Mikey wrote:
I think this is the sticky wicket. You are still discussing "value." When in a situation such as a post-scarcity Federation, commodities become valueless. What is the value of housing when it is available for all, and there is no preferred location over other locations? That's right, zero... or better, there is no concept of one being of higher value than another. Similarly, no other commodity will have any intrinsic value greater or less than another. There is no ranking system, because the apartment (or clothing, or food, or entertainment options, or whatever) that person A receives is of exactly the same "worth" as every other one.
Not true. It doesn't apply to the federation since we know that ressources there are not limitless and some kind of rationing is in place. But even if it where true, there still would be a ranking system because some commodities have different values. One apartment has the same value as every other apartment. That might be true. But is it the same value as an....apple? How much more or less is it worth than a hoovercar? And that doesn't even BEGIN to factor in the wonderful world of personal preferences.
So having a REALLY limitless society where every material need can INSTANTLY be satisfied (it has to be instantly, otherwise you open the door again for market forces) is one where everything is worthless and people would really be indifferent between utility A and utility B. But doesn't that sound really stupid and like magic?
Honestly, the only society that comes to mind in star trek which somewhat fullfills this criteria are the Q and I grant you, if we develop to the level of the Q, THEN, and only then, do we not have need for money anymore.
Mikey wrote:As far as exercising eminent domain on PIcard's vinyard or Sisko's restaurant... why would that ever happen? There would be no preference to have that library in the location occupied by Sisko's, or that snail farm in the location occupied by Chateau Picard, as opposed to... well, anywhere else at all.
Why would it ever NOT happen? Space is limited, ressources are - in this scenario - administered by the government hopefully guided by maxims to maximize utility for society as a whole and therefore...it can happen all the time as soon as snails become more preferabel than grapes for some reason or the other.
Dangerous, dangerous terrain imho.
GrahamKennedy wrote:
And again, what if they AREN'T exchangeable? What if the purpose is to STOP THEM BEING exchangeable?
Fair enough but the question arises why would you WANT to stop it being interchangeble. What purpose would it serve? You basically have money but you are only allowed to use it with the government? I admit I have trouble seeing any advantage whatsoever with this system.
GrahamKennedy wrote:
You are saying that we will always need money because we will always need to engage in the kind of trading/exchange that we do now - that we will always live more or less as we do now. But that's the point; that's an assumption, and not necessarily a good one.
Well as far as trade is concerned, the whole couple ten-thousand of years of human history seem a good indicator, but I certainly acknowledge, while not really agreeing with, your point.
GrahamKennedy wrote:
Trek assumes that people of the future are fundamentally different in the way they think than you and me. They think differently, and they live differently, and so they don't need or want to engage in the kinds of activities that require money.
Fair enough, but again - and this is one crux of the matter, they didn't really thought through - why wouldn't they? Money isn't evil. Monetary transactions are neither. You can work 24/7 towards the bettermnent of humanity and it's society to the point of self-sacrifice......and still have money. One doesn't preclude the other, as is indicated by Star Trek, I hope we can agree on that.
GrahamKennedy wrote:
That's why the problem with the approach is not so much that they make that assertion about people and money, but rather that they then never actually follow through on the idea that this would be a different society with different attitudes and ways of living - instead, they just make the claims and then show people living the way they do today anyway.
Agreed 100%
GrahamKennedy wrote:
But imagine a society like the Borg. Would the Borg have any need of an alphabet or language? They might... but you can easily see that they might not, too. Writing is a lovely way to communicate for human beings, but there's nothing really fundamental about it.
They certainly also have no need for money......if their society is a desirable state though, living in a complete stagnant state (like most extreme communist societies) only developing by basically waging war and plundering. In a civilization scale they are probably barley a step above vikings. (As in barbarians, not as in actualy vikings, just to clarify
)
GrahamKennedy wrote:
I've actually had this conversation with people who spend time in China. We in the west often talk about how repressive the government in China is, how rough they are on human rights, etc. But the Chinese themselves actually see it very differently. Case in point - a few years back the Chinese legal system introduced the concept of presumed innocence. The west praised and lauded this move as improving human rights in China. But in China itself, the change was very controversial and unpopular... because in their view it made it more likely that criminals would escape justice and so reduced the human rights of everyone else. We say better than 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent be locked up... in China most people beleive the exact opposite, because they genuinely feel that locking up 10 innocent men to get 1 guilty one is a price worth paying because the overall benefit to everyone is more important than how it affects those 11 people.
Fair enough, the difference between china and the west and today and a star trek society in the future without money is a huge magnitude bigger however, I have to say but I see where you are coming from. In Trek however we don't really see that difference in morals and values but we already agreed on that, so yeah...
GrahamKennedy wrote:
Do they, though? Is there anything at all to indicate that Ben Sisko actually owns his restaurant, or the Picard family actually own that farm? I've seen Ben Sisko talk a lot about the food he makes, but I've never once seen him give anybody a bill or charge them in any way. So far as I can see he cooks because he enjoys doing it and just gives the food away for free.
Well it's their bloody "family" farm. I would say it is very very strongly suggested that both families are indeed the owners of their premises. As for giving away his food for free, I agree, we have never seen him getting money for it, which makes it kinda strange that he stresses over his restaurant so much to the point of endangering his health.
GrahamKennedy wrote:
I freely admit that in many ways what we see in Trek doesn't look like some sort of hyper-communism. But that's the complaint here - it's not that not having money is some sort of fundamental impossibility, it's that it would have all sorts of implications, and the writers clearly never bothered to consider that or try to put any of it on screen. As with many aspects of the show, we're simply told that something is better but never told how or what's so good about the change.
Agreed
GrahamKennedy wrote:
As I said, hyper-communism. It certainly is not a desirable system.
For you.
Well considering how well such systems, or attempts at such systems, have worked in the past......I am not saying it is without benefit but like all extremes it is probably not the end of all wisdom.
GrahamKennedy wrote:
Not that I know of. I'm not sure how a black market could function given that they don't have currency to buy and sell with on the side. Fiddling ration books and such is probably a sideline for some, but it would be illegal. It would be a threat to the system, much as counterfeiting money is a threat to the capitalist system, but in both cases you just have to clamp down on it as much as possible and hope that there's enough slack in the system to allow it to continue functioning.
Of course it's illegal, otherwise it wouldn't be called a black market now, would it?
Point is, given extreme scarity of ressources, something like a black market springs up immediatly and having legal tender to trade with or not doesn't factor into the equation. (Prison economy for example) People find ways, that's for sure.
GrahamKennedy wrote:
Yep, probably something like option 2.
Insanity!
GrahamKennedy wrote:
I imagine there's probably a waiting list that you put your name down on to get a bottle.
I am sure there is. There were waiting lists for basic items in soviet russia. And you could all do away with the need to regulate such minute detail and huge administration which needs to follow by just letting the market work.
Now I get what you are saying and people in the future just don't mind this kind of thing since they are pretty well off anyhow, but to me it really sounds like a huge step down on the cultural ladder with nothing gained in exchange for it.
GrahamKennedy wrote:
And yes, there will be times when you just can't get something you want. Welcome to reality. There are things I am never going to be able to afford to buy, no matter how hard I work, but which Bill Gates could buy out of his spare change. Is that a glaring fundamental flaw in capitalism that means capitalist systems don't function? Or is it just a case of me having to accept that some thing are beyond me?
That IS actually a very good point and worthy of further discussion and swings into the complete opposite direction from extreme communism to extreme capitalism. As I said in an earlier post I am of a socialist inclination to a point and I am VERY VERY critical of the free market without regulations and extreme capitalism.
I am just pointing out that regardless of the system, trying to surpress certain market forces by doing away with money is a huge step backwards without any benifit.
GrahamKennedy wrote:
You're really not missing the other options - you're coming up with your own answers here, you just don't like them and what they imply.
Ah okay then, I can certainly life with that.
Interesting discussion btw, thanks.
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.