Another problem I have with this episode it that are the memories of the maquis wiped out by Tuvok's melding with them ? that they are willing to let their friends and loved ones leave behind ? Also, I have an issue with portraying maquis as heartless terrorists in this episode, because the franchise has gone to great lengths to tell us that they had been fighting for a just cause. In one episode, the writers undermine all of that. Shame.

What an awful, awful episode.

I don't think you understood the Tuvok "activating" the Maquis scenes correctly. I thought that all of the Maquis had already fallen victim to Teero at some time in the past (like Tuvok had). Teero had reasons to be antagonistic toward Chakotay for "not going far enough for the cause". What better vengeance, than to co-opt his "commander" and the rest of his "cell" by subjecting them to control.

The rest of your analysis is right on though. What in the hell was he trying to accomplish by "activating" his drones (for want of a better word) now? Wouldn't this be something he'd do if/when Voyager returned to the Alpha-Quadrant, perhaps as a way to strike back at the Cardassians in some way? The timing for this story doesn't work.

And, of course, the resolution is so rushed that it's almost funny in how ridiculous it is.

I saw your rating for this and read the first couple of lines of the review, as well as the negative feedback about the episode, before actually viewing it. I was thus braced for the worst, but I didn't find this show to be nearly as bad as everyone else here. The concept of mind control and sleeper agents actually exists in our own reality so it's hardly a far-fetched concept in the sci-fi world of Trek. It's nice to be able to just watch an episode and spend some time in the Star Trek universe, without picking apart every plot thread and character motivation in a desperate search to find something to complain about.

"It's nice to be able to just watch an episode and spend some time in the Star Trek universe, without picking apart every plot thread and character motivation in a desperate search to find something to complain about."

David, you're right. Unfortunately, your above-comment, given the forum you chose to make it, might have fallen on deaf ears.

Fandom and the concept of "fans" both are very fascinating: there is a "trashing that which you claim to love" mentality evident on so many websites "dedicated to" or that serve as "fora" for people presumably interested in a show, created by people who presumably like it. I'm for picking apart an awful episode when doing so is called for as much as anyone else is, but it never ceases to amaze me how some of the people I'm talking about are apparently satisfied with none of the episodes (they've seen them all and are dissatisfied with them all, which begs the question of why they continue to watch the shows).

These critics, I think, must find the criticisms enjoyable exercises in entertaining themselves and in possibly entertaining other individuals.

Once in a while, though, I wish the creative energy behind criticism could be redirected to something else, like, say, writing your own story, or finding a show you really do like (sadly, people get their entertainment more from mockery than from being inspired by something). Or, as Spock might have said (paraphrasing), "As a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to destroy, than to create."

Did we really need to see a brief "what if the maquis took over the ship" episode? Did we? Really now?

I thought I was watching a miss episode of DS9 - just for a second. I thought... oh boy! There was a DS9 episode I *didn't* see?! Nope.

One thing I will credit to this show. The beginning has a very different flavour than many voyager episodes... and for a time, I thought this episode might head a in a good direction. At least the whole "voyager is an action series" wasn't present in this episode... and that's a good thing. It seems that every episode is so repetitive in its plotting and action sequences, that this episode felt different.

Having said that, this episode is horrible. To me, it was pretty obvious Tuvok was the person responsible. The blurred out image actually does look like Tuvok - you can see the ears and the bald head. Didn't fool me in the slightest.

However, there was a loophole in the episode where Tuvok not able to commit one of the mind-meld attacks as he was preoccupied with the investigation. I honestly don't know how we did it. Nonetheless... even at this time I figured it was Tuvok, just because I knew the writers were going in that direction.

From here, the episode turns in a horrible direction. The whole Maquis vs. Federation angle just doesn't fit in season 7.... nor does the motivation of why did the Bajoran mind-control lunatic decide to do this now? What is the motivation? The show NEVER, EVER answers for this... which makes an already bad episode worse because we got to see the "what if" just because the writers wanted to... not because it had any sound premise.

Daniel,

There are voyager episodes that perfectly good and likeable. In these episodes, it is easy to enjoy it, get lost in it and savour it.

Then there are episodes like this.. and dozens like it. It is very hard to just watch it and enjoy it when the writing is just awful. It is well below the standards set back Voyager's better episodes... or other series like TNG and DS9.

This site in particular is not a "We love Voyager" fan site. It is a review site for all Star Trek series, some of which are reviewed very favourably, such as DS9 or TNG.

The hate comes from loving Star Trek so much... and seeing a series like Voyager rip it to shreds. It's about acknowledging what could have been. There is a lot of frustrating and even anger in long term fans of the franchise when they write crap like this episode.

It's not just the episode - it's the mentality of laziness and the utter lack of desire to make something of high quality.

The real problem with Voyager, as I've said in many other threads, is that the writers cannot create a sound premise for a story to save their life. There are always massive continuity errors, even contradicting episodes from week to week. There are always characters behaving in illogical ways... or behave way out of character. The writers seem to change anything as long as it works to convey the story they want to tell... and this just wasn't done on earlier series. Frankly, it's somewhat insulting, and it frustrates me to no end.

Uh, when an episode begins with somebody uttering the words "prophecy" and "holy," you're almost guaranteed to have a boring, trashy episode ahead. When Paris then recreates a 20th-century environment, you KNOW the show is liable to be dumb as a doorknob, too. Well, the first 15 minutes turned out to be quite exciting: A mystery attacker incapacitating crewmembers left, right and center. But then when it becomes evident that some "spirit" has possessed Tuvok, the whole thing goes downhill.

The action parts are fun to watch but they make no sense and are founded on a risible basis. It would've been alright (sans all the mind alternation junk) three seasons back but not at this point. The ending totally sucked, including the theater scene. I'd give it two stars though.

Ken: "It seems that every episode is so repetitive in its plotting and action sequences[.]"

In fairness, and this is coming from someone whose comments tend to be caustic and cynical, by Season 7 of Voyager, Star Trek aired 500 episodes plus a number of full-length movie features, so one can forgive the writers for running out of ideas. It IS difficult to make so many interesting episodes featuring the future fou centuries hence in a massive universe. It doesn't excuse the sloppiness and laziness of the scriptwriters but still, Voyager is a damn sight better than, say, the Original Series, which just makes me cringe: Even for the 1960s the lack of imagination is stupendous!

"Why make this episode?" I'm glad you asked, Jammer.

One of the things I take pleasure in the most from Voyager is the way they slap DS9 in the face when they get the opportunity. Obviously, not being marred in the lollipop parades of the Alpha Quadrant, opportunities to use Bajorans and Cardassians are few and far between, but when they do, it's a very smart and biting portrayal. This species just does not belong in a civilised Universe:

The Bajorans' religious fervour and brain-washed, battle-hungry quality is personified in Teero. Think of it this way:

"This is a holy time" etc are catchphrases, propaganda--very common occurrences in our society. People are duped into doing things that only appear to have a motivation or make sense: Chakotay, "So long as we exist, the rebellion exists." That doesn't make any sense, but it sounds like it does. I can't count the number of times I've heard something similar, "we may have some problems, but look at North Korea." What does that mean? Nothing. But, well N. Korea is a communist dictatorship, and we're better so, yeah point made. ??? The foil of course is Tuvok--only a mind as devoted to logic as he (almost religiously) can hope to overcome the mind-control. Teero meant to utilise Tuvok's vulcanness and hidden identity as a weapon, but it turned out to backfire (as it did in "Random Thoughts").

Teero's motivation--well, think about it. The only remnant of the Maquis, the organisation which gave his lunacy purpose, exists solely on Voyager, and the ability to communicate with Tuvok has not existed until now (the Mitas Array, blah blah blah)--there are notes of Captain Maxwell from "The Wounded" here.

Part of the Trekkian brilliance of Voyager is the irony shown in season 7--after being isolated from the Federation, stocked with rogue humans and mired with desperate situations, Voyager holds on to its values, its principals. In the AQ, the war and ass-headed writing on DS9 has literally destroyed the Federation's soul. So when mediæval spores find there way onto Voyager from the motherland, the microcosm reveals just how corrupted home has become. I would have liked to see an episode which dealt with this more directly "Do we really want to go home?"--it would have been more of a direct slap in the face to DS9, which could be problematic for a franchise, but DS9 had no problem slapping First Contact, so, there it is.

Michael: "So one can forgive the writers for running out of ideas."

Here's an idea: Stop making episodes. If they have truly run out of ideas in their own estimation, then stop making the series.

But the truth is, there were tons of ideas to do in Star Trek. New, talented writers could have brought a lot of life to the series.

The problem was the premise of the series. Moving around from Star to Star, or some chance encounter, is actually pretty damn boring. Sure, an episode here and there was interesting, but it's not enough to keep people coming back week to week. TNG pretty much exhausted most of the core ideas this kind of series offered.

"Voyager holds on to its values, its principals. In the AQ, the war and ass-headed writing on DS9 has literally destroyed the Federation's soul"

I actually find this laughable. Voyager compromised on its principles MANY times. In fact, Janeway would argue opposing ideas from one episode to the next.

One episode she would advocate "we do whatever it takes to get this crew home" and another episode she'll say, "We can't violate the prime directive in order to get ourselves home!"

Since the episodes are not fresh in my mind, I can't offer quotes, but if I rewatched this series, I know I could find at least 20 occurrences of this kind of hypocrisy.

As for the part about DS9, I completely disagree about the writing being ass-headed. While it was definitely a deviation from Star Trek's original premise, this isn't a bad thing.

Now that I know a great deal more about philosophy, the Trekkian philosophy does not make sense in practice, and it's actually immoral in many areas. After watching many episodes from all the series later on, I could pull tons of immoral decisions and societal consequences as a result of this "enlightened" philosophy.

To be honest, it's very much a pretend "working" form of communism. But you see, communism IS evil and cannot work. It is very much against human nature of rational, long-term self-interest.

If anything DS9 just showed humans for what they were, and made less pretenses about it. Sure, Sisko made many immoral decisions, but at least he didn't do it in the name of starfleet principles, he did it because he was a man and made choices with his freewill. There's a big difference there.

Don't confuse Janeway's character for the show's philosophy. See that's one of the great deviations between Voyager and TNG--in TNG Picard is virtually always right--or at least becomes right in the end of the episode, thus he is the figurehead for the whole show.

I'm not interested in getting into a debate about communism. It's been done to death. Your comments strike me as rather young--there's no such thing as an "evil" philosophy; you may argue if you wish that the future as depicted in Star Trek is impossible. Well, many physicists, astronomers, philosophers and economists would agree with you, but that's not the point. Optimism is not evil. However, I will agree that economically speaking, the Federation is communist--or at least socialist--the waters are a little muddy on that front. People work to better themselves, not to gain a profit.

DS9 showed people as they are NOW perhaps, but the universe Star Trek inhabits isn't possible if it was created by humans as they are now.

My beefs with DS9 are numerous, but in terms of its place in Trek, here's my biggest problem: if the writers wanted to make a show about their own science fiction philosophy, then fine, more power to them; but how dare they take the creations of another mind and show and insidiously change their qualities to prove a point. People mistakenly believe that DS9 expanded upon Gene's universe to show the reality of the situation; if you watch carefully, you'll see that the things established in TOS and TNG had to be changed (without any explanation) in order to fit DS9's pessimistic philosophy. Take "Emissary"; Picard would NEVER tolerate the kind of disrespectful behaviour exhibited by Sisko (no matter what happened to his wife), let alone twice. It's ridiculous, but hey, Sisko's inexplicably awesome because the Gods favour him--wow, really?

I'm actually working (in my spare time) on a throughline of Janeway's development as a character with regard to her Prime Directive decisions. People have this textbook expectation from TV shows that the characters should DEVELOP in this conventional way, but that really doesn't tell the human story. What is so beautiful about the character development on Voyager is that it is subtle and slow--I will always be angry that the writers on Voyager weren't afforded the same liberties as those on DS9, they were confined to a marketing image that they were able to work in spite of, but oh how wonderful to have been given a long leash like DS9.

Janeway's decisions were also because she was a woman who made choices with her freewill. The fact that she tied her decisions into Starfleet principles makes for a very interesting dichotomy, but it doesn't devalue her decisions.

"there's no such thing as an "evil" philosophy"

I know you didn't want to get into a debate about communism, but I have to analyze this statement. Are you sure? So if I create a philosophy that ends up advocating the death of all human babies and that we ought to prevent all reproductive abilities because I concluded that it was necessary to end our species, is that not evil?

In order for communism to work, you have to steal from those that have productive ability and give to those who do not have it. You have to violate property rights in order to redistribute the wealth. Is not that not evil? In all communist countries, there were mass murders, and all kinds of other atrocities. Were these not evil? This was all brought upon by communism.

Sorry, but philosophies can rationally be judged to be evil, and it's important that we judge them as such.

"Optimism is not evil. However, I will agree that economically speaking, the Federation is communist--or at least socialist--the waters are a little muddy on that front."

Optimism isn't evil, but I don't think Star Trek is really about optimism. Optimism really isn't a philosophy. Truth be told, optimism isn't a rational concept.

Definition: "A tendency to expect the best possible outcome or dwell on the most hopeful aspects of a situation"

Notice this definition doesn't say anything about facts and using logic and reason to be optimistic. It is basically being optimistic for the sake of it. It is based on whim.

Anyway, Star Trek does not explain it's model for economics at all. Sure, they have replicators and all of this technology, but where did it come from? Did people build all of this stuff for "the good of mankind?" Altruistically? So even the laziest bums benefit from the achievements of a few? This is actually not just, as they have no right to profit from unearned achievements.

Also, who does all the grunt work? All the messy labour nobody would want to do? I mean, if you don't have to work and everything is provided for you... where is the incentive to slug it out producing all the energy needed by the federation? There wouldn't be any incentive at all, and nobody would do it.

Are you to force them? Well, that's immoral. You can't force people to work. It violates their rights, and is akin to slavery.

"People work to better themselves, not to gain a profit."

This is, unfortunately, flawed thinking. I am all for people striving to better themselves, but I do not think it is immoral to make profit at the same time. In fact, I don't think there's a way to be the best individual you can be without having the ability to pursue your own rational self-interests (i.e., making profit, among other values you may have).

This is why no matter how much I love Star Trek, I am deeply bothered by it's moral and philosophical premises. It just would not work in practice.

As for DS9, I would totally concede to you that it deviated from the premises set in TOS and TNG. Note, I don't think the show is "right" because it showed people as they are today, and I am just saying it is different. There are many fantastically written stories in DS9 that are among my favorites out of all the series, regardless of this deviation. Some of the writing is stellar.

The problem with character development on Voyager is that a lot of it is arbitrary. Kim is the worst example. For 6 seasons+, he is basically the same character. And then the writers to shoe-horn "growth", but it just doesn't work.

I think the writers did a decent job with B'lana, some times. Even then, there's faults.

One of the big problems with Voyager is that massive character changes would happen in 1 episode, and then were forgotten in the very next episode. Some continuity would have made the series MUCH better.

Take Tom Paris for example. There's one episode where he switches bodies with another person, and the whole premise is that he's bored on the ship and is depressed. But the episode before, he's chippy and happy. They had this gradual planning in the first 2 seasons, but totally botched it in seasons 3-7.

I have no problem with Janeway using freewill, but it was mighty convenient for her (and the writers) to alternate her positions on various moral decisions as the story dictated. I think this made her character (and the show) much weaker than it should have been.

I'm still refusing to actually debates the merits and faults of communism, but I will point out a flaw in your own logic, as you are wont to do systematically: how many communist countries have there been? 6 maybe? compared with the number of capitalist countries, that's hardly a pool for forming any sort of conclusion. If we were to judge the "morality" of capitalism on the actions of the first few societies to practise it, the results would be FAR more horrendous than even the worst goulag-implementing, tank-rolling regime in modern history. Modern capitalism, for better or worse, has had centuries to develop in myriad ways. Given the same opportunity, socialism could certainly develop into something like the Federation given time and trial. The fact that dictators have been the only means so far by which communism has been practised is I think far more the cause of the "evil" than the economics. Machiavelli, Hammurabi, Trujillo and Hitler were all capitalists, but so were Thomas Jefferson and Queen Elizabeth.

Let me ask you about your own character growth, Ken. When something traumatic happens to you, do you advertise it to all your coworkers? If you have subordinates, do you reveal it to them? In the quiet private moments on Voyager, one sees how characters are affected by experience, but you won't see something like Kira storming around or Sisko shirking Federation values because someone on Voyager had a bad day. In the 60's the "reset button" was seen as a cornball way to pacify the "family audience." In Voyager, there is a striking reuse of the button--take the final scenes in "Prime Factors," "Resolutions," "Scorpion," "Prey," "Nothing Human," "Counterpoint," "Equinox," "Barge of the Dead," "Dragon's Teeth," "Memorial," "Critical Care," "Workforce," "Human Error" and "Natural Law"--all have a reset button, but in each case, it's a matter of preserving face--a necessary sacrifice one must make in a military institution like Starfleet...but it also forces the characters to possess a strength of character and a resilience which allows them to survive and not fall appart into chaos throughout the seasons--which is apparently what everyone wanted to see. I will be creating my own reviews of the 5 Trek series and 11 movies in time, and I welcome your feedback.

"But I will point out a flaw in your own logic, as you are wont to do systematically: how many communist countries have there been?"

Actually, there is no flaw in my logic. And let me explain so you don't just take my word for it. I concede that it is not a valid proof that just because we haven't seen a successful implementation of communism that this fact alone can conclude that it is evil.

However, you *can* prove that communism is evil because of how it achieves it's ends, which I already discussed.

It *IS* immoral to take the earned property away from one man and give it to another. You cannot justify this and say that this is moral.

This form of legal theft is a fundamental part of communism. It is based entirely on the violation of man's rights. There is no way this practice can actually further life, but can only seek to destroy it.

It's not just the right of property, but communism violates the right to liberty, and the right to pursue your own happiness. Under communism, you have to pursue the happiness of the state. Pursuing your own happiness would be "selfish" according to communists.

To enforce the violation of rights, you have to use physical force, because you can't force a man to think or convince a man to work against his own self interests. And this is exactly what happened in every communistic country. The government had to use progressively more force to implement it's ideas.

Essentially, you can't practice evil and expect a moral and good society to come about. When you mix evil with good, evil wins. Every time.

I can go into the proof of all of this, but it would take some writing. Nonetheless, if you want me to go through it with you, I will.

Do you really think "modern capitalist countries" practice real capitalism? They don't. They actually mixed economies. There is *some* economic freedom, but there's actually a lot of government regulation, intervention (central banking) and redistribution of wealth (social programs).

The reason "modern capitalism" does not work is because it progressively gets more socialized. Governments continue to violate more rights against the individuals, and puts a stranglehold on individual freedom.

Many of the disasters that we are experiencing today are not the result of capitalism (although our politicians and media definitely want you to believe that... please don't take their word for it!). They are the result of government. They cause the problems, blame business, and then go about "fixing it", only to make the problems worse. Logic and actual history proves this, both under Republican and Democratic rule.

The real truth is that we have NEVER had a free economic system. Not once. It has never happened. The closest thing to it was 1800-1914 United States, and I don't need to remind you that this by far the most prosperous period in all of human civilization.

We continued to enjoy the benefits of capitalism until the federal reserve caused the great depression, and in the 1950-1960's, socialism really started to play a massive part of the United States. Today, you cannot call the United States, Canada, England, etc. capitalist countries. There is no way.

Also, hilter (and others) were not capitalists. In fact, any government that violated the rights of the individual - the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness - was not a capitalist.

Real capitalism is freedom, and humanity has not seen it.

"When something traumatic happens to you, do you advertise it to all your coworkers?"

No, but why not a private scene in their room? Why not *something* to stress the continuity? The real truth is that the writers didn't work together, and a lot of them were incompetent. They couldn't think bigger than a single story, let alone defining the direction for 1 season or the entire series.

"In the quiet private moments on Voyager, one sees how characters are affected by experience, but you won't see something like Kira storming around or Sisko shirking Federation values because someone on Voyager had a bad day."

I don't see a problem with any of this. Kira's growth as a character was exceptional. The writers did a farely convincing job taking her from A->B->C->...->Y->Z.

I think they did a great job with character development of all the major characters, except for Ezri.

"In the 60's the "reset button" was seen as a cornball way to pacify the "family audience." In Voyager, there is a striking reuse of the button."

I hate the reset button. It is incredibly annoying. It actually insults my intelligence that I am meant to "forget" what I just spent 40 minutes watching when I start up the next episode.

How is it that TNG managed to successfully have some character continuity between episodes... and note that TNG came BEFORE Voyager... and Voyager royally messed up this idea that characters have continuity?

"but in each case, it's a matter of preserving face--a necessary sacrifice one must make in a military institution like Starfleet...but it also forces the characters to possess a strength of character and a resilience which allows them to survive and not fall appart into chaos throughout the seasons--which is apparently what everyone wanted to see."

Who is "everyone"? Not me. I hated this aspect of the show. And no, I don't think people should make sacrifices, especially when it comes to their mental well-being.

"I will be creating my own reviews of the 5 Trek series and 11 movies in time, and I welcome your feedback."

I am definitely good at stating my opinions ;)

I will BRIEFLY adress all your points:

1) There is no one formula for how communism, capitalism or any other "ism" works--economics is a system of theories which are implemented according to unique sets of variables, all of which must be taken into consideration when judging a society. People are capable of committing evil actions, but no person, system or idea is inherently evil. There are numerous ways in which capitalism promotes the exploitation of man by his fellow man, but this does not make it evil, just as the state-sacrifice model of communism does not make it evil. "It *IS* immoral to take the earned property away from one man and give it to another. You cannot justify this and say that this is moral." This is based upon the premise that it is possible to earn possessions or other property with one's labour. This is neither true nor false, it is an assumption, one upon which capitalist values are based. Communist values are based upon the idea that there is an intrinsic value to labour which cannot be measured in goods, property or currency. This is also an assumption. There is no proof that one is right and the other is wrong, it is about choices.

2) "When you mix evil with good, evil wins. Every time." I'm not sure what to make of this statement. I do find it ironic that you are a fan of DS9 which makes a big huff about how it avoids these kinds of black and white statements. You seem to view good and evil as some sort of ingredients, like sugar, spice and everything nice; such philosophies are doomed to realm of fairytales I'm afraid.

I agree that no country is capable of practising "pure" anything. as I said, these are theories which, when implemented in the real world, must factor in an host of conditions which "impurify" the system. We must, however, make generalisations and "round up" systems to their models in order to make comparisons. China is certainly not a pure communism, neither was the USSR, neither is Cuba, etc. but we can treat them as such to compare with relatively capitalist societies. It is of equal value to compare the ways in which they are impure--but this is a tangent upon a tangent, so I will stop here.

I feel I must point out that no economic system guarantees anyone's liberties or freedoms--these ideas are socio-political and moralistic,--economic systems are mathematical models on the distribution of wealth and the valuation of labour. An economic system is never a guarantee of any social liberties or violations.

3) My point with the DS9 comparison is that we WERE shown character growth on Voyager a lot, but never in the melodramatic, public displays seen on DS9. It is the difference between staged life and real life. In staged life (as in a play) we need to see very strong character changes very quickly in order for the premise to prove itself (in a good play). In a TV series, we have the opportunity afforded no other genre, time. We can have characters who interact more believably because they have time to show character development in little morsels strewn throughout the years. DS9 was always so busy trying to make its point that the characters were often ridiculous and many of the episodes unwatchable. "Threshold," well established as Voyager's worst outing, has a plot which insults even basic intelligence, but the characterisation of Paris is very compelling in spite of it. Now, how in the world could the ship continue to function if Janeway and he were to let that weird little adventure creep into their future interactions? There is no way. We must do this in real life, move on. What we DO see is a change in the level of intimacy. We don't need a dinner conversation where they say, "Hey, remember when we were slugs and made babies? Yeah, that meant a lot to me." What we see is a quiet change in the interpersonal relationship (ie she's much more likely to call him "Tom" instead of "Mr Paris," and he begins to reveal to her more and more about his shady past). THAT is realistic character development stemming from a terrible episode, which is what made Voyager great.

4) You missed my point about the reset button. I'm sorry you hate it, but if we're reduced to that then there's not much more to say is there?

"economics is a system of theories which are implemented according to unique sets of variables, all of which must be taken into consideration when judging a society."

Economics is really just the study of how people trade. There are different systems, most being drastically different from one another. And most of them are not a true representation of real human economic behaviour.

"People are capable of committing evil actions, but no person, system or idea is inherently evil."

This is wrong. If a system advocates that the theft of someone's property to give to someone else, then that system is immoral, and is evil.

Why? Because the system is going to cause evil actions. When implementation, that theft really will happen.

Basically any system that requires immoral actions in theory to bring about it's goals will produce immoral actions in practice.

"There are numerous ways in which capitalism promotes the exploitation of man by his fellow man, but this does not make it evil"

Actually, this is truthfully statement, but probably not the reason you think it is.

What is exploitation? There are two drastically different definitions. If you mean it as, "The act of using something for any purpose"... then I absolutely agree. This is not evil whatsoever.

However, if you mean as: "to take unfair advantage of others"... then no, capitalism does NOT do this.

Capitalism is based on the idea that people have complete freedom to pursue their own happiness, just as long as they do not violate the rights of other individuals. If you want to acquire a value, you must trade for it. You cannot take it by force.

Likewise, you can't take advantage of people because they must first consent to buy your products. If your price is to high, they will shop elsewhere. If there are no competitors, it will encourages others to compete with you, as there is no government controls to stop them from competing freely.

Also, workers must agree to the wages that they are getting paid, and if the wages are too low... they will find other work.

There is actually no long-term way for a business under true a free market to take advantage of anyone. It will be against their own relational, long-term self-interest to behave in an unethical way.

Likewise, if a business does harm and violates the rights of an individual, they can be sued and go to prison.

So while I agree with your statement, I hope I clarified it in principle.

"just as the state-sacrifice model of communism does not make it evil."

As I explained above, it does make it evil. To me, this is very obvious. Self-sacrifice is easily proven to be to the destructive to man's life. Just as anything rational that further's man life is good... anything that destroys man's life is evil.

It is not in man's nature to serve others. We are INDIVIDUALS, not some collective. We do not exist to bring about the happiness others. We exist for ourselves. The very idea that man should self-sacrifice is totally against man's nature, just as it's against the mouse's nature to fly or balloon filled only with sand to float in the air.

Yes, someone can choose to self-sacrifice, but this is not in man's best interest. It does not further his life. It only brings about his destruction.

People follow altruism - self-sacrifice - because it's taught to them. They are educated and raised to believe it and practice it, but it is not natural, and that's why it is impossible to live up to, and why nobody has ever lived up to it.

"This is based upon the premise that it is possible to earn possessions or other property with one's labour."

Huh? I'm not following you. If a man owns some wood and tools, and then makes a chair with his own mind, and his own materials... is the chair also not his? Why does anyone else other than the man that produced it have a claim to it?

He may choose to sell the chair, or give it away voluntarily, but if he doesn't, the chair is his own and nobody is entitled to it.

"This is neither true nor false, it is an assumption, one upon which capitalist values are based."

I do not start with the idea of capitalism and then work backwards to justify it. I actually taking facts about reality - the idea that we are individuals, that we have free will, that we have rights to life, property, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.... and then conclude that capitalism would be the only moral system of government to promote human life and freedom. These are not just the values that capitalism is based, but it's the system that is best suited for man's nature.

"Communist values are based upon the idea that there is an intrinsic value to labour which cannot be measured in goods, property or currency."

The labour theory of value was actually debunked before the bolshevik revolution began. In fact, economists of the time debunked it even before Marx died in 1883. The only person who actually believed it was Lenin, and every communist afterwards. It was NEVER based on proof.

"This is also an assumption. There is no proof that one is right and the other is wrong, it is about choices."

Actually, this is really not true. Read above. As for Laissez-faire capitalism, there is actually mountains of philosophers who have proved that capitalism is in fact moral, and would be the the most moral system of government ever devised by man. Ayn Rand would easily come to mind as the fore-front of making the best moral case for Laissez-faire capitalism.

It is, ironically, the only one we have not actually tried.

"I'm not sure what to make of this statement. I do find it ironic that you are a fan of DS9 which makes a big huff about how it avoids these kinds of black and white statements."

Example: If someone comes over to steal $1000 from you, and you negotiate it down to $1, did good win? Of course not. Evil still won, even if only $1 was stolen. In fact, you've just encouraged more theft in the future.

Who's to say more and more people won't come over to take $1 too? And if they could get $1, why not $2? $4? When does it end?

While it's hard to accept, there is compromise between good and evil. Evil wins.

"I agree that no country is capable of practising "pure" anything. as I said, these are theories which, when implemented in the real world, must factor in an host of conditions which "impurify" the system."

The best way to ensure that a country stays true is to limit government's power to only protect the rights of individuals. That's it.

Pure Communism would even be worse than 75% communism, which is worse than %50 communism, and so on. Any system of government that violates the rights of individuals, no matter how small or big, is evil. And yes, that pretty much includes every form of government we ever tried.

But we're working on it. In early United States, they got it *close*. Maybe in another 50 or 100 years when everything goes to hell, perhaps we'll try it finally. It only took 8000 years or so to get there.

"I feel I must point out that no economic system guarantees anyone's liberties or freedoms"

True. Some people will starve. Theft will still happen. Murder will still happen. The real question is... is the system promote immoral behaviour or not. Capitalism is the only system that does not.

And note, under capitalism, people do get sued and go to jail for violating other's rights. When people use force or fraud against others, it should be met with force. That is the only time force is to be used.

I am not suggesting a perfect utopia by any means. This is not possible. But why choose a system of government that is evil by design for? This is stupid.

Okay, I'm going to try one more time; if you don't get it, I give up.

First of all, you are operating under another assumption, which is that the way people behave "naturally" is automatically THE GOOD and that if they are taught some value which is different, it is THE EVIL.

I don't agree, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is that this is an ASSUMPTION. It is an axiom for a belief. You believe that capitalism is generally good because it conforms to the aforementioned assumptions ("good" assumptions). All I ask for now is that you admit this much.

Unless you're a bible thumper or something, theft in itself is not an evil action. Robin Hood would never have been written if there weren't doubt about this. It's always about context. A socialist believes that it is actually good to steal from a rich person and give to a poor one because we are not animals in a Darwinistic competition to out-survive one another (or at least we shouldn't be). You don't have to agree, but it is a matter of perspective. There is no simple answer to this. This is why a drama like Star Trek is so powerful when done well, these questions are what propel humanity forward. If there were a simple quick-fix to the world's problems, life would be pretty meaningless.

You state over and over again that it is not "in our nature," etc. etc. Aptly, I am reminded of the myth Chakotay tells Janeway about the Scorpion: "I couldn't help it; it's my nature." Seven of Nine becomes the very test of that truism. Our nature is not fixed in stone, altruism IS a natural state of human existence sometimes, given the right conditions. This is part of the complexity of society, something all other animals (and certainly inanimate objects like balloons) lack. It is humanity's compassion, intelligence and altruism which the Star Trek universe expands upon (it does not invent them out of thin air).

I am NOT advocating communism per sæ. I don't want that to become our debate. You have not come close to proving that communism is evil.

Don't get me started on Rand. She reminds me of DS9--she sings one note over and over again and has to make 2-dimensional characters (all but her übermensch that is) to make her point. People who advocate Rand do so only because they agree with her. This is puerile, reactionary bigotry. I enjoy "The Fountainhead" even though I disagree with its political philosophy, because it contains Rand's only insightful view of a part of the human condition in the artistic impetus of Howard Roarke.

The labour theory is no "debunkable." It may be impractical under most conditions (maybe even all conditions), but it is a theory of value, not a science. It's not as though it must work or not work, it is a principle, a moral.

This "good wins, evil wins" nonsense is frankly a little disturbing. Such a grossly polarised view of anything is certainly immoral if anything is.

What rights do individuals possess? Well that's a question of a socio-political nature. In modern countries, these rights are specifically outlined in constitutions. China has them as well as the USA. They are different rights, so Chinese and Americans have different rights as individuals. If and when the constitutions change or are removed, those peoples' rights will change. So if a country's economic practices violate the rights afforded individuals by the state, indeed the economy is incompatible with the society. This is closer to being called "evil," but it still operates under the premise that the charter of rights is intrinsically "good" which may or may not be true.

I'm vaguely amused at the notion that we keep trying economic systems on like shoes or perfume. Economics are always in flux, over time in difficult and often schismatic ways, humanity's altruistic faculties have overpowered to a degree its selfish ones, but there will always be a tension between them. Star Trek chooses to believe that specifically a major catastrophe and dissolution of structure (Star Trek VIII) will result in a revolutionary degree of change in this same direction. This is a fantasy and contrivance meant to encapsulate the notion of humanity's potential in a single event, thus creating an allegory. And allegories are what drama needs to tell stories and create emotional resonance.

Final note: if any philosopher had ever "proved" anything, there would be no more philosophy on the subject. This has never happened and is unlikely to occur.

"First of all, you are operating under another assumption, which is that the way people behave "naturally" is automatically THE GOOD and that if they are taught some value which is different, it is THE EVIL. [...] What matters is that this is an ASSUMPTION. It is an axiom for a belief. You believe that capitalism is generally good because it conforms to the aforementioned assumptions ("good" assumptions). All I ask for now is that you admit this much."

Yes, I am operating under this premise, but I don't take it as an axiom. It is not a primary that my logic is based on, but actually one of the larger blocks.

Let me try to explain in the smallest amount of text possible, as it's my fault not going through the primaries and just starting with higher level conclusions in the first place.

Human beings have consciousness. We have the ability to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality using our faculty of reason. Reason is not automatic, we have to choose to use it.

At every moment in one's life, we can make choices. One of the most fundamental choices we have is life and death, and the most basic tool we have to help us is reason. If we choose life, we do things that we think will prolong it (i.e bring about our surival and our prosperity). If we don't choose life... or we fail in our thought process, than we die.

Life is the rational standard of value, and it's a value that all volitional living orgasms have. Essentially, things that seek to further our life are good, and things that seek to destory or oppose or threaten our life are evil.

Since life is the ultimate standard of value, we must have a right to pursue that value. If we don't have that right, we are essentially forced to act against our own self-interest and our own life. Essentially, we would be forced to do somethign which is evil, because evil seeks to destory our life. Therefore, we must have the right to life (which is the good) and nobody else has the authority to violate this right.

It would be massive contradiction in terms to say, "Yeah, I'm a human being and life is my ultimate standard of value, but I'm going to kill another human being because I choose to not recognize his ultimate standard of value too." This is not at all rational. It's hypocritical.

All other rights, like the right to property, the right to pursue happiness, etc. stem from the basic right to your own life, because these are necessary to support your life. It is the only implementation of your right to your own life.

For example, if you have no food and must go hunting, and then just after you cook the meal someone steals your food... how can you live? If they continually steal your food over and over for days, you'll eventually not have the strength to hunt any more, and you'll eventually die. (Let's just ignore alterantive food sources, and blah blah... they can steal those too). What if they just lock you up in a cage until you starve?

The thieves in this case are Evil, because they're opposing your right to life. So you must have the right to your own actions and productive efforts (whether that's hunting, making a chair, or building a fortune 500 company). There can't be any other way to implement your right to life if you don't also have the right to property.

So, this is what I mean by man's nature. Of course, I'm over-simplifying as it is, because this is a focused crash course in metaphysics, epistomology, ethics and even politics.

Point is, when a socialist claims that it is "good" to steal property and give it to someone else, he is wrong and is evil because he seeks to destory or oppose my right to life. It's really that simple.

------------------------------------

"Unless you're a bible thumper or something, theft in itself is not an evil action. Robin Hood would never have been written if there weren't doubt about this. It's always about context."

I am an athiest.

And I agree, theft is not always evil. I never said it was. But in the context of taking someone's produced goods or earnings, then theft in this case is definitely evil.

If someone were to steal my property through the use of force, I have every right to retalite by force to take it back. Of course, in modern society we give these rights to government so they do it for us, but if there were no government, we would have to operate on this right ourselves.

The same is true if you kill someone is self-defense. Once a man uses force, you can only respond with force. If he's trying to violate your right to life, and you have to end his life to perserve your own, so be it. His irrationality to attack you in the first brought it on himself.

Anyway, so I am not context dropping in my earlier discussions about theft. The context was communism after all, and it would be equally true if one person refused to work and watched TV while still collecting welfare checks from his productive fellow citizens.

------------------------------------

"A socialist believes that it is actually good to steal from a rich person and give to a poor one because we are not animals in a Darwinistic competition to out-survive one another (or at least we shouldn't be)."

I would argue that the socialist is wrong because what gives him the right to steal from the rich man in the first place? Did the rich man do anything wrong? Why is he being punished? Why does he not have the ability to give his consent?

Also, even if you ignore that, why is it even desirable to make sure nobody out-survives anyone in the first place? Are you saying everyone must live to be the same age? Are we really 100% equal regardless of merit, productive achievements, intellect, effort, etc? Of course not. This is absurd. It is completely contrary to idea of justice.

You see, socialistic ideas simply fall apart. They don't make any sense at all. The socialist can believe it all he wants, that doesn't make him right or his ideas good.

------------------------------------

"You don't have to agree, but it is a matter of perspective. There is no simple answer to this."

I guess we'll have to disagree here. I think it's pretty clear-cut honestly.

------------------------------------

"This is why a drama like Star Trek is so powerful when done well, these questions are what propel humanity forward. If there were a simple quick-fix to the world's problems, life would be pretty meaningless."

I agree with this. Debate is definitely healthy, especially if we can come to a truth. This is ultimately the most important thing - to seek truth. It's how I come to a lot of the ideas I am advocating.

I used to think altruistically in many cases... and I used to completely believe in the vision projected by Star Trek at one time. I was heavily abused as a child, which really muddled with my thinking as an adult, and so did education systems and a variety of other experiences. I now think differently because evidence and logic has given me new truths to replace the old ones. I choose to think.

------------------------------------

"You state over and over again that it is not "in our nature," etc. etc. Aptly, I am reminded of the myth Chakotay tells Janeway about the Scorpion: "I couldn't help it; it's my nature. Seven of Nine becomes the very test of that truism."

I actually 100% agree with what you said here. An animal's nature is pretty simple and predictable. The reason, in a nutshell, is that they don't have free will. Since the Borg didn't have free will, I think it is fair to postulate, does a severed borg retain their nature as well? This was a fantastic episode by the way ;)

However (like the episode concludes), humanity is very different because not only are we not pre-programmed with lots of knowledge and behaviours like animals, but we were given free will too. We were also given the ability to think and learn, and the ability to use logic and reason to achieve our values.

Ironically, logic and reason must be a conscious choice. We also have no idea what values to pursue either. We must choose those as well.

This is the essence of what it means to be an individual. And ironically, for a show that is very collectivist, Voyager made some fantastic cases for individualism (See, I said something good about Voyager!)

------------------------------------

"Our nature is not fixed in stone, altruism IS a natural state of human existence sometimes, given the right conditions."

No, altruism is a choice, just as anything else. Not only that, it was an invention by man. Man had to make it up... and ever since, it is proven time and again to be destructive to one-self and to others.

And I do want to be clear, I don't think generousity and charity is equivalent to altruism. Absolutely not! A man can be 100% rationally selfish and still decide to give his money or his time away to charity or to someone he cares about.

If I had cancer and I was a billionaire, do you not think I may choose to donate money to cancer research, which may actually help thousands or millions of people? If my wife died to cancer, do you think I might have a selfish desire to make sure cancer doesn't take the life of anyone else? I very well might.

I know a woman who is very generous, and she may even say she's altruistic... but I know she wouldn't do these things if it meant that she had to sacrifice herself, her property, her well-being, etc. She just wouldn't.

When I say altruism, I really do mean the sacrificial part - the part where a man believes he can only live for other people and not himself... because if he does, he will then feel massive amounts of guilt and shame. This entire line of thinking is 100% educated and taught by churches, schools, parents, governments, etc. A child out of the womb does not know any of this.

------------------------------------

"It is humanity's compassion, intelligence and altruism which the Star Trek universe expands upon (it does not invent them out of thin air)."

I agree that Star Trek takes these ideas and expands upon them, but all I am saying is that the form of government and way of life in Star Trek has no logical basis, and in principle, is proven to be immoral.

Simply, the writers made it up. It's not like they hired the top philosopher's in the world to build them a philosophy that made sense (not like they actually did when it came to explaining the science aspects of the show)... because if they had, their form of government and type of society would be totally different than what is actually presented in the series.

Basically, Star Trek really is fiction and it is not something to hope for because it really cannot exist as presented. If it were attempted, it would just end up as communism.

------------------------------------

"I am NOT advocating communism per sæ. I don't want that to become our debate. You have not come close to proving that communism is evil."

Okay, I give up on this then. To me, it makes perfect sense.

------------------------------------

"Don't get me started on Rand."

I don't agree with everything rand thought. I think her ideas on intectual property were probably wrong. I actually think most or all of her ideas on sex and relationships were wrong too. Clearly wrong.

Still, her books are art, not reality. She wanted to communicate concepts easily and clearly, because this is what she defined art to be. A lot of her characters represent different ideas and how they will play out, but her books on actual philosophy had much more depth and information than the novels.

------------------------------------

"The labour theory is no "debunkable." It may be impractical under most conditions (maybe even all conditions), but it is a theory of value, not a science. It's not as though it must work or not work, it is a principle, a moral."

Just as a thought, what good is a theory if it has no practical basis in reality? To me, if you can't prove a theory in the realm of reality, then it's debunked. I mean, what use is it other than to say, "Yeah, this is how we NOT do it."

------------------------------------

"This "good wins, evil wins" nonsense is frankly a little disturbing. Such a grossly polarised view of anything is certainly immoral if anything is."

Not really what I said. There is NO compromise between good and evil. If such a compromise happened, evil would win. If someone is seeking to destroy your life, even a little, does it not succeed?

On the other hand. there can be compromise between 2 rational ideas. This is perfectly fine.

------------------------------------

"What rights do individuals possess?"

First the right to life, then the right to property. all other rights like the right to pursue happiness, the right to liberty, etc. stem from those.

------------------------------------

"Well that's a question of a socio-political nature. In modern countries, these rights are specifically outlined in constitutions."

I do think we have inalienable rights that surpass whatever government wants to give us. I also don't think government can add rights - like the right to have a home - either. It works both ways.

Is it not convenient for a government to say, "Well, it's in our expert opinion that you have a right to property..." That is immoral. You can make any evil policy legal, but that doesn't make it moral.

This is why a moral government will outline a constitution that is actually 100% consistent with the rights that man actually has, and not anything different.

------------------------------------

"China has them as well as the USA. They are different rights, so Chinese and Americans have different rights as individuals. If and when the constitutions change or are removed, those peoples' rights will change. So if a country's economic practices violate the rights afforded individuals by the state, indeed the economy is incompatible with the society. This is closer to being called "evil," but it still operates under the premise that the charter of rights is intrinsically "good" which may or may not be true."

Frankly, I don't disagree with any of this, but I don't government is in a position to say what is good from what isn't. It's proven to be an evil institution from day one in all cases of human civilization, some more than others.

------------------------------------

"I'm vaguely amused at the notion that we keep trying economic systems on like shoes or perfume."

I never said this. I said we come up with lots of different systems to explain human economic behaviour, but we don't practice what these systems say. The systems just attempt at modeling what acutally happens in reality. Kansian economics, for example, is completely messed up and austrian economics has many good ideas.

------------------------------------

"Star Trek chooses to believe that specifically a major catastrophe and dissolution of structure (Star Trek VIII) will result in a revolutionary degree of change in this same direction."

And that's fine, but I disagree with their premise. If such a catastrophe were to happen, just like our recent financial collapse or how both of our world wars were funded, we'd see that government intervention, government regulation and governments violating the rights of individuals were the problem in all of the cases - not capitalism.

What I don't understand is that the fictional people in Star Trek choose a form of government that is entirely consistent with the evil governments that have already existed and have been proven to be evil.

It's pretty hard to "live long and prosper" when your form of government is opposing some individual's right to life.

Okay, time for bed. LOL.

Oh, I meant to say:

Is it not convenient for a government to say, "Well, it's in our expert opinion that you DON'T have a right to property..." That is immoral. You can make any evil policy legal, but that doesn't make it moral.

Against my better judgement...

"At every moment in one's life, we can make choices. One of the most fundamental choices we have is life and death, and the most basic tool we have to help us is reason. If we choose life, we do things that we think will prolong it (i.e bring about our surival and our prosperity). If we don't choose life... or we fail in our thought process, than we die."

I'm sorry but the contradictoriness of this is glaring; at both ends of one's life, the ability to "choose life" is nonexistent. As very old people, we can choose all we like, and we're still going to die (if not sooner in some accident), and of course as infants we are ENTIRELY dependent upon the charity (call it altruism, whatever) of others. Now, everyone has heard about the theory that parents sacrifice for their children because it ensures the continuation of the species. Fine. But it is still a selfless act brought on by a natural, uncoerced or taught, simply acted upon.

Your hunting allegory is preposterous; of course if the hunter's food were stolen in its entirety day after day, they would die. However, what if the hunter's EXCESS food were "stolen"? In other words, let's say the hunter caught more food than he needed; all he and is family need is left them, but the excess is given to a family which could not hunt enough to feed itself...

I'm going to stop pin-pointing here...I just realised it's pretty useless with you--the point is, you are of the opinion that certain there are certain absolutes about the Universe and our species, etc which you can never prove, simply state that they "are" and leave it at that--this is akin to a religious belief, which I will not attempt to argue with you.

TNG was able to give us a realistic (at least socio-politically) picture of what society looks like in what cynics today call "Utopia," and VOY showed us what that life would mean outside the safety of a powerful infrastructure. You don't have to like it, but to say it's "been proven evil" is absurd. There are numerous examples in all the Treks which show people who are misfits, as is impossible to avoid in any society, but misfits, even many of them does not justify labeling the system as evil. There is nothing innate in a right to property. We aren't born with it, it is given to us by someone, we have no natural rights to it. There is no ground on which you can say that a property-uncentred society is implicitly immoral.

Governments (good ones, and certainly the Federation) don't lay a claim to "good" or "evil"--simply what is legal. In all cases those laws are based on principles. In the USA, those principles are based on a free-market, individual-centred conception of the world, the Federation is based on the notion of mutual coöperation, work-centred existence and esoteric fulfilment. Neither is evil or immoral, they simply differ from one another.

"This is wrong. If a system advocates that the theft of someone's property to give to someone else, then that system is immoral, and is evil."

This is simply question-begging nonsense. It's only true if you already accept that property exists, and that owning property is good. You have to accept a capitalist world view from the get-go to accept this point as valid.

What if your belief system has an axiom that states that "property is theft"?

From that viewpoint, naturally, any system which posits the accumulation of more and more property as a goal will be seen as clearly evil.

But then, I wouldn't expect anyone to concede the argument before they had begun.

"This is simply question-begging nonsense. It's only true if you already accept that property exists"

Existence exists, and we have consciousness that perceives what exists. These are the 2 basic axioms of philosophy. What else is more basic than that?

"and that owning property is good."

Owning property for the sake of owning property is not automatically good. Who said that? However, if one is to have the right to their own life, they must also have the right to property as they need keep the productive efforts of their actions to sustain and self-actuate their own life, which IS good.

"You have to accept a capitalist world view from the get-go to accept this point as valid."

No. The capitalistic world view comes after man's rights. Politics is an advanced concept in philosophy, well after Metaphysics, Epistemology, etc. and the capitalistic world view is even more advanced as it's built on top of politics. It does not work the other way around.

"What if your belief system has an axiom that states that "property is theft"?"

It was never an axiom, and that is not what was said. If you steal property from someone, and they have deemed that property to further their own life (food, water, clothing, money, etc.), it is wrong to deny them the right to sustain and self-actuate their own life.

"From that viewpoint, naturally, any system which posits the accumulation of more and more property as a goal will be seen as clearly evil."

Statements are not in a vacuum. You must understand the context.

"'This is wrong. If a system advocates that the theft of someone's property to give to someone else, then that system is immoral, and is evil.'

"This is simply question-begging nonsense. It's only true if you already accept that property exists, and that owning property is good. You have to accept a capitalist world view from the get-go to accept this point as valid."


Paul: A world without the existence of property is impossible in practical terms. That kind of world would mean that anyone could choose to sleep in "your" bed tonight because, hey, the bed doesn't belong to anyone! They might choose to not do that because it would mean that YOU could sleep in THEIRS, which they would probably equally not like. But ultimately it all reverts to YOURS and NOT YOURS.

Not only, therefore, is such a world impossible; it is also undesirable. We acquire property by and large to make our lives more comfortable. If there is no notion of acquisition, then what exactly would be the motivation for doing anything other than surviving? To improve the whole humanity? But why would I work my skin to the bone and then have someone who did nothing enjoy the fruits of my labor as much as I (as would inevitably happen)? Capitalism is castigated as being "unfair," but would THIS kind of system be fair? It seems to me it would be much more iniquitous than capitalism has ever been.

Michael, I agree with much have said.

I would also contend further that nobody could even survive let alone be comfortable without the right to property, as it is necessary to own property to self-sustain and self-actuate your own life.

For example, if you had no rights to property but still had the right to life, people could constantly take your food and you would starve to death, thus violating your right to life. That is why the right to property comes after the right to life philosophically.

As for capitalism, it is the most just and fair social system I can think of, because it's based on merit and productive output. In order to succeed in capitalistic society, you have to produce things of value to others. Obviously the looters and parasites in society who think they have a right to food, a home and a well-paying job would not do well in this type of social system. But it would really be just and fair if they should perish in it.

As long as people profit without violating the rights of others, it is just that they become rich if they deserve it. After all, justice really is just getting what you deserve. If you kill someone or steal, you should be punished... and if you invent a computer or an airplane or build a massive skyscraper, you should be rewarded. I can't think of any fairer social system.

A lot of people think America is a capitalistic society, but it isn't. Without getting too much into today's politics, America hasn't lived under anything close to real capitalism in about 100 years since the Federal Reserve was created... and slowly but surely, it's become highly socialized and a borderline police state. What we have now is not capitalism... but a sort of crony capitalism... and in some cases, outright fascism.

It's really too bad Star Trek tries to link the Ferengi ideas of acquiring wealth and property as immoral. The writers do such a blatant job to poison the viewers about what capitalism really is. They writers go out of their way to link making profit with slavery, paying low wages, treating women badly, bribing people, plotting and scheming just to make a buck, etc.... and that's not at all what capitalism is about.

I like Star Trek, but this entire philosophy that we do without money and property has caused me to stop loving it like I used to - back before I understood these things. I only wished the writers actually challenged this premise... but I guess that wouldn't be very "Star Trek" of them :/

@Michael

Your analogy is very simple-minded and hardly something on which to base a theory of impossibility. There have been many cultures in which there is no such thing as "my bed" and "your bed". They simply slept where they slept that night. It's hard to imagine for us because the idea of mine v. yours is so entrenched. I'm not necessarily advocating either viewpoint, simply pointing out that your conclusions stem from close-mindedness and don't really adress the issue.

@Ken
Seriously, you talk about your educating in capitalism like an epiphanic moment...it's disturbing. Education and economics operate on a continuum and are always in flux. Try to step out of your narrow little corner once in a while.

Ken: That's Star Trek for you. I like the entire franchise and I still remember skipping school to watch Next Generation when I was about 7 years old. Never cared much for the Original Series (which I saw later) or DS9. But anyway, the thing has always promoted wooly, liberal dogma, most of which I never had much of a problem with.

What I find amusing is that the pursuit of riches is usually decried either by those who are filthy rich (such as the liberal Hollywood elite a la the Voyager scriptwriters) or by those who are dirt poor (for whatever reason but usually because they either screwed up somewhere or because they're still in education and never did much real-world work). Those who have spent at least a year or two working are quite happy with the "evil" capitalist (or pseudo-capitalist, if you will) system system, even if they may have had more radical, quixotic notions back when they were in college.

----------------------------------------

Elliott: "Your analogy is very simple-minded and hardly something on which to base a theory of impossibility. There have been many cultures in which there is no such thing as "my bed" and "your bed". They simply slept where they slept that night."


Yes, usually on the ground by a fire; they didn't have anything--individually or communally--TO sleep on or in. As soon as societies advanced enough by discovering or inventing items of worth vis-a-vis the quality of life, the notion of property closely followed.

My chosen example is simple on purpose. If the system being advanced fails at the "where-do-I-sleep-tonight" hurdle, then any further discussion about it is not worth pursuing.


"[I am] simply pointing out that your conclusions stem from close-mindedness and don't really adress the issue."

What IS the issue? I hardly think it is closed-minded to rejec a philosophy, which appears to not have even theoretical merit.


And now if you will excuse me, I will go watch Escape From Alcatraz on my Dell Inspiron One touchscreen, which IS mine, for which *I* worked, and which I do NOT want to share with the rest of the world.

It's rather funny that I should come across this today considering the discussion we are having:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6J730PqBik&feature=player_embedded

"What IS the issue? I hardly think it is closed-minded to rejec a philosophy, which appears to not have even theoretical merit."

Exactly. I think the fact that I have come to the conclusions I have is because my mind was active in the first place. I do not think all philosophies have merit or can be true - we have the ability to reason and apply logic... we need to use it to figure out which is valid from what isn't... and most of the philosophies (fascism, socialism, communism, etc.) are proven to be wrong.

I will not "open" my mind to taking things on faith like Elliot seems to imply that we should. Logic is the only way of obtaining knowledge, and proper use of logic says the fantasy told in Star Trek would never work, as it has never worked in the past and doesn't work in theory either.

Bear in mind if you would that

1) property, law and liberty existed before Locke and his co-philosophers in market economics

2) all philosophies to some extent are borne of their respective ages

what your goofy little video fails to point out is that the ownership of property assumes that men work for their survival. In Locke's time, for example, this was more or less true (although ironically his time also saw a class of regal decadents who never worried about it, as well as a much larger class which could hardly guarantee its survival even working their very lives out of them). In our time, we certainly have similar needs to men of any other time, but in the 21st century, our technological abilities actual allow us to feed and house the entire over-populated planet without expecting an hour's work from more than a relative handful of people. Now, I'm not suggesting that the remainder of the populace be permitted to sit around and do nothing with their lives, but the game has changed: we no longer NEED to look out for our survival, it's guaranteed by virtue of our genius.

Our political systems however circumvent this fact by establishing and enforcing what are now out-moded archaic ideas about property. Locke's philosophy (and those of this cohorts) made sense for their time and represent the fruits of a particular age, but it is naïve and self-defeating to conserve their application to a time whose contexts and realities are different.

Going a step further, the hypothesis of Star Trek is that continued technological advancement, along with intellectual enlightenment, along with political revolution would eventually force the issue into a philosophical change in political discourse wherein our technological abilities service a social behaviour which does not centre around survival. Thus, man's work becomes a means to a different end, or perhaps an end unto itself. Either way,

I do not imply or suggest that you, Ken, take anything on "faith." I suggest you step away from the position that your philosophical "discoveries" (which as your video points out were made by better men hundreds of years ago) have presented your with an absolute and irrefutable Truth. Such things do not exist, there is a always a moment of flux, an unseen dimension, an uncharted corner of the universe, both physical and mental, which we must explore. Trekkian ideals are not the end of intellectual evolution, simply the next (theoretical) phase of it. After it, who can guess what should follow? I would wager that a science-fiction author would be the first to think of it though.

Stop right here:

"In our time, we certainly have similar needs to men of any other time, but in the 21st century, our technological abilities actual allow us to feed and house the entire over-populated planet without expecting an hour's work from more than a relative handful of people."

Are you volunteering? Should we force them to feed the whole population? Who decides on who produces food from who plays video games or develops computer software?

"Now, I'm not suggesting that the remainder of the populace be permitted to sit around and do nothing with their lives, but the game has changed: we no longer NEED to look out for our survival, it's guaranteed by virtue of our genius."

Wrong again. It wasn't YOUR genius. YOU had nothing to do with whatever you are talking about. We are a group of individuals responsible for our own failures and accomplishments... not collective takes credit for the accomplishments of everyone.

And I have to ask... what caused humanity to be in a position where more of its population can focus on other things besides the production of food? Oh... that's right! It was man's ability to create new technologies to earn profit and accomplishment! Without that incentive, we wouldn't have what we have in the first place. It seems odd to abandon it so easily now that we "have" it.

As for Locke, I never heard of him until today, nor do I claim that he was right or wrong because I have not done any research. However, Ayn Rand and many others have discussed property and I their conclusions are not "archaic". They make perfect sense and completely rational.

Why am I not surprised that Ms. Rand came into this discussion...

Look, that ugly woman wrote one book over and over again which touts bits and pieces of others' philosophies into a poor excuse for drama. The philosophies on which she bases her characters are not meritless by any means, but arguing Ayn Rand as a philosopher is like arguing Brandon Braga as a physicist.

You seem to be implying that because a certain individual or group over time created the technologies which allow for social change they are entitled to...I don't know, get MORE MONEY!!! HHAHAHA

That's like saying that if I cook a meal for a group of people, buy the ingredients and serve them I should get to eat more than anybody else. Most would call this tactless and strange. I would also call it archaic and unnecessary. So long as I, like everyone else eat my fill of the meal, I don't need anything else EXCEPT that in turn, everyone I serve treat me courteously, and offer of their own geniuses with generosity, even if they could never hope to feed a group as large as I have. My selfish impulses may desire a recompense, but those can be taught out of me, just like good manners should.

If you're going to respond, maybe do a little bit of research, my friend. While I admire your tenacity and honesty, you cannot expect to be taken seriously if you don't know what you're talking about.

"Look, that ugly woman wrote one book over and over again which touts bits and pieces of others' philosophies into a poor excuse for drama. The philosophies on which she bases her characters are not meritless by any means, but arguing Ayn Rand as a philosopher is like arguing Brandon Braga as a physicist."

So attacking her looks and her character is the first place you start a rational argument?

While she did build one some aspects of Aristotle, etc., it's not as if she didn't understand it. On the contrary, she built an entire philosophy from the ground up from the 2 basic axioms of philosophy, and proved everything. She was the first to solve many philosophical problems that have not been solved and have not been solved since, like the is-ought dichotomy and many others.

And she did complete a philosophy. Atlus Shrugged was not her philosophy, but a work on fiction with many aspects of her philosophy built in.

"You seem to be implying that because a certain individual or group over time created the technologies which allow for social change they are entitled to...I don't know, get MORE MONEY!!! HHAHAHA"

What? I don't know where to begin when you say things like this. I implied no such thing.

I simply stated that it wasn't YOUR genius that was responsible for the technologies people have developed to make it possible for more and more people to pursue other forms of productive work.

"That's like saying that if I cook a meal for a group of people, buy the ingredients and serve them I should get to eat more than anybody else."

What does this have to do with ANYTHING I have said? It has nothing to do with it.

However, if you bought all the ingredients and you cooked the meal, it is your choice whether you want to share it with anyone or not. If you want a bigger portion, it's certainly your right. Nobody has a say on what you can and can't do with your own food. If you don't want to give it to anyone else, then that's perfectly fine.

"My selfish impulses may desire a recompense, but those can be taught out of me, just like good manners should."

Are you assuming that being selfish is somehow bad or immoral? It isn't. Human beings must do what is in their rational, long-term self-interest for their own survival and happiness.

The very fact that you admit you have selfish desires is perfectly normal, because it is part of human nature. There is absolutely no need to "rise above it" - this is foolish.

"If you're going to respond, maybe do a little bit of research, my friend. While I admire your tenacity and honesty, you cannot expect to be taken seriously if you don't know what you're talking about. "

On the contrary, most of you posted is jumping to conclusions and making incorrect assumptions... not to mention character assassination without really using facts or logic to back up your points.

A person can be of the highest order of physical attractiveness and still be "ugly." I did not criticise her appearance, but her character as a human, which was ugly.

Scientific theories can be proved (some of them). Genealogies can be proved. Mathematical theorems can be proved. Philosophies by their very nature cannot be proved. They are a series of rationalisations based on a context, a perspective or a principle. I don't know what it means if she "solved philosophical problems" that no one has since also solved...

Atlas Shrugged is a poor resource for absorbing her philosophical points (weak though they are); try "The Virtue of Selfishness." Brandon Braga also understands something about physics, but when put to the test of utilising his knowledge, his knowledge falls short.

Your opinion that it is my right to demand more of what is "mine" is exactly my point to you; yes it is natural and normal to be selfish. It is also natural and normal to desire sexual intercourse with many people, strike people with whom I have an argument, ignore my responsibilities, etc. Without learnt behaviours of social conduct, I would fall prey to these instincts. It is possible to survive in such a manor if society allowed room for it, but the rules dictate otherwise. There is no reason a different set of rules could not demand different behaviours. We must "rise above" many natural instincts if we are to make progress as a species. In fact, we already have risen above many of our natural instincts to the betterment of man. This is not to say we don't lose something in that evolution: no one including myself is implying that anything is free, but species that do not change die.

You never did answer the implied question about the developments which "make it possible for more and more people to pursue other forms of productive work."

It is NOT perfectly fine that I selfishly keep my food from others for no reason other than my whim. Rationality can mean many things. Long-term can mean many things. One can easily argue that rationalism would lead one to devote one's resources to the creation of a society in which one can pursue fulfilment without paranoid fear in losing one's property to others.

and for the record, I believe consciousness, existence and self-identity are three axioms of Objectivism, not two.

"A person can be of the highest order of physical attractiveness and still be "ugly." I did not criticise her appearance, but her character as a human, which was ugly."

Sure, but if you have come to conclusion that she's wrong, how relevant is her level of attractiveness then? It has no relevance. So why bother mentioning it? The only reason I can think of is to move away from the facts - a debate tactic.

Even the fact that we are now talking about Ms. Rand and not the real issues of this debate is somewhat of a tactic to derail it.

"Philosophies by their very nature cannot be proved. They are a series of rationalisations based on a context, a perspective or a principle."

This is incorrect. She starts with 2 axioms. The first is that existence exists, and the second is the one has consciousness that perceives which exists. From there, she proves everything in metaphysics, epistemology, etc. all the way to politics and capitalism.

She wasn't right about everything (her conclusions about sex and relationships didn't make a whole lot of sense), but her fundamentals are incredibly well thought out and I haven't heard of a single argument that disproves them.

"Atlas Shrugged is a poor resource for absorbing her philosophical points (weak though they are); try "The Virtue of Selfishness." Brandon Braga also understands something about physics, but when put to the test of utilising his knowledge, his knowledge falls short."

I agree, It is fiction, not a philosophy book. I actually ALREADY said this... so why bother bringing this up for? What made you think that I had read only Atlus Shrugged? There we go with the assumptions.

I have read most of her work, especially Virtue of Selfishness and many others. I've also read Leonard Peikoff's book on Objectivism as well.

"Your opinion that it is my right to demand more of what is "mine" is exactly my point to you;"

It is not my "opinion" or "belief" - it is fact. If you buy a hamberger at mcdonalds, you absolutely do not have to share it through the use of force. However, you CAN decide to share it if sharing that hamberger is in your rational, long-term self-interest. Only YOU can decide this. No government or individual can decide this for you.

"yes it is natural and normal to be selfish. It is also natural and normal to desire sexual intercourse with many people, strike people with whom I have an argument, ignore my responsibilities, etc."

You're doing some leaping here. If you have responsibilities that are in your rational, long-term self-interest to do, then you should do them. It is not natural one way or another to ignore or do them - this is a matter of free will.

Free will is in our nature - laziness is not.

"Without learnt behaviours of social conduct, I would fall prey to these instincts. It is possible to survive in such a manor if society allowed room for it, but the rules dictate otherwise."

The measure of whatever an individual should or shouldn't do something can only be determined if it is in their rational, long-term self-interest.

Having sexual intercourse with lots of random people is probably not in your rational, long-term interest... simply because more than half of the population has a disease of some kind, there is the chance of pregnancy which would go against your long-term self-interest, and many other consequences that would seek to have a negative impact on your life.

Being selfish is actually really hard, because it does not mean being impulsive or making decisions based on emotion, which I am guessing is your assumption. This is simply not correct.

"It is NOT perfectly fine that I selfishly keep my food from others for no reason other than my whim. Rationality can mean many things. Long-term can mean many things. One can easily argue that rationalism would lead one to devote one's resources to the creation of a society in which one can pursue fulfilment without paranoid fear in losing one's property to others. "

Only YOU can determine what you want to share and who you want to share it with. Every man determines their own values, and cannot leave beyond their own means.

If is perfectly rational to not share food if you are poor. It is also perfectly rational to note share food or money with complete strangers whom you do not value in the slightest.

On the other hand, it is perfectly rational to share food with your spouse, children, friends and family if you value their company, their well-being, etc.

"You never did answer the implied question about the developments which "make it possible for more and more people to pursue other forms of productive work."

What implied question?

The law of identity is a corollary to existence. Existence is identity and consciousness is identification.

Elliott: "That's like saying that if I cook a meal for a group of people, buy the ingredients and serve them I should get to eat more than anybody else. Most would call this tactless and strange. I would also call it archaic and unnecessary. So long as I, like everyone else eat my fill of the meal, I don't need anything else EXCEPT that in turn, everyone I serve treat me courteously, and offer of their own geniuses with generosity, even if they could never hope to feed a group as large as I have."

So, you DO expect something in return. You expect them to reciprocate with something, even if it's not food or cooking a similar meal in turn. You would like to use something they are, have or create. That's bartering. That's acknowledging the existence of assets and ascribing relative value to them. That's capitalism.

Or are you saying that you would be happy to "cook a meal for a group of people, buy the ingredients and serve them" continually? If these are infants, elderly or the infirm, I can understand that. But would you REALLY invest whatever you create or "earn" (insofar as earning is possible when there is no property) over and over again to feed someone who sits under a tree every waking hour while you're digging up the potatoes to feed them later?! Somehow, I doubt that very much.

So, I dare assume you would argue that there would need to be some kind of control at some level of who does what. Now: Who exercises that control and on what basis? In any case, that is called a command economy where a more-or-less central entity determines how resources (e.g. manpower) are distributed. I think much of the world tried that in the latter half of the last century, to none too salutary an outcome.

The bottom line is this: Are you happy to take any toothbrush lying around to brush your teeth with and are you happy for anyone who so pleases to take "yours"? Yes, it IS that simple! If the answer is no, then you acknowledge the existence and the importance of the existence of property. If yes, then, well, you are part of a tiny minority, which I seriously doubt will ever gather pace for rather obvious reasons.

The law of identity is a corollary to existence. Existence is identity and consciousness is identification.

What? Have you ever seen any, even basic mathematical proofs in semi-group theory? Field theory?

It's possible to prove that there can only be one identity element in any semi-group - because if you posit that there are two, it's easy to prove that i_1 and i_2 are in fact the same element.

But it's certainly possible that there are semi-groups without an identity element - and proving the existence of something within a mathematical structure is often a much harder task than proving stuff about the properties of that thing should it happen to exist in the first place.

"Existence is identity" reads like suspiciously woolly thinking to me.

but arguing Ayn Rand as a philosopher is like arguing Brandon Braga as a physicist.

OMG...that was so awesome.

Finally found something worse than the episode - some of the comments.

Star Trek (except perhaps DS9 or parts of it) is based on a very optimistic/idealistic world where we have become an "enlightened" species who genuinely are all self-motivated and gain real enjoyment from working for the betterment of ourselves / the species / Federation / etc and helping others.

It may be difficult to imagine because actually we are NOT enlightened - for one, many are lazy (as strong capitalist advocates are quick to point out when they feel welfare is getting a little generous), and on the other side of the coin many are greedy and selfish (as strong communist advocates are quick to point out when one guy is living in luxury and others are dying of starvation)

In their world these things do not exist. We have evolved. It may not seem realistic, but there's nothing wrong with optimism especially in fiction.

In an ideal world like Star Trek where everyone is self-motivated (i.e. where the problem of lazy people benefiting from the work of others doesn't arise or if it does it's a very rare exception and possibly considered a mental illness) I see capitalism as the more "evil" system (I'll not get into defining good and evil, but suffice to say it seems to vary between religious and/or socialist views) as the whole thing basically then revolves around deception and tricking others into giving you more wealth because you are more arrogant than the next guy.

Don't get me wrong, I don't see capitalism as "evil" in our present form. I actually see our system of mostly capitalism with government regulation as the most fair, though it's a tricky balance that no government so far has really got right (instead one tends to go too far in a particular direction and the opposite government gets voted in for 10 years or so, rinse and repeat - at least in the UK). Without ANY intervention greed would take over and people would be left to die in the streets (not all of them necessarily get there through laziness either and I don't see it that lazy people deserve to die). Not to mention less fortunate countries. At the other end of the scale when it gets overly "left", people sit there taking welfare while everyone else does the hard work. It's all in balance, and fanaticism on either side is stupid IMO.

This thing about "stealing" property: to be fair, that is only applicable if you had a concept of property in the first place. This seems to me like a problem that stems from trying to convert a capitalist country into a communist one, which does tend to require these acts of "evil". Star Trek's world developed through World War III, an apocalypse of sorts that destroyed everything and led them to having to rebuild human society from scratch, which is perhaps the only "fair" way it could occur. As it stands capitalism is already the world's foundation, and it can't really be converted.

Now then, I've forgotten what the episode was even about! Oh yeah, a very worrying form of mind control where people seem to act perfectly normally, it's like Kes's syndrome in Fury - these people are conscious of their decision to turn "bad" as if it's perfectly rationalised in their own minds. It's not like normal mind control where it's obvious to anyone they're being controlled and opens up a huge can of worms (how many others may have been controlled like this throughout the Marquis or even the Federation?). I prefer not to think about it. It's an episode that wasn't thought out (no surprises there) and is trash.

Oh yeah to address an even older point, why we complain. It's not all complaints, sometimes it's high praise! But go and look up what critics do and come back. I'm just participating in comments, maybe a rough amateur critic of sorts, but of course Jammer is a professional critic (well that's how I view him anyway) and this is what they do. Why? Well what are people's motivation for other things: entertainment for others, self enjoyment, perhaps a living. In the case of criticising fiction, perhaps to encourage better quality - many are not consciously aware of what makes good or bad quality fiction, and so the critics speak for them.

At the same time I do personally value the views of those who don't think about things so much (even our beloved action junkie :)) as sometimes one tends to over-think things when they're just intended for light entertainment or casual action.

For me adding to the comments and adding my own criticism and nitpicks (as well as high praise where it applies) is just something I enjoy doing. If others appreciate my views or offer a reasonable great, if not, fine.

If I do complain it's mostly because I know Star Trek's creators were capable of so much more than what they sometimes mindlessly churned out for Voyager. They got complacent in Star Trek's success and became a bit lazy I think, and it's sometimes frustrating. I also think that it became a bit too much of a brand related profit generation exercise instead of all the obvious heartfelt passion that went into most of TNG and DS9.

I still watch it though - partly because I'm a Star Trek fan and want to see all of them (when DS9 and Voy first aired Sky One messed up with the schedule too much and I never managed to keep up). Partly because it's actually had some damn good periods, and all in all the first few seasons were good enough to get me hooked and caring about the series as a whole and its characters that I am in for the full ride. Thankfully nothing has been bad enough to put me off completely.

In the third to last paragraph I meant "offer a reasonable debate, then great". Not used to these non editable systems these days :)

Just FYI so you can judge any bias, my political compass is approximately central but very slightly to the top left.

I'm not a passionate fan of capitalism, but believe it be the best system the world has thus far "invented"/evolved into and the most suitable to the world as it is.

I am skeptical about the possibility of a truly self-motivated society EVER emerging. That would require not just langor and avarice to be eliminated (or considered a mental illness), but a shift in people's perception of the meaning of life. Self-motivation would entail perceiving the good of the society as worthwhile--and not just as worthwhile but as the highest goal to aspire toward.

That may be difficult to accomplish and sustain. Right now people are driven by greed, religion or some other self-fulfilment, i.e. for their own benefit here and now or in the putative afterlife (by and large). It would require a seismic shift in perception of self, society AND one's role in spacetime for us to move to a more altruistic people. For us to want to work for the benefit of the society first, we would have to believe in that society, its continuity through time and its value through time. Given that societies last centuries or a few millennia at the most, which is nothing compared to the posited infinity of spacetime, would many not feel their lives being wasted if they put the transient society first? (Of course, the same applies to self, as opposed to the society. However, we want to benefit ourselves because the benefit is more readly obvious. That is the reason we prefer a higher paycheck to paying taxes even though the latter, ultimately, benefits us just as much if not more as the former.)

Oh I don't know; I lost my train of thought! LOL!

I can agree with those comments (first time for everything hehe!)

Suppose the point, as far as I'm concerned, is that it's about as feasible as anything else in Star Trek: not very. But it doesn't stop me enjoying it, or dreaming. I think the original comment that triggered this huge debate was a complaint that it exists in the Trek universe - well it's highly optimistic fiction that features many things about as likely as pixies and magic so whilst this episode is a bit of a stretch in many ways... I don't think this is one of them.

Okay, far too many comments with too much in depth analysis on this episode. This isn't a serious episode. That established, it's actually no where near as bad as made out (and this isn't the only review site to mark it so bad).

Watching this yet again just now, it's not brilliant, but it's not awful either, and is enjoyable to watch if you just disengage Trek geekness and forget the logical flaws. On average it works as an okay mystery for a fair bit of the episode, then gets a bit daft but still passably enjoyable with the takeover of the ship.

The only thing that irritates me is the thing that irritates me in so many Trek episodes (new and old), and that's the last scene "Everything is back to normal" scene. Extremely common in Star Trek where the episode climax comes up and next scene everything is fixed without showing what happened. So many times have I almost kicked the TV when we get "Captain's Log, everything fixed". Aghhhhh!

Maybe this is because of the way American TV places the last ad break before the epilogue scene any many people switch to another channel or leave the room at that point so the last scene is generally inconsequential (odd concept as a Brit I should add).

Anyway, in general, nothing brilliant, but a slightly memorable episode and enjoyable enough. Doesn't achieve much, but it's Trek. Unlike episodes like 11:59 which are truly utterly pointless episodes. Nothing at all to do with Star Trek and really does achieve absolutely nothing (and not really enjoyable either!).

Holy crap. For anyone else reading these comments, it's all capitalism vs. communism until Tim just above.