They are injecting their politics into a fantasy TV show.
Starfleet at Quarks
- Thread starter gunner_thomas
- Start date
Good. Somebody recognized the quote.
Quite simple.
Star Trek is brilliantly diverse enough so that people of MANY different beliefs can enjoy it. It provokes discussion and debate--and there are characters embodying those points of view.
I agree with The Bird on a lot of things, and disagree on a lot. I do not agree with The Bird just because "The Bird Said It, Therefore If You Are A True Trekkie, You Must Submit To His Vision."
The same with Ayn Rand. I agree with her on a lot, and disagree a lot.
(Quite frankly, you'd be suprised at how much Rand and Roddenberry agree on, philisophically. Hmm...I wonder if The Bird named Yeoman Janice Rand in Ayn's honor. Just sayin'.
)I let my own mind pronounce a verdict upon their respective beliefs. I do not folow either one blindly. Which is why I strongly question Roddenberry's views on money. Quite frankly, Rand's views on this are considerably more logical and consistent. I.M.A.N.S.H.O., of course.
But if you can replicate anything, why have money?
For one person to amass the wealth that it takes a million people their entire lifetime to amass, is basically someone stealling from other people. You may have a knee-jerk reaction to that, but wait. How did Enron make their money? By faking power shortages and having rolling blackouts. And by moving their employee's retirement funds from one vendor to the next to the next, because the funds are locked up during such a transition, except for investment purposes, which they did, and lost it all. Or the railroad barons, they killed, and I mean had shot, thousands of workers because it was cheaper than feeding them.
Where I work, I do the work, but there is someone here who gets 10 times what I get, and he doesn't work any harder than me. But his pay is added to the cost of what I make. Ayn Rand thinks he's smarter than me and somehow deserves it, but he's an idiot. He has his position because he is part of a social structure that requires that there be a job like his and an excessive pay, because they believe we are all supposed to step on each other to advance. They think we are SUPPOSED to get rich at the expense of other people, especially hard working stiffs like me.
Then there's the one who plays the supply and demand game, buying from a place where there is a glut, and selling where there is a shortage, who gouges the price, and after ten years of that, he's got a mansion. You probably think that's OK. But the product was made by people who actually did the work! Those people were cheated out of their reward for their hard work because some jerk paid them less than the value of their goods, and at the other end, there are people who are working making something else and the value of their work, already depreciated by the theif who underpays them, is pissed away paying excessively high prices... all because of the "law" of supply and demand.
But what if that didn't exist? What if they could just replicate them? Then we would realize that the capitalists are actually crooks. Ayn Rand would say the inventor of the replicator should be rich and have a mansion. And he would do it by charging money to use the replicator. But we both know it won't be the engineer who gets the mansion. It will be the guy who uses force to keep people away from the replimat until they have paid.
So there's your scenario.
They invented replicators, enough to make everything anyone could want, but... some "enterprising" creep used police and military force to continue enslaving people for their goods. Then there was a revolution and they arrested those jerks and jailed them. Now anyone can use a replicator. Yay. No more need for war. No more hunger. No greed. No poverty. What should we do now? Boldly go where noone has gone before.
For one person to amass the wealth that it takes a million people their entire lifetime to amass, is basically someone stealling from other people. You may have a knee-jerk reaction to that, but wait. How did Enron make their money? By faking power shortages and having rolling blackouts. And by moving their employee's retirement funds from one vendor to the next to the next, because the funds are locked up during such a transition, except for investment purposes, which they did, and lost it all. Or the railroad barons, they killed, and I mean had shot, thousands of workers because it was cheaper than feeding them.
Where I work, I do the work, but there is someone here who gets 10 times what I get, and he doesn't work any harder than me. But his pay is added to the cost of what I make. Ayn Rand thinks he's smarter than me and somehow deserves it, but he's an idiot. He has his position because he is part of a social structure that requires that there be a job like his and an excessive pay, because they believe we are all supposed to step on each other to advance. They think we are SUPPOSED to get rich at the expense of other people, especially hard working stiffs like me.
Then there's the one who plays the supply and demand game, buying from a place where there is a glut, and selling where there is a shortage, who gouges the price, and after ten years of that, he's got a mansion. You probably think that's OK. But the product was made by people who actually did the work! Those people were cheated out of their reward for their hard work because some jerk paid them less than the value of their goods, and at the other end, there are people who are working making something else and the value of their work, already depreciated by the theif who underpays them, is pissed away paying excessively high prices... all because of the "law" of supply and demand.
But what if that didn't exist? What if they could just replicate them? Then we would realize that the capitalists are actually crooks. Ayn Rand would say the inventor of the replicator should be rich and have a mansion. And he would do it by charging money to use the replicator. But we both know it won't be the engineer who gets the mansion. It will be the guy who uses force to keep people away from the replimat until they have paid.
So there's your scenario.
They invented replicators, enough to make everything anyone could want, but... some "enterprising" creep used police and military force to continue enslaving people for their goods. Then there was a revolution and they arrested those jerks and jailed them. Now anyone can use a replicator. Yay. No more need for war. No more hunger. No greed. No poverty. What should we do now? Boldly go where noone has gone before.
Who says replicators can create anything?
Note how Voyager had to constantly make stops in order to re-supply on things.
In DS9, there is talk of mining, etc.
Ayn Rand was a she, BTW.
And...who are you to say how much your work is "worth"? That is decided mutually, by both the employee and the employer. If your work is truly worth paying a lot to the company you work for, the company will pay a lot to keep you. They would not want you to quit.
That the "other" guy is making more money than you is an indication that that other guy is, the company believes, more prductive. The company feels that that other guy is "worth" more.
As for Enron--where is that company now? It is dead, because they tried to disobey the laws of supply and demand.
No. Both parties agree on a price. And if it truly was a cheat, this begs the question: Why didn't the "producers" just sell the stuff to the folks with a shortage in the first place?
Note how Voyager had to constantly make stops in order to re-supply on things.
In DS9, there is talk of mining, etc.
Ayn Rand was a she, BTW.
And...who are you to say how much your work is "worth"? That is decided mutually, by both the employee and the employer. If your work is truly worth paying a lot to the company you work for, the company will pay a lot to keep you. They would not want you to quit.
That the "other" guy is making more money than you is an indication that that other guy is, the company believes, more prductive. The company feels that that other guy is "worth" more.
As for Enron--where is that company now? It is dead, because they tried to disobey the laws of supply and demand.
No. Both parties agree on a price. And if it truly was a cheat, this begs the question: Why didn't the "producers" just sell the stuff to the folks with a shortage in the first place?
hahaha gotcha!
See, you injected politics into it, so I replied in kind. And that's ALL this is. Politics getting in the way of imagination.
I know all about Ayn Rand. I read all her stuff 30+ years ago during my enfant terrible stage. Then I had children. 'nuff said.
Anyway, I don't believe all that commie crap. I just put it there to show you how a person can blind himself by seeing everything through one filter.
See, you injected politics into it, so I replied in kind. And that's ALL this is. Politics getting in the way of imagination.
I know all about Ayn Rand. I read all her stuff 30+ years ago during my enfant terrible stage. Then I had children. 'nuff said.
Anyway, I don't believe all that commie crap. I just put it there to show you how a person can blind himself by seeing everything through one filter.
Fascinating....
I fail to see how a discussion of economics is to be considered an injection of politics.
As do I not comprehend how your linear procreation affects your opinions of Ayn Rand.
I...think you just proved my own point, sir:
The simple thing some people fail to comprehend is this:
GREED AND THE DESIRE TO GAIN MATERIAL WEALTH ARE NOT EQUIVALENT TO MONEY AS A CONCEPT! (sorry for the yelling)
Greed and massing of possesions can exist perfectly well without money - what if someone decides he wants to replicate say, a million pictures? Energy is plentiful in Trek but still limited - he'll be wasting energy that could be put to better use elswhere. With what did that person deserve this?
The thing is, money exists not because we are greedy, but because it's PRACTICAL. Even in a society where basic needs are provided 'freely' and thus you don't need money to get them, you'll still have other things and needs that are not 'free', that are not plentiful enough to be provided without charge.
I'm prefectly willing to accept that greed is not the primary human motivator in Trek's era. But that (and the whole higher ideals, exploring the unknown, seeking new life thing) has nothing to do with whether money exists or not.
GREED AND THE DESIRE TO GAIN MATERIAL WEALTH ARE NOT EQUIVALENT TO MONEY AS A CONCEPT! (sorry for the yelling)
Greed and massing of possesions can exist perfectly well without money - what if someone decides he wants to replicate say, a million pictures? Energy is plentiful in Trek but still limited - he'll be wasting energy that could be put to better use elswhere. With what did that person deserve this?
The thing is, money exists not because we are greedy, but because it's PRACTICAL. Even in a society where basic needs are provided 'freely' and thus you don't need money to get them, you'll still have other things and needs that are not 'free', that are not plentiful enough to be provided without charge.
I'm prefectly willing to accept that greed is not the primary human motivator in Trek's era. But that (and the whole higher ideals, exploring the unknown, seeking new life thing) has nothing to do with whether money exists or not.
A
Amaris
Guest
I am in agreement with Rush on this one. There has to be more to it. Societies have used a form of barter and currency for thousands of years. Even as we became more civilized and more peaceful, we have continued to use a money based compensation system. With this system, trades go smoothly, the market provides and produces.
In regard to Federation citizens, I tend to feel they get an allotment of energy per month, and the basics covered. I don't know about you folks, but sitting around with just enough isn't what humanity was meant to do. I mean, you don't have to worry about starvation or homelessness, but there are other desires you may have. Maybe you want a nice large home overlooking a sunny beach? Well, your allotment doesn't allow for that, so you take on work to make more. You'll never go hungry if you lose your job, and you won't lose your home. However, the idea that there is no money at all in regard to humanity, particularly when every other known species uses some form of money, well that's just pushing the sociological BS meter a bit much.
I love Gene and the great work that he did, but let's be honest, he fell for his own vision, hook, line and sinker. Nothing wrong with that, as it's a beautiful vision, but pragmatism needs to reign it in just a bit. Technology could be almost boundless in 300 years, man can leap to the stars and meet other alien races, but not having a form of tender? No. There are things that would grind to a halt. It is a necessity for at least the foreseeable future. People who feel that way shouldn't be pushed aside just because they feel it's unrealistic (among other things) to say there is no money in the relatively near future. There are way too many holes and caveats that would have to be filled in and remedied. It is far, far simpler and more likely that money does exist for humans, it is merely distributed in a different manner.
In regard to Federation citizens, I tend to feel they get an allotment of energy per month, and the basics covered. I don't know about you folks, but sitting around with just enough isn't what humanity was meant to do. I mean, you don't have to worry about starvation or homelessness, but there are other desires you may have. Maybe you want a nice large home overlooking a sunny beach? Well, your allotment doesn't allow for that, so you take on work to make more. You'll never go hungry if you lose your job, and you won't lose your home. However, the idea that there is no money at all in regard to humanity, particularly when every other known species uses some form of money, well that's just pushing the sociological BS meter a bit much.
I love Gene and the great work that he did, but let's be honest, he fell for his own vision, hook, line and sinker. Nothing wrong with that, as it's a beautiful vision, but pragmatism needs to reign it in just a bit. Technology could be almost boundless in 300 years, man can leap to the stars and meet other alien races, but not having a form of tender? No. There are things that would grind to a halt. It is a necessity for at least the foreseeable future. People who feel that way shouldn't be pushed aside just because they feel it's unrealistic (among other things) to say there is no money in the relatively near future. There are way too many holes and caveats that would have to be filled in and remedied. It is far, far simpler and more likely that money does exist for humans, it is merely distributed in a different manner.
Which isn't what the ideal was supposed to be about.
In GR's vision, people do more because they want to, because they feel it's part of their humanity to do so, not for want of material gain.
As long as we're analyzing things by the standards of today... of course it'll fall short.
In GR's vision, people do more because they want to, because they feel it's part of their humanity to do so, not for want of material gain.
As long as we're analyzing things by the standards of today... of course it'll fall short.
I would like to thank neozeks and Axiom for their excellent points. Kudos to ya, mates. 
I would also like to make another point: on the subject of "greed".
I hear this term used a lot. And the more I hear it, the more I feel like the term isn't used properly.
It's meaning, of course, is the desire to have (not neccesarily make) money, regardless of the means, even if it means exploiting others.
Still, I see anyone who expresses a desire to make a profit--and is unapoligetic about it--damned as "greedy" and "selfish".
As a result, I fear that many of us--including, bless his heart, Gene Roddenberry--tend to view the profit motive as inherently evil, as we see it linked to the term "greed".
Now...if this is what is meant by "greed"--the desire to produce, and contribute to society, and expect a reward--
Then, the point is, ladies and gentlemen, that..."greed"...for lack of a better word...is good.
"Greed" is right. "Greed" works.
"Greed" clarifies, cuts through--and captures--the essense...of the "evolutionary" spirit.
(Bear with me folks, I'm not endorsing Gordon Gekko, I'm making a point.)
"Greed", in all its forms--"greed" for life, (think: health), for money (production), for love (fellowship), knowledge (exploration/science--and I think we all can agree that even Jean-Luc Picard has this kind of "greed" in spades)--has marked the upward surge of mankind--
And "greed"...you mark my words...will not only save the Ferengi Alliance...but that other malfuncioning coorperation called the UFP.
Thank you very much.
I would also like to make another point: on the subject of "greed".
I hear this term used a lot. And the more I hear it, the more I feel like the term isn't used properly.
It's meaning, of course, is the desire to have (not neccesarily make) money, regardless of the means, even if it means exploiting others.
Still, I see anyone who expresses a desire to make a profit--and is unapoligetic about it--damned as "greedy" and "selfish".
As a result, I fear that many of us--including, bless his heart, Gene Roddenberry--tend to view the profit motive as inherently evil, as we see it linked to the term "greed".
Now...if this is what is meant by "greed"--the desire to produce, and contribute to society, and expect a reward--
Then, the point is, ladies and gentlemen, that..."greed"...for lack of a better word...is good.
"Greed" is right. "Greed" works.
"Greed" clarifies, cuts through--and captures--the essense...of the "evolutionary" spirit.
(Bear with me folks, I'm not endorsing Gordon Gekko, I'm making a point.)
"Greed", in all its forms--"greed" for life, (think: health), for money (production), for love (fellowship), knowledge (exploration/science--and I think we all can agree that even Jean-Luc Picard has this kind of "greed" in spades)--has marked the upward surge of mankind--
And "greed"...you mark my words...will not only save the Ferengi Alliance...but that other malfuncioning coorperation called the UFP.
Thank you very much.
Slick, Rush, very slick.
There's a whole debate to be had on the merits of greed that would bore me and likely you.
Suffice it to say, the Federation of GR's world maybe doesn't operate the way you think it should but that doesn't make it any less of a good thing or an interesting thing. Quite frankly, I find tales of greedy people making money (ie: most mobster movies) to be boring and tedious.
There's a whole debate to be had on the merits of greed that would bore me and likely you.
Suffice it to say, the Federation of GR's world maybe doesn't operate the way you think it should but that doesn't make it any less of a good thing or an interesting thing. Quite frankly, I find tales of greedy people making money (ie: most mobster movies) to be boring and tedious.
^See, this is what I'm talking about.
I put "greed" in quotation marks for a reason, sir. I was making a point on how anyone who wants to make money, and is unapologetic about it, is condemned as "greedy".
But again, even Picard, and the rest, posses a "greed" for life, for love, and for knowlege, if not neccesarily for money.
Roddenbrerry had this kind of "greed"--for control over certain elements of Trek, if you know what I mean.
I put "greed" in quotation marks for a reason, sir. I was making a point on how anyone who wants to make money, and is unapologetic about it, is condemned as "greedy".
But again, even Picard, and the rest, posses a "greed" for life, for love, and for knowlege, if not neccesarily for money.
Roddenbrerry had this kind of "greed"--for control over certain elements of Trek, if you know what I mean.
Yeah, I know you put greed in quotation marks.
I would agree with your altruistic definition of greed and that the characters share that philosophy. However, I would hesitate to accept this as something to be accepted as part of 'greed's' definition.
'Being unapologetic' about making money and being greedy are two different things. Greed is, to me, putting the desire to make money over the welfare of the common man. Being unapologetic means you recognize the necessity to have money and aren't ashamed to admit that's part of the reason you do what you do.
I would agree with your altruistic definition of greed and that the characters share that philosophy. However, I would hesitate to accept this as something to be accepted as part of 'greed's' definition.
'Being unapologetic' about making money and being greedy are two different things. Greed is, to me, putting the desire to make money over the welfare of the common man. Being unapologetic means you recognize the necessity to have money and aren't ashamed to admit that's part of the reason you do what you do.
^Exactly.
I put "greed" in quotes to illustrate this fact--that "greed" is often used as a general term, to condemn all succesful businesses--i.e. "greedy coorperations" is thrown around pretty liberally (no pun intended, I assure you!).
True greed, frankly, is the exploitive desire to have, not neccesarily make, money, at all costs--even at the expense of others.
I put "greed" in quotes to illustrate this fact--that "greed" is often used as a general term, to condemn all succesful businesses--i.e. "greedy coorperations" is thrown around pretty liberally (no pun intended, I assure you!).
True greed, frankly, is the exploitive desire to have, not neccesarily make, money, at all costs--even at the expense of others.
But this is exactly my point.
I'll suspend disbelief on HOW, just as I do with warp drive. But the WHAT is so vague (and internally contradictory) that I just can't buy it - because it's never clear what I'm being asked to buy.
Pardon the metaphorical use of 'buy.' One of many money-based metaphors in the English language, which all seem to survive quite well in Trek.
Quark was talked into staying on DS9 in the first episodes by Sisko offering him a deal he couldn't refuse.
Obviously this deal included free drinks and holosweet booking for Federation citizens.
He gets free power, free rent and free repairs from the Federation that run the station.
If I ramble any more I'm going to get into the entire economic picture of DS9 and how the Bajorans fit into that. It's interesting to try to tie it all together.
Obviously this deal included free drinks and holosweet booking for Federation citizens.
He gets free power, free rent and free repairs from the Federation that run the station.
If I ramble any more I'm going to get into the entire economic picture of DS9 and how the Bajorans fit into that. It's interesting to try to tie it all together.
Money will always be part of human society, for the simple reason that not everyone is good at doing everything. As a result, people inevitably learn to do the things at which they are best -- they specialize. Because people need or want things that they don't have (like, say, food), they then have to engage in trade -- they trade what they're good at doing for what they need.
Eventually, the barter system eventually becomes too impractical to serve their needs -- if you're good at A and need D, but the producer of D needs B, and the producer of B needs C, then the producer of A must exchange with C to exchange with B to exchange with D.
That's where money comes in -- a system into which all other forms of labour can be translated and given a common value, for which all other forms of labor or goods can be exchanged.
Money is not the engine of destruction or hatred. Money, used properly, is an engine of peace by promoting peaceful trade, satisfying everybody's needs and wants equitably.
What happens, of course, is that somewhere along the line, the phenomenon of greed takes place. Greed, of course, is just another form of that old human sin, the lust for power. People get greedy, they start coveting that which they do not need and which others do need, and pretty soon inequality sets in under the guise of equitable trade.
TOS had it right: It's not that money has ceased to exist, nor even that there aren't the occasional bastards out there who are still greedy (Mudd, for instance); it's that greed, as a widespread social phenomenon, has been eradicated from society, as has poverty. Everyone has enough to live a happy and healthy life, and while some people are able to accumulate more than others because of the rewards of genuine hard work to which all people have an equal opportunity to engage in, nobody suffers and nobody is left behind.
Eventually, the barter system eventually becomes too impractical to serve their needs -- if you're good at A and need D, but the producer of D needs B, and the producer of B needs C, then the producer of A must exchange with C to exchange with B to exchange with D.
That's where money comes in -- a system into which all other forms of labour can be translated and given a common value, for which all other forms of labor or goods can be exchanged.
Money is not the engine of destruction or hatred. Money, used properly, is an engine of peace by promoting peaceful trade, satisfying everybody's needs and wants equitably.
What happens, of course, is that somewhere along the line, the phenomenon of greed takes place. Greed, of course, is just another form of that old human sin, the lust for power. People get greedy, they start coveting that which they do not need and which others do need, and pretty soon inequality sets in under the guise of equitable trade.
TOS had it right: It's not that money has ceased to exist, nor even that there aren't the occasional bastards out there who are still greedy (Mudd, for instance); it's that greed, as a widespread social phenomenon, has been eradicated from society, as has poverty. Everyone has enough to live a happy and healthy life, and while some people are able to accumulate more than others because of the rewards of genuine hard work to which all people have an equal opportunity to engage in, nobody suffers and nobody is left behind.
It is most rare indeed to see two posters such as Sci and myself agree--but we do here.
Regardless of the methods which we believe lead to the end he described (he prefers a mixed economy with econimic sanctions and "equal opportunity" regulations, I simply prefer a full supply-and-demand free-market with a tough, unrelenting criminal justice system), the end is the same, and it is far more logical and consistent than the alleged purging of the profit motive from Federation society--the abolishment of money.
The use of certain mechanisms (personally, I prefer the forces of the market, supply and demand, and unhindered production of the supply demanded) to ensure the whittling down of poverty, is a most worthy goal.
Roddenberry, bless his heart, commited a grave error in the irrational linking of money to true greed--that is, the exploitive desire to have (not make) money, at others' literal expense. He seemed to think that money was a "cause" of greed. It is not.
The "love of money [which] is the root of all evil" would exist whether or not there was money. It exists in the forms of lust for power over others, coveting of other people's property, etc.
However, Sci brings up another point--the point of "covetousness" leading to inequality. I would prefer to see it as "covetousness" of all kinds--i.e., a sense of entitlement, on any level of the ladder--leading to injustice.
The burgler who uses his alleged poverty and "need" as a justification to break into the house of someone "better off" than he--is every bit as guilty as the unscrupulous businessman who plays a con game to rob the more honest of their money. Why? Because they both are commiting the same sin: they are coveting the private property of another, feeling a sense of entitlement towards that property, and taking steps to "correct" that.
Regardless of the methods which we believe lead to the end he described (he prefers a mixed economy with econimic sanctions and "equal opportunity" regulations, I simply prefer a full supply-and-demand free-market with a tough, unrelenting criminal justice system), the end is the same, and it is far more logical and consistent than the alleged purging of the profit motive from Federation society--the abolishment of money.
The use of certain mechanisms (personally, I prefer the forces of the market, supply and demand, and unhindered production of the supply demanded) to ensure the whittling down of poverty, is a most worthy goal.
Roddenberry, bless his heart, commited a grave error in the irrational linking of money to true greed--that is, the exploitive desire to have (not make) money, at others' literal expense. He seemed to think that money was a "cause" of greed. It is not.
The "love of money [which] is the root of all evil" would exist whether or not there was money. It exists in the forms of lust for power over others, coveting of other people's property, etc.
However, Sci brings up another point--the point of "covetousness" leading to inequality. I would prefer to see it as "covetousness" of all kinds--i.e., a sense of entitlement, on any level of the ladder--leading to injustice.
The burgler who uses his alleged poverty and "need" as a justification to break into the house of someone "better off" than he--is every bit as guilty as the unscrupulous businessman who plays a con game to rob the more honest of their money. Why? Because they both are commiting the same sin: they are coveting the private property of another, feeling a sense of entitlement towards that property, and taking steps to "correct" that.
Similar threads
