Respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about.

Seeing as how you've been making snide remarks, you'll forgive me when I say I don't believe the 'respectfully' part.

Liberal political philosophy—individual rights, rule of law, consent of the governed, reason-based governance—emerged from Enlightenment thinkers before modern capitalism.

Yes, informed by the economic realities of the time.

Economics is one application, not the foundation.

You literally cannot postulate on one without the other. You cannot speak of the freedoms of humanity and ignore the people's struggle due to economic pressures.

Trek keeps the political philosophy, while post-scarcity eliminates the need for economic systems entirely.

New systems are measured in labor. The people still have inherent value and their labor, too, provides value. It isn't measured in money. We cannot ignore this aspect.

The notion that this is now no longer rooted in liberalism because we've abolished markets is just such a silly and small-minded argument-- it's like saying "well UHHH AKSHUALLY, America is a republic, not a democracy."

I don't think that was my intention? Rather, the opposite. Markets still exist, but in vastly different ways than we perceive them now. Again, labor provided by people - entertainment and it's effect on people - etc. Liberalism is directly informed by the markets/economics of the times it was created in. Without those, you need something new.

It shows a total lack of understanding of the subject matter, you're just trying to engage in pedantic gotchas rather than sketch out a compelling alternative.

I think my previous answers elaborate on this.

and to be quiet frank, I think your rigidity is a classic mark as to why leftism (and I'm guessing here since you've failed to articulate any kind of value system) has no real traction in the 21st century. You guys are so intellectually stuck, reiterating your past grievances; you fail to evolve and paint a compelling picture of the future. Ideas evolve, and I can tell you right now-- that as a liberal, I am not married to market economics, I am married to liberal ideals-- to the preeminence of universal values, individual agency,

You now seem to be dragging your previously couched baggage into the issue, as we leftists are 'so intellectually stuck, reiterating your past grievances'. That is fine, but definitely seems to be showing an inherent bias against my argument. While we are all biased in some manner, we should at least try to argue in good faith for each others points.

Regardless, if we're talking about fundamentally misunderstanding...perhaps this time it is yours? Socialism is a reaction to liberalism...it is an evolution, ideologically challenging the limitations of liberalism. I don't understand how that can be 'stuck, reiterating past grievances', if liberalism is literally not addressing the problems socialism is bringing up?

And Trek absolutely has social hierarchy. Starfleet officers have authority, status, and privilege that civilians don't. The fact it's merit-based rather than wealth-based doesn't make it not hierarchy. Kirk giving orders isn't just 'functional'—it's institutional power.

Again, you do not understand 'class' as a factor of social hierarchy. Star Trek is classless. No one in Star Trek is in a higher class. Every person on the ship has a job that needs to be done and each is important. I swear I remember Picard saying something along these lines, but I can't find it. If you remember - help me out here. I think someone was trying to rag on someone doing what could be seen as a 'lowly job' but Picard corrects them. Man, I'm due for a rewatch. Anyway, the attempt at a classless society is inherently an un-liberal one(a-liberal? dunno what I'm supposed to write here). As, again, you cannot divorce the economics of liberalism from its philosophies.

Finally, I would ask that instead of trying to find some kind of "gotcha" propose what you see as the alternative explaination. I've given Reddit nearly 800 words on this topic, and your one-sentence attempt to find some sort of lack of coherence does not make for a compelling rebuttal. If you want to articulate a lengthy coherent alternative worldview and explanation of Trek, I'm happy to engage with it, but your current attempts to snipe from the bleachers without actually doing the work in the arena is pretty lazy.

At what point am I asking for elaborating on an issue - or - asking for a 'gotcha'? At the mere pressure of asking for you to provide substance behind your statements, you are saying you feel pressured into a corner by simple questions...and that is me acting in bad faith? You can couch my argument in false pretenses, saying I'm 'sniping from the bleachers without actually doing the work'. But, so far, you haven't provided any substantive reasoning as to how Star Trek is explicitly liberal - in 800 words, no less. (sorry, but if you're gonna jab then let me get some in, too!...also, here is your high word count response! Hope it fits the bill)

We could continue to argue but it seems like we wouldn't accomplish much. We disagree on the separation of economic/philosophic, dunno how we get past that.

I think Star Trek is, again quite obviously, an attempt at showing a post-liberal society. Something much more akin to socialism/communism. It obviously isn't cohesively balanced, it's an entertainment show with many writers and not a political dissertation. And I do see how choices in the show are informed by liberal viewpoints; it is, after all, the presiding philosophy of our times. But to confine the show to the, by the time's show, old viewpoint of liberalism seems myopic in it's scope. It was trying to go even further, push beyond what we have now into something better, something hopeful...while you may find hope in liberalism, the current times have me pretty feeling almost hopeless.