Starfleet at Quarks

[Rush Limborg]

But I am trying to understand how such a system could work. How can it work?

 

[Mirror_Barclay]

But HOW IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE, a society without money?

If Roddenberry's ideas make no sene, it should be changed.

He constantly asserted that humans in the 24th century are free of conflict. Of course, that's impossible--so eventually, Rick and Co. changed that nonsense.

Exactly.

I would change how does it work and instead ask what does it do.

I don't know how the warp drive works. But I know what it does! Ship go fast.

None of us can explain how the Federation economy works, but the fact that we can't even explain what it does is the problem. There's no money, then there is, then there isn't...

I'm prepared to accept that the political science, the history, the economics is every bit as accurate as the physics. But we at least need to know what's going on, if we're going to be inspired or excited by Rodenberry's new, money-less hew-mons.

They can travel quickly through space. Can they get a big house on a huge forested property? Does everyone? Do they move to new colonies to get room?

The 'what' is missing.

 

[John200]

This has always been a major plot hole.

It seems the writers always wanted it both ways on this one.

 

[snakespeare]

This thread is about the unwillingness to suspend disbelief. That's all I'm saying.

They have an economics that is neither capitalist nor communist. It's hundreds of years from now. They don't need to explain HOW it happened. It just is, at the time of the story.

It is part of the setting.

There is a limit to how much you can refuse to suspend disbelief and put some sort of burden on the writers. According to most sci fi teachers, you can reasonably ask the readers of sci fi to suspend a certain amount of disbelief.

That's all I'm saying. That this thread is un-sci-fi for begging a question that is founded on refusing to enter the imagination of the inventor. This behavior can be done on many sci fi topics. But it's really against the whole spirit of the thing.

It IS the idea that Roddenberry wants to convey. Not HOW it could be, but what would life be like if it were.

 

[DevilEyes]

But HOW IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE, a society without money?

If Roddenberry's ideas make no sene, it should be changed.

He constantly asserted that humans in the 24th century are free of conflict. Of course, that's impossible--so eventually, Rick and Co. changed that nonsense.

ITA.

 

[snakespeare]

But HOW IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE, a society without money?

If Roddenberry's ideas make no sene, it should be changed.

He constantly asserted that humans in the 24th century are free of conflict. Of course, that's impossible--so eventually, Rick and Co. changed that nonsense.

ITA.

So... if someone writes a "what if" story, you just say "your 'what if' is impossible" and that's that? Boy, if there were EVER a reason for a faceplant, that's one. Especially since we are talking about the WHOLE POINT of Star Trek.

 

[DevilEyes]

But HOW IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE, a society without money?

If Roddenberry's ideas make no sene, it should be changed.

He constantly asserted that humans in the 24th century are free of conflict. Of course, that's impossible--so eventually, Rick and Co. changed that nonsense.

ITA.

So... if someone writes a "what if" story, you just say "your 'what if' is impossible" and that's that? Boy, if there were EVER a reason for a faceplant, that's one. Especially since we are talking about the WHOLE POINT of Star Trek.

What's a faceplant?

If someone writes a "what if" story, especially one that introduces an especially unlikely concept, they better do a good job explaining the premise of the story and making it work, rather than ignoring all the questions one might have (such as: "so... how does that economy exactly work?").

Oh you see, they have a developed economy without any kind of currency. So, how does it work? Do they use the ancient and clumsy barter system? I'm sure it will be explained, or shown on the screen... Nope. We never got an explanation, and in fact, we see very little of the Earth society on screen. We're just supposed to take it all for granted, even though it doesn't make sense.

 

[snakespeare]

If you wish to stop being a Trek fan, it's up to you, but the POINT of Star Trek TOS was to ask a question:

WHAT IF we make it so far into the future that all our current hopes are fulfilled. We have world peace, replicators, and can tell the difference between myth and fact. What then? Will we all go off and groove on our navels like lotus eaters?

Roddenberry says no. He says, even if we do ALL THAT, we will still seek out new life, new civiliz... you know what I mean.

And "faceplant" is your trick, not mine. I am only pointing out that it is beyond obvious, which is when you do that... when someone is refusing to see the obvious.

And in this case the obvious is THAT IT IS THE PREMISE you are questioning. That's like saying, Beethoven shouldn't have had a chorus singing in a symphony. Not only is that the WHOLE POINT of the damn 9th, it is beyond obvious that the speaker is refusing to accept the GIVEN condition that IT ALREADY EXISTS. Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

Let me add... again. It's like responding to John Lennon's Imagine by saying "it's impossible". He's only asking you to imagine it. He's not saying how it will happen.

 

[Kirk1980]

Snakespeare, I am in total agreement with you.

I love Star Trek because it shows a humanity which shares nearly none of the negative qualities of life which are still imposed on us today.

I can buy in that humans of the future are satisfied for the most part and live a life they choose. Or that mankind has moved into space because they WANTED to explore, seek out new life and new civilizations.

How can we be so attached to money? Wouldn't you rather imagine a society where we all work to know more, do more, be more, discover more, where knowledge is our gain? Experience our currency?

Sounds pretty nice to me.

 

[DevilEyes]

If you wish to stop being a Trek fan, it's up to you

Excuse me?!

Is that some kind of ultimatum? Now you're deciding who is allowed to be a Trek fan and who isn't, based on whether they agree with you?

but the POINT of Star Trek TOS was to ask a question...<snip>

According to you.

Roddenberry says no.

Roddenberry isn't some kind of God, some of his ideas were good, some were not, and fortunately he had other people to write the show and provide ideas as well.

And "faceplant" is your trick, not mine.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I am only pointing out that it is beyond obvious, which is when you do that... when someone is refusing to see the obvious.

And in this case the obvious is THAT IT IS THE PREMISE you are questioning. That's like saying, Beethoven shouldn't have had a chorus singing in a symphony. Not only is that the WHOLE POINT of the damn 9th, it is beyond obvious that the speaker is refusing to accept the GIVEN condition that IT ALREADY EXISTS. Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

Why is it so hard for you to grasp that this "premise" is completely unimportant since IT MAKES VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE ON THE SHOW ITSELF (even on TOS and TNG) since VERY LITTLE OF IT EVER TOOK PLACE ON EARTH OF THE 23RD/24th CENTURY and even when it did, WE NEVER SAW ANY OF THAT "MONEYLESS ECONOMY" AT WORK? And in the later shows, this so-called premise was flat-out CONTRADICTED in Starfleet officers' interactions with other species, as has been noted in this and other threads? (Some people have tried to argue that Starfleet uses "Federation credits" in dealings with other cultures. What would those credits be but another word for money?)

How can you claim with a straight face that one has to accept that "premise" in order to even watch or enjoy the shows, when the so-called "premise" never mattered as much to provide one single storyline on any of the shows? In fact it was only ever referenced in a couple of preachy monologues - without those, we wouldn't even know about their supposedly moneyless economy.

Warp drive, transporter, humanoid aliens, universal translator, the possibility of different humanoid species mating and producing healthy children - now, those are really the PREMISES of Star Trek that one has to accept or at least tolerate in order to watch the shows. But some of those basics have still been questioned on this forum.

Let me add... again. It's like responding to John Lennon's Imagine by saying "it's impossible". He's only asking you to imagine it. He's not saying how it will happen.

No it's not. "Imagine" is a song. Star Trek is a fictional franchise. It has to actually show things on screen and make them believable.

Snakespeare, I am in total agreement with you.

I love Star Trek because it shows a humanity which shares nearly none of the negative qualities of life which are still imposed on us today.

What does the existence of money have to do with the negative qualities? I had no idea that barter economy was considered a positive quality or an ideal to strive for.

I can buy in that humans of the future are satisfied for the most part and live a life they choose. Or that mankind has moved into space because they WANTED to explore, seek out new life and new civilizations.

What does that have to do with the existence of money?

How can we be so attached to money? Wouldn't you rather imagine a society where we all work to know more, do more, be more, discover more, where knowledge is our gain? Experience our currency?

Sounds pretty nice to me.

That was a very nice empty speech full of big words that make little sense. You should be a motivational speaker.

 

[Kirk1980]

That's what Trek's supposed to be. Motivation. So yeah, they were meant to be motivational.

And I'd thank you to tone down the sarcasm.

It's most unappealing.

 

[snakespeare]

Well, there's nothing left for me to do on this thread bu repeat myself.

You say "according to you" as if whatever is according to YOU is correct but whatever is according to ME is incorrect. That's not an argument, it's just being a smart-alek.

We are talking ABOUT Roddenberry's ideas. Of course I will mention him.

Roddenberry's philosophy is well-known here. There is no need for me to beat that dead horse.

The premise of the ORIGINAL series was, you've got humanity living in utopia, WHAT'S NEXT? It's just... I don't know how to say it nicely... orthodoxy, I guess, to just say "it's impossible" and never even enter into the imagination of the artist. This happens ALL the time because people can not get beyond the facts of their own lives.

If you reject the premise, in what way are you a fan? You just like starships and phasers and fighting Klingons and Romulans, but IDIC is just some irritatiing Vulcan thing that you'd rather not pay attention to? OK, fine.

But for me to keep explaining that this is a WHAT IF story, and it is I don't know, just submission to the soulless minions of orthodoxy to say "it's impossible" and then come in and change it, and claim it is because you live in the real world...

So I'll just refer you to my previous posts.

And I'll respond to you in kind, when you say it's impossible, and say back at you, SO YOU SAY.

 

[DevilEyes]

^ Jesus, you could at least have read my post before replying.

I have already replied to every one of your points, but you are just ignoring it and instead repeating the same things I've already responded to. I will just refer you to my previous post.

You say "according to you" as if whatever is according to YOU is correct but whatever is according to ME is incorrect. That's not an argument, it's just being a smart-alek.

I'm not the one who's lecturing others on what the "point" of Star Trek TOS supposedly was, or telling others they are not worthy of being Trek fans because they disagree with me.

but IDIC is just some irritatiing Vulcan thing that you'd rather not pay attention to? OK, fine.

What the hell does IDIC have to do with the existence of money in the Federation?!

I've made my point, if you want to continue debating your straw men, go ahead.

 

[DevilEyes]

That's what Trek's supposed to be. Motivation. So yeah, they were meant to be motivational.

And I'd thank you to tone down the sarcasm.

It's most unappealing.

So is you giving nice-sounding speeches instead of addressing the issue of the discussion or providing logical arguments.

 

[snakespeare]

I just deleted a long reply. There is nothing I can tell you. Conversation is supposed to be two-way, and neither of us is conversing, so... later.

Catch you on another topic.

 

[Kirk1980]

Okay, fine. What logical arguments would you care to discuss? It's science fiction, a projection into the future where it's established there's no poverty, no hunger.

This implies a state where the basic needs are provided for. Most of the reason why people work is to (at the very minimum) provide for the costs of basic needs.

Money came about as an exchange medium to trade in our time for material profit. If basic needs are provided for, most money ceases to be valuable in such a culture. There's no threat of NOT having your basic needs cared for, right?

Roddenberry's Star Trek postulates that in such a society man does not (as some of you here would predict) stagnate, instead he turns his desires elsewhere.

In that society, money, while not having a value perhaps in amongst the Federation worlds, would still hold value to those societies who still hold value in it. Starfleet officers and Federation citizens alike would likely therefore have access to a currency base for use elsewhere.

But that's really getting into details not provided by the show. The shows asks you to postulate about the way humanity would be after material gain (wealth acquisition) ceases to be an all-consuming goal for humanity.

It's not entirely far-fetched even today. There are (believe it or not) people out there who do what they do because they want to, because they think what they do can help others or to learn.

But hey, it's your choice to imagine it or not. If your imagination of Trek does not include the theory that money has ceased to hold much meaning, that's your choice.

Insults and sarcasm are not logical (as you reminded me to be).

 

[Phily B]

As far as Bajor went; I always asumed Federation people got free drinks etc at Quarks and Starfleet foots the bill.

 

[snakespeare]

"We have within reach, now, the attainment of almost every dream of mankind." --Gene Roddenberry

also:

"I believe in humanity. We are an incredible species. We're still just a child creature, we're still being nasty to each other. And all children go through those phases. We're growing up, we're moving into adolescence now. When we grow up - man, we're going to be something! "

 

[Rush Limborg]

What does the existence of money have to do with the negative qualities? I had no idea that barter economy was considered a positive quality or an ideal to strive for.

Exactly.

When Picard's excuse for humanity not needing money is, "We work to better ourselves, and the rest of humanity," he neglects to comprehend how truly essential trade, and therefore money, is to that end.

As The Philosopher Said:

To trade by means of money is the code of men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man [meaning both genders, of course] is the owner of his mind and his effort.

Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgement of the traders.

Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury; for their gain, not their loss--the regognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery--that you must offer them values, not wounds--that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods.

Money demands that you sell, not your weaknesses to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find.

And when when live by trade--with reason, not force, as their final arbiter--it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgement and highest ability--and the degree of a man's produuctiveness is the degree of his reward.

This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money.

Is this what you consider evil?

If only Picard--and Roddenberry--were truly honest with themselves. If they were, they would have know that when they said, "Humanity no longer uses money--we work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity," they were contradicting the second part of that statement with the first.

 

[Kirk1980]

It WAS to that end.

And seriously, Ayn Rand is 'The Philosopher' to you?

Wow. Somebody whose casket had a six foot tall floral display in the shape of a dollar sign is hardly someone I'd call at all embracing of Roddenberry's vision.

I mean no disrespect when I ask...how are you a fan of Star Trek then? I don't get it.