The Relevance of Serenity
POSTED BY: MarsOrBust
UPDATED: Monday, May 8, 2006 08:22
VIEWED: 8521
PAGE 2 of 5
Well Fred, one can't very well regulate how many children people have without expanding the role of government in peoples lives to a totalitarian state.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
Well Fred, one can't very well regulate how many children people have without expanding the role of government in peoples lives to a totalitarian state.
True, but the other choice is exactly what you were saying earlier, the government growing with the population. Either way the government gets more power, but limiting the population would (hopefully) give a sharp rise of government control followed by a decline as population declines. More realisticaly the government would probably keep its power but the idea is (more or less) sound.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by sacredchao: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?
As a fromer participant in the Militia Movement in this country in the 90's, I am well aware of the survaillance environment in which we live. Do you beleive for one second that this apparatus wasn't there prior to 9-11? It was already there and simply expanded. Do you really bleleive that this apparatus will be dimantled if the Dems retake power? Nope, it will be there and retooled for further domestic spying. This time with greater emphasis of "domestic terrorism" which is liberal code for all those not liberal.
Folks were not buying guns, burying them in the hills and forming into cells for nothing back then my friend. I was far more fearful for my Constitutional freedom back in those days than I am now.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?
Well, perhaps that is a conundrum. Perhaps there is no equality and either the US will rule or be ruled. If those are my only choices then: God Bless America.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?
Totally agree. Jefferson would want you to have all kinds of toys in your garage for that specific reason. Personally, all of this is why i am such a Mars Advocate as it seems my choices will be one of three: Slave, Oppressor, or Pioneer.
I prefer the third choice.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.
9-11 and the War on Terror provoked the Republicans to stray from their normal philosophical choices..out of neccessity. I too would like to see spending and taxes cut.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?
Personally, I haven't been visited by the Sex-police..have you?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.
I agree completely. I view myself as a Libertarian with conservative leanings. Libertariaism seeks to maximize personal freedom AND persNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
Well Fred, one can't very well regulate how many children people have without expanding the role of government in peoples lives to a totalitarian state.
True, but the other choice is exactly what you were saying earlier, the government growing with the population. Either way the government gets more power, but limiting the population would (hopefully) give a sharp rise of government control followed by a decline as population declines. More realisticaly the government would probably keep its power but the idea is (more or less) sound.
Well Sir, governemntal infrastructure, once established is never roled back. Power, once acquried is never relinquished willingly.
The expansion of Federal powers during WW2 were meant to be rescinded at the end of the war but found new impetus with the Cold War and now again with the War on Terror.
The expansion of government power for ANY reason is dangerous to our freedom.
I personally do not feel that there is any answer short of getting the hell off the Earth.
Freedom require Frontier and there is none to be had here on the Earth. Mars isn't far enough away IMO but its the only thing on the menu at current rates of propulsion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
It is intersting that both sides of the Culture War regard themselves to be the Brown-Coats.
Yes it is.
Quote:
It seems to me however that most liberals seem to confuse security for Freedom, women in particular as big goverment is their Empowerment Apparatus.
Don't disagree, but the Conservatives are the ones puching the Patriot Act (which strips away freedom fore security), pushing the wiretaps (the president has the freedom to do ANYTHING to increase security). The liberals are the ones fighting these things (admitedlly probably jsut because it is Bush but still)
Quote:
-Liberals are commonly Globalists who favor World Goverment over national sovereignty. UN=Alliance
I have heard of (and met) some liberals who are like this, but most of my friends are liberal and most don't really look forward to a world government.
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.
Don't disagree.
Quote:
-Liberals continuously seek larger government and higher taxes to fund the bureaucracies they require for their "empowerment".
As opposed to the neo-cons who increase the size of government and cut taxes, screwing over the future generations.
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.
Unfortunately as population grows this is a neccesity. I don't neccesarily like it but in an urban environment, individual rights have to take a second-place position because every action can affect so may people.
Quote:
Nope: the Conservatives are the Browncoats.
If you say so, but that sounds like a filter to me
Quote:
There are those that would charge that the Republican Party has become a vehicle for Christian Theocracy; I think this is paranoia.
Abortion, Gay marriage, ineffectual abstinence training in schools, ten commandments everywhere, "intelligent design" instead of science. No Christian leanings at all, nope not the Republicans.
[pquote]It is interesting to note that in the pilot, Mal kissed a crucifix on his necklace...
Joss was pointing out that at the time he was a Christian, but that he lost his faith in Serenity valley.
Quote:
...and Book was obviously a Christian missionary.
Joss wanted to put in a strongly religious person I guess, perhaps to highlight Mals lack of faith.
Quote:
This seems to have inverted in the movie with the Operative's references to "sins". It is a bit fuzzy.
not 100% sure what you meant by this last paragraph, could you clarify please?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
Well Fred, one can't very well regulate how many children people have without expanding the role of government in peoples lives to a totalitarian state.
True, but the other choice is exactly what you were saying earlier, the government growing with the population. Either way the government gets more power, but limiting the population would (hopefully) give a sharp rise of government control followed by a decline as population declines. More realisticaly the government would probably keep its power but the idea is (more or less) sound.
Well Sir, governemntal infrastructure, once established is never roled back. Power, once acquried is never relinquished willingly.
The expansion of Federal powers during WW2 were meant to be rescinded at the end of the war but found new impetus with the Cold War and now again with the War on Terror.
The expansion of government power for ANY reason is dangerous to our freedom.
I personally do not feel that there is any answer short of getting the hell off the Earth.
Freedom require Frontier and there is none to be had here on the Earth. Mars isn't far enough away IMO but its the only thing on the menu at current rates of propulsion.
True, but my point was that with population control (theoretically) the power creep could at least be stopped, even if it would not go back.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sir, your ideas are fixed and calcified. I consider myself 'liberal' in many areas, and hold to NONE of the above. Likewise, many 'conservatives' do not hold with Bush's (and Cheney's) RADICAL ideas of global oil control.
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
It seems to me however that most liberals seem to confuse security for Freedom,
-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.
Leave ego, and the need to be on the 'correct side' out of it, and I suspect we have a great deal to agree upon.
*appologizes in advance for traces of leftover RWED snarkieness*
ChrisisallNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well my friends, perhaps the answer is the formation and developement of a viable Libertarian Party.
I fear that I have given my fellow Browncoats the impression that I am some die-hard Republican. Not at all, I just consider them to be the lesser of two evils. I do not consider the sh** we are in to be a case of "Good guys vs bad Guys"; oh no..its bad guys vs worse guys and its just a matter of one's filter as to who the worse guys are. Its Aliens vs Predator, baby..no matter who wins we lose.
How about we all start thinking about the formation of an Interplanetary Libertarian Party that advocates the following:
-the opening of the Solar System to colonization through the private sector.
-low taxes and low spending
-freedom of religion or freedom from it.
-complete freedom of choice in all matter concerning one's own body. This would cover everything like smoking, drugs, sexual preference, diet, etc.
-freedom to bear arms.
-add yours here.
The truth it seems to me is that freedom requires frontier. That being said, freedom will always be in flight away from the institutionalized infrastructure that always comes with high population densities.
Do not let my apparent Republicanism fool you: I fully advocate the idea of cigarette smoking, dope smoking, cheese-burger eating homo-sexuals with assault rifles..lol. I also advocate for monastic religious freaks to be monastic religious freaks as long as they keep it to themselves.
In other words I like freedom for all as long as everybody is willing to accept personal responsibility for that freedom.
IMO, those who advocate for higher taxes and bigger government seek to "empower" themnselves at the expense of others freedom from big government. Perhaps that is the nature of the beast: one persons freedom causes the enslavement of others..one way or the other. I just want to get the F*** out of here before the trap completely closes.
If one reads my post on the quasi-logarythmic scale of History; one might see that we are all headed to the same destination.
One can take the Red car or the Blue Car (Hmmm..Blue Sun), the ultimate destination is the same:Totalitarianism.
Personally I choose the Red car because IMO its going slower, War on Terror not withstanding, which buys us more time for the struggle to break gravity and expand into a Solar System paradigm rather than a planetary one.
Intersting reads for those interested are:
"The Future of War" by George and Meredith Friedmann and "The Case for Mars" by Robert Zubrin.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
I fear that I have given my fellow Browncoats the impression that I am some die-hard Republican.
Exaclty the impression you were giving.
Quote:
Not at all, I just consider them to be the lesser of two evils. I do not consider the sh** we are in to be a case of "Good guys vs bad Guys"; oh no..its bad guys vs worse guys and its just a matter of one's filter as to who the worse guys are. Its Aliens vs Predator, baby..no matter who wins we lose.
Agree with the lesser of two evils, disagree the Republicans are the lesser.
Quote:
How about we all start thinking about the formation of an Interplanetary Libertarian Party that advocates the following:
-the opening of the Solar System to colonization through the private sector.
-low taxes and low spending
-freedom of religion or freedom from it.
-complete freedom of choice in all matter concerning one's own body. This would cover everything like smoking, drugs, sexual preference, diet, etc.
-freedom to bear arms.
-add yours here.
You forgot arming bears
I know its cheap and stupid but it still brings a smile to my face.Quote:
The truth it seems to me is that freedom requires frontier. That being said, freedom will always be in flight away from the institutionalized infrastructure that always comes with high population densities.
I think is what being a Browncoat is truly about.
Quote:
Do not let my apparent Republicanism fool you: I fully advocate the idea of cigarette smoking, dope smoking, cheese-burger eating homo-sexuals with assault rifles..lol.
So I'm safe then?
just kidding, I don't like cheeseburgers. Quote:
In other words I like freedom for all as long as everybody is willing to accept personal responsibility for that freedom.
And the lack of personal responsibilty is what I hate the most about our civilization.
Quote:
IMO, those who advocate for higher taxes and bigger government seek to "empower" themnselves at the expense of others freedom from big government.
Interestingly enough with the Patriot Act Big Brother has never been bigger, but that was put into place by the low tax people.
Quote:
I just want to get the F*** out of here before the trap completely closes.
Bush is going to beat you to Mars, better just shoot for...for...um...well...I suppose one of Jupiters moons...I guess.
Quote:
If one reads my post on the quasi-logarythmic scale of History; one might see that we are all headed to the same destination.
Assuming that it is 100% accurate.
Quote:
One can take the Red car or the Blue Car (Hmmm..Blue Sun), the ultimate destination is the same:Totalitarianism.
Yep.
Quote:
Personally I choose the Red car because IMO its going slower, War on Terror not withstanding
Have to disagree, but I don't think that it will accomplish anything, oh well.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MarsOrBust:
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.
The only thing that keeps me from moving around from place to place wondering "what the hell is going on in the world?" is my wife and kids.
In the "verse" the Alliance world is much the same as our own, Mal & his crew are outlaws, breaking the law, robbery, smuggling etc. As in every walk of life there are good people as well as bad, I suppose you could call the crew "good outlaws".
I doubt if the crew of Serenity would even bother about politics, rather seek to avoid authority, make enough money to enjoy life as they see fit.
As to whether I am a freedom lover or security lover. Before I was married I was definately a freedom lover however, I wouldnt have been able to find a wife and have children if I wouldn't have tried to fit into society. So in answer to your question, in my heart I am a browncoat in reality I have had to choose to live in the "secure" world.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME