A Libertarian Analysis of Star Trek

by Daryl Dominic Tan

The Progressive Liberal movement has hijacked the Star Trek fandom for far too long now. Star Trek has always been described by liberals as the pop culture beacon of what modern day liberalism stands for and that Gene Roddenberry’s philosophy of humanism is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of Capitalism and Libertarianism. I intend to debunk such a notion in this post.

In the Star Trek universe, there is no cogent explanation for the economic system of the Federation, but what we do know is that money and various forms of currency alike are virtually obsolete (unless you’re a Ferengi of course, in which case gold-pressed latinum would come in handy) and that poverty is largely eradicated – or at least diminished to a such an extent that a post-scarcity society has replaced whatever existed before [TNG Episode “The Neutral Zone”]. Don’t get me wrong, money exists in the Star Trek universe, but Gene Roddenberry envisioned that in the future, technology would become so advanced that money – although in existence – would be rendered infinitesimal in most systems. It's also frequently shown in many episodes that the Federation is willing and does often lend aid to member planets of the Federation that are in dire need of assistance. Liberals often consider this form of help humanistic in its approach and that since this is a form of what they view to be redistribution of wealth, it would be inconceivable for a Libertarian fan of Star Trek to support such concepts as it would inevitably contradict his or her viewpoint. Unfortunately, for that same liberal, he or she has failed to understand that in the Star Trek universe as we have discussed above where money is no longer chiefly significant – “redistribution” as it were, no longer exists – merely distribution, which is not entirely antithetical to the philosophy of libertarianism because it would no longer involve the coercive mechanisms of socialist redistribution.

To associate Libertarians with the nature of greed is not only an inaccurate analysis – but also an irresponsible one. To immediately assume that libertarians are inhumane falls within the same perimeters. Libertarians are as humane as progressive liberals, but in terms of economics and law – we are more concerned with the means in which the State uses to achieve its ends (in this case, to eradicate poverty). In a Star Trek universe, a highly idealistic portrayal of humanity’s future, forceful coercion would cease to exist which would no longer necessitate Libertarian hostility towards limited foreign aid (so long as it does not violate the Prime Directive).

Liberals frequently make comparisons between the United Federation of Planets and the United Nations; the similarities between both organization’s logos, vision, motto, philosophy – and rightfully so. We all know that Libertarians view the United Nations as a threat – seeing it either as an extension of the United States of America’s imperialistic tendencies, or as a globalist one-world government imposed and shoved down the throats of sovereign nations, or both. The one thing that differs between the fictional organization that is the United Federation of Planets and the United Nations is the existence of the Prime Directive. Although the United Nations has their own form of Prime Directive (the UN charter), it is has been demonstrably shown to be hardly adhered to and exists solely for formalistic purposes. Since the United States is at the helm of the United Nations, the UN has often been exploited and utilized by the US to enforce its quasi-democratic principles onto unwilling participants. In the jurisprudence of the United Federation of Planets however, the Prime Directive is in its very essence inherently libertarian as a central tenet of its philosophy is non-interventionism. Captain Jean-Luc Picard eloquently stated once that “the Prime Directive isn’t just a set of rules – it is a philosophy, and a very correct one” [TNG Episode “Symbiosis”]. When Captain Picard describes the Prime Directive as something that isn’t just a set of rules, the moralists of the libertarian camp can sense at once that Picard is appealing to the philosophy of Natural Law, a philosophy that is based on the concept of sacrosanct rights that are inviolable in any way whatsoever – despite whatever other form of legislation may exist. The problem with legislation, which I see as intrinsically different from law, is that it merely conforms to the fickleness of the mob. Of course, the Prime Directive is often violated as well (most notably by Captain Kirk), but that boils down to a matter of interpretation. I can’t help but liken the Prime Directive to something like the United States Constitution. I, too, believe that the U.S. Constitution isn’t just a set of rules as many people believe it to be, but that it represents a “very correct” philosophy that the Founding Fathers subscribed to – the philosophy of liberty. And in this regard, I'm of the view that Kirk neglected the originalist intent of the Prime Directive.

The concept of individual rights was further explored in three other TNG episodes, “The Measure of a Man”, “The Hunted”, and “The Offspring”. In “The Measure of a Man”, Lieutenant Commander Data, an Android, was ordered to be disassembled for further research by Starfleet Commander Maddox, a Cyberneticist. When Data refused, a hearing was convened, and Captain Picard - again in all his ravishing eloquence, pointed out the disastrous ramifications that would follow if Commander Maddox went ahead with his experiment – the ramifications being that ignoring Data’s rights to self-ownership would be tantamount to condoning slavery. The idea of self-ownership was also explored in “The Offspring” again involving the perennial question as to whether an android was property of Starfleet. In this case, Data’s cybernetic creation – Lal – an android that he referred to as his own “child” was the source of Starfleet Admiral Haftel’s interest, who wanted Lal to be separated from her “father”, Data, and taken to the Daystrom Institute on Galor IV so that her upbringing could be closely monitored and supervised by Starfleet officials. Data objected and Captain Picard came to Data’s defense only to be admonished by Admiral Haftel who brashly told Picard that his command and career were at stake. Captain Picard responded composedly that “there are times when men of good conscience cannot blindly obey orders”. Picard goes onto tell the Admiral that despite acknowledging that Lal is indeed a sentient being, the Admiral still chooses to ignores Lal's personal liberties and freedom, and that if the Admiral were to "order Data’s child to be handed over to the State, it wasn’t going to happen under his watch." Now, that's pretty damned libertarian right there.

“The Hunted” is also a nod towards the Natural Law theory we already explored above while discussing Picard’s thoughts on the Prime Directive. “The Hunted” which I kind of see as a short Sci-Fi remake of Rambo: First Blood, deals with a war veteran/supersoldier of the State returning home only to be shunned by his government and his own people and sent to live in an isolated colony away from his home planet, Angosia III. The Prime Minister constantly justifies his actions by explaining that the decision to isolate him was based upon the will of the people. The “will of the people” concept is fundamentally embedded into the democratic political philosophy and is also simultaneously known as “the will of the majority”. To digress a little, democracy was intended to be a form of elective procedure, not the political ideology as we know it today, and it has increasingly become more dangerous as it promotes the idea that the will of majority is paramount and supersedes the rights of all individuals (as seen here). In the United States of America, the Bill of Rights is intended to protect the natural rights of the individual even in the face of majoritarian politics. Captain Picard implies to the Prime Minister of Angosia III towards the episode’s conclusion that if he were to consider Angosia III’s proposal of membership into the United Federation of Planets, the Prime Minister would first need to reintegrate these individuals that were exploited by the State back into society, despite the fact that the Prime Minister was merely acceding to the will of the people.

There are so many other episodes (especially in Deep Space 9 and Voyager) that have instances and examples of Libertarian principles that permeate the Star Trek universe, but to go on further would be tiresome and pointless, for through these few examples - I have sufficiently shown that Libertarianism is indeed fundamentally compatible with Star Trek and that the monopoly Progressive Liberals believe they have over the Star Trek fandom can be duly lifted.