What is Your Personal Socialist Star Trek Headcanon?

[Evilchumlee]

Even when a holodeck is a threat, it's a low level threat to the immediate occupants.

If a program goes awry, worst that's gonna happen is the safety is turned off. Sucks for whoever is in there, but it's not a threat the neighborhood at large, and one would assume that recreational civilian holodecks aren't quite as... sophisticated? Maybe that's the word. The holodecks on Starfleet ships aren't just designed for recreation. They are for training, research, etc. They're beefier than what would available elsewhere.

As noted, Quark's holosuites screwed up much less often. The only one I can think of right off the top of my head is the time they got stuck in the spy program, and that was an incredibly sophisticated program created by an absolutely master holonovelist, mixed what are almost certainly illegal modifications to Quark's holosuites.

Regular old civvie holodecks would have much more redundancy and limitations. If you told one "Make an opponent that can defeat Data", it would say "No." I even think their fundamental operation might be different. Holodecks utilize transporters and replicators. Something like a bullet might actually be replicated if the safeties are turned off or malfunctioning. A limited holodeck wouldn't even have that as an option, a bullet would always just be light, the system would never replicate it or create a hard light version.

 

[RoseEmbolism]

I honestly am a bit bemused by the fact that it was the holodecks that were picked up on, and not the other things like the massive dearth of artists, or the fact that nearly all creative activity is done by AI, or...

OK, I was being a bit fatuous about the holodeck malfunctions. I mean it's the homosexuality that are functioning perfectly well that are the existential that to humankind...


Though replicators are up there as well, if they convert energy into matter and back. Since one kilogram of matter is the equivalent of 21.5 megatons. Of course transporters world be even worse....
(I mean it's weird, because back in the TNG TNG manual replicator definitely weren't matter-to-energy converters).

 

[Queshire]

I... think you might have made some spelling mistakes there? Otherwise I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

 

[daedalus725]

the fact that nearly all creative activity is done by AI

Click to shrink...

Eh issue of real life v fiction
When artists don't need money to not fucken die A.i art isn't as bad as our time

 

[Jenny]

the massive dearth of artists, or the fact that nearly all creative activity is done by AI, or...

Click to shrink...

It doesn't fit with what we've seen of Trek? Our window into the Trek universe is sharply limited, but even then, we don't see that -- the Enterprise-D has plenty of art classes in TNG (as does the Cerritos in Lower Decks), DS9 has aspiring novelist Jake Sisko and Bashir's offscreen holoprogrammer friend who created Vic Fontaine, etc. Even in the UFP's military, plenty of people are doing creative activity; why would it be less in post-scarcity civilian life?

Plus, in terms of Trek's themes, there's a long-standing suspicion of computer-run societies -- from Landru to the Borg to AGIMUS. Trek is fundamentally humanist, at times to its detriment, but the idea that humans would stop creating because AI exists feels, if anything, worse.

As for your question of 'why learn to art when a computer can art for you?' -- even aside from IRL limitations/difficulty of getting machine learning to do what you'd want it to, why do people make realistic art today when a photograph would be the same? Because we can. Because we like creating, we like doing things ourselves, and in a post-scarcity future, with everyone's needs met, why wouldn't there be a flowering of creativity?

 

[Chloe Sullivan]

in a post-scarcity future, with everyone's needs met, why wouldn't there be a flowering of creativity?

Click to shrink...

Post scarcity means that media is also no longer pay walled and therefore everyone's steam backlog will be the entirely of steam's catalog. Obviously we'll all be playing video games all day.

 

[Evilchumlee]

I honestly am a bit bemused by the fact that it was the holodecks that were picked up on, and not the other things like the massive dearth of artists, or the fact that nearly all creative activity is done by AI, or...

Click to shrink...

There are plenty of artists, though. AI can absolutely "make" things like a holodeck story... but even then it's just grabbing from established material for the most part, like the Sherlock Holmes thing. The computer was having trouble actually making a story, it just used established Sherlock Holmes stories.

Holonovelists are definitely a thing, and it seems the most sought after programs are made by people.

It also seems like damn near everyone plays an instrument.

Art is very much alive and well.

Though replicators are up there as well, if they convert energy into matter and back. Since one kilogram of matter is the equivalent of 21.5 megatons. Of course transporters world be even worse....
(I mean it's weird, because back in the TNG TNG manual replicator definitely weren't matter-to-energy converters).

Click to shrink...

Replicators are an odd one, and I don't think they actually convert energy into matter... directly, anyway. They work more like a transporter. They're not actually CREATING matter... the matter is coming from a store somewhere on the ship. The Replicator is deconstructing that matter and reassembling it into something else. There's a sludge of the periodic table somewhere... the replicator just transports in an appropriate amount and assembles it into whatever is needed. Matter isn't being created , it's being altered and moved.

 

[Chloe Sullivan]

Replicators are an odd one, and I don't think they actually convert energy into matter... directly, anyway. They work more like a transporter. They're not actually CREATING matter... the matter is coming from a store somewhere on the ship. The Replicator is deconstructing that matter and reassembling it into something else. There's a sludge of the periodic table somewhere... the replicator just transports in an appropriate amount and assembles it into whatever is needed. Matter isn't being created , it's being altered and moved.

Click to shrink...

This is in fact exactly how replicators are implied to work in one of the later official TOS novels (which was written after TNG came out and was meant to be set in the time after TOS's events)

 

[Vyslanté]

Post scarcity means that media is also no longer pay walled and therefore everyone's steam backlog will be the entirely of steam's catalog. Obviously we'll all be playing video games all day.

Click to shrink...

this but unironically

 

[Libertad]

In light of the recent release of Star Trek Picard, I also want to add the fact that a less hierarchical Starfleet that has democratic decision-making mechanisms, even if it's on a more limited capacity, is going to be less susceptible to infiltration and more importantly, manipulation of foreign enemies into actions that led to the current debacle in the current season.

I did discuss my preference for a more democratically structured Starfleet and it's related to what's going on right now in recent Trek. I'm not saying that immediate command decisions in crisis situations need to be resolved via democratic vote all the time but I'm saying that a less bureaucratic Starfleet is not going to suffer through the same conundrum that led to what's happening with Picard and that ridiculous decision to concentrate the bulk of the main fleet in one location. It's just not very realistic. And I don't think the vast majority of Starfleet personnel is going to vote YES to such a proposal.

 

[Jenny]

snip

Click to shrink...

I'm oddly fond of a unionized Starfleet. Redshirt Local 1701, anyone?
I'm also very fond of less/non-hierarchical organizational structures for Starfleet or similar sorts of organizations.

 

[Libertad]

I'm oddly fond of a unionized Starfleet. Redshirt Local 1701, anyone?
I'm also very fond of less/non-hierarchical organizational structures for Starfleet or similar sorts of organizations.

Click to shrink...

Given the DS9 episode regarding O'Brien and Bashir suggesting that Rom create a union in order to fight for better working conditions in Quark's Bar, I'm inclined to think that Starfleet is itself unionized. Or at least that's my personal head canon.

I always imagine that deployments and assignments within Starfleet is partly determined by supercomputers determining the best locations that a person should go to based on their skillset and this is always constantly updated. This is how Starfleet then assign people to different locations and stations and ships. And since this is always updated, Starfleet personnel can use these evaluations to request to be reassigned to other places that they feel that they'll grow.

But in terms of advancements to higher occupational ranks, there has to be some democracy involved where elections can be held. There's also going to be rotations of offices and tasks all the time.

There also has to be some closer co-relation to your Starfleet ranks and your occupational tasks.

***

One thing I've noticed and I don't know if it's already been asked before but... who funds Starfleet? I imagine that it's the Federation government but how do Federation citizens pay taxes? Is there even any need for that, at all?

My headcanon on this is that Starfleet is a voluntarist organization, just like the Federation government, where Starfleet personnel and probably a few more civilians that then gives part of their energy credits (EC stipends) that they receive regularly per month, in order to fund the organization. The Federation government does not need to provide funding to Starfleet because the population itself voluntarily gives part of their energy credits (and they don't need to) to the Federation government separately from Starfleet.

Private non-profit companies work the same way. Groups of people deciding to combine parts of their energy credits in order to form a collective endeavor like Federation scientists forming the Daystrom Institute.

As for the Federation energy credits, I think I've mentioned this already on my initial post before but I always assume that there is a degree of standardization for their regular issuance to all Federation citizens and residents of Federation installations but these ECs are always locally-issued ECs and they are largely dependent on available energy resources in the region.

The standardization works into how these locally-issued ECs will have the same Federation signatures so that they will be accepted in other parts of the Federation.

Energy accounting happens a lot and there is going to be some redistributive mechanisms of energy resources to places that have less of them. But it's not like it happens a lot given how plentiful these resources can be in space.

But in something like Voyager's situation being stranded in the Delta Quadrant, it means that Voyager's locally-issued ECs are going to be much more limited than normal. Yes, the ECs can be issued by the ships themselves, largely based on their available energy resources.

Voyager's ECs are just called 'replicator rations' because there's no Federation auditor around to certify the activity. But it's the same principle, just a different name.

And as I've mentioned, these regular monthly stipends are roughly equal to that of a superstar athlete's monthly salary today here on Earth, on average. So Federation citizens are literal millionaires or multimillionaires by our standards.

Banks still exist like the one mentioned in TOS and provide accounts to people so that they can receive these ECs, which is going to be inputted to a centralized system somewhere attached to the replicators, so that your voice command can be recognized and you can get food and other necessities, plus more from the replicators.

But these banks' functions are very minimal compared to their counterparts today and probably issue 1% interest to cover administrative costs and such. There is probably no need for a central bank at all. So no central banking system.

 

[Evilchumlee]

The "energy credit" thing only works for something truly post-scarcity... but that's not the case in Trek. There are plenty of finite things that have nothing to do with energy.

I want to live in a 50,000 square foot rooftop suite in San Francisco. There's only so many of them. There's aren't unlimited 50,000 square foot rooftop suites available. Do I spend my "energy credits" on it? But if everyone has the same amount of "credits" as I do, we've reached an impasse.

There is absolutely a system in place for people to acquire finite items. Bringing up Picard, the Season 1 Mars people were very "blue collar". They weren't toiling away on Mars because they loved doing that. They wanted things. Yeah, a drive to acquire wealth has become a negative in their culture, but people will still always want things. So you won't have like, day-trader Wall Street types or Cryptobro's running around trying to bleed the last credit out of everything, and there's no capitalist tendency to bleed a workforce dry to maximize profits... but there definitely is still a system in place to earn finite items, they just tend to do it in moderation.

Not everyone agrees... and those are people who tend to go elsewhere.

I'm going to maintain there is a less-dystopian "social credit" system in place that rewards greater access to luxury items for higher positions, positive contributions to society, etc. I don't think it's as too-close-to-money as an actual, defined amount of "credits" one has in an account and more of a requisition system. If you want something, you just ask for it. The request may or may not be denied.

Sisko's dad was able to reliably requisition fresh, non-replicated food because the system, however it works, deemed it appropriate as Sisko would then provide a service for people. I don't think one would have to "pay" to eat at Sisko's... Sisko gets his "credit" from providing the service so he's "profiting" by providing the service, which allows him access to the fresh food as well as other luxury/finite items. Sisko's food is still finite in the restaurant, but those types of things are probably just considered first come, first serve. Because of the cultural stigma against acquiring goods, people likely don't abuse it and just go eat three meals a day at Sisko's.

Actual money works the same way. For Federation people who will be interacting or require foreign currency, they can requestion some. How much they get depends on their status. Everyone on say, DS9 is likely just paid out some as a necessity of being there.

Basically, you don't usually have to "pay" to receive a service, the server is "paid" by the government for providing the service. For a physical item of finite supply, one "buys" it by requisitioning it, your "money" coming from services you provide. Scotty "bought" a boat by expending some of his "credit" he earned by service to Startfleet.

So like, "We don't use money" is true. But... to an extent. Probably more accurate from the perspective of most people, who wouldn't see their "credit score" as a number in an account. I don't think there's a defined "price tag" on things. It's just weighed on a number of factors; rarity of item, service of person, demand for item, would it be more beneficial for someone else to have item, etc. If I want a boat, it's not "Ok, 100 Energy Credits please", it's "Ok, we have x number of boats available and y requests. You're credit level is high enough to warrant this as a reasonable request, there is no pressing need for anyone else to need a boat. Approved."

 

[Libertad]

Just a reminder. This is not necessarily a discussion of canon Star Trek. This is your socialist headcanon about things in Star Trek.

So if there are things in canon that you feel that doesn't seem that fitting to the more socialist Star Trek universe, then what's the good replacement. Not everything in canon Star Trek after all can be justified in socialist terms, unfortunately.

The "energy credit" thing only works for something truly post-scarcity... but that's not the case in Trek. There are plenty of finite things that have nothing to do with energy.

Click to shrink...

Energy credits is not a thing that I conjured up in my mind. It's also a thing that exists from Star Trek Online, which is not completely canon but you get the idea.

And just because there are finite "things" doesn't mean that there is no real "post-scarcity". After all, post-scarcity doesn't necessarily mean "unlimited amount of things" i.e. commodities, consumer goods.

What post-scarcity really means for the most part when it's being used in the scientific field is that there's more or less "unlimited supply of energy sources", which is always being used not just in consumption of items but also in production of goods and services. You never run out of energy supply to produce material goods, PARTICULARLY BASIC GOODS.

I want to live in a 50,000 square foot rooftop suite in San Francisco. There's only so many of them. There's aren't unlimited 50,000 square foot rooftop suites available. Do I spend my "energy credits" on it? But if everyone has the same amount of "credits" as I do, we've reached an impasse.

snip

Click to shrink...

See above. And this is a clear example of what I'm talking about.

This is a scarcity-based mindset (not to mention a capitalistic one) where presumably something like a private housing market still exists. Even your social credit system is still based on a market economy structure, though it doesn't look like it, at first, since you replaced it with a 'social credit' system.

It also reeks of favoring social privilege and the social credit system that's proposed ironically creates the idea that it is trying to prevent, I imagine.

Housing, I'm sure, is something that's pretty much determined by social planning within the Federation.

Also, the dictates of the modern capitalist market and our capitalist way of life today is the one that makes you think that a 50,000 square foot rooftop suite in San Francisco is a place that's pretty much on demand and thus, has to be allocated via some mechanism due to its perceived high value.

It's also based on the idea that land is still commodified and land is a scarce good.

I don't think it works like that at all anymore.

So that idea above is not going to be realistic. And it's not really quite socialist in my opinion.

Speaking again of energy credits, I suspect that Federation energy credits for the most part are non-transferrable from the person that is issued to by the local Federation authority and that they also have expiration dates. So, they are not necessarily money as we know it, money as a commodity.

You can use these credits to buy goods and services, sure, but they cannot be turned into capital, since you cannot store them for long periods of time, especially in a society where there's a ton of public goods and social services available at the whim of a Federation citizen or resident.

"Money" simply becomes an instrument for making economic transactions within the Federation.

But it's not really money per se, particularly in a Marxist sense.

This is probably what Gene Roddenberrry has in mind regarding the thing about the non-existence of money.

Another key difference is the fact that the Federation is quite abundant enough that every Federation citizen's monthly stipend of credits is way, way more than enough for a single person so you'll never run out of it (unless you're in Voyager where there's a real chance for it) and that its expiration date is also quite long. So there's still a degree of accumulation allowed given the long expiration dates but it's harmless since there's not much of a shares market or stock market anyway so the threat of these Federation credits becoming really money as we know it is not going to happen.

 

[firefossil]

Fully automated luxury gay space communism presumably means land is owned by the government and can be leased for personal use or designated for public use, but not private.

Honestly I'd say houses should basically just be a holodeck with a storage compartment for your personal property and an attached replicator. You want to live in a castle with a 100 acres of pristine meadows, the holodeck can create a pseudo-virtual world centered on your location to maintain the illusion of vast open space while 'animating' only the parts they can actually touch. Wanting a personal 18 hole golf course that exists outside of the hole you are currently at serves no legitimate personal purpose... you aren't using it so there is no reason for society to let you have it.

 

[Libertad]

Fully automated luxury gay space communism presumably means land is owned by the government and can be leased for personal use or designated for public use, but not private.

Honestly I'd say houses should basically just be a holodeck with a storage compartment for your personal property and an attached replicator. You want to live in a castle with a 100 acres of pristine meadows, the holodeck can create a pseudo-virtual world centered on your location to maintain the illusion of vast open space while 'animating' only the parts they can actually touch. Wanting a personal 18 hole golf course that exists outside of the hole you are currently at serves no legitimate personal purpose... you aren't using it so there is no reason for society to let you have it.

Click to shrink...

Probably not necessarily the Federation government or even the planetary governments, per se, but I get what you mean. It's socially-owned and this social ownership being exercised by a variety of institutions like a land trust or something. The idea simply that land is not something that can be bought and sold in a market anymore suffices enough. Its usage by people or institutions can still change wildly from time to time but its not going to be the same way pre-Federation Earth.

"Traditional" housing is still going to be quite cheap by Federation standards, so I don't think "holodeck housing" is going to be a thing like some kind of "low cost social housing". The holodeck is still not real, after all. I think people are going to attach some value to the difference between what's real or not.

However, the presence of the holodeck in every home at the very least changes the nature of recreation in ways that not even canon Star Trek has been able to explore, really. And this is very much a 24th century thing.

One of the commenters on this thread talked about the idea of a Federation corps that deals with tracking the mental health of the population and prevent things like holo addictions from becoming rampant. If it exists, which I assume it's there for headcanon purposes, it's probably a group that explodes in number and demand during stressful situations like the Dominion War for all we know.

 

[slybrarian]

I don't think "everyone has a holodeck" is something that is practical, at least in the late 24th century. A holodeck with the level of fidelity found on the Enterprise is presented as a novelty, and while Quark has holosuites six years later, they also seem to be a cruder and less powerful version. (Which admittedly had the advantage of not accidentally creating sapient holograms.) We know that less detailed holographic simulators have been around a long time but while they might be useful for training or many forms of recreation they probably wouldn't be pleasant to live in. Holodecks are also shown to require a fair amount of maintenance, whether it's Rom constantly fixing them or Mariner cleaning out the bleep filters, and require enough downtime that they're not practical as long-term living spaces. They're also power hungry.

Now, we do see the tech advancing, such as the miniature holopods from LD and the increasing presence of freestanding interactive holograms like the EMH and Rios' doppleganger gang. Maybe by the end of the 25th century holographic housing could become standard, especially since a lot of the computational requirements come from interactive characters and a house would be cheaper in terms of energy and runtime.

I do think the Federation's worlds would have some method for allocating still-scare resources. If nothing else, I'm deeply skeptical of people working for nothing and think that people deserve to be compensated for labor. I also think that while there's clearly a standard credit of something, tied to energy and feedstock, it doesn't necessarily mean it's fungible directly to things like real estate, boats, or spaceships. IDIC means every planet is going to make its own choices about local issues like who controls a plot of land, because different species are going to have different needs. A species with a sessile phase is going to have different views on land management than humans do, for example. The Federation is better off being as general as possible and focus more on the desired end results - no slaves, no concentration of economic power to specific individuals - that on controlling the exact means to get there.

 

[Evilchumlee]

Also, the dictates of the modern capitalist market and our capitalist way of life today is the one that makes you think that a 50,000 square foot rooftop suite in San Francisco is a place that's pretty much on demand and thus, has to be allocated via some mechanism due to its perceived high value.

It's also based on the idea that land is still commodified and land is a scarce good.

I don't think it works like that at all anymore.

So that idea above is not going to be realistic. And it's not really quite socialist in my opinion.

Click to shrink...

People are still going to be people. On a ship, the higher your status, the larger the quarters you get. Having a nice, larger space is definitely still something desirable.

Picard lives on a French Chateau with servants. Raffi lived in a trailer in the desert. Was Picard just like "I mean, I GUESS i'll just live in a French Chateau with servants, I suppose. Whatever."

Not at all.

"Land" may not necessarily be a scarce good, but location still plays a role for sure. I'm sure anyone can get land. Somewhere. But some people might specifically want beach front land in the French Riveria. There is only so much beachfront land in the French Riveria. No amount of energy will make more land there.

Going with the spirit of the OP reiterated, my socialist Star Trek headcanon is that it's... socialist to a point, but it is very much not communist, there is still absolutely personal property and despite some claims otherwise, they absolutely do still use a form of money, they just don't like to actually call it that and alittle less formal than money.

The dictates of the modern capitalist market aren't there, but people also... like nice things. Society has just mostly shifted to frown on being on focused on acquiring wealth. It's still totally possible to acquire wealth and wealth is desirable... it's just not something you're supposed to be trying to do, and if you have it, you don't flaunt it. The headcanon is that, according to the Federation (Earth, really but that's another can of worms), success and wealth will come along with service and dedication to whatever you choose to pursue. They strive to better themselves and their collective peoples, and those who contribute more to that bettering are awarded more things.

"Wealth" in the Star Trek sense would never come from buying and selling thing, investments, banking, etc. Nobody is making money "flipping houses". They make their wealth by making positive contributions to society.

 

[Libertad]

I do think the Federation's worlds would have some method for allocating still-scare resources. If nothing else, I'm deeply skeptical of people working for nothing and think that people deserve to be compensated for labor.

Click to shrink...

What does "working for nothing" means? What is your definition for labor? Very interesting. Do you think someone who is a housewife is "working for nothing" and is not doing labor? What about someone like a hikikomori who is simply spending their day using a search engine and just browsing the Internet?

It's a question of "who's deserving", which entails a scarcity-oriented mindset. Do you think such attitudes persists in a post-scarcity society? I think not but ok...

Quite a take that can potentially revealing about how you think about people and how you also treat them so tread carefully....

I also think that while there's clearly a standard credit of something, tied to energy and feedstock

Click to shrink...

It's a bit redundant to add up raw materials. Energy is the most basic. Look up energy accounting.

People are still going to be people.

Click to shrink...

This is a very weird statement. What does this mean? Just because people's desires in a society without capitalism and scarcity has shifted away from demanding to be living in a 50,000 square meter rooftop suite in San Francisco doesn't mean that people stop being people.

On a ship, the higher your status, the larger the quarters you get. Having a nice, larger space is definitely still something desirable.

Click to shrink...

Hmmmm... it did raise the question of status, privilege and hierarchy. Not to mention the manufacturing of desires. A desire for a spacious living space is indeed natural. But does allocation of living spaces on starships really needed to be something like that? I did talk about a less hierarchical Starfleet in its structure and culture so quite interesting...

Picard lives on a French Chateau with servants. Raffi lived in a trailer in the desert. Was Picard just like "I mean, I GUESS i'll just live in a French Chateau with servants, I suppose. Whatever."

Click to shrink...

Ah so you think that these manifestations of inequities are a result of people's desire for ambition in order to get more material things. Interesting. It's an attitude that is definitely shaped by the society that we live in today. Mind you, these attitudes and beliefs do spill into works like Star Trek so there you go...

"Land" may not necessarily be a scarce good, but location still plays a role for sure.

Click to shrink...

Location is not a physical resource. Land is.

Heck, even if we use location in this conversation, it is definitely not going to be considered "scarce" especially since physical space isn't scarce. Creating a sense of "high or low land value" out of location is a product of land being a factor market and the existence of a housing market....which probably doesn't exist in 24th century Earth, so who cares.

Scenic locations are also not rare.

I'm sure anyone can get land. Somewhere. But some people might specifically want beach front land in the French Riveria. There is only so much beachfront land in the French Riveria. No amount of energy will make more land there.

Click to shrink...

You are stretching this so far that it doesn't make sense. Also, you are manufacturing a specific demand that makes sense in the society that we live in RIGHT NOW but most likely doesn't exist anymore in the 24th century Federation. There are far better beach front places in other parts of the Federation than the French Riveria, I'm pretty sure.

Heck, you don't need to have beach front land in the French Riveria to enjoy the French Riveria. Goodness. Do you really think the French Riviera is all of a sudden something that is going to be closed or filled in with people having the same demand for living in there? Why?

Going with the spirit of the OP reiterated, my socialist Star Trek headcanon is that it's... socialist to a point, but it is very much not communist, there is still absolutely personal property and despite some claims otherwise, they absolutely do still use a form of money, they just don't like to actually call it that and alittle less formal than money.

Click to shrink...

I guess I'm seeing the problem now. You have these definitions of socialism and communism that's probably inaccurate.

Like for example, communism is not about not having personal property, my goodness.

And you seem to be confused... what is money again, for you?

This is not about "they just don't call it that". Money has specific definition and specific function, particularly for Marxists. Money is something that can be stored and transferred. That's why I said that Federation credits are probably non-transferrable and they expire, which means that they're not money.

Please read that part again that I said it. I think I'm clear when I said it.

The dictates of the modern capitalist market aren't there, but people also... like nice things. Society has just mostly shifted to frown on being on focused on acquiring wealth.

Click to shrink...

I wonder why. We are going back to that discussion again regarding desires.

It's still totally possible to acquire wealth and wealth is desirable... it's just not something you're supposed to be trying to do, and if you have it, you don't flaunt it.

Click to shrink...

Is this like implying that socialism is not about people acquiring wealth?

And of course, acquiring wealth is not something you're going to try to do.

You're already born with it. You don't need to acquire it if you already have it.

That's why it's a post-scarcity society. What's going on here?

The headcanon is that, according to the Federation (Earth, really but that's another can of worms), success and wealth will come along with service and dedication to whatever you choose to pursue. They strive to better themselves and their collective peoples, and those who contribute more to that bettering are awarded more things.

Click to shrink...

Why are you trying to separate the Federation from Earth? Are you suggesting that barring some canon inconsistencies that there are parts of the Federation that are capitalist and is not post-scarcity, even at the most basic level?

This is probably so wrong. You are trying to say that humans or planet Earth can become like this but others can't "just because it's culture", something like that.

There's a term for it. It's essentializing people. It's saying that different groups of people act in different ways because "it's in their nature" kind of a thing. That's not very good.

"Wealth" in the Star Trek sense would never come from buying and selling thing, investments, banking, etc. Nobody is making money "flipping houses". They make their wealth by making positive contributions to society.

Click to shrink...

And this is where I'm worried. You say this but don't mean it with your contradictory statements above. You say it but you don't mean it. Also, a serious question, what is your concept of wealth? You have this assumption that the Federation doesn't create material wealth so you create this apostrophes around the word, "wealth", just like I did.

Of course, The Federation does create material wealth and it's so abundant that the idea of people needing to make money to live doesn't make any sense. It's simple as that.

People create wealth with their labor. It's natural.

The big difference is that there's no small group of people that privatizes that social creation of wealth. In the Federation, there are no filters that forces that situation.

They can just give that social wealth out voluntarily to the Federation government or to Starfleet. No coercion. They have too much that it's nothing.

It's probably also just a little societal pressure. Just part of the social norms. You express your support to the Federation... your "patriotism" by giving part of that monthly stipend to the pillar institutions of the Federation like the Federation government and Starfleet. That's it.

Also, the monthly stipend that I've been mentioning in this thread many times is not a welfare handout. And even if it is, it shouldn't have that kind of a stigma.

The monthly stipend is a social dividend. It's UBI. You are just receiving part of that social creation of wealth that happened for that particular month.

And whatever it is that you are doing in life, you are part of that wealth creation. So you deserve that wealth.

It goes full circle to the comments above related to the nature of work, because unconsciously we may have biases as to what does that mean.

 

[Evilchumlee]

There was alot to unpack there but i'm gonna go this one right now.

Why are you trying to separate the Federation from Earth? Are you suggesting that barring some canon inconsistencies that there are parts of the Federation that are capitalist and is not post-scarcity, even at the most basic level?

Click to shrink...

First, Star Trek isn't post-scarcity. It's approaching it. It's close. But it's not post scarcity.

And yes, it's actually quite clear that The Federation is not a single unified central government. It's... in the name. Federation members seem to have a great amount of autonomy. We know the Vulcans practice capitalism to an extent. Janeway mentions a Vulcan jacking up the price of something she was trying to buy when he found out she was Starfleet.

Members have their own governments, economies, military organizations, etc. The Federation is closer to a Space United Nations than a Space United States.

This is probably so wrong. You are trying to say that humans or planet Earth can become like this but others can't "just because it's culture", something like that.

There's a term for it. It's essentializing people. It's saying that different groups of people act in different ways because "it's in their nature" kind of a thing. That's not very good.

Click to shrink...

I'm not even sure what you're saying here.

Different cultures exist, and one economic theory isn't inherently "better" than another. There's nothing stopping people from another culture from doing -insert thing. Hell we see alot of that the opposite way in Star Trek. There are clearly humans who are not happy with the system and head elsewhere to earn income. If they're born the equivalent of multimillionaires and have all moved beyond such capitalist ways, why does that happen?

The answer is... because it's not as cut and dry as you make it. Earth/The Federation isn't an absolutely perfect post-scarcity Marxist Utopia. It's trying to be. It wants to be. But it's not.

Again here's a theoretical, since in your version land has no value. You have 4 people who are interested in American history living on Earth in the 24th century. They all think it would be neat to live in the White House and let's just assume there is nobody currently living in the White House. They all want to live in the White House, and they want to live there alone. It has no "value", there's no price tag on it. The people are interested in it's historical value and think it would be nice to live there.

All being equally multimillionaires with the same exact worth to society, who gets to live there?

 

[Libertad]

First, Star Trek isn't post-scarcity. It's approaching it. It's close. But it's not post scarcity.

Click to shrink...

Defining post-scarcity along the lines of "I should get everything that I wanted right away, tangible and intangible, with complete abundance and if I lack just one thing then it means there's scarcity" would mean that no society will ever qualify as post-scarcity.

And I've already said it above as to what post-scarcity means. If you don't want to use that definition, then it's your problem, not mine.

And yes, it's actually quite clear that The Federation is not a single unified central government. It's... in the name.

Click to shrink...

It's very clear just by reading Memory Alpha alone that the United Federation of Planets has a single unified central government based on Earth with three branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial.

What the heck is your definition of a federation?

Federation members seem to have a great amount of autonomy. We know the Vulcans practice capitalism to an extent. Janeway mentions a Vulcan jacking up the price of something she was trying to buy when he found out she was Starfleet.

Click to shrink...

There are no other recurring Vulcan characters on Voyager other than Tuvok and Vorik and I can't remember any Vulcan doing what you are saying given how much I've watched Voyager. And even if there's a Vulcan that does jack up the price of something on the Voyager series, it doesn't mean that there's capitalism within the Federation. Someone jacking up the price of something in the Delta Quadrant, and even if its done somewhat implausibly within Federation territory is not capitalism, even if it's done by a Vulcan, an Andorian or a Federation citizen.

What the heck is your definition of capitalism?

Members have their own governments, economies, military organizations, etc. The Federation is closer to a Space United Nations than a Space United States.

Click to shrink...

Even U.S. states qualify in your rather interesting definition of federation. There are state defense forces, after all, aside from the National Guard.

The Federation is a United Nations in space, but it's a federalized United Nations in space.

Now unless you are some states' rights Republican, you do understand what is the basic definition of a federation, right?

I'm not even sure what you're saying here.

Different cultures exist, and one economic theory isn't inherently "better" than another. There's

Click to shrink...

Ha, you say that in a thread that says "your personal socialist headcanon".

nothing stopping people from another culture from doing -insert thing. Hell we see alot of that the opposite way in Star Trek. There are clearly humans who are not happy with the system and head elsewhere to earn income.

Click to shrink...

Because Federation citizens are not a monolith, obviously. Do you always see groups of people as single hats? You are almost prone to stereotyping people, whether consciously or unconsciously.

And what does "earning income", mean? You mean engaging in private retail trade or something? That's it? Then what's the problem with Federation citizens deciding to engage in small-scale entrepreneurial practices or something? It means that there's capitalism? Are you really sure that you understand what's going on here?

Again, it falls down to what do you mean by capitalism. Heck, you can't even answer me when I noticed your way of defining socialism and communism.

If they're born the equivalent of multimillionaires and have all moved beyond such capitalist ways, why does that happen?

Click to shrink...

Because there's always going to be people that want to try different things. It's simple. Why is that hard to understand?

Also, We are talking of structures here. Your counter arguments always revolve around people. Try to match up.

The answer is... because it's not as cut and dry as you make it. Earth/The Federation isn't an absolutely perfect post-scarcity Marxist Utopia. It's trying to be. It wants to be. But it's not.

Click to shrink...

As if this is what I'm saying to begin with. This is your assumption, not mine. And stop with the utopia stuff, do you even know what does that mean? Do you think the Federation's on a mission of "perfecting existence" or some stuff like that? Heck no.

And Marxism and utopia are contradictions. Marxism happened as a reaction to utopian socialism.

And as per canon, it definitely doesn't try to be a "perfect post-scarcity Marxist Utopia" when the Federation is not even politically Marxist to begin with. It's a liberal democracy.

Again here's a theoretical, since in your version land has no value. You have 4 people who are interested in American history living on Earth in the 24th century. They all think it would be neat to live in the White House and let's just assume there is nobody currently living in the White House. They all want to live in the White House, and they want to live there alone. It has no "value", there's no price tag on it. The people are interested in it's historical value and think it would b

All being equally multimillionaires with the same exact worth to society, who gets to live there?

Click to shrink...

Are you crazy? What a ridiculous example. Do you understand what you're asking me and what you are talking about?

Please do better.

Those 4 people that you are talking about is simply going to live together inside the White House and they're not going to fight over it.

Why would they be?

Drop the capitalistic mentality but I'm sure given how this conversation is going that it's not going to happen.

It's literally impossible for you to conceive of anything beyond capitalism even in scenarios like this. There's always a fallback that people are not going to be acting like what they are supposed to act in a more evolved society of the Federation because they'll be more prone to sharing and be more cooperative with each other because they already have all that they need but rather they'll just act like modern late 20th century liberal Americans because "human nature".

Congratulations, I think I'm going to be mostly done with this discussion.

 

[Evilchumlee]

Congratulations, I think I'm going to be mostly done with this discussion.

Click to shrink...

Wanted to start with this... the whole reply feels a bit aggressive for what the discussion is. I thought we were having a casual discussion about how we might imagine how Federation socialism works... i'm certainly not trying to attack you, just trying to have a discussion to understand your viewpoint more clearly...

Defining post-scarcity along the lines of "I should get everything that I wanted right away, tangible and intangible, with complete abundance and if I lack just one thing then it means there's scarcity" would mean that no society will ever qualify as post-scarcity.

And I've already said it above as to what post-scarcity means. If you don't want to use that definition, then it's your problem, not mine.

Click to shrink...

Fair enough. Might just be coming at it from different angles. I'll acknowledge you're using a closer-to-true definition of "post-scarcity". Going by "most goods can be produced in abundance with minimal human labor" then yes, the Federation is post-scarcity. Basic goods, anyway. I was making the argument that true post-scarcity means damn near everything needs to fall under this, like luxury and artisan goods.

It's very clear just by reading Memory Alpha alone that the United Federation of Planets has a single unified central government based on Earth with three branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial.

What the heck is your definition of a federation?

Click to shrink...

The first two paragraphs of the wiki sum it up for me pretty well,
A federation (also known as a federal state) is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing provinces, states, or other regions under a central federal government (federalism). In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states, as well as the division of power between them and the central government, is constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision, neither by the component states nor the federal political body. Alternatively, a federation is a form of government in which sovereign power is formally divided between a central authority and a number of constituent regions so that each region retains some degree of control over its internal affairs.

It is often argued that federal states where the central government has overriding powers are not truly federal states. For example, such overriding powers may include: the constitutional authority to suspend a constituent state's government by invoking gross mismanagement or civil unrest, or to adopt national legislation that overrides or infringes on the constituent states' powers by invoking the central government's constitutional authority to ensure "peace and good government" or to implement obligations contracted under an international treaty.

To address specifically The United Federation of Planets, it appears to me... and you don't have to agree... this is all about headcanon, right? That the UFP is absolutely a central government, but a weak one, delegating most powers to its member states. Again I envision the UFP as less of a United States, with a strong central government and member states with some control but limited power, rather closer to a United Nations/NATO combo with a central authority that acts as a forum for member worlds to peacefully interact and offers some universal rights and laws while leaving most matters up to the member states.

Someone jacking up the price of something in the Delta Quadrant, and even if its done somewhat implausibly within Federation territory is not capitalism, even if it's done by a Vulcan, an Andorian or a Federation citizen.

Click to shrink...

From Memory Alpha,
While Vulcan was well-known to be a founding member of the Federation, non-affiliated Vulcans who practiced mercantile trade were common. In 2368, a Vulcan master doubled the price of a meditation lamp upon learning that Tuvok and Kathryn Janeway were Starfleet officers. (TOS: "Errand of Mercy", VOY: "The Gift")

And what does "earning income", mean? You mean engaging in private retail trade or something? That's it? Then what's the problem with Federation citizens deciding to engage in small-scale entrepreneurial practices or something? It means that there's capitalism? Are you really sure that you understand what's going on here?

Click to shrink...

The idea that people could engage in retail trade while every Federation citizen by birth is the equivalent of a multimillionaire doesn't really seem to mesh together.

My main point here was trying to reconcile things we know for sure... that contradict themselves. The Federation definitely has some sort of exchange of -something for goods and services. They've also, repeatedly, told us they don't use money. So... i'm trying to make that work.

Also, We are talking of structures here. Your counter arguments always revolve around people. Try to match up.

Click to shrink...

My arguments revolve around people, but you keep bringing up structures. Try to match up.

People are what's important. Nothing works if the people don't allow it to work.

Those 4 people that you are talking about is simply going to live together inside the White House and they're not going to fight over it.

Click to shrink...

That completely ignored the question.

The White House is a finite resource. There is only one. They could make exact replicas, but there is only one original.

Sure, 4 people could actually live in it. Maybe they would. Maybe they wouldn't.

2 people might be fine with it, the other 2 may want it as their own, personal single dwelling.

Who gets it? How is the decision made? What if everyone doesn't agree? Why do you assume everyone will just always agree with each other all of the time?

It's literally impossible for you to conceive of anything beyond capitalism even in scenarios like this. There's always a fallback that people are not going to be acting like what they are supposed to act in a more evolved society of the Federation because they'll be more prone to sharing and be more cooperative with each other because they already have all that they need but rather they'll just act like modern late 20th century liberal Americans because "human nature".

Click to shrink...

I can absolutely conceive of it... but it's also why I know that it's not actually realistic. I'm also using the source materials to show that people don't perfectly to make the way you suggest it should work actually work.

There is ABSOLUTELY still something of a class system in Star Trek. Again, status is shown to be rewarded. Captains get larger quarters than Crewmen. Hell if we use Lower Decks, Senior Officers get better replicators... which seems an entirely arbitrary to reward higher status people and create an artificial class system.

I'll ask again, why does Picard live on a French Chateau with a literal wait staff, while Raffi lives in a trailer in the desert? I can excuse Laris and the other Romulan guy... they work for Picard out of admiration and gratitude, but he had other staff there.

Want to reiterate at the end here... i'm in no way trying to attack your viewpoint or ideology. Just having a discussion and offering a different view. No need for hostility.

 

[Reveen]

That Star Trek shows Posadism to be the true blue communism. It's just that the communism by nuclear war happened first then the aliens came, but the dolphins part didn't fire off until years later. And it was a space whale, not a dolphn.

 

[Libertad]

Wanted to start with this... the whole reply feels a bit aggressive for what the discussion is. I thought we were having a casual discussion about how we might imagine how Federation socialism works... i'm certainly not trying to attack you, just trying to have a discussion to understand your viewpoint more clearly...

Click to shrink...

It's not my intention to be aggressive, that's for sure. If that's what you are thinking that I'm doing, I do apologize if I came out rather aggressive.

It's part of the frustration of needing to explain things twice and having needing to explain some stuff that I thought is not needed to be done in a forum thread called "personal socialist headcanon" and what I thought to be very cliche definitions of socialism, communism and capitalism and having a capitalistic scarcity-oriented mentality on things that are already being provided many times in our real world like housing.

Fair enough. Might just be coming at it from different angles. I'll acknowledge you're using a closer-to-true definition of "post-scarcity". Going by "most goods can be produced in abundance with minimal human labor" then yes, the Federation is post-scarcity. Basic goods, anyway. I was making the argument that true post-scarcity means damn near everything needs to fall under this, like luxury and artisan goods.

Click to shrink...

That's what I'm talking about, yeah. It can even go beyond basic goods and go into previously known to be luxury and artisanal goods and also a few intangibles but at the most bare basic definition, yes.

The first two paragraphs of the wiki sum it up for me pretty well,
A federation (also known as a federal state) is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing provinces, states, or other regions under a central federal government (federalism). In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states, as well as the division of power between them and the central government, is constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision, neither by the component states nor the federal political body. Alternatively, a federation is a form of government in which sovereign power is formally divided between a central authority and a number of constituent regions so that each region retains some degree of control over its internal affairs.

It is often argued that federal states where the central government has overriding powers are not truly federal states. For example, such overriding powers may include: the constitutional authority to suspend a constituent state's government by invoking gross mismanagement or civil unrest, or to adopt national legislation that overrides or infringes on the constituent states' powers by invoking the central government's constitutional authority to ensure "peace and good government" or to implement obligations contracted under an international treaty.

To address specifically The United Federation of Planets, it appears to me... and you don't have to agree... this is all about headcanon, right? That the UFP is absolutely a central government, but a weak one, delegating most powers to its member states. Again I envision the UFP as less of a United States, with a strong central government and member states with some control but limited power, rather closer to a United Nations/NATO combo with a central authority that acts as a forum for member worlds to peacefully interact and offers some universal rights and laws while leaving most matters up to the member states.

Click to shrink...

I do have a preference for a weaker central government at the UFP level and make planetary governments more powerful as my headcanon as well. More of a European Union, United Nations and 19th century United States. After all, I did say that the Federation government in my headcanon is voluntarist and is funded by voluntary donations of Federation citizens of portions of their credits.

From Memory Alpha,
While Vulcan was well-known to be a founding member of the Federation, non-affiliated Vulcans who practiced mercantile trade were common. In 2368, a Vulcan master doubled the price of a meditation lamp upon learning that Tuvok and Kathryn Janeway were Starfleet officers. (TOS: "Errand of Mercy", VOY: "The Gift")

Click to shrink...

Ah... I think I remember Janeway saying it now in the Gift episode. I remember it since it's the last episode of Kes in Voyager as a main cast member and the first one for Seven of Nine in her... suit. You know what I'm talking about.

I know it's Memory Alpha but I do prefer ignoring it.

However, Mercantile trade is not necessarily an exclusive feature of capitalism. It's still going to exist in a post-capitalist reality.

The idea that people could engage in retail trade while every Federation citizen by birth is the equivalent of a multimillionaire doesn't really seem to mesh together.

Click to shrink...

It's still going to happen. Commerce is a thing that's not just going to fade away even under post-scarcity.

My main point here was trying to reconcile things we know for sure... that contradict themselves. The Federation definitely has some sort of exchange of -something for goods and services. They've also, repeatedly, told us they don't use money. So... i'm trying to make that work.

Click to shrink...

In my opinion, you didn't able to make it work because you have a certain definition of money that looks like your definition of post-scarcity.
Labour vouchers, for example, are not money. But by your implied definition of money, it is one.

But if you know the definition of money as a commodity form at least in a Marxian sense, you'll understand that if Federation credits are made to be based on energy accounting, is non-transferrable and expires... then it's different. It's no longer money. There's no need to reconcile anything.

People are what's important. Nothing works if the people don't allow it to work.

Click to shrink...

Just a simple argumentation using 'base' vs 'superstructure', but ok.

There's this quote from someone that may sound familiar to you - "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past."

That completely ignored the question.
The White House is a finite resource. There is only one. They could make exact replicas, but there is only one original.
Sure, 4 people could actually live in it. Maybe they would. Maybe they wouldn't.
2 people might be fine with it, the other 2 may want it as their own, personal single dwelling.
Who gets it? How is the decision made? What if everyone doesn't agree? Why do you assume everyone will just always agree with each other all of the time?

Click to shrink...

No one gets it. It's public property as it should.

Housing in the Federation is going to be allocated by super-computerized social planning algorithms and mechanisms. There might be a waiting list for those demanding more extravagant dwellings but it's definitely not going to be allocated via market means.

I can absolutely conceive of it... but it's also why I know that it's not actually realistic. I'm also using the source materials to show that people don't perfectly to make the way you suggest it should work actually work.

There is ABSOLUTELY still something of a class system in Star Trek. Again, status is shown to be rewarded. Captains get larger quarters than Crewmen. Hell if we use Lower Decks, Senior Officers get better replicators... which seems an entirely arbitrary to reward higher status people and create an artificial class system.

I'll ask again, why does Picard live on a French Chateau with a literal wait staff, while Raffi lives in a trailer in the desert? I can excuse Laris and the other Romulan guy... they work for Picard out of admiration and gratitude, but he had other staff there.

Want to reiterate at the end here... i'm in no way trying to attack your viewpoint or ideology. Just having a discussion and offering a different view. No need for hostility.

Click to shrink...

It's your choice if you want to retain in your headcanon the idea of a surviving class society within the Federation, especially given that the writers of Star Trek shows beyond Gene Roddenberry are not communists or Marxian socialists as far as we know. So inevitably there's going to be a lot of stuff that is product of our liberal way of life that's going to seep in to the series, especially 90s era "End of History" Star Trek. Even worse the "NuTrek" of Trump-Biden era.

Some can be "handwaved" or made justifiable barely by socialistic standards or whatever that is along those lines. Others can't and should be ignored or discarded or replaced.

That's why I've made this thread in the first place.

 

[Evilchumlee]

It's not my intention to be aggressive, that's for sure. If that's what you are thinking that I'm doing, I do apologize if I came out rather aggressive.

Click to shrink...

*tips hat

Ok good.

I do have a preference for a weaker central government at the UFP level and make planetary governments more powerful as my headcanon as well. More of a European Union, United Nations and 19th century United States. After all, I did say that the Federation government in my headcanon is voluntarist and is funded by voluntary donations of Federation citizens of portions of their credits.

Click to shrink...

Yeah I think we agree in broad strokes there anyway.

I do really like the idea that the Federation doesn't really impose anything on anyone... there's no Federal taxes or what not, it's a completely and totally volunteer organization... which actually helps reconcile some other stuff, like humans being absolutely dominant over everything. It's so much that humans are the just "Humanity Fuck Yeah!", it's that... we just put the most into the Federation. Might not see Andorians much because they prefer to stay mostly internal. They're members, they support it, but by and large they keep their resources to themselves. Earth positioned itself to almost be synonymous with The Federation.

However, Mercantile trade is not necessarily an exclusive feature of capitalism. It's still going to exist in a post-capitalist reality.

Click to shrink...

I also want to be clear that i'm not necessarily saying there's straight capitalism. I think there's more of a spectrum.

It's still going to happen. Commerce is a thing that's not just going to fade away even under post-scarcity.

Click to shrink...

Which seems to be at odds with your idea that people will just all coexist perfectly and agree with everything and ascribe no value to anything. Clearly, there are things that are still valuable that not everybody can have, and there is a desire by some at least to have those things.

In my opinion, you didn't able to make it work because you have a certain definition of money that looks like your definition of post-scarcity.
Labour vouchers, for example, are not money. But by your implied definition of money, it is one.

Click to shrink...

I mean, I would absolutely consider a voucher to be money. "Money" at its core is just something exchanged as payment for good and services.

"Working" to acquire "Labor Vouchers" to exchange for things of value is... money.

My suggestion attempts to remove as much "receiving an item for labor and exchanging item for goods and services" as possible while still acknowledging that there are still scarce things that do have value.

I think we sonmewhat agree more than we think we do. You mention later on here an algorithm determining need... that's essentially what i've been suggesting. We're doing to details about how that works.

I'm still going to maintain that they don't believe there is an actual form of currency or item that is directly exchanged for goods or services, i.e. money. I believe that it's a bit more intangible than that. It can't be directly measured or broken down. X-Finite-Item doesn't "cost" an amount of "not-Money".

By the way, i'm 100% taking into account technology available which wouldn't apply to real-world economic theories. At least not yet.

"The System", whatever we want to describe it as, keeps complex records of every possible variable and absolutely is more concerned with assigning things based on need over want or prestige, but it DOES take those into account.

No one gets it. It's public property as it should.

Housing in the Federation is going to be allocated by super-computerized social planning algorithms and mechanisms. There might be a waiting list for those demanding more extravagant dwellings but it's definitely not going to be allocated via market means.

Click to shrink...

I only used something like the White House to denote scarcity. There is only one. Change it to just a large dwelling of historical note but otherwise not public land, designate for habitation.

That's kind of what i'm getting at though. I never suggested there would be "market means". I thought I was very clear in that these dwellings would have no "value" beyond desirability. Granted, "the market" is essentially just a complex way to ascribe value based on desirability, supply and demand...

I think you're missing the spirit of what i'm asking here. Let me rephrase.

4 people would like to live in a particular dwelling in a specific location. There is only one. They could live elsewhere, but they want to live in this dwelling. They do not wish to share it with others, they would prefer it to be a private residence.

Do we take anything into account, or is it simply "first request, first serve"? Do they have to exchange "energy credits" to obtain the dwelling, which feels alot like using money.

Or, is their request measured through a complex set of variables to determine the best outcome? We're not talking "This house costs 400,000 Quatloos", it has no intrinsic value beyond being something that multiple people would like.

Based on what it appears like from the shows, if we had a guy who prefers to sit around all day watching 20th century TV, a college student, a baker, or a Starfleet Admiral... the... Starfleet Admiral is probably going to get the house. He's "worth" the most, "worth" being determined as "value to society" not necessarily "production per hour".