The Prime Directive
by William Stone, III http://www.0ap.org>

Exclusive to TLE        http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/>     Issue 225

The central tenet of what Star Trek fans call the "Star Trek
Philosophy" is the
Prime Directive (or Starfleet's General Order Number One).  It was never
explicitly stated onscreen, but a general statement of it is that no
Starfleet
personnel shall ever interfere in the development of a less technologically
advanced civilization.  If interference was made accidentally, then all
attempts must be made to minimize or reverse the damage.  All ships and
personnel are expendable if necessary to uphold the Directive.

As a general statement of KYFHO MYOB (Keep Your Frelling Hands Off, Mind Your
Own Business), the Prime Directive is useful enough.  The time during which it
was developed was the height of the Vietnam War -- a massive abuse of Federal
power that should have taught the FedGov a lasting lesson in the stupidity of
butting into complex matters of which it has no comprehension.

In the nearly forty years since the Prime Directive was first employed in Star
Trek, successive generations of producers and writers have used the idea to
justify all manner of moral relativism.  I discussed this at some length in my
essay, "Keelhaul Enterprise!"
(http://webleyweb.com/tle/libe223-20030511-02.html)

One of the central tenets of that essay discussed what might have happened in
the episode "Cogenitor" had the _Enterprise_ been crewed by free
individuals
self-governing guided by the Zero Aggression Principle (as opposed to a
boatload of Statist thugs).  I suggested that when confronted with a culture
that enslaves individuals, it is moral to assist in liberating them.

Not surprisingly, this generated some criticism based on current events. If I
support the notion of a fictional group of free individuals liberating a
fictional group of slaves, then to be consistent, I must naturally support
the
recent "liberation" of Iraq by the FedGov -- and by extension any other
meddling the FedGov might wish to undertake.

I've written about this before, but apparently my conclusion -- based on the
Zero Aggression Principle -- is so far outside the norm that it's difficult to
comprehend.

From all accounts, Saddam Hussein was an initiator of force on multiple levels
and over a long period of time.  He certainly deserved killing, and I would
have whole-heartedly supported any any private individual or company who wanted
to line him up in their sights.

However, from the ZAP perspective, there is no moral justification for
GOVERNMENT to become involved.  Government warfare initiates force against two
groups of individuals:

1. The governed, since government cannot so much as place one brick atop
another without stealing the resources to do it.

2. Innocent bystanders ("collateral damage" in Governmentese).

In addition to inherently initiating force, supporting government warfare has
the side effect of encouraging tyranny.  Much as people would like to think, it
is impossible to isolate one action of government from another. In reality, one
cannot say, "I support government liberating Iraq, but I don't support
government taking guns away from people."

(And it looks like they're taking guns away from the Iraqi citizens,  at
this point.  They're gonna need a "permit" to carry,  pretty
shortly.  --RJT)

The actions of government are inseparable, linked to each other via complex,
tortuous, sometimes incomprehensible activities by beaurocrats.

You cannot, for example, isolate the Non-War in Iraq (it's technically not a
war without a Declaration by Congress, regardless of what the Neocons have to
say about it).  In order to have the Non-War in Iraq, you must also have
domestic victim disarmament, the USA PATRIOT Act, PATRIOT II, Federal Airport
Rape Centers (what the Neocons like to call "airport security")
and drug and
alcohol prohibition.

To support government warfare, it is necessary to have a central government
with unlimited authority.  The moment you support government warfare, you
automatically support unlimited authority.

The price of government warfare is furthering the police state.  You can't get
one without the other, much as we'd like to imagine that you can.

Conversely, a free individual, self-governing his or her behavior guided by the
Zero Aggression Principle, may at any time assist a victim of initiated force
-- including slaves or oppressed individuals.  The ZAP only prohibits
initiation of force, not bystanders coming to the victim's rescue.

However, the ZAP prohibits an individual initiating force against someone else
in the process of rendering aid.  The ZAP would prohibit assisting a mugging
victim by spraying the entire area around the mugger with a Thompson Submachine
Gun (http://www.hk94.com/m1thompson.htm) and in the process kill forty
bystanders.

Where government cannot raise an army without stealing the resources to do so,
private individuals and companies can raise funds voluntarily. Where government
cannot conduct a war without accidentally killing innocents, a private
individual or company must be selective or face the wrath of the innocents'
families and friends.

This is certainly a totally different paradigm than what's been practiced
throughout the majority of human history.  Based on the century and a half in
which a similar philosophy propelled the human species from subsistence-level
farming to grasping at the stars, it's clearly a workable philosophy.

The typical criticism at this point is that no free individuals presently exist
who are capable of doing what I suggest.  Since there are none in existence,
critics say, it naturally falls to government to do the job instead.

It's not a question of what "libertarian brigades" sprang up to
fight terrorism
or liberate oppressed individuals.  It's a question of the FedGov (and State
and LocalGovs) having long since conspired to make it impossible.

The "libertarian brigades" would historically have been the militia --
something that's been marginalized for nearly a decade.  Since the Murrah
Building was bombed, militias have been considered violent, dangerous
extremists.  I can't imagine joining one -- not because I have any objection to
their stated goals, because I don't.  I wouldn't join because I don't want to
be one of the "usual suspects" the FedGov rounds up when it discovers that
raping little old ladies at the airport is a pointless exercise in futility and
needs someone else to blame for terrorism.

So, given:

o The FedGov has marginalized citizen militias virtually out of existence.

o The FedGov steals 30% of the money individuals might use to fund a
private militia (and condones theft of another 20% by State and LocalGovs).

o The FedGov has successfully indoctrinated whole generations of urban
Americans to hate and fear guns on sight.

o The FedGov controls the "free" press to an extent that it can
be considered complete, therefore all debate of public policy is kept
within tight boundaries.

o Libertarians make up a tiny fraction of the population and have
absolutely no political input and damned near no moral input.

Given that, who's to blame that there were no citizen militias to locate the
9/11 perpetrators?  Government, of course.  The FedGov primarily, with the
majority of StateGovs close behind.

Do I wish I had the time, training, expertise, and most of all MONEY to run the
North Sioux City Regional Militia?  Of COURSE I do.  But I DON'T. The FedGov
makes it impossible.

The line of reasoning that supports government warfare is:

o There is a job that needs doing badly -- in fact, if it's NOT done, we're
all going to die.

o Government is the only entity extant that can do the job.

o Therefore, I must support government doing this job.

The problem with this reasoning is twofold:

1. In the specific case of terrorism, it is unclear that the job needs
doing that badly.  The September 11 perpetrators would never even have
ATTEMPTED their acts but for domestic gun victim disarmament.  It makes far
more sense to combat the problem by eliminating its cause (gun control)
than creating an American police state.

2. This line of reasoning ignores one very important given:  that in
empowering government to do the job you're certain needs doing, you empower
it
to do all kinds of things that don't need doing -- and in fact are utterly
antithetical to the job you think needs doing.

Support government on ANYTHING, and you support it on EVERYTHING.

You don't get to pick and choose the government you get -- it forces itself on
you.  The Non-War in Iraq doesn't exist in a vacuum, after all. It exists in
the context of a million other things the FedGov does that makes things
infinitely worse for everyone.

The price of government fighting terrorism abroad is that it can fight
terrorism at home.  This leads to -- at best -- a Pyhrric victory.

All is far from lost, however.  The police state Dubyuh and his cronies are
building is inherently unstable.  It will -- like the Soviet Union before it --
ultimately collapse of its own weight.  It will probably do so much sooner than
anyone thinks, simply because the Soviet Union had constant aid from the West
to keep it propped up.  Since there is no such country to prop up the American
police state, it won't take seventy years for it to collapse.

If we're really, REALLY lucky, therefore, all of Dubyuh's sick, twisted dreams
about how he can control everyone in America for their own good will be
implemented.  The entire mess will collapse out from under Dubyuh, he'll find
himself out of a job all that much sooner, and the rest of us can finally get
on with our lives free of government interference.

Freedom, Immortality, and the Stars!

--

William Stone, III is a computer nerd (RHCE, CCNP, CISSP) and Executive
Director of the Zero Aggression Institute (http://www.0ap.org).  He seeks the
Libertarian Party's nomination for the 2004 Senate race in South Dakota.

---