Private Property in Star Trek

[Myasishchev]

So none of that solves the inherent problem - how do they allocate the scarce rescource of desirable propery on earth?

I suspect there is some kind of large bureaucracy (probably a United Earth one, but possibly a Federation one) that determines the use real property is put to. I strongly suspect that Picard's bro and Sisko's dad do not own their vineyard and restaurant in fee simple, and especially the vineyard, which is a huge tract that would surely be put to better use, in the day and age of replicators, as housing.

As a matter of fact, I doubt anyone owns ANY realty in fee simple, if for no other reason than there is no money, which would degrade or remove one of the key features of the fee simple absolute, alienability.

The Picards may have once owned their land, and may continue to possess it, but I don't think the idea of private real property squares well.

I suspect they are either owned as life estates or possessed as an at-will tenancy, the latter determinable by either the tenant (Picard, Sisko) or the landlord (the state). The bureaucracy in charge permits this type of land use because they have decided that there is some social utility in it. They provide society real French wine on one hand, and a social gathering place for real food on the other. Since the Fed is a welfare state, getting people to do anything socially useful, especially manual labor, is no doubt hard, so getting the bureaucracy's permission was probably not too difficult. However, if they stop using the land for the public good, I imagine it escheats immediately back to the state. This probably happened after the fire in Generations.

People who don't like this sort of property regime are free to be moved offworld to a colony, where they have tons of land, and fewer amenities.

Edit: of course, the historical origin of this huge shift in humanity's property systems was the Third World War. Hundreds of millions of dead people's land suddenly came up for grabs, and ultimately this wound up with the United Earth government. As time went by, more and more property was bought, escheated, or was taken through eminent domain, that the number of fee properties on Earth approached zero. Maybe the Picards really do own their vineyard--they're about the last to do so.

 

[Myasishchev]

Hmmm, I can't remember any large families being mentioned among humans (not that my memory is a perfect guide), but didn't Tuvok have five kids?

You'd think Vulcans would have dozens. Pon farr every seven years and lifespans approaching two hundred years? Vulcan's one crowded desert.

 

[Timo]

I'm sure the feds have freedom of choice for most things. People there are educated enough to make the right choices without the government dictating to them.

The distinction is slight, though. Government-led education is essential in shaping the choices made by the people - and apparently, people in the 24th century Earth have been educated to think that money is bad and absence of it is good. It wouldn't be that big a leap to educate them to believe that children are only good in moderation. Or that allocation of real estate is best left to a government agency.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Jefferies]

I'm sure the feds have freedom of choice for most things. People there are educated enough to make the right choices without the government dictating to them.

The distinction is slight, though. Government-led education is essential in shaping the choices made by the people - and apparently, people in the 24th century Earth have been educated to think that money is bad and absence of it is good. It wouldn't be that big a leap to educate them to believe that children are only good in moderation. Or that allocation of real estate is best left to a government agency.

Timo Saloniemi

I'm sorry but I reject that type of conspiracy theory laden, cynical view of Federation society. I'm sure the education system's main aim is to teach open mindedness and critical thought, very much in the spirit of the enlightenment. You don't need a government telling you money is bad. There are enough moral reasons to come to that conclusion. Also, just because Picard resents the idea of a money-based economy doesn't mean that every citizen is completely against it. I’m sure there are those that appreciated it, at least for its historic contribution to our development. However, in the end there is simply no necessity for it in the type of socialist economy that the Federation has going, an economy I might add that has brought great benefits to its citizens (e.g. abolishment of poverty and universal wealth).

The Federation is portrayed as the epitome of a free and liberal society, which means the degree of pluralism will be extensive. I’m sure Gene Rodenberry wouldn't want to have it any other way. In addition, due to high levels of education, the downside of pluralism, the problem of people engaging in self-harming activities like, for example, drug use or smoking have been strongly minimised or have gone out of fashion completely. Remember, this is meant to be a humanist utopia, were people are supposed to be smart, tolerant and altruistic, as well as far better off, a brain washing educational system does not fit with that picture. Also, I’m sure that due to the degree of liberalism schools will by no means be all under government administration. I’m sure there will be a huge number of independent schools which use vastly diverse teaching philosophies and set many different types of emphasis in the curriculum (with certain aims and goals legislated for in order to guarantee a high level education).

 

[Timo]

I'm sure the education system's main aim is to teach open mindedness and critical thought, very much in the spirit of the enlightenment.

But that, too, is a propagandist aim: enlightenment is an ideology that has to be forced on people; openmindedness, even more so.

You don't need a government telling you money is bad. There are enough moral reasons to come to that conclusion.

Well, obviously not, because an insignificant minority today thinks so, or yesterday thought so.

The Federation is portrayed as the epitome of a free and liberal society, which means the degree of pluralism will be extensive.

Where would we see signs of pluralism? If anything, the Federation at its core is more uniform in philosophy and conduct (let alone language and culture - even little green men speak English!) than any single nation in Earth's history. If there is dissent of ideology, it quickly migrates to tiny and isolationist interstellar colonies.

Remember, this is meant to be a humanist utopia, were people are supposed to be smart, tolerant and altruistic, as well as far better off, a brain washing educational system does not fit with that picture.

Umm, I'd argue that a brain washing educational system (a redundant expression as such) is the best possible means to achieve these aims. Nobody would be tolerant and altruistic unless specifically taught to be so, and the parties responsible for teaching tend not to be altruistic, either - until one reaches a sufficient level of generality, such as state level education, as opposed to family level, or gang/tribe/village level, or town/district level, or city level, all of which inherently would rather promote selfishness.

The very concept of "an idea spreading" is synonymous with education - only the degree of organization of that education may vary. You can't have the idea of utopia without having it educated upon you.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Jefferies]

I'm sure the education system's main aim is to teach open mindedness and critical thought, very much in the spirit of the enlightenment.

But that, too, is a propagandist aim: enlightenment is an ideology that has to be forced on people; openmindedness, even more so.

Well, okay if you put it that way it is impossible to have an ideology-free education. However, teaching people how to weigh all the evidence, make use of all available information and then make an informed decision or choice as a general skill cannot be a bad thing. This is merely a method; this does not dictate the result people have to come up with. I’m sure as long as your choices aren’t detrimental to others or grossly detrimental to yourself you are free to do what ever you want. The fact that everyone has learnt this methodological approach merely means that there will be less oversight of important information like, for example, how smoking will affect your personal risk of getting cancer (something a significant amount of smokers today deny on a personal level if not a general one).

You don't need a government telling you money is bad. There are enough moral reasons to come to that conclusion.

Well, obviously not, because an insignificant minority today thinks so, or yesterday thought so.

I’m not quite sure what you are disagreeing with here? Are you equating people who today disapprove of money with communists? If that’s the case that’s a bit too simplistic. Apart from that just because it is only a minority who has identified a wrong doesn’t mean there aren’t good and plenty reasons for this position. The fact that many people love money today has to do with the fact that it is the only access to wealth. As a result, many people disregard the moral questions associated with the accumulation of money in the face of extreme worldwide poverty (and I'm sure that I'm guilty of this as well).

The Federation is portrayed as the epitome of a free and liberal society, which means the degree of pluralism will be extensive.

Where would we see signs of pluralism? If anything, the Federation at its core is more uniform in philosophy and conduct (let alone language and culture - even little green men speak English!) than any single nation in Earth's history. If there is dissent of ideology, it quickly migrates to tiny and isolationist interstellar colonies.

There is a reason why the Federation comes across as somewhat uniform. This is because we really only get to see the uniformed service. Civilian society has never been explored in any detail on any of the shows. To immediately conclude from this that there is no pluralism is a fallacy of overgeneralization. Also, the fact that we mainly only get to see one language has well known practical reasons. This does not mean there is only one language and has been explained away with the universal translator.

Remember, this is meant to be a humanist utopia, were people are supposed to be smart, tolerant and altruistic, as well as far better off, a brain washing educational system does not fit with that picture.

Umm, I'd argue that a brain washing educational system (a redundant expression as such) is the best possible means to achieve these aims. Nobody would be tolerant and altruistic unless specifically taught to be so, and the parties responsible for teaching tend not to be altruistic, either - until one reaches a sufficient level of generality, such as state level education, as opposed to family level, or gang/tribe/village level, or town/district level, or city level, all of which inherently would rather promote selfishness.

The very concept of "an idea spreading" is synonymous with education - only the degree of organization of that education may vary. You can't have the idea of utopia without having it educated upon you.

Well I’m personally saddened that someone would equate education, which to me means enriching and broadening of the mind with brain-washing, which to me signifies malicious manipulation of a person’s though processes by withholding information, falsifying facts and possibly the use of torture.

With regard to altruism if you say the teaching of this depends on having achieved generality of society, then I do not understand your reservation with this? Surely an intragalactic society like the Federation is sufficiently expanded beyond the boundries that would feed an exclusive feeling of local or tribal patriotism?

 

[Timo]

However, teaching people how to weigh all the evidence, make use of all available information and then make an informed decision or choice as a general skill cannot be a bad thing.

I heartily agree. After all, I have been taught to.

This is merely a method; this does not dictate the result people have to come up with.

It does affect their outlook of life rather profoundly, though - as opposed to a method of education that puts an emphasis on holy scripture or perhaps continuity of profession, both of these being viable ways of running a society through education.

I’m not quite sure what you are disagreeing with here?

I'm simply disagreeing with the premise that people educated in what today counts for liberal enlightment would come to the conclusion that money is bad. After all, this hasn't happened. In order for it to happen in the future, then, something would have to change ideologically, something that doesn't flow automatically from the current educational doctrines.

Are you equating people who today disapprove of money with communists?

How could I? Communists are a sizeable part of this planet's population, after all, so that would defeat my argument.

To immediately conclude from this that there is no pluralism is a fallacy of overgeneralization.

True enough. But the case for pluralism is equally lacking in direct evidence.

Well I’m personally saddened that someone would equate education, which to me means enriching and broadening of the mind with brain-washing, which to me signifies malicious manipulation of a person’s though processes by withholding information, falsifying facts and possibly the use of torture.

No offense intended. I just prefer to point out whenever possible that people may be speaking of the same thing when using very different words, such as "murder"/"justice" or "rape"/"love", or referring to completely different things by the same word. Many of the same characteristics apply to "brainwashing" and "education" and "propaganda" in normal parlance, and while there are nuances, different people see them differently.

With regard to altruism if you say the teaching of this depends on having achieved generality of society, then I do not understand your reservation with this? Surely an intragalactic society like the Federation is sufficiently expanded beyond the boundries that would feed an exclusive feeling of local or tribal patriotism?

Reservation? I have no reservation with the idea of the government forcing an attitude of altruism on the populance - I consider it an altogether positive thing. I just think that only a relatively high governmental level can and will engage in the propagating of altruism, as the lower levels have less motivation for that and more motivation for promoting "more primitive" philosophies. And it seems to me that the Federation, at a sufficiently high level, is indeed doing such promoting to create a breed of humanoids that holds to ideals that would not be held in any of today's societies, at least not with such vehemence.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Jefferies]

It does affect their outlook of life rather profoundly, though - as opposed to a method of education that puts an emphasis on holy scripture or perhaps continuity of profession, both of these being viable ways of running a society through education.

But with this teaching method you can still have an emphasis on Holy Scripture. I see no reason why there shouldn’t still be faith schools in the Federation (although they would have to teach other subejcts as well of course). However, using a fact based dialectical approach in the analysis will enable you to draw your own conclusions. This is very much how theology is taught at German universities. As a result, many of the people who are theologians there are very critical of the churches. In fact I know people who are strict believers and do not want to study theology at university because they are afraid their belief will be challenged too much. The interesting thing is that the churches are heavily involved with the teaching that goes on at the univeristies, but what they do in the main is teach a method not a doctrine.

Finally, I have only one remaining quibble with your arguments about the educational system of the Federation. You make it sound like a manipulative system, where the government is trying to force a world view on to its citizens. Wouldn’t you rather agree that, given an education in empirical and dialectical methods, in a world were there is no want and very little inequality, with a society funded on solidarity, that this would lead a majority of people to realise the universal benefits of altruism, tolerance etc. by themselves? After all the alternative, the embracing of greed, selfishness and laziness would destroy this society and would make ones own position a lot worse in all likelihood. I think this is supported by the fact that not every Federation citizen we have met in the series was a paragon of Federation values (unlike many of our Starfleet heroes). Which means that there is no brain-washing, if someone does come up with different conclusions they are allowed to do so and are free to roam about as they wish (as long as they don’t brake the law).

 

[Timo]

Wouldn’t you rather agree that, given an education in empirical and dialectical methods, in a world were there is no want and very little inequality, with a society funded on solidarity, that this would lead a majority of people to realise the universal benefits of altruism, tolerance etc. by themselves?

I'd argue that constant exposure to a certain type of ideology would be a prerequisite for maintaining the state of material equality and wealth. A little bit of conventional greed could ruin it all pretty quickly, for the society - people would have to be taught to really hate money in order to steer them away from profit-based thinking, which would probably still immensely benefit these individuals within the limitations of their own lifetimes.

I think this is supported by the fact that not every Federation citizen we have met in the series was a paragon of Federation values (unlike many of our Starfleet heroes). Which means that there is no brain-washing, if someone does come up with different conclusions they are allowed to do so and are free to roam about as they wish (as long as they don’t brake the law).

But the limitation in parentheses isn't a particularly limiting one. In some ways, Federation law would seem pretty draconian: Harry Mudd got a sentence of brainwashing for smuggling and the use of counterfeit money! In fact, that seems to be the sentence for everything, from petty crimes to high treason, and every offender is treated as mentally ill.

We have seen a profit-motivated criminal in TNG "Starship Mine", and Picard seemed to get a nausea attack when he learned of her motivations, after having had little such problem with her actual criminal actions previously. (Of course, this was supposed to mirror the similar revelation, "terrorists-are-really-just-common-thieves", in the inspirational Die Hard, but still.) The reaction is unique also against the background of all those idealistic but often violent insurgents that Picard encountered and perhaps subdued.

Then there's the TNG "Justice" reference to how crime stays so low in the Federation: criminal tendencies are screened against at early age. Since the UFP doesn't embrace eugenic culling, the implication is that those who test positive are subjected to mental reconditioning instead.

(And it works: Harry Mudd never smuggled again, AFAWK, and Kasidy Yates never assisted freedom fighters again, and Tom Paris never joined the Maquis again, and there's only a handful of incurable criminals in the entire Federation, all of them fitting under the same dome on Elba II...)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

It doesn't ALWAYS work. Dukat did a hell of a job of resisting whatever they threw at him...and when you talk about how widespread "re-education" is in Federation society, part of me is pretty creeped-out and almost wants to say "Good job!" to Dukat--because one wonders to what degree such treatments encroach on free will, especially where there might be no chemical imbalance.

 

[Vance]

Point is the very nature of the Trek economy would require them to give them up.

That's not remotely true. In TOS we see colonists settle all over the place, in order to make their fortunes. (Mudd's Women, for instance). While it's true that a certain amount of avarice in Trek's world becomes pretty silly (such as hording money for its own sake), the ability to say "This is mine" doesn't seem to have gone out of vogue.

 

[Sci]

So none of that solves the inherent problem - how do they allocate the scarce rescource of desirable propery on earth?

I suspect there is some kind of large bureaucracy (probably a United Earth one, but possibly a Federation one) that determines the use real property is put to. I strongly suspect that Picard's bro and Sisko's dad do not own their vineyard and restaurant in fee simple, and especially the vineyard, which is a huge tract that would surely be put to better use, in the day and age of replicators, as housing.

As a matter of fact, I doubt anyone owns ANY realty in fee simple, if for no other reason than there is no money, which would degrade or remove one of the key features of the fee simple absolute, alienability.

The Picards may have once owned their land, and may continue to possess it, but I don't think the idea of private real property squares well.

I suspect they are either owned as life estates or possessed as an at-will tenancy, the latter determinable by either the tenant (Picard, Sisko) or the landlord (the state). The bureaucracy in charge permits this type of land use because they have decided that there is some social utility in it. They provide society real French wine on one hand, and a social gathering place for real food on the other. Since the Fed is a welfare state, getting people to do anything socially useful, especially manual labor, is no doubt hard, so getting the bureaucracy's permission was probably not too difficult. However, if they stop using the land for the public good, I imagine it escheats immediately back to the state. This probably happened after the fire in Generations.

People who don't like this sort of property regime are free to be moved offworld to a colony, where they have tons of land, and fewer amenities.

Edit: of course, the historical origin of this huge shift in humanity's property systems was the Third World War. Hundreds of millions of dead people's land suddenly came up for grabs, and ultimately this wound up with the United Earth government. As time went by, more and more property was bought, escheated, or was taken through eminent domain, that the number of fee properties on Earth approached zero. Maybe the Picards really do own their vineyard--they're about the last to do so.

How on Earth is a world where your home is not actually yours a free society? In what possible sense could such a set-up not inherently lend itself to significant abuse?

 

[Myasishchev]

A system of life estates or terms of years with fee ownership resting in the state would not automatically result in a totalitarian police state. I don't own the house I live in, but I have every right to possess it to the exclusion of the whole world (well, except my girlfriend, who is my joint tenant ), and that's the important part.

I'm not necessarily advocating this kind of property regime, but it seems to best fit with what we know of the Federation economy. It does appear to be rather just.

 

[Sci]

A system of life estates or terms of years with fee ownership resting in the state would not automatically result in a totalitarian police state.

I didn't say it would. What I did say was that such a system would invite significant abuses of power and would not be free.

I'm not saying we'd end up with Nazi Germany. But I don't think we'd exactly end up with Berkley, either.

 

[stj]

The notion that property rights are human rights is a time honored principle of conservatism. I think experience shows conclusively that property rights and social injustice are not only compatible, but defense of property rights usually demands social injustice. Property rights are generally preferred to egalitarianism. Violations of equality I think are at the bottom of most systemic injustices.

On this topic, equal right to personal items covers most property. After all, a public toothbrush is not a toothbrush but a health hazard. As for private property in means of production, even land, as pointed out, it is uncertain what that means in an economy based on replicators. I wish I still had my antique copy of A for Anything, by Damon Knight. In memory it all seems like hysterical nonsense, but have I forgotten something?

 

[Myasishchev]

A system of life estates or terms of years with fee ownership resting in the state would not automatically result in a totalitarian police state.

I didn't say it would. What I did say was that such a system would invite significant abuses of power and would not be free.

I'm not saying we'd end up with Nazi Germany. But I don't think we'd exactly end up with Berkley, either.

Sorry, I was being facetious. I didn't mean to mischaracterize your argument.

I don't think it would be as free as today, but nor do I think the Federation philosophy (i.e., TNG-era Roddenberry) sees such freedom as desirable. The Ferengi have private property, and look where they wound up. I think many if not most of the economic decisions we make for ourselves today are made by a paternalistic, benign, but potentially abusive government in the 24th century.

To my mind, this makes episodes like Paradise Lost scarier--a military coup is bad enough, but the same kind of machinery that makes it possible to provide also makes it far easier to oppress.

 

[AviTrek]

Since there is probably 100% effective birth control there are no unintended children and interstellar travel for the masses has drawn a lot of the population elsewhere.

In TNG there are at least two cases dealing with unplanned pregnancies. First, the episode "Reunion" establishes that K'Ehleyr and Worf conceived Alexander during their liaison in the episode "The Emissary." Second, in the episode "Bloodlines" Picard admits to a physical relationship with Miranda Vigo and that it was a possibility that he fathered her son Jason. While Jason Vigo turns out not to be Picard's son; it does not change the fact that the possibility had been there.

Warmest Wishes,
Whoa Nellie

Also with regard to the family issue...I have to think that even without people being very religious, that if money is no longer an object, there may still be families that have a preference for more children. Just because we haven't seen larger families (especially since we've seen space station/starship environments that aren't that conducive to it) doesn't mean they're not out there.

I'm sure it's possible, but currently prosperity tends to be negatively correlated with birth rates. So while there are clearly exceptions, I would assume the average number of children per couple in the 24th century is probably pretty low.