Why do you need these
>resource-based distribution, and needs-based allocation systems.
if you have this
>post-scarcity economics
>resource-based distribution, and needs-based allocation systems.
if you have this
>post-scarcity economics
And AFAICT even energy and material goods are scarce in the economic sense. The replicator can replicate replicators so that and any goods that a replicator can create seem not scarce, but the replicator still requires energy to run. Energy is crazy cheap and abundant in Star Trek, but it's not unlimited.
Land can't be that scarce. How many times did we see an entire planet colonized by like 200 people? Also, it seems like very few cities in the future have put hard caps on building height.
People have their own replicators, as you say; and cheap abundant energy. The need for labour is vastly reduced.
And dilithium, while 'rare' is not an essential commodity for anything except space travel.
> even energy and material goods are scarce in the economic sense.
Sure; but they are abundant enough that 'fair distribution' hardly matters, which I think was the OP's point.
I'm not so sure. In most of the US if people only used water for drinking and bathing then water would be so abundant fair distribution wouldn't matter. But when it's free-ish then people abuse it and we have water shortages.
For the purposes of distributing a limited resource, it seems a power law formula is most fair, with a sufficiently steep curve to keep total consumption within resource limits.