Good afternoon.
Were viewers supposed to sympathize with turncoat Michael Eddington while he rebuked his former organization? I remember being momentarily shocked someone so close to The Federation would say something like that, but the man's words didn't resonate with me in the slightest. Many years later, I find that his broadside eerily resembles similar polemics delivered by real-world people of a particular political orientation.
"Sure, with that system, you'll have your dietary, housing, medical, intellectual and social needs met, but you're giving up freedom!"
P.S. His later complaint concerning a lack of fresh food in The Federation is puzzling; most starships of a significant size store perishable foodstuffs and/or grow their own produce in a hydroponics (airponics?) bay. Also, there are Federation worlds that - again - grow their own food.
Frankly, I agree with Eddington's assessment of the Federation. But since the writers were determined to portray him as a villain, I guess they had to find a way to make his assessment less meaningful with bad behavior. One of the problems I have with the Trek franchise is that it rarely allowed the Federation or Starfleet to pay the consequences for their bad or morally questionable decisions and behavior. The franchise's writers would allow them to happen and then either forget about them or focus on the problems or flaws of other races.