Penfold_X's Fandom Journal

Cleaning out my email I found a message I sent to myself over a year ago (!!!) to post about Prof. Ilya Somin's interview on the Institute for Humane Studies podcast regarding Themes of Liberty in Star Trek. Although the podcast is really for lawyers/policy wonks who are interested in pop culture portrayals of liberty, it's fun for seasoned fans, too. Of course, Star Trek is a story, not a philosophical blueprint, but like much of science fiction it has strong themes that are meant to comment on the world we live in, so I often find enjoyment in exploring the internal consistency and implications of those commentaries.

Prof. Somin obviously does as well, as he's given some serious thought to how to reconcile the pure socialism of the Federation's proclaimed economic system ("we've evolved beyond money," etc) with the unfortunate experience of such systems (e.g., that humans have not yet found a way to implement a socialist economic system that does not also include a great curtailment of personal liberty, contra the portrayal of expansive personal liberty in ST), and the implications of calling the union a "federation," where it is likely not all planets share the same economic, political or cultural systems. He resolves the inconsistencies by proposing a (Piece of the Action-style) protection racket:

Well I think obviously the way Gene Roddenbury intended it is as a utopia. The idea of a predatory, imperialist racket is something I came up with tongue-in-cheek as a possible way of reconciling the federalism and the socialism in a way that only Earth is socialist, while the rest of the federation has either a mixed economy or a more capitalist system, and then Earth seems to dominate Star Fleet, the military division, and that may be because what Star Fleet really does is force the other planets to pay tribute and support Earth’s socialism.

He expanded on his 'theory' in his 2007 essay. The podcast reminds me of a presentation on "The Economics of the Star Trek Universe" given by an economist some years ago at Shore Leave, which reached similar conclusions regarding the irreconcilability of the purported economic socialism of the ST universe, and the level of production/material abundance portrayed. The podcast was part of a series on Themes of Liberty in SciFi which included a fantastic interview with eldritchhobbit on Firefly.

Via vretallin, Texas Supreme Court judge mentions Spock in concurrence:

Appropriately weighty principles guide our course. First, we recognize that police power draws from the credo that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Second, while this maxim rings utilitarian and Dickensian (not to mention Vulcan²¹), it is cabined by something contrarian and Texan: distrust of intrusive government and a belief that police power is justified only by urgency, not expediency.

Footnote 21:

See STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN (Paramount Pictures 1982). The film references several works of classic literature, none more prominently than A Tale of Two Cities. Spock gives Admiral Kirk an antique copy as a birthday present, and the film itself is bookended with the book’s opening and closing passages. Most memorable, of course, is Spock’s famous line from his moment of sacrifice: “Don’t grieve, Admiral. It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh . . .” to which Kirk replies, “the needs of the few.”

Normally, I'm opposed to dressing up little dogs, but every rule needs an exception: To Boldy Wear What No Dog Wants to Wear.

For phawkwood, vretallin, chevronsha, and masteralida:

Star Wars and Star Trek Dollar Bill Origami

No word if the folder was sober, but I'm thinking yeah.

On the occassion of the end of Star Trek:

One of the good things about the End of Trek: I’ll never have to listen to the bitching of fans. The more I troll the message boards and forums and Usenet groups, the more I’m convinced that the entirety of Trek Fandom is made up of people devoted to proving the inadequacies of the thing they supposedly love. ... Complaints and trekkier-than-thou nitpickery. Ye canna change the laws of fandom.

Amen, brother. Testify!

I watched Voyager, I defended it, I thought it found its legs eventually and did some nice work. But it had a crippling problem: boring characters who never changed.

Yeah, that pretty much killed it for me. I watched the first ep, realized they were going to be Lost in Space for years, and realized I didn't care if this particular crew ever made it back home. Oops.

“Deep Space Nine“ was everything the nerds and geeks say they want from TV sci-fi, but oh, how they picked the nits. Half the fanbase peeled off during DS9, because it didn’t have with Patrick Stewart screwing up his shiny mug and saying “Engage” in his patented stentorian baritone.

But I was there. I was hardcore. Patrick Stewart can shine his head; he's got nothing on Brooks. And it all had the benefit of being real much less utopian. What might happen if some nut actually tried to create Roddenberry's dream? Fascism, inevitable war, and lots of oppressed people wondering why the alleged good guys won't lift a finger to help them.

Next Generation has many “classic” moments, but so much drearily earnest tripe – and in retrospect the Federation looks so weak and touchy-feely it’s a wonder the Romulans didn’t just knock them over for target practice.

Preachy and ineffectual; it's the Worst of Both Worlds.

During the Next Generation series I think [Worf] resigned his commission six times to join the Klingons in some pointless internecine scrum, and of course every time he got his old job back. Done with meddling in the affairs of a nominal ally in a way that contravenes all Federation laws and traditions, are you? Jolly good; we kept your room waiting for you. It’s all there, even that stupid sculpture in the corner with the balls on sticks.

I think it was supposed to be a chair. I bet banzai knows.

But Enterprise – ah, now that was something different. I am tired of defending the show, and have never understood why it attracted such ire. Especially the last season, which was one long love letter to the entire history of Star Trek. Some people didn’t buy Scott Bakula as a captain – as someone who never watched Quantum Leap very much, he was new to me, and I bought it from the start. I liked the bitter little Limey as the weapons officer; I though Trip brought someone quite rare to the show – really good TV acting that found things in the character not present in the script. The Doctor – the requisite disinterested alien commenting on these curious Humans – was expertly rendered; Herbert West’s Andorian was another wet kiss to the fans on six different levels. Jolene Blalock, the Vulcan chick, was . . . painfully attractive, and the only actor to ever suggest that Vulcans had emotions that needed suppressing.

I must admit I didn't give Enterprise a fair shake, and I'm regretting it now, particularly as I am not paying Paramount the king's ransom they demand for ST DVDs.