There's TOS ones in there

There are indeed, I somehow missed those lol

Well, it's clear to me that was what he was trying to get at, only the most thorough and forward planning creator would have everything right in the offset

Like it mentions that Roddenberry emphatically pushed a no money rule, and yet
"Later that same year, Uhura was offered a tribble for ten credits by a bartender on Deep Space Station K-7, before receiving one gratis from Cyrano Jones. (TOS: "The Trouble with Tribbles")"

Yeah, I think thats probably just how his vision of what the universe would have been like changing over time

Since there are refences explicitly pointing out no currency, whereas these are in flavour text or metaphor moments

I guess I think in Gene Roddenberry's head at least that the Future was socialist

of Humanity at least

And then most of Star Trek was post-Roddenberry

Tbh I think it's just the result of multiple battling writers

This is the best I find that explains it

Jake said, "I'm Human, I don't have any money." Nog commented, "It's not my fault that your species decided to abandon currency-based economics in favor of some philosophy of self-enhancement." Jake answered, "Hey, watch it. There's nothing wrong with our philosophy. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity." Nog then replied, "What does that mean?" Jake responded, "It means... It means we don't need money!" Nog quickly pointed out, however, that Jake wouldn't be able to bid or borrow.

This is what I mean about battling writers though

>federation makes a bid on something
>the federation can't bid on things lol, #nomoney

I think the difference is between the individual and the Federation

remember the Federation has property rights

The individual has no money, but the Federation has assets of Gold and Latinum with which to trade diplomatically

Like in the episode where Riker has to negotiate for the rights to a supposedly stable wormhole

Again, there's reference to personal debt, personal property, personal possessions

But if you acquired a possession through socialist means then that can still be your own

>acquired a possession through socialist means
Que
How does a man own a vineyard "through socialist means"?

"This portion of land is what is allotted to you, do with it what you want"

>we're allotting land on *Earth* to people, because socialism

>to do whatever they want with it

Well, the idea would be that they would have land to make their home and be the best person they could by pursuing whatever they wished

Land has scarcity, especially on earth

But by that point theres already colonies of humans in many systems

They're also listed as owners

Right. And probably because there isn't much space on earth

And even then, humanity has borders

Even in a post-scarcity society socialism would still not work.

The system is fundamentally flawed and unlimited resources won't fix the societal issues that socialism leads to.

tfw no hot civil war

🐸 feelsbadman

In the US? The only winner in a US hot civil war is China.

@DrYuriMom That depends who wins.

*on

we may already be in the opening phase of a hot civil war. people always expect something out of a war movie. with clear sides, uniforms, a command structure, etc. like WW2 fought in city streets. it's not going to look like that at all. it'll look like assassinations, bombings, arson. targeted killings, specifically for intimidation. social media will play a huge role both in locating targets and disseminating intimidation video (think ISIS videos or cartel videos, except in english starring Americans)

Not on what is left?

Can you say Pyrrhic Victory?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory