[Christopher Halsey]

I came across THIS essay by Timothy Sandefur earlier and found it fascinating.

Whilst the author makes some interesting points I don't really agree with his argument still I found it worth a read. The author seems to be of the conclusion that changes in Star Trek's morals over the years have for want of a better word been bad. I think he has oversimplified things a bit and in some cases misinterpreted things entirely. Again though, worth a read.

One thing I do want to pull out though is his comparison of Kirk and Picard with regard to their interference, or lack of, in 'stagnant' alien civilisations which the author uses to apparently prove a decline of liberalism in Star Trek which the author seems to feel is also a general trend in American society over the same time period.

In the original Star Trek the Prime Directive existed but Kirk seemed to violate really rather frequently, the author uses episodes such as Return of the Archons and The Apple to demonstrate Kirk's commitment to his principles and his belief in liberty for all. Later the author talks about the contrast between Kirk and Picard and how in Insurrection Picard respects the Baku way of life (which the author seems to feel is wrong) and protects it where he believes Kirk would object (which the author seems to feel is right).

The huge difference though between the examples given is that in Return of the Archons and The Apple the cultures Kirk identifies only exist in that way because they are ruled by machines far beyond their comprehension that they have little or no ability to defy. Kirk, perhaps rightly, sees this as not right and challenges that they should have the right to grow and that the machines are preventing that from happening. In Insurrection the Ba'ku have chosen their way of life, they do not need higher technology to lead meaningful lives so whilst they have the option of making use of such technologies should they wish they simply have no interest in it.

It seems strange that the author seems to condemn the Ba'ku way of life or Picard's feelings about it in an essay where he is preaching about liberty, surely liberty should allow people to live as they wish to on their own planet?

In Insurrection Admiral Dougherty explains that what he is trying to do isn't wrong, he is simply restoring the Ba'ku to their natural evolution, the exact thing Kirk does in Return of the Archons and The Apple . I think it is entirely right that Picard challenges what gives them the right to make that choice on their behalf? Kirk gets some leeway as the societies he encounters aren't in a position to choose so he, being a moral creature, feels he has to get involved and make a choice for them. It is an very different situation yet the author seems to paint it as the same simply to make the point that Picard, and by extension Star Trek newer than TOS isn't as moral or as caring about liberty.

I think Picard said it best in Encounter at Farpoint when challenging Q "It is not for you to set the standards by which we should be judged!" I think the author should reflect on those words because his writing seems to suggest that it is perfectly acceptable for one person in one culture or of one race to judge another person from a different culture or race by their own standards, surely you can't get much more anti-liberal than dictating to others that they must live how we want them to?