessarily planet bound though.
Also, numerous homes (whether on Earth, colonies, etc...) could easily be powered by solar power (highly evolved version/efficiency of course),

UTTER AND COMPLETE NONSENSE. Commonly repeated nonsense but nonsense nevertheless.

The intensity of light, per square meter, in orbit is a fixed variable. The highest intensity of sunlight, per square meter, on the surface (when the sun is immediately overhead in a clear sky), is a nearly fixed variable. As the day goes on, the angle of the sun through the atmosphere results in more of that light being absorbed and/or reflected by the atmosphere, meaning that the number falls off rapidly. Then, take into account cloud cover, etc, etc.

Now, assume that you had some form of "solar panel" which was 100% efficient... ie, every joule of energy striking it in the form of sunlight is converted into useable power (and NOTHING can ever be 100% efficient, or even close to it... that's a fundamental law of thermodynamics!)... we know exactly how much power would be available in orbit, facing the sun, or on the surface at high noon for that matter. (And on the surface the number is much, much lower.)

You cannot EVER obtain more energy than this value. You simply cannot. Realistically, you're doing great today if you manage to convert 10% of that light energy into electrical power.

Oh, and you also have to STORE that energy, in massive, lossy storage systems... unless you don't want any power at night, or during a snowstorm, or the like.

Solar power is a great SUPPLEMENT, but that's all it is, and all it ever will be, even in its most "highly evolved form." Those who claim otherwise simply have no grasp of what solar power is.

wind power,

Wind power is also a great (if small) supplement. It only generates power under certain conditions, and the mechanism requires a major lubrication effort, for such turbines to work.

Most people don't realize just how much oil a wind turbine expends, tossing it out into the environment. Go to a big wind-farm and examine the soil... it's SATURATED with the lubricating oil from the turbine bearings.

You could get away without this if you used magnetic bearings... except that these bearings draw power, and the amount of energy required to drive such a bearing usually exceeds the output of the turbine in the first place, making them sort of pointless.

I won't really criticize them about the issues with birds being killed by them, because there is likely a way to address that which would be safe (if costly, and resulting in a dramatically-increased difficulty of servicing).

There are locations where there steady, strong, consistent wind, where wind turbines are a GREAT idea, and a wonderful supplement. But these locations are rare... and the environmental effects are quite significant.

or other energy sources they might have developed.

Safe implementation of matter-to-energy conversion (whether at the relatively low output-to-mass ratios of fission or fusion reactors, or the much higher output-to-mass of matter/antimatter annihilation is definitely the only practical solution. We're not there yet, but we will be someday.

But that doesn't address the inevitable environmental issues caused by perpetual consumption of artificially-created energy on the environment. Remember the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. For every joule produced, a significant percentage of that is lost as waste energy. And that ends up in the environment.

The Earth can radiate waste heat, of course... it's not a "sealed system." But this will still result in REAL "global warming" at a level we've never so much as imagined. The fiction we've been sold on, but which is, at best, barely noticable, would become a huge issue. Producing and consuming energy is hazardous... safe in smaller amounts, but in large quantity, it becomes very significant.

Think about potential/viable energy sources that WE could have utilized over the past several decades for example but did not.

I have. In fact, I think I've thought about it more than most of the big proponents of those sources have thought about it.

Now, think of what Trek humans with 400 years more advanced technology would be able to come up with for energy sources.

No doubt there will be some things discovered or invented which we haven't envisioned yet... but fundamental laws of thermodynamics will still exist, so the main issue I've raised will NOT go away.

I doubt matter/antimatter reactors would be the only source of power. Those are primarily used on ships...

Proof? Or is this just personal conjecture on your part?

Even in real life, solar power would be enough to solve energy requirements in private homes (despite the lower efficiency). Essentially, you install enough solar panels that surpasses your own energy needs, you can store this extra energy, or share it with others.

Not so much. I challenge to find anyone who lives in a normal sized home (not an Al Gore palatial estate) who has enough available surface area to do anything REMOTELY like what you just suggested.

And this works only in areas with a lot of sunlight, no significant weather issues, and has "mostly overhead" sunlight.

Sure, if you live on a large estate in San Diego, this can happen. But go to Minnesota, and good luck with that.

A whole community of civilians that generate this kind of power without a need of being connected to the 'main energy grid' would mean that you can channel the energy currently provided to homes for other uses, such as industry, scientific experiments, etc.

Household use of electricity today makes up a very small percentage of total electrical grid consumption.

And, as I said before, unless you have a HUGE surface area to cover, and ideal sunlight conditions, and a favorable environment (meaning no need to heat or cool your home except as a luxury), it's entirely impractical as a primary source.

Oh, and let's not forget... photovoltaic cells are fragile, and have a limited lifespan. You may spend a few hundred thousand putting panels on the roof of your mansion this year, and you might manage to "break even" in several years. But in another five years, your output will be dramatically less than it originally was... photovoltaic cells degrade with use.

And if you get dust, dirt, leaves, snow, frost, etc, on them... well, even if they're working ideally, they're next to useless.

Just sayin'... they're great. But they're not the fix-all that some people (who haven't run the numbers) would like to pretend they are.

In Trek, especially in colonies, I would surmise that this kind of a system would work nicely.

Not on any planet I'd ever want to set foot on without an environmental suit and 10,000 sunblock!

Organizations on colonies would likely have fusion generators and other sources of power to provide defensive aspects for example such as shields, automated defenses, etc.

I sort of agree with this...you could use solar as a good supplementary power source, and could do lots of "everyday" routine things with this as a source.

But... go check out the "sunracer" competition, and read up on some of the designs entered into it. The energy available to power what's essentially an "ultralight bycycle with solar panels" still barely allows the vehicles to run uphill. That's not due to "bad cells," that's due to fundamental facts of life about available light energy.

Increase the intensity of the available light, and you increase the amount of power a solar system can collect. But increase it enough to make it practical as a primary source, and you also end up with an environment unsuitable for human habitation.

We've seen Earth being connected to the main power grid for example, but that's only to be expected since they have large infrastructures there and cities, etc...

In "Mudd's Women," we see the miner's shacks, and I seem to recall seeing a small windmill atop each of them (am I mistaken?).

In that environment, with constant strong winds, wind power is practical. But that same wind makes the environment hostile to humans.

There are lots of ways we can generate power. Dams are great... but they have a major environmental impact. Wind turbines are great... if you have unpleasantly strong winds and don't mind contaminating the environment through lost lubrication.

Geothermal is actually a pretty great idea... using hot magma to convert water into steam, to turn a turbine to generate electricity. Once a system of that nature is built, it has very little "environmental footprint" on the planet as a whole.

But... the infrastructure required is just MASSIVE. We have no ability, today, to build the vast underground systems, right in magma flows, required to make this work. By Trek's time, I do expect that geothermal power generation will be a practical possibility... IN AREAS WHERE THERE IS SIGNIFICANT VULCANISM CLOSE TO THE SURFACE.

That means we could easily have geothermal power in, say, Hawaii, or Washington state (near Mt. St. Helens) but little if any in Missouri or Iowa or Nebraska or the like. Like wind power, it's a great solution, but it requires very specific conditions.

We can talk about "zero-point energy" but this is nothing but a pure hypothetical, not even rising to the level of a theory, really. And it smacks of "perpetual motion machines" to me, frankly.

No matter what, energy will be limited, and even if you have sufficient capacity to generate "more than enough," the USE of this much energy will have a negative environmental impact.

Bottom line is, planets in Trek could have a plethora of diverse energy generating methods that create many times the power that star-ships do, hence rendering the 'power issue' moot.

The first part is very, very true. The second (""hence") part, however, is not.

Besides, these people were shown to police themselves and exercise restraint.

Which people?

Seriously, besides a few people on a starship, how much do we know about 23rd and 24th-century people? And most people who choose to serve TODAY are among the least "materialistic" among us... there's no reason to think this isn't also the case in the 23 and 24th centuries, is there?

Other than a couple of "Utopian quotes" by Jean Luc Picard, there's no real evidence of what you suggest.

And we know that Picard was proven wrong about "being past warfare." Picard represented the false Utopianism of the 24th-century Federation... something that, I'd argue, was given a healthy dose of "reality check" with the arrival of the Borg and then the Dominion War.

You are effectively saying that they would go 'rampant' and just replicate the heck out of everything.

Not exactly. But these people are, for all practical purposes, US. Are you seriously going to tell me that you have NOTHING that you don't need to live?

Do you have a computer? How many? Do you have an iPod? How many TVs do you have? Do you smoke or drink? Is there ANYTHING you don't "need" but still "want" that you spend resources on?

Some people, TODAY, choose to live "within their means," and some can't manage to do that, even knowing that they'll end up bankrupt.

What makes you think that people, who have been essentially a constant throughout all of recorded history, will suddenly transform into wantless beings?

There IS a Star Trek race where this is how things work.

That race is calld "The Borg."

Sure, they could do that, but the way they were portrayed, it simply isn't done.
It could be seen as a taboo of sorts... or something that is highly discouraged.
They can probably have even more than the upper-middle class currently enjoys, or virtual luxury, but for those who develop a sense for accumulating material wealth in a greedy capacity, then those individuals usually leave and pursue their own interests most likely.

Those individuals usually leave?

Let me translate that: "individuals who are unwilling to conform to an oppressive societal expectation about how they should live are forced into exile."

Is that the "utopianism" we're talking about? Conform, or leave?

'Scarcity' as we know it IS mostly an artificial construct.

No. It isn't. It really, really isn't. Saying that it is does not make it so.

We have the ability to provide for everyone, but it's not in anyone's interest to do that.

Actually, most people have the ability to PROVIDE FOR THEMSELVES. And for the very few who do not have that ability, we (as a society) agree to help them.

No people who are able to "provide for themselves" should be someone who "we provide FOR."

The system we live in was not devised on 'equality' ... the very hard reality of the situation is the opposite.
There is NO equality in the system we currently have.
Resources aren't distributed properly.

Who defines how distribution is "properly" done?

And who says that "equality" is what we want? Do you want to have EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS and EXACTLY THE SAME LIFE which I have? Do I have to have the exact same things and the exact same life that, say, Maverisms has?

We're NOT equal. We are INDIVIDUALS, and we should be treated as such.

The founders of the USA were very careful about how they phrased things when they set up this nation. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

We are to be treated equally under the law. We are CREATED equal. We start off in the same place.

But they SPECIFICALLY AVOIDED saying that "all men forever remain equal." Because we don't.

Some men (and I'm using that in the gender-neutral sense... a shortcoming of the English language) produce nothing of value, ever. Some become great drags on society and do great harm. Some do great things, and make matters better for everyone.

Surely you recognize that some people (say, historically, Jonas Salk?) have been greater than other people (say, Jeffrey Dahmer)?

And does a Jonas Salk deserve better than a Jeffery Dahmer does?

No, we're not "all equal," nor should we be treated as though we are.

We SHOULD be given the same, equal opportunities. But what we do with what opportunities we're given... along with our inherent (and unique) personal characteristics.. should
matter more, and that's what makes us "not equal."

Technologies in circulation are dabbling in obscurity and revisionism for decades (that which is often touted as 'innovation' and 'substantial progress' is nothing more than revision upon revision of things that came before with no powerful change), not to mention that they aren't even used properly or to their fullest potential.

ABSOLUTE AND UTTER NONSENSE.

Popular folklore, nothing more.

One of the great aspects of TRUE capitalism (as opposed to "national socialism" where business is effectively run by the government) is that innovation is truly rewarded.

Come up with a great new idea, and if it works, people will pay you for what you've invented.

I've heard lots of nonsensical "pseudo-science" over the years... like the "car powered by water"... but this is just that... NONSENSE.

Any concept which works, barring governmental suppression of that concept under threat of legal punishment, will find its way into the marketplace, where it can compete with existing concepts.

And if it really is better, people will freely choose that over the other options.

Electric vehicles (the market in which I've worked for several years, mind you) are GREAT, and I do believe that we'll inevitably be driving them in lie of internal-combustion engines eventually.

But there are HUGE technical hurdles that the "vast unwashed masses" have no idea of. Not the least of which is that you still need to produce and transmit energy to charge these vehicles.

THis means DOUBLING the current electrical production infrastructure of the US, and also of totally replacing the entire electrical distribution system throughout the nation.

And, of course, totally rewiring every home in the nation to support the very-high-voltage required to transmit that much power.

And the list goes on. The infrastructure isn't there. The ability to create the infrastructure isn't there.

Oh, yes, and there's the fact that electrochemical storage cells, and in particular "lithium ion" type cells, are (as a general rule) a lot more hazardous and dangerous than petrochemicals are. (You've heard plenty of stories of batteries for phones or laptops "exploding," after all... imagine that happening to a battery tray in the back of your automobile as a result of a rear-end collision!)

And, of course, these batteries have limited lifespans, even under idealized environmental conditions. Imagine the wild temperature swings your CAR experiences, are related to what the celll phone in your pocket experiences.

Oh, yes, and lithium is a SCARCE material.

Technology as such in the real world HAS it's limits of course, but, point is, we could have solved most of our problems some time ago if there was a will for it. We certainly had the means to do so.

That's mere naivety. The hard work of science and invention is a lot harder than most people think it is.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Or, it's entirely possible that they simply don't know how to go about this, but I suspect that while there are genuine individuals in positions of power who want to help but don't know how, the great majority that don't enjoy change would probably discourage any such efforts in the first place.

That's just silly.

If someone invented "cold fusion" (for real), do you think that the folks running, say, Exxon would (a) try to suppress it, or (b) try to PRODUCE it?

Capitalism rewards, the most, whoever gets to market with an innovative idea first. Others may follow on, but the lion's share of the rewards go to the business which is "first to market" as a rule.

Considering how 'profits' come first in capitalism for those in power and in the industry, they predominantly look at how much money they will spend.
Resources (as in materials) aren't the problem... there's more than enough to do what needs to be done (and in the long run it would probably result in something far better), but being worried about 'costs' is what's often slowed progress down to a crawl.

Having worked for pretty much my entire career in R&D, associated with real production, I can say without a moment's hesitation that your comment is 180 degrees off-base.

Resources, and of course "possibility," are the ONLY reason that we don't "do everything."

You will never find any firm, despite what bad TV and movies may have told you, which does not actively seek to have the best, latest, fastest, newest thing on the market.

A few may be incapable of competing and may thus try to sabotage the group they can't compete with... but that's VERY rare... and pretty much never successful.

 

[Maverisms]

Resources, and of course "possibility," are the ONLY reason that we don't "do everything."

You will never find any firm, despite what bad TV and movies may have told you, which does not actively seek to have the best, latest, fastest, newest thing on the market.

If that's true, why do we have so many stories out of Xerox PARC indicating that Xerox utterly failed to understand what they had? They invented the interface you are using right now. Apple sold it. They didn't buy it from PARC, they copied it ran with it.

Xerox looked at the cost associated with building a "mouse" and said, "it can't be done." Jobs looked at it and said, "build me one for less than $15."

Xerox could have done this, but it didn't. Why? Shouldn't they have been actively seeking the best way to make this new method of computing interface work?

That's rhetorical. The answer is obvious. PARC is academic. It is supposed to be an idea incubator, but it runs like a research university. The "suits" on the East coast don't understand it, and as result, if an innovation out of PARC doesn't instantly fit their world view, they dismiss it. These guys only built the laser printer because JPL heard about the idea and really wanted some. They figured the idea would never take off.

THE LASER PRINTER, FFS!

Ideas are ideas, not magically endowed instruments of objective merit. People see ideas and immediately go into competition mode. At Xerox, the competition was between "doing what we know works" and "innovating into new markets." The safe bet won, and other organizations stole their good ideas and got rich.

Organizations do not think in terms of innovation unless they have to, either because of size, market position, or having a leadership that likes playing the riskier side. They play the protection game, by and large. That's why the entertainment industry tried to outlaw media recorders. They didn't know how to deal with them.

 

[Maverisms]

I hope this is a joke.

Yes, it is a joke.

It also isn't a joke. I honestly wouldn't care to live in the UFP. I wouldn't hate it, but I'm not a grass is greener kind of guy.

Would I like to live in world like Trek's? Yeah. But I've got to deal with the one I've got, so it isn't a deep dream of mine.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I hope this is a joke.

Yes, it is a joke.

It also isn't a joke. I honestly wouldn't care to live in the UFP. I wouldn't hate it, but I'm not a grass is greener kind of guy.

Would I like to live in world like Trek's? Yeah. But I've got to deal with the one I've got, so it isn't a deep dream of mine.

Well, of interest is that I actually produced a "series pitch" I made to CBS (right after the purchase), which addresses this very issue...

I can't talk about it in detail because, for another couple of years, they have an option to buy it and proceed with it. But I actually came up with the idea on this very BBS, several years back, and there are some folks here who will remember the concept.

I can say that it's a seven year "story arc" that takes big risks with the Star Trek universe in general, but brings us at the end back to a more "humanistic" point than where the last few series have taken us.

And that the very idea this thread is discussing... "Soft fascism" and the "nanny state" and what happens when this goes badly wrong... is at the core of this concept.

I doubt that they're going to end up going with it at this point, but I did get a financial arrangement, and I can't break that yet, even if they don't use it.

Once the current term is up, I'll almost certainly be converting my story outline into books, at least. I'll likely have to divorce it from the Star Trek concept, at least overtly, though, if it comes to that.

 

[Maverisms]

That might be interesting. No offence intended, but most of the "anti-nanny state" libertarian slanted SciFi I've seen is damn heavy handed. Heinlein, at least, had the decency to write good stories to go with his politics. I haven't seen anyone else manage it, and those who've tried have usually been spectacularly bad at it (I'm looking you, Michael Z. Williamson.)

 

[C.E. Evans]

Or you and competition can both bid money for the property and save time. "Resource Management System" is a good euphemism for money.

I didn't write that. You're quoting someone else who said that.

I think Trek Art is the only forum a "no money" thread hasn't appeared in...

Not true.

About two years ago I design twenty-third century money. Based on McCoy's dialog in TUC, I called it "Real Money." More formally, Earth Real Money.

While most money would be Federation Credit data transfer, I believe that each member world be able to maintain their own "indigenous" currency if they choose too.

And while I am a advocate of the cash-less society, I believe physical currency will still find some limited use in the Federation and the member worlds economies. It symbolically provide for the "recordless exchange," not that you're doing anything illegal of course. It makes possible the buying of goods without the semi-sexual necessity of pushing my padd up against yours.

You lost me at "not true."

Anyway, was there a big multi-page and occasionally heated debate about it?

 

[T'Girl]

Majority of humans in trek were stated to have moved beyond desiring such material aspects, and there's more than enough room for everyone.

The majority? Let's see there's Jean-Luc Picard, the child Jake Sisko, who else? Kirk acquired a house ("it's mine"), Ben Sisko wanted a house, Scotty acquired a boat, Joe Sisko acquire a restaurant, Robert Picard inherted a vineyard.

And we know that Picard was proven wrong about "being past warfare." Picard represented the false Utopianism of the 24th-century Federation...

Captain Picard said to Lily "Actually we're rather like yourself and Doctor Cochrane."

Which is adorably followed by Cochrane's later statement of "You wanna know what my vision is? ...Dollar signs! Money! I didn't build this ship to usher in a new era for humanity."

As the prophet of the wonderious future, Picard was just plain wrong on occasion. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things ... the need for possessions? Look at how much time and thought Ben Sisko put into his future home on Bajor. Acquiring the property, designing the structure, even constructing a scale model to get every detail correct. IIRC, Sisko was going to build it with his own two hands. Sisko was obsessed with the accumulation of a possession, a thing.

And Picard was dead wrong in his boastful pronouncement to Offenhouse.

 

[Maverisms]

I have exactly zero respect for libertarians. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. I've met too many of them. To be fair, I have no respect for Socialists and less for Free Market Conservatives. All of them live in a fantasy world based on the concept that everything would be fixed if everyone just did it their way.

The world is far messier than that, and anyone with sense would admit that we just don't understand it. My disrespect for these groups stems from the fact that few totally lack sense. What they do is shut sense down when faced with evidence that their pet philosophy doesn't cover all the bases.

This is not a manifesto. There's a point to this.

You see, Star Trek is fantasy. It tries to be sciency about it, but the science is secondary to the story. Star Trek has a humanist philosophy and some aspects of its back story reflect that. This is what Star Trek is.

When you combine what Star Trek is and my disdain for economic fairy tales, you have all you need to understand why I call this discussion "silly."

This discussion is not about Star Trek. Part of Trek's back story is that the UFP is a people's utopia. People's needs are taken care of, and the accumulation of wealth is not longer the prime drive of the Federations citizens. Everyone will admit that canon contradicts itself, and everyone knows that this occurs because canon is written by a horde of writers producers, managers, artists and even actors. These people are individuals and don't share a hive mind. Inconsistencies are inevitable.

Interesting discussion would be something along the lines of "how do we resolve this inconsistency within the boundaries set by the universe's vision?" Another interesting question would be, "What can we infer by combining these disparate bits of canon?"

These questions are not part of the discussion. This discussion is about trying to shoe horn pet philosophies into Star Trek. That's silly. Star Trek is what is. It is perfect reasonable to argue about what it is. It can be different things to different people. It is something else to try to make it into something it is not in order to fit your world view.

Star Trek was not an every man for himself, libertarian ideal. "Socialist" is probably the best description of it, but even that doesn't hold water because it is never explained. Libertarian doesn't fit. Too many plots are based on government interference (Bashir's dark secret, Data's personhood, Lahl's rights, the Prime Directive). The government of the UFP meddles. It gets involved and it has dominant power. It can be challenged, but it is definitely large and in charge.

That doesn't tell use what it is; only what it is not. It is not the libertarian ideal. Attempting to force libertarian dogma into it because Scotty bought a boat is asinine. Yes, Scotty bought a boat. Yes, Kirk owned something. Yes, Robert Picard inherited a vineyard. All this proves is that the UFP respects the right to property. It doesn't explain anything about how that mechanic works.

I've derived a couple of ideas how it might work, but I didn't get them from this discussion. Nothing is being added here. It is just "You suck!" followed by "No, you!" No insights, nothing to build on. I don't mistake courtesy for reasonable discourse. Some of my most enlightening debates were knock-down drag-out, vitriolic slugfests. But underlying the displays of venom were ideas about the nature of the thing, not ideals about what the thing should be. Here I see the later. Here I see people trying to twist the UFP to fit their prejudices, rather than an attempt to understand it. It is pointless.

I don’t claim it is without value. It's still entertaining in a Michael Bay kind of way.

 

[Vulagr]

Well, I'm enjoying the conversation anyway.

And personally, I'd love to live in a world like the Star Trek's earth.

I just can't see it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I have exactly zero respect for libertarians. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. I've met too many of them. To be fair, I have no respect for Socialists and less for Free Market Conservatives. All of them live in a fantasy world based on the concept that everything would be fixed if everyone just did it their way.

Yep.

Real science fiction writers have addressed the question of what happens to the world when economics cease to be a concern of practical importance - Arthur C. Clarke particularly liked to speculate on "the un-invention of work" as he called it. It's suggestive of the extent to which Star Trek is often a mass-appeal adventure story with only the trappings of sf that so many trek fans find the idea of a moneyless society a few centuries hence to be both radical and somehow offensive to "common sense."