>But even on DS9 you still had Sisko's dad's restaurant
And if you had paid better attention - you would have noticed that he didn't charge the people who came to eat. He ran the restaurant because he got personal satisfaction from keeping his cultural cuisine heritage alive. His "wait staff" likewise did it because they got some or other personal benefit out of it.
>How did Sisko's dad get the property for the restaurant?
That one wasn't well answered in the show, land is tricky since on the planet itself it's definitely finite. But there are many possible ways to solve it. For example those who require land for something could request it, and some democratic process would allocate available land to people based on what they want to use it for - the less beneficial it is to other people, the lower on the list it goes. You could easily factor in exceptions for things like ancestral land (and there is evidence in other episodes and series that such exist). There are economic philosophies NOW that have potential answers to that question. For example anarcho-communism rejects the idea of OWNING land but considers entirely legitimate the idea of USING land. So if you're using it - you get to keep it, if you stop using it, somebody else can use it. As long as you use it though - nobody else can lay claim to it.
>Why is anyone "doing what they love" busing tables?
You'd have to ask them - but near the top of the list of possibilities would be: because they want to learn the recipes of their cultural cuisine heritage from a master, and working in his restaurant is their best opportunity to learn from him. But what any given individual finds rewarding - only that person can know.
If I had an income that removed the need to ever work again - I would still do lots of work, I'd code FOSS projects and relish being able to do them full-time as long as I wanted, I'd write stories, I'd study aeronotical engineering, I'd finally make a really good video game... and I'd also spend weeks sitting on the couch playing with my daughter and just relaxing. And sometimes, I'd do some pretty serious manual labour - building cupboards and such, just because I want them and something you made yourself is special in a way something you bought can never be.
>Again, people acting like they're participating in an economy.
They are- but it's a fundamentally different kind of economy. It's an economy without scarcity. So that changes the entire thing from the bottom up. The whole concept changes - what is valuable changes, what is tradeable is different. We're currently seeing some of the difficulties in making post-scarcity work in a scarcity-based economy in a topic that gets discussed on
And it's messing up the scarcity based economy - so right now the answer being pursued is totalitarian market controls to induce artificial scarcity - that's a pretty terrible approach but it's also almost certainly doomed in the long term. When we solve that one, we can probably adapt that solution to all your other questions.
> I don't know what a post scarcity society would look like, but it wouldn't look like Star Trek.
I never claimed it would. In fact I'm pretty sure you brought Star Trek up and I merely responded to it. And like I said, the ST depicted on screen was quite far removed economically from whatever Gene had envisioned - simply because an actual paradise leaves you no conflict and without conflict there's no drama. That's why diluthium crystals were supposedly impossible to replicate - there had to be something for peoples to fight over or you couldn't have fights.
Roddenberry's vision was never revealed on screen - even he himself had to corrupt it to make it into television. So we can't actually judge if it would be a good approach or not.
But we can judge the concept: that in a society where resources aren't scarce, we have no need for an economy built on the expectation of scarcity, and indeed, as copyright is showing - it is a terrible fit to try and put one there as it leads to totalitarianism.