What were the Independents Really Fighting For?
POSTED BY: Ty
UPDATED: Saturday, August 9, 2003 14:22
VIEWED: 11782
PAGE 1 of 1
Hello Everyone,
I wanted feedback if anyone had any on what the Independents were really fighting for. You see, from all my watching of Firefly episodes, I'm still at a loss. Does anyone have any information at all about what the Alliance were trying to do other than establish one central government that was so bad? And I believe that I read in a fanfic that it could be surmised that Reavers "became" due to the Independents decisive action to go to war rather than join under one rule. Let me know.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Seems to me it's as simple as one person saying, "I'm your boss," and the other person saying, "No you ain't."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Alliance was trying to get everybody under their rule. Obviously, some of the Independent worlds didn't like this. It's sort of like saying, "Okay, we are going to run the show now whether you like it or not." The rest is history.
The thing about the Reavers, I'm not sure. I mean there was mention on the show about stories where people drifted too far into space and lost their minds.
"Let's moon 'em!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you for the responses but I already knew that much before I asked the question.
Hopefully the movie will shed more light on this subject for me. Given what I've seen of life on the Core and life on the Rim, it's difficult for me to imagine a person willingly wanting to live in abject poverty. Without very much information to go on, (I'm sure Josh and Tim would have filled us in on what made the Alliance so bad in future episodes), I simply wonder how educated those that did not want to be under the rule of the Alliance really were. I wonder because some of these planets the people were living on were ridiculous. Horses and buggies and were 500yrs in the future? (Space WESTERN, yeah, got that).
"I'm your boss", "No you ain't"...well, ok. Could a person be an entrepenuer in an Alliance gov't?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Who should hold sovereignty? The State, or the Federal government?
Does the Federal government exist to serve the state, or does the state exist to serve the government?
Who is allowed to make laws that affect my life? People in my city? People in my county? People in my state? People on the other side of the world?
How about people on the far side of the galaxy? Can 30 billion people in the core worlds who have never even heard of my planet make the laws that affect my daily life?
Am I going to let people a trillion miles away tell me how to live?
Do I prefer to live in Abject poverty rather than live under foreign rule? Ask the arabs. Ask the Iranians. Even ask the Iraqis if they prefer to live under the United States' control.
We got body bags filling up every day because we say they will... and they say they won't. We're probably stronger. We'll probably win. Their quality of life may even improve because of us.
But that don't mean they want us there.
--Anthony
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Excellent post, AnthonyT.
American history sure is funny, in a tragic way. The pilgrims risk their lives and face poverty in a brave new world in order to be free.
Then they buy slaves, grow into a big and strong nation, and currently terrorize the world in the name of Freedom.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just wanted to say Great Post !!!!!
" If wishes were Horses, then we'd all be eatting Steak "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ty:
Could a person be an entrepenuer in an Alliance gov't?
Well, it has been established that even fairly simple economic transactions (i.e. shipping cattle off-world in Shindig/Safe, the infamous wobbly-headed dolls of Trash, etc.) are either heavily taxed or forbidden altogether. I would bet that the core planets have, at best, a crony capitalist economy (with some mercantilism thrown in no doubt). It isn't clear whether it is possible to be an entrepreneur on a core planet or anywhere else under Alliance control, but it seems unlikely.
Of course, it also seems unlikely that either of these commodities I just mentioned could ever be worth shipping off world, at least in amounts that Serenity could carry, but that is a whole other issue. I don't think it is possible to look too closely at the economics of the show anyway, what with it being a space western and all.
Keep Flying
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Your Michael Moore history is just too funny, Tash.
We can take Joss' (and others) remarks about this being inspired by The Killer Angels and look at it as a kind of American Civil War model.
Most folks automatically think that the American Civil War was all about slavery. That was certainly a factor, but it was really about state's rights, per another poster up there (Anthony?). The American Civil War and Lincoln essentially removed the 10th ammendment from play. It says "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people."
All things being equal, individual states are no longer sovereign. There is a superficial resemblance to it, but the federal government controls/maintains all legislation.
From that point, we might deduce that the war between the Alliance and Independents was one of planetary sovereignty. Perhaps the people on the Rim, who I'm sure don't choose to live in anachronistic conditions, decided that living in a place where the government couldn't dictate their lives to them was what they wanted.
Further, from what we've seen, those that live on the Rim don't always choose to live there. The Alliance sends people places, dumps colonists where they want them, etc. Perhaps part of the fight is just to be able to go from point A to point B at will.
Sarah
I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not joking, Sarah. Just stating the facts.
Originally posted by Sarahetc:
Your Michael Moore history is just too funny, Tash.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Great thread!
Now let me try my hand. In the early years of the American Civil War, people in the North were generally against slavery. That didn't mean, though, that they wanted to die to end it. When war broke out, many people rioted, and even the legislators of New York City held a meeting on whether they should secede from the Union with the South. (That decision was quickly scrapped on April 13, 1861 when news that Fort Sumter was fired on spread.)
The North was torn. Should we fight for abolition, Should we fight to keep the Union together, Should we fight for "Northern rights," Should we fight to establish a centralized Republic, Should we fight to end the aristocracy that is growing in the South in the form of Cavaliers? Should we fight to avenge Fort Sumter? Even the least ambivalence would cause someone to decide that none of these things were worth dying for. Really, if Alabama dropped off the map, would anyone know or care? Would anyone be willing to die to be sure that it didn't? Has anyone actually met a cavalier, and how does that effect my salary at the factory?
The South, by contrast, knew why they were fighting. They were being invaded.
In Firefly, the same thing pretty much applies. The rim is being invaded, they want to rule us. If there is another reason for a cosmic Civil War, it is not metioned in the series, but that, it seems, is as good a reason as any.
Viva Firefly!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JOHNNYREB:
Really, if Alabama dropped off the map, would anyone know or care? Would anyone be willing to die to be sure that it didn't?
With the exception of Sarahetc (for whom I would at least smack people over the head with a guitar), I wouldn't mind if Alabama disappeared--except that it would bring Georgia that much closer...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JOHNNYREB:
The North was torn. Should we fight for abolition, Should we fight to keep the Union together, Should we fight for "Northern rights," Should we fight to establish a centralized Republic, Should we fight to end the aristocracy that is growing in the South in the form of Cavaliers? Should we fight to avenge Fort Sumter? Even the least ambivalence would cause someone to decide that none of these things were worth dying for. Really, if Alabama dropped off the map, would anyone know or care? Would anyone be willing to die to be sure that it didn't? Has anyone actually met a cavalier, and how does that effect my salary at the factory?
The South, by contrast, knew why they were fighting. They were being invaded.
Right. Yes. Dig yourself. But seriously, seriously, seriously abolition was not the source of the war. As my high school history teacher used to say, slavery was the salt in the festering wound of domestic policy.
As for southern aristocracy, the notion of it, while legitimate, is staggering in contrast with the yankee aristocracy. No matter how much progress the Fugitive movement of literature made, people are still bogged down with this moonlight and magnolias idea.
Not that you're bogged down, Johnny. You make a lot of great points.
We've been half chatting about this on IRC all evening (yet another reason for all y'all to join us-- threads live!) and Archer brought up a good point. A Civil War is a war between two factions for control of one government. The American Civil War was not that. When the south seceeded, it did so to declare independence and form its own government, by and for its own people. The union army invaded to disallow that to maintain the steady flow of agricultural products. In fact, when the union won its narrow victory, Reconstruction ensured that those products would flow at an ever faster pace and better rate.
Firefly? When the Alliance crushed the resistance of the Rim, they can now take whatever the Rim is producing (ore, timber, cattle, whatever) at a faster and better rate. The Alliance are carpetbaggers with dweeby uniforms.
Sarah
p.s. Again, somebody pat me on the back for not using the term The War of Northern Aggression.
I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Y'all wonder why the Independence was fighting the Alliance? It's simple: the Alliance, like all governments that gain power from violence and threats of violence, could care less for 99% of it's populace. Unless you live on a Core World and are rich/powerful the Alliace will ignore/persecute you.
Examples:
1. Bushwacked - The Feds travelling on the maglev train were ordered to continue to their base despite the fact that without their help, it was likely that the stolen meds would not be recovered.
2. Safe - The Alliance cruiser Magellen, despite having excellent medical facilities, was going to refuse treatment to a mortally wounded man until they read his ident card and discovered that he was one of those special 1%.
I'm sure there are more, I just can't think of 'em.
Oh, my GOD! WHO'S FLYING THIS THING!!! Oh, right that would be me...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Blackstar, I don't think the Alliance is as bad as some make it out to be. Yes, there are some bad apples, mostly the ones that deal in the kinds of places Serenity’s crew does, but there are also many out there that are doing good, or at least are trying to do good-- The Alliance guys that wanted to prosecute Mal and all the others because he thought they murdered all of those families in Bushwhacked, and most of the men and women in The Train Job loved the Alliance for some reason.
I think everyone, both sides, still have rough feelings from the war and don’t trust anyone that wasn't fighting for them in the first place, oh, or it’s the stories all the core born folks and little kids have been told about the war and how horrible, sneaky, and controlling the people from the “other side” are.
Hope something in that mess made sense.
-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, Kaythryn, I agree that in general, most of the low- and mid-level Alliance citizens and servents(soldiers, spacers and the like)are probably good people who belive in the Alliance. And, in some cases, the Alliance may be beneficial to some people, but I think the leaders, or elements within the leadership, are certainly evil. For those 'bad apples' to thrive they must be ignored and possibly even encouaged. And don't forget, the Alliance created an Academy specifically for the purpose of luring the best and brightest children in the Core with the intent of doing inhumane experiments on them. I don't mean to suggest that the Alliance is evil incarnate, but I do think that many of the Independants realized the problems within the Alliance and didn't wish to join. But, since the higher-ups wanted more power...
Oh, my God! WHO'S FLYING THIS THING!!! Oh, right, that would be me...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
When the south seceeded, it did so to declare independence and form its own government, by and for its own people. The union army invaded to disallow that to maintain the steady flow of agricultural products.
I have to say that I know a whole lot more about Civil War battles than I do about it's causes.
Any way here's my pereception of the whole mess.
The political leaders and rich landowners of the South fought to preserve a way of life dependent on the plantation system. States Rights was a keystone to their argument, it was essential to maintain their system (by is I mean that if the Federal government could outlaw slavery make tariffs on finished European goods mandatory it might threaten their way of life). Most Confederate soldiers were not of this class, their reasons for going to war were for regional pride and what they perceived as self-defense. As Shelby Foote put it, a Yankee asked a Reb "Why are you fighting?" the Reb replied, "Why are you down here?"
The North needed a market but couldn't produce finished goods as cheapily as Europe. The political leaders in the North wanted to tax incoming goods from Europe. Once the South the seceded there was an outcry to preserve the Union not to mention the continuting pressure from the Abolotionist Movement to end slavery, these were the motivations for most of the common Union soldiers.
I find it interesting that so much is made about the Civil War not being about slavery. If you read some of the documents of the time ( http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html) it seems to be very much on their minds.
I think the Rebel Soldier is glorified because of the bravery and bravado he fought with (both these characteristics embodied in the Rebel Yell), but as far as his cause, I just don't believe it was the right one.
The Union Soldier gets the short straw here. He fought as hard as his counterpart, but for most of the war he had inferior leadership. Think of the courage it would take to charge the wall at Fredericksburg. To be outmanouvered and beaten time and time again and still be able to hold Little Round Top and the Angle at Gettysburg.
The characters in this TV show, that I love so much, represent all the good aspects of these men on bothsides. I'm sure that Joss is not using the Browncoats to posthumously show the superiority of the Southern cause. And I don't care what that guy wrote in the article Swatting the Firefly, Firefly wasn't canceled because Malcolm Reynolds is a Southerner.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let's not get too carried away. The Confederate states hesitated not at all in drafting the unwilling into military service, nationalizing goods and services for the war effort, and dealing with foreign powers as a nation, despite their 'state's rights' rhetoric.
Was 'abolition' simply political hogwash to hoodwink the ignorant masses? Don't count on it, particularly if YOU're the one being branded.
As for Firefly, doesn't Mal more than once in the few episodes we've seen mention or imply that there is trade in humans?
The Core worlds were pouring huge amounts of cash and resources into terraforming to supply the growing human race with new worlds to develop. Who in their right mind, or even close, would populate a new world with criminals, or even reluctant colonists? Sure, the colonists often had no idea of the privations they would endure, but hey, shouldn't they have checked a little before getting on that transport? And then they have the nerve to declare themselves independent. Imagine that.
As for the technology, listen up, pilgrim. You can a)ship a buncha machines to your frontier, then ship repair parts along with mechanics; this is expensive, or b)ship the components to build a factory to make the machines and parts; this is expensive, or c)ship 2 horses and 2 donkeys, and breed them into herds, cross them for mules; this is cheap. You can ride the horses, use them to pull wagons, or even eat them. The donkeys are useful for light cartage, and in breeding mules. Mules can do everything a horse can, and are often better; the problem is they don't breed.
People will build with materials found on the frontier, cause it's cheaper. People will grow their own food on the frontier, cause it's cheaper. Horses, gardens, wooden towns; these are all inevitable on any frontier that is really a frontier and not some themepark. Gunpowder is reliable and cheap; batteries are neither, so guns are likely to be with us as long as there is a frontier.
What were the Independents fighting for? Let's not forget the Alliance was fighting, too. It was likely more complex than just 'freedom' for the Indies or 'money' for the Alliance.
Take my love
Take my land
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kaythryn, your post hits the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. I don't think its at all clear that the Alliance itself is evil, at least not in the black and white way everyone seems to need in televisionland. To me, its just back to the same old point - this show is about people, not politics and history. Its about what its like to be on the losing side after major war.
If the Alliance was clearly an evil empire ala Star Wars, the meaning of the story would shift and we be tempted to root for some kind of New Rebellion. I sincerely hope that's not the case and I think we've been given plenty of clues that it's not.
Certainly the Alliance has its evil elements (blue hands, etc) and given that survival for Serenity often means bending the law it[The Alliance] will fill the role of the bad guy in most cases, but I think that's more a matter of circumstance. The Alliance seems to me no more evil than any large powerful government.
SergeantX
"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not all of us came here of our own free will. The southern colonies started off as penal colonies for pickpockets, hookers, and other such folks England did not want. (Which makes their buying slaves all the more ironic)
Has anyone else noted that the Alliance has Lords and such? An aristocracy is a bit of an old idea, and would have thought it would die off.
As to your "terrorize the world in the name of Freedom", well if it keeps them from flying planes into our building, so what?
"my kind of stupid"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The reason why the southern rebel gets glorified is he fought for a lost cause. We still honor Custer for the same reason, valiantly fighting and dying and losing sucks. No body would do it if we did not honor those who did.
But getting back to the Civil War debate, the reasons on both sides were complex. Slavery was just salt in a festering wound, and there were economic interests on both sides. But the North was not all about invasion and subjugation. (Nor even freeing the slaves) It was about preserving the union.
The fundamental aspect of democracy is that of majority rules. The minority, or losing side, does not run off, form their own government and leave. They accept the decisions of the majority.
Besides which, almost 90 years earlier we made a big stink about how everyone was created equal, yet allowed the continuation, with government sanction, of a system which made some more equal than others. Slavery was a fundamental hypocrisy in the nation's origin.
Lincoln is on record as saying that if the choice came between freeing the slaves and destroying the union, he was going to keep the union together. The south did not have the numbers in Congress nor against the northern legislatures to prevent the ratification of any kind of Immancipation Proclamation. So they ditched democracy and split off on their own.
And shot up a fort full of American soldiers in the process.
If Lincoln or the North had allowed that to pass, there would be no United States at all. And we would be a continent suffering from the same warfare that ravaged much of Europe through most of its history. I would hate to think how things would be different if the North had lost, (which it almost did, despite an advantage in men and material)
It should also be pointed out that in order to repress slave revolts, the South had some pretty draconian laws on their books against whites. They could not teach blacks how to read or write, and gun ownership was restricted in the south. Most of the early gun control cases come from southern courts.
The bits and pieces we see of the Alliance, we see an aristocracy, and an open slave trade. We see Simon and River's father more upset about his entry into a police station being part of his record, than what they are doing to his child.
"my kind of stupid"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Excellent posts, Drakon, but I'll have to take exception to a few of your points.
First, this isn't a democracy. This is a representative republic designed in part to maintain barriers against the fickle whims of the majority. Pure democracy can easily become a ruthless form of majoritarianism that can justify any variety of atrocity based on the mood of the side that has fifty-one percent of the vote.
One of the ironies of the nineteenth century was the political organization represented by the man many people call our greatest president ever was also the same institution responsible for Manifest Destiny, the Indian Wars, and the excesses of industrialization. The same people who extoll Lincoln will declaim these things in a heartbeat. It was the Whigs, who became the Republicans shortly before Lincoln's election, who followed Henry Clay's blueprint for expansionism and mercantilism.
The results? The American southwest taken from Mexico. Two invasions of Canada in the nineteenth century, with the intent of conquering part or all of another sovereign nation. The extermination of the native tribes as subhumans. The usage of European and Chinese immigrants as a disposable labor source, to be treated even worse than your average southern plantation slave. (Bad as slavery was, slaves cost money- immigrants were free and essentially a renewable resource.)
Have things worked out in the end? Sure. But what Lincoln and his ilk did was barbaric, and they were operating out of greed, hunger for power and hunger for control. The war gave birth to much-lamented military-industrial complex, saw the legitimization of total warfare tactics including the sanctioned use of atrocities by Union forces against Southern civilians, and as noted by Miss Sarah it crushed once and for all the concept of state sovereignty.
As for Fort Sumter, that was a calculated move on Lincoln's part, leaving the garrison in place knowing that if the Confederacy fired the first shot it would go a long way toward validating a punitive campaign and keeping Europe from extending recognition to the new nation. It wasn't a case of the Confederacy announcing "Hey, we're outta here. (BOOM!)"
If there had been a peaceful secession, I doubt that North America would have been plagued by continental wars of the European fashion, but we'll never know what would have come of that course. On the other hand, a Union loss probably would have led to further wars.
There ain't nothin' I can't overcome or come to know. So lay your heavy load down on me, strip everything I have away. I am not your prisoner, I am not afraid.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And just to show that I can veer somewhere near the point of the thread, I'll point out a couple of bits I've noted with regard to the Alliance.
First off, we have seen examples of compassion and courage from Alliance officials, specifically the captains of the Alliance cruisers in Bushwhacked and Serenity. "Let's go save those people." is not the sentiment of a blood-drinking babykiller.
On the other hand, it's rather chilling that Mal didn't bat an eye at Saffron's description of her ex as a guy who orchestrated biowarfare attacks on civilian communities in order to get goodies for his artifact collection. The implicit suggestion is that such behavior (biological attacks on civilian targets) was something that not only happened during the war, but was apparently routine.
Now for my part, I don't particularly like that element of Trash because frankly I think that such barbaric tactics would likely lead to a much stronger resistance movement than has been shown. I seriously doubt people like Mal would try to settle into a 'normal' life after a war like that. At the very least, there would be a lot more savage hatred of the Alliance than has been shown so far.
There ain't nothin' I can't overcome or come to know. So lay your heavy load down on me, strip everything I have away. I am not your prisoner, I am not afraid.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks for your kind words. Now on to your exceptions.
First, I realize that this is a liberal (in the classic sense) representative republic. And agree with your complaint against pure democracy. I was trying to simplify it for an already long post. My point still holds. Even in a representative republic, the losing side does not up and dissolve the entire nation when it does not get its way.
You claim that it was "greed, power and control" that motivated the Whigs and the Republicans in the mid 19th century. While I doubt that there were not some who were so motivated, there was also a desire to live up to the ideals we told everyone we were about. To prove that our nation could govern itself, without the imposition of an aristocracy. If the South had won, it would prove the experiment a failure, with dire consequences for the rest of history, not only to us, but to the rest of the world as well.
While it may have been barbaric, judging from this far removed age, at the time I am sure they were veiwed differently. There is a tendency in history to decry our ancestors as barbarians, and complain about them taking actions we never would have. But we do not have the advantage of living in their times. We stand on their shoulders, not the other way around.
As for dealings with Mexico, it should be pointed out in the case of Texas, that it was a nation of its own, and fought for its own independence from Mexico, before joining the Union. Granted many of the leaders of that rebellion were Americans prior to becoming Texans, but they still fought and died for their nation, just as our ancestors fought the British.
The rebellion of Texas and its subsequent annexation into the US 10 years later, led to the Mexican American war. It should be noted that there were several attempts to purchase the land from Mexico prior to this. Mexico rebuffed, there was a disagreement and it was settled by a force of arms.
It should also be noted that when the first Americans arrived in Texas, and California shortly after Mexico gained its independence, they were welcomed with open arms.
Additionally, the terms that concluded the war required the US to pay 15 million dollars for the land. This was with American troops in Mexico City, dictating the terms. Why, if the Americans were so greedy and controlling they did not annex the entire country?
As for California, it should be remembered that the Mexican American war was fought and they lost. And the territory was ceeded to the US in exchange for peace.
And as far as the Indian wars are concern, you are going to have that kind of friction any time you have a clash of cultures so disparate as was evident between the native Americans and the European immigrants. The tools and technology, as well as numbers were on the side of the Europeans. It may be sad and regrettable, but that is life.
As to the disposable immigrant laborers, it should be pointed out that these were NOT slaves. No one was pressing them into leaving China, or Europe. They came here because as bad as things were here, they were far worse back there. (This is also why we never had an aristocracy here, all the aristocrats stayed home.
As to Canandain invasions, I am not sure which incidents you are talking about. The war of 1812, we were at war with England, of which Canada was still a province of England. As to the Oregon territory, it was jointly occupied by both American and Birtish explorers and settlers bu terms of an 181 treaty, and the boarder was peacably settled by treaty in 1846.
Whether Lincoln's leaving of the garrison was a ploy or not, does not relieve the rebels of the responsibility for firing the first shot. It may have been a baited trap, but the rebels bit. That insured there would be no peaceful secession, not the leaving of the garrison, but the rebel attack on that garrison.
The state's right thing is mostly a dodge. The issue was tarrifs, which the Constitution gave power to Congress to set. Slavery was also settled in the Constitution as well. The latter was perceived
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Again, I think you are looking at it through 21st century western eyes. There are still cultures that think nothing of gassing an entire town, or feeding political prisoners into industrial plastics shredders. And after a while you realize that if you leave them alone, you can live. You cause problems, you die. People will choose life over death almost all the time.
There is no mention as to the tactics used by the Browncoats.
Wars suck, a lot of bad things happen in war.
I don't think they are blood drinking baby killers either, at least not intentionally. My main objection to the Alliance is it won't work. No matter what the best intentions are, there is a severe information problem inherent in any command economy like that. Add to the fact you have an aristocracy, and people "knowing their place" it just furthers the blindness to problems as well as solutions, and makes the decision loop a lot longer.
But whether you starve because the Alliance forgot the food shipment, or intended to starve you out, is irrelevant. Bodies don't ask how they got cold.
"my kind of stupid"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh oh, meaty reply for me to sink my teeth into. Too bad I'm leaving on Saturday, so we won't have time to properly hash this out over the course of a couple of weeks.
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Thanks for your kind words. Now on to your exceptions.
First, I realize that this is a liberal (in the classic sense) representative republic. And agree with your complaint against pure democracy. I was trying to simplify it for an already long post. My point still holds. Even in a representative republic, the losing side does not up and dissolve the entire nation when it does not get its way.
But there are points at which the rule of the powers that be, whether majority-elected or 'divinely born' becomes too intolerable for those they rule. This is recognized in the Declaration of Independence. This is of course a very gray area because there are no rules of when it's 'the right time to revolt.'
Quote:
You claim that it was "greed, power and control" that motivated the Whigs and the Republicans in the mid 19th century. While I doubt that there were not some who were so motivated, there was also a desire to live up to the ideals we told everyone we were about. To prove that our nation could govern itself, without the imposition of an aristocracy. If the South had won, it would prove the experiment a failure, with dire consequences for the rest of history, not only to us, but to the rest of the world as well.
How would a new republic being born show the experiment to be a failure, precisely? Free people, electing to form a new government. (and before somebody jumps in on the issue, yes, the slaves didn't get a vote. I don't justify or excuse slavery in any way.)
Quote:
While it may have been barbaric, judging from this far removed age, at the time I am sure they were veiwed differently. There is a tendency in history to decry our ancestors as barbarians, and complain about them taking actions we never would have. But we do not have the advantage of living in their times. We stand on their shoulders, not the other way around.
Among other things, Sherman's March to the Sea promoted atrocities against civilians, and other events include the bombardment of Charleston, which at least on the Southern side of the war were viewed as atrocities and barbarism. I can full well agree with you on the point of people decrying our ancestors as barbarians via the prism of modern-day morality. But it was Lincoln's contention that the citizens of the Southern states were still American citizens. As such, he condoned the usage of military force and atrocity against noncombatant citizens. That's not even going into his various unconstitutional actions against residents of the border states and the rest of the Union, or his blatantly unconstitutional creation of West Virginia.
Lincoln violated nearly every amendment of a Bill of Rights created a bit after the four score and seven years the nation was founded. So the moral precedents were there, and he and his disregarded them.
(Side note- I really like the line about 'standing on their shoulders.' Sums up some of my feelings on history and where we are very nicely.)
Quote:
As for dealings with Mexico, it should be pointed out in the case of Texas, that it was a nation of its own, and fought for its own independence from Mexico, before joining the Union. Granted many of the leaders of that rebellion were Americans prior to becoming Texans, but they still fought and died for their nation, just as our ancestors fought the British.
The rebellion of Texas and its subsequent annexation into the US 10 years later, led to the Mexican American war. It should be noted that there were several attempts to purchase the land from Mexico prior to this. Mexico rebuffed, there was a disagreement and it was settled by a force of arms.
It should also be noted that when the first Americans arrived in Texas, and California shortly after Mexico gained its independence, they were welcomed with open aNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Again, I think you are looking at it through 21st century western eyes. There are still cultures that think nothing of gassing an entire town, or feeding political prisoners into industrial plastics shredders. And after a while you realize that if you leave them alone, you can live. You cause problems, you die. People will choose life over death almost all the time.
There is no mention as to the tactics used by the Browncoats.
Wars suck, a lot of bad things happen in war.
What we see in Firefly is an amalgmation of science fiction colonial stories with the idealized view of the Wild West from the fifties TV shows, updated and grunged a bit for a more jaded populace. From the attitudes and behaviors we have seen displayed among the main characters and the Rim worlds, I would assert that such routine attacks against noncombatant populations would breed a much harsher form of anti-Alliance sentiment among the losers. What we've seen thus far is the bitterness of losers, and melancholia over the loss of independence, and not so much the sort of personal loathing that such tactics tend to inspire.
While morals and ethics change over time, one of humankind's most primitive monkey instincts is that one somebody hits the home cave and kills the children, all rationality is out the window and you kill the sonsabitches if you have to tear their throats out with your teeth. To take your reference to the Iraqi situation, this is precisely why the Kurds never have and never will forget and forgive what was done to them.
While there are plenty of societies that would consider it fine to do unto others, you'd be hard-pressed to find an example of one that would not be seriously vindictively bitter about having it done to them. (The example that does come to mind is Germany at the end of World War 2, where regardless of Dresden, et al, being conquered by the western Allies was infinitely preferable to living under Soviet rule.)
Quote:
I don't think they are blood drinking baby killers either, at least not intentionally. My main objection to the Alliance is it won't work. No matter what the best intentions are, there is a severe information problem inherent in any command economy like that. Add to the fact you have an aristocracy, and people "knowing their place" it just furthers the blindness to problems as well as solutions, and makes the decision loop a lot longer.
But whether you starve because the Alliance forgot the food shipment, or intended to starve you out, is irrelevant. Bodies don't ask how they got cold.
Again, wholeheartedly agree.
There ain't nothin' I can't overcome or come to know. So lay your heavy load down on me, strip everything I have away. I am not your prisoner, I am not afraid.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry to everyone for the colossal length of the above posts. Drakon gave me such good material to work with, I got all excited and couldn't help myself.
There ain't nothin' I can't overcome or come to know. So lay your heavy load down on me, strip everything I have away. I am not your prisoner, I am not afraid.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Posted by Drakon:
There is no mention as to the tactics used by the Browncoats.
In Bushwhacked the Alliance commander mentions that he hasn't seen that type of torture (the survivor of the Revers attack split his tongue down the center) since the war. I doubt he’s talking about the Alliance, so there‘s a little hint about some Browncoat tactics. Just because most of the Browncoats we’ve seen have been pretty decent doesn’t mean they all were, or even most of them.
-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Even in a representative republic, the losing side does not up and dissolve the entire nation when it does not get its way.
"my kind of stupid"
The problem was that America is a Republic where the majority rules. Whenever it looked like the South was gaining the majority in Congress, the North would cry "unfair," and come up with new laws. Does anybody remember why we have a state called Maine? Because Missouri would have put too many slave holders in Senate. Texas entered the Union as a slave holding state, so California had to enter as a free state. The reason that the South "took their ball and went home," is that they couldn't get a fair shake. Lincoln made it clear that he would not abolish slavery when he was elected, but he would not allow it in the territories either. In other words, the Yankees could have 2325 states the size of Rhode Island with two senators a piece and the 13 slave holding states could go suck a pumpkin. They would be at the bottom of the barrel no matter what they did. THAT is why the South seceded from the Union. They were brickwalled at every turn.
Viva Firefly!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kaythryn:
In Bushwhacked the Alliance commander mentions that he hasn't seen that type of torture (the survivor of the Revers attack split his tongue down the center) since the war. I doubt he’s talking about the Alliance, so there‘s a little hint about some Browncoat tactics. Just because most of the Browncoats we’ve seen have been pretty decent doesn’t mean they all were, or even most of them.
I dunno, to me he seemed to be coming across at Mal in the fashion of "Hey, we both served in the war, shit happened on both sides." I definitely got a sense of 'shared misery' button-pushing out of that session. You have to bear in mind that it was still an interrogation, with all the games and rhetorical tricks that are usually employed in such situations.
We have the reference of Zoe's anecdote of apples and grenades in War Stories, and such events do tend to spur retaliation. But small-scale atrocities that can be written off to the heat of battle or your occasional Lt. Calley differ greatly from a campaign of premeditated usage of WMDs on civilian populations.
There ain't nothin' I can't overcome or come to know. So lay your heavy load down on me, strip everything I have away. I am not your prisoner, I am not afraid.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, unfortunate as it might seem, we don't know what may have incited the use of chem/bio weapons. The Browncoats may have easily used terrorist attacks against Alliance targets, thus the use of bioweapons. The target may have been an enemy camp, but one misguided shot into civvies... I hate to refer to the Browncoats as terrorists, but I think that it is far more likely that Indie troops would use such tactics than not.
Oh, my God! WHO'S FLYING THIS THING!!! Oh, right, that would be me...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by blackstar:
Well, unfortunate as it might seem, we don't know what may have incited the use of chem/bio weapons. The Browncoats may have easily used terrorist attacks against Alliance targets, thus the use of bioweapons. The target may have been an enemy camp, but one misguided shot into civvies... I hate to refer to the Browncoats as terrorists, but I think that it is far more likely that Indie troops would use such tactics than not.
Oh, my God! WHO'S FLYING THIS THING!!! Oh, right, that would be me...
Okay, granting your point (and it's a good one) I still contend that the nature and feel of the post-war environment would likely be different.
There ain't nothin' I can't overcome or come to know. So lay your heavy load down on me, strip everything I have away. I am not your prisoner, I am not afraid.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm afraid that I’m not going to read all that, but in answer to the original question I think that a computer game called Deus Ex says it quite well.
“The wealthy have always been the ones to profit from one-world government.”
“Average people never benefit from government and business on a scale they can't even understand.”
“A few bureaucrats in New York can't make good decisions for New Jersey, let alone Paris or a village in China.”
These views are debatable, but when expanded to an entire solar system (or galaxy, last I checked we still weren’t sure) they describe the independents. The Central Planets were the wealthy, and by taking over all of the planets they were able to make things better for them, but because the government was so much larger the concerns of individual planets, and thus their citizens, would be less important in the government.
The smaller a government is the better it can address the concerns of the individual, this is because there are fewer individuals to try to support. Multi tiered governments attempt to fix this by having city/county/state/country, but the city can not suspend the laws of the tiers above it because they don’t benefit it’s people. Larger governments can be necessary to prevent fighting between parts, and also for protection. Further they are capable of helping the individual better if they see the need, an example of this would be FEMA in the US.
Also how would you feel is somewhere on the other side of the world a bunch of people decided it was time for one world government, which would mean that they got to be in charge of everyone?
That’s my take on the situation.
Also we have a state called Maine because my ancestors saw the opportunity to break away from their ruler as they had been trying to do for years. The opportunity was a fear in the nation that one side would overpower the other in the issue of slavery.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
WHEW!!!!
Browncoats, you have all outdone yourselves in your educated and well written responses to this thread. Many thanks and much appreciation to all who have participated.
...do you think this thread can be shut down now?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ty:
WHEW!!!!
Browncoats, you have all outdone yourselves in your educated and well written responses to this thread. Many thanks and much appreciation to all who have participated.
...do you think this thread can be shut down now?
Oh, certainly. If Drakon wishes to carry on the dialogue we've established, feel free to email me at archero@SoftHome.net
(Inside secret... discussions of the war lead to the discussions of the parallels of the series with the War of Northern Aggression and its attendant aftermath, and that always fills up a thread in a great gobbin' hurry.)
There ain't nothin' I can't overcome or come to know. So lay your heavy load down on me, strip everything I have away. I am not your prisoner, I am not afraid.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Archer:Quote:
Originally posted by Ty:
WHEW!!!!
Browncoats, you have all outdone yourselves in your educated and well written responses to this thread. Many thanks and much appreciation to all who have participated.
...do you think this thread can be shut down now?
Oh, certainly. If Drakon wishes to carry on the dialogue we've established, feel free to email me at archero@SoftHome.net
(Inside secret... discussions of the war lead to the discussions of the parallels of the series with the War of Northern Aggression and its attendant aftermath, and that always fills up a thread in a great gobbin' hurry.)
And so long as we're sure Alabama's not going anywhere.
Sarah
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Sarahetc:
And so long as we're sure Alabama's not going anywhere.
Sarah
I swear, I left it where I found it. If it got lost, somebody else did the losin'.
There ain't nothin' I can't overcome or come to know. So lay your heavy load down on me, strip everything I have away. I am not your prisoner, I am not afraid.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First I have to say that this thread has been very educational and a lot of fun to read. My hat is off to everyone especially Drakon and Archer. I'd like to sit quietly at that corner of the bar while you two discuss history and politics someday.
Now in reply to JohnnyReb's post,
Quote:
Does anybody remember why we have a state called Maine? Because Missouri would have put too many slave holders in Senate. Texas entered the Union as a slave holding state, so California had to enter as a free state. The reason that the South "took their ball and went home," is that they couldn't get a fair shake.
The South had it's advantages too. Wasn't a pecentage (3/5ths) of the slave population counted for purpose of determinng the number of congressional representatives and electoral votes?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yep, the infamous 3/5ths compromise. Slave states wanted to count them as regular citizens for the purpose of size of state representation, Northern states wanted them to not count at all, and this is what they came up with in the end.
There ain't nothin' I can't overcome or come to know. So lay your heavy load down on me, strip everything I have away. I am not your prisoner, I am not afraid.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Because this is already getting monstrously long, I want to break it down without quotes. You quoted me in blocks, so I am simply going to number them
1) Right, it is no "right time to revolt". And I think it was Lincoln who said that they may have the right to revolt, but they do not have the right to succeed. There were two different interests at, well, war, literally there.
2) It was not a new republic being born, it was the breakup of the previous union. Other than a fundamental change in political theory, revolving around who decides tariffs and the issue of slavery, a lost by the Union would have showed the world that a nation so conceived on the concept of individual liberty cannot long endure.
America itself was the new experiment. But if it was allowed to dissolve, that would have shown the experimental form of government a failure.
3) Again we can talk about excesses in war, but it still has to be remembered that war is excessive. While Sherman was marching through Georgia, rebels were raiding farms in Kentucky and Indiana. That is the way wars were fought back then, and the way it was thought it had to be fought.
The purpose of warfare is essentially political. To get the other side to do what you want. One means of winning is to get the other side to stop supporting their forces in the field. And one way you do that with massive destruction of civilian targets. Remember this was in the days before mass media, so you had to make the suffering of war apparent to the population.
Someone once said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. If following the rules gets you killed, you still get dead. If the choice comes up to set aside the Constitution in order to save the Union in a time of war, or follow it and end up destroying the Union in the process, well, it may be a tough choice but a clear one.
I would like to point out that I am unclear as to whether Lincoln DID violate the Constitution. Many of the claims, specifically regarding habeus corpus I think are overblown.
3) I don't really have much to add. I take it your are a Texican however. 
The racism argument I don't think flies too well. There were disparate cultures and languages between Mexico and America, and I think that alone, without regard to skin tone is possibly a valid enough excuse. And there is also an inherent hypocricy in conquering another country if you claim to believe in self determination. From an argumentative form, it seems an easy dismissive, which more clouds the issue than illuminates.
4) Sadly that is true. And one of the biggest reasons it happened was because the settlers could do it, and get away with it.
But that is not the whole story. Not all the "injuns" were killed, even on the trail of tears. Killing was not the only interaction between Europeans and natives. Ask my great gandma about that
5) Why does it not wash? Yes people lived, worked and died to make life better for an elite few. They did this of their own free choice, however, without being compelled by that elite few. Why is that?
Could it be that they found it made their own lives better as well?
Universally, humans want to live and be happy. They don't work for others unless the alternative is worse for them personally. People follow the bigger better deal, and that is exactly what happened here.
Were working conditions perfect? No, but they did not have to be. They just have to be better as judged by the individual immigrant.
And again, I gotta argue shoulders here. You gotta remember we are talking about the beginning of the industrial revolution here, where massive factories were for the first time practical. Working conditions may have sucked, and we may have it far better today, but it was still better working in the factory rather than trying to meek out a living substitence farming somewhere else.
6) I had not heard of that invasion during the "War of Northern Agression." It sounds interesting.
7) Alone my posts may sound "black and white" But this is a debate, and in that context, the
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The 3/5ths comprimise was actually pretty smart.
The slaves were not free, (well duh!) and were no part of a representative government. Yet the southern states wanted to "bulk up" their representation despite that fact. With the comprimise, it gave the south somewhat what they wanted, but ensured that they would be a minority, at least until the slaves were freed.
It got America off the ground, but did delay the Civil war for awhile.
"my kind of stupid"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Sorry to everyone for the colossal length of the above posts. Drakon gave me such good material to work with, I got all excited and couldn't help myself."
Yeah, it is an interesting discussion. I apologize as well.
"mu kind of stupid"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"What we've seen thus far is the bitterness of losers, and melancholia over the loss of independence, and not so much the sort of personal loathing that such tactics tend to inspire."
Check the script for "Dead or Alive" please.
It kinda depends here. If you were killing off your women and children, well, you might be a bit more calm about them doing it to you. There is the added effect of what we know of Serenity Valley, where the fighting stopped for 5 days before they collected the wounded. Meaning Mal and Zoe saw a lot of folks, who could have been saved, die for no bloody reason at all.
After a certain point, there is just too much death.
"my kind of stupid"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There was also an issue of political parties in both Maine and California. The slave states were largely Democrats, and neither party would allow the admittance of a state leaning one way, without a counterbalancing state, leaning the other. The same thing happened to Alaska and Hawaii.
"my kind of stupid"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, I gotta answer this.
1)No government could ever have a legally coded time when it's appropriate to revolt, but when governmental excess becomes too great, people need to take up arms and draw the line. Again, let us revisit the plight of the Kurds as an example. The issue of unfair taxation was a driving force in the American revolution, and it was looming large again in this time period.
What confused me in your reply is that you seemed to imply (via referencing Lincoln's sentiment) that it would have been more justified if the southerners had overthrown the government in D.C. by main force and imposed their own government on the whole of the nation. I don't think you meant that, so I won't go into that matter until you've had the opportunity to clarify your point.
2)Whether or not a new republic was being formed depended entirely on who you asked. The Confederates said yes, the Unionists said no, the Unionists came in, shot the place up and got their way. Might made right in this instance, as it usually does historically, and the individual liberty of six million people got tossed out the window.
As far as I'm concerned, this is where the experiment did fail. Hubris, greed, and the natural corruption of institutions moved us toward an ever-more rapacious federalist form of government.
3) War is hell, and that can't be said often enough. But it seems that the point you are arguing is that it whatever it takes to win is legitimate. Again, we come to might makes right. (Coming back to my previous point, historically, might does make right in terms of who wins and who survives. But it does not always coincide with the moral right.)
4)I do view the constitution as a a suicide pact, myself. If the government cannot live by the rules it has set for itself, it is an unworthy government. Once the government takes powers and duties upon itself, it does not relinquish them easily, if at all. Once it steps too far over the limit, it needs to be torn down and rebuilt. In western civilization, governments tend to make a large pretense of 'serving the people' but as in any other form of government, the opposite proves to be true. Government and all that it entails should be viewed at best as a necessary evil, and viewed with suspicion and a healthy level of disdain by the citizenry.
Here's one example I can dig up easily of Lincoln's unconstitutional behavior.
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution.
Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
West Virginia does not legally exist. There is also the matter of the postwar coercion of states to ratify amendments to the constitution in order to get out from under military control. Not Lincoln, yes, but the people he represented and aligned himself with.
Quote:
3) I don't really have much to add. I take it your are a Texican however.
What, did the six-shooter and the cowboy hat give me away? No wonder we have trouble infiltrating other states...
6)Racism seems to have been a recurrent theme with the Whigs, though. From their views on blacks, immigrants, and indians as published at various points. I'm not fond of the racism argument myself, because it's vastly overplayed in political mudslinging these days, but it seems to be a valid point here.
But if you want to step on by that, we still have the situation of Mexico being a fractious nation at the time, with a history of continual sporadic uprisings. Hell, it still has the occasional hiccup. That would be a perfectly good reason for not annexing the country.
6)If all the injuns had died on the Trail of Tears, I wouldn't be here, being as how my great-something grandmother walked it. But it wasn't just the settlers, as you've implied. The government en
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
After a certain point, there is just too much death.
"my kind of stupid"
We've kind of hit the wall with regards to what material the show provided us to discuss. (GORRAM fox.) But the air I get from the show is more that the common citizenry seem like people for whom the army lost a war for them, which creates an entirely different demeanor than among people who had a savage variety of war land right on their doorstep. You could even extend our other discussion into this... in Texas, the war is much more of an abstract discussion because the war itself and the aftermath of reconstruction landed fairly lightly here, as compared to the diehards in Georgia and Virginia. People here go on about 'damn yankees' as a general form of antipathy, unlike the more heartfelt 'damyankees' epithet of the deep south.
Unfortunately, without further evidence the argument gets fairly circular in a hurry.
There ain't nothin' I can't overcome or come to know. So lay your heavy load down on me, strip everything I have away. I am not your prisoner, I am not afraid.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As a side note, remind me when I get back in town that we should talk about the underpinnings of a command economy a la the Alliance. I'd contend that what keeps them functional is precisely the sort of black marketeering we witnessed in Shindig. I'll never forget a line I saw on Slashdot once, when somebody referenced Russia's space tourism and snidely commented on the irony of the former Soviet Union leading the way in space capitalism.
(Go Russia! Some day, I'm gonna ride a Russian rocket into orbit.)
There was a reply from a Russian who lived during the Soviet era, and roughly paraphrased from memory... "We always had a market economy. It just wasn't public."
Command economy does horrendous things because it's built on wishes and intentions instead of facts. But the agile hairless ape overcomes conditions in order to make the system function.
There ain't nothin' I can't overcome or come to know. So lay your heavy load down on me, strip everything I have away. I am not your prisoner, I am not afraid.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
First I have to say that this thread has been very educational and a lot of fun to read. My hat is off to everyone especially Drakon and Archer. I'd like to sit quietly at that corner of the bar while you two discuss history and politics someday.
Your drinks will be on my tab too. I'm feeling generous today.
(Archer prepares to be inundated with Browncoat volunteers who 'want to hear the political discussion!')
There ain't nothin' I can't overcome or come to know. So lay your heavy load down on me, strip everything I have away. I am not your prisoner, I am not afraid.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
1) We are talking about two different concepts of the term "rights". As expressed in the Declaration, we are endowed with our rights by our Creator, not by the government. The Declaration recognizes a man's right to rebel when the situation is intolerable.
The legal justification is not an issue. Whether it was morally right for the South to exercize their right, over the issues they did, is what is. Rights are not derived or granted by governments. But the property of each person.
In a practical sense, what the US had done is recognize that those who abuse their rights to the detriment of others, have to be stopped even if that means depriving them of their rights as a result. And in a practical sense, it does not matter whether you have a right to rebel from God or the government. The right to succeed at your rebellion is not guarenteed by either.
2) I hear that phrase "Might makes right" a lot. I think it is backwards. In combat, the side that has better, more accurate intel on the opponent, as well as a better understanding of his own abilities, wins the battle. The side with a better understanding of science and technology, accurate theories on how the universe works, is able to build better weapons. The side that has the better political rhetoric, the most appealing argument, usually wins and keeps their side from deserting their troops, and working on the weapons. Being Right is what makes one powerful and able to stop rebellion, or conquer territories.
This is not a very popular sentiment, and can be taken to extreme, obviously. But it does illustrate a central problem the south had. As an agrain economy, the North had it beat economically. Also as an agrain economy, which is land intensive, the more populace North had a demographic and therefore a political advantage over the South. As long as the South maintained the plantation system and kept their slaves, it was not going to change. To put simply, the south was not right in keeping its slaves. That led to the friction it had with the north, as well as their ultimate defeat in a contest of arms.
You talk about the individual liberty of 6 million people. It also liberated how many million of slaves that those same 6 million were keeping? For better or worse, the war decided the issue of slavery once and for all here in America.
3) It goes back to shoulders again. We can condemn the way wars were fought in the past, and indeed, I don't want to make too much of a defense against your charges. But that was not something that was isolated solely to the North. Both sides were doing the same thing. The trouble was the North was simply better at it.
4) There are times when a government must act or else it is effectively a suicide pact. Right now we are debating whether the prisoners at Gitmo should be accorded full legal representation and rights under the Constitution. I see a problem as one of the rights ensured is the right to face one's accuser. Unfortunately in the kind of war we are facing here, with this enemy, much of intel is secret. For good reason. We have to protect sources and methods, or else get blinded to a future and potentially more devastating attack. So do we burn our spies, get them killed, and risk another attack like 9-11? Or do we hand it to the military, and let them deal with the prisoners as they see fit?
This is just one example that pops to mind readily. And this is not a civil war that we are in, but a war with an external enemy.
It goes back to the primary function of government, to protect and defend the population. It does this by establishing rules, laws and the such, but it must be recognized that not all rules can be fit into every concievable situation. And if you find yourself in an unconcievable one, then what do you do? Prevent the government from performing its primary function?
4) Hold on a second here. West Virginia, as I understand it, was formed by forty counties that did NOT want to cede from the Union when Virginia did. So if Virginia is arguing the right to cede from the Union, it can't tu
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
1) I agree that rights cannot be taken away, only surrendered.
I disagree that in a practical sense the north mobilized under the of ending slavery. Much the same as Johnny Reb went to war to kill Yankees, the initial surge on the other side was following the same motives. The practical RESULT was the abolition of chattel slavery in America, and that was the only good result of the war, on the short term. I also agree that the right to rebel does not confer the right to succeed. But I do believe there was a righteous cause at the heart of the matter. "I was on the losing side. Still not sure it was the wrong side."
2) I think the concept that 'right makes might' has a certain validity. However, it takes a unification of right, a common sense of purpose to get somewhere. I had a debate a while back with some people on the topic, and they brought up the examples of Nazi Germany and Stalin. I pointed out that it was the combined might of the Allies that brought Nazi Germany down, and left to their own devices the Nazis would butchered the Jews/Gypsies/Slavs/homosexuals/whoever for a good long time. In Stalin's case, he essentially died in bed because nobody had the might and the will to oppose him. That's why good people need to keep their guns handy and their knives sharp.
Demographics of the War of Northern Aggression... northern population, 26 million. Southern population, nine million total, three million of whom were slaves. In this case, we have twin examples of majoritarianism, first in the north over the south, and then in the south over the slaves. Neither exercise of power was right.
3) The north was better at it at and also incorporated it as an official policy, sanctioned at the highest levels.
4) There are places the government should be prevented from going. It continually comes back to the argument about "We do this because we're the good guys, and we won't abuse these powers." Even if it's true, the next batch will. You have to draw lines to prevent such ridiculous campaigns as the government-led extortion of the tobacco industry. (Dirty secret of that business is that for some time now the government has made more money off the sale of a carton or pack of cigarettes than the manufacturers have.)
The War on Terror has led to similar excesses, because lurking in the wings of government there are always those looking to expand their powers, their agencies, and their budgets. Take the federalization of airport security. It was doomed to failure from the beginning, because the primary effect of federalization is to insure that the bastard hassling you is now secure in his job despite his proven incompetence. (I love it because every day thousands of people are reminded in a very visual and annoying way about just how ineffectual government bureaucracies really are.)
As for the prisoners in Gitmo, they aren't citizens of the US. Hence, they have no protection under the Constitution. A totally different set of rules apply, and that's where the debate lies. That's also the way I felt about John Walker Lindh. He exercised his right of free association, good for him. Should've left him at the POW camp in Afghanistan in that case.
4) Okay, so it's cool for West Virginia to leave Virginia unconstitutionally, but not Virginia to leave the US? I wouldn't argue with the result of them both leaving, but this is one of those "You can't have it both ways." arguments.
6) The Comanche and the Apache survived, and they were the worst bad boys in this area. As with most things, it was political. Certain tribes were willing to align with the invaders, and they got the opportunity to see some dirt done to their traditional enemies.
7) The dire work conditions and the state of life of these people was a deliberate product of manipulation of the situation by the powers-that-be. A lot of people leaved in corporate housing, bought from corporate stores, and ended up deeply in debt to the company store as a result. There was blatant manipulation of the circumstances. Why
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
1) That is the problem. Both sides were right to some extent. Preservation of the Union, while possibly a bit more nebulous than "states rights" was also a noble cause. Otherwise, no republic could stand, nor any democratic institution.
We may be talking big glasses here.
2) One of the most telling images from Iraqi Freedom was the day Saddam's satute came down. There was this big buff Iraqi guy with a hammer, whailing away with all his might at the column the statue was sitting on, to no avail. Until the Army came up with a tank tow truck to yank it down.
Stalin, Hitler and Saddam all created systems that were based on fear and misery. And folks simply don't like that and try to work around it all the time. That is why such systems never last.
4) In general I would agree. However we still have to discuss particular details. A government, like a living organism will do whatever is necessary to survive. It is important to remember that all the rules and regulations and such are means to an end, not an end unto itself. When the means no longer, or even actively hamper, the ends, you have to find new means.
Agreed about Gitmo and Lindh. I always thought that taking up arms against America automatically revokes your citizenship.
4) Grin, that is what I am saying. Also as a practical point, do you think anyone would have told a section of a seceeding state they had to be part of the rebellion? "Sorry West Virginia, you can't stay with the union. You have to go be rebels now."
6) Sigh, that is sadly human nature. Common regardless of culture it appears.
7) Well, I want to leave my thoughts on unions off the record for the time being. But I think my point still stands. Things were not perfect back then. But you attribute it more to malice rather than ignorance and that I think is mistaken.
10) I don't think things will work out as you expect. There is a larger political current going on that I think is ignored.
Heinlein once said something to the effect that there are really only two political parties in the world. Those that think humanity should be ruled, and those that think people should be left alone.
In essense, the first group comprise those that want to rule, and those that want no responsiblity for their lives. The desire for power however, is there. And power means (literally) the ability to change your reality.
It used to be, in the distant pasts, the only way to get almost anything done was some form of leader or director to coordinate the actions of everyone else. But technology has increased the productivity of the individual to such a point that outside direction becomes more of an impediment to our lives and happiness than a benefit. So now it takes fewer and fewer people to do bigger and better things.
[The flip side of course is 9-11, where a few hijackers created a lot of death and destruction for a lot of folks]
Even our take on warfare has evolved, due to technology. It used to be the concern for civilian causalties was impossible. During WW2, the only way to destroy a target from the air was massive 1000 plane raids. Now we can do it with a couple of smart bombs and leave the surrounding area untouched. That is an increadable advancement in individual power.
And with the increase of individual power, those that want to be left alone, will get their wish, regardless of what other institutions say or think about it.
Only those that want to be ruled, and to rule, will get left behind. Again, the whole information problem rears its head when dealing with large or complex projects, like national economies.
"my kind of stupid"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Command economy does horrendous things because it's built on wishes and intentions instead of facts. But the agile hairless ape overcomes conditions in order to make the system function."
Again I have to point to Hayek. Reality is what it is, and people either adapt, or die. There is only so much adapting you can do to reality. Trying to fit the myriad economic decisions a person makes in a day into some simple equations that can be manipulated by any small group, simply don't work. The system is too complex, and you never have enough information to get the right answers when you need it.
But the hairless apes did NOT make the system function, they went underground with what worked, letting the system rot.
"my kind of stupid"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
1) Which is why I'm a fan of government minimalism. Less government means less chance that roughly a quarter of the membership of the union would be inspired to take their toys and go.
2) They don't last over the long term, but on the short run (short run in historical terms, upwards of fifty to a hundred years) they can create a lot of misery. The Soviets lasted so long because they were more scrupulous about picking the wars they got involved in than Hitler was. (Though they were planning their own version of Operation Barbarossa, but the Germans taught them that mass wars were a very bad thing.)
4) The reason I fear and distrust governments above other centers of power is because they are the hardest ones to shift. Corporations and religions have to be competitive to an extent. Governments, even in the face of internal loathing, simmering rebellions and global antipathy, can linger for decades. Witness Iraq, Cuba, North Korea, the aforementioned Soviet Union...
Back to the Lindh issue, yeah, essentially if you're going to make a stand, be ready to accept the consequences.
5) Sure, and Virginia needs to mobilize now and retake West Virginia by force. They'll never see it coming...
6) I used to rail against the reservation system and grumble at the fact that a whole lot of my relatives only discovered their 'heritage' when they clued into the free housing and groceries business, but now I'm kind of developing a fondness for the way the res' are getting to operate free of so many state and federal regs. They've managed to create almost a quasi-black market in several of them. This is to be encouraged. Off topic, but in the vein of your 'how things are better off these days.'
7) A variety of historical figures attributed malice to the motives of the industrial giants of the Gilded Age, from Twain to TR to Sinclair (goddamned socialist that Sinclair was.)
I'll happily go on record with my opinion of unions. Whenever I deal with a bad facility, sloppy service and poor performance, I say "Hmm... must be a union outfit." Then when they whine about my shipping their jobs to Mexico, I smile.
8) And these power grubbers, whatever form they take from fundmentalist religious types of any variety to goddamned communists to garden-variety despots and bureaucrats, will always seek to expand their powers. As the Republicans settle into their new-found dominance of congress (and likely re-election over the next two presidential cycles) they will further corrupt. John Campbell once said in an essay that power doesn't corrupt, but rather immunity does. Incumbency protection is what put the Democrats in the weakened position they're in now, by removing from them the obligation to fight for their position over forty years of dominance of the House and regular control of the senate.
In a related vein, the point I've been meandering toward in this discussion is that I regard the era we're covering as a victory for the enemies of freedom. Emancipation took place, and that's no small thing, but overall the WoNA (Much easier than typing War of Northern Aggression) allowed the mercantilists to reign supreme for decades, and set up the launching point for Roosevelt's brand of ridiculous Keynesian socialism. It's the fundamental strength of our culture (regularly infused by the immigrants, as I've discussed previously) that allowed us to recover so well as we have.
It's not ideal and never will be, but we are in a better position to have individual liberty for all, regardless of race, creed or gender, than at any other point in history.
One point I'd like to make in this is that so often the 'history' of a country, as taught in its schools (my loathing of public education is a topic for another day) is actually the history of its government. My view of American history is that so many great things have been done, so many wonderous accomplishments have been made in SPITE of our government. I look forward to a day when history glorifies the individual, the achiever and the accomplisher ov
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
"Command economy does horrendous things because it's built on wishes and intentions instead of facts. But the agile hairless ape overcomes conditions in order to make the system function."
Again I have to point to Hayek. Reality is what it is, and people either adapt, or die. There is only so much adapting you can do to reality. Trying to fit the myriad economic decisions a person makes in a day into some simple equations that can be manipulated by any small group, simply don't work. The system is too complex, and you never have enough information to get the right answers when you need it.
But the hairless apes did NOT make the system function, they went underground with what worked, letting the system rot.
"my kind of stupid"
Point taken, lack of clarity on my part. The hairless apes kept the society going, in spite of the stupidity of them such as think that the world runs according to their desired systems. We're a hardy, adaptable species that can find ways to keep going in amazingly abhorrent conditions, both natural and artificially created.
By the way, your views dangerously veer toward libertarianism in some regards. Be careful or the Republicans will come in the middle of the night and tear up your voter registration card in front of your family. (Horrible scene, happened to a guy I knew...)
One last thing. Being as how you enjoy the study of history from the standpoint of "standing on their shoulders" you might enjoy some reading on the history of the Texas revolutionaries. Austin, Bowie and Houston were especially notable figures, Austin and Houston being idealists, Bowie being one of those real-life action hero types. Travis was a flawed but noble individual, and Crockett was kind of a latecomer... but gave us the priceless line "You all can go to hell, I'm going to Texas!"
"The Alamo Story: From Early History to Current Conflicts" by J.R. Edmondson is somewhat misnamed because it's more like a primer on early Texas history that climaxes around the time of the Alamo. It's a nice, balanced view that doesn't dive into hero worship and highlights figures on both sides of the Texas Revolution. I think you'd like it.
There ain't nothin' I can't overcome or come to know. So lay your heavy load down on me, strip everything I have away. I am not your prisoner, I am not afraid.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME