The "You Explain It, Thread" Explain it!

[Nightdiamond]

Where did they get the idea that Data was the property of Starfleet? They flew right by that one without explaining it.

Is this one of the Federations dirty little secrets? Who wants to try to tackle this one?

Lazy writing.

That whole episode was set up specifically to shoehorn Data into having to justify himself as a being. I mean, the way that Starbase commander railroaded the whole thing, including forcing Riker to act against Data, was bloody disgraceful. I have trouble seeing how any appeal against that entire set-up wouldn't be upheld. Don't know why Picard and co didn't arrest HER.

But damn, don't you think that was creepy? The Federation just decides to take Data and experiment on him.

And then denies him when he refuses, and calls him property.

They've gone out of their way to respect SAND as having rights, but all this time, they consider Data property.

And he has to go on trial just to save himself??

One season later, they tried the same thing with Data's daughter, Lal.

Is there any logical or legal reason why Data would be considered property?

Or why Lal had to go with that Starfleet admiral against her wishes?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ In "The Offspring," Data was no longer considered property, but he was a Starfleet officer, and thus obliged to follow orders given him by his superiors. Which in this case was the Admiral.

 

[Deks]

But that might be a little awkward if not impractical. What if the other party, (the Bandi) wanted something that worth way more than the cloth?
That would make economic commerce a headache.

The scenario would be like this;

Crusher: "Ok please send it our Starship when it arrives. Charge it to Dr. Crusher" (Beverly leaves, she's long gone)
Later; The Enterprise: "Ok, we have the cloth what can we give in exchange?"
The Bandi: "We'll take 13 dilithium crystals, please."
The Enterprise: "Oh sorry, those are rare and we can't afford to give them out in such a large quantity"
The Bandi: "What? But she took our cloth, we want it back, now!"

Economic commerce in Trek is weird, because it's all over the place. You have a society with replicators that can make the food, so hence the quotes that humans don't need money or don't have any money.

The Bandi were literally SUCKING up to the Federation and had practically nothing of value except the abundance of energy.
If the very first episode of TNG is any indication, the Bandi wanted the Feds to look at them as equals (and eagerly so) because of what they 'did' (their 'building' of Farpoint station - or making it LOOK like they built it in a short amount of time when everything indicates that they are a relatively primitive culture).
I doubt the Bandi would be in a position to require 13 dilitihium crystals for nothing but a cloth.
Seriously.
They were well familiar with the Federation, their customs, capabilities, etc... and if any 'trade' would be established, they would likely establish certain parameters in that particular aspect so that the exchange would be reasonable and not excessive.

Most humanoid races in Trek (sans the very greedy versions of Ferengi) were portrayed in a manner that trades with SF and the Federation within 'reason'.

One other thing:
Invention of replicators and transporters DID NOT eliminate the need for money.
It was eliminated in the late 22nd century (check canon).

Why do people continuously think that humanity requires some highly advanced technology to eliminate scarcity?
For the love of man, WE had the ability to do that decades ago (and still do).

Trek humans rely HEAVILY on recycling technology... and I would imagine that post Eugenic Wars and WW3, not to mention FC with Vulcans, they decided to use existing technology PROPERLY (something that real life humanity has YET to do).

 

[T'Girl]

Invention of replicators and transporters DID NOT eliminate the need for money.
It was eliminated in the late 22nd century

Except, money wasn't "eliminate" in the 22nd century, because it very obviously present in the 23rd century.

(check canon).

Please do, monetary references are all through TOS, and you absolutely can not claim that they are all "outside the Federation."

 

[Nightdiamond]

^ In "The Offspring," Data was no longer considered property, but he was a Starfleet officer, and thus obliged to follow orders given him by his superiors. Which in this case was the Admiral.

I don't know, the admiral ordered Data to send Lal to some research facility so they could study her, not ask but ordered.

That crosses the line into violation of his civil rights. Lal is his daughter or creation- what right does a Starfleet admiral has to to just take her away just because he wants to study her?

It gets even worse than that--a couple years later-remember the episode where the crew gets their memories wiped except for Data and he has to cover up what happened?

This is the convo between Picard and Data aftwerwards;

PICARD: Do you know what a court-martial would mean? Your career in Starfleet would be finished.
DATA:I realize that.
PICARD: Do you also realize that you would most likely be stripped down to the wires to find out what the hell went wrong?

Can anyone see what's wrong with this discussion?


The main thing is, how was Data property of Starfleet? Where did they get this idea from?

T'Girl

Deks wrote:
Invention of replicators and transporters DID NOT eliminate the need for money.
It was eliminated in the late 22nd century

Except, money wasn't "eliminate" in the 22nd century, because it very obviously present in the 23rd century.

The problem is, Trek can't make up its mind about whether money is obsolete in human culture or not; it zig zags through the issue.
Well, by the 24th century, it gave a definite answer.

One thing, if they got rid of money in the 22nd century, and didn't have replicators to create food, clothing or houses, I'm very curious to know exactly what they did.

 

[Deks]

Uhm... common sense and proper utilization of pre-existing technologies perhaps?

They likely used recycling technology to convert landfills that piled up over the centuries on Earth into useful materials - we can do that today - quality is a separate issue because once you stop looking at the 'cost' (money-wise), you can recycle garbage into high quality materials as well.
Second would be to augment their power generation capabilities, therefore using solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, etc... (with pre-existing power generation - which likely evolved and was replaced with 100% of the aforementioned options) coupled with recycling in order to come up with 0 waste (as we've seen is the case on Federation star-ships, plus you can recycle nuclear waste today, resulting in plutonium that can be used as a power source for other things - and WE have the capacity to tap into all other aforementioned power sources - the political will to do so has been less than stellar - from a technological/resource POV, we could have done it decades ago).

Immediately after WW3 in Trek universe, we are talking about more advanced level of technology (2063) than present day regardless of how you put it (the war killed of most governments and military resulting in 600 million casualties - indicating the possibility that civilian loss of life was next to minimal).
Though, most of the 'cleaning up' humanity did was post FC with Vulcans (in the following 50 years - poverty, diseases, wars, hunger were eradicated, with another 40 years to reach the 2150's when Enterprise NX-01 was launched) who incidentally didn't share their technology with humanity (unless it was a few minor things - but likely nothing that was more advanced than what Humanity already had - everything Humanity achieved post FC was on their own doing - though the arrival of the Vulcans likely inspired certain other technological advances on a larger scale)- so they likely offered things in terms of humanitarian aid - technological sharing would likely happen just prior to the foundation of the Federation between the founding members (humans, Vulcans, Andorians and Tellarites) when the Coalition was established.

Trek did confirm absence of money in the 23rd and 24th centuries.
First in ST IV when Kirk told it to that woman (I forgot her name), then later on TNG reinforced it with Picard repeating it several times.

Most uses of 'money' in TNG and onward were seen in situations where the other party was a culture that specifically used a money based economy.
Portrayals of situations with specific individuals were mostly based around those humans who were 'rebelling' against the whole 'living in the Federation' concept or some version of it - or had SOME kind of an issue with the 'system'.
Plus, meanings of the words 'paid' etc. could indicate a raw trade (bartering) instead of using money... except in the case of Ferengi of course.
A lot of the situations where 'money' was mentioned were vague without explaining anything in detail. What current day audience might see as 'money', doesn't necessarily mean that credits or any kind of a monetary transaction was made.
Ds9 portrayed gold pressed Latinum, but that station was NOT Federation property.
It was Bajoran, and SF was only there in administrative capacity.
While SF officers would likely get various things for free undoubtedly... Quark was a Ferengi and would had NONE of that, so he made everyone pay with gold pressed latinum, and SF had to comply with local law (it's their policy).

 

[Nightdiamond]

Now THAT is an explanation- just go all out and even add things if you have to, but give a good detailed explanation.

Feel free to rip and pick it apart, but, it's still an explanation, lol.

 

[T'Girl]

the war killed of most governments and military resulting in 600 million casualties - indicating the possibility that civilian loss of life was next to minimal

Not sure how you've arrived at this, Riker stated the war killed 600 million, not 600 million causalities. Likely the causality count was much higher. With 600 million dead, probably the majority were civilians. Where would you find near that number of government and military personnel?

Trek did confirm absence of money in the 23rd and 24th centuries.

The 23rd century original series most certainly did not, there were many references to lovely money.

From Kirk: ... the Federation has spent a lot of money on our training ..."

Unless you believe that the Federation is somehow "outside the Federation."

In the 24th century, in order for Gaila to be released from a Federation Starbase after his arrest, a fine had to be paid.

Trek did confirm absence of money ... First in ST IV when Kirk told it to that woman (I forgot her name)

Kirk and Gillian were speaking of the use of money, this arose out of who would pay for pizza and beer in a 20th century restaurant.

It's doubtful that the restaurant would have accepted a transfer of funds from Kirk's 23rd century financial account. Nor could Kirk have use such for his and Spock's bus ride to Sausalito, nor for the admissions into the Cetacean Institute. By the time Kirk and Gillian arrived at the restaurant, what money he had acquired was all but gone.

Trek did confirm absence of money ... then later on TNG reinforced it with Picard repeating it several times.

Several times? On a single occasion (FC) Picard directly spoke of money.

meanings of the words 'paid' etc. could indicate a raw trade (bartering) instead of using money...

We can easily understand the speech of the characters, indicating no change in the "meanings" of words. Paid means paid.

What current day audience might see as 'money', doesn't necessarily mean that credits or any kind of a monetary transaction was made.

There is a transfer of "units of value" in Star Trek by Humans, that much is clear.
Jone's tribbles, Kirk's house, Crusher's cloth. Buying and selling. Money.

Ds9 [snip] was NOT Federation property. It was Bajoran ...

And the Bajorian monetary unit was called the Lita, and there was never one word about their abandoning their money in order to join the Federation.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I think there are two problems with the no-money thing:

- Whenever we hear characters talk about it directly, it's usually people like Kirk or Picard who tend to get rather pompous when they mention it. Picard especially. So they tend to overstate things.

- The Federation monetary unit is called the "credit" which also tends to confuse people, who somehow think it's something other than money just because it's called a credit. They only used that word because it sounds futuristic and isn't tied to a real world country (i.e. if they used dollars, people would say it's too American). So the writers used a word that pretty much every other sci-fi show uses, and sounds cool.

 

[Nightdiamond]

I think there are two problems with the no-money thing:

- The Federation monetary unit is called the "credit" which also tends to confuse people, who somehow think it's something other than money just because it's called a credit. They only used that word because it sounds futuristic and isn't tied to a real world country (i.e. if they used dollars, people would say it's too American). So the writers used a word that pretty much every other sci-fi show uses, and sounds cool.

True-- the term has been used as if it were some cool futuristic unit, but it's just money. It has to have value in some way, or even those other cultures would reject it.

Plus, if in ANY way, it was shown that credits were exchanged between two humans for something, then that proves that humans have and use money in the 23rd-24th centuries.

If Joseph Sisko is charging people to eat at his restaurant, that means humans still use money among themselves- Jake and Tom Paris are wrong.

If he isn't charging people-then we're right back at the beginning-how weird 24th century people are-they don't use money, yet run business that require hard work (like serving real seafood) or work as maids, miners, .

There is a transfer of "units of value" in Star Trek by Humans, that much is clear.
Jone's tribbles, Kirk's house, Crusher's cloth. Buying and selling. Money.

If it can be shown that at least Jones was a human, then this would be a major point.


Here's another one-- Some episodes say that in Cardassia, the military is in control of everything. Yet in the "Defiant", Dukat says that Obsidian Order does not answer to them and run their own affairs.

Later it is implied that the Obsidian Order rules Cardassia along with the military.

It's a contradiction--Which organization controls Cardassia?

 

[T'Girl]

There is a transfer of "units of value" in Star Trek by Humans, that much is clear.
Jone's tribbles ...

If it can be shown that at least Jones was a human, then this would be a major point.

Well, Jones is a Human name. The other character we saw with the name Jones, Miranda Jones, was specifically referred to as Human. And I do not recall any non-Humans on the various shows with the name "Jones."

A bit of canon, Uhura said: "Cyrano Jones says a tribble is the only love that money can buy." From the scene in the bar, Uhura was fully prepared to buy a tribble from the bar man, with money.

A bit of non-canon, when David Gerrold was writing Tribbles, he created a mini-bio on Cyrano Jones, "... is a planetary scout. He locates planets for the Federation and is paid by the Federation according to the intrinsic value of each planet he reports."

The Federation monetary unit is called the "credit"...

... the term has been used as if it were some cool futuristic unit, but it's just money.

Doctor McCoy, during the battle above Khitomer, said: "I'd give Real Money if he'd shut up."

In Brazil, our money is call the Real, which is what I think of when I hear McCoy's words. My personal interpretation is that the Federation's money is called the "Credit," and Earth's money is call "Real Money," or maybe just the Real.

Instead of it being "Earth Dollars."

If Bajor can keep the Lita, then Earth when it joined the Federation could keep it's indigenous money too. The way Britain, Poland and one of the Scandinavian countries kept their own money when they joined the European Union, but they use the Euro too.

 

[Nightdiamond]

If it can be shown that at least Jones was a human, then this would be a major point.

Well, Jones is a Human name. The other character we saw with the name Jones, Miranda Jones, was specifically referred to as Human. And I do not recall any non-Humans on the various shows with the name "Jones."

You have good point here.

A bit of canon, Uhura said: "Cyrano Jones says a tribble is the only love that money can buy." From the scene in the bar, Uhura was fully prepared to buy a tribble from the bar man, with money.

Very good argument there.

The Federation monetary unit is called the "credit"...

... the term has been used as if it were some cool futuristic unit, but it's just money.

Doctor McCoy, during the battle above Khitomer, said: "I'd give Real Money if he'd shut up."Instead of it being "Earth Dollars."

Good Catch!

In Brazil, our money is call the Real, which is what I think of when I hear McCoy's words. My personal interpretation is that the Federation's money is called the "Credit," and Earth's money is call "Real Money," or maybe just the Real.

Ok, that's stretching it, lol.

You almost sealed this debate with that, the only problem is that the Mccoy quote about giving "real money", throws the issue right back at the beginning!

No explanations on Data being property or even alive yet? Was Starfleet (or the script writers) actually right?

 

[Deks]

As far as I know... Kirk (in TVH) was asked by Gillian: Don't tell me, they don't use money in the future'.
'Well, they don't.'
Picard may have made a direct implication in FC about money not existing, but he also stated in the Neutral Zone episode that acquisition of material wealth was no longer the driving force in their lives - why the heck do you even NEED money under such circumstances?
Furthermore, that businessman's money was gone - as evident per his own words.
If money existed in the 24th century, why would he not get his share of it?
Jake mentioned yet again absence of money in Ds9.
Voyager even went so far to say when it was phased out (late 22nd century - when the new world economy took place).

Jonas was a human as far as I recall, but we don't know if he was living/working in/for the Federation.
Furthermore, I don't really think that 'selling' other species is a very ethical thing.
The mere implication that 23rd century humans would endorse such a behavior is a bit appalling.
Furthermore, the statements you mentioned T'Girl:
"Cyrano Jones says a tribble is the only love that money can buy."
"I'd give Real Money if he'd shut up."Instead of it being "Earth Dollars."
"I'd give Real Money if he'd shut up."

ALL easily interpreted as a figure of speech and NOT a direct implication that MONEY is involved.
Look at Tom Paris.
A human from 24th century, fascinated by the 20th and early 21st centuries, and basically behaves in practically every manner like those humans using those figures of speech.
He also said to one of the crew-members(ensign Jetal I think) 'Penny for your thoughts?' and was asked in turn 'What's a penny?'.

Seriously.
Most main characters use terms and figures of speech associated with 'real life' because the writers felt it would be easier for the audience to 'relate' (an idiotic attempt if you ask me, but what's done is done).
Just because someone mentions words such as 'money' and 'paid'... one has to consider the source it's coming from, the intent, and whether it would actually work when contrasted with other statements.

Basing the existence of 'money' on nothing more than 'figures of speech' (especially in the absence of direct proof, lack of details in specific situations AND when it was stated it doesn't exist, is grasping for straws) is not exactly a strong argument.

TOS contradicted itself on more than one occasion, even more so than any other later Trek show that came along, so it's pretty simple to take figures of speech as nothing more than that.

As for Data being 'property of SF'...
Well, no, he wasn't SF's property.
Picard vehemently opposed that kind of treatment of Data and treating him as a 'thing' when he was a sentient AI - and they demonstrated that he deserves the same treatment like any other living being.
As for Picard later on mentioning that Data would likely be 'stripped down to the wires'... well, Picard was frustrated for one thing with Data's lack of cooperation in that particular situation and would practically say anything to get Data to talk.
However, when Data stated 'yes sir' to that particular statement, he might have been indicating that he likely won't be deactivated but rather thoroughly examined if he was expected to remain in SF.
Or at the very least, he served SF for quite some time, so they would of course have the right to investigate what's happening.
I would imagine they would conduct a full examination of any other biological life form as well.

In case of Lal... that admiral was more or less acting on his own. He did have backing, but he couldn't FORCE the issue as we've clearly seen.
He could bark very loud, but in the end, it came down to what Lal would have wanted because Picard reasserted that Data won the battle for his own rights and that this extends to Lal.
The admiral simply wanted to ignore that because he saw Lal as nothing more than a sophisticated machine.

 

[T'Girl]

Picard may have made a direct implication in FC about money not existing, but he also stated in the Neutral Zone episode that acquisition of material wealth was no longer the driving force in their lives

In The Neutral Zone, Picard never told businessman Offenhouse that money did not exist, that came later (and solely) in First Contact. Nor did Picard mention anything about the acquisition of wealth in The Neutral Zone episode.

Picard did say: "People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things ... (and) ... the need for possessions."

Which is an out and out lie. After the saucer section crash landed in Generations, Picard and Riker searched the wreckage for Picard's big book of Shakespearean plays, a priced possession, Picard needed it. Picard's own brother possessed land in France..

Picard was lying (or confused) to Offenhouse.

why the heck do you even NEED money under such circumstances?

To live a basic life of course, you don't require a driving need for wealth to still need to make a living.

Furthermore, that businessman's money was gone - as evident per his own words. If money existed in the 24th century, why would he not get his share of it?

This one is easy. It's because he died, no pulse, no brainwaves, deceased. People who are cryogenic frozen are considered dead by current legal definitions. If the businessman had heirs, they would having inherited, or his mentioned ex-wifes. If no one else then the money would have been escheated by the state.

Jake mentioned yet again absence of money in Ds9.

Actually, Jake said he didn't need money, which returns us to the episode where Jake's business dealing resulted in Jake acquiring ... money.

Voyager even went so far to say when it was phased out (late 22nd century - when the new world economy took place).

Which makes no sense, because you can bet credits to navy beans that there was money after the 22nd century. Plus the passage you quoted came from Tom Paris, the same man to said: "faster than light, no left, no right." We know starship can indeed turn when faster than light, and we know that whatever the 22nd century's new economy was, it included money. Kirk: "... the Federation has spent a lot of money on our training ..."

Jonas ... but we don't know if he was living/working in/for the Federation.

We do know his ship operated in the federation, because the fact that he had left the federation space and entered Klingon space four months prior to the episode was mentioned.

ALL easily interpreted as a figure of speech and NOT a direct implication that MONEY is involved.

How can you possibly watch the haggling between Jones and the barman over the per unit price of a tribble, and think money wasn't involved?

Uhura: "All right, what are you selling them for?"
Barman: "That'll be ten credits"

He also said to one of the crew-members(ensign Jetal I think) 'Penny for your thoughts?' and was asked in turn 'What's a penny?'.

And if you Deks said: "A farthing for your thoughts?" How many people in Japan would ask you "what's a farthing?" If Paris had used cent, instead of penny, there likely would have been greater understanding. No one is insisting that the federation is using British (or American) coinage.

(A farthing was a quarter of a penny)

Basing the existence of 'money' on nothing more than 'figures of speech' is not exactly a strong argument.

But you're basing your main point of the non-existence of money, on one sentence, in one movie. Given that there is only a single overt no money statement, and that we've heard and seen dozens and dozens of yes money references, would not it make more sense that Picard's one sentence is the weaker argument? Or perhaps when Picard said "there is no money," he was the one employing a figure of speech, and he meant "something" else.

TOS contradicted itself on more than one occasion

On the matter of money, When? Kirk: "... the Federation has spent a lot of money on our training ..."

Kirk (in TVH) ... 'Well, they don't.'

Except they do, Kirk was going to (and probably did) pay money to buy the 'lithium crystals. Kirk sold the house we see in Generation. Buying and selling. Money.

Kirk: "I'm authorized to pay an equitable price."

 

[Nightdiamond]

As for Data being 'property of SF'...
Well, no, he wasn't SF's property.
Picard vehemently opposed that kind of treatment of Data and treating him as a 'thing' when he was a sentient AI - and they demonstrated that he deserves the same treatment like any other living being.

That's true but even Picard could be strange about it at times. At one point he refused to recognize that Lal was Data's child, by calling her an advanced machine.

For some reason, Starfleet disagrees with you. Maddox stated that certainly, Data was property, not just a machine, but Strfleet's property.

Then captain Phillipa said that there might be law to support that.

They let Data into Starfleet, yet all this time they considered him property?

As for Picard later on mentioning that Data would likely be 'stripped down to the wires'... well, Picard was frustrated for one thing with Data's lack of cooperation in that particular situation and would practically say anything to get Data to talk.
However, when Data stated 'yes sir' to that particular statement, he might have been indicating that he likely won't be deactivated but rather thoroughly examined if he was expected to remain in SF.

I don't know, that sounded like a direct threat--that Data would be disassembled, all the way down to his wires, just so the scientists can see why he did what he did.

The problem is, can you imagine if Commander Riker was involved instead? Opening up his skull, to see where in his brain made him do what he did?

In case of Lal... that admiral was more or less acting on his own. He did have backing, but he couldn't FORCE the issue as we've clearly seen.
He could bark very loud, but in the end, it came down to what Lal would have wanted because Picard reasserted that Data won the battle for his own rights and that this extends to Lal.
The admiral simply wanted to ignore that because he saw Lal as nothing more than a sophisticated machine.

Also true, but the fact that it happened at all is somewhat bizarre. It's Data's child, he is a Fed citizen, end of story.

As soon ass the word gets out, Admiral Haftel comes in and starts assuming exactly how Data should raise Lal, even though it's none of his business.

Then he "decides" Lal has to come back with him to Starfleet Research which is the key here--it's all about research again.

Starfleet doesn't consider Data a citizen or a sentient being.

 

[T'Girl]

Starfleet doesn't consider Data a citizen or a sentient being.

At the time Data entered Starfleet Academy, both might have been true. There apparently was no legal determination as to Data's "sentience status" at that time.

And strictly speaking, being a citizen isn't required for entry either.

 

[Silvercrest]

Picard may have made a direct implication in FC about money not existing, but he also stated in the Neutral Zone episode that acquisition of material wealth was no longer the driving force in their lives

In The Neutral Zone, Picard never told businessman Offenhouse that money did not exist, that came later (and solely) in First Contact. Nor did Picard mention anything about the acquisition of wealth in The Neutral Zone episode.

Picard did say: "People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things ... (and) ... the need for possessions."

Which is an out and out lie. After the saucer section crash landed in Generations, Picard and Riker searched the wreckage for Picard's big book of Shakespearean plays, a priced possession, Picard needed it. Picard's own brother possessed land in France..

Actually, Jake said he didn't need money, which returns us to the episode where Jake's business dealing resulted in Jake acquiring ... money.

Right, because Jake was obsessed with the accumulation of a thing (a baseball card).