Bill Stone responds to a critic

Dear Editor:

I'd like to take a moment to respond to the criticism of my pseudo-review
of the _Enterprise_ episode "Cogenitor."

I received a few of these, most from die-hard Star Trek fans, each of whom had
the same general criticism:  my review is uncategorically critical of what fans
tend to term the "Star Trek Philosophy."  As far as I'm
concerned, the entire
concept of the Prime Directive as practiced in latter-day Star Trek is immoral.

Most fans have a difficult time with this notion.  It's certainly true that the
overwhelming majority of Trek fans are Statists of some variety: they believe
in the cult of the omnipotent state, and Star Trek -- like most of what
Hollywood produces -- directly supports their worldview.

Unfortunately, Star Trek's lasting legacy is to encourage Statism among
those who might otherwise not be inclined to consider it.

Was "Cogenitor" consistent with the Star Trek mythos?  Yes,
sadly. Was the political expediency evidenced by Captain Archer consistent
with both the mythos and with Statist history?  Absolutely.

But that doesn't make it RIGHT.

I'm hopeful (probably vainly so, but it's an infinite universe and I plan
to live forever) that we'll some day see _Tom Paine Maru: The Series_ -- a
TV series based on seminal libertarian author L. Neil Smith's novel of the
same
name.  Such a series would be the perfect counterpoint to the amoral philosophy
employed by Star Trek:  a group of space explorers unhampered by galactic
government and its lack of morals.  Instead, they are free individuals
trading
with other free individuals, self-governing their behavior guided by the Zero
Aggression Principle.

One of these years, if I ever get around to it, I'm going to try my hand at
fiction with _Her Name Means Freedom_.  This is an idea for an explicitly
libertarian Star Trek novel centered around the life of Lieutenant Uhura,
erstwhile switchboard operator of the _Enterprise_. It would be an explicit
indictment of Star Trek's Statist underpinnings, from the perspective of
someone trapped on the inside.

(In fact, if there are any libertarian Star Trek fanfic authors out there who
want to take up the project, I'll happily turn over all my ideas and notes.
I'll likely never get to it [and I doubt my skills as a fiction writer], but it
really does need to be written.)

The other primary criticism I received had to do with my suggestion that
Archer and the _Enterprise_ explicitly undertake the liberation of the
Cogenitors. This notion appears to support the idea of foreign
interventionism.

Does Archer -- or ANYONE -- have the right to intervene on behalf of an
oppressed population?

The answer to this is complex and directly impacts current world
circumstances. To answer it, I point you to this week's column, elsewhere
in this issue.

:)

Freedom, Immortality, and the Stars!

Bill Stone
____________________________________________________________________________
  William Stone, III               |
  Executive Director               | No human being has the right --  under
  Zero Aggression Institute        | any circumstances -- to initiate force
  E-Mail:  wrs{at}0ap.org             | against another human being, nor to
  Web:     http://www.0ap.org      | threaten or delegate its initiation.
___________________________________|________________________________________


---