| Nobody ever has a convincing answer
Nobody :
this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2026
45 points (100.0% liked)
Movies & TV
23647 readers
228 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
how hard is it to understand that even if there are personal property possessions they don't matter because the importance of socialism isn't "ensuring a beach front house for everyone" but in ensuring nobody is exploited so that some other asshole can afford HIS beach front house
Lots of people don't like the beach, and you can build a lot of houses along a beach when you've got terraforming and no HOAs. Star Trek may even have the first documented non-scam timeshares!
This is worse than the socialism beer meme.
"location matters so much now that we have teleportation technology, faster than light travel, and unlimited energy." me, a scientific brain haver and thought experiment solver.
just crank off in the holodeck like a normal person instead of screaming about money like a goddamn ferengi
Nah, I don't want a fake ass holodeck beach house, it's the ecological destruction that makes it special
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.
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.
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.
as presumably 'authentic champagne' would fetch more latinum at a Ferengi run market
time to watch The Neutral Zone again. that's not the motivation of future people, nobody on earth gives a shit about space bucks.
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
nobody cares about the beachfront houses because they're not an expensive status symbol
also they have access to many more beaches now, there's whole ass beachfront planets
there's a shitload of planets with a shitload of beaches go pick one. and if you're near the cardassian border just go pick a different one
and if you're near the cardassian border just go pick a different one
You do have to admit they got done super dirty by the Federation, and it happened because of the Battle of Wolf-359 had demolished quite a bit of Starfleet, enough to get the Federation to negotiate for peace with the Cardassians.
if you're near the cardassian border just go pick a different one
Maquis: 
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Yeah like what part of post-scarcity do they not get?
Neckbeard Tom Paris be like:
*tips fedora* M'aquis
They can't even IMAGINE how decisions in a FICTIONAL SCIFI SOCIETY could be made without simply deferring to rich people?
I live in fear that humans are losing the ability to even conceive of a fairer world, it's terrifying. 
Nobody ever has a convincing answer.
Holy shit the first season’s finale of TNG addresses this directly.
what the fuck did you do to the link. the b and d are swapped so it goes to some scam garbage but if you swap them back its the right link. how did you even do that lmao
Gah sorry about that. I removed the m. part of the link so it didn’t direct desktop users to the mobile site, and I must’ve fucked up the URL when I did. Fixed it now.
I mean, this is symptomatic of a pseudo-communist setting written by a non-communist. If you want coherency, get into Yefremov.