The principle has good reason to it. The problem is understanding how the practice of this principle of utilitarianism will affect society.
Justification of using this utilitarianism principle in practice requires that there be no assumptions, and that you're forced to make a choice in a situation where you cannot ask for consent. The choice must also rationally weigh the pros and cons the outcome of the choice will have morally on society.
There really is no other way I can reason where you could implement this kind of principle into written law onto a society of people without having more harm come from it than good.
The principle on its own, when practiced by the individual of their own free will, tends to be fine until they get control over other people's lives. That's why consent is so important to have in this principle's practice.
"The needs of the many" refers firstly, to the basic needs and rights of the collective. More often than not, this includes everybody, not simply the majority.
The central message of the phrase is to emphasize that, if the desires of a few individuals infringe upon the rights of "the many", being the collective, then they are harmful to the society as a whole, and it would be a waste of resources to cater exclusively to such.
What part is Nimroy best known for? Most likely Star Trek's Spock. Now riddle me this, do you honestly believe that Capitalism is the way to go in space? Humanity needs to outgrow these mythical desires in order to exand their knowledge about the galaxy around them. Star Trek's future depends on a post-Capital society based on the idea that each human an alien is special and deserves respect as such. So if you honestly think that Communism and Socialism is about the murder of society, look to Star Trek and remember that the Federation is a benevolent institution designed to bring unity, autonomy, and equality through a collective field. Almost like Socialism or Communism.