The Fascist Ideology of Star Trek

POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Sunday, June 7, 2026 16:12
VIEWED: 22000
PAGE 13 of 14

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cavalier:
Why does someone have to make a loss, for me to make a profit?

---

I'll ask the opposite question, if someone doesn't have to make a loss for you to make a profit where does the extra money come from?

Remember we're talking about a finite system, in a finite system resources can move around but not grow, thus for one person to have more of something someone else must end up with less.

---

Creating extra money is easy as many central banks have demonstrated. All you need is a printing press…

Creating wealth is harder, but not impossible!

The Earth is not a closed system (solar radiation strikes it, and it rejects waste heat into space). The human economy contains only a small fraction of its energy and land resources, and a negligible fraction of its mineral reserves.

Even if the economy was a closed system it might still be possible to rearrange it to increase the total “wellbeing” (wealth, if you like) of the people in it.

Notice that if this were not true, it would remain impossible to make the average man better off with any social system, capitalism, socialism or something as yet uninvented. The average man is better off now than he was a few hundred years ago (never mind a few thousand), despite the fact that there are so many more people to divide resources between.

And of course, this must be true in the trekverse as well, as the average Federation citizen is supposed to be so well off.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cavalier:
Creating extra money is easy as many central banks have demonstrated. All you need is a printing press…

---

If you just print more money the money you have is worth less, this is called inflation.

Quote:

---

Creating wealth is harder, but not impossible!

---

So capitalism works by assuming we live in a world of infinite resources. That's interesting isn't it...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn Mac Cuhmal:
I think it says something about the Leftist ideals of Marxism and other egalitarian economics that the only way such economics could be seen as feasible is with the assumption of infinite resources.

---

But it appears the same is true of capitalism...

Quote:

---

The Earth is not a closed system (solar radiation strikes it, and it rejects waste heat into space). The human economy contains only a small fraction of its energy and land resources, and a negligible fraction of its mineral reserves.

---

The scientific community is at a fair consensus that we are running out of a great deal of mineral wealth. Perhaps they are wrong and the economists who assume the Earth has infinite resources are correct, but I don't think so some how.

Our resources with exception of solar radiation, comes from the Earth, and may only exist for some here. Fossil fuels for instance, the fossilised remains of plant and animal matter. Since the vast majority of the resources our economies require may not exist else where, or are firmly out of our reach we can assume the Earth is a closed system from an economic point of view.

Quote:

---

Even if the economy was a closed system it might still be possible to rearrange it to increase the total “wellbeing” (wealth, if you like) of the people in it.

---

Indeed, and this is what socialism, not capitalism, aims to do.

Quote:

---

Notice that if this were not true, it would remain impossible to make the average man better off with any social system, capitalism, socialism or something as yet uninvented. The average man is better off now than he was a few hundred years ago (never mind a few thousand), despite the fact that there are so many more people to divide resources between.

---

The finite existence of resources is a fact, it is perfectly possible to increase the well being of the average man in a finite resource system, you merely distribute the resources more evenly. People are better off in western nations because the common man has more resources than they once did. However many other nations are in fact worse off, because those extra resources had to come from somewhere.

Quote:

---

And of course, this must be true in the trekverse as well, as the average Federation citizen is supposed to be so well off.

---

We've already ascertained that to all intents and purposes with inventions like replicators resources are infinite. However currently we do not have replicators, thus our resources must come from somewhere.

You see people like Finn earlier denigrate leftist ideals for "requiring" infinite resources in order to function, but fail to mention that the continued existence of Capitalism also requires infinite resources. We have to get more and more and more out of the ground, but those supplies are limited.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I direct your attention to the plenitude of dilithium mines scattered throughout the Alpha/Beta Quadrants.

By the 24th century (TNG/DS9/Voy --the "present day" of Star Trek) we've seen that dilithium can be "recrystalized" (extending its useful lifespan), but apparently not replicated: the Federation, the Klingons, the Romulans, and probably the other governments all run dilithium mines. In fact the Federation's mines currently rely on holographic slave labour (using decommissioned EMHs like Voyager's Doctor). Before them, there were probably paid miners (I can't see the UFP condoning slavery --holograms don't count as "people," but organic and cybernetic life-forms do).

(It should also be noted that the Federation does have "prisons," so there's obviously still a crime problem, despite what Deanna says. We saw bits of the "penal colony on New Zealand in Voyager [Tom Paris was serving time when Janeway recruited him --and we can extrapolate the effect it had on him from that alternate timeline episode, where Harry and Tom were back on Earth, having never signed on to Voyager]. Granted, these prisons seem pretty cushy, and tend to be based more around the idea of rehabilitation and respect for others than the idea of dehumanization and institutionalized brutality in the name of "discipline." It wouldn't surprise me to learn that inmates are allowed to volunteer for low-risk jobs as a way of earning their way back into society --not so much being sentenced to hard labour as being offered a chance to make use of your skills in a productive way.)

There's your collateral wealth: dilithium. I'd also note the Romulan-controlled mines on Remus, and point out that Romulans don't use matter/anti-matter engines, so they obviously don't use dilithium to regulate the reaction. They must be using it for something else --like trade currency. This also explains the need for expansion: need more dilithium, which means you need to explore/claim/conquer more planets. The recrystallization means that dilithium isn't as valuable as it once was, but the fact that it can't be replicated means there is a finite amount (for now, at least).

This might also explain why there don't seem to be any massive trade ships (the commercial vessels we've seen are rarely larger than the Defiant). While you can certainly own your own ship, being able to afford dilithium to run the FTL drives takes a great deal of credits. Perhaps the Federation's capital is mostly involved in paying for Starfleet's engines (and replacing the ships we seem to lose regularly).

Maybe Jake's comment about human = moneyless was less an economic observation than a commentary on the exchange rate of Federation "pesos" versus anyone else's currency.

Inside the Federation, it's not an issue because everyone has 100% buying power (thanks to replicators), but when dealing with folks outside the Federation, there's a huge gap. Who knows, maybe that random Klingon bekk makes twice as much per year as a waiter at Sisko's Creole Kitchen, but the UFP citizen gets everything for the equivalent of 90% off (by Klingon prices). It's not too great for private citizens looking to buy original Klingon manga (or whatever), but on the scale of medium-to-large trade consortiums it works fine: more people buy from Federation merchants, which means disproportional amounts of wealth coming in, which means more buying power against other stellar nations.

Remember when Nog and Jake formed the Noh-Jay Consortium and went into business? It seemed to work fine (before it was mismanaged into the ground, but that wasn't about money per se).

I'd imagine that, as an example, Kassidy Yates owns her own trading company, that provides for care and feeding of her ship and pays the crew's salaries. She likely functions as an independent importer, buying stuff from Federation companies and selling them outside UFP territory (which brings in a good chunk of change, even with competitive prices). She's probably quite wealthy in terms of credits to her name, but it just

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cybersnark:
In fact the Federation's mines currently rely on holographic slave labour (using decommissioned EMHs like Voyager's Doctor). Before them, there were probably paid miners (I can't see the UFP condoning slavery --holograms don't count as "people," but organic and cybernetic life-forms do).

---

I forsee the EMH being classified as some sort of sentient life soon enough, at which point they'll be taken off of 'slave' labour duty. BTW I think slavery is rather a misnomer, since as far as the Federation is concerned the EMH is nothing more than a fancy computer program. I mean my web browser doesn't get a choice over what it can do with it's time, it doesn't get paid and I own it, but it's hardly a slave and I'm not dabbeling in slavery.

Quote:

---

It must be noted that all the altruistic qualities that the Federation is based on (kindness, politeness, dignity, respect, responsibility for one's actions, etc) do exist --we Browncoats in particular get to see them in action anytime one of us has a problem. It's just a matter of creating an environment that cultivates them instead of greed, arrogance, and hatred. Nature versus Nurture, but in this case Nurture is serving as a positive force. That's how you cange behaviour, not by drugging the population or by enforcing rule of law, but by rewarding the good people who're already out there, making everyone else want to emulate them, and trying to limit the causes of the problem.

---

This is more or less what I've been trying to get at. The fact that because there culture has different priorities to ours doesn't mean ours is better than theres by the virtue of being ours. We have as much social conditioning as the Federation or anyone else, we just can't see it.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

I'll ask the opposite question, if someone doesn't have to make a loss for you to make a profit where does the extra money come from?

Remember we're talking about a finite system, in a finite system resources can move around but not grow, thus for one person to have more of something someone else must end up with less.

---

The US has a population of > 250 million. That is more than the entire population of the world few thousand years ago. If a group of people has a fixed total wealth the average wealth per person can only depend upon the number of people in the group. This allows us to deduce one of three things. Either –

a) The average American now, is poorer than the average human being in the Late Stone Age.
b) The US has taken more from the rest of the world, than the rest of the world had to begin with.
c) The total wealth of the world is not fixed in any meaningful sense.

I am going with proposition c). Notice notice that although total wealth can increase it has still always had some finite value at any moment in time – resources have never been infinite, and still would not be if the replicator was invented tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cavalier:
B]After all, if everyone on Earth turned into a perfect altruist, it would cause no problems for General Electric, or the people who sell each other things on eBay. Instead of seeing ads which told you how much better off you would be if you bought the advertised product, you would see ads which told you how much better off everyone else would be if you bought the advertised product. Advertisers might well prefer such a world – it would be harder for customers to tell if the product really had made everyone better off (on average), than if it had made the customer better off.

---

Ahh but of course it would. In order to make a profit someone else has to make a loss, there's not infinite money, ergo. If we were altruistic the idea of making profit would be abhorrent, as it is by its very nature succeeding on others failure. Making profit is the underpinning nature of modern capitalism.

---

Consider a thought experiment. Badger and Mingo are both trapped on an island. Badger has the only supply of water, Mingo has the only supply of food. Both have more than enough for two. If Badger trades some of his water for some of Mingos food, both of them will survive. Clearly, both of them have profited. No one has lost. Why would this be abhorrent to an altruist?

I presume you earn money somehow. If employing you is to your employers disadvantage, why does he continue to employ you? If being his employee is to your disadvantage, why do you continue to work for him? If you both benefit from this trade of your time for his money, it is difficult to say that all trades disadvantage one party or the other.


Returning to the Star Trek v Firefly point we started with, it occurs to me that the difference between the two is similar to one of the differences between the modern left and right.

Star Trek sees the important issues as being entirely a matter of personal moral virtue. It seems to me that this view is much more common on the left these days (not in Mussolini’s time).

We are given hardly any positive information about how life in the Federation actually works. We are given the negative fact that in the Federation money is vanishingly rare, and that Picard was unable to give an estimate of the cost of the Enterprise-E (in ST: First Contact), from which we may deduce the rarity of trade and the absence of accounting. Almost the only positive information we get is about the generosity, kindness enlightenment etc of all Federation citizens. Usually this information comes from the mouth of a Federation citizen. :tries to find deadpan icon:

What information we do get about how things work suggests that most economic activity is either collectively undertaken (Federation News Service, Earth Cargo Service, Starfleet) or semi-leg

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Holographic slave labor? I thought I had seen it all, but evidently there is still more lunacy in the description of Star Trek Economics. That has to be something from Voyager.

Wealth creation. Yep. A very fundamental concept of economics. In fact, it’s literally Economics 101 where I first heard of it. My economics professors told me, way back in the day, that for every US dollar printed, there will be on average 7 dollars created. That was such a fascinating idea to me back then. I was only in my second or maybe third year of an undergraduate physics degree, and by that time I had had conservation laws drilled into my head, but in economics was where I first studied, in detail, a concept that is not conserved. It was a really exciting class. It almost made me think about going into economics, but the next semester when I took microeconomics, I wasn’t as thrilled with it.

Capitalism is basically built around the concept of wealth creation. The whole point of capitalism is to exploit an economy’s ability to generate wealth, it’s an ingenious concept. However, you don’t need a first world capitalist economy to create wealth. You can go all the way back to the Stone Age. Consider a caveman who chops down some trees and builds a shelter. The shelter is worth more then the trees that were used to create it, ergo the caveman has just created wealth. He has created something more valuable then the some total of its parts. Now fast forward to today in the US, and we chop down trees to make paper, which is more valuable then the trees used to create it; the paper is in turn used to create literature, which is more valuable then the paper used to create it; that literature is then used to operate a company, whether through advertising, training or just generation operations, but in doing so it creates wealth in the company that is more valuable then the literature. When everything is said and done, those simple trees have output threefold in the economy. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of people have benefited, gone home with some form of payment. Enormous wealth has been created that did not previously exist.

Man, that’s such a fascinating concept.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Holographic slave labor? I thought I had seen it all, but evidently there is still more lunacy in the description of Star Trek Economics. That has to be something from Voyager.

---

Yep.

The first generation of Emergency Medical Holograms (like Voyager's Doctor) were discontinued, but instead of just deleting them, whoever operates the Federation's dilithium mines bought the programs and set up holo-emitters throughout the mine (presumeably, the emitters are mobile enough to be moved). Presto: instant cheap labour.

Despite the Doctor's efforts, at the time of Voyager's return, holograms still aren't considered "life." However, the Doc's holo-novel is circulating among the miners, potentially stirring up a revolt (one of them was seen describing it as "inflammatory").

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cavalier:
The US has a population of > 250 million. That is more than the entire population of the world few thousand years ago. If a group of people has a fixed total wealth the average wealth per person can only depend upon the number of people in the group. This allows us to deduce one of three things. Either –

a) The average American now, is poorer than the average human being in the Late Stone Age.
b) The US has taken more from the rest of the world, than the rest of the world had to begin with.
c) The total wealth of the world is not fixed in any meaningful sense.

I am going with proposition c). Notice notice that although total wealth can increase it has still always had some finite value at any moment in time – resources have never been infinite, and still would not be if the replicator was invented tomorrow.

---

No, technology to extract resources has improved. You are equating that with infinite resources, incorrectly. Resources are now running out, Capitalism requires those resources to expand indefinably, the supply of resources can only expand indefinably if they are infinite. Perpetual growth is the very core of capitalism, and perpetual growth requires perpetual resource.

You're option C is fallacious because it implies that although we only have finite resources at any one time resources here on Earth are infinite.

Quote:

---

Consider a thought experiment. Badger and Mingo are both trapped on an island. Badger has the only supply of water, Mingo has the only supply of food. Both have more than enough for two. If Badger trades some of his water for some of Mingos food, both of them will survive. Clearly, both of them have profited. No one has lost. Why would this be abhorrent to an altruist?

---

Maybe you can explain what that has to do with the Capitalist idea of profit?

In fact by Capitalisms standards no one has profited. There's no possibility of growth for either operation because there's no profit, they are just breaking even. In a business sense what they've done is made back exactly their outgoings, sure they've 'profited' by virtue of their business not going bankrupt, but they haven't profited in the Capitalist sense, I.e. getting more money out than they put in.

So let's try another thought experiment. There is a fixed amount of credits in the world. We use money to represent these credits, but if you print twice the amount of money what happens is where $1 would have bought you eight credits yesterday will buy you four today.

Now you have a business making stamps for FOX that say CANCELLED (a very profitable business obviously). Your total outlay amounts to 5000 credits, and your total income amounts to 6000 credits. Where did the extra 1000 credits come from?

They came from FOX. But if FOX made their own stamps it would cost them 5000 credits instead of 6000, so FOX is losing out 1000 credits.

Quote:

---

I presume you earn money somehow. If employing you is to your employers disadvantage, why does he continue to employ you? If being his employee is to your disadvantage, why do you continue to work for him? If you both benefit from this trade of your time for his money, it is difficult to say that all trades disadvantage one party or the other.

---

I work for the British military, I don't think they make all that much money out of my work.

However, something can be advantageous to both parties in comparison to their alternatives while still disadvantaging one party.

An area that has experienced a natural disaster, there's no food anywhere so I pack up my cupboards and generously sell a can a beans for the low low price of a $100 a throw. We've all profited from the deal, the people I sold to get a can of beans so they don't starve, and I get $100 for a 50c can of beans.

Quote:

---

Returning to the Star Trek v Firefly point we started with, it occurs to me that the difference between the two is similar to one of the differences between the modern left and right.

Star Trek sees the important issues as being ent

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME