Is it wrong to be Pro- Alliance ?

POSTED BY: Booksword
UPDATED: Sunday, March 28, 2010 01:34
VIEWED: 35713
PAGE 1 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

BOOKSWORD

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 5:41 PM

I love my big damn heroes, I mean who wouldn't?

I get that in the large scheme of things they where pretty much screwed over. But didnt the vote go towards the Alliance in the first place.
Besides I like my Verse to be orderly and all.

I get that the Alliance is an Elitist goverment but lets face it. Some bastard needs to do the job. Whoever is in charge somebody gets screwed and exploited.

Its corrupt, its flawed and it allows travesties to take place.

But this has been the case of the Roman Empire, modern times and most proberly the future.

I love Trek and all but there was a minor flaw in the Utopian peaceful loving theme. Basicaly the only thing you can count people on doing is being people.

Plus if the Independents won, what would be the odds that its member planets would start fighting amongst each other.

Planet A doesnt like Planet B because it has a different religion. Planet C envies Planet D due to its resources and suspects that Planet D is screwing them over in trade. Planet E refuses to help Planet F who is facing famine to feed its own populace.

With the Alliance its one pain in the ass over all. The Independents are united by the common enemy or adversary. There is some resemblance of law , not much but something.

Checks and balances.

I dunno, just a thought I had.

ARCADIA

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 5:54 PM

No, it wasn't wrong to support the Alliance. It does, after all, genuinely want to make the universe better for the people who live in it. There is nothing wrong with that thought, even if they have proven that their good intentions can lead to redically bad practices.

And you completely have a point with the planet A planet B thing. Think of US history, back to a different war, the Revolutionary War. Afterwards, we spent years under the articles of confederation and the thing you just described is pretyt much what happened. Each state had a different currency, making it difficult to travel. Each start was suspicous of other states. There was chaos and disarray. All their state governments were in serious danger of falling apart. So, they unified, and this made them strong.

The problem, of course, is that the Alliance does have the desire to make life in the universe standard and uniform, which isn't right. On the other hand, in the process of doing so, they may eventually ease lots of the poverty on the rim planets and improve the quality of life, which is good. They aren't doing so now mostly because they don't have the personel resoursed, but in twenty years, Serenity will be sailing in a very different 'verse.

But yeah, it truly was a war with ambiguous rights and wrongs, which is true of most wars. Our BDH might always believe that they were on the right side (with the exception of Inara, who supported unification, and Book, who might have served the Alliance, and Simon and River, who probably were too young to be that invested), the truth is that it was probably best, in the long run, for the Alliance to win.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Objects in Space"

River: It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think...
http://www.stillflying.net/ <-- Check it out!

STICK

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 6:25 PM

Quote:
From the BDM:

Teacher: Why wouldn't everyone want the peace and serenity of the aliance?

(young)River: we meddle.

Teacher: what?

River: we meddle... we tell them what to do, were to go, what to think...

Teacher: No river, we don't tell them what to think... we tell them how-*Jabs forehead with cutting knife*

Though this all happens in a 'dream' sequence, I think it was Joss's way of introducing the big 'bad' alliance and describing why the independents were 'right' to rebel against them.

Was the 'verse better off with a unified government? maybe... Maybe if the Independents won a sort of federation would have formed instead. Maybe a kind of U.N. but with planets. Would this system have been better? No one could say for sure.

The thing about comparing the alliance to the roman empire is that the history of the time was mainly written by Romans. Therefore, it's a little biased. We can look back and see the positives that came out of the time period, but quantifying what was lost is a bit more difficult.

Anywho I could go on and on about this subject and all the parrallels that could be drawn here but that might get a bit boring so i'll shut up now

Quote:

the truth is that it was probably best, in the long run, for the Alliance to win.

Not necessarily... Your assuming that the alliance will last. There's always the chance the alliance (after years of abuse of power, overstretched resources, and the culmination of their sins (Reavers and River

) )simply collapses in on itself leading to a bloody power struggle that could last years if not decades.

BOOKSWORD

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 7:09 PM

Actualy I would consider the Parliment to be the true evil.

In the original pilot the Commander on the ship wanted to check for survivours, it was his concern for another ship that allowed Serenity to get away.

Goverments meddle, the sway opinion and tell us what to think.

We are free to think what we want.

In the dream we see that most Alliance people work on an assumption of the outer worlds. No real dealing with people on the outer Rim.

The Alliance will survive because of a basic reality, we need order. Are they monstorous bastard yes, but perhaps Miranda will be the wake up call to the people in the Core Worlds that all is not well and to stop seeing the world in rose tinted glasses.

The problem with Necessary Evil is not the Evil part mostly, its the Necessary.

REGINAROADIE

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 8:30 PM

I love questions like these because they're so loaded. It really makes you think about politics and the world you live in and what exactly is it you want and what system is the best way to attain that.

I am a firm believer in human rights and equality and all that. I know it may seem like a fairy tales (and at times it feels like it), but I honestly believe that it is attainable. So of course I'm all for the Browncoats and them wanting a more progressive and democratic galactic rule. But I'm also for an efficient government. And when I say efficient, I don't mean autocratic or dictatorial. I mean efficient as in a good health care system, a good education level, a government that isn't hundreds of billions of dollars in debt and is running in a way that years or decades down the line won't collapse on itself.

Stanley Kubrick once said that his favored political system is a "benign dictatorship". I wouldn't go that far. Personally, so long as a political system isn't running the risk of devolving into complete chaos and becoming a MAD MAX like future, then fine by me.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"There's only one "Return" ok, and it ain't "of the King", it's "of the Jedi."

"Maybe we should start calling your friend 'Padme' because he loves 'Mannequin Skywalker' so much, Right? (imitating robot) Danger...danger...my name is Anakin...my shitty acting is ruining saga."

Excerpt of internet teaser for CLERKS 2.

LINCOLN

Thursday, April 20, 2006 6:02 PM

It is all shades of gray, how dark are you? Bad guys that steal but do the right thing versus REAL bad guys who pretent to do the right thing? The alliance cares for the little guy only enough to keep them inline (while taking from them evything they can), and if that doesnt work crushes them at war...

MIranda is the result of an experiement gone wrong and then hidden, Nazi germany performed experements in "control" and tried to hide the results... while the german people basked in the glory of thier new alliance.

So if you want to stick you head in the sand and enjoy your comfortable life while those on the raggedy fringe suffer, then yes its ok to be Pro-Alliance.

On the other hand it is fiction and its always fun to root for the bad guys on occasion, darth vader makes a scene much more interesting

BARTICUS

Thursday, April 20, 2006 7:15 PM

Yup of course its wrong to be pro-alliance....pro alliance means backing an empire that offers safety and control but all an empire ever does is offer safety to the elite and dupes the poorfolk into fighting for greater glory....like every other empire that has ever existed...the good folks of serenity aren't doing anything illegal when they're smuggling etc....they're just smuggling stuff deemed contraband by the alliance...the alliance who will no doubt be working for the big Pharma and all their shareholders thus making anything non Pharma contraband...i can't believe some of the comments here saying that empire is a necessary evil...believe me i'm english and it never did us any good....it did the rich good but thats the point....america fought against this and due to the founding fathers they set up a perfect system of congress, senate and presidency to cancel each other out and for one not to gain dominance and to sell out the country ....it lasted 200 years and long may it continue.
Personally i also think that that is why firefly got cancelled in the first place....if firefly was all about the adventures of the alliance? Then no contest it'd still be running....as Star trek and Babylon 5 prove with their One World Government visions.

MER

Thursday, April 20, 2006 8:04 PM

Really, it's up to you if whether or not you should be pro-alliance. They have done good, but at what cost?

Also, I'm more concerned with Blue Sun than their damn government. It's a company who has total control over things. I seriously don't doubt that they're trying to slowly take over the alliance by big coporation.

But that's the paranoid in me talking.

LINCOLN

Thursday, April 20, 2006 9:45 PM

Blue Sun - Alliance

same thing or at least at the root of each you will find the same source...

GELASSENHEIT

Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:27 PM

power corrupts no matter what form of government is in charge.

Gelassenheit means Serenity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE