Serenity, again
I notice that some in the rightosphere are pointing out that Serenity is a pro-libertarian polemic. That's fair enough if you recognize that libertarians aren't conservatives. Most people one encounters in American politics these days who call themselves libertarians are crypto-conservatives.
The folks we call 'liberals' are civil libertarians and economic non-libertarians. That is, they think that people should be free from government control in their private, non-economic lives, but that the government should have an important role in regulating the economy, even perhaps to the point of redistributing wealth. The folks we call 'conservatives' are (nominally, at least) economic libertarians and civil/social/cultural non-libertarians. That is, they think that the government should stay out of our pocketbooks, but that it has a right to regulate our private, non-economic lives. E.g. it can sometimes tell us what ideas we can express (e.g. whether we can burn the flag), can promote religion, and can tell us which adults we are allowed to have sex with and/or marry.
Me, one reason I don't get along with liberals so well is that I'm largely a libertarian at heart--but a libertarian who (a) thinks that it's more important to keep government out of our private lives than it is to keep them out of our pocketbooks, and (b) lacks the irrational blind faith in the free market that economic libertarians talk themselves into. So, anyway, I count as a liberal primarily because I'm a civil libertarian, and because I think civil libertarianism is more important than economic libertarianism. Which is sort of to say: I think that government interference in my private life is entirely unacceptable, whereas I think that interfering in my economic life--up to a point--is merely annoying and possibly for the best, all things considered.
So, one can reasonably see Serenity/Firefly as pro-libertarian, so long as one sees it as really pro-libertarian, rather than crypto-conservative.
How much one should make of the politics of a science fiction movie is another matter entirely, of course... But, as I said, I think fiction is important.
I notice that some in the rightosphere are pointing out that Serenity is a pro-libertarian polemic. That's fair enough if you recognize that libertarians aren't conservatives. Most people one encounters in American politics these days who call themselves libertarians are crypto-conservatives.
The folks we call 'liberals' are civil libertarians and economic non-libertarians. That is, they think that people should be free from government control in their private, non-economic lives, but that the government should have an important role in regulating the economy, even perhaps to the point of redistributing wealth. The folks we call 'conservatives' are (nominally, at least) economic libertarians and civil/social/cultural non-libertarians. That is, they think that the government should stay out of our pocketbooks, but that it has a right to regulate our private, non-economic lives. E.g. it can sometimes tell us what ideas we can express (e.g. whether we can burn the flag), can promote religion, and can tell us which adults we are allowed to have sex with and/or marry.
Me, one reason I don't get along with liberals so well is that I'm largely a libertarian at heart--but a libertarian who (a) thinks that it's more important to keep government out of our private lives than it is to keep them out of our pocketbooks, and (b) lacks the irrational blind faith in the free market that economic libertarians talk themselves into. So, anyway, I count as a liberal primarily because I'm a civil libertarian, and because I think civil libertarianism is more important than economic libertarianism. Which is sort of to say: I think that government interference in my private life is entirely unacceptable, whereas I think that interfering in my economic life--up to a point--is merely annoying and possibly for the best, all things considered.
So, one can reasonably see Serenity/Firefly as pro-libertarian, so long as one sees it as really pro-libertarian, rather than crypto-conservative.
How much one should make of the politics of a science fiction movie is another matter entirely, of course... But, as I said, I think fiction is important.
posted by Winston Smith at
12:58 PM
9 Comments:
A,
I think that many of our disagreements have this form:
I say something like: liberalism, when it goes wrong, fades off into X
You say: many/most liberals aren't Xists.
These things are compatible. It's like recognizing that, at my worst, I have a tendency to be greedy. It's important to recognize this even if I'm not, on average, a greedy person. Recognizing how I tend to go wrong, recognizing the seeds of my own potential badness, helps me to avoid it.
It's hard for me to believe that you don't know liberals with overly-socialistic tendencies.
Or, I dunno. Maybe I obsess too much about a few people I know.
You could be right. More thought required.
If you put it that way, "when it goes wrong, it fades to X", then I would rather have the government in my wallet than in my home and groping around in my pants.
But frankly I see very little difference between the current political parties, they both want to redistribute wealth, they just have their different and favorite places where they distribute it.
But frankly I see very little difference between the current political parties, they both want to redistribute wealth, they just have their different and favorite places where they distribute it.
And likewise, I see very little difference between vampires and blood banks.
If you would just take your time to know your way around, you could discover
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
display your RSS feeds on their web sites for content.
to all of the major RSS feed directories on the Internet.
hey did you know you can get a free ipod pretty easily?
just go to www.getipodsforfree.com, sign up and do an offer
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home