A BLM supporter killed 5 cops in Dallas. Ban BLM from speaking too? A left-wing Democrat shot at a group of congressmen, seriously injuring one of them. Ban Democrats from speaking too?

The show is for the benefit of the 1% who can afford to pay higher prices. If they decide they can't, then they'll spend their money somewhere else and that will employ people too. Or maybe if they can't get enough fun for their buck they'll invest the money which will create more efficient industries and help the economy grow.

This isn't like the minimum wage hikes where people lose their jobs because fewer workers are hired. In this case the fewer workers being hired is caused by fewer workers being available. Wages go up at the expense of the rich Americans rather than at the expense of the very poor Americans.

How did that get modded Troll. Well said knightghost!

Free markets are great. One of the benefits is they keep commodity prices low, which is a good thing unless the work you do is a commodity.

I don't know how long the majority of news sources have had the liberal bias - perhaps since the days of Nixon? - but at least in my whole adult lifetime they have been slowly destroying their credibility with their leftward bias. It's going to take a sustained effort to regain trust.

Remember during the debates when Obama made fun of Romney for saying Russia was a looming problem?

I agree that how one arrives at the social and economic structure of Star Trek is left to the imagination, but some of the presumably enabling elements, namely, the technology, are shown front-and-center. What will happen when everyone has access to a replicator that can make all the necessities of life - food, shelter, clothing - in as much abundance as anyone would ever need?

Men will still compete for the sexiest women (of which there will still be a limited supply). Women will still compete for the sexiest men (of which there will still be a limited supply).

And as always, people will compete for luxury items. We do see on Star Trek that people don't simply get everything they want. You want to be captain of a starship? Do you just replicate one for free?

You seem very concerned that "The capitalist myth about the origin of money has done a lot of damage". I'm not sure why it matters to anyone whether money originated from people recording debts or from people bartering. Either way a medium of exchange was very useful. A medium of exchange is useful whether you are a capitalist or not. Even Russia and China while killing capitalists and millions of other people for the sake of communism still used the ruble and the renminbi. And money goes way back in time. When you talk about capitalism creating myths, do you mean 3000 years ago? I've never studied history but I do know the use of shekels goes at least that far.

But all that is beside the point. People are naturally selfish, greedy, and power-hungry. Whether it is sheep, money, cars, rank, influence, or whatever, people by nature seek advantage over each other. Creating a large-scale society of diverse peoples while ignoring those human traits simply doesn't work. In Star Trek Roddenberry claims to that humans solved those issues, but never says how.

Are you talking about people within a single clan/village, or people within a large federation of villages? While a small communist society is certainly do-able, especially when everyone is pretty closely related, the willingness to sacrifice one's own desires for the good of the group tends to drop off pretty quickly when people are being asked to sacrifice for strangers and especially for strangers who are different.
I think pretty much every nuclear family is best run as a communist dictatorship (with two power-sharing dictators). But the solution doesn't scale easily.

It is human nature to want to amass the resources to help you get laid and help your offspring do the same. This means not just wealth but also power.

Even if everyone has enough wealth to live comfortably, guys are going to struggle to get more wealth so they can impress the girls. If you live in a town where few guys have a care, you can be hot stuff owning an old Honda Civic. But if every guy has one then you'll want a Lexus or a Camero to make you hotter. Even in Star Trek there is not an infinit supply of women.

The good old few mono-ethnic examples made up of small norther European countries - quite the opposite of the Federation which is multi-ethnic, multi-species and huge.

In Star Trek we see good government in the form of the Federation. Promotions are by merit. Large undertakings are done for the betterment of the entire Federation. But we never see how that is achieved. How is the leadership of the Federation selected? How incentives in place to prevent corruption, to prevent factionalism, to prevent special interests from gaining too much power? Why doesn't a Ferengi of questionable character ever become the leader and make himself a dictator? Roddenberry just wished those problems away! We see from most Star Fleet officers a certain desire to serve and to better themselves (there is the famous episode where Picard claims that people are no longer motivated by money). If that isn't limited to Star Fleet, then how are people's human instincts suppressed? Is it indoctrination when they're children? Drugs? Medical procedures? Again Roddenberry just wishes for it and it's there! Of course as a work of fiction, that's what we expect. Faster than light travel? Maybe some future technology will make it possible. A large happy prosperous communist society? Maybe some future technology will make it work. We suspend our disbelief so we can enjoy the story. That's why it's called 'fiction'.

Not at the moment. But if we keep electing people like Obama and Trump/Hillary, it won't be long.

I tried reading the article; it was pretty long and dense while failing to provide a tl';dr. Is he saying he's created yet another language that is Turing Equivalent? Is he saying he has creaeted a language that simulates physics by simulating fundamental behaviors? What is the accomplishment here?

At one time "Starve the Beast" (don't provide money for the government to spend and thus force it to shrink) was a theory one could argue was worth trying. However over the years liberals have responded with "Starve the Children" (take the money from our children by borrowing it so that our children will have to pay off the debt). As such Starve the Beast is a failed technique and should be abandoned because it cannot work in the face of Starve the Children.

Why is filling the vacancy a problem? The Supreme Court is perfectly capable of functioning with 8 members. In fact I would argue that it functions better with 8 members because why should they be dictating their personal feelings as public policy to the rest of us when they can't get a majority to do so. When their persona feelings are split evenly they simply shouldn't rule. With 8 members that is a possible outcome.