In The 24th Century, How Did They Do It?

[T'Girl]

Would you be living in a perfect society, if you personally didn't like it? Not everyone want the same things, and your vision of utopia might be radically different than mine.

A true utopia would be all things, to all people. Placing Robert Picard in a nice condo in Paris, with a replicator in one wall, would not make him happy. His "pursuit of happiness" would be restricted by that environment, the same environment that would make another type of person ecstatic.

No matter skillfully you craft a utopian society, there are going to be people who reject the message of "this is what we all said we wanted." Not everyone wants to be taken care of, to be provided for, it makes their skin crawl. Other view as a obscenity that what they see as lives basics being provided is even open for discussion.

Your view of perfection, should not be based in part upon those around you lacking in choice to choose otherwise. It might be a society where you can obtain a reasonably comfortable provided existence, while many of those around you engage happily in monied capitalism. As soon as you say "we need to get rid of those types of people," the future utopia of a Star Trek universe becomes a dystopia.

In a perfect world (or universe) each group could look at the other with a degree of curiosity, but never animosity.

 

[Nightdiamond]

As soon as you say "we need to get rid of those types of people," the future utopia of a Star Trek universe becomes a dystopia.
In a perfect world (or universe) each group could look at the other with a degree of curiosity, but never animosity.

True. But take internet trolls for example. They have freedom of speech, the freedom to be obnoxious and bigoted.

But at the same time, they make web browsing almost intolerable. Now, Trek is basically saying that ALL humans, in the 24th century are open minded, color blind, and tolerant.
Respectful. Decent.

I'm assuming then, that a 24th century human never deals with reading disturbing comments when reading a blog or news article.

So how did it get to be that way except obviously all the "bad people", the ones that make it difficult for everyone else, were gone somehow?

Even now, we've had a hell of a lot of controversial things in the news; economics, shootings, political fighting.

Trek says 24th century humans don't worry about this at all. This is Utopia, plain and simple. Doesn't have to be perfect, just Utopia, lol.

 

[T'Girl]

Doesn't sound like the cosmopolitan future Earth society I'd want to live in. Where's the diversity?

 

[horatio83]

Trek portrays a very diverse future but not a capitalist one. And yes, if any Harry Mudds emerge they will be ruthlessly crushed. Every society, even our democratic ones, have a form of censorship (you could argue the implicit censorship is even more powerful than explicit censorship).
It is no coincidence that we see everything in Trek from the perspective of a quasi-military institution. Without discipline and tight rules humankind did not make it in the fictional history of Trek and won't make it in the real world either.
Choice and freedom out of the mouth of a libertarian aka anarcho-capitalist imply the freedom to destroy out ecosphere and basically hire slaves.

 

[T'Girl]

Trek portrays a very diverse future but not a capitalist one

There is enough references to indicate capitalism is alive and well in the Star Trek future. The "play acting" of running a business hold no water. Restaurants are businesses, vineyards are businesses (and usually quite profitable ones), mines are businesses (and Star Trek has abundant minings).

Picard idealistic "no money" fairy tale is likely the result of his adversarial relationship with his wealthy brother.

It is no coincidence that we see everything in Trek from the perspective of a quasi-military institution. Without discipline and tight rules humankind did not make it in the fictional history of Trek and won't make it in the real world either.

Suppression and ridged control over society are the signs of a dictatorship. Government need to be the sevant of the pubic/society, not the master. The leash we use to hold our leader need to be short and strong (forgive my libertarian views).

Choice and freedom out of the mouth of a libertarian aka anarcho-capitalist imply the freedom to destroy out ecosphere and basically hire slaves.

Where else are you gong to find choice and freedom, if not out of the mouth of a libertarian? Free people, uncontroled by the state, can not be slaves.

 

[horatio83]

I certainly do not forgive your libertarian views. Libertarianism is just a euphemism for anarcho-capitalism. Left-libertarianism, e.g. embodied by Chomsky, suffers from the same anarchy problem and anarchy is never an option. There are some lovely post-war African countries which any anarchist should visit to get cured.

About slaves, last time I checked Ron Paul had quite some issues with the civil rights movement. And it makes perfect sense, if your ideology tells you that a powerful government can be the only abuser of power private players like slaveholders are per definition no abusers.
My point of view is that any agglomeration of power, no matter in whose hands, is bad.

So the real problem is how to manage and contain power. I totally agree that the government should serve us and not the other way around. At the moment big corporations have quite a lot of influence upon government which seems to be perfectly fine from your libertarian point of view. It is not fine from my democratic point of view.
For me the key word is not power but rules. That's how democracy works, you channel the power struggle into elections and you contain the abuse of power via the separation of powers, checks and balances and so on. These rules are not oppressive, they are the very opposite of it. Same with rules that forbid you to dump toxic waste into your neighbour's garden or somewhere else. And here we see the first problem of libertarians, they never talk about externalities so they obviously skipped Econ 101.
About the necessity to regulate banks, we all should know this since Diamond's classical paper. Once I hear Austrian economists speak about asymmetric information I will begin to take them seriously. Until then they are as useful as voodoo priests. So yeah, you libertarian guys might want to actually study economics before you talk about it.

So let's get rid of this libertarian nonsense and think about this problem from a liberal perspective (I hope everybody is aware that "liberal" is not a placeholder for Democratic Party). If you take a look at our liberal, Western world you notice an interesting paradox. On the one hand we are as free as never before in terms of choosing jobs, partners, clothes and so on. But on the other hand life in general is as regulated as never before.
To compare it with premodern life, people back then had to follow a lot of implicit rules concerning what to work, whom to marry and so on yet there were no cameras on the streets and orgies were real orgies back then with no smoking bans. To sum this paradox up, a liberal lifestyle is only possible in a tightly regulated world. Hard to live a liberal lifestyle in a poor country which is unable to regulate life in any way. If you take a look at the state of public infrastructure in the US you get a small taste of this.

Back to Trek Trek, stop wearing your $$$ glasses. Neither Sisko or Picard run a business to become wealthy, they do it because they love to cook respectively to make wine. And Picard being jealous of his supposedly rich (a) the episode did not portray him as rich, b) how the hell are you supposed to becom rich via selling wine?) brother is just a poor joke. The guy wanted to visit the stars since he was a small kid.
You might wanna stop to project your issues on fictional characters. The greenback might be the only thing that matters to you but most people care about other things like doing something useful and fulfilling in their life, be it cooking, making wine or serving Starfleet.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Back to Trek Trek, stop wearing your $$$ glasses. Neither Sisko or Picard run a business to become wealthy,

This was said on screen?

 

[horatio83]

Cook or vinemaker aren't really jobs in which you can become wealthy. Furthermore it is pretty obvious that they aren't wealthy, that they love what they do, that there are easier jobs than standing in the vineyard or the kitchen all day and that both are old enough to retire.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Doesn't sound like the cosmopolitan future Earth society I'd want to live in. Where's the diversity?

But then, how does Trek society get to be enlightened, the way we see it? If bigots, jerks, greedy people exist, in the future, then it isn't the Trek we all know.

I think there are some Libertarian aspects in 24th century human society. It's one (if not the only) way to break free of gov sanctioned discrimination, unfair laws, etc .

I'll assume that in the future, humans have no problems with issues like same sex marriages and such, because of a libertarian attitude.

However, issues like abortion, prostitution, drug use, pornography in the 24th century will also pop up.

I strongly suspect that Trek society may not have as much a problem with abortion.

Too much of it does get weird. Every nut job with an agenda comes out of the woodwork using Libertarian ism as voice. They tend to be too paranoid, IMO.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

. Libertarianism is just a euphemism for anarcho-capitalism.

So jargon equals jargon, labels equal labels?

 

[horatio83]

Point taken but I did not want to write an entire post on why and in how far libertarianism is basically anarchic. Suffice to say that Chomsky as well as Paul believe that a world with fewer rules in which people spontaneously arrange themselves is better than one with many institutions, rules and a moderately powerful central government.
I think that the basic illusion of this political position is that via getting rid of rules and central power you create a world without power agglomeration and abuse. It's kinda like the communist illusion that you merely gotta destroy the bourgeoisie to create a class-less society of equals. In the end somebody grabbed power in this vacuum and horribly abused it. In the case of right-libertarians it's corporations and in the case of left-libertarians I don't know (all I see is that people like Chomsky are treated as semi-gods by their disciples so the scribbler becomes the new master).

Kant wrote that "man is an animal which, if it lives among others of its kind, requires a master". The trick is not to pretend that we could do without this master but to make the masters that we have, meaning our systems of self-rule, as decent as possible.

 

[xortex]

Difference is Chomsky never invaded Poland or became Stalin.

 

[T'Girl]

I strongly suspect that Trek society may not have as much a problem with abortion.

Both Geordi (masterpiece society) and Trip (when he was preggers) expressed negative views of abortion. Worf advocated ending Deanna's pregnancy, but the suggestion wasn't accepted by Deanna.

Cook or vinemaker aren't really jobs in which you can become wealthy. Furthermore it is pretty obvious that they aren't wealthy ...

Actually, vineyards are the lifestyle of the the rich and famous, currently in California (93% of Americas vineyards) an acre of just grape vines starts at $120,000 and goes up to $2,000,000. The Picard vineyard in La Barre, France was big enough so that when Jean-Luc and Robert were in the fields and the camera was changing angles, we couldn't easily see the Picard house (which was fair sized). So let's say a dozen plus acres, Robert and Marie are sitting on valuable land.

Twelve acres of vines could produce 48,000 (750ml) bottles of wine, now let us be nice and say that Chateau Picard is superior wine, giving the Picard's a multimillion (dollar equivalent) yearly gross, and many hundreds of thousands in profits. You can like what you do for a living, and still make money.

I stand by what I said before, Robert Picard is wealthy.

The greenback might be the only thing that matters to you ...

Ohh, commenting on the person and not the post, nice.

the episode did not portray him as rich

Big house, lots of land, a business that produces a valuable specialty product.

Hey wait, the Picard's privately own the means of production, that make them capitalists.

 

[horatio83]

In Central Europe owning grapes is nothing special. I actually worked in the vineyards of a friend of my father as a kid and he was anything but rich. Barely made a buck with selling wine and in France the situation is similar. The peasants who produce wine aren't upper class people.
So yeah, you can read all your wet libertarian fantasies in it but it doesn't make Picard's brother rich.

If you wanna discuss economics you really gotta study it before you shoot out empty phrases like "oh, he is a capitalist because he owns something". I also own some land and I am a social democrat and not a capitalist.

 

[Nightdiamond]

I strongly suspect that Trek society may not have as much a problem with abortion.

Both Geordi (masterpiece society) and Trip (when he was preggers) expressed negative views of abortion. Worf advocated ending Deanna's pregnancy, but the suggestion wasn't accepted by Deanna.

I noticed that in those episodes, that they are very quick to suggest abortion as an option, as if there were no laws pressuring them to choose otherwise.

Geordi used the term, "terminated as a fertilized cell" as if to say that this is their 24th century view of abortion. All scientific.

I think there MUST be some libertarian ideals in Trek society. Live and let live.

The big problem is, Libertarians tend to neglect social concepts like everyone getting along, living besides one another etc. --because they're too busy demanding the government keep out of personal affairs.

So it's hard to see how Trek society became the Utopia/paradise we know by embracing libertarian ideas alone.


Interesting, but at some point, the government made a major decision for the population, like doing away with money and embracing some "New World Economy".

 

[Edit_XYZ]

I find it ironic that people are calling religion intolerant while being intolerant of people who are religious.

Hartzilla, merely stating the truth about what christianity/etc did is NOT equivalent to being intolerant about it.

You equating these notions paints you as the intolerant one, unable to accept historical fact.

I'm not. I'm pointing out that it doesn't matter if a person is religious or not an asshole is still an asshole, and thats the real problem that needs to be solved not focusing on just changing who a person is an asshole to, becuase getting rid of religon isn't going to change anything if people are still assholes.

So: if someone doesn't subscribe to your particular brand of propaganda, he's an asshole - and facts be damned.

I told you before, Hartzilla2007 - your posts literally reek of unintentional irony; they 'point out' something quite different from what you intended.

 

[T'Girl]

I also own some land and I am a social democrat and not a capitalist.

And you also produce a commercial product with your property?

 

[horatio83]

I strongly suspect that Trek society may not have as much a problem with abortion.

Both Geordi (masterpiece society) and Trip (when he was preggers) expressed negative views of abortion. Worf advocated ending Deanna's pregnancy, but the suggestion wasn't accepted by Deanna.

I think there MUST be some libertarian ideals in Trek society. Live and let live.

Back in the days we called this liberal. I would e.g. call Friedman, surely one of the greatest economist of the last century, a liberal.
Contemporary libertarians neither care about reducing market power to create competitive markets (a strong government necessary for free markets!), Friedman's negative income tax or boosting demand via monetary policy during recessions. They might read some stupid Austrians and all the non-economic stuff like not messing with what people believe or do in the bedroom is not essentially libertarian but a classical liberal idea.

I also own some land and I am a social democrat and not a capitalist.

And you also produce a commercial product with your property?

Why has there been virtually no output growth in premodern times? It is not like there was no private property or like there were high tax rates that destroyed work or save incentives.
It were rather institutions like guildes that prevented competition and in order to destroy anticompetitive structures and institutions you need a strong governmental agency. As I already wrote above, a strong government is a necessity for free markets.

So much about the real world and how little your ideology has to do with it. But hey, if you like to play you right-wing "government is bad" game I am sure you will find some equally stupid lefties who will basically respond with "markets are bad".

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Capitalism is clearly alive and well during the original Star Trek tv series. Kirk doesn't own a business? Neither do a lot of career military officers, duh.

 

[Misfit Toy]

Hartzilla, merely stating the truth about what christianity/etc did is NOT equivalent to being intolerant about it.

You equating these notions paints you as the intolerant one, unable to accept historical fact.

I'm not. I'm pointing out that it doesn't matter if a person is religious or not an asshole is still an asshole, and thats the real problem that needs to be solved not focusing on just changing who a person is an asshole to, becuase getting rid of religon isn't going to change anything if people are still assholes.

So: if someone doesn't subscribe to your particular brand of propaganda, he's an asshole - and facts be damned.

I told you before, Hartzilla2007 - your posts literally reek of unintentional irony; they 'point out' something quite different from what you intended.

Tone it down, please, and keep the discussion on-topic.