2024 Sanctuary Districts

[FaxModem1]

Given our Economic woes, I thought I would refresh everyone's mind.

The DS9 third season episode 'Past Tense' has Sisko, Bashir, and Dax, due to technobabble, transported to the San Francisco of 2024. Due to some sort of economic collapse, the US established Sanctuary Districts, and people are put there and given a ration card for food and water, and they wait in line for jobs to open. it seems more like some sort of gated ghetto than anything else. This leads to some paradox fun and trying to ensure they can leap their way home.

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Past_Tense ... episode%29

So, what exactly were they preaching here?

What kind of option would Sanctuary Districts be in real life?

If it is a completely unfeasible thing to happen in our world, what made it happen in the Trek-verse United States?

[Baffalo]

The idea, to me, is just a modern day internment camp or overly elaborate debtor's prison. The biggest problem with the episode is that it shows the beginnings of a completely socialist society, and yet people are rejecting this new 'utopia', since of course that's what Star Trek is all about. So basically, people are rejecting socialism, but it's mandatory and of course, it's a chance for someone in Starfleet to play the hero and everyone eventually shuts up and conforms.

It's interesting to me that there would be an episode showing socialism as anything other than utter perfection, that everyone embraces it so willingly and completely that everyone does their best even though they're all the same and treated as such. This might also be a look at how the lowest rungs of society operate in the Federation, with people given only the basics and told to sit around and wait for a job. Since there's no money, there exists no small business owner, and thus all jobs are either massive factory jobs or those setup by the government.

So the entire episode could, in theory, show the conversion to complete socialism and the coming downfall of the US. Especially if Obama stays in power.

[Gil Hamilton]

I have no idea where you get the US being a socialist state in that episode. Aside from not mentioning a means of production at all, what we saw was the opposite of a welfare state solution. People who found themselves in extreme debt or poverty, in addition to the mentally ill, were put in the Sanctuary Districts to exist with minimal government support other than the occasional ration shipment (forget about medical supplies or anything like that) and police to make sure that no one leaves. In addition, it was explicitly mentioned that people who found themselves in extreme debt went their to evade creditors, which isn't exactly what you'd expect from a socialist society with extreme social safety nets. Throwing the poor behind a wall into a lawless zone with no government support and waiting for them to die, while the wealthy have elaborate parties and talk about their stock portfolios and trips to Japan isn't a socialist solution I've ever heard of.

Unless you are operating under the funny definition of socialism that exists with the right-wing that socialism is defined as any government that you happen to not like.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Since there's no money, there exists no small business owner, and thus all jobs are either massive factory jobs or those setup by the government.

Since this is not HPCA News & Politics, I will not argue with you about your jabs at Obama or any other modern day real life politics issues, but the claim that there are no small businesses or something very similar to them is clearly wrong. Sisko's father was a restaurant owner or operator, and even though we don't know if he actually owned the restaurant or just ran for it for the government, his actual job was pretty much identical to a real life restaurant owner with full responsibility about customer satisfaction etc.

[Baffalo]

I have no idea where you get the US being a socialist state in that episode. Aside from not mentioning a means of production at all, what we saw was the opposite of a welfare state solution. People who found themselves in extreme debt or poverty, in addition to the mentally ill, were put in the Sanctuary Districts to exist with minimal government support other than the occasional ration shipment (forget about medical supplies or anything like that) and police to make sure that no one leaves. In addition, it was explicitly mentioned that people who found themselves in extreme debt went their to evade creditors, which isn't exactly what you'd expect from a socialist society with extreme social safety nets. Throwing the poor behind a wall into a lawless zone with no government support and waiting for them to die, while the wealthy have elaborate parties and talk about their stock portfolios and trips to Japan isn't a socialist solution I've ever heard of.

Unless you are operating under the funny definition of socialism that exists with the right-wing that socialism is defined as any government that you happen to not like.

SILENCE YOU SOCIALIST MONSTER! </sarcasm>

Ok enough of that. I kinda skimmed the review so I missed most of the details, so just ignore my statements. I tend to ramble from time to time, like a cranky old man, except I don't have rickets. As far as I can tell, going back and looking at the evidence more clearly, is that the Sanctuary Zones are the result of extreme capitalism, thus giving the proletariat a reason to become a socialist society. So while it isn't directly socialism, it's probably a good stepping stone. Or something.

Since this is not HPCA News & Politics, I will not argue with you about your jabs at Obama or any other modern day real life politics issues, but the claim that there are no small businesses or something very similar to them is clearly wrong. Sisko's father was a restaurant owner or operator, and even though we don't know if he actually owned the restaurant or just ran for it for the government, his actual job was pretty much identical to a real life restaurant owner with full responsibility about customer satisfaction etc.

I made the jab at Obama just for fun, nothing really serious with that statement. Anyway, the whole question as to whether the restaurant was operating under a socialist or communist system, as both are very different despite being dumped together by right-wing nut-jobs.

Under socialism, such as the way the British operate, workers are paid according to their skill and experience, but also can get more money when they achieve more, which is spread equally across all the workers. Under Communism, such as the Soviet Union, the government runs everything down to the smallest detail. Everything is rationed and divided, with all property owned by 'everyone'.

So if it's socialism, it's certainly understandable that there would be small businesses, but the issue that then arises is that there's supposed to be no money. Without money, the only way to encourage people to work hard would be to give people items in exchange, making it a more elaborate system of barter than anything else. Good, hard workers with lots of experience get more rations, get good housing, and can get items that, even in a society full of replicators, are unique and special. So despite the lack of money, there is still an incentive to succeed.

I know I'm going to get bitched at by someone for pulling a 180, but I have the right to go back and alter my position based on revelations and my own omissions from earlier.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Since this is not HPCA News & Politics, I will not argue with you about your jabs at Obama or any other modern day real life politics issues, but the claim that there are no small businesses or something very similar to them is clearly wrong. Sisko's father was a restaurant owner or operator, and even though we don't know if he actually owned the restaurant or just ran for it for the government, his actual job was pretty much identical to a real life restaurant owner with full responsibility about customer satisfaction etc.

Under socialism, such as the way the British operate, workers are paid according to their skill and experience, but also can get more money when they achieve more, which is spread equally across all the workers. Under Communism, such as the Soviet Union, the government runs everything down to the smallest detail. Everything is rationed and divided, with all property owned by 'everyone'.

Sorry, but your definitions are wrong. The UK is a mixed economy just like the US, but with higher taxation and better social security and socialized health care. Private health care is still available for those who can afford it. Most businesses are not government owned. If you want a true capitalistic economy, you will have to look for the US in the 19th century. Most European countries are similar to the UK, although some have even higher taxation and better social security, free or very low cost education including universities and so on. Despite all that you can still get filthy rich by having your own successful business just like in the US. Because of higher taxes it is slightly more difficult, but really not that much.

The economic system of the Soviet Union was true socialism, even if the country was communist. Only the ideology was communist (or Marxist to be more accurate, since there are other less known models of communism), because communism was the the future ideal, where central government would become unnecessary and money would become a thing of the past. There has never been an economically communist country anywhere in the world, just Marxist socialist countries.

[Uraniun235]

The "Sanctuary Zone" concept is basically just asking the question of what "getting the homeless off the streets" could eventually lead to when the approach is not "try to make them not homeless any more" and is instead "put them somewhere where we don't have to see them or be bothered by them".

[Manus Celer Dei]

Yeah, it's been a long time since I saw that episode but I honestly don't remember any real subtext about economic systems in there. It seemed wholly about how a society treats people who have had shitty luck.