THE PRIME DIRECTIVE

MAIN DISCUSSION

NON-NEUTRALITY OF THE PRIME DIRECTIVE

The argument "living means conflict with the Prime Directive is inevitable" (see the above section MAIN DISCUSSION: INEVITABLE CONFLICT WITH THE PRIME DIRECTIVE) does not mean the Federation should abandon the Prime Directive, for what the Federation supports is one of the ways that defines what the organisation is and what it stands for. The British government supports via the input of taxpayers' money a number of non-mainstream projects often representing minority views which the majority of taxpayers would probably vote against supporting if they had the specific opportunity, and the government does so in order to demonstrate support for them regardless of the viability of the project; in summary it is a stand for principles and/or a charity feel-good factor for the government (some mechanisms and the reasons for supporting such non-mainstream projects are nicely explained in the BBC's satirical comedy 'Yes, Prime Minister'). The Federation is obliged to support the non-interference principle of the Prime Directive (here, let us not go into the detail of how much non-interference), whether wholeheartedly or as a token gesture. It would be impossible to have a neutral or compromise situation - there must either be the Prime Directive or not, and not to have it would not be simply neutral but actively negative, i.e. it would be an actual positive declaration against the Prime Directive's principles. The Federation, fortunately, is not the sort of organisation to have just a token principle - that is not what heroes of television shows do or should do. And therefore, the Federation is obliged to embrace the Prime Directive wholeheartedly.