that's probably true. They'd get a decent level of support in terms of welfare anyway, and there'd probably be social ostracism toward those who genuinely refused, out of laziness to contribute in any way. It wouldn't "ruin the system."
A country without Money how it's work?
- Thread starter Brainsucker
- Start date
that's probably true. They'd get a decent level of support in terms of welfare anyway, and there'd probably be social ostracism toward those who genuinely refused, out of laziness to contribute in any way. It wouldn't "ruin the system."
It would depend on what kind of system you want, or intend to have. A relatively wealthy system could extend charity to members who (for example) are physically or mentally incapable of providing for themselves. But it does in a way "ruin" the system when you have others who are generally healthy, but who milk from the system simply because they've found a way to do so. It undermines the intent of the system, as it was established. It's a form of fraud.
What you're removing from the system could be better employed elsewhere. Or not be put into the system in the first place, there by reducing the burden upon the general population.
It's sub-optimal, which I wouldn't call 'ruining'. Neither fraudulent insurance claims nor denials of legitimate claims 'ruin' the insurance industry, for example. Neither is desirable, but their existence doesn't condemn the industry as a whole.
But the reason it doesn't spoil it (today) is because people who work are rewarded by being able to access more (and better) food, clothing, shelter, opportunities, vacations, material possessions, standards of living
so while i work and see others not working (and it may bug me a little) the fact is, i gain significantly more by working than they do from not working
now fast forward to the federation utopia and we have a big difference because the people that don't want to work now have access to exactly the same standard of living as me so suddenly i'm looking at all these people having sex all day, drinking replicated champagne, travelling the globe having adventures, doing what ever they want with life and so i'm left wondering....why the fuck am i slogging my guts out all day when not slogging my guts out all day would result in exactly the same standard of living
i just don't see how you can get past that basic problem
so while i work and see others not working (and it may bug me a little) the fact is, i gain significantly more by working than they do from not working
now fast forward to the federation utopia and we have a big difference because the people that don't want to work now have access to exactly the same standard of living as me so suddenly i'm looking at all these people having sex all day, drinking replicated champagne, travelling the globe having adventures, doing what ever they want with life and so i'm left wondering....why the fuck am i slogging my guts out all day when not slogging my guts out all day would result in exactly the same standard of living
i just don't see how you can get past that basic problem
Define 'standard of living'. You won't starve to death and you won't end up sleeping on the streets. But will you get invited to parties? Will people come if you invite them? Will anyone have sex with you all day, or will you want to have sex with those who will?
I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be able to completely slack off. But I can see a host of potential reasons why you wouldn't want to.
So in Trek terms Captain Kirk worked so hard to be Captain so Orions would invite him to parties with green party favors, who were actually in charge
. But if he settled for being a Lieutenant he would be in the holodeck having sex with a computer generated UhuraSo in Trek terms Captain Kirk worked so hard to be Captain so Orions would invite him to parties with green party favors, who were actually in charge
essentially yes-in a future where basic needs are provided for, social status based around what you do or what you accomplish will take over for wealth as the marker of success.
sure there'll be the few who won't care and will just sit around on a holodeck and eating junk food, but I don't think the consequences of that kind of choice will be very appealing to many.
Also, again, the culture will be different-the importance of "making a contribution to society" will be promoted to people from the time they're children.
i'm using extreme slacker examples here......so lets put it another way, does Picard's brother make wine because he enjoys it or because he needs to make profit or to trade......obviously the former......then you turn up one day and tell him that we need someone to clean star ships and do some hoovering.....you honestly believe he's gonna say yes, ok i have a civic duty and will comply.......sorry no, i just don't accept it as a remotely realistic possibility.....he enjoys making wine and living on his farm (private property in the future?!) and has absolutely no reason to give that up to do something he doesn't want to do
we've established that not all menial work is automated and we've established that no one has any real imperative to do that menial work voluntarily so my underlying point is.....this is clearly a flaw in the...."money doesn't exist theory"
again, the example of sexing it up and being a layabout was an extreme example to hammer the point home but it's turned into a bit of a red herring.......if i lived in that society for example, i would probably be very pro-active, motivated and interested in doing worthwhile things with my life such as studying something or exploring space or being an architect or whatever.....the point is, if i can be architect (even a bad one who doesn't get commissioned much but it doesn't matter because i have no bills to pay or material concerns) then why would i agree to clean your ship.....unless there is something in it for me
and no matter how many times people tell me that we'd all be much nicer, more responsible and have a greater sense of civic duty in the future, sorry, i just don't accept that as a convincing explanation
well, maybe there'll only be a small percentage of the population who'll feel that way and it won't matter. I tend to think that people will be nicer and more cooperative once the struggle for basic needs that defines so much of our time in society is no longer a factor. Imagine what a change in society that would be.
And worse case scenario, they impose a small, symbolic punishment(no access to holodecks or something) to those who don't participate in the "crappy job rotation" or whatever. I don't see it as a big deal.
This is the most interesting thread I've come across in a long time.
And my Son says, "If you take away the requirement to stomp on others to make your living, what else is left to do except be a good person in the community?"
This is the most interesting thread I've come across in a long time.
And my Son says, "If you take away the requirement to stomp on others to make your living, what else is left to do except be a good person in the community?"
your son is a wise and eloquent person.
I will pass that along to him, thanks. At fourteen being the big Trek fan that he is, I only hope that he can see the fruits of this way of thinking in a concrete manner in his future world here on Earth. With nearly seven billion here now, and the subsequent globalization of world finance & levelling out of the standard of living, Capitalism must become another tool in our future's toolbox, not the gospel of the masses handed down by the rich and old, who will not be around for the Eugenics Wars and Khan's forcible removal from power.your son is a wise and eloquent person.
I don't think we have established that not all menial work is automated. We've seen people do what, peel potatoes, wash dishes? There are alternative explanations for that (again, given that we already have dishwashers in the here and now).
And you're not addressing the social pressures that may be in place. It's fine for you to say for the sake of argument that you personally wouldn't mind becoming what amounts to a pariah, but you can't plausibly universalise that.
(Shrug) it's canon. I don't accept some matter-antimatter reaction chamber whosis as a convincing explanation for the ability to accelerate past lightspeed, but I'm not about to spend effort convincing myself they don't actually do that in the show.
Hux, I wonder if this is what you're hoping for:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3I-teuk_B8
Imagine in 20-30 years where this tech will be. But as Sonak mentioned, a new or different social conscience might emerge due to these technological advancements. Let's hope it is a benign one.
"In New Babylon, all useful yet repetitive activity underwent automation; and technology, mobilized at the mass level, would release people from the daily drudge of necessity, guaranteeing a healthy dose of free time. There'd be big institutional transformations, too, like collective ownership of land and the means of production, together with the rationalization of the manufacturing of consumer goods, making scarcity old hat." Guy Debord by Andy Merrifield
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3I-teuk_B8
Imagine in 20-30 years where this tech will be. But as Sonak mentioned, a new or different social conscience might emerge due to these technological advancements. Let's hope it is a benign one.
"In New Babylon, all useful yet repetitive activity underwent automation; and technology, mobilized at the mass level, would release people from the daily drudge of necessity, guaranteeing a healthy dose of free time. There'd be big institutional transformations, too, like collective ownership of land and the means of production, together with the rationalization of the manufacturing of consumer goods, making scarcity old hat." Guy Debord by Andy Merrifield
Oh my Buddha, let's hope so.
Well, it's not like the French didn't try during the May/June 1968 Wildcat Strike only to end up with a 10% increase in pay, an extra week of vacation time and a slight decrease in the work week. But it's a start, at least.Oh my Buddha, let's hope so.
The money thing is an endlessly fascinating and debatable topic. It occurs to me that there is simply a private currency system unsanctioned by the federation. The federation, as in, the government entity based on earth, doesn't believe in currency based economics. BUT...the bar where Kirk got his ass kicked does. As did anyone who wanted that establishment's brand of alcohol. Same with those cargo ships.
Kinda like bitcoin I guess. Federation citizens are free to trade in whatever if they wish, but the federation itself will have absolutely nothing to do with it. Not even to regulate it, as it's mere existence is contrary to official doctrine.
Kinda like bitcoin I guess. Federation citizens are free to trade in whatever if they wish, but the federation itself will have absolutely nothing to do with it. Not even to regulate it, as it's mere existence is contrary to official doctrine.
I like that!
By far the most intriguing explanation yet. Thanks, Robau.
"The Culture didn't use money, as such. But it also didn't want to be too conspicuously extravagant with matter and energy either. (So inelegant to be wasteful)." The Player of Games by Iain Banks.
"I repeat: from the standpoint of social justice, money should be abolished, and libertarian communism is infinitely superior to capitalism...." Dr. Jose Maria Pueyo - The Anarchist Collectives: Workers' Self-Management in the Spanish Revolution 1936-1939 by Sam Dolgoff.
Similar threads
