The Federation as an oppressive Nanny State: Star Trek vs Libertarian Capitalism

In a comment regarding my Just for Hube: Star Trek vs Battlestar Galactica post, Tom writes, "I would be interested to see a thorough social/political/economic analysis to Star Trek from a libertarian perspective."

I was thinking about writing one, when I recalled my grandmother's constant admonition, "Try not to spend too much time doing what's already been done." (The other admonition that still sticks in my mind, the one about what would make me go blind if I didn't stop doing it, is the one I'm going to try to purge from the family line this generation.)

So I went out and collected a few interesting links, only to discover that everybody pretty much mined that vein already.

Still, it's worth gathering the references to a number of the better ones.

In September 2007, National Review Online actually did a Star Trek Weekend, of which George Mason law professor Ilya Somin's Mamas, Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Federation Tax Collectors, Federalism and socialism in Star Trek is my favorite.

What kind of governing system does the Federation have? According to Somin,

The evidence in the TV series themselves is contradictory. On the one hand, the Federation seems to have a socialistic economy with a massive welfare state and no currency, which would require a high degree of centralization and planning incompatible with meaningful federalism. The Federation is not just “socialist” in the sense that some conservatives denounce any big-government policy as “socialistic.” It’s socialist in the classic sense of the word: government control of all or most major economic activity. In the absence of a currency and price system, central planning seems to be the only way to coordinate a complex economy to even a limited degree. Moreover, virtually all large-scale Federation enterprises in the Star Trek universe seem to be government-owned: from space stations to research facilities to mining operations. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the Federation is communist; we don’t see much evidence of class struggle (though maybe that’s because all of the bourgeoisie have already been safely packed off to Gulag planets) or of a monolithic one-party state. But it at least has some form of kinder, gentler non-Marxian socialism.

On the other hand, member planets apparently have considerable autonomy. For example, Vulcan seems to have very different laws from Earth. And Vulcan’s economy seems to have a large private sector. In Deep Space Nine, the planet of Bajor applies for Federation membership. Although Bajor is at least a partial theocracy with a government heavily influenced by religious leaders, anti-Federation Bajorans never argue that Federation membership would lead to the end of Bajor’s quasi-theocratic political system (as it surely would if the highly secular Federation denied political autonomy to member planets). In our world, it has generally proven impossible to combine socialism with decentralized federalism. Theoretically federal socialist states, such as the U.S.S.R. and Czechoslovakia, were in fact dominated by their central governments, with regional authorities holding little real power.

How do we reconcile the contradiction?

Following a number of intriguing examinations of these inherent contradictions, however, Somin admits defeat in the end:

It is easy to have fun with these kinds of speculations. The truth, however, is that the producers of Star Trek most likely didn’t even consider the possibility that there is a contradiction between the Federation’s socialism and its federalism. Just as they didn’t consider the contradiction between its socialism and its seemingly strong protection for personal freedom. The problem is not that Star Trek ideology is flawed in its treatment of these issues; it’s that Star Trek failed to take them seriously to begin with.

On Samizdata.net, Perry de Haviland speculated in his 2001 Star Trek: The Post-Christian Generation! that the absence of religion is a key clue about the quietly oppressive statist nature of the Federation:

Libertarian views are in no way antithetical to religious ones and I find the complete absence of overt Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu influences (let alone obvious adherents) indicative of a society that must surely be suppressing them. Even an atheist must accept that the religious impulse will not completely disappear quietly into the night unless forced there at the point of a loaded phaser...hardly something calculated to bring the smile of reason to libertarian lips. As evidence of it is completely absent in what is posited as mankind's sole military service, the implications are clear.

Even if Star Fleet is aggressively secular 'at work', in many episodes we are shown the private quarters of crew members...can anyone recall an episode in which a crucifix is seen on someone's table or a mezuzah by the door? You don't have to be religious yourself to find seeing religion completely edited out of the human experience more than a little sinister. As Natalie points out, Babylon 5 had a great deal of fun with real world religion, even to the extent of showing peevish squabbling between the leader of the resident Catholic monks and a prominent Jewish scholar. Likewise, Commander Susan Ivanova (Claudia Christian) on several occasions referred to her Jewish identity in various episodes. Although religion was not central to the show, it did not deny its very existence.

Next time I see a Star Trek show, I will scrutinize the credits for any references to Leon Trotsky.

Also in 2001, Alberto Mingardi penned Warp Speed Libertarianism on Anti-State.com, which deconstructs the statist, anti-capitalist, politically correctness behind successive versions of Star Trek that I'd much rather you read the article than I try to summarize it here. The conclusions, however, are pretty damning. Consider:

On several occasions, they mention (with pride) the fact that the Federation uses no money. Either, in the 24th century, humankind, and in fact most of the galaxy, has regressed to a barter system, or embrace a socialist, one-worldism. Even one-galaxyism.

And he finishes with a call for a new, Libertarian version of the future:

Imagine all the American young, sci-fi affected kids watching television. And learning how immoral capitalism is, how unfair the market is, how much could be done just saying the two, magic words - State intervention. You're not dreaming - it is what's happening now. Star Trek has become a kind of politically correct, socialist primer.

We definitely need to write a libertarian antidote to this virus. That's a crucial issue- to carry liberty "where no man has gone before."

Finally, among the serious considerations I found this gem: Happy Fun Pundit's Ten Things I Hate About Star Trek. Only one of them is exactly relevant to my topic here:

9. The Federation.

This organization creeps me out. A planet-wide government that runs everything, and that has abolished money. A veritable planetary DMV. Oh sure, it looks like a cool place when you're rocketing around in a Federation Starship, but I wonder how the guy driving a Federation dump truck feels about it?

And everyone has to wear those spandex uniforms. Here's an important fact: Most people, you don't want to see them in spandex. You'd pay good money to not have to see them. If money hadn't been abolished, that is. So you're screwed.

The rest, especially 8, 4, and 2 are split-your-sides-funny; so go read them.

And here's the chase: most of us grew up watching (and watching and watching) whichever version of Trek happened to be running at the right age. By and large, I liked the shows where Kirk or Picard got to blow the shit out of something rather than the ones where deep cultural sensitivity resolved the angst of Planet Moron. I hated the Ferengi, because they were obviously set up to be clumsy parody of the evils of capitalism, and they introduced an element of cartoonishness that I didn't want in a galaxy populated by the Borg, the Klingons, and the Romulans.

Imagine how much more powerful a science fiction space opera would be than the Star Treks of futures past if it really did emerge from a well-developed Libertarian future society.


Unfortunately, it won't be Star Trek, unless somebody produces Star Trek: Far Future, in which the Federation socialist state has finally collapsed, and Captain Snark now roams the galaxy in search of profit, secure in the knowledge that, even though he's only four feet tall, all the babes in spandex want to rub the lobes of the guy with the money.