Browncoats... good guys or not?
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 12:07
VIEWED: 33379
PAGE 1 of 2
I was ruminatin'... yet again... about the subtext of Fireflys premise. The Alliance (who act and dress like Nazis) are certainly the bad guys.
But...
The 'Browncoats' aren't effectively seen as being 'good' in any sense of the word, just the losers of the War. Perhaps the browncoats are a closer parallel to those real-life rebels than the show had time to tell us?
There - that should keep ya'll busy for the week-end. Cheers! Shiny! 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How many other browncoats do you even see in the show? There's Zoe, of course. And maybe another smuggler ( forget his name ) from 'Trash'. Hell, even here in the South, (Georgia) there are all sorts of symbols and sentiments for the Confederacy. You'd think there would be some similar affinity to the Independents, even if they were on the losing side. Oh well
To address your question, I'm not sure there is enough evidence, but my GUESSS is that the Independents were just a collection of folks who wanted to remain free and have more self determination.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Paraphrased from Joss Whedon's commentary, "don't matter none...everone thinks they're righteous"
RIVER
Purple elephants are flying.
MAL
Good. Thanks for the update.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mal - reluctant good guy
Zoe - good guy
Capt. Montgomery - ambivalent, but Mal's friend
Tracey - dumb bad guy
The guy from "Dead or Alive" - bad guy
Anyway, the Alliance are pretty Nazi-like, but I expect that we'd have seen plenty of decent Alliance folks had the show continued. I can't see Joss letting them remain that Star-Wars-Empire-ish for long, considering how much he dislikes playing to stereotype.
All in all, I think Shiny said it well. Everyone's the star of their own show.
_______________
"Yep. That's a cow fetus."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Nice one!
Originally posted by Shiny:
Paraphrased from Joss Whedon's commentary, "don't matter none...everone thinks they're righteous"
RIVER
Purple elephants are flying.
MAL
Good. Thanks for the update.
And yea AU, there isn't much evidence. I can recall the military guys on ships and soldiers on trains that had a Nazi stink, as it were, too them. But, there's all sorts of authoritarian styles to pick from and we could easily find examples other than the Nazis. Would the Alliance control of all, I guess or at least in theory, the planets. Core planets and now, since the war, the rest.
I can also remember seeing Persephony. That planet was controled but fairly normal. And the hospital scenes seemed to show a pretty normal setting more or less. Well, there was a lot of security, hmm. Gotta se that ep again.
And then there are those oh so important family scenes with Simon and River. The whole thing of Simon fighting his father ... lots about what the Alliance is about I recon.
As for the Browncoats... well, the border worlds are obviously destitue and very poor, there might just be a reason for that beyond the war. Hell, perhaps the war had nothing to do with it!
Mal might just be a romantic, the blind sort. Zoe definately isn't like that, she seems not to have many delusions. Hmm. People have there reasons sometimes... wish this show was around a little longer so I don't have to guess. Oh, I said a sad thing, sorry.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nazish? Really? I never got that vibe - what aspects of the Alliance do you think are particularly reminiscent of the Nazis?
Myself, I find their 'evil' to be (and please don't shoot me here) of the sort that comes from a big, huge government where corporations have a huge toe in the door of policy and the little guy slips through the cracks a lot. Rather more like the US.
I don't even find them 'evil,' persay. I find them beaucratic. Willing to sacrifice things they shouldn't be. Too focused on the 'big picture' with not enough attention to the people. A lot of red tape, of struggling to the top, of selling out your brother for a promotion - but that's not evil. That's.. I dunno. Bad, certainly, but I'm not sold on evil.
I'm really interested about the connection between the Alliance and Blue Sun - the hazy lines that run (or don't) between the government that makes our laws and the companies that make the products we buy. What's good for one is good for the other? Dunno.
Anyway - I'd be really interested in hearing which bits are making people think Nazi.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Anyway - I'd be really interested in hearing which bits are making people think Nazi.
Uncaring, stiff, formality is the feeling I got from them. And the guy in The Message just screamed Gestapo. Also they have helmets for their soldiers, unlike the Russians.
Hey, I just realized something. We say they're like Nazis, but didn't Nazis used to be called Brownshirts, like in the 1920s? And didn't the German Army wear gray uniforms?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:Quote:
Anyway - I'd be really interested in hearing which bits are making people think Nazi.
Uncaring, stiff, formality is the feeling I got from them. And the guy in The Message just screamed Gestapo. Also they have helmets for their soldiers, unlike the Russians.
Ah. Now see, the thing is, the Nazis may have been stiff in their formations (they certainly took pride in being well-ordered) but 'uncaring' isn't a term I'd use. They cared quite a bit. Sometimes it wasn't a /good/ thing, but they always exhibited an overwhelming amount of passion - pride in their nationality and their accomplishments and their culture, and hatred of those they percieved to be sullying that, those who were against them.
I don't associate the sort of apathy for the welfare of the people that I see in the Alliance with the Nazis at all. People weren't allowed to just slip between the cracks - Nazis were taken care of (the Nazis were big on social programs - youth groups, sports clubs), and enemies were punshed or eradicated. There was very little just 'ignoring' of folks, the way we see the Alliance doing. Again, that seems to me to be more a trait of certain modern Western nations, where far too many people are allowed to slip between those cracks.
And I have to say, I think the helmets is probably a long shot if we're trying to match governments here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Independents wanted...well, to be independent of the Alliance. That's all. If you look at the Alliance, you see why. I think that's all it boils down to.
-Steve
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Uniform design can be a very useful shorthand in visual SF, although it's remarkably easy to fall into cliche, something Joss usually avoids.
On the other hand, it is a truism that totaltarians, especially fascists, alway have the sharpest uniforms. 
"Say what you want about the Nazis, but they made damn fine villians" -- Alan Moore, "Supreme" 
RocketJock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
How many other browncoats do you even see in the show? There's Zoe, of course. And maybe another smuggler ( forget his name ) from 'Trash'. Hell, even here in the South, (Georgia) there are all sorts of symbols and sentiments for the Confederacy. You'd think there would be some similar affinity to the Independents, even if they were on the losing side. Oh well
To address your question, I'm not sure there is enough evidence, but my GUESSS is that the Independents were just a collection of folks who wanted to remain free and have more self determination.
I agree with this POV on the Browncoats. They were, in my opinion, similar to the rebels of the Civil War.
Intelligence is rewarded through enginuity.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Given that the "good guys" are wearing the brown, the whole nazi thing never ocurred to me til I read it here. What the war made me think of was the war between the states.
We know that Capn Mal fought for the underdog losing side. They fought against a well supplied force fighting for a central (federal) government. As the WBTS wore on, the South ran out of gray dye, so they used the oil of butternut trees to color uniforms, leaving them various shades of dark tan. Finally, in what I recollect was "he Train Job", they're gettng thrown out of a saloon, then get backed up against the cliff. Then this guy tells Mal something like
"You rebels lost"
And Mal says
"Yeah but we shall rise again"
Then the ship comes up and they get away. I always thought it was an american civil war allegory.
Earl
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Ah. Now see, the thing is, the Nazis may have been stiff in their formations (they certainly took pride in being well-ordered) but 'uncaring' isn't a term I'd use. They cared quite a bit.
I gotta agree with you here. I guess uncaring was the wrong word. But the bottom line is that when people think of uniformed, organized, formal tyrants, they automatically think of Nazis, who are by far the most infamous example of such a group.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Given that the "good guys" are wearing the brown, the whole nazi thing never ocurred to me til I read it here. What the war made me think of was the war between the states.
I agree, though I'd twist it just a tad - what the Alliance/Rebel dynamic makes me think of is what it would be like if there were an American civil war /now/. The difference between then and now is key to me for several reasons.
- The huge, sprawling empire. I think this, right here, is the key to the 'bad' Alliance. I think that the things we see about them that we don't like are related not to an inherent evilness (which is another reason I don't think Nazi applies at all), but to problems arising from their superstructure.
- The way the little people slip through the cracks - intentionally or unintentionally. Those people lost their medicine? Sorry, we've got bigger fish (and to be honest, probably legitimate ones) to fry. That sentiment could come straight from the US right now, if you take out the floating train and the spaceships.
- The influence of the cooperate on the government. We barely see this, but from what's hinted.. holy cow.
So in my mind, I'm imagining a group of citizens who see this type of government setting up to 'bring civilization' to outlying planets (ring a bell much?) and they decide they don't want it. They want to rule themselves. And so they fight, and they lose.
I think the good guy/bad guy dynamic is much more complicated than that - we all know Joss is a fan of shades of gray. I think there are some aspects of the Alliance that are evil (the program that took River). I think /most/ of the Alliance are simply guys trying to do their job, and a lot of times it's hard, because it's so big, there's so much to do, and I'd imagine resources are stretched quite thin. Most of them probably believe that they're bringing civilization, along with law and order and medicine and food and education, to those backwater planets.
And to some extent, they're right. Let's face it - Mal and his crew are criminals. When they're stopped by an Alliance ship, it's usually with a reason. When the Alliance refuses to help them - well. Again. Criminals.
I definately think Joss wants us to have doubts about the white hats/black hats - heck. Inara supported unification. We never really know what half the crew thinks about it. We only know that they want to avoid the Alliance, because they don't want to get caught. So.. yeah. Complicated.
Also still sticking with my 'not Nazis, except they wear uniforms.'
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know. . .I've only skimmed through these replies, so if I repeat what others have said, pardon me.
I think it's not as simple as 'good-guy/bad-guy' . . .but the nearest we can gather from the episodes is that the Alliance is not an evil ORGANIZATION, just a government. . .and we all KNOW what Mal says a government it. The only thing I think we can truly say establishes the whole "Alliance good/Independants bad" is the notion that the Alliance wanted one single governmental body for the entire system, whereas the Independants wanted each planet to be 'separate, yet equal', with each planet having their own setup.
Now. . .this here is the DIRECT correlation to the American Civil War, The War Between The States, as it is called in some southern states, "The War of Northern Agression", and as it is called in the more 'gen-teel' circles, "The Great Unpleasantness" (Hey, my family was in Ireland the whole time. Don't ask MY opinion!).
However, I think the 'uniform' issue might be ALOT simpler than we're thinking. Unless Joss says something to the contrary in commentary, I think the use of 'Nazi' helmets might be alot simpler. . .liiiiiiiiiiiike. . .FOX had a whole bunch of them lying around the Costume warehouse. . .add some futuristic patches and weapons, and voila! The Independants were wearing the old-fashioned Army 'steel pot' helmets, used from WW2 all the way up to Vietnam. Once again, perhaps it was a matter of surplus availability. Anyone notice that the NEW Alliance soldier uniforms are the same as the ones worn in "Starship Troopers"?
Just a thought. Maybe I'm way off.
==================================================
"Wash. . .we got some local color happening. A grand entrance would not go amiss."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One thing that you can take away from the attitudes of the Alliance personnel on the show is that they have very little regard for "Independants" and make a kneejerk assumption that Browncoats must be up to no good. This CAN be viewed by some as evidence of totalitarianism, Nazi like behavior and whatnot, but I submit the following for your inspection.
The Browncoats, feeling the sting of loss, have rejected "civilized" behavior in many circles and tend to act in a very criminal manner. As was seen in the script for "Dead or Alive," a Browncoat WAS involved in a terrorist act. He surely couldn't be the only one to commit such an act, especially against Alliance holdings.
Also, the manner displayed toward Serenity's crew in several episodes is consistant with how police treat criminals. For example, in "Bushwhacked" the commander of the Alliance cruiser acted in a way that could be construed as having already decided the guilt of the crew. Yet, they WERE found just leaving a derelict transport that was scheduled to drop off 16 families 2 weeks prior to the encounter. He could assume, safely and correctly, when he found the cargo aboard Serenity that Mal & Co. had stolen it from the ship. This does not predispose someone in a position of authority to liking said person.
I don't believe the Alliance is as bad as could be believed from first viewing the organization. I DO believe it is a VAST beauracracy, uncaring about individuals yet concerned about the general welfare of its citizens. They clearly have some questionable policies (ex. in "Safe" Simon was caught in a "blackout zone," supposedly a forbidden part of town and thus a restriction of movement placed upon its citizens), yet the Alliance undoubtably has done alot for its people. Even the border worlds receive aid (ex. the medicine in "The Train Job"), and thus derrive some benefit from their inclusion in the Alliance. And remember, it has been less than 6 years since Unification, and as noted, beauracracies take time to bring change about.
Now, having said that...
I would NEVER condone the actions the Alliance took regarding the Independant worlds. Such hostile action is INEXCUSABLE. Forcibly including them is a BIG violation of human rights, and I woulda stood next to Mal and gunned down as many Feds as possible. This one action taints all the positive things the Alliance has done. But as I have implied, things are rarely cut and dried.
Jayne: "How big a room?"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't know if its been mentioned but The Confederacy (who has been compared to the Browncoats) had gray uniforms like the Alliance. Also the Sheriff in The Train Job had a gray uniform and he wasn't bad.
Also in bushwhacked the Alliance Captain mentioned that he hadn’t seen such brutality (referring to the people hanging from the ceiling) since the war. Which in my mind meant he saw some bad things done by the Browncoats. So some probably weren’t very nice.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As much as I'd want to be on the right side of a conflict (whatever right really is)I think, for most people, what side you're on in a war is often predetermined by where you live. There are more than a few exceptions like American Tories or the Foreign Volunteers during the Spanish Civil War. But for the average soldier it's where he or she is from.
If I lived out on the rim I'd have joined the Browncoats; mostly because there is a direct emotional involvement about being told what to do my a remote government. Would I have the sentiment if I lived on a core planet like Ariel? Not so much.
I think Joss wants how we view the Alliance to be complicated. The Alliance has the capacity to be good and evil. It depends on who's in charge. In Serenity the Captain of the Alliance Cruiser decides to go save a distressed ship rather than chase an illegal salvage operation. Nothing evil about that. The Bluehands people, definintely evil.
***************
Static,
I never heard the Civil War referred to as the "Great Unpleasantness" before, very diplomatic.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Static:
Anyone notice that the NEW Alliance soldier uniforms are the same as the ones worn in "Starship Troopers"?
Just a thought. Maybe I'm way off.
Spot on in fact - they admit they rented a job lot from stores ;) Seem to recall Farscape did that with some Star Wars props(and the Mantis Lady in S1 Buffy was the bug from B5).
"I threw up on your bed"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Browncoats in FIREFLY are the Good Guys.
The Alliance has clearly been shown to be unconcerned with the welfare of citizens from not caring about the living conditions of its people (THE TRAIN JOB, JAYNESTOWN, SAFE, HEART OF GOLD, SHINDIG, THE MESSAGE), to condoning the the practice of slavery (SHINDIG) not to mention the abduction and torture of River Tan.
It's hinted that the Alliance ability and desire to gather information on its citizens is fantastically more invasive than anything we have today.
The Alliance, according to Whedon himself, is the result of the merging of two superpowers–CHINA and the US– with global corporations. That alone tells you everything you need to know about the Alliance. Two of these three have a centuries long history of evil bevahiour and trampling on human rights. Even the U.S. hands are fairly dirty on that score. Any such merger would only bring out the worst in all parties.
By contrast the Independants (Browncoats) seem only to have one thing in common– the wish to live according to the rules each human colony sets for itself (SERENITY, OUR MRS. REYNOLDS, even SAFE) without regard to the dictates of the central government.
At absolute worst the Browncoats could be described as Anarchists (vs the Order represented by The Alliance) but they bear a closer resemblance to the Revolutionaries of the Colonial U.S. than they do to the Confederate rebels of the following century.
Browncoats = Good
Alliance = Bad.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hell, just look at the RIAA and their rent-a-cops 'ala raid on Kazaa. RIAA = "Blue Sun" albeit they don't really sell anything and much more laughably moronic
http://p2pnet.net/story/715
They even manage to dress up their own "fake" police units in full paramilitary swatteam type garbs with the initials "RIAA" emblazoned on their backs. How's that for ballsy?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/34835.html
And BTW, I think Fiorina forgot who buys computers.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/34804.html
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by EarlVanDorn:
Given that the "good guys" are wearing the brown, the whole nazi thing never ocurred to me til I read it here. What the war made me think of was the war between the states.
We know that Capn Mal fought for the underdog losing side. They fought against a well supplied force fighting for a central (federal) government. As the WBTS wore on, the South ran out of gray dye, so they used the oil of butternut trees to color uniforms, leaving them various shades of dark tan. Finally, in what I recollect was "he Train Job", they're gettng thrown out of a saloon, then get backed up against the cliff. Then this guy tells Mal something like
"You rebels lost"
And Mal says
"Yeah but we shall rise again"
Then the ship comes up and they get away. I always thought it was an american civil war allegory.
I've watched that little scene dozens of times - because I love it - and it's
"I'm thinkin' someone outta put you down, Dog. Whatda you think?"
"I'm thinkin' we'll wise again."
No Civil War comparisions. The only relation the Independents have to the Confederacy is that they wanted to be free from the oppresive government (as in most civil wars), they had fewer resources (as in most civil wars), and they lost. That's all. No other relation to the American civil war in particular, it's just what we think of, because we're American (many of us).
The other coincidence is the western aspect, of course.
-Steve
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Steve, I have to respectfully disagree. In a "space western" produced in America where the main character is a sergeant from the defeated side in a civil war, the American Civil War references CANNOT be denied. The quote, "I'm thinkin' maybe we'll rise again," is ESPECIALLY significant. As a Southerner, I've heard way too many "the South shall rise again" references to agree with what you're saying. Even to this day, there are those in the South who adhere to the idea that one day the southern states will successfully band together and break away from the US. In fact, every insult hurled at Mal in that scene has been used against Southerners with regularity.
"I just did that because it was funny."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Being from the UK, I'm not too up on US history, so my first watching of Firefly didn't really bring up too many parallels with the US civil war. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are, but to me it feels a lot more like British Imperialism - The core worlds bringing 'civilization' to the outer world: "be ruled by us, and we'll give you medicine, aqueducts, etc.... Oh, and by the way, this isn't a request." Hmm, okay, a bit like Roman Imperialism as well, or maybe just imperialism (?)
I suppose, being colony-based, it could be more like American Independence, just with the 'other' side winning, except that in Firefly, I'm assuming the colonies were initially independent, and were then 'encouraged' to join (although the whole 'voting' thing implies some kind of pseudo-democracy somewhere...).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm thinking, from what was said in Bushwacked about the money going to Mal's defence, that the Alliance is a democracy, but a heavily centralized, corperate democracy. Imagine Bush's "War for Peace and Democracy" against the Middle East, but applied to sovergin colonies instead.
The Alliance isn't evil-like, it just depends on the point of view. Inara supported the War most likely because she thought it was doing some good, while Mal, who lived on a farm on Shadow, saw the incoming Alliance forces as invaders.
It's like putting yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi Insurgent (not the suicide terrorists). They might of had it bad under Saddam... but they sure as hell don't want some other country to tell them what do to, how to govern themselves, etc.
Mercy is the mark of a great man... *stab*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TravelingTheBlack:
It's like putting yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi Insurgent (not the suicide terrorists). They might of had it bad under Saddam... but they sure as hell don't want some other country to tell them what do to, how to govern themselves, etc.
Again, I think the British Empire is a good comparison. The British thinking they're bringing civilisation (and democracy) to India (whilst gaining their own 'fringe' benefits, of course), but India being quite happy before they turned up, and somewhat unimpressed by the strong-arm arrogance of it all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dtt:
Steve, I have to respectfully disagree. In a "space western" produced in America where the main character is a sergeant from the defeated side in a civil war, the American Civil War references CANNOT be denied. The quote, "I'm thinkin' maybe we'll rise again," is ESPECIALLY significant. As a Southerner, I've heard way too many "the South shall rise again" references to agree with what you're saying. Even to this day, there are those in the South who adhere to the idea that one day the southern states will successfully band together and break away from the US. In fact, every insult hurled at Mal in that scene has been used against Southerners with regularity.
I agree; the way the characters use dialogue from the Civil War era. Hence the correlation. I just don't see anything about the war itself that parallels with the US Civil War. Do you?
-Steve
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Firstly, the Alliance appears to be a rather heavy handed Authoritarian government. There seems to be no free trade -- hence the smuggling ... even smuggling food as was done in Serenity part two and Shindig (cattle.)
Secondly, like the Nazi's, they do experiments on captive humans. A "law man" was sent to recapture River, so the government is at least in favor of it if not directly involved.
Finally, the 
rules! Like accusing the "postal clerk" of committing a crime for receiving a package as in The Message. If there was any sort of fairness, the postal clerk would likely have said, "How was I supposed to know there was some sort of contraband in that crate? The package arrived ... I gave it to the addressee!" The fact that the postman DIDN'T react that way indicates to me a "system" of arbitrary rules, and no presumption of innocence. Not to mention the physical threat that the FED made to the postman ... who responded with fear rather than outrage.
This gives me an indication of what the Independents were fighting AGAINST. What they were fighting FOR is not clearly defined. The assumption is freedom from the Authoritarian Alliance. If that is true, then yes, the Browncoats were the good guys.
loadandmakeready
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
At absolute worst the Browncoats could be described as Anarchists (vs the Order represented by The Alliance) but they bear a closer resemblance to the Revolutionaries of the Colonial U.S. than they do to the Confederate rebels of the following century.
Browncoats = Good
Alliance = Bad.
Nothing wrong with being an Anarchist -- depending upon what kind of Anarchist of course.
Slightly off topic: What difference was there between the Colonists who seceeded from the British Empire, and the Confederates who tried to seceed from the United States? I'm really curious. Because as I see it, the Federal Government was doing exactly the same thing to the Southern States as Britain was doing to the Colonies.
loadandmakeready
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
LoadAndMakeReady wrote:
Quote:
Slightly off topic: What difference was there between the Colonists who seceeded from the British Empire, and the Confederates who tried to seceed from the United States? I'm really curious. Because as I see, it the Federal Government was doing exactly the same thing to the Southern States as Britain was doing to the Colonies.
Depends on who you ask really. Ask most people, especially those from the North, they will say there is no comparison. They will cite abolishing slavery as the reason for their invasion of the South. Ask someone from the South, they will tell you they were fighting for states rights, independence, and to protect their homes from what they saw as an invading army. Matter of perception, what they were taught, and what they believe.
As far as the comparisons of the Alliance, I have always seen them as a sort of central, expansionist government gone amok. They remind me somewhat of an occupying army when you see soldiers on the street in episodes. They watch everyone, seem to be suspicious of everyone, and the display of military arms seems meant to intimidate the populace into compliance.
I feel the Alliance is meant to portray the all powerful, corrupt government that many people fear could happen in our day and time. The way the Alliance is shown as a military/peace keeping force and their heavy handed tactics in enforcing the will of the government is what the forefathers of our country feared and why they were anti-Federalists. The original colonies broke away from England because they saw that an all powerful, central government did not work for the people, but rather exploited them.
The Browncoats are meant to represent the common men and women who lived out in the remote areas of Alliance controlled space. The people of these remote colonies were neglected by the Alliance, left without food, technology, support, or medicines. Feeling abandoned by the government, they decided they wanted freedom instead of paying taxes and swearing allegiance to a government that did not assist them.
The comparisons to the Civil War are there, but I ask if the 'verse Joss created for Firefly could not as easily apply to the American Revolution. Could this not be a version of what might have been if the Colonials had not won their independence?
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
-------------------------------------------------
Firstly, the Alliance appears to be a rather heavy handed Authoritarian government. There seems to be no free trade -- hence the smuggling ... even smuggling food as was done in Serenity part two and Shindig (cattle.)
--------------------------------------------------
The food in Serenity part two wasn't smuggled because it was food but because it was considered 'stolen'. It was Alliance property obtained from illegal salvage.
There are plenty of restrictions on the import/export of livestock even among nations that favor 'free trade'. A more likely example of the lack of 'free trade' would be the geisha dolls with big heads that wobbled.
But given the apparant state of martial law and the recent war, trade may simply not be up and running yet. I suspect the Alliance supports free trade for all the big megacorporations. The individual merchant is another story.
-- Arawaen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
-------------------------------------------------
Firstly, the Alliance appears to be a rather heavy handed Authoritarian government. There seems to be no free trade -- hence the smuggling ... even smuggling food as was done in Serenity part two and Shindig (cattle.)
-------------------------------------------------Quote:
The food in Serenity part two wasn't smuggled because it was food but because it was considered 'stolen'. It was Alliance property obtained from illegal salvage.
That's a point I missed. However, by todays rules of salvage, in international waters, on a derelict vessel, it's finders keepers. Regardless of who the previous owner happens to be. It's considered abandoned if there is no one aboard, or if all those aboard are dead.
So the implication now becomes that the Alliance owns the sky and all things in it -- or at least claims to.Quote:
There are plenty of restrictions on the import/export of livestock even among nations that favor 'free trade'. A more likely example of the lack of 'free trade' would be the geisha dolls with big heads that wobbled.
If there are restrictions ... it's not free trade ... period.Quote:
But given the apparant state of martial law and the recent war, trade may simply not be up and running yet.
If there is freedom, trade resumes instantly. With an authoritarian government, it takes time to get the bureaucracies set up.Quote:
I suspect the Alliance supports free trade for all the big megacorporations. The individual merchant is another story.
In other words, Mercantilism ... an alliance between "megacorporations" (which can only exist with the aid of government) and an authoritarian state.
(I think we're in agreement here ... but I'm not sure ... comments?)
loadandmakeready
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:Quote:
There are plenty of restrictions on the import/export of livestock even among nations that favor 'free trade'. A more likely example of the lack of 'free trade' would be the geisha dolls with big heads that wobbled.
If there are restrictions ... it's not free trade ... period.
How about quarantine?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BrownCoat1 wrote: Depends on who you ask...
Too true.
This is a great thread to read, lots of great comments and even some insights too the show I hadn't considered.
I realize I'd baited this thread asking if the Browncoats were 'good guys or bad', which implied a simplistic characture that Firefly tries to avoid. And I admit it's just the Alliance uniforms that made me think about the Nazis. Let's face it, the Nazis were evil but they had cool uniforms.
It's funny but I too have detected a reality to this whole set-up that is far more interesting than the good guy / bad guy thing. That Joss... he's always thinking. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dtt:
Steve, I have to respectfully disagree. In a "space western" produced in America where the main character is a sergeant from the defeated side in a civil war, the American Civil War references CANNOT be denied. The quote, "I'm thinkin' maybe we'll rise again," is ESPECIALLY significant. As a Southerner, I've heard way too many "the South shall rise again" references to agree with what you're saying. Even to this day, there are those in the South who adhere to the idea that one day the southern states will successfully band together and break away from the US. In fact, every insult hurled at Mal in that scene has been used against Southerners with regularity.
No one is denying that Joss and Co. mined the Civil War for idioms and dress codes. But, really, when have you ever known the guy to hit the nail directly on the head?
Never. That's when.
He always twists and turns and makes the thing you think is going on not. That's the fun.
The British poster, with no American indoctrination, got IMO, the right answer as have many others.
Joss is playing with our heads as he always does. Mixing and matching those aspects of previous civil conflicts that suit the story he wants to tell and tossing those that don't.
Do you really think the Confedrates were the only losers who thought they would "Rise Again?" Or that they were the only ones ever to use that phrase?
Defeated rebels throughout history have thought their causes just and vowed to have another go at the first opportunity.
The real tell on whether or not the Independants mirror the Confedrates specifically (rather than rebels from all such conflicts) is that the Independants, as seen through Mal and Zoe, are CLEARLY on the moral high ground based on current day Western standards.
As opposed to the Confederacy which was not.
That makes them not only the the focus of the show but the actual heroes as well. Contrasted with the representatives of the Alliance- even Simon's own father- who are clearly a bunch of soulless bastards.
The Independants are clearly the good guys which means they can't be proxies for the Confederates.
Them being so clearly the Really Bad Guys and all.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Confeds and the Union were both on the same moral ground... to a point. The North had strangled the South dry to the point where slaves were the only option. Indeed that the Browncoats seem to have the moral high ground, but there might be more to the U-War than Joss was allowed to tell.
Mercy is the mark of a great man... *stab*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
Firstly, the Alliance appears to be a rather heavy handed Authoritarian government. There seems to be no free trade -- hence the smuggling ... even smuggling food as was done in Serenity part two and Shindig (cattle.)
Secondly, like the Nazi's, they do experiments on captive humans. A "law man" was sent to recapture River, so the government is at least in favor of it if not directly involved.
Finally, the
Several points -
1) People smuggle all the time, for a million different reasons - the most noteable are to move illegal cargo and to avoid goverment interference through such things as taxes. The prescence of smuggling does not an authoritarian government make. Heck - how many people go through US customs and just 'forget' to declare everything they've bought, because they don't want to PAY? Technically, that's smuggling. Throw in a few cows, and it's the same thing on a larger scale. Make the good stolen, and you're doing it to avoid a fine or jail sentence.
2) I think it's been made pretty clear that it was Blue Sun doing those experiments, and that most of the Alliance had NO IDEA what they wanted River for. Witness the men killed just for speaking to her in Ariel. Witness the officer who doesn't even know if they want her alive or dead, and so orders them to shoot first (Bushwacked, I /think/.) Again, the horrific actions of a few does not make the entirity evil. I tend to think that's Blue Sun's control of the Alliance at work there, not the Alliance itself.
3)Accusing the postal clerk.. um. Ok. Recall how that lawman was working a tad illegally, chasing down some precious cargo he himself was smuggling? I hardly think we can use him as a shining example of a typical Alliance lawman. As a matter of fact, I never ever in the watching of the episode bought him as a legitimate one, for that exact reason - he uses the same terroristic methods that Niska's men do. He's not acting in his capacity as a lawman in that episode - he's exploiting it.
And how the postman reacted? Dude. 1) He knew he'd done something wrong and 2) The guy just /looked/ mean. He was threatening from the get-go. I'm not sure that implies a status quo.
And finally, I'm not saying there aren't bad feds out there - as with any system, power will go to people's heads, and I'm sure that /especially/ on the border planets, you have people using their fed power for their own means, and to terrorize. But that's an individual trait - not neccessarily a trait of the government, which I still contend was simply bulky and overly bueacratic - not evil.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mutter. Gotta stop with the double posts.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
See, I tend towards seeing the Alliance not as Nazis, but more along the lines of the former Soviet Union. A huge, sprawling empire, encompassing numerous satellite states and regions annexed during past wars, largely controlled by the military and by gangs of powerful individuals both legal (the Politburo) and illegal (Russian mafia), where corruption runs rampant and individuals who make too much noise simply disappear because of "state security". The lack of feeling towards many of its own citizens, particularly those in the aforementioned annexed territories, matches that.
And then you've got the whole Chechnya issue.
That model works for me just as well (and not necessarily replacing, but supplementing) as the Civil War analogy.
History doesn't always repeat itself. Sometimes it merely shouts "Weren't you listening the first time?!?" and lets fly with a club.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AJ, I think you're on the ball here with the Imperial feel going on. I too find the Alliance has all the trappings of an imperial government without the martial law. That is, rather like things are in the U.S.A. right now, fear is the main weapon for controling people.
It too bad we haven't seen some Alliance propoganda. I'll bet the War was 'Operation Independant Freedom'! *chuckle*
And as we all know, since Crassus scared Rome into making him Emperor, fear is the first and most powerful weapon in politics. Period.
For an example of how fear works in controling a people; seems to me Simons' father was afraid for his own social position more than his sons (let alone his own daughters life). Think about it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TravelingTheBlack:
The Confeds and the Union were both on the same moral ground... to a point. The North had strangled the South dry to the point where slaves were the only option.
^^This is just not in line with the facts.
Without going off that way again
let's look at it like this.Joss and his cronies are VERY gifted writers. If they wanted to have the Independants be an analog for the Confederacy and the Alliance an analog for the Union, they would have taken pains to ensure that that was the only interpretation available. It wouldn't be difficult.
Instead they make a point of muddying things up.
The Alliance more closely resembles Imperial England than the 19th Century United States Fedral Government. Especially so if you know British history.
I'm betting Blue Sun is modelled after Britian's infamous East India Company.
By contrast to the fairly well realized behaviour of and objectives of The Alliance, those of the Independants are left murky, intentionally, so that Mutant Enemy is free to use the fun bits of the Reconstruction and The West (gunplay, quirky lingo, outlaw behaviour etc) without any of the connotations that truly linking FIREFLY to the real world would create.
Best give away? The REAVERS.
Clearly these are proxies for old style movie "indians." Trouble is, in these enlightened times of ours, we know that the First Americans were not the mindless savages that they've been shown as in countless films. Joss knows this too and, clearly, doesn't want that kettle of worms opened up either. So...
Joss gives us Reavers, normal people driven nuts by too much time in the Black, to function as the scary savages. And function they do, without any messy concerns for their basic humanity and occassional nobility.
He's messing with your heads like he always does.
And it's obviously working.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
^^^ gotta agree with that assessment. Certainly the Reavers are the best example of Joss and crew making with the rug. As in pulled out from under the allegory.
Yea, I'm noticing how Joss takes something like... oh say a self involved valley girl fighting vampires and turns the symbolism on it's head. And boy, do these things have a lot of baggage symbolically! The black needed to have a danger and the Reavers are it. Seems they have a history connected with early settlements? Hmm. Anyho', they could easily be a rather racist take on 'Injuns' but with the level of sofistication going on with the show we need to take a deeper look into the Reavers. You are right, we can't assume anything when it comes to Joss. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:
The Alliance more closely resembles Imperial England than the 19th Century United States Fedral Government. Especially so if you know British history.
I'm betting Blue Sun is modelled after Britian's infamous East India Company.
Good call. Especially as 'ambassadors' to the East when the Empire couldn't really be bothered - lot of power there...! So, how much do the Alliance RELY on Blue Sun to be their representatives out on the rim???
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It occurs to me that Joss deals in archetypes. The Reavers are a symbol of our dark, primal selves. And maybe the Europeans who first came to North America projected the same archetype onto the inhabitants because they didn't understand them. "Savage" is just a manifestation of our own darkness and ignorance, and it's a powerful theme in storytelling. It taps right into our deepest fears about the world and about ourselves.
My blood ran cold when they first encountered the Reavers and Wash said, "Oh God oh God oh God..." What a scary and wonderful moment!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:Quote:
The Alliance more closely resembles Imperial England than the 19th Century United States Federal Government. Especially so if you know British history.
I'm betting Blue Sun is modelled after Britain’s infamous East India Company.
I have to agree with you on this RedJack. Privateers along with a "Letter of the Marqué" gave hired Captains the ability to kill or preferably seize most possessions on the sea during that period. Blue Sun certainly have a similar licence especially with their 2 by 2.
Ghoulman, you pointed out that "It too bad we haven't seen some Alliance propaganda. I'll bet the War was 'Operation Independent Freedom"!
For me, Starship Troopers and the Propaganda pumped out about the bugs and "your duty as a citizen" is what I imagine takes place on the Alliance Core Planets. Exchange the bugs for Browncoats and IMHO you got a good idea of Core Planet TV.
Of course I think there has to be a resistance movement scurrying around the Alliance's underbelly, Book's Involvement anyone?
"It's about believing in something, and letting that belief be real enough to change your life"
Oh and of course,
"That's why I never kiss em on the Mouth"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by IrisAnne:
It occurs to me that Joss deals in archetypes. The Reavers are a symbol of our dark, primal selves. And maybe the Europeans who first came to North America projected the same archetype onto the inhabitants because they didn't understand them. "Savage" is just a manifestation of our own darkness and ignorance, and it's a powerful theme in storytelling. It taps right into our deepest fears about the world and about ourselves.
My blood ran cold when they first encountered the Reavers and Wash said, "Oh God oh God oh God..." What a scary and wonderful moment!
Been reading any Joseph Conrad lately???
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
I agree; the way the characters use dialogue from the Civil War era. Hence the correlation. I just don't see anything about the war itself that parallels with the US Civil War. Do you?
-Steve
That is because there ain't that much of a parallel, except this. A while back, just a couple years, there was this huge war that destroyed most of the planets, and people. Even the ones it did not kill, the ones that survived, got messed up.
As part of that, a lot of folks headed outwards, just to get away from the bad memories and bad blood. In the 19th century, it was the American West. Now, its the border planets.
There is really not enough of information to see which side had policies that more or less accurately reflect the issues of the American Civil war. But to a large extent, it ain't relevant to what folks were doing on the other side of the Mississippi 5 to 10 years afterwards.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
Firstly, the Alliance appears to be a rather heavy handed Authoritarian government. There seems to be no free trade -- hence the smuggling ... even smuggling food as was done in Serenity part two and Shindig (cattle.)
Secondly, like the Nazi's, they do experiments on captive humans. A "law man" was sent to recapture River, so the government is at least in favor of it if not directly involved.
Finally, the
This gives me an indication of what the Independents were fighting AGAINST. What they were fighting FOR is not clearly defined. The assumption is freedom from the Authoritarian Alliance. If that is true, then yes, the Browncoats were the good guys.
loadandmakeready
Good post, however, I would like to offer a bit of counterpoint.
A man with a gun in your face is a more pressing problem than a congress critter back at the capitol. A man with a gun and a badge is even more problematic, whether what the man with the badge is doing is legal or not.
All the cops we've seen to date, with the exception of the sheriff in "Train Job" were detached from their regular commands, and operating independently. How much of their actions were sanctioned, we don't know.
Whether Dobson was there to bring River back, because it was his job, or if he were freelancing for the Blue Hand Crew, again, insufficient data. Heck if you think about it, we have no idea what Dobson was going to do after he caught River. Whether he was just going to pack her back to the lab, or take her somewhere else and use her as a material witness to bring down the BHC.
The problem with ruling the world, or the universe, is that there is a lot of stuff that can fall through the cracks. While you are worrying about trade quotas between Ariel and Shinon, someone is going around setting postal clerks on fire. That is a problem with any kind of centralized government that tries to rule too large a territory.
So what I am saying is that we really don't know if the Alliance is as bad as all that, or if because of travel distance, it has too many loose cannons wandering around, making it look badder than it is.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by Drakon:Quote:
Good post, however, I would like to offer a bit of counterpoint.
A man with a gun in your face is a more pressing problem than a congress critter back at the capitol. A man with a gun and a badge is even more problematic, whether what the man with the badge is doing is legal or not.
All the cops we've seen to date, with the exception of the sheriff in "Train Job" were detached from their regular commands, and operating independently. How much of their actions were sanctioned, we don't know.
Whether Dobson was there to bring River back, because it was his job, or if he were freelancing for the Blue Hand Crew, again, insufficient data. Heck if you think about it, we have no idea what Dobson was going to do after he caught River. Whether he was just going to pack her back to the lab, or take her somewhere else and use her as a material witness to bring down the BHC.
The problem with ruling the world, or the universe, is that there is a lot of stuff that can fall through the cracks. While you are worrying about trade quotas between Ariel and Shinon, someone is going around setting postal clerks on fire. That is a problem with any kind of centralized government that tries to rule too large a territory.
So what I am saying is that we really don't know if the Alliance is as bad as all that, or if because of travel distance, it has too many loose cannons wandering around, making it look badder than it is.
Good points.
Compare the fringes where the Firefly story takes place to America in the late 1860s up to the turn of the 20th century. The government was in Washington DC and people were living on the frontier, thousands of miles away. In New York City or Boston, people did not walk around wearing Colts or carrying Winchesters, why, because the law was right there in the city and government was established.
It is a different story in the Old West. Men wore guns to protect themselves, and shoot outs over disagreements were not uncommon. Many towns had a sheriff, but some did not. US Marshalls generally covered a huge territory and would have to be sent for by the town or sheriff in instances of major crimes.
Corruption was present, but most of the neglect came from the distance from an established government. It is easy, as Darkon said, for things to fall through the cracks when you had to rely on the Pony Express or stagecoach to dlvr mail and no federal lawman is anywhere nearby.
Guess this is the case in Firefly. Out on the frontier where there are plenty of people and little law, it would be easy for a lawman standing alone to become corrupt or get a bit heavy handed w/ folk.
Still I think the underlying tones are there in the 'verse suggesting corruption and a Big Brother style of government. Remember how Simon's father warns that the Alliance will ruin his career if he continues trying to free River, and how they would destroy the reputation and career of his family. The father was so scared, or conditioned to obey, or both, that he disowned his son to distance himself from any fall out. That is on a core planet. Doesn't sound much like a government I would want to live under.
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Good post, however, I would like to offer a bit of counterpoint.
A man with a gun in your face is a more pressing problem than a congress critter back at the capitol. A man with a gun and a badge is even more problematic, whether what the man with the badge is doing is legal or not.
All the cops we've seen to date, with the exception of the sheriff in "Train Job" were detached from their regular commands, and operating independently. How much of their actions were sanctioned, we don't know.
Not so sure I buy that argument. Just because the low level cops, even the guys running the Alliance details in BUSHWACKED and ARIEL, don't know the details or even any reall info, doesn't mean that the BLUE SUN honchos and the heads of the ALLIANCE are not working hand in glove.
The CIA and FBI stepped on each other's toes routinely until they were legislated out of each other's back yards. BOTH groups have better intel and superceding powers over local law enforcement. This is the future, remember. Things have clearly gotten worse on that score.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, that sounds like the rationalization we were taught in school and the one you often hear on the TV. If you want my opinion - the Natives were demonized as savage for the soal reason of convincing poor immigrents that it's OK to steal thier land, kill them, or anything else. That way no one feels bad about being evil and the Natives are convinced it's thier fault.
Originally posted by IrisAnne:
It occurs to me that Joss deals in archetypes. The Reavers are a symbol of our dark, primal selves. And maybe the Europeans who first came to North America projected the same archetype onto the inhabitants because they didn't understand them. "Savage" is just a manifestation of our own darkness and ignorance, and it's a powerful theme in storytelling. It taps right into our deepest fears about the world and about ourselves.
It's not that white men speak with a forked tongue - it's that they are evil murderers and thieves.
Quote:Yea, this is the ancient 'fear of the other' mixed with the fear of the unknown. Powerful stuff but I'm not sure what place it has in this big Firefly cosmology.
My blood ran cold when they first encountered the Reavers and Wash said, "Oh God oh God oh God..." What a scary and wonderful moment!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
But to a large extent, it ain't relevant to what folks were doing on the other side of the Mississippi 5 to 10 years afterwards.
Agreed with nearly everything in that post but the above.
Relevance, on that score, depends on what color your skin was ten or fifteen years after. Or twenty or thirty or eighty.
Nearly 100% of the Western townships founded by former slaves where burned to the ground and/or had their citizens killed by ex Rebs who couldn't bear the sight of their relative success. Those that weren't were destroyed by economic means.
The James Gang (former Quantrell(sp) associates) and several other such Gentlemen's clubs ran roughshod over the various territories, committing violent robberies and slaughtering people pretty much at will partly because they still had issues over how the war played out.
And let's not forget about the poor "Native Americans" who had the misfortune of being in the way of these new settlers whose tolerance for their skin color and lifestyle was even lower based upon recent experiences.
Night Riders, White Knights, Ku Klux Klan etc. all these were groups formed after War's End by folks who couldn't put the war's outcome down. Many still haven't.
I think the real similarity only exists in the basic anarchy enjoyed by the Outer Worlds which serve as a loose proxy for the Old West.
On that, I think, we all agree.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Makes me wonder what the Reavers are really like.
All our knowledge of them is based on half-glimpses and speculation. We see the boy in "Bushwhacked" go mad and become one, but the only reason we have for that is Mal's one.
We also have no idea what their society is like. I'd lay money Joss is going to pull a double-blind on that one, and just as he made Demonic Society in Buffy multi-faceted and varying, we will find out that there are different types of Reavers.
My guess is that they are a tribal society, with warriors and clans, and that the reason is multilate their victims is far more complex than just being simply crazy. Celts took the heads of their enemies as a sign of respect for a great warrior. The Romans called them barbarians, but to Celtic society this was a way of showing respect to a defeated warrior.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
^^^ Interesting. But my guess is that the Reavers are more reputation than actual culture. That is, I suspect they are a myth maintained by someone with an agenda. Assuming there's a good reason to make people afraid of going too deep into 'the Black'.
Zoe's speach about getting raped to death struck me as legend, not fact.
But I digress..., regarding the Browncoats again: I noticed the posts getting deep into the history of the historical Rebel Army and thier actions, etc. (all great to read!) and I remembered one of the most important rules of Westerns - historically accurate westerns are always failures. The American desire to romantisize that period is as strong as the French making on that medieval knights were not murderous tyrants. They were!
So, I have to throw out that Firefly presents the Browncoats/rebels rather like every other western since John Wayne put on a dress - as romantic anti-heros.
Sure, I get annoyed when history is re-written by yet another American myth. Well, at least Firefly doesn't try to present the real thing (such as a Clint Eastwood movie like Josey Wales) but keeps the romance.
I'd be giving Joss big kudos should he manage to present the Browncoats as dastardly as the Alliance ever could be. Maybe worse. You know, I'm of the belief that Mal needs his pat and fragile beliefs kicked out of him once more. Mal may have lost a few delusions but he's got a looooong way to go before he finds real Serenity.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Good post, however, I would like to offer a bit of counterpoint.
A man with a gun in your face is a more pressing problem than a congress critter back at the capitol. A man with a gun and a badge is even more problematic, whether what the man with the badge is doing is legal or not.
All the cops we've seen to date, with the exception of the sheriff in "Train Job" were detached from their regular commands, and operating independently. How much of their actions were sanctioned, we don't know.
Your points are well made.
but they bring to my mind the question: What kind of people does the Alliance hire to enforce their "author-i-tye," and how much slack do they give them? Could be the sheriff in "Train Job" was sent to a remote outpost that has a serious health problem because he wasn't heavy handed enough. In short, perhaps he was "exiled."
These are very intersting topics.
I also have an attitude which should give you an insight into my own perspective. And that is my antagonism toward government ... any government! Someone said it once: "Government always grows to the maximum level the people can tolerate." Or as a friend of mine put it: "Freedom good ... Government Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad!"
Quote:
Whether Dobson was there to bring River back, because it was his job, or if he were freelancing for the Blue Hand Crew, again, insufficient data. Heck if you think about it, we have no idea what Dobson was going to do after he caught River. Whether he was just going to pack her back to the lab, or take her somewhere else and use her as a material witness to bring down the BHC.
I think Dobsons statement that River was a valuable property eliminates the possibility that she was going anywhere but back to be experimented upon. Makes me kinda wonder about any government -- or other entity for that matter -- which treats human beings as property.
Quote:
The problem with ruling the world, or the universe, is that there is a lot of stuff that can fall through the cracks. While you are worrying about trade quotas between Ariel and Shinon, someone is going around setting postal clerks on fire. That is a problem with any kind of centralized government that tries to rule too large a territory.
To me, that's a problem with any government ... period. Especially one that tries to "rule!" Whether it is a galaxy, or a country, or a state, county, or city, the result is the same. As Princess Lea put in Star Wars IV, "The more you tighten your grip, the more they slip through your fingers."
Quote:
So what I am saying is that we really don't know if the Alliance is as bad as all that, or if because of travel distance, it has too many loose cannons wandering around, making it look badder than it is.
I view government the same way government today views us ... guilty until proven innocent.
Load and make ready!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
LoadAndMakeReady wrote:
Slightly off topic: What difference was there between the Colonists who seceeded from the British Empire, and the Confederates who tried to seceed from the United States? I'm really curious. Because as I see, it the Federal Government was doing exactly the same thing to the Southern States as Britain was doing to the Colonies.
Quote:
Browncoat1 replied:
Depends on who you ask really. Ask most people, especially those from the North, they will say there is no comparison. They will cite abolishing slavery as the reason for their invasion of the South. Ask someone from the South, they will tell you they were fighting for states rights, independence, and to protect their homes from what they saw as an invading army. Matter of perception, what they were taught, and what they believe.
As far as the Civil War is concerned, slavery was NOT the issue. There were 15 slave states, only 11 of them seceeded. Washington DC was slave. In fact the capitol building -- which was being built at the time -- was built with slave labor. The war started in 1861, the emancipetion proclamation was issued in 1863, and only "freed" the slaves in states that were still in secession. Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and the District of Columbia itself were still "slave" -- until the thirteenth amendment in 1865.
By the way, tens of thousands of Union Soldiers deserted when they heard of the Emancipation Proclamation -- they believed they were fighting for the Union, not to free slaves.
The primary reason the Southern States seceeded was the Morrill Tarriff, which doubled existing tarriffs at the time. Tarriffs were the primary source of revenue for the "federal" government at the time, and they were collected almost exclusively from the southern states -- and spent in the north.
In short, the Federal government was doing to the south exactly the same thing that England was doing to the colonies. They wanted to keep them as a cheap source of raw materials, and a captive market for expensive finished goods. The Southerners -- and the Colonists -- wanted to trade on the world market, at world market prices. (Little known fact: John Hancock was a "smuggler!")
Quote:
As far as the comparisons of the Alliance, I have always seen them as a sort of central, expansionist government gone amok. They remind me somewhat of an occupying army when you see soldiers on the street in episodes. They watch everyone, seem to be suspicious of everyone, and the display of military arms seems meant to intimidate the populace into compliance.
A central, expansionist government IS a government gone amok!
Quote:
I feel the Alliance is meant to portray the all powerful, corrupt government that many people fear could happen in our day and time.
Looking at "Homeland Security," and the "Patriot Act," I think it has already happened!
Quote:
The way the Alliance is shown as a military/peace keeping force and their heavy handed tactics in enforcing the will of the government is what the forefathers of our country feared and why they were anti-Federalists.
After the Colonies seceeded, most Americans wanted a "Federation" -- thirteen "free and independent States," united under a sort of mini-UN.
Those who wanted a strong central government -- the British system, without Britain -- called themselves "Federalists" in order to label those who actually wanted a Federation as "Anti-Federalists. Seems to have worked!
Quote:
The original colonies broke away from England because they saw that an all powerful, central government did not work for the people, but rather exploited them.
It was never intended to work for the people. Ultimately, the end purpose of government, is government!
Quote:
The Browncoats are meant to represent the common men and women who lived out in the remote areas of Alliance controlled space. The people of these remote coloniesNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
How about quarantine?
Even today, quarantine is more an excuse than a reason for restrictions. The posibility that this would be a problem in the 25th Century is in my mind, negligable. YMMV
loadandmakeready
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Several points -
1) People smuggle all the time, for a million different reasons - the most noteable are to move illegal cargo and to avoid goverment interference through such things as taxes. The prescence of smuggling does not an authoritarian government make. Heck - how many people go through US customs and just 'forget' to declare everything they've bought, because they don't want to PAY? Technically, that's smuggling. Throw in a few cows, and it's the same thing on a larger scale. Make the good stolen, and you're doing it to avoid a fine or jail sentence.
A: Why is the cargo illegal? Usually to "protect" the profits of a politically connected business interest.
B: To avoid taxes? All taxation is theft!
C: Stolen from whom? In one sense, you can't steal from a government, because the government got whatever it did with money that was stolen from you!
Quote:
2) I think it's been made pretty clear that it was Blue Sun doing those experiments, and that most of the Alliance had NO IDEA what they wanted River for. Witness the men killed just for speaking to her in Ariel. Witness the officer who doesn't even know if they want her alive or dead, and so orders them to shoot first (Bushwacked, I /think/.) Again, the horrific actions of a few does not make the entirity evil. I tend to think that's Blue Sun's control of the Alliance at work there, not the Alliance itself.
"Society in any state is a blessing, government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil, in its worst state, an intolerable one..."
Thomas Paine
It is government which created Corporations -- if the Corporations are out of "control," then who is to blame? To me, it all boils down to government enforcing the desires of certain politically-connected special interests. Ultimately, government is still the problem.
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure."
Quote:
3)Accusing the postal clerk.. um. Ok. Recall how that lawman was working a tad illegally, chasing down some precious cargo he himself was smuggling? I hardly think we can use him as a shining example of a typical Alliance lawman. As a matter of fact, I never ever in the watching of the episode bought him as a legitimate one, for that exact reason - he uses the same terroristic methods that Niska's men do. He's not acting in his capacity as a lawman in that episode - he's exploiting it.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Lord Acton
Keep a government poor and weak, and it will be your servant. Let it get rich and powerful, and it will be your master.
Is there any doubt what kind of government the Alliance is?
To me, the very idea that a government would fight to maintain "control" of other people is the truest sign that the government does NOT have the best interests of those people at heart.
Or as Lysander Spooner put it: "no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly on voluntary support."
Quote:
And finally, I'm not saying there aren't bad feds out there - as with any system, power will go to people's heads, and I'm sure that /especially/ on the border planets, you have people using their fed power for their own means, and to terrorize. But that's an individual trait - not neccessarily a trait of the government, which I still contend was simply bulky and overly bueacratic - not evil.
So, you side with the Alliance against the Browncoats?
loadandmakeready
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:Quote:
Several points -
1) People smuggle all the time, for a million different reasons - the most noteable are to move illegal cargo and to avoid goverment interference through such things as taxes. The prescence of smuggling does not an authoritarian government make. Heck - how many people go through US customs and just 'forget' to declare everything they've bought, because they don't want to PAY? Technically, that's smuggling. Throw in a few cows, and it's the same thing on a larger scale. Make the good stolen, and you're doing it to avoid a fine or jail sentence.
A: Why is the cargo illegal? Usually to "protect" the profits of a politically connected business interest.
B: To avoid taxes? All taxation is theft!
C: Stolen from whom? In one sense, you can't steal from a government, because the government got whatever it did with money that was stolen from you!
well, let's not be so noble. People smuggle because there is profit to be made. There are always things worth smuggling that the rest (most of the rest anyways) of society despise. Porn, liquor, ciggies, lego-blocks, whatever. If it's not something, it's another.
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
Quote:
2) I think it's been made pretty clear that it was Blue Sun doing those experiments, and that most of the Alliance had NO IDEA what they wanted River for. Witness the men killed just for speaking to her in Ariel. Witness the officer who doesn't even know if they want her alive or dead, and so orders them to shoot first (Bushwacked, I /think/.) Again, the horrific actions of a few does not make the entirity evil. I tend to think that's Blue Sun's control of the Alliance at work there, not the Alliance itself.
"Society in any state is a blessing, government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil, in its worst state, an intolerable one..."
Thomas Paine
It is government which created Corporations -- if the Corporations are out of "control," then who is to blame? To me, it all boils down to government enforcing the desires of certain politically-connected special interests. Ultimately, government is still the problem.
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure."
Quote:
3)Accusing the postal clerk.. um. Ok. Recall how that lawman was working a tad illegally, chasing down some precious cargo he himself was smuggling? I hardly think we can use him as a shining example of a typical Alliance lawman. As a matter of fact, I never ever in the watching of the episode bought him as a legitimate one, for that exact reason - he uses the same terroristic methods that Niska's men do. He's not acting in his capacity as a lawman in that episode - he's exploiting it.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Lord Acton
Keep a government poor and weak, and it will be your servant. Let it get rich and powerful, and it will be your master.
Is there any doubt what kind of government the Alliance is?
To me, the very idea that a government would fight to maintain "control" of other people is the truest sign that the government does NOT have the best interests of those people at heart.
Or as Lysander Spooner put it: "no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly on voluntary support."
Lysander Spooner, again. It might be true of some governments in our world, but why do some people keep believing that our government is runned with a programmed and specific determination towards malice - is it just me or the militant radicals in Montana?
Really, at best, it's the Keystone cops - complete incompetents and just randomly screwing things up, at worst, a bunch of monkeys - baffoons trying to do things, but all thumbs.
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
Quote:
And finally, I'm not saying there aren't bad feds out tNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh boy! Libertarianism vs. Communitarianism!
Seems to me the Reavers are at one extreme end of the spectrum and Blue Sun at the other, with the Independent and the Alliance falling in at different levels.
Mal can be pretty authoritarian when it comes to Serenity, his little piece of the sky. The Alliance has claimed a much larger piece, undoubtedly with the best intentions (and all the proverbial paving that goes with it). Mal gives his crew a choice; they can take it or leave it, even in the middle of deep space. The Alliance gives you a choice too, stay in 'civilized' space and follow their rules or leave.
As a jaded, bitter man I don't see much difference between the Reavers or the Alliance. Everybody has the 'right' to do whatever they have the 'power' and the 'will' to get away with. Anarchy all the way, the Reavers have a physical anarchy and the Alliance have a social anarchy.
I don't think it matters how power is organized, it matters how it is used, which implies decisions by individuals. A tyrant can be a good man and a democrat can be a bad one. The efficiency or inefficiency of scale is not really a moral question.
"Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible." -- Frank Herbert
In summation, there are members of both the Alliance and the Independents who are choose to do the right thing and members who choose to do the wrong thing. The majority of both sides choose what is in their best interest, rationalizing away any doubts or guilt they have. One plus for the Reavers is that they probably don't suffer from this failing.
Arawaen
P.S. Jaded and Bitter I tell ya'!
"Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm angry. And I'm armed."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Lysander Spooner, again. It might be true of some governments in our world, but why do some people keep believing that our government is runned with a programmed and specific determination towards malice - is it just me or the militant radicals in Montana?
Runned?
Governments always end up becoming the very thing they were created to prevent.
A revolution that was begun in protest of a Stamp Tax, and a small tax on tea ended up with the IRS.
Who is going to fight harder for public office? Your honest neighbor who knows he will have to put his life and career on hold in order to get into politics, serve a term or two in order to expand a freedom, or make freedom more secure ... then go back home and enjoy that freedom?
Or someone who wants to control the lives of others, and sees politics as a way to combine that sickness with a career which will bring him wealth, power, and fame?
loadandmakeready
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:Quote:
Several points -
1) People smuggle all the time, for a million different reasons - the most noteable are to move illegal cargo and to avoid goverment interference through such things as taxes. The prescence of smuggling does not an authoritarian government make. Heck - how many people go through US customs and just 'forget' to declare everything they've bought, because they don't want to PAY? Technically, that's smuggling. Throw in a few cows, and it's the same thing on a larger scale. Make the good stolen, and you're doing it to avoid a fine or jail sentence.
A: Why is the cargo illegal? Usually to "protect" the profits of a politically connected business interest.
B: To avoid taxes? All taxation is theft!
C: Stolen from whom? In one sense, you can't steal from a government, because the government got whatever it did with money that was stolen from you!
A: Or possibly because it's dangerous and hurts someone. Possibly because it crosses a moral line not everyone wants to cross. Possibly because yes, it's against the interests of the goverment. But saying that's the only reason is a vast oversimplification.
B: Whoa, dude. Really? Feel free to hand over your education, your highways, your postal system, your police force, your PBS, your afterschool programs.. anytime now.
C: See above. I have a hard time even arguing how that's inaccurate, because to state that all taxes are theft is so.. wow. You're welcome to your view of the world, of course, but.. let's just say it's not mine.
Quote:Quote:
2) I think it's been made pretty clear that it was Blue Sun doing those experiments, and that most of the Alliance had NO IDEA what they wanted River for. Witness the men killed just for speaking to her in Ariel. Witness the officer who doesn't even know if they want her alive or dead, and so orders them to shoot first (Bushwacked, I /think/.) Again, the horrific actions of a few does not make the entirity evil. I tend to think that's Blue Sun's control of the Alliance at work there, not the Alliance itself.
"Society in any state is a blessing, government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil, in its worst state, an intolerable one..."
Thomas Paine
It is government which created Corporations -- if the Corporations are out of "control," then who is to blame? To me, it all boils down to government enforcing the desires of certain politically-connected special interests. Ultimately, government is still the problem.
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure."
I'm not sure you can state that governments created corporations - and I /certainly/ don't think that you can them blame the government entirely. I think the corporations ought to shoulder a bit of the blame for their own actions, here.
Quote:Quote:
3)Accusing the postal clerk.. um. Ok. Recall how that lawman was working a tad illegally, chasing down some precious cargo he himself was smuggling? I hardly think we can use him as a shining example of a typical Alliance lawman. As a matter of fact, I never ever in the watching of the episode bought him as a legitimate one, for that exact reason - he uses the same terroristic methods that Niska's men do. He's not acting in his capacity as a lawman in that episode - he's exploiting it.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Lord Acton
Keep a government poor and weak, and it will be your servant. Let it get rich and powerful, and it will be your master.
Is there any doubt what kind of government the Alliance is?
To me, the very idea that a government would fight to maintain "control" of other people is the truest sign that the government does NOT have the best interests of those people at heart.
Or as Lysander Spooner put it: "no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly on voluntary support."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
B: Whoa, dude. Really? Feel free to hand over your education, your highways, your postal system, your police force, your PBS, your afterschool programs.. anytime now.
I'm 57 years old. I don't need after school programs. And those who want them can pay for them out of their own pocket, instead of voting for some thug to stick a taxboard bayonet in my back to pay for it.
PBS? What's PBS! Like 99 percent of what the government does, I don't use it ... so why should I pay for it?
As far as the police force is concerned, I am capable of protecting myself ... I don't need their "help!" Kinda makes you wonder though, how mankind survived for goodness knows how many thousands of years without police. (The first professional police force came into existance in 1849.)
Highways? The first trans-continental highway was built by private enterprise. Americans don't need goofermint to supply highways!
Education? The only reason gummymint took over "education" in this country was to teach history and politics in a way that makes the gummymint look good. While many people call them "public schools, I call them "youth propaganda camps."
Quote:
C: See above. I have a hard time even arguing how that's inaccurate, because to state that all taxes are theft is so.. wow. You're welcome to your view of the world, of course, but.. let's just say it's not mine.
When someone can take the product of your effort away from you without your voluntary consent, they are claiming a property right in, and ownership of, your effort. I don't know what you call it, but I call it SLAVERY!
But then maybe you like being enslaved -- or maybe you like for others to be enslaved for your benefit.
Quote:
I'm not sure you can state that governments created corporations - and I /certainly/ don't think that you can them blame the government entirely. I think the corporations ought to shoulder a bit of the blame for their own actions, here.
I can state it, I did state it! Government created "Corporations!" Corporations ARE responsible for their actions, but government is responsible for creating corporations.
Quote:
Well, yes, I do believe that my point was that power will corrupt. Thus the explotation of his position. I also don't recall mentioning that the government was trying to 'control' anyone - although I disagree with the assumption that trying to maintain public order ('control') is a /bad thing/. Let's be honest. Some people /need/ to be controlled. Some people are /not/ good for society. Some people are best off (for the rest of us) safely behind bars, or in rehab programs, or carefully watched by a parole officer. It helps keep the world safe for the rest of us.
And some people are better off dead! You may not be able to protect yourself, so you may hire someone to do it for you -- BUT NOT WITH MY PAYCHECK!!
Quote:
And finally, I'm not saying there aren't bad feds out there - as with any system, power will go to people's heads, and I'm sure that /especially/ on the border planets, you have people using their fed power for their own means, and to terrorize. But that's an individual trait - not neccessarily a trait of the government, which I still contend was simply bulky and overly bueacratic - not evil.
Some people imagine that government will work if the right people are in office, this is a myth! The only way to eliminate abuse of power is to abolish the power! If it doesn't exist, it can't be abused.
Quote:
Wow. I have no idea how you got from point A to point B there. Just because I'm able to see the Alliance in shades of complicated gray instead of assigning them white and black hats means that I would side with the Alliance? Let's watch the assumptions there, huh?
If you had paid closer attention to that sentence, you might have noticed that little squiggly thing at the end of it -- it's called a question mark! I was not making an assumption, I was asking a qu
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
"Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible." -- Frank Herbert
Arawaen
P.S. Jaded and Bitter I tell ya'!
"Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm angry. And I'm armed."
Frank Herbert was right!
I put it a little differently: It's a chicken and egg situation. Does power corrupt, and absolute power corrupt absolutely? Or is it that only the absolutely corrupt seek absolute power?
loadandmakeready
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:What ever slays your Dragon. As long as I'm not forced to pay for the weapon.
loadandmakeready
Obviously we have very different world views about where your social responsibility lies, and what's good for society, so I'll just chalk this one up in the 'agree to disagree' category, as I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye with such vastly different starting points.
As for:
Quote:
If you had paid closer attention to that sentence, you might have noticed that little squiggly thing at the end of it -- it's called a question mark! I was not making an assumption, I was asking a question.
I appologize - I'm used to folks who use that question mark at the end of a 'statement' not to ask a question persay, but to imply disbelief of a fact or a given (you can probably even pick out examples in my own posts, I'm guessing). Not something I should carry here from discussions in other forums, obviously, and I'll be sure to try to take things at face value from now on. :)
Makes for a rousing discussion, though!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Without a government, you have Barons, thugs, tyrrants ruling. You have no healthcare, no streets, no nothing. I personally tolerate government because, well, without one worse people would be in charge than Bush or Paul Martin. What I realize, and some people might not realize, is that when you leave behind government, everything you have: freedoms, legal rights, etc. goes to. I accept that if i break the law, i goto jail. If I have no home, I cannot settle down. I see and accept. I just wonder if others see the same.
Mercy is the mark of a great man... *stab*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Aerrin:
Obviously we have very different world views about where your social responsibility lies, and what's good for society, so I'll just chalk this one up in the 'agree to disagree' category, as I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye with such vastly different starting points.
Makes for a rousing discussion, though!
Rousing? Yes! And a very interesting discussion as well.
However, 'twould be interesting to learn what your starting point is.
Here's mine:
All my political, and value judgements branch out from one basic principle. I believe in property rights ... beginning with the concept that you are the absolute owner of your own life. And as absolute owner, you have the right to live your life in any manner you choose. PROVIDED! That you do not forcibly interfere with anyone else's right to live their life in what ever manner they choose ... and vice versa, and round and round.
Corollary to this is what is called the Zero Aggression Principle, or ZAP: No one has the right to initiate the use of force -- or to advocate, or delegate the initiation of force -- for any reason what-so-ever.
There is only one moral use of force, and that is to stop anyone who DOES initiate it.
Many a philosophy, which people view as beneficial, holds violence to be the very definition of evil. Who gains by this? The good? No! It is only evil that benefits when men of "ill will" find their victims disarmed and bound for slaughter by their very beliefs.
If we are to have a civilization, and if that civilization is to endure, we must come to view violence in a neutral light, examining only the circumstances of its wielding.
Initiated violence -- especially for collective purposes -- is the sum and total of all evil ever perpetrated by men upon man. So, can we not view resistance to this violence as beneficial? Even good? If not, then we needn't look to the future for some "ultimate triumph of evil," -- it has already occurred.
loadandmakeready
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fine... Fine... Fine...
but why aren't you sitting in a cave
rubbing sticks together trying to stay
warm. Farming or running around with
pointy sticks hunting and skinning little
furry animals for sustenance.
What's more incredible is that you are
actually:
1. using the internet - build with 'that dang guv'ment research money' and runned by about 13 different corporations.
2. typing on a computer - build from parts made by 12 different corporations.
3. eating up electricity - generated by some guv'ment sanctioned monopoly in your locality
4. watching firefly on a TV (probably on cable too) - you put in your own words how many different corporations and government bodies takes to make TV and everything about it happen.
editted: not a personal statement, but rather an example of what I want to illustrate
People long ago found that binding together and *helping* each other made surviving and sustaining easier - not to mention maybe a little bit more enjoyable then hunt, eat, sleep, hunt, eat, sleep, etc... Sooner or later, any societal unit will attempt self-rule, self imposed rules. Every group goes through a norming stage. It's the basis of group dynamics. Even a group of individualists will *agree* to be individualists. It grows from there.
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:Quote:
Originally posted by Aerrin:
Obviously we have very different world views about where your social responsibility lies, and what's good for society, so I'll just chalk this one up in the 'agree to disagree' category, as I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye with such vastly different starting points.
Makes for a rousing discussion, though!
Rousing? Yes! And a very interesting discussion as well.
However, 'twould be interesting to learn what your starting point is.
Here's mine:
All my political, and value judgements branch out from one basic principle. I believe in property rights ... beginning with the concept that you are the absolute owner of your own life. And as absolute owner, you have the right to live your life in any manner you choose. PROVIDED! That you do not forcibly interfere with anyone else's right to live their life in what ever manner they choose ... and vice versa, and round and round.
Corollary to this is what is called the Zero Aggression Principle, or ZAP: No one has the right to initiate the use of force -- or to advocate, or delegate the initiation of force -- for any reason what-so-ever.
There is only one moral use of force, and that is to stop anyone who DOES initiate it.
Many a philosophy, which people view as beneficial, holds violence to be the very definition of evil. Who gains by this? The good? No! It is only evil that benefits when men of "ill will" find their victims disarmed and bound for slaughter by their very beliefs.
If we are to have a civilization, and if that civilization is to endure, we must come to view violence in a neutral light, examining only the circumstances of its wielding.
Initiated violence -- especially for collective purposes -- is the sum and total of all evil ever perpetrated by men upon man. So, can we not view resistance to this violence as beneficial? Even good? If not, then we needn't look to the future for some "ultimate triumph of evil," -- it has already occurred.
loadandmakeready
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:
Not so sure I buy that argument. Just because the low level cops, even the guys running the Alliance details in BUSHWACKED and ARIEL, don't know the details or even any reall info, doesn't mean that the BLUE SUN honchos and the heads of the ALLIANCE are not working hand in glove.
The CIA and FBI stepped on each other's toes routinely until they were legislated out of each other's back yards. BOTH groups have better intel and superceding powers over local law enforcement. This is the future, remember. Things have clearly gotten worse on that score.
Ain't got nothing to do with how high or low their rank is. They got badges, and their bosses are billions of miles away. Folks rarely act the same on vacation as they do around the house. Or else Vegas would be bust overnight.
And because the cops we've seen are detached, there is insufficient data to conclusively prove (or refute) the idea this is "normal" behavior. And it says nothing about how intertwined the BHC and the Alliance government is.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ Interesting. But my guess is that the Reavers are more reputation than actual culture. That is, I suspect they are a myth maintained by someone with an agenda. Assuming there's a good reason to make people afraid of going too deep into 'the Black'.
Possibly even the Reavers themselves. Think about it, you've seen the same scheme time and time again on Scooby Doo. Scare everyone away from where you want to be, and you don't get bothered, hassled or shot at.
Quote:
I'd be giving Joss big kudos should he manage to present the Browncoats as dastardly as the Alliance ever could be. Maybe worse. You know, I'm of the belief that Mal needs his pat and fragile beliefs kicked out of him once more. Mal may have lost a few delusions but he's got a looooong way to go before he finds real Serenity.
Then take a look at the script "Dead or Alive"
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
While I find the anarchistic or libertarian ideal persuasive to a large extent, I also realize that it is because folks are the way they are, that governments are around to begin with.
Sometimes it is simply better to leave things to some authority. And give that authority a monopoly on the use of force. Granted, there is a concern for abuse, but that exists regardless of who it is, or even how many have that ability.
There was an idea floated about private police forces. And have competing authorities enforce the law. But it is easy to see how that situation can quickly denigrate into a gang-like warfare (with serious weapons) amongst competing police agencies.
I don't think you can get away from a government, if you are surrounded by any kind of substantial population. In such a situation, the guy with the most guns and guts gets, and gets to do whatever he wants, regardless of the cost to others. And everyone else just has to suffer. Rance Burgess is a great example of what happens when you ain't got any government whatsoever.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
As far as the Civil War is concerned, slavery was NOT the issue.
Sigh. Sorry but this is not what the Southerners at the time of secession were saying. It is not what the South Carolina legislature said when they voted for the Declaration of Secession. For the South, slavery was the issue. Dressed up in the rubric "states rights" but still, its slavery.
It pains me to have to say this, but the assertion is simply not true. The first complaint South Carolina mentions in their declaration is the fact that northern states are not returning fugitive slaves, in violation of Article 4 of the Constitution. And the Federal government was not doing enough to compel northerners to returne escaped slaves.
If slavery were not the issue, then bringing this up, even tangentally, let alone as the first reason you give to seceed, does not make any sense.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Lord Acton
This is a common mischaracterization of Acton's quote. What he was referring to was NOT how much a bastard the historical figure was. He was referring to the tendancy, at the time, of historians to excuse terrible deeds, and attempt to explain it in terms of the political/social/whathaveyou context of the time.
Besides which, think for a moment. That would make God the biggest meanest thing in the universe. Even if it were true, ya really think ya want to say it out loud?
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Lysander Spooner, again. It might be true of some governments in our world, but why do some people keep believing that our government is runned with a programmed and specific determination towards malice - is it just me or the militant radicals in Montana?
There is more to it than that. You listen to some people, this entire UNIVERSE is supposed to be a trail of tears and misery. If you are happy and/or successful, that is taken as proof that you cheated.
If you start a business, and make a fortune, you are automatically a crook, did it through "connections" or some other such, well, manure. The very idea that someone can work their way up the ladder, or be a sucess without cheating, is anthema to them.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Aerrin:
I'm not sure you can state that governments created corporations - and I /certainly/ don't think that you can them blame the government entirely. I think the corporations ought to shoulder a bit of the blame for their own actions, here.
People form corporations, as well as governments. And that is the single problem with any of this talk. Unless you change people, complaining about what people do in large groups ain't gonna make any difference.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TravelingTheBlack:
Without a government, you have Barons, thugs, tyrrants ruling. You have no healthcare, no streets, no nothing. I personally tolerate government because, well, without one worse people would be in charge than Bush or Paul Martin. What I realize, and some people might not realize, is that when you leave behind government, everything you have: freedoms, legal rights, etc. goes to. I accept that if i break the law, i goto jail. If I have no home, I cannot settle down. I see and accept. I just wonder if others see the same.
Mercy is the mark of a great man... *stab*
You ain't. The reason why libertarians can complain about the government here, is because they have rights and a government to enforce those rights (Well, at least punish violations that come to its attention)
I am sure Load can protect and defend himself. Against a small enough group. Unfortunately that does not give much incentive to folks really wanting what he's got to only bring a small group.
Anarchism and Libertarianism, in their pure forms, quickly deginerates into totalitarian dictatorships. Where rights are whatever the guy with the biggest guns says they are. You may not like democracy, but I see it as a better alternative than most, if not all other forms of government.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
People long ago found that binding together and *helping* each other made surviving and sustaining easier - not to mention maybe a little bit more enjoyable then hunt, eat, sleep, hunt, eat, sleep, etc... Sooner or later, any societal unit will attempt self-rule, self imposed rules. Every group goes through a norming stage. It's the basis of group dynamics. Even a group of individualists will *agree* to be individualists. It grows from there.
This is the heart and soul of the whole Libertarian/Communitarian debate right here. Rugged individualists only gets you so far. And either one bands together in a community, or one is left to his own when facing any kind of catastrophy, manmade or natural.
And there is the problem that things like corporations and businesses in general, are created by mutual consent. People banding together, pooling their resources and skills, and creating products that other folks want to buy. To get rid of corporations, one has to put limits of the free association of others. And those limits have to be enforced, with well, force. Which makes opposition to corporations under libertarian rules kinda messy.
The same goes for democratic governments as well. You want to get rid of it, you have to force people to not associate in ways you don't like. And again, that means force.
The rugged individualist is a great start, but hardly a finish.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I do not necessarily agree w/ the whole libretarian/anarchist arguement. I do agree that our government has many problems that need to be fixed, but I doubt they ever will be, as the Democrats and Republicans are too busy trying to stiffle one another to ever work together to better the government.
"No man is an island" has many meanings, and I think one of them applies here. I do not think any one man can stand alone indefinitely. Sure Load may be able to protect himself, for that matter I am a veteran and I know I can protect myself and my family, but the real issue lies in against what you are protecting. As was pointed out above, if you have something they really want, people will get real inventive on ways to get it.
Since the beginning of recorded history man has been banding together to form communities for protection and to pool resources. If there were no one to oversee the country, it would be everyman for themselves. Society would soon fall to the type of barbarism the world suffered from centuries ago, when men banded together to raid and still from the weaker, unorganized farms or homes. "There is strength in numbers" makes a lot of sense when viewed from this perspective.
I will say that without a government or some governing body to oversee things, we would not last long as a country. I do not think a federal government is the best option available, but unfortunately short of a revolution the federalist will remain in charge.
My personal problem w/ the government is that it is untouchable and not accountable for its actions. Our forefathers were anti-federalists for a reason. They had seen the powerful, centralized gov't of England abuse the colonies and did not want that in our country. Unfortunately, it has happened. Everyday you read or hear about corruption, special interest lobbying, and favoritism by one party or the other for business or some organization or another.
I also grow tired of all of the infighting in our government as both sides jockey for power. The Democrats are now questioning Bush's National Guard service in an effort to discredit him during this election year. Keep in mind this is the same Democratic party that told the Republican party that Clinton fleeing the country to avoid that draft during Vietnam had nothing to do with his ability to be president. With all this political fighting between the parties it is no surprise that nothing gets done on Capitol Hill. At least Congress is sure to vote themselves a handsome salary increase every year. Way to go guys!
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Loadandmakeready... you're my hero.
... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. - Declaration of Independence
I feel the need to point out to people that a government is simply an alternative to aristocrasy. No one ever said it was better, just not the blue bloods. It is the creation of LAW that creates good government. The Magna Carta for example. And of course, the beloved Declaration of Independence which used it's second paragraph (above) to point out that it's the LAW that comes before the government.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh... the reason Corporations are so evil is that they are not bound by any law... at all! See all corporations have the rights of an individual under the law. The same rights as YOU!
Is that wrong? Yes, it is. It' just a silly loophole from 100 years ago but it is the basis of every legal scandel you've ever heard of. Erin Brockovitch is an example of a person fighting a corporation that is killing people. Entertaining movie, but under the law there was nothing Erin could do about it. The case, just as all cases against corporations, is settled. Then the settlement is settled and the people who get recompence are cheated out of that money too. trust me, it's just a laugh to CEOs as they know they pay armies of lawyers year in and year out to have fun with it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:ROTFL!
Originally posted by Drakon:Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ Interesting. But my guess is that the Reavers are more reputation than actual culture. That is, I suspect they are a myth maintained by someone with an agenda. Assuming there's a good reason to make people afraid of going too deep into 'the Black'.
Possibly even the Reavers themselves. Think about it, you've seen the same scheme time and time again on Scooby Doo...
Poor Joss Wheden... just can't escape the 'Scooby subtext'. Hahahahaha... And I can read Firefly scripts where?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
This is a common mischaracterization of Acton's quote. What he was referring to was NOT how much a bastard the historical figure was. He was referring to the tendancy, at the time, of historians to excuse terrible deeds, and attempt to explain it in terms of the political/social/whathaveyou context of the time.
Besides which, think for a moment. That would make God the biggest meanest thing in the universe. Even if it were true, ya really think ya want to say it out loud?
There have always been those who try to excuse or rationalize the actions of governments, and men in government ... there still are! Centuries ago it was the Priest class, today it is so-called "intellectuals." Both have fastened themselves to the State, and have made their living trying to justify the actions of the State. For the most part, they have succeeded. For example, look at how successfully they have been able to turn a mass murdering megalomaniac like Abraham Lincoln into a national hero!
With all due respect DRAKON, you are mistaken. Lord Acton WAS referring to the crimes committed by men in power.
As far as "God" is concerned, I have described "Him" in proctological terms numerous times.
What would you think of a "God" that would send two she-bears to rend to bloody pieces a couple dozen children for the hideous crime of poking fun at an old man's bald head?
loadandmakeready
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TravelingTheBlack:
Without a government, you have Barons, thugs, tyrrants ruling. You have no healthcare, no streets, no nothing. I personally tolerate government because, well, without one worse people would be in charge than Bush or Paul Martin. What I realize, and some people might not realize, is that when you leave behind government, everything you have: freedoms, legal rights, etc. goes to. I accept that if i break the law, i goto jail. If I have no home, I cannot settle down. I see and accept. I just wonder if others see the same.
Barons and tyrants ARE government! Our word "thug" comes from the Hindu word thug which is pronounced as t-HUG ... the plural is thuggee. They were worshippers of a diminished avatar of Kali called Bhavani ... a goddess of destruction. They were swindlers, stranglers ... murderers. So to lump them in with Kings, Caesars, and Presidents is in my mind entirely appropriate.
You have no healthcare??? Are you trying to tell me that government invented Doctors? Don't tell me.... The next thing you will try to convince me of is that government invented roads.
Without government worse people would be in charge? Without government ... NO ONE WOULD BE "IN CHARGE!!"
Your assertion, that without government there is no freedom is, in my mind, truly warped. By that standard, the more government the better! Government should tax you one hundred percent! Government should tell you what job you can or cannot do, how to spend your leisure time, (if indeed they will allow you any leisure time) every thought word or action you have or make should come under the scrutiny of The State. Is that what you want?
Think for a moment, and ask yourself what would happen if say, the government had been in charge of the production and distribution of shoes, or bread. And some rabid anti-statist like myself dared to make the horrifying suggestion that individuals working singly, or in groups could do it ... maybe even do it better than the government! Would you be shocked?
The United States became the wealthiest, happiest, and most influential country in the history of this planet precisely because government was too weak to stop individuals from finding new ways to improve their lives!
When this country was founded, women were cooking over open fires ... as women had been cooking before history began. In two centuries, they went from cooking over an open hearth fireplace to wood stoves, to gas and electric ranges, to microwaves! Did government cause this?
When this country was founded, men walked, rode horses, and goaded oxen. Today they drive automobiles and fly in the utmost heights of air. Did government cause this?
When this country was founded people lighted their way to bed with pine knots and candles. In one and a half centuries, they went from candles, to whale oil lamps, to kerosene, to gas jets, to incandescent bulbs, to flourescent tubes. Did government cause this?
What about central heating and air conditioning? Did government invent air conditioning?
Government can hinder, restrict, or stop people from acting ... it can never control their actions. The opposite of government control is called freedom!
The Wright Brothers gave mankind wings ... it was government that put machine guns in -- and bombs under -- those wings. Government didn't even invent the machine gun.
Everything we see or have came to us, not BECAUSE of government, but IN SPITE OF GOVERNMENT!
loadandmakeready
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
^^^
Oh my god.
Lincoln is a mass murdering megalomaniac? Wow.
Dude (babe?) you are freaking hysterical.
On a heavier note...
The anarchy advocated by the -ahem- Libertarians and so-called Anarchists is, not to put too fine a point on it, complete rubbish.
It is the nature of ALL primates to live in hierarchical structures, usually pyramid formed, with a single alpha or alpha pair at the apex.
Even the democratic modification of this basic human trait results in an alpha ruling (male usually) over the rest.
It is the height of arrogance (or ignorance) to assume that humans would be exempt. We're primates. Super smart ones but apes nonetheless. We will always, always, always have hierarchical systems of government and those systems will always, always, always be corrupt. Get over it. Grow up.We're genetically hardwired for it. There's no escape until some new species of human emerges.
Representative government is the best you're going to get. Indeed, this is the best system any human society bigger than a five person family unit has ever produced. EVER. In human history.
You clearly enjoy the obvious benefits of participation in the American experiment but seem to ignore the invisible ones.
Like that there aren't armed bands of thieves rumaging through your house and your female relatives at will simply because they've got bigger guns.
Like the air you breathe isn't yet too contaminated to sustain you. Or that the food you buy at the market won't poison you.
Like the infrastucture whose upkeep you seem not to wish to pay for allows us to even have this silly debate.
Like guys with whips and guns aren't forcing you to work their land, offer up your wives and children to their whims, and your own body for torture at their discretion.
That is the history of the world, cheif. And it's the history of this country til about a century ago (give or take a score). It's ongoing in far too many places as we speak.
Anarchy and Libertarianism are the goals of children who believe the world either centers on them or that the people in it are inherently decent.
The facts, of course, are in direct opposition to such a veiw.
Absolute freedom is a pipe dream and, in fact, undesirable. Qualified freedom, freedom which is based upon mutual agreement, dependance and cooperation is not only desirable but is the best you'll ever get.
Nothing else works.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Oh... the reason Corporations are so evil is that they are not bound by any law... at all! See all corporations have the rights of an individual under the law. The same rights as YOU!
I've got to disagree with you slightly. It would be more accurate to say that Corporations don't have rights, they have privileges. Individuals can incorporate, and by doing so, escape many of the taxes, and other hinderances placed on them by the government.
Here is the essence of a Corporation:
Let's say that you invent some marvelous gizmo, I have manufacturing skills, and someone else is a whiz at marketing. We three get together and each of us puts 10,000 dollars into a pool to start making your wonderful gizmo. It turns out to be a great success! It is highly profitable and we each take home a large salary. This goes on for a number of years, and we each become wealthy. Then something happens. An economic downturn, we have saturated the market, somebody invents a better gizmo ... whatever. The company loses money. 500,000 dollars it loses. We decide to close the company. We sell the company assets, which comes to 200,000 dollars, and we each chip in 100,000 dollars to pay off the rest of the debt. It hurts, because we each have to remortgage our homes to do it. But we can get jobs elsewhere, and life goes on.
That is what happens if we DO NOT incorporate!
If we DO incorporate, the Corporation becomes an entity seperate from us. In a sense it becomes a human being under the law -- which was created by government -- just as you said. When we dissolve the Corporation, the assets of the Corporation can be sold to pay the debts, but WE CANNOT BE TOUCHED!! So the Corporation declares bankruptcy, and 300,000 dollars are never paid to settle the Corporations debts.
The laws of Incorporation which the government created have have also created a contradiction. The law has created a situation where we are responsible and irresponsible for the same thing at the same time!
When the Corporation is making money, we are right there with our hands out, taking our share. When the Corporatiom loses money, we are not responsible for its debt.
What some people here don't seem to realize is that it is government which made the laws of incorporation. If Corporations are monsters -- and SOME of them are -- it was government that created them. Which is why you see the heirs of huge industries involved in politics -- the Rockefellers for example. The primary, if not sole difference we would see without Corporations is that business enterprises would be smaller and -- without the protection of government -- more responsible to their customers. And without political pull, these enterprises would not be able to get themselves "bailed out" of financial difficulties with other peoples tax dollars ... and they would not be able to get laws passed to stifle their competition.
Now, you may ask, "What is the advantage of Incorporation to an individual?" Simply this: TAXES!! Generally speaking, if you incorporate, you can deduct (don't have to pay taxes on) a lot of what are otherwise considered "personal" expenses. You still have get government permission, but now you don't have to pay taxes on the money you spend to say re-roof your house. You don't have to pay taxes on the money you spend to fuel, maintain, and repair your car, and so on. In some instances, even your taxes are tax deductable. You have the special privileges of incorporation. You still have to pay your debts, but you would have to do that anyway. It's just easier to save money if your taxes are lower.
loadandmakeready
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. - Declaration of Independence
Yep, the Declaration of Independence is the most radical political document in history!!
It is the Statement of Principles behind the American political Revolution!!
Unfortunately, most people never really think about what it means.
Let's examine it.
"We hold these truths to be self evident..."
Or as my uncle Tommy used to say, "You can see with one eye that this is the truth."
"That: all men are created equal."
Pharaoh and the Mikado were living Gods, Louis the XIV ruled by "Divine Right," the Hapsburgs, the Hohenzollerns, and George the Third were of Royal blood ... superior human beings!! This simple statement meant that there was no such thing as Blue Blood, or Royal Blood ... there is no superior kind of human being. All human beings are humanly equal.
"That: they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights"
("Unalienable" seems to be a misprint, in fact, in the original draft, Jefferson wrote, "inherent and inalienable rights")
Although England was the fre'est country on earth at the time, whatever freedom an Englishman had was still a donation of his sovereign. So, when an Englishman spoke of his "Liberties," he meant the same thing you or I would mean if we asked, "May I take the liberty?" That is ... a permission to do a certain act. And a government that can grant a permission, can also withdraw the grant.
An "inalienable right" is one that cannot be bought, sold, traded, or given away. In short, this statement means that government can recognize your rights ... or not, that government can protect your rights ... or not, but that government cannot GIVE you rights!! Your rights are yours by virtue of the fact that you are a living, breathing, human being.
"That: among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
"Among these," means "to name a few." In short, no one has any business violating your right to life, liberty, and to pursue your happiness, as long as you do not interfere with the right of others to do the same thing. If you DO, they have the right to stop you -- self defense is also an inalienable human right.
"That: to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men ..."
To secure a thing means to make it permanent, to fix it in place and time ... to make it secure. In other words, the rights of the individual are SUPREME, and the sole purpose of the State, is to fill the purely passive role of merely protecting those rights.
"deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
The consent of the governed .... Throughout history this has always been true ... all governments have always derived their power from the consent of the governed. Normally however, governments only become aware of this when the governed DO NOT consent... then we have revolutions, and rebellions, and civil wars. Which is normally what happens when people try to "alter or to abolish it."
In short, this is recognition of the Right of Revolution ... or secession.
During the American Civil War, we heard political thimble riggers braying of "preserving our glorious Union," while "saving the National Honor" ... as though there could -- or should -- be a Union, glorious or otherwise that wasn't completely voluntary.
Quote:
I feel the need to point out to people that a government is simply an alternative to aristocrasy.
Actually, an Aristocracy is a government! The word comes from the Greek, Aristos which means "best," and Kratia, which means "rule." Aristocracy means government by the "best" citizens, a priveleged minority, or upper class.
Quote:
No one ever said it was better, just not the blue bloods. It is the creation of LAW that creates good government. The Magna Carta for example. And of course, the beloved Declaration of IndependenceNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:
^^^
Oh my god.
Lincoln is a mass murdering megalomaniac?
Dude (babe?) you are freaking hysterical.
Actually, I have been studying history for nearly fourty five years. I highly recommend it (studying history, that is.)
Quote:
On a heavier note...
The anarchy advocated by the -ahem- Libertarians and so-called Anarchists is, not to put too fine a point on it, complete rubbish.
An Anarchist is anyone who believes in less government than you do.
Actually, most Libertarians are MINARCHISTS ... minimum governmentalists! Kinda like the men who founded this country. In fact, EXACTLY like the men who founded this country.
Quote:
It is the nature of ALL primates to live in hierarchical structures, usually pyramid formed, with a single alpha or alpha pair at the apex.
Even the democratic modification of this basic human trait results in an alpha ruling (male usually) over the rest.
True!! However, many human beings have evolved beyond this. You obviously are not one of them.
Quote:
It is the height of arrogance (or ignorance) to assume that humans would be exempt.
There are greater differences between individual human beings than there are between entire species of other mammals.
Unfortunately, being of a lower order of primate, you wouldn't understand that.
Quote:
We're primates. Super smart ones but apes nonetheless. We will always, always, always have hierarchical systems of government and those systems will always, always, always be corrupt. Get over it. Grow up.We're genetically hardwired for it. There's no escape until some new species of human emerges.
I'm sure that when you say "super smart," you are naturally thinking of yourself.
If we were genetically hard wired for it, then people like me couldn't exist. Which makes your entire argument bovine excrement.
Quote:
Representative government is the best you're going to get. Indeed, this is the best system any human society bigger than a five person family unit has ever produced. EVER. In human history.
You obviously know less than nothing of human history.
Quote:
You clearly enjoy the obvious benefits of participation in the American experiment but seem to ignore the invisible ones.
Like that there aren't armed bands of thieves rumaging through your house and your female relatives at will simply because they've got bigger guns.
Is that something you would do if you thought you could get away with it?? No, of course not!! (I hope) These armed bands you speak of were the forerunners of what we today call government.
Quote:
Like the air you breathe isn't yet too contaminated to sustain you. Or that the food you buy at the market won't poison you.
It was government that created the pollution problem you complain of. The government decreed that pollution was OK as long as you weren't polluting "more" than any one else in what ever industry you happened to be in. Helping to destroy property rights in the process. (After 1875, an individual could no longer sue a "Corporation" for polluting his property.)
You really ought to learn at least a little bit about history.
Food?? Do you think that food producers really want to poison their customers?? Or is that just something you would do if you thought you could get away with it??
As for me, I make my living by giving my customers the best quality I can produce. Happy customers tell their friends, which brings me more customers. If I gave bad or shoddy service, my angry customers would not only never come back, they would tell all their friends to stay away. Even without government, this sort of thing tends to be self-correcting.
Quote:
Like the infrastucture whose upkeep you seem not to wish to pay for allows us to even have this silly debate.
I happily pay for what I use, or consume. I
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
I also grow tired of all of the infighting in our government as both sides jockey for power. The Democrats are now questioning Bush's National Guard service in an effort to discredit him during this election year. Keep in mind this is the same Democratic party that told the Republican party that Clinton fleeing the country to avoid that draft during Vietnam had nothing to do with his ability to be president.
Just a couple points. I see things that the present adminstration is doing that I don't like either. And I am a Republican. But I doubt very much that the things I want fixed, are the same things that each and every other person wants fixed, changed or what have you. So no government is ever going to work exactly like each and all of its constituents want.
For the infighting, when there is a debate, I find it fasinating. I see debate as part of an epistemological process, as well as a non-violent means of getting others to agree with me. That is politics, and if you have no debate, you ain't got a democracy.
But when they are so caught up in the infighting that they leave the rest of us alone, well, I can't be happier. Even if it is not working the way I want, I prefer a government that leaves it alone rather than changing it every two seconds.
But then, that is just me.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's been a lot of political talk here, most of which has been asserted as fact. So, here's my opinion:
The initiation of violence may be evil, but it is surely only the most basic form of evil. Every human is capable of it, and ingenious enough to apply it in far more subtle ways than brute force if need be. It is this same ingenious nature that drives invention.
This is part of evolution: surviving, getting stronger, looking after number one. If success means teamwork, that's what happens, if it means individualism, that's what will predominate.
I would love to believe that the majority of folk out there are decent and good-hearted, but that's just not wise, because invariably you don't know until it's too late - deception is a far greater tool for evil/exploitation than violence. (You can call this 'projection' if you want, but I'm willing to gamble that I'm not the only one here who has been screwed over for being honest and trusting).
Not that I'm a big fan of government, either. Those who run governmental systems are just as prone to the above as the rest of the human race. Unfortunately, there's far more than one in nine for whom, "The money was too good!"
When it comes down to it, it's all about survival, growth, and quality of life (everyone wants safety, happiness and 'success' for themselves and their progeny). There are those (more enlightened IMHO) who believe in doing this as a species, with co-operation, and those who are happy to stick to the "red in tooth and claw" method - "Take what you can, give nothing back" if you like, with the corollary of not giving a rat's arse who gets hurt along the way. Maybe the latter is more comparable to the hierarchical system, maybe not, but it seems to me there are two types of leaders: those who marshall people together to create something bigger than the sum of their parts, and those who thirst for power, respect (or some shallow imitation thereof), and privilege without effort.
In short, idealism is great, but realism is safer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
As far as "God" is concerned, I have described "Him" in proctological terms numerous times.
What would you think of a "God" that would send two she-bears to rend to bloody pieces a couple dozen children for the hideous crime of poking fun at an old man's bald head?
loadandmakeready
Well, that leaves you with a problem if you believe you are in the world God made.
If God is such a bastard, then the guys who think that virtue and success are always the result of cheating may be right. And if they are right, then a couple points come to mind.
1) You'd be an idiot to choose something as nebulous as virtue over your own life and happiness.
2) Its pointless to complain about the unfairness of someone else's success, as that is the only way to be successful.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
What some people here don't seem to realize is that it is government which made the laws of incorporation. If Corporations are monsters -- and SOME of them are -- it was government that created them. Which is why you see the heirs of huge industries involved in politics -- the Rockefellers for example. The primary, if not sole difference we would see without Corporations is that business enterprises would be smaller and -- without the protection of government -- more responsible to their customers. And without political pull, these enterprises would not be able to get themselves "bailed out" of financial difficulties with other peoples tax dollars ... and they would not be able to get laws passed to stifle their competition.
Not quite. Corporations were an idea that was proposed to governments, not something governments came up with all by their lonesomes.
And the "more responsible to their customers" line is not quite right either. It is one thing to build the best safest product you know how to build. Its a completely different story however if one of your customers sues you for his own defective use. It protects the business owner from such things as some idiot ordering hot coffee and then suing you because he spilled his coffee on himself.
Being incorporated will protect some of your assets. You won't lose your house in fighting a frivolous lawsuit, or even a legitimate lawsuit on a condition that you simply did not know about (i.e. asbestos). I don't see that as a bad thing overall.
Quote:
Now, you may ask, "What is the advantage of Incorporation to an individual?" Simply this: TAXES!! Generally speaking, if you incorporate, you can deduct (don't have to pay taxes on) a lot of what are otherwise considered "personal" expenses. You still have get government permission, but now you don't have to pay taxes on the money you spend to say re-roof your house. You don't have to pay taxes on the money you spend to fuel, maintain, and repair your car, and so on. In some instances, even your taxes are tax deductable. You have the special privileges of incorporation. You still have to pay your debts, but you would have to do that anyway. It's just easier to save money if your taxes are lower.
loadandmakeready
Generally speaking you pay taxes on your profits. What goes into creating those profits are called "costs" and hence are set aside when it comes time to figure taxes owed. So it is seen as smart policy to tax profits, instead of squeezing the engine of those profits. If you make less profits, because your costs are also taxed, then both you and the government suffer.
Besides which "costs" come out of money you have to have on hand NOW. Whether it works, whether it makes a dime in the future, well, that is any body's guess. Most taxes are on income, rather than the cash on hand.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
Barons and tyrants ARE government! Our word "thug" comes from the Hindu word thug which is pronounced as t-HUG ... the plural is thuggee. They were worshippers of a diminished avatar of Kali called Bhavani ... a goddess of destruction. They were swindlers, stranglers ... murderers. So to lump them in with Kings, Caesars, and Presidents is in my mind entirely appropriate.
Of course, being a religious sect might place them more firmly in the Christian/Muslim/Judaeism camp, except that their actions actually mirrored their official beliefs.
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
The Wright Brothers gave mankind wings ... it was government that put machine guns in -- and bombs under -- those wings. Government didn't even invent the machine gun.
Everything we see or have came to us, not BECAUSE of government, but IN SPITE OF GOVERNMENT!
loadandmakeready
I would say neither because of nor in spite of government. As you say, government didn't invent the machine gun. Why do you think it was government that invented the "flying machine gun"?
The fact is, humans invented government (well, you could argue that it was genetically hard-wired, but I would agree with your argument against that). This is largely the world we made.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
During the American Civil War, we heard political thimble riggers braying of "preserving our glorious Union," while "saving the National Honor" ... as though there could -- or should -- be a Union, glorious or otherwise that wasn't completely voluntary.
That is part of the price one ends up paying when one becomes part of a society or a nation. Particularly in democratic nations, it means that if your's is a minority position, you are out of luck. You either cede the question to the majority, or else you attempt to destroy the democratic government. And that is what happened during the civil war.
[Yes, I am aware of the argument that in a pure democracy, 5 guys can vote to pee in the cornflakes of the other 4. And so we have the whole, "majority rule with respect toward minority rights." thing going round.]
Actually that is not quite what happened. The South thought (perceived) the North and especially Lincoln's Republican party were more interested in the minority rights of the slaves, over the minority rights of the slave owners. And that is why they fired on Ft. Sumpter. They thought Lincoln was going to free the slaves by executive fiat. He never got a chance, one way or the other.
I find it hard not to laugh about a Southerner complaining about the Union not being "completely voluntary". This is probably one of the things that damned the cause more than anything else. You can talk about your freedom till the cows come home. But the facts remain that the particular instance of the "infringement on state's rights" was over the question of slavery. A issue that was not allowed to come to a head in Congress, because of the South's actions.
No government, or nation can survive by allowing large tracts of its population and territory to simply dissolve its bonds. Voluntary secession would have set a bad precident, for both the North and the South, as it would mean dissolving any political system established at the whim of the minority.
Or as one guy put it back then, "They have the right to rebel. They don't have the right to succeed." You had your rebellion, it failed and it is all ancient history now. I do think the world is better with a Southern loss than with a win. It made for a stronger, less hypocritical and successful American nation, one that could help out in two world wars, prevent Soviet expansion, and lots of other good things that I don't see happening if the South had won.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frankly, at that point in the US's fragile history ,someone - might have been the west (not I don't mean California, which was Mexico at that time. I just meant figuratively however we labeled the parts of the country and however people liked to call themselves), the southwest, northwest, mideast, or anyone else for the matter - would have rebeled and attempted to secede for the dumbest of things. Look at the violent history of most young startups, there's a coup every two weeks. Slavery might have been a cause for the civil war - a secondary one to the economic cause - but it would have happened for a better or worst reason around that time. People were itching for a fight just so they can throw their weight around.
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
orginally posted by LoadAndMakeReadyActually, I have been studying history for nearly fourty five years. I highly recommend it (studying history, that is.)
You've been studying, you say.
Comprehending, not so much. Apparently. Your conclusion about Lincoln's character is– esoteric– to say the least. Almost unique in fact.
Quote:
An Anarchist is anyone who believes in less government than you do.
Actually an Anarchist is a mental deficient who doesn't understand that the political system he or she espouses only exists in the minds of him/herself and other idiot utopians.
Anarchy:
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
Quote:
most Libertarians are MINARCHISTS ... minimum governmentalists! Kinda like the men who founded this country. In fact, EXACTLY like the men who founded this country.
The men who founded this country were great but they were MEN. Just men. Fallible, flawed, hypocritical, sometimes mistaken. Just like all human beings. It's taken over two centuries to get what they began closer to Correct. The work is ongoing. They gave us a good start and a helluva pushoff but that's it. The rest is up to us.
Modern Libertarians are another bunch of mental midgets who think being an ultraconservative Republican is just a little too close to being a communist.
The only reason there's a Libertarian party is beacuse there's no Selfish Bastard Party to join.
I said : It is the nature of ALL primates to live in hierarchical structures, usually pyramid formed, with a single alpha or alpha pair at the apex.
Even the democratic modification of this basic human trait results in an alpha ruling (male usually) over the rest.
Quote:
True!! However, many human beings have evolved beyond [the adherence to the creation of heirarchical social systems]. [
No. No human beings have evolved beyond this. Not one single human. Not now and not ever once in history. That's what genetic hardwiring is.
Quote:
There are greater differences between individual human beings than there are between entire species of other mammals.
Um. No. Not genetically there isn't. We are almost completely interchangeable at that level. Perhaps you should leave off the history texts for a year or two and look into that whole biology thing. It's a hoot.
Quote:
If we were genetically hard wired for it, then people like me couldn't exist. Which makes your entire argument bovine excrement.
No. You are either self deluded (most likely) or missing some crucial gene pairs (most likely). In Nature there are often occassional mistakes. The ones that don't breed true fail because they don't enhance the success of the species as a whole.
Natural Selection. Perhaps you've heard of it.
Quote:
You obviously know less than nothing of human history.
This is, of course, impossible. But thanks for playing.
Quote:
It was government that created the pollution problem you complain of.
First...
Bwahahahahahaha! Oh. Oh dear. That quality of idiocy is just so hideous and corroded it's like a fine gourmet meal. So tasty. Man! You just don't get to see that that often anymore. Thanks.
Second.
Let's examine the activities of unrestrained industry, shall we? What period of time can we look to for a real world model for such a Revolution in the behaviour of our Industrial class?
Let's think...
Quote:
As for me, I make my living by giving my customers the best quality I can produce. Happy customers tell their friends, which brings me more customers. If I gave bad or shoddy service, my angry customers would not only never come back, they would tell all their friends to stay away. Even without government, this sort of thing tends to be self-correcting.
Yes. Because the trade in human flesh has tapered off so much in the rest of
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Homosapiens is a species of predator, and the only way a species of predator can survive, is by not preying upon itself.
Question for you:
When it is moral for a group of people to do something that is IMmoral for one person to do alone?
loadandmakeready
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Loadandmakeready, you are still my hero. It's obvious you are full of even more esoteric facts and possess a deep understanding of reality.
The rest of you get a C- in rationalization.
You know... I'd written a long and clever responce as to the specifics but the goram .asp crapped out yet again and I lost a 400 word responce. So, let's just say I'm greatly pleased that everyone took time to make comments ... but that loadandmakeready is easily the most insightful and knowledgeable poster here. Heck, he's perhaps the most knowledgable person I've run across online on years! I deeply read each of loadandmakereadys' posts and groked the fullness, while others seemed to take each comment as a springboard to spout various points of ignorance and misunderstanding. Please, if you think something means one thing... read it again.. slowly.
I never lecture, not because I am shy or a bad speaker, but simply because I detest the sort of people who go to lectures and don't want to meet them. - H. L. Mencken
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
hmmm... That might be just us Homosapiens. Predators in the wild weed out their weak and sickly. Keeps the pack tight and fit. In fact, through competition, only the "fittest" get to pass on their genes. We don't seem to do that today as "predators".
We homosapiens are more like a virus, we use up all of the resources mindlessly in one area, we spread out and take up more area, we reproduce thoughtlessly without regard.
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
Homosapiens is a species of predator, and the only way a species of predator can survive, is by not preying upon itself.
Question for you:
When it is moral for a group of people to do something that is IMmoral for one person to do alone?
loadandmakeready
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
we reproduce thoughtlessly without regard.
Speak for yourself ... oh, you are ... sorry.
Quote:
Question for you:
When it is moral for a group of people to do something that is IMmoral for one person to do alone?
Still waiting for an answer to this one.
loadandmakeready
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
we reproduce thoughtlessly without regard.
Speak for yourself ... oh, you are ... sorry.
Gosh! ran out of real logical arguments and gone for the obvious stupidy now?
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:Quote:
Question for you:
When it is moral for a group of people to do something that is IMmoral for one person to do alone?
Still waiting for an answer to this one.
loadandmakeready
What's morallity but the definition by people. Differing people will have a different definition. So, by default, it is always *moral* to do whatever the hell you please. It's just not moral by "my" standards.
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME