Browncoats... good guys or not?

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 12:07
VIEWED: 33379
PAGE 7 of 12

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

LOADANDMAKEREADY

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 1:53 AM

Quote:

Lysander Spooner, again. It might be true of some governments in our world, but why do some people keep believing that our government is runned with a programmed and specific determination towards malice - is it just me or the militant radicals in Montana?

Runned?

Governments always end up becoming the very thing they were created to prevent.
A revolution that was begun in protest of a Stamp Tax, and a small tax on tea ended up with the IRS.

Who is going to fight harder for public office? Your honest neighbor who knows he will have to put his life and career on hold in order to get into politics, serve a term or two in order to expand a freedom, or make freedom more secure ... then go back home and enjoy that freedom?

Or someone who wants to control the lives of others, and sees politics as a way to combine that sickness with a career which will bring him wealth, power, and fame?

loadandmakeready

AERRIN

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 2:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
Quote:

Several points -

1) People smuggle all the time, for a million different reasons - the most noteable are to move illegal cargo and to avoid goverment interference through such things as taxes. The prescence of smuggling does not an authoritarian government make. Heck - how many people go through US customs and just 'forget' to declare everything they've bought, because they don't want to PAY? Technically, that's smuggling. Throw in a few cows, and it's the same thing on a larger scale. Make the good stolen, and you're doing it to avoid a fine or jail sentence.

A: Why is the cargo illegal? Usually to "protect" the profits of a politically connected business interest.
B: To avoid taxes? All taxation is theft!
C: Stolen from whom? In one sense, you can't steal from a government, because the government got whatever it did with money that was stolen from you!

A: Or possibly because it's dangerous and hurts someone. Possibly because it crosses a moral line not everyone wants to cross. Possibly because yes, it's against the interests of the goverment. But saying that's the only reason is a vast oversimplification.
B: Whoa, dude. Really? Feel free to hand over your education, your highways, your postal system, your police force, your PBS, your afterschool programs.. anytime now.
C: See above. I have a hard time even arguing how that's inaccurate, because to state that all taxes are theft is so.. wow. You're welcome to your view of the world, of course, but.. let's just say it's not mine.

Quote:

Quote:

2) I think it's been made pretty clear that it was Blue Sun doing those experiments, and that most of the Alliance had NO IDEA what they wanted River for. Witness the men killed just for speaking to her in Ariel. Witness the officer who doesn't even know if they want her alive or dead, and so orders them to shoot first (Bushwacked, I /think/.) Again, the horrific actions of a few does not make the entirity evil. I tend to think that's Blue Sun's control of the Alliance at work there, not the Alliance itself.

"Society in any state is a blessing, government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil, in its worst state, an intolerable one..."
Thomas Paine

It is government which created Corporations -- if the Corporations are out of "control," then who is to blame? To me, it all boils down to government enforcing the desires of certain politically-connected special interests. Ultimately, government is still the problem.
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure."

I'm not sure you can state that governments created corporations - and I /certainly/ don't think that you can them blame the government entirely. I think the corporations ought to shoulder a bit of the blame for their own actions, here.

Quote:

Quote:

3)Accusing the postal clerk.. um. Ok. Recall how that lawman was working a tad illegally, chasing down some precious cargo he himself was smuggling? I hardly think we can use him as a shining example of a typical Alliance lawman. As a matter of fact, I never ever in the watching of the episode bought him as a legitimate one, for that exact reason - he uses the same terroristic methods that Niska's men do. He's not acting in his capacity as a lawman in that episode - he's exploiting it.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Lord Acton

Keep a government poor and weak, and it will be your servant. Let it get rich and powerful, and it will be your master.
Is there any doubt what kind of government the Alliance is?

To me, the very idea that a government would fight to maintain "control" of other people is the truest sign that the government does NOT have the best interests of those people at heart.
Or as Lysander Spooner put it: "no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly on voluntary support."

LOADANDMAKEREADY

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 4:14 AM

Quote:

B: Whoa, dude. Really? Feel free to hand over your education, your highways, your postal system, your police force, your PBS, your afterschool programs.. anytime now.

I'm 57 years old. I don't need after school programs. And those who want them can pay for them out of their own pocket, instead of voting for some thug to stick a taxboard bayonet in my back to pay for it.

PBS? What's PBS! Like 99 percent of what the government does, I don't use it ... so why should I pay for it?

As far as the police force is concerned, I am capable of protecting myself ... I don't need their "help!" Kinda makes you wonder though, how mankind survived for goodness knows how many thousands of years without police. (The first professional police force came into existance in 1849.)

Highways? The first trans-continental highway was built by private enterprise. Americans don't need goofermint to supply highways!

Education? The only reason gummymint took over "education" in this country was to teach history and politics in a way that makes the gummymint look good. While many people call them "public schools, I call them "youth propaganda camps."

Quote:

C: See above. I have a hard time even arguing how that's inaccurate, because to state that all taxes are theft is so.. wow. You're welcome to your view of the world, of course, but.. let's just say it's not mine.

When someone can take the product of your effort away from you without your voluntary consent, they are claiming a property right in, and ownership of, your effort. I don't know what you call it, but I call it SLAVERY!
But then maybe you like being enslaved -- or maybe you like for others to be enslaved for your benefit.

Quote:

I'm not sure you can state that governments created corporations - and I /certainly/ don't think that you can them blame the government entirely. I think the corporations ought to shoulder a bit of the blame for their own actions, here.

I can state it, I did state it! Government created "Corporations!" Corporations ARE responsible for their actions, but government is responsible for creating corporations.

Quote:

Well, yes, I do believe that my point was that power will corrupt. Thus the explotation of his position. I also don't recall mentioning that the government was trying to 'control' anyone - although I disagree with the assumption that trying to maintain public order ('control') is a /bad thing/. Let's be honest. Some people /need/ to be controlled. Some people are /not/ good for society. Some people are best off (for the rest of us) safely behind bars, or in rehab programs, or carefully watched by a parole officer. It helps keep the world safe for the rest of us.

And some people are better off dead! You may not be able to protect yourself, so you may hire someone to do it for you -- BUT NOT WITH MY PAYCHECK!!

Quote:

And finally, I'm not saying there aren't bad feds out there - as with any system, power will go to people's heads, and I'm sure that /especially/ on the border planets, you have people using their fed power for their own means, and to terrorize. But that's an individual trait - not neccessarily a trait of the government, which I still contend was simply bulky and overly bueacratic - not evil.

Some people imagine that government will work if the right people are in office, this is a myth! The only way to eliminate abuse of power is to abolish the power! If it doesn't exist, it can't be abused.

Quote:

Wow. I have no idea how you got from point A to point B there. Just because I'm able to see the Alliance in shades of complicated gray instead of assigning them white and black hats means that I would side with the Alliance? Let's watch the assumptions there, huh?

If you had paid closer attention to that sentence, you might have noticed that little squiggly thing at the end of it -- it's called a question mark! I was not making an assumption, I was asking a qu

LOADANDMAKEREADY

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 4:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

"Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible." -- Frank Herbert

Arawaen

P.S. Jaded and Bitter I tell ya'!

"Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm angry. And I'm armed."

Frank Herbert was right!

I put it a little differently: It's a chicken and egg situation. Does power corrupt, and absolute power corrupt absolutely? Or is it that only the absolutely corrupt seek absolute power?

loadandmakeready

AERRIN

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 4:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:

What ever slays your Dragon. As long as I'm not forced to pay for the weapon.

loadandmakeready

Obviously we have very different world views about where your social responsibility lies, and what's good for society, so I'll just chalk this one up in the 'agree to disagree' category, as I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye with such vastly different starting points.

As for:

Quote:
If you had paid closer attention to that sentence, you might have noticed that little squiggly thing at the end of it -- it's called a question mark! I was not making an assumption, I was asking a question.

I appologize - I'm used to folks who use that question mark at the end of a 'statement' not to ask a question persay, but to imply disbelief of a fact or a given (you can probably even pick out examples in my own posts, I'm guessing). Not something I should carry here from discussions in other forums, obviously, and I'll be sure to try to take things at face value from now on. :)

Makes for a rousing discussion, though!

TRAVELINGTHEBLACK

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 4:48 AM

Without a government, you have Barons, thugs, tyrrants ruling. You have no healthcare, no streets, no nothing. I personally tolerate government because, well, without one worse people would be in charge than Bush or Paul Martin. What I realize, and some people might not realize, is that when you leave behind government, everything you have: freedoms, legal rights, etc. goes to. I accept that if i break the law, i goto jail. If I have no home, I cannot settle down. I see and accept. I just wonder if others see the same.

Mercy is the mark of a great man... *stab*

LOADANDMAKEREADY

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 5:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Aerrin:

Obviously we have very different world views about where your social responsibility lies, and what's good for society, so I'll just chalk this one up in the 'agree to disagree' category, as I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye with such vastly different starting points.

Makes for a rousing discussion, though!

Rousing? Yes! And a very interesting discussion as well.

However, 'twould be interesting to learn what your starting point is.

Here's mine:

All my political, and value judgements branch out from one basic principle. I believe in property rights ... beginning with the concept that you are the absolute owner of your own life. And as absolute owner, you have the right to live your life in any manner you choose. PROVIDED! That you do not forcibly interfere with anyone else's right to live their life in what ever manner they choose ... and vice versa, and round and round.
Corollary to this is what is called the Zero Aggression Principle, or ZAP: No one has the right to initiate the use of force -- or to advocate, or delegate the initiation of force -- for any reason what-so-ever.

There is only one moral use of force, and that is to stop anyone who DOES initiate it.

Many a philosophy, which people view as beneficial, holds violence to be the very definition of evil. Who gains by this? The good? No! It is only evil that benefits when men of "ill will" find their victims disarmed and bound for slaughter by their very beliefs.
If we are to have a civilization, and if that civilization is to endure, we must come to view violence in a neutral light, examining only the circumstances of its wielding.
Initiated violence -- especially for collective purposes -- is the sum and total of all evil ever perpetrated by men upon man. So, can we not view resistance to this violence as beneficial? Even good? If not, then we needn't look to the future for some "ultimate triumph of evil," -- it has already occurred.

loadandmakeready

JASONZZZ

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 5:48 AM

Fine... Fine... Fine...

but why aren't you sitting in a cave
rubbing sticks together trying to stay
warm. Farming or running around with
pointy sticks hunting and skinning little
furry animals for sustenance.

What's more incredible is that you are
actually:

1. using the internet - build with 'that dang guv'ment research money' and runned by about 13 different corporations.

2. typing on a computer - build from parts made by 12 different corporations.

3. eating up electricity - generated by some guv'ment sanctioned monopoly in your locality

4. watching firefly on a TV (probably on cable too) - you put in your own words how many different corporations and government bodies takes to make TV and everything about it happen.

editted: not a personal statement, but rather an example of what I want to illustrate

People long ago found that binding together and *helping* each other made surviving and sustaining easier - not to mention maybe a little bit more enjoyable then hunt, eat, sleep, hunt, eat, sleep, etc... Sooner or later, any societal unit will attempt self-rule, self imposed rules. Every group goes through a norming stage. It's the basis of group dynamics. Even a group of individualists will *agree* to be individualists. It grows from there.

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
Quote:
Originally posted by Aerrin:

Obviously we have very different world views about where your social responsibility lies, and what's good for society, so I'll just chalk this one up in the 'agree to disagree' category, as I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye with such vastly different starting points.

Makes for a rousing discussion, though!

Rousing? Yes! And a very interesting discussion as well.

However, 'twould be interesting to learn what your starting point is.

Here's mine:

All my political, and value judgements branch out from one basic principle. I believe in property rights ... beginning with the concept that you are the absolute owner of your own life. And as absolute owner, you have the right to live your life in any manner you choose. PROVIDED! That you do not forcibly interfere with anyone else's right to live their life in what ever manner they choose ... and vice versa, and round and round.
Corollary to this is what is called the Zero Aggression Principle, or ZAP: No one has the right to initiate the use of force -- or to advocate, or delegate the initiation of force -- for any reason what-so-ever.

There is only one moral use of force, and that is to stop anyone who DOES initiate it.

Many a philosophy, which people view as beneficial, holds violence to be the very definition of evil. Who gains by this? The good? No! It is only evil that benefits when men of "ill will" find their victims disarmed and bound for slaughter by their very beliefs.
If we are to have a civilization, and if that civilization is to endure, we must come to view violence in a neutral light, examining only the circumstances of its wielding.
Initiated violence -- especially for collective purposes -- is the sum and total of all evil ever perpetrated by men upon man. So, can we not view resistance to this violence as beneficial? Even good? If not, then we needn't look to the future for some "ultimate triumph of evil," -- it has already occurred.

loadandmakeready

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

DRAKON

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:
Not so sure I buy that argument. Just because the low level cops, even the guys running the Alliance details in BUSHWACKED and ARIEL, don't know the details or even any reall info, doesn't mean that the BLUE SUN honchos and the heads of the ALLIANCE are not working hand in glove.

The CIA and FBI stepped on each other's toes routinely until they were legislated out of each other's back yards. BOTH groups have better intel and superceding powers over local law enforcement. This is the future, remember. Things have clearly gotten worse on that score.

Ain't got nothing to do with how high or low their rank is. They got badges, and their bosses are billions of miles away. Folks rarely act the same on vacation as they do around the house. Or else Vegas would be bust overnight.

And because the cops we've seen are detached, there is insufficient data to conclusively prove (or refute) the idea this is "normal" behavior. And it says nothing about how intertwined the BHC and the Alliance government is.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

DRAKON

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ Interesting. But my guess is that the Reavers are more reputation than actual culture. That is, I suspect they are a myth maintained by someone with an agenda. Assuming there's a good reason to make people afraid of going too deep into 'the Black'.

Possibly even the Reavers themselves. Think about it, you've seen the same scheme time and time again on Scooby Doo. Scare everyone away from where you want to be, and you don't get bothered, hassled or shot at.

Quote:
I'd be giving Joss big kudos should he manage to present the Browncoats as dastardly as the Alliance ever could be. Maybe worse. You know, I'm of the belief that Mal needs his pat and fragile beliefs kicked out of him once more. Mal may have lost a few delusions but he's got a looooong way to go before he finds real Serenity.

Then take a look at the script "Dead or Alive"

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE