The Relevance of Serenity
POSTED BY: MarsOrBust
UPDATED: Monday, May 8, 2006 08:22
VIEWED: 8521
PAGE 1 of 5
Howdy,
Like everybody else here i think that Serenity/Firefly is about the shiniest thing ever, but I wonder how many fans understand the metaphors pertinent to our own society and the direction that it is heading.
As an aspiring writer and avid reader of History, it has occured to me that Humanity can be generally divided into two different and diametrically opposed gestalt-consciousnesses. There are Freedom People and there are Security People.
"Freedom" as conceived of in the American Experienceis one that was born and fostered in a frontier environment. The idea being that we are free to do as we please as long as we are not physically harming another individual or damaging another's property. As anyone can see, we have moved very far away from this and have for the most part done so willingly in exchange for a greater amount of perceived Security.
Part of this or maybe most of it is due to population density. The more people there are in any given space, the more thier activities will have some effect on others. In other words, the more people there are, the less freedom you have.
This is manifested today in the legal phenomena known as Community Rights. We see more and more the rights of the individual being submerged in the interests of the collective. As population continues to grow roughly exponentially, how is it that freedom will survive this century? To me the obvious answer is that it won't, at least for those not willing to say good-bye to this world and exchange its security for the freedom of the Frontier.
It is likely that before mid-century that we will live under a Global Government. We will all have health-care, large-scale warfare will be non-existent, everybody will get an education, criminal enterprise will be very difficult, our children will be very safe...and we will all do exactly what the f*** we are told.
I think that most relevant metaphor represented in this wonderful story is that greater security will always come at the price of reduced freedoms.
This argument is the basis of the Culture War that rages in American politics today.
So what are you? Pro-Alliance (liberal) or a Browncoat (conservative/Libertarian)?
I am new here, so I'm quite sure that this topic is common on this board. I'm just trying to get a feel for who's out here and why other than for thier justifiable love for Serenity.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wait, I'm confused here. Browncoats would be conservatives? I'm sorry, but who is it in the Big House tryin to take all our freedoms away and saying it's for security purposes?
Other than that one, I guess I don't disagree on any particular point. I'm pretty freedom-loving myself, though I wouldn't see anything wrong with a better education system. Just seems like educated people make more of their freedoms, but that's just my impression. I think totalitarianism is wrong, and that people should be able to live their lives, but isn't there a happy medium somewhere? Freedom doesn't mean total anarchy, y'know? I don't like war, or an overabudnace of ignorance, or having to worry about safety, but then if you have to do whatever you're told, you're not really safe, are you? No, not at all. I think there's a halfway decent system in place right now; a nice balance of freedom and security. Should be basically left alone. Of course it won't be.
*************************************************
One summer.
One mission.
One legion of Browncoats.
Starting June 23rd, we aim to misbehave.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
MarsorBust,
First off, I like your nick, I always tell my children if they opened up the space shot to Mars to regular folk, their Mom would be waiting in line to go.
Second, and this is not on the topic of your post, and I hope you don't find this silly, but I'm a gonna do it anyway... cuz I usually do what the hell I wanna do.....
I hand out browncoats - albeit virtual to new folks as a sort of greeting...
*hands MarsorBust a browncoat that fits... somehow they always do!* 
There now that the ceremony has been stood on, so to speak...
In answer to your post... I think you will find many different minded folks on this site, some are liberal/anti-Alliance, some are conservative/anti-Alliance and there are shades in between. I don't believe personally that being a believer in personal liberty is not compatible with many ideas. I think they can dwell well together.
My two cents... I'll bet you get lots of answers.
In the meantime, I hope you enjoy our boat, it's the nicest and share the 'verse with lots of folks, please, we all want more!
"You hold. Hold 'til I get back." Mal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
This argument is the basis of the Culture War that rages in American politics today.
So what are you? Pro-Alliance (liberal) or a Browncoat (conservative/Libertarian)?
Interestingly enough, I consider myself a liberal (small l) and see myself as a Browncoat (i.e. I favor freedom over tyranny).
This may just be my opinion, but I see the Conservatives as the group that wants to destroy personal freedom the most. The Liberals certainly restrict freedom more than I would like, but their aims seem to be to make everyone treat each other fairly and be nice to each other. On the other hand the Conservatives just want everyone to conform to their religious beliefs (which I do not hold). So in my opinion, while they are BOTH guilty of Alliancizing our country, the Liberals are the lesser of the evils (barely). My 2 cents.
P.S. While I agree in principal that the government will move towards complete globalization, I think that a century is not enough time. While I think that there is a good chance that we will be well on our way by the end of the century I think that there is still too much nationalism and independence for a complete World Government anytime soon.
P.P.S. Who wants to bet how long it takes for this thread to be moved to Real World Discussions?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well Rose, I suppose it would depend on one's filter.
Personally I think we are screwed no matter which way we go as our diminishing freedom is the result of over-population. Government seems to grow unabated regardless of who is in charge because the proliferation of people= the proliferation of Law to govern their affairs.
I beleive it is possible to get to totalitarianism by going to far to the left or the right.
I am a Republican however for the following reasons: the republicans want to lower my taxes, not raise them, they don't want to take away my guns and they don't want to surrender our national sovereignty to the UN.
Many liberal are Globalists, which in the metaphorical sense makes them Alliance in my book.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks for the coat Mal.
It is intersting that both sides of the Culture War regard themselves to be the Brown-Coats.
It seems to me however that most liberals seem to confuse security for Freedom, women in particular as big goverment is their Empowerment Apparatus.
However, if one uses Serenity as metaphor and breaks it down, one can see that it is the Conservatives that are the browncoats.
-Liberals are commonly Globalists who favor World Goverment over national sovereignty. UN=Alliance
-Liberals seek to overturn our 2nd Amendment rights; supposedly in the name of public safety but it will also hamper our efforts to throw tyranny off of us.
-Liberals continuously seek larger government and higher taxes to fund the bureaucracies they require for their "empowerment".
-Liberals advance "Community Rights" over individual liberties; the submergence of the Individual under the Collective; it is tainted with Marxism from top to bottom.
The list can go on and on.
Nope: the Conservatives are the Browncoats. There are those that would charge that the Republican Party has become a vehicle for Christian Theocracy; I think this is paranoia.
It is interesting to note that in the pilot, Mal kissed a crucifix on his necklace and Book was obviously a Christian missionary. This seems to have inverted in the movie with the Operative's references to "sins". It is a bit fuzzy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
. . . I suppose it would depend on one's filter.
Absolutely, though many forget that they too have such a filter in place.
Quote:
Personally I think we are screwed no matter which way we go as our diminishing freedom is the result of over-population. Government seems to grow unabated regardless of who is in charge because the proliferation of people= the proliferation of Law to govern their affairs.
I am not sure I agree, though it could take too many words to explain. I think have ONE governing body over too many people leads to problems (perhaps addressing your reference to 'over population') as does the policing of too many activities.
Quote:
I beleive it is possible to get to totalitarianism by going to far to the left or the right.
Agreed.
Quote:
I am a Republican however for the following reasons: the republicans want to lower my taxes, not raise them, they don't want to take away my guns and they don't want to surrender our national sovereignty to the UN.
To me, it does little to lower my taxes and continue to spend at an ever increasing rate (even when accounting for increased expeditures due to wars the past 4+ years). This money will have to be accounted for, whether by me & you or our children. If not a tax now, on us, then a tax on those yet to be born. Personally, I would rather have the spending cut AND THEN address tax cuts. I also do not trust the government on the issue of guns either. I feel few in Washington know the true nature of the Second Amendment.
Quote:
Many liberal are Globalists, which in the metaphorical sense makes them Alliance in my book.
Many are, and I feel that many Capitalistic corporations are 'globalist' as well. Also, remember NAFTA and President Bush's expansion. The Republicans are no better in this regard, but instead of being driven by what they feel will help the poor, they seem to be driven by what the feel with help the corporations.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
Personally I think we are screwed no matter which way we go as our diminishing freedom is the result of over-population. Government seems to grow unabated regardless of who is in charge because the proliferation of people= the proliferation of Law to govern their affairs.
Agree completely except that there is a fix to overpopulation. Mandatory limits on how many children can be had. I know that this didn't work in China but that was mainly because the Chinese place so much emphasis on having boys that girls would be kicked to the curb and the couples would try again.
Quote:
I beleive it is possible to get to totalitarianism by going to far to the left or the right.
Agree completely.
Quote:
I am a Republican however for the following reasons: the republicans want to lower my taxes, not raise them, they don't want to take away my guns and they don't want to surrender our national sovereignty to the UN.
I agree with the guns and sovereignty parts, but you are aware that spending the same\more while cutting taxes causes problems right?
Quote:
Many liberal are Globalists, which in the metaphorical sense makes them Alliance in my book.
I am glad you said many and not all. I identify more with the liberals\democrats but I would favor a much more isolationist "let them srew themselves why should we care" viewpoint for our Foreign Affairs.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think that we will see Global Government much sooner than you think my friend, for the following reason:
There appears to be what I call a "Quasi-Logarythmic" scale to History.
Are you familiar with Dialectic Theory?
Dialectic Theory began with George Hegel in the 19th Century and was co-opted by Karl Marx as the philosophical basis of Socialism/Communism.
The Marxist Dialectic diagram depicts History as a series of struggles between classes that he beleived would result in a socialist utopia.
If you have never seen the digram, it is basically a series of triangles set on on top the others; anchored on a diagonal axis that represents linear time. The base of each triangle is called the Struggle line.
Each triangle represents an Era of History. The idea being that no idea triumphs over its opposite. They instead eventually co-opt each other and become one new thing. Thesis vs. Antithesis= New Synthesis.
Unorganized Society(prehistoric man) vs The Division of Labor (invention of tools and weapons) resulted in the Empires of Antiquity.
The Empires of Antiquity vs. Barbarism resulted in Aristocracy( the Barbarian warlords becoming the Nobles that ruled the outer reaches of the Empires under oaths of fealty).
Aristocracy vs. the Merchant class resulted in Democratic Capitalism.
Marx beleived that Democratic Capitalism would struggle with the working class producing a world-wide Communist Utopia. That didn't happen obviously.
Instead, Democratic Capitalism struggled with various forms of Totalitarianism ( Fascism and Communism), producing the current hybrid: Communitarianism.
Global Communitarianism is now in Struggle with Theocracy and its primary vehicle: Terrorism.
One can only imagine that the result will be Global Theocratic Communitarianism. Religion will be State and Stae will be Religion. The War of the Three Faiths as I call it (Christianity vs Islam vs Liberal Humanism) is merely the battle that will determine the dogmas and sacraments of the new Regime.
The hitch is this: If one moves linear time to the struggle lines of the diagram, a disturbing picture emerges. The Progressive Eras were not of equal length.
One can say that it required less than 100,000 yrs for the struggle between Unorganized Society and the Division of Labor to produce the Early Empires. It took less than 10,000 yrs for the struggle between Empire and Barbariwm to produce Aristocracy. Less than 1000 yrs for the struggle between Arostocracy and the Merchant class to produce Democratic Capitalism. Less than 100 yrs for the struggle between Democratic Capitalism and Totalitarianism (fascism/communism) to produce Communitarianism. So if the model follows it will require a decade or less to produce the Final Result of History.
History has a shape. It is a Pyramid and we're almost at the top of it. It is shrinking to Zero becasue the venue ( the Earth) is finite. We are running out of what I call "Geo-political Space-time".
According to this model, the only way for History to go on and avoid Orwellian Totalitariansim is for the venue to expand to incorporate the whole of the Solar System; Mars in particular.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
It seems to me however that most liberals seem to confuse security for Freedom, women in particular as big goverment is their Empowerment Apparatus.
Really? Which party constantly tells Americans that they must give up freedoms in the name of security? NSA warrantless wiretaps are for our own good. Operation TIPs, Total Information Awareness, etc., under which government were such agencies set up and funded?
Quote:
However, if one uses Serenity as metaphor and breaks it down, one can see that it is the Conservatives that are the browncoats.
-Liberals are commonly Globalists who favor World Goverment over national sovereignty. UN=Alliance
Just as shaky an arguement . . . many conservatives desire the United States to rule over everything since we are the sole remaining super power. Therefore, US = Alliance?
Quote:
-Liberals seek to overturn our 2nd Amendment rights; supposedly in the name of public safety but it will also hamper our efforts to throw tyranny off of us.
I agree with the last portion of that statement, but are you aware the President Bush expressed a desire to sign an assault weapons ban? Also, what good does a handgun do when the potentially tolitarian government commands Abrams and Apaches?
Quote:
-Liberals continuously seek larger government and higher taxes to fund the bureaucracies they require for their "empowerment".
Again, Republicans spend just as much or more (this did not used to be the case) and while they do not tax you personally, it still represents a debt that must be paid, either by you (and me) or our children & grand-children. I would rather bear the brunt than pass it along to those yet to be born. Though, it would be nice to have spending brought under control and be done with it.
Quote:
-Liberals advance "Community Rights" over individual liberties; the submergence of the Individual under the Collective; it is tainted with Marxism from top to bottom.
And what do you make of Conservatives pushing into the realm of governing bedroom behavior? Do you forget or forgive those intrusions?
Quote:
The list can go on and on.
Yes, though we should avoid generalities when possible.
Quote:
Nope: the Conservatives are the Browncoats.
I strongly disagree. If any individual group were to definatively "the Browncoats", I feel it would have to be Libertarian. I go my way, you go yours . Your mileage may vary.
Quote:
There are those that would charge that the Republican Party has become a vehicle for Christian Theocracy; I think this is paranoia.
Really? Then what about the big "hubbub" over Bush being such a good Christian (a claim, I feel, is flatly wrong)?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME