How Did Viewers in the '60s Perceive the Federation?

[Christopher]

Well, TOS and TAS have a number of outright capitalists -- Harry Mudd, Cyrano Jones, the K7 bartender, Flint (who was rich enough to buy a planet), Carter Winston. Also, the Rigel XII miners in "Mudd's Women" were apparently in it for profit, as were the pergium miners on Janus VI, since Kirk said working with the Hortas would make them "embarrassingly rich." The whole post-capitalist, moneyless economy thing doesn't kick in until the TNG era, which makes sense, because they apparently didn't have proper replicators yet in the 23rd century. (Although Kirk did say in "Catspaw" that they could synthesize an endless supply of gemstones so that such things were no longer considered valuable.)

 

[Pauln6]

Yes some sort of barter system around fuel, energy production, food, and medical supplies seemed to be the most common themes, which make sense. Alien worlds carry new diseases and potential catastrophes that might not show up on short to medium term surveys .

I never found the existence of Replicators to be convincing in TNG. They had to get pretty energy intensive. It did not look like a sustainable system on larger scales.

 

[suarezguy]

Socialism, in the democratic sense as opposed to the Marxist sense, is simply any government program that regulates the free market in order to prioritize the well-being of the public or the national interest over the profit of business owners -- environmental regulations, national health care programs, federal infrastructure programs, food stamps and other assistance programs for the poor

I think the program also has to have the goal of redistributing wealth toward egalitarianism and therefore environmental regulations (for the good of the public rather than about wealth per se, let alone redistributing it) aren't an example. Otherwise the phrase socialist regulation would just be repetitive (unless you consider that there as well as non-redistributive regulations there can also be anti-egalitarian regulations).

In a way it's probably the ultimate utopia where anyone can be anything they wish to be. If you wanted to be a capitalist and make money (gold pressed latinum I guess), for instance, you could be a capitalist.

Yeah, by DS9 latinum seems to have become the interspecies currency and I think to be pretty valued by most humans as well, including (maybe) even to use among themselves. Socialist countries can allow commerce with capitalists but probably not that much and wouldn't in the ideal.

Well, for one thing, these aren't philosophies, they're economic models. What I've never understood about economic systems is how some people treat them as ideologies, almost like religions, and fanatically oppose any system other than the one they believe in. I mean, economics is practical, not abstract.

Well what type of economic systems are in place relates to government policies if not the whole type of government; you admitted there is also a non-democratic (Marxist/dictatorial) form of socialist system.

It should be more like science than religion or politics -- the systems that get used should be the ones that work, and they should be adjusted to fit the evidence. If the best results come from combining elements of two or more economic models, then it's insane to reject that fact because it clashes with one's sense of ideological purity.

Well in part because pure laissez-faire capitalism has never been tried it's both obvious and valid that a mixed-system is the most successful and yet there can also be a lot of valid disagreement about what the mix should be.

That's not what libertarianism means. Libertarianism isn't the idea that the government is harmless, it's the idea that government and shared responsibility of any form are active threats to individual liberty.

It's the view that government should not use force and coercion to get what it wants, should not compel behavior or, other than to prevent harm to individuals, prohibit behavior.

The Federation clearly does have a central government, one whose policies and laws maximize individual freedom rather than destroying it. People can do whatever they want because the government protects and maintains a system that ensures they have the freedom and resources to do whatever they want (for instance, by operating Starfleet to defend the Federation from conquest and expand its science and technology for the betterment of its citizens). That is anathema to libertarian beliefs.

Libertarians see nothing wrong with collective/collaborative programs if contributing to them is voluntary. Most people would prefer that except they fear that not enough people would contribute enough.

 

[Christopher]

I think the program also has to have the goal of redistributing wealth toward egalitarianism and therefore environmental regulations (for the good of the public rather than about wealth per se, let alone redistributing it) aren't an example.

I'm talking about democratic socialism as it's actually applied in most Western democracies, not the pure, absolute doctrine. My whole point is that it's wrong to treat these as rigid dogmas. The best system is one that combines the best parts of everything.

Well what type of economic systems are in place relates to government policies if not the whole type of government; you admitted there is also a non-democratic (Marxist/dictatorial) form of socialist system.

I'm not talking about what is, I'm talking about what should be. In life, people treat economic systems as if they were pseudo-religious doctrines that had to be clung to in defiance of all objective evidence -- which is stupid, because there's nothing more pragmatic than economics, so it should be based on what actually works in practice instead of what someone wants to believe will work.

 

[suarezguy]

In life, people treat economic systems as if they were pseudo-religious doctrines that had to be clung to in defiance of all objective evidence -- which is stupid, because there's nothing more pragmatic than economics, so it should be based on what actually works in practice instead of what someone wants to believe will work.

Aren't there legitimately different, contrasting standards used to evaluate how well something works in practice? I.e., a big dispute about economic systems and policies isn't just what produces more (although that is disputed) but who is able to gain/keep more or less of what is produced compared to who should be able to gain/keep what?

Of course regardless of preferences about distribution a system does have to produce a certain amount of goods and more would probably be better but many people would be willing that less be produced than could be possible if what was produced was more rightly/fairly distributed.

 

[1001001]

Are we still talking about Star Trek?

I can't tell...

 

[Christopher]

Are we still talking about Star Trek?

I can't tell...

Well, it's part of my (and others') previous point that our existing economic models wouldn't work for a post-scarcity economy like the 24th-century Federation, so trying to apply existing theories just wouldn't work. Something new would have to be invented. That's what I'm saying. I keep hearing people talk about things like capitalism and communism as if they were immutable laws of physics or the word of God, rather than just some ideas that people thought up a couple of centuries ago and have been testing in practice ever since. Our current models haven't been around forever, and it stands to reason that they won't continue to be around forever. Whatever economic theories the Federation's system uses are probably ones that we haven't invented yet.

 

[Noname Given]

I never found the existence of Replicators to be convincing in TNG. They had to get pretty energy intensive. It did not look like a sustainable system on larger scales.

^^^
IDK - if they could make power systems that drive devices that Warp spacetime; and Matter to Energy to Matter Transporters that are safe for Biological beings to the point they are considered routine; I never had an issue with them being able to use the latter technology to replicate non-biologigical matter, or be able to power such a device via a civilian power grid of the same era.

 

[Pauln6]

^^^
IDK - if they could make power systems that drive devices that Warp spacetime; and Matter to Energy to Matter Transporters that are safe for Biological beings to the point they are considered routine; I never had an issue with them being able to use the latter technology to replicate non-biologigical matter, or be able to power such a device via a civilian power grid of the same era.

To be frank, I have a similar issue with casual use of transporters too. Converting matter to energy releases masses of energy and vice versa. It's unrealistic to suppose that process and keeping all that energy contained doesn't involve vast amounts of power in itself. We know that ships don't have unlimited power and warping space is fudged through the use of dilithium to focus and increase the energy. Scale a ship of 400 up to 4 million. How many of these rare dilithium crystals would it takes to power replicators on a planet? How much anti-matter? We see on several occasions just how quickly battery power is drained on a starship. I don't see solar storage being good enough to power a planet (geothermal possibly?).

I think the TOS economy like the old US frontier with famine and disease has a more inspirational pioneering feel. It's less sanitised than TNG (and Enterprise) with people on the make, where the only ship in the Quadrant is believable, even if the writers are clearly blagging it as they go as far as the future economy is concerned.

One of my gripes about Discovery is that it is too TNG in terms of its economy and energy consumption.