Excellent idea. I never even thought of it that way before. I find that very likely.
How is the leader of the federation lected in the Trekverse?
- Thread starter Yevetha
- Start date
Excellent idea. I never even thought of it that way before. I find that very likely.
Well, to start with, the miners in "Mudd's Women" were depicted in a relatively positive light. Rough and lonely and wrong to be helping Mudd, but not as bad people. Their work was depicted as necessary and admirable, and their loneliness understandable, and it was quite clear they were doing it for money.
Similarly, once the miners in "The Devil in the Dark" had learned to get over their fear of the Horta (and the Horta its fear of humanoids), it was clear that both expected to be able to work together and earn great profit doing so. This was depicted in a positive light.
Spock's disguise as a merchant in "Errand of Mercy" was seen as quite acceptable and common for a Vulcan.
Cyrano Jones was depicted in a humorously obnoxious light in "The Trouble with Tribbles," but the bartender was portrayed in a very sympathetic, long-suffering light.
Bashir's father is depicted as a failed entrepreneur who used to own his own shuttle business, and its failure is one of the things that is supposed to mark him as being a bit of a loser.
And, of course, Quark is depicted in a very sympathetic light much of the time, even if he is also depicted as someone who has a lot to learn.
Agreed. There's no evidence that either one's business is owned by the state.
Well, I'm not sure if I'd go that far. We don't know how successful Robert Picard was -- in point of fact, he probably inherited the vineyard and the business. They're getting along, but that's not the same thing as being "quite wealthy." They struck me as a very traditional, upper middle class sort of family (insofar as our class system today can be applied to a classless future).
They have an economy. Even if they had no money, there would still be an economy. And economy is simply the sum of all things owned and traded for.
Pardon me. I should have said vast wealth. The Picard family lands are big, but they don't look huge, and while Chateau Picard seems a well-respected brand, Robert didn't exactly look like he was living in the lap of luxury, either. They seemed pretty middlin' to me.
Not from scratch. But neither do I think it is just for someone to be born wealthy and grow up rich and never do anything to really earn the place in society into which they were born. There needs to be some balance.
If you're born the son of the Federation's equivalent of Bill Gates, and you want to maintain that status in society, frankly, I do think you should have to mostly start from scratch. Sure, your family should get to keep its home or homes, and I don't even have a problem with you inheriting enough to maintain your homes and keep yourself fed and comfortable. But (to speak of things in our terms), there's no reason for you to inherit $80 billion. You can stand to lose the vast majority of that wealth and still be quite well-off for life, and, frankly, you shouldn't be able to hold such exorbitant wealth that you did nothing to earn. That way lies aristocracy, economic domination, and tyranny of the rich over the common man.
What makes you think that's the only way an economy can be organized? Why not have the workers fire the owners? Those workers may employ themselves instead of relying on the wealthy elite to keep them afloat as we do in the modern world.
Human survival does not depend upon economic inequality.
Are you Donald Trump? Bill Gates?
No?
Then don't worry about it. I'm not talking about normal people, I'm talking about people who are filthy rich.
And if you ARE filthy rich, why should the state get to befit from your wealth? Because your children didn't earn that wealth, and because the government should not allow your family to use that wealth to gain disproportionate influence over society. Vast inherited wealth is a threat to liberty.
It doesn't matter who I am. When you take away an individuals right to do distribute their wealth as they please, it's plain wrong. The state already has their collective hands taking part of that wealth when your alive in taxes and you're saying they should take the rest of it when your dead.
If I want to give what's mine to my children, who is the state to stop me?
What utter bullshit.
I lost a little bit of respect for you today, Sci. You've always championed peoples rights but at the end of the day your just like everyone else. Having a pet crowd who you think don't deserve the same rights as everyone else.
No, it's not, not when that individual has amassed such great wealth that they become too powerful and thus a threat to liberty and democracy.
Property rights should not be absolute. There should be limits, checks and balances. No one believes that the government should lack for checks and balances, and so, too, should the wealthy (whose power rivals that of the government's).
Vast inherited wealth is a threat to liberty and democracy, and the rights of the people to liberty and democracy outweigh Paris Hilton's right to yet another billion dollars.
I lost a little bit of respect for you today, Sci. You've always championed peoples rights but at the end of the day your just like everyone else. Having a pet crowd who you think don't deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Oh, bullshit. The rich have more rights than anyone else by virtue of the sheer amount of power they have. I just don't think they should have more rights than others and recognize that the only way to balance their power is to place some of the same limits on inherited wealth. That's not taking away rights, that's protecting the rights of others from the wealthy elite.
But look at what you're doing Sci, your dividing people into us and them. It okay to take from them because they're not us. Most people don't (in all honesty) have that level of money, so it entirely proper to take from those who do, because it won't impact "our group."
Yes they are normal people, Paris Hilton isn't a rich American, she's an American. Yes, Paris possesses more money than me, but she herself is no different than me. Or from you.
Neither did the government. When Bill Gates originally earn the money his children would one day inherit, he paid taxes upon it. The government has ALREADY gotten their piece of it. No double dipping. Inheritance, regardless of the amount, should be tax-free.
The money that you inherit from me Sci, it's "pre-taxed,"
As long as their not doing anything against the legal code, why should the government have any say in how someone (rich or poor) spends their money, again their money.
Then the government shouldn't have access to it, then the government won't have the ability threaten our liberty.
Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem
Ronald Reagan
I am pretty certain Sci didn't say the government should take all of the dead rich people's money from their families. They just don't need billions of it. It is just plain unfair for someone to be born into extreme wealth without earning a penny of it and never have to work a day in their lives while many people live in poverty even if they are working their butts off.
And quoting Ronald Reagan? Eww. Not going to win some people with that. LOL
And quoting Ronald Reagan? Eww. Not going to win some people with that. LOL
See there's two parts to the equation though. Who is the government to determine how I distribute the wealth I earned when I die? Your taking the freedom of choice from those who earned money during their lifetime.
Why should I try to continue to innovate late into life or try to create even more jobs if the government is just going to step in and take it?
I'm about as poor as poor can get... but this plan just smacks of someone being envious of those with wealth.
I do believe the government is the problem of every problem we have in this country and so is any other country. What's the problem with a lot of the third world? The government is oppressing the people and worst a lot of the problems are also cause by foreign government interfering which knows nothing about that country's politics and society and that country is the U.S. In this country George Bush got us into the recession and on and on. The problem is not capitalism; it's more like corporatism. The only person that explain this well is Ron Paul. I admire him because he believe in our Constitutions.
You really are clueless.
I think is true that if you are in a position to help someone you should, like if you have a lot of money. But I think forcing them to give up their money is a dangerous trend we are setting. When you are talking about the government taking control of people personal properties is never a good idea. The government is the problem because they spend too much and taking our money away to spend on foreign policy and such. It all started with George Bush, well just about every president spend too much. The problem is not capitalism it's corporatism, where the government makes special laws to help out certain corporation, so they would make money and give some of the money for their political campaign. These corporations are just hogging all the money. Insurance companies are just a few. The government won't let doctors run their own clinics and hospitals which force the price of health care to skyrocketed, so the insurance companies can make more money. They are like the middleman. There is an unintended side effect every time the government get involve. For example, now people who don't have insurance find themselves unable to pay for hospital visits.
So who determines how much the family "needs"? Need is a very vague term here.
Well, I personally am not afraid of a democratic government leveling the playing field to a degree. In an ideal situation there shouldn't be this issue because there will already be mechanisms to stop people from accumulating huge amounts of wealth. Aristocracy is bad for democracy, whether its a traditional royal blood or inherited vast wealth that keeps their position in society at the expense of others.
You should be. Government spends far too much time in the lives of private citizens instead of actually fixing problems that need fixed.
I'm pretty sure there are many wealthy people who are doing a much better job of investing their wealth in communities than the government ever could:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
http://www.theoracleofomaha.com/2010/08/warren-buffett-billionaire-charity-list.html
I'm sorry, Sci's idea is plain bad and it hurts me to say that because I really like Sci and think his heart is in the right place most of the time.
If the government wants a bigger slice of the pie, I have no issue with them taxing these people more. But what they do with their property upon their deaths is none of the governments (or my) business.
The idea has 'epic fail' written all over it.
Last edited:
I don't fault Sci for his position on this issue. It's understandable, IMHO. It's not one I happen to share - I am sure as hell not rich, but I don't much care for the idea of the government deciding how much money anyone "needs".
That being said, many rich people are pricks. Those that are, and also those that are not, are easy targets, so to speak. To hate the rich is very much easier than to not hate them. We've been conditioned to automatically believe that anyone with money isn't using it wisely, or isn't paying their "fair share" (another term so nebulous as to be effectively meaningless), etc. etc. Rich people are as convenient a political target as there ever was one. Oftentimes, but not all the time, it's even justified.
That being said, many rich people are pricks. Those that are, and also those that are not, are easy targets, so to speak. To hate the rich is very much easier than to not hate them. We've been conditioned to automatically believe that anyone with money isn't using it wisely, or isn't paying their "fair share" (another term so nebulous as to be effectively meaningless), etc. etc. Rich people are as convenient a political target as there ever was one. Oftentimes, but not all the time, it's even justified.
Interesting responses. Who said anything about hating rich people? Wealth distribution is something I have been studying for awhile now(not professionally or academically, but personal time). I know that it is not good economically or morally to have extreme amounts of wealth bottled up in the top couple percent of rich people. No matter what, the fact remains the government does have a major role in economics and to some degree personal finances. We are a long way from the "laissez faire" economies of the 19th century. There is a lot of variables that can be debated on this issue like how much is too much or what someone "needs". For example, let's say when someone with $2 million worth of assets dies, none of it will be touched. Anything over can be taxed(see estate tax).
If you would like, I can attempt to explain more and other stuff but I was trying to stick up for Sci. I like his political and economic outlook from what I have seen.
Can't say that about at least 2 posters. 
If you would like, I can attempt to explain more and other stuff but I was trying to stick up for Sci. I like his political and economic outlook from what I have seen.
Can't say that about at least 2 posters.
Interesting responses. Who said anything about hating rich people? Wealth distribution is something I have been studying for awhile now(not professionally or academically, but personal time). I know that it is not good economically or morally to have extreme amounts of wealth bottled up in the top couple percent of rich people. No matter what, the fact remains the government does have a major role in economics and to some degree personal finances. We are a long way from the "laissez faire" economies of the 19th century. There is a lot of variables that can be debated on this issue like how much is too much or what someone "needs". For example, let's say when someone with $2 million worth of assets dies, none of it will be touched. Anything over can be taxed(see estate tax).
If you would like, I can attempt to explain more and other stuff but I was trying to stick up for Sci. I like his political and economic outlook from what I have seen.
First off, I don't allow a persons overall political agenda decide whether or not I agree with them on individual issues. That is just non-sense.
Second, if you tell people that their earnings are subject to government seizure (which is what this is) upon their death, they are just going to give it to who they want to have it prior to death. Or is the government going to tell them how they're allowed to spend their money when they're alive as well?
The government already has a tool for the redistribution of wealth, it's called taxes.
Like I said... Epic Fail.
Interesting responses. Who said anything about hating rich people? Wealth distribution is something I have been studying for awhile now(not professionally or academically, but personal time). I know that it is not good economically or morally to have extreme amounts of wealth bottled up in the top couple percent of rich people. No matter what, the fact remains the government does have a major role in economics and to some degree personal finances. We are a long way from the "laissez faire" economies of the 19th century. There is a lot of variables that can be debated on this issue like how much is too much or what someone "needs". For example, let's say when someone with $2 million worth of assets dies, none of it will be touched. Anything over can be taxed(see estate tax).
If you would like, I can attempt to explain more and other stuff but I was trying to stick up for Sci. I like his political and economic outlook from what I have seen.
First off, I don't allow a persons overall political agenda decide whether or not I agree with them on individual issues. That is just non-sense.
Second, if you tell people that their earnings are subject to government seizure (which is what this is) upon their death, they are just going to give it to who they want to have it prior to death. Or is the government going to tell them how they're allowed to spend their money when they're alive as well?
The government already has a tool for the redistribution of wealth, it's called taxes.
Like I said... Epic Fail.
That's why taxes should be as low as possible. It doesn't matter if you are rich, the middle class, or poor. That's why they need to stop spending our taxed dollars on foreign policies that don't even work, but instead get us terrorist threats and attacks.
Similar threads
