Republican or Democrat

POSTED BY: TightPants
UPDATED: Thursday, November 10, 2022 18:08
VIEWED: 21056
PAGE 1 of 1

TIGHTPANTS

Monday, June 28, 2004 3:41 AM

Well at the risk of inciting riots ... which, is probably a very Firefly thing to do, I thought I might pose a political question.

Who do you think the browncoats are politically equivalent to?

I ask this mostly because up here in Canada (England that was) we are on the eve of a pretty interesting election. The Liberals (roughly the equivalent to Democrats) and Conservatives (roughly equivalent to Republicans) are almost in a dead heat and it got me wondering what side Mal and Zoe would be on.

On the surface, the browncoats seem to be portrayed loosely as Republican (Conservative) but their behavior suggests more liberal attitude so I am not sure.

All I am sure of is that there ain't no way in the 'verse I am going to vote conservative tomorrow.

JCKNIFE

Monday, June 28, 2004 3:44 AM

Browncoats="Independents"=self-reliant=Republican.

SHINYSEVEN

Monday, June 28, 2004 3:49 AM

In some ways, the Browncoats seem reminiscent of the agrarian, states-rights-oriented Confederates in the US Civil War, although it can't be a literal parallel--one could argue that RhettButler!Mal would be perfectly comfortable with black people, but Zoe damn sure wouldn't still be following a slaveowner six years after the war. As unReconstructed browncoats, Mal and Zoe probably are under all sorts of orders of proscription and wouldn't be *allowed* to vote, at least not in the Core.

I'm sure Inara not only votes the straight Republican ticket but contributes money. And, much as I love him, I can *so* see Simon giving wine-and-cheese fundraisers for liberal candidates, and I can see the funny side of that. Aww, at least maybe he'd get to meet Space!Barbra Streisand.

I don't think Wash ever votes. Jayne might, early and often, if Tammany Hall has survived 500 years into the future (and it probably would). I'm not sure if Kaylee is old enough to vote, if she is, she probably wouldn't because Mal would point out that whoever you voted for, The Government got in.

Sadistic crap legitimized by florid prose

AURAPTOR

Monday, June 28, 2004 3:51 AM

Gettin in a mans way is what governments are good for ~ Mal

A very basic concept that many Republicans would agree with. Browncoats seeem to be all about free trade, living where one wants and doing what one wants, w/ out being hassled by law men. Strictly speaking, both GOP and Dems want to control people, they just go about it differently.

To answer your question, I'd have to say clearly GOP, but to be honest, I see most Browncoats to be independent....as their names truly indicates.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CREVANREAVER

Monday, June 28, 2004 3:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TightPants:
Who do you think the browncoats are politically equivalent to?

IMO, the browncoats are libertarian when comes to the political spectrum. However, if you had to put them with one of the major parties. I'd say they probably would be Republican, although obviously Libertarian-Republicans.

CALIGARI

Monday, June 28, 2004 4:02 AM

I'm one of those that feels for both, actually (although I love the bit where Jayne would be affiliated with Tammany, that's damn funny if'n you know your history), I think Mal is the kinda guy that thinks getting money together, getting a business together, and working for a profit is what it's all about, independent, yeah? But goverment tends to put alot of restrictions and taxes and complications on such an enterprise (hence the quote about goverment getting in the way of a person, as Mal once said). But on the other hand, the very government that restricts an individual, also restricts the truly destructive individual, by and large, in spirit, on paper, generally, ect.... The problem is, the desires of the "liberal" and the desires of the "conservative" are basically on the same page, but it is the mad desires of those who will manipulate the system to their own ends that taint the ideology of a given frame of thought. Which is why I dislike the whole "party" voting system; vote for the individual that sounds like the best representative of your beliefs in various issues, and your vote counts. Except in Florida.... :)

HIMEE63

Monday, June 28, 2004 4:05 AM

What ever happened to the PC's up there in the "Great White North". I'm not sure if the Browncoats would match up to either Dems or Republicans. I think both of them are pretty well screwed up...

JCOBB

Monday, June 28, 2004 4:12 AM

If I was forced to choose between the two I would say Republican, but in reality I think its more then definately Libertarian.

I don't care, I'm still free.

EMBERS

Monday, June 28, 2004 4:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by himee63:
I think both of them are pretty well screwed up...

see I'm kinda thinking that both the Democrats & the Republicans have sold out to Big Business and special interests...clearly to Blue Sun, and the Alliance...

The Browncoats/Independents wanted to live free without the big government which both parties represent now days... that's why they lost

SHINYSEVEN

Monday, June 28, 2004 4:17 AM

Well, personally I tend to associate the Republicans with *big time* crooks and not petty ones. But knock yourselves out, dudes.

TIGHTPANTS

Monday, June 28, 2004 1:23 PM

Ahhh yes, the poor old PC party .. well about a year ago they were 'reunited' into the Alliance party of Canada. This reunification of the far right (the Alliance) and the progressive conservatives (centre right) was not unlike the battle of Serenity ... and, well ... let's just say, the Alliance won that battle too.

TIGER

Monday, June 28, 2004 5:36 PM

Quote:
Browncoats="Independents"=self-reliant=Republican

That is the silliest thing I've read in a while... Patriot Act, Prescription drug program, the War on Drugs

Quote:
"Gettin in a mans way is what governments are good for" ~ Mal

A very basic concept that many Republicans would agree with.

Another silly... see above.

However,

Quote:
I see most Browncoats to be independent....as their names truly indicates.

That's correct. Independent as in the dictionary definition, not a political "party" affiliation.

Quote:
see I'm kinda thinking that both the Democrats & the Republicans have sold out to Big Business and special interests...clearly to Blue Sun, and the Alliance...

The Browncoats/Independents wanted to live free without the big government which both parties represent now days... that's why they lost

YES!

Quote:
I think its more then definately Libertarian

YES! True Browncoats might even be too curmudgeonly to belong to the benign Libertarian party.... but definitely libertarian in spirit if not in party affiliation.

Contemplation would make a good life, keep it strict, only
The eyes of a desert skull drinking the sun,
Too intense for flesh, lonely
Exultations of white bone;
Pure action would make a good life, let it be sharp -
Set between the throat and the knife.
A man who knows death by heart
Is the man for that life.
In pleasant peace and security
How suddenly the soul in a man begins to die.
He shall look up above the stalled oxen
Envying the cruel falcon,
And dig under the straw for a stone
To bruise himself on.

JCKNIFE

Monday, June 28, 2004 5:44 PM

You make some good points, Tiger. Actually I think a LOT of Republicans would vote Libertarian if they thought the Libertarian candidate had a chance of winning. I for one would LOVE to see a Libertarian president. However, right now we're stuck with a 2-party system and you've got to work the system. Ross Perot gave us 2 terms of Slick Willy (who NEVER got a majority of the popular vote).

Oh, as for your pull-quote of me: this administration has done some very UN-republican things! That's for sure.

TIGER

Monday, June 28, 2004 5:56 PM

Quote:
this administration has done some very UN-republican things! That's for sure.

You are a very smart Republican :-) (closet libertarian?)

There was a time when the Republicans stood for self-reliance, independence, and small government (at least in comparison with the dems), but it is harder and harder to tell the two major parties apart anymore.

As far as not voting for a Libertarian because they have such a small chance of winning - if you vote for a candidate that you sincerely agree with, you may have only a small chance of getting what you want in government, but if you vote for someone who you don't agree with just because they can win, you'll NEVER get what you really want.

This is truly a "you can't take the sky from me" attitude. :-)

Contemplation would make a good life, keep it strict, only
The eyes of a desert skull drinking the sun,
Too intense for flesh, lonely
Exultations of white bone;
Pure action would make a good life, let it be sharp -
Set between the throat and the knife.
A man who knows death by heart
Is the man for that life.
In pleasant peace and security
How suddenly the soul in a man begins to die.
He shall look up above the stalled oxen
Envying the cruel falcon,
And dig under the straw for a stone
To bruise himself on.

TOMSMEAGOL

Monday, June 28, 2004 6:03 PM

Neither. They're independents, as others have said. I think they espouse ideas present in both parties, but would outright reject our political system as being "too much governin'"

SPLIBERTARIAN

Monday, June 28, 2004 6:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:

As far as not voting for a Libertarian because they have such a small chance of winning - if you vote for a candidate that you sincerely agree with, you may have only a small chance of getting what you want in government, but if you vote for someone who you don't agree with just because they can win, you'll NEVER get what you really want.

This is truly a "you can't take the sky from me" attitude. :-)

Exactly.

They can take my love. They can take my land. But I'll be damned if I'm just gonna give it to them!

SPLIBERTARIAN

Monday, June 28, 2004 7:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:

As far as not voting for a Libertarian because they have such a small chance of winning - if you vote for a candidate that you sincerely agree with, you may have only a small chance of getting what you want in government, but if you vote for someone who you don't agree with just because they can win, you'll NEVER get what you really want.

This is truly a "you can't take the sky from me" attitude. :-)

Exactly.

They can take my love. They can take my land. But I'll be damned if I'm just gonna give it to them!

RADHIL

Monday, June 28, 2004 7:19 PM

The whole notion of Browncoats was independence. I hardly think they'd be inclined to join any particular thing. Just to be off on their own. Living simple.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

IAMJACKSUSERNAME

Monday, June 28, 2004 8:17 PM

Quote:
I think a LOT of Republicans would vote Libertarian if they thought the Libertarian candidate had a chance of winning. I for one would LOVE to see a Libertarian president. However, right now we're stuck with a 2-party system and you've got to work the system. Ross Perot gave us 2 terms of Slick Willy (who NEVER got a majority of the popular vote).

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No", said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd", said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did", said Ford. "It is."
"So", said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them", said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes", said Ford with a shrug, "of course".
"But", said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."

Douglas Adams, So long, and thanks for all the fish, chapter 36.

As for browncoats, I'd guess many would be capitalist libertarians.

For thems in the USA, check out the the [url= http://www.lp.org/]LP website[/url]. I personally wouldn't vote for them - not liking their neo-feudal policies which I think would result in a plutocratic hell for the vast majority under such a regime, but, goslings!
--
I am Jack's username
FTL in Firefly? < http://jack.p5.org.uk/about-fiction/ftl-firefly.en.html>
Support our shiny bunnies.

TIGER

Monday, June 28, 2004 8:41 PM

correct link: http://www.lp.org/

Also, on the right side of the page check out the World's Smallest Political Quiz. It's the best indicator I've seen of where you fall politically.

Quote:
I personally wouldn't vote for them - not liking their neo-feudal policies

"neo-feudal"? This must be unique among descriptions of libertarianism. Please elaborate :-)

...In pleasant peace and security
How suddenly the soul in a man begins to die.
He shall look up above the stalled oxen
Envying the cruel falcon,
And dig under the straw for a stone
To bruise himself on.

CREVANREAVER

Monday, June 28, 2004 9:13 PM

For the "True definitions for common political terms" go check out this webpage:

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-my.html

Here are some excerpts

Quote:
Democratic Party - Primarily, a belief in State-Socialism heavily tempered by State-Capitalist beliefs along with some anti-nationalist, anti-religious, and pro-environmental tendencies. They favor control of the government by 2 parties, that way they can have somebody to blame when thing go wrong. Enjoys block votes from gays, teachers, blacks, immigrants, welfare recipients, members of the press, NAACP members, environmentalist, pro-choicers, Union leaders, and people who hate Republicans.

Quote:
Republican Party - Primarily, a belief in State-Capitalism heavily tempered by Libertarian and free-market beliefs along with some pro-nationalist, pro-religious, and militaristic tendencies. They favor control of the government by 2 parties, that way they can have somebody to blame when things go wrong. Enjoys block votes from Businessmen, Christians, Hunters, KKK, pro-lifers, and people who hate Democrats.

Quote:
Liberal - Used to mean : "Free from narrow prejudice; open minded, especially, open to the reception of new ideas or proposals of reform.". Now means "Full of hatred for past Ideas, and completely intolerant of the people that still believe in them. Socialist." Most liberal arguments basically boil down to "Shut up in the name of open-mindedness and free speech!". The liberal observes evils in society, and then attempts to remedy the problem with an even greater evil.

Quote:
Libertarian-Capitalism - The most prevalent form of libertarianism in the United States (When one hears the term 'Libertarian', you can be pretty sure they arte actually referring to this type). It is a belief in free-markets (little or no state intervention in the economy) and a strong belief in personal freedoms. Governments would only provide basic services (police, a judiciary system, and military).

The browncoats would definitely be Libertarian-Capitalists and would more than likely oppose both of the dominant political parties here in the US. However, I'm still sure if they had to go with the lesser of two evils it would be the Republicans. I could never see someone like Mal or Zoe supporting higher taxes or the attacks on the Second Amendment by the Democrats.

IAMJACKSUSERNAME

Monday, June 28, 2004 9:52 PM

Quote:
correct link: http://www.lp.org/

Grr, aargh. Sorry about the url tag, I forgot it's not available here.

Quote:
Also, on the right side of the page check out the World's Smallest Political Quiz. It's the best indicator I've seen of where you fall politically.

I think the http://www.politicalcompass.org/ is a better version.

Quote:
"neo-feudal"? This must be unique among descriptions of libertarianism. Please elaborate :-)

The LP's version of libertarianism (with privatized highways and power delivery, etc.) yes; not the libertarianism of Proudhon.

"If democracy and self-rule are the fundamentals, then why should people give up these rights when they enter their work place? In politics we fight like tigers for freedom, for the right to elect our leaders, for freedom of movement, choice of residence, choice of what work to pursue — control of our lives, in short. And then we wake up in the morning and go to work, and all those rights disappear. We no longer insist on them. And so for most of the day we return to [...] a version of feudalism in which capital replaces land, and business leaders replace kings. But the hierarchy remains." - Kim Stanley Robinson, Blue Mars, part 3, section 6.

"With country and culture in the hands of a very few, democracy perishes [...] replaced by something resembling, more than anything else, medieval feudalism, only set in a high tech world." - Bill Willers, Privatization and neo-feudalism
--
I am Jack's username
FTL in Firefly? < http://jack.p5.org.uk/about-fiction/ftl-firefly.en.html>
Support our shiny bunnies.

Edit: added a space before the first closing quote tag.

TIGER

Monday, June 28, 2004 11:20 PM

Quote:
"If democracy and self-rule are the fundamentals, then why should people give up these rights when they enter their work place?..."

Simple. Because you have agreed to do what your boss says to do in exchange for money.

The allusions to feudalism by Kim Robinson are ludicrous(as are the rest of the politics in his 'Mars' books; great stories though). A peasant can't buy his own plot of land and refuse to tithe to his lord. A peasant can't decide he doesn't like farming any more and decide to take up blacksmithing.

I agree that working for a large company can be soul-sucking, humiliating, and demeaning, but it is completely SELF IMPOSED. You can quit and your boss can't come to your house and force you back to work.

Feudalism is basically forced labor...free market capitalism with private ownership of lands and absolute property rights would allow you to do whatever you want with everything that's YOURS, and no matter how big the corporation they can't force you to do any different.

This comparison of true free markets with feudalism or government replaced by big business, strikes me as either jealousy or the pent up desire to get ones way through force rather than persuasion - so many people complain about the guy who has a jillion dollars because they can't force him to do with it what they want.

Quote:
"With country and culture in the hands of a very few, democracy perishes [...] replaced by something resembling, more than anything else, medieval feudalism, only set in a high tech world."

This is a descrpition of a large, opressive, and intrusive government, not a free market, property protected system where government is restricted to courts and the military. I'd be interested to know why this is in a book comparing privatization and feudalism.

...In pleasant peace and security
How suddenly the soul in a man begins to die.
He shall look up above the stalled oxen
Envying the cruel falcon,
And dig under the straw for a stone
To bruise himself on.

THEGREYJEDI

Monday, June 28, 2004 11:44 PM

I think they're probably moderate whatever they are. Moderate Republican seems the closest thing, given that the Independents wanted as little government interference as possible, and that they were willing to go to war and shoot people with guns. Democrats have a tendency to promote larger government involvement(interference), as well as a more diplomatic(less shooty) means of foreign policy and also a tendency towards not killing and strict gun control/banning. I'm a registered Republican, though I'm fairly moderate. Too poor to be ultra-conservative I guess. Though I think the browncoats would probably resent being lumped together with any established party.

"And these three remain: Faith, Hope, and Love. And the greatest of these Love."

SPIKEANDJEZEBEL

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 1:22 AM

I just want to say that I'm very pleased that this thread has not devolved into the usual "Republicans suck! No, you're stupid, Democrats suck!" type of dialogue. Once again proving that, whatever your political affiliation, a Browncoat is generally smarter than the average citizen!

"I like smackin' 'em!" - Jayne Cobb

JCKNIFE

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 1:31 AM

Yeah, I have to agree with that.

I think it may be because the Republican tendencies that the independents exhibit are strictly the fiscal and freedom related aspects, and not the social aspects of the religious right associated with our republican party?

Just speculating.

Of course (and this could be a whole separate thread), a sub-story is Mal's apparent loss of faith along with the defeat at Serenity Valley.

THEGREYJEDI

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 2:17 AM

I'm glad to see we've not, at least yet, devolved into a seething mass of partisan hoo-ha. I understand the reasons why Democrats and liberals are what they are. Those of opposite polarity on the political spectrum what work for the common good I like. Democrats whose sole purpose is thwarting anything Republican, or Republicans who exist only to hamper anything Democrat, I have no time for. Too much of that goes one, and nothing gets done but a lot of equal interference. Which is what we browncoats were fighting against to begin with.

"And these three remain: Faith, Hope, and Love. And the greatest of these Love."

VETERAN

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 2:39 AM

Quote:
CrevanReaver wrote:
Monday, June 28, 2004 11:13
For the "True definitions for common political terms" go check out this webpage:

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-my.html

Here are some excerpts ...

I noticed he didn have a definition for conservative on that link.

RADHIL

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 3:53 AM

Quote:
Simple. Because you have agreed to do what your boss says to do in exchange for money.

Swap 'money' for 'food and shelter' (and in many families, that's not far off), and there's your basic concept of fealty.

Quote:
The allusions to feudalism by Kim Robinson are ludicrous(as are the rest of the politics in his 'Mars' books; great stories though). A peasant can't buy his own plot of land and refuse to tithe to his lord. A peasant can't decide he doesn't like farming any more and decide to take up blacksmithing.

(sigh)

Well, in Robinson's books, it was a far more relevant metaphor, as your pure free-market had devolved into something worse. In Robinson's world, business developed a kind of gravity effect, corporations swallowed small business, and economy revolved around mega-corporations, which had grown to the point of running entire countries. Absence of structure - the definition of free-market - led those with the power (money) to create their own structure. The beginnings of such an effect are even visible today, if not yet quite so self-destructive as Robinson portrayed it.

That such a future society idea as Robinson's steps on the toes of capitalism - which has so far served decent enough - doesn't automatically invalidate it.

Not saying I'd agree with it either. Certainly wouldn't work in today's world. But your dismissal of it seemed pretty reactionary, so I opened my fat mouth (again). Gotta stop doing that....

Besides which, we're well off topic.

SOUPCATCHER

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 4:29 AM

This is kind of a rambling response just based on what I think might be a limited framing to this question. Since we've only had experience with one world, and many nations, it makes sense that to our point of view everything can be nicely broken down into the political parties of one nation. But in the Firefly 'verse were talking about many different moons and planets, all with their own associated internal politics. There's a whole host of different ways to run a planet, from totalitarian regimes to theocracies to some form of democracy to anarchy, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if the independents had people from all types of governments represented. More of a broad based coalition brought together for one purpose, to keep from being dominated by the Alliance. The commonality being that all of the members just want to run their own worlds in the way they see fit. So my weasling answer to the question, "Who do you see the independents as equivalent to?" combined with the title of "Republican or Democrat" would be: both and a whole lot more besides. It just depends on which independent you were looking at.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

TIGER

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 5:46 AM

Quote:
Swap 'money' for 'food and shelter' (and in many families, that's not far off), and there's your basic concept of fealty

This isn't correct. Fealty is the idea of loyalty from a subject to his lord/king for no other reason than being born to that station. In other words, you're born a peasant, he's born a king, and the natural order of the universe says you owe him loyalty. There are no terms to make a "far more relevant metaphor" in today's world, because there are no positions of caste like feudalism that exist today.

The relationship between you and your boss is nothing like this (no matter what some jack-ass, low-self-esteem, middle managers may think). As I said before, you can QUIT your job any time and seek better opportunities. This option isn't available to the peasant OR the king in a feudal arrangement.

But the assumption in your statements is that laissez-faire capitalism inevitably leads to monster corporations so powerful they become as governments themselves. There are real-world examples all around us that show that it is not the power of corporations alone that lead to this phenomenon, but unscrupulous corporations using the FORCE OF GOVERNMENT that allows them to control massive segments of the population's lives.

Example: Microsoft is a monster corporation, but they can't force ONE DIME of your money from you; they have to convince you to buy their product to get your money.

Example 2: On the other hand, there are recent news reports that Bush is now proposing that the entire population be screened for mental illness, with an emphasis on using numerous and varied drugs to treat citizens as young as 4 years old. This is CLEARLY a case of an unscrupulous corporation taking advanatage of the power of government to artificially expand it's customer base, and is specifically prohibted in any truly free market.

The point is, take away the power of government and corporations can never reach such artificial heights of power as proposed by many people frightened of corporations.

Why? because there are always other businesses around to keep the behemoths in check. Using Microsoft again - they may be richer than God, but constantly hounding them is Google, Yahoo, Linux, etc. just waiting to take them down if they make a mistake.

And bringing everything back to Firely, it has already been mentioned (by Joss, I believe, in the commentaries on the DVDs) that Blue Sun and the Alliance are in cahoots, creating a nasty "govcorp" thingy that screws with everybody.

Quote:
Besides which, we're well off topic.

True, but it's so much fun :-)

---------------------------------------------
...In pleasant peace and security
How suddenly the soul in a man begins to die.
He shall look up above the stalled oxen
Envying the cruel falcon,
And dig under the straw for a stone
To bruise himself on.

RADHIL

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 2:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:
True, but it's so much fun :-)

Well, if we're having fun then... :P

Quote:
This isn't correct. Fealty is the idea of loyalty from a subject to his lord/king for no other reason than being born to that station.

The relationship between you and your boss is nothing like this (no matter what some jack-ass, low-self-esteem, middle managers may think). As I said before, you can QUIT your job any time and seek better opportunities. This option isn't available to the peasant OR the king in a feudal arrangement.

In a purely fuedal arrangement, this is true. But not all kingdoms were off-with-your-head for dissenting arrangements. Though strangely enough, it was a popular choice - which of course led to revolt and democracy, but my brain is off on a far tangent already... My point was, if you didn't like your Lord, chances were you could pick up stakes and try someplace else out. Was a discouraged option to be sure, but it was done. Pure fuedalism implies total enslavement, and that simply couldn't be done unless a loyal army was on hand. Not that some didn't try...

Much like our current system is not a perfect free-market - your own examples prove that. You're arguing based on conceptual purity. I'm arguing real-world beat-up and worn-down implementation. So I guess it's natural we're at crossed thought here.

The boss-employee system of business isn't pure fealty, nor is it pure fuedal. But there's more than a few paralells to make Robinson's thoughts on the matter more than just silly speculation. At least to me.

Quote:
Example: Microsoft is a monster corporation, but they can't force ONE DIME of your money from you; they have to convince you to buy their product to get your money.

Example 2: On the other hand, there are recent news reports that Bush is now proposing that the entire population be screened for mental illness, with an emphasis on using numerous and varied drugs to treat citizens as young as 4 years old. This is CLEARLY a case of an unscrupulous corporation taking advanatage of the power of government to artificially expand it's customer base, and is specifically prohibted in any truly free market.

Point of curiosity: Where'd you pick up that news? I'd be mighty interested.

Semi-Counter: No, M$ can't force dime-one out of my hand. But they can lean on the choices, and have. They've never forced any dollar they earned, but they certainly stacked the deck in their favor. I'm learning Linux as an alternative now, but it's not the easiest thing. Unless you have a techie in the family, it's not really a viable option. Ditto for most businesses, at least those that can't afford their own tech support. You can claim that as not forcing, and you'd be right. But there certainly is a tipping of influence well beyond any popularity or marketing explanation.

Things are changing in favor of Linux, so my arguement isn't really complete. But I think you'll get my point.

Quote:
The point is, take away the power of government and corporations can never reach such artificial heights of power as proposed by many people frightened of corporations.

*cough* Take away the power of government? How? It's a logical impossibility. If a government has to exist to check such power, how can it not be influenced by said power?

That line about the abyss looking back comes to mind.

Quote:
Why? because there are always other businesses around to keep the behemoths in check. Using Microsoft again - they may be richer than God, but constantly hounding them is Google, Yahoo, Linux, etc. just waiting to take them down if they make a mistake.

You'll forgive me if I do not find the analogy of the bear and the lion hounding each other over the rabbits comforting. ;)

Quote:
And bringing everything back to Firely, it has already been mentioned (by Joss, I believe, in the commentaries on the DVDs) that Blue Sun and the Alliance are in cahoots, creating a nasty "govcorp" thingy that screws with everybod

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

TIGER

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 4:14 PM

Quote:
Point of curiosity: Where'd you pick up that news? I'd be mighty interested.

Strangely enough, from the ultra-conservative, christian, right-wing news site, WorldNetDaily. Take a read - it's scary stuff. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39078

Quote:
Take away the power of government? How? It's a logical impossibility. If a government has to exist to check such power, how can it not be influenced by said power?

REDUCE the government to it's constitutionally authorized functions at least - courts and military being the most important. Get rid of ATF, FBI, FCC, FDA, and every other unconstitutional, invasive, and expensive acronym the politicians have come up with (I know how unlikely this is... it doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do). Only allow politicians to spend our money in constitutionally authorized area. No grants from senators to their home state for a new stadium, no bailing out flood victims, no 'incentives' to keep an auto plant from moving out of town. If politicians don't have the authority to give away millions of (taxpayer) dollars to big business, then there's no reason for big business to be interested in controlling politicians.

Quote:
You'll forgive me if I do not find the analogy of the bear and the lion hounding each other over the rabbits comforting. ;)

Analogies are dangerous things - they're too often inaccurate which leads to misunderstanding. Your analagy assumes FORCE is the prime mover. A more accurate analogy would be two salesmen trying to out do each other for your business (well, that's so literal it's almost not an analogy). Always a good situation for the consumer.

Quote:
Yep, that I remember. It's the "it can't happen here" bit that I stumble on.

I never meant to imply, even a little bit, that a Blue Sun/Alliance type GovCorp isn't possible in reality. Unfortunately, I think it's not only possible but likely. The single most important point I've been trying to make is that in a world with unfettered big business but extremely 'fettered' government, BlueSun/Alliance isn't possible. Only if big government exists can big business wield the force necessary to become oppressive rather than just ubiquitous (like Microsoft).

I think we may be agreeing more than we first thought... :-)

---------------------------------------------
...In pleasant peace and security
How suddenly the soul in a man begins to die.
He shall look up above the stalled oxen
Envying the cruel falcon,
And dig under the straw for a stone
To bruise himself on.

SOUTHERNMERC

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 4:29 PM

Ima thinking Soupcatcher may be correct, in that the Independants were a varied bunch and had many different forms of Govt. But, if you limit it to our BDH's, they seem, for the most part, to be Libertarian. Don't really know the distinctions, so I'll be checking out those websites listed.

Jayne: "See, Vera? You get dressed up, you get taken someplace fun!"

SOUTHERNMERC

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 4:41 PM

Sorry for the second post, but I just read the article you mentioned, Tiger.

The more I look around, the more the world we live in resembles the near-future-dystopia of Cyberpunk or Shadowrun. Will corporation "security forces" be far behind?

Jayne: "See, Vera? You get dressed up, you get taken someplace fun!"

TIGER

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 4:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SouthernMerc:
Ima thinking Soupcatcher may be correct, in that the Independants were a varied bunch and had many different forms of Govt.

I think you're right. I wouldn't be surprised if the only thing the Independent planets had in common was a hatred for government from the outside. Other that, I'd bet it was a smorgasbord.

Quote:
I just read the article you mentioned, Tiger.

The more I look around, the more the world we live in resembles the near-future-dystopia of Cyberpunk or Shadowrun.

I was especially concerned by this part:

"Schools, the panel concluded, are in a key position to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at the schools.

The commission recommended that the screening be linked with treatment and supports, including state-of-the-art treatments using specific medications for specific conditions."

Just one more reason why, when my 4 month old daughter gets old enough, she won't be going to public school.

---------------------------------------------
...In pleasant peace and security
How suddenly the soul in a man begins to die.
He shall look up above the stalled oxen
Envying the cruel falcon,
And dig under the straw for a stone
To bruise himself on.

SOUTHERNMERC

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 5:37 PM

Ahhh, public schools. The best little place on Earth to enslave those consumer sheep...I mean give small citizens a double plus good learning!

Jayne: "See, Vera? You get dressed up, you get taken someplace fun!"

SPLIBERTARIAN

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 7:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:
I was especially concerned by this part:

"Schools, the panel concluded, are in a key position to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at the schools.

The commission recommended that the screening be linked with treatment and supports, including state-of-the-art treatments using specific medications for specific conditions."

Just one more reason why, when my 4 month old daughter gets old enough, she won't be going to public school.

Though not nearly as sinister, vaccinations already use a similar scheme. In my state, the schools require that all children are vaccinated - whether or not those children even attend the public school system. It seems the state gov't gets federal money for high vaccination rates. As a parent, if you feel your child is better off getting, say, chicken pox, rather than risking an adverse reaction to the vaccination, your only recourse is a religious waiver.

SOUPCATCHER

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:06 PM

Quote:
Though not nearly as sinister, vaccinations already use a similar scheme. In my state, the schools require that all children are vaccinated - whether or not those children even attend the public school system. It seems the state gov't gets federal money for high vaccination rates. As a parent, if you feel your child is better off getting, say, chicken pox, rather than risking an adverse reaction to the vaccination, your only recourse is a religious waiver.

Yeah. It permeates through all levels of education. In undergrad I was put in quarantine off campus because there was a Rubella case and I refused to get my MMR. Basically just two weeks of living at a friend's apartment and having people bring me lecture notes and assignments. It was a very workable compromise between the health needs of the entire student population and my aversion to blanket innoculations.

When I was admitted to graduate school they tried to make me get an MMR. I found a sympathetic doctor who gave me a blood test, determined that I was not at risk for any of the target ailments, and signed off on my health records. Not sure what would have happened instead if the doctor was a legalist who insisted I conform to the letter of the regulations, rather than the spirit.

I imagine it must be more difficult at the primary school level for parents who are leery of the potential side affects.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

CREVANREAVER

Monday, July 12, 2004 11:06 PM

I've made up my mind, most of the Browncoats would have definately given both parties the finger and voted Libertarian straight down the board!

NECROMANCERBOB

Monday, July 12, 2004 11:34 PM

Sadly, I have to agree about the browncoats probably being closest to Libertarian.

I'm a socially-enlightened fascist myself.

SGTGUMP

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 12:25 AM

Gun toting, law breaking libertarians.

www.cafeshops.com/miestelita

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 1:13 AM

Clearly more toward the GOP, but seriously, they're models of Libertarianism.

That's what governments are for. Get
in a man's way.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CREVANREAVER

Monday, August 2, 2004 9:52 PM

For an idea of the kind of person Mal or Zoe and any true Browncoat would vote for check this website out!

http://www.badnarik.org/

CONSCIENCE

Friday, September 17, 2004 8:18 PM

I for one am an Anybody But Nader guy!

http://www.georgewbush.com/

http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html

http://www.badnarik.org/

http://www.peroutka2004.com/

LTNOWIS

Friday, September 17, 2004 9:23 PM

Quote:
Ahhh, public schools. The best little place on Earth to enslave those consumer sheep...I mean give small citizens a double plus good learning!

As a public school student, I always viewed private schooled kids as elitist. While I can see why there are many good reasons for choosing them, if I had kids I'd send them to public school. Why pay for something when you can get it for free? Especially when there are tons of good uses for money? Public schools have taught me 2 things:
1. How to get used to and appreciate diversity
2. How to deal with hateful, inefficient, moronic beauracracy and suing phobia.
I also think blanket screenings/innoculations are not neccesarily bad. After all, diseases are bad, and so is untreated mental illness. I guess my motto is "Unlimited Freedom... except when it comes to health and Bad drugs."

CREVANREAVER

Friday, September 17, 2004 10:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
This is kind of a rambling response just based on what I think might be a limited framing to this question. Since we've only had experience with one world, and many nations, it makes sense that to our point of view everything can be nicely broken down into the political parties of one nation. But in the Firefly 'verse were talking about many different moons and planets, all with their own associated internal politics. There's a whole host of different ways to run a planet, from totalitarian regimes to theocracies to some form of democracy to anarchy, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if the independents had people from all types of governments represented. More of a broad based coalition brought together for one purpose, to keep from being dominated by the Alliance. The commonality being that all of the members just want to run their own worlds in the way they see fit. So my weasling answer to the question, "Who do you see the independents as equivalent to?" combined with the title of "Republican or Democrat" would be: both and a whole lot more besides. It just depends on which independent you were looking at.

After thinking about it for so long, your most likely right SoupCatcher. Politically the Browncoats were probably very diverse. However, I'm pretty positive Mal and Zoe would most definately be Anarcho-Capitalists.

If you don't exactly know what that is, just click on the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

That stuff makes a lot of sense to me and I'm sure it would to Mal!

CHEWIE

Friday, September 17, 2004 11:41 PM

Personally I think they would look at the issues and vote for what they thought was right. Not really taking a side, other then their own.

CREVANREAVER

Saturday, September 18, 2004 6:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Chewie:
...they would look at the issues and vote for what they thought was right.

Yes, and the purpose of this thread is to guess exactly what they would have thought was right!

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:21 PM

CrevanReaver, that definition looks like a pretty good fit for Mal. I'm not sure there's enough information to say the same thing about Zoe. Mal appears to be a reformed idealist. I think Zoe has always been a realist. I don't know where that fits in.

As far as the rest of our BDHs go... Not sure about Wash. Not sure about Book. Not sure about River. The rest of the crew kind of has a core versus border breakdown. Jayne and Kaylee from the border, Simon and Inara from the core. I doubt Jayne would ever vote. Simon and Inara would probably (before they left the core) vote for whatever party was dominant in the Alliance - although I'm not convinced that the Alliance has elections.

There's just so many ways to break this down: rich/poor, urban/rural, frontier/core, social liberal/conservative, Blue Sun/wildcatters, and probably a whole host of others.

It's fun to speculate. I have a suspicion that surviving on the rim is a full time job that doesn't leave much time for political type speculations. But protecting River is forcing Mal to pay attention to the bigger picture and slowly re-integrating him into the 'verse.

Just rambling...

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

CONSCIENCE

Sunday, September 19, 2004 3:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I think Zoe has always been a realist.

SoupCatcher, how exactly would you define a Realist?

Because this is how the Christian Science Monitor describes it.

Realists…

* Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
* Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa
* Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations
* Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
* Weigh the political costs of foreign action
* Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest

Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell

http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/neoConQuiz.pl

Or did you mean realist in a non-political way?

SOUPCATCHER

Sunday, September 19, 2004 6:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Conscience
SoupCatcher, how exactly would you define a Realist?

Because this is how the Christian Science Monitor describes it.

Realists…

* Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
* Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa
* Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations
* Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
* Weigh the political costs of foreign action
* Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest

Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell

http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/neoConQuiz.pl

Or did you mean realist in a non-political way?

I'm not sure what you provided is a definition so much as a set of attributes that the CS Monitor thinks are generalizable for realists. Of those attributes, the first one is probably closest to what I meant with that description of Zoe.
Realist - One who is inclined to literal truth and pragmatism. {dictionary.com}
Idealist - One whose conduct is influenced by ideals that often conflict with practical considerations. {dictionary.com}

Basically, I was trying to add some dimension to the discussion of the politics of our BDHs (rampant speculation coming up) by trying to delve into their motivations. I think that we have enough information about Mal, and CrevanReaver's suggestion of Anarcho-Capitalist looks like a good fit to me. But I don't think we have enough information about Zoe so I was starting to pull together what we do know. The only backstory we have about Zoe is that she served in the war with Mal. I think Mal saw the war as more of a crusade. He passionately believed in the cause of the Independents, that the cause was right, just, etc. That's why I labeled him as an idealist. There's nothing quite like an idealist getting smacked upside the head by reality, and that's exactly what happened to Mal in Serenity Valley. He also made the unfortunate mistake of believing that God was on the side of the Browncoats. It's not that he doesn't believe in God anymore, it's that he is PISSED off at God for the loss of the war (there's been some good discussion on this topic in the archives if you're interested). So that's why I labeled him as a reformed idealist. His response to the war was to retreat, to maintain existence and go through the motions, but he's not fighting for any big cause, he just wants to take care of him and his own. The arrival of River threatens to upset that equilibrium. Now he's starting to care again.

I'm not sure why Zoe fought for the Browncoats. And it doesn't really matter. But she took a very practical approach - she became the most efficient killer she could be. I personally don't think Zoe waxes nostalgic for the cause, the war is over and she has moved on. While Mal is just maintaining, Zoe appears to have the attitude of, "This is where I am in life, so I will live my life here." Getting married. Caring about the crew. Wanting to have a child. She seems to me to be a perfect example of a realist.

I find the relationship of Mal and Zoe one of the most fascinating in the Firefly 'verse. But I've rambled long enough. So that's what I meant by my quick throw away line, Conscience. I think the flashback to the battle of Du Khang (sp?) highlights the differences between how a realist and an idealist practice war.

editted to add: So, Conscience, have you given any thought to the question I posed earlier to you in regards to Kaylee's morality?

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

STANDING8

Sunday, September 19, 2004 6:41 PM

democrat.

-Soul Rebel-

a love supreme dreaming...

http://www.livejournal.com/users/standing8

updated: 9/17/04!

IAMJACKSUSERNAME

Sunday, September 19, 2004 9:49 PM

Mal's a thief, so not so much with the 21st century capitalist libertarianism. A CL would only take someone else's property if it's legal to do so, or war.

Of course some of 'em'd like it to be legal for a rich person to buy a pauper's lung so the pauper can afford an air filter...
--
I am Jack's asbestos suit

NEUTRINOLAD

Sunday, September 26, 2004 4:26 AM

What some of you are misapprehending (and some of you ain't) is that the Alliance is the Republicans AND the Democrats.
I would say they are akin to, if anything, the BullMoose Party.
Those that are the the joing kind, that is.

NEUTRINOLAD

Sunday, September 26, 2004 4:26 AM

What some of you are misapprehending (and some of you ain't) is that the Alliance is the Republicans AND the Democrats.
I would say they are akin to, if anything, the BullMoose Party.
Those that are the the joining kind, that is.

NEUTRINOLAD

Sunday, September 26, 2004 4:30 AM

Reminds me of an old old joke.
A Democrat with integrity, a self-reliant Republican, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny all pull up to a 4-way stop simultaneously. Who goes first?

CREVANREAVER

Thursday, October 7, 2004 8:06 PM

Libertatis Æquilibritas

One thing a know for certain is that either Mal or Zoe would wipe the floor with Kerry, Bush, Cheney or Edwards in a debate!

If anyone's interested here is some info about the various incarnations of the BullMoose Party that Neutrinolad mentioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_moose_party

FIREFLEW

Saturday, October 9, 2004 1:53 PM

How about the Constitutionalist Party?

___________________________________
Jayne: "Know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I beat you with till you understand who's in command."

CREVANREAVER

Saturday, October 9, 2004 10:11 PM

Yeah, maybe!

FIREFLEW

Saturday, October 9, 2004 11:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CrevanReaver:
Yeah, maybe!

Let this be known: I know jack all about American politics

.

___________________________________
Jayne: "Know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I beat you with till you understand who's in command."

ROCKETJOCK

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 11:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by spikeandjezebel:
I just want to say that I'm very pleased that this thread has not devolved into the usual "Republicans suck! No, you're stupid, Democrats suck!" type of dialogue. Once again proving that, whatever your political affiliation, a Browncoat is generally smarter than the average citizen!

Actually, being a registered member of the "A curse on both your houses!" party (i.e., Libertarian), I think the Republicrats and the Demigogs suck more or less equally. Or if not suck, at least inhale very deeply.

Seriously, the essentually identical nature of the two major parties is a source of constant amusement for me. And the current dead heat race for president is frighteningly reminiscent of the 2000 election -- if it gets down to a recount of the Florida vote again this year, I'm seriously going to look into obtaining Canadian citizenship. They aren't any more free than U.S. citizens, but at least they're more polite about it...

"You can't enslave a free man. The most you can do is kill him." -- Robert A. Heinlein

CREVANREAVER

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 12:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
I'm seriously going to look into obtaining Canadian citizenship.

RocketJock, I'm also a Libertarian and I have to tell you, that although we have our problem in this country we are still much better a country than that socialist nation up north.

http://www.negativepositive.org/fuck-canada.html

ROCKETJOCK

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 8:56 PM

Geez, I thought I was just being sardonic. Maybe I should have picked Australia instead. No idea what their personal freedom index is like, but at least there's plenty of outback to go hide in...

hy-larious web site though. "Blame Canada, Blame Canada..."

"You can't enslave a free man. The most you can do is kill him." -- Robert A. Heinlein

SOOKA5

Saturday, June 14, 2008 8:52 AM

I think everyone in this thread is missing the mark. You cannot make observations on serenenty's crew and their political affiliation. The reason being that they do not live in the same world we do. You could call them libertarians despite the fact that they tend to care about a lot of the good people they meet and share what is theres with them hence inviting shepard and simon/river onboard. This makes them more socialist than anything. One person made a point about them not being liberal because democrats tend to be against "second amendment rights." This statement is stupid because they do not live in todays world. Believe it or not but liberals during the civil war era all caried guns. These people live in a westen style "free for all" existance. Everyone has to carry a weapon merely to survive. You have to hate big government (not because they are republican), but because the big government we are talking about is a fascist dictatorship. My best guess as to what the political standing of the serenety crew: is the absence of political judgement. They dont have politics on their mind. They live in a world of survival and little more matters to them. Sure there are parallels to the civil war and them being on the conf. side, however because race is not an issue here, you cannot clearly make that connection. That jerk in this thread that keeps saying "confederates were morally surperior(except for slavery)" is an idiot. Except for slavery!!!! Slavery is a pretty freakin big deal ass! That said, obviously Joss wanted connections to coincide with the western essence of the show, but in no way can you clearly make a modern connection to any sort of political faction today be it liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist or w/e. this show isnt political, it is merely an homage to the essence of the western civil war period with some vast differences. You could also make the connection with the colonies vs. the british in the revolutionary war, but w.e its not part of the show.....sorry for all the typos its late and im typing fast.

-I want a spaceship so i can leave this place.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, June 14, 2008 11:34 AM

Gotta be independents. No way are Browncoats recognizable to either GOP or Democrats, not of the currant variety. Mal puts it best... " That's what governments are for. Get in a man's way." If you're going to be strict and make a " either or " edict, then it'd have to be the GOP. The Republicans are less for Big Gov't, centralized authoritarian control. Mal in his shipping business would fare better if the Alliance were more GOP than Democratic.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

KWICKO

Saturday, June 14, 2008 3:32 PM

Quote:
The Republicans are less for Big Gov't, centralized authoritarian control.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHH!!!!

LESS for Big Government? LESS for centralized, authoritarian control? Republicans are for LESS of these things? Their track record of the past 8 years clearly says otherwise. You've created entire new agencies with Cabinet-level authority, you've tried to centralize ALL the power in government in the hands of a single person (the "unitary Executive" theory of the Presidency). You've decided to listen in on the phone calls of every American, you've expanded the use of warrantless searches in direct contravention of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, you've repeatedly taken the side of big corporations and trampled on the rights of the little guy, and you've dramatically expanded military spending and the mission of that military.

Don't try to say that you're "for" less government and less authoritarianism when your deeds clearly contradict such a baseless claim. In the scenario of Firefly, THIS government is the Alliance, all fascism and control. Our little crew is like a tiny band of survivalists trying to stay out of the government's way.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

RALLEM

Saturday, June 14, 2008 7:08 PM

I'm not a very big fan of the browncoats, which I understand might be a dangerous thing to say here, but while I agree with the initial goal of the rebellion, I have to remember it was the Browncoats who dropped all of those units into Serenity Valley to do the impossible and failed to assist or even attempt a rescue of those troops when needed.

http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, June 16, 2008 5:27 AM

Libertarian, Independent, Reform.
The Browncoats didn't give up at BOSV, the high command of the Independent Army did. Polititians.

JAYNEZTOWN

Thursday, November 10, 2022 6:08 PM

Progressive group preemptively blames Manchin for likely Democratic losses in midterms

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/progressive-group-preemptively-blames
-manchin-likely-democratic-losses-midterms