EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
Author: Stilgar Naibov
The reason consuming art is a good way to learn history is that it provides a better window through which to see how a society thinks than directly studying history. I clearly remember how in 9th or 10th grade we had to write some analysis of Don Quixote and one of my classmates wrote that Cervantes never understood what he had written. He died believing that he had written a funny novel, a satire of the then popular chivalric novels, and the spirit of the times had seeped into his creation. Don Quixote is crammed with Renaissance ideals. Art also bypasses censorship. The best example of this is Bulgarian films from the communist era. The censors simply did not think to censor some elements because they were everyday life.
Motivated by such thoughts, I fell asleep to an episode of Star Trek every night for a year. I wanted to get to know this cultural icon and see how people thought and made shows at the time. I watched The Original Series (TOS), The Animated Series, and The Next Generation (TNG), as well as all the feature films. Objectively speaking, TOS is just bad, and The Next Generation was probably good for its time, but these days we have far better shows. Still, the cultural impact of Star Trek means it’s worth looking into. In this article, we’ll examine the morality of Star Trek where it intersects with libertarianism.
First of all, I should note that I am not an expert on Star Trek and I have not watched Deep Space 9 or Voyager where there may be moral decisions that are different from those described here. Moreover, Star Trek is not a philosophical work. It is a television series made with the aim of being entertaining and in many cases limited by a minimal budget, especially during the times of the original series. Star Trek is inconsistent, the characters behave inconsistently and it is not uncommon to see equivalent moral dilemmas resolved in completely different ways in different episodes. It is certainly possible to find examples that refute my comment, but I believe that I have generally understood the mood of the series correctly.
From here on out, many spoilers follow.
Star Trek is undoubtedly left-leaning. It is often mentioned that in the 23rd (TOS) and 24th (TNG) centuries, people have outgrown their selfishness and greed for money. In TOS, money seems to still be used within the Federation, while in Next Generation, it seems that money is not used internally within the Federation, or at least the human colonies and Earth, although there is certainly some form of payment between the Federation and other governments, as well as various free agents. Like most leftists, Gene Roddenberry does not understand the free market. Money is not just a motivator for people, it is also a tool to ensure the optimal allocation of resources. Even if humanity becomes so noble that it is no longer motivated by wealth, we will still need money to allocate resources in the same way that large companies have internal budgets, not because individual teams have no common goal, but because there is a need for effective prioritization. Interestingly, perhaps the best Star Trek film – Star Trek: First Contact– contains an admission that money is actually an effective motivator for innovation and human progress. In the film, the crew of the Enterprise from The Next Generation travels back in time and meets Zefram Cochrane, the inventor of faster-than-light travel and seemingly considered the greatest inventor in the Star Trek universe and a kind of hero. It turns out that the man is a drunkard and invents the warp drive because he wants to make a lot of money and retire to an island in the company of naked women. The film contains no criticism of his behavior and in fact it is accepted through the quote “Don’t try to be a great man, just be a man. And let history judge.”
Perhaps the most serious attack on capitalism in the Star Trek universe is the invention of the Ferengi race. Data describes them as practicing "the worst form of capitalism." Despite this, the Ferengi somehow manage to be technologically equal to the noble Federation, but more interestingly, their "capitalism" involves a total disregard for private property and a disregard for trade agreements. They steal and loot all the time. The writers quickly realized that they had made this critique of capitalism so absurd and implausible that they abandoned plans to make them the main antagonists and relegated them to a comedic role.
Star Trek may be super left-wing in its misunderstanding of capitalism and economics, but the franchise is a very strong advocate of individualism. I guess even Roddenberry couldn't escape the fact that he's American. In my favorite episode , The Measure of a Man, a Starfleet scientist wants to disassemble Data and use the knowledge gained to build many androids like him. There's a serious possibility that the procedure will kill Data. The scientist argues that because of the immense usefulness of androids like Data, it makes sense to sacrifice him because it will save many lives. Data refuses to undergo the procedure, but the scientist argues that Data is property of Starfleet and he can't refuse. A trial begins to determine whether Data is property. Captain Picard is Data's defense attorney and first tries to prove that the android is human enough to be granted rights, but he seems to fail. As a result, Picard changes strategy and defends the thesis that an intelligent and self-aware being has rights (i.e., defends the principle of self-ownership). The episode is clearly a critique of slavery, but there are interesting details. In many cases, Data chooses to risk his life for members of the crew (spoiler: Data dies to save Captain Picard), but nevertheless refuses to sacrifice himself for the abstract idea of "humanity." He clearly puts the lives of his friends (for whom he would sacrifice himself) above the lives of people he does not know, even though there are many more lives in the latter group.
Leftists like to quote the Vulcan maxim "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" (alternatively "the needs of the individual"). What is often overlooked is that in the Star Trek universe, this is a purely logical argument. It treats people the way StarCraft players treat their armies - better to lose a few of them than a lot. Star Trek never accepts this logic as a moral imperative and in fact clearly distinguishes itself from it. The entire movie Star Trek III: The Search for Spock is a denial of this logic. It is depicted as something that humans would not accept. What's more, in many episodes, humans with their (illogical) moral values and feelings achieve better results than the purely logical Vulcans, which supports the thesis that human morality is superior to pure logic.
The Borg, the most formidable enemy in the Star Trek universe, are a form of absolute collectivism. Episode I, Borg examines the moral aspects of this civilization. At first, the captured Borg is lonely and does not understand how humans can live without the Collective, but the crew of the Enterprise convinces him of the virtues of individualism. In fact, when the Borg in question reconnects with the Collective, his individualism nearly destroys the collective consciousness of the Borg.
Another strong example of the individual being placed above society is the episode The Masterpiece Society in which a genetically modified and perfectly balanced society needs help to save its planet, but while they are doing so with the help of the crew of the Enterprise, several individuals seek asylum (to leave the society). Leaving a few individuals would unbalance the society and lead to its end. Picard must choose whether to accept the refugees or preserve the society. He chooses to accept them, which is a clear indication that the moral compass of Star Trek points in the direction of individualism and the right to self-determination.
And speaking of self-determination, Star Trek has addressed the subject quite often. There are several episodes involving forced relocation of people. In the episode Journey's End, a group is forced to relocate due to a peace agreement between the Federation and the hostile Cardassian Union. The people refuse, and the issue is eventually resolved by seceding from the Federation along with the planet and joining the Cardassian Union.
In the controversial episode "The High Ground," the characters reflect on the use of force and even terrorism in the struggle for self-determination. Not only do they not condemn it, but Data even argues that it is an effective strategy. In the Star Trek universe, Ireland is unified in 2024 thanks to the actions of the IRA.
The most libertarian story in Star Trek is the film Star Trek: Insurrection. In it, a small group of 600 people have settled on a planet that has rejuvenating properties. The Federation plans to move them to another planet (without their knowledge using teleportation and holograms), and their home will be destroyed and the rejuvenating materials extracted, which will allow billions of people to be cured of deadly diseases. Data's ethical program is activated and he rebels against orders. Later, the crew of the Enterprise openly opposes the government and joins the people of the planet. When an admiral says that these are only 600 people against the interests of billions, Picard asks the question " How many people? ". What is the exact number of people whose rights are no longer right to be trampled on?
My conclusion is that despite its serious leftward drift and absurd critiques of capitalism, Star Trek cannot escape the fact that it is a product of American culture. The franchise embraces individualism, self-ownership, and self-determination as moral principles.
