An Objectivist's Dilemna

[Straha]

Should an objectivist love or hate ST: Voyager?


Should he love it because:
Voyager did make money, tons of it in fact. It gave no care to people who would stop it, and performed exactly like Henry Rearden or Dagny Taggart would.

Or should they hate it because it was the worst show ever.

P.S. if you don't know much about Objectivism don't vote, or abstain

[RogueIce]

I went for "Quick Dalton, lock this thread!"

[Lord Pounder]

*sniffs the air*

hmmmm..... I love the smell of spam in the morning/afternoon/evening.

[Stormbringer]

Ah, this is pure Star Trek for sure so off it goes.

[Straha]

Ah, this is pure Star Trek for sure so off it goes.

I would say it is a logic/morality issue and thus should go in SLM

[Joe]

Love the fact that it makes money and is a good that people want to consume, hate the actual good, and the fact that the people want to consume it.

[johnmarkley]

A lot would depend on what sort of Objectivist we're dealing with. If it's Leonard Peikoff or one of the other ARI types, they'd probably say you were a moral monster for even thinking about such a collectivist show, you anti-life mysticist bastard . David Kelley and his guys would probably disapprove of Star Trek's collectivist/altruist message but respect the fact that it's creators created something that people valued and enjoyed while making big bucks for themselves.

It gave no care to people who would stop it, and performed exactly like Henry Rearden or Dagny Taggart would.

That's a horrifying thought: Berman and Braga as the heroic, Howard Roark-like creators. I suppose that would make anyone with good taste Ellsworth Toohey.

[Rye]

Well, to be fair, it did have some good ideas, just wank dialogue and characters.

Crusade could have been like voyager in the b5 verse, but nooooo, got to get cancelled after 13 episodes.