this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2026
46 points (100.0% liked)
Movies & TV
23647 readers
269 users here now
Rules for Movies & TV Discussion
-
Any discussion of Disney properties should contain a (cw: imperialism) tag. If your post isn't tagged appropriately it will be removed.
-
Anti-Bong Joon-ho trolling will result in an immediate ban from c/movies and submitted to the site administrators for review.
-
On Star Trek Sunday only posts discussing how we might achieve space communism are permitted. Non-Star Trek related content will be removed and you will be temporarily banned until the following Sunday.
Here's a list of tons of leftist movies.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You have a point there, but in regards to Earth I always wondered why Picard's family had a vineyard, while Cisco's dad ran a restaurant in NOLA(like how do property rights work there specifically, just through inheritance?), and were people paying for their good and services with latinum or whatever or were the just doing it for love of the game and giving it away? I need to rewatch anyway been a while since I saw those eps of TNG and DS9
even under capitalism, most vineyards don't make a profit. it's somebody who is doing just because they have some notion to be a vintner and are trying to hemorage money slow enough that they can die doing it or pass it along to someone else.
restaurants are similar. so many go under, it's one of the crappiest businesses statistically in the US, but people imagine being an owner, being hospitable on their terms, serving good food to people celebrating. it could be a joyous thing to host people daily, friends and stranger alike. theres a reason people keep opening restaurants, delis, etc despite all the odds.
if the risks under capitalism weren't so dogshit, with a vampire landlord waiting to eat your monthly net if you manage to somehow pull it off and a bank ready to take everything else if you're not, there would probably be an explosion of owner-operated little joints in all those vacant places we see in every city and town in america.
capitalism is about exploitation for profit extraction to cover debts. post-capitalism could still have little enterprises run at cost just to cover expenses valued at however time and effort are valued. if its truly post-scarcity, then so much the better. its just people doing things because they have a will to, competing for bragging rights of being talented.
an insidious feature of hegemonic ideology is how it limits our imaginations.
yeah like I'd be growing grapes and shit if I could afford it. I'd be growing lemons too if it didn't die weeks ago
I agree with all the points you made, but they still don't answer my question about how property rights specifically work/how properly disputes would be resolved, issues that can still arise in post-scarcity societies, such as Federation run Earth
i.e. if there are 2 claims on one vineyard, then one party could just given land and enough resources to turn it into a vineyard equal to the original, but who gets to occupy and direct the original? in a hypothetical situation where the original owners die and leave it(assuming inheritance and wills are still a thing) 50/50 to two people who cannot reconcile their differences?
or would inheritance be redundant and the state(or the collective organisation that as replaced the power of the state) decide the best use of the land and who should run it(even if they are outside the family of the 'original owners')?
Things not answered in the series to my knowledge, but interesting issues and questions to ponder imo
you could examine how indigenous groups manage land used for provisioning ecosystem services: communally. communal land management is 99% of our past and certain to be our future again.
generally, elder peoples living in places publicly set priorities for things like resource development (road construction & maintenance, housing, water sources) and families/groups are awarded lots by the council. lots have lifetime leases that can be renewed by children if desired, though the stewards must periodically provide updates on the priorities and how their stewardship is addressing them with things like conservation plans.
in effect, the land is perennially owned by the engaged people of the place (in modernity, some kind of living trust) and blocks of potentially productive land are leased (with no fee, only stewardship requirements) to families and groups. if some aspect of maintenance or resource development is too much for a family/group (catastrophic flood control), the collective can allocate resources for some larger mitigation plan. all disputes between stewards are adjudicated by the council, publicly.
groups/families judged as repeatedly going against the larger groups' conservation/development plans can have their leases terminated, though I understand this is extremely rare because there's no benefit to going alone against the larger group.
communal land management is one of the first things settler states try to undermine and destroy (like enclosure), because it is deeply resistant to market driven resource exploitation and more suited to long term planning.
you can still find these communal arrangements in remote places of developed countries, like some of the Outer Hebrides of Scotland. even on the mainland of the highlands, land is set aside into "crofts" which have their own land courts and rights for tenants over landlords. all of scotland proper has a "right to roam" which predates christ, but baffles americans to learn about.... because how can one have land without the right to exclude everybody from it?
the truly abberant structure of land and tenure is what we live under now, which cultural hegemony of capitalist ideology has driven us to believe is normal and sensible.
if they're going to massacre star trek anyway, we should have at least gotten judge judy in space out of it
I always thought of these things as inherited lands or businesses not for profit but a desire to do whatever they're doing. I assume the Picard family has ran and managed this vineyard for generations, and it doesn't generate profit anymore. It just makes wine for the love of it, same with Siskos father's restaurant. I do think it's a bit of a contradiction. But maybe the invention of unlimited energy and FTL made this kind of thing far less important. Anyone could find a place to setup a vineyard with a bit of work.
All fair and logical points, But still despite that certain areas would be more desirable than other, even if you could terraform any piece of land into the perfect vineyard there'd still be a desire for land in Champagne, France as presumably 'authentic champagne' would fetch more latinum at a Ferengi run market
But yeah this is all hypothetical just interesting to wonder how the federation would resolve land disputes(say Jean-Luc retired and wanted to run the vineyard a different way to his brother, would the 'courts' consider they both have an equal family claim to it, would their parents will if any have precedence, would Jean-Luc's decades of services to Starfleet or his brother commitment to the vineyard sway the judge(s) one way or the other)
Star Trek has gold-pressed latinum because replicators and terraformers can't reproduce terroir. It is known.
time to watch The Neutral Zone again. that's not the motivation of future people, nobody on earth gives a shit about space bucks.
But people on i.e. DS9 do, and have the ability to travel back and forth from earth
they organized their society long before the cardassians occupied bajor, let alone the federation administration of DS9
So? things change, my point is some land/property is more valuable than others even in a post scarcity society, thus conflcits will arise over ownership/usghe and society will need a way to resolve them
you are aggressively not engaging with the text, i can't help you
Huh?
There are canon episodes showing federation humans caring about space bucks, the DS9 episode In the Cards for one where Jake Sisko wants to bid on some baseball cards as a present for his dad in an auction Quarks holding
Societies don't remain static they change in response to new stimuli
I'm saying it's entirely possible in the fictional universe of star trek that property disputes on earth can still arise,
hypothetically let's say Quark has some new editions of Pleasure Goddess of Rix or whatever not available on earth or anywhere else, he'll only trade for some champagne produced in the Champagne region of France and can tell the difference between wine produced elsewhere or replicated
That could give a human, even one raised on post scarcity earth the impetus to want to take over some land in that area to turn into a champagne vineyard(in this hypothetical there are no vineyards there anymore from which can gain the commodity they want) how would the federation government on earth adjudicate giving him some of the land(again in this hypothetical all the land in occupied/in use) over a current occupier?