Liberty, Politics, Uncategorized

Captain America vs. Capitalism?

In 2014, Steve Rogers had the Super Soldier Serum removed from his body. This caused him to return to his natural age (very old). Because of this, he passed on the title of Captain America to his longtime friend and partner, Sam Wilson (Falcon). In a world focused on identity politics, this was a big deal because Sam is black. Marvel often uses the Captain America series to tackle political topics and by switching Captains they were able to adjust the viewpoint of their Captain America.

For those of you who may not be a comic reader, many comics use storytelling that span many issues known as story arcs. The first arc in Captain America: Sam Wilson (2015) starts out with the immigration issue, but becomes a story of the evils of Big Business. Captain America finds out that the violence at the border is actually caused by a company called Serpent Solutions. Serpent Solutions is supposed to be a group of super villains attempt at “going legit.” Their business model seems to be create products by any means necessary (kidnapping, human experiments, and murder) and then sell the patents to big corporations.

Screenshot_20180203-110408

Now, I think most people would easily agree this is a bad practice. Captain America is right to put a stop to Serpent Solutions and the corporations who turn a blind eye to their practices and profit from using their “services.” My issue though is that while these are bad people, the buzz words and justifications used by the bad guys connect their philosophy with that of capitalism, free markets, and liberty. They even outright name Ayn Rand, as seen below.

Screenshot_20180203-114638

20180203_115114
Cap was experimented on earlier in the story. That is why he is a werewolf here. Don’t worry, it wears off.

Not once throughout the arc is this distortion of what capitalism is refuted for the perversion that it is. The reader is only presented with the villain’s philosophy being tied to Ayn Rand, corporations, and Donald Trump (“make America Marvelous again”). So, I am going to take this opportunity to enlighten people about what a Free Market is and is not.

There are many terms that all roughly describe the same thing. Free market, free enterprise, capitalism, laissez-faire are all examples of the basic idea of an economy grounded in private property and little government control. As an example of this idea, I will use an excerpt from Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, since she was called out by Marvel in this story.

“I work for nothing but my own profit- which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage-and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner… I have made my money by my own effort, in free exchange and through the voluntary consent of every man I dealt with-the voluntary consent of those who employed me when I started, the voluntary consent of those who work for me now, the voluntary consent of those who buy my product… I could say to you that you do not serve the public good-that nobody’s good can be achieved at the price of human sacrifices-that when you violate the rights of one man, you have violated the rights of all man, and a public of rightless creatures is doomed to destruction.”

At the beginning of this passage, you may think Marvel had the right idea. That is until the phrase, “mutual consent,” is used. It is that spirit that continues on through the rest of the passage. The idea of consent and voluntarism. That is the heart of the Free Market. The ability to decide for yourself what you want to do with your own property.

So, let’s look at what Serpent Solutions and the companies who hired them were doing. They were kidnapping people. That is, they took people by force without their consent. They experimented on them without their consent. They murdered people. That is, they forcefully ended the lives of others. All of this action is the violation of people’s rights. Clearly, these actions are not what Ayn Rand promoted.

But what about some of the other things Viper talks about when trying to justify his actions to Captain America? He brings up regulations and asks, “where in the Constitution is anyone promised clean air?” This is a common straw man when discussing over regulation. Why are people concerned with air pollution? Because it causes harm. It violates the rights of others and therefore is not in keeping with Free Market principles. There are valid policy questions about preventative measures (regulation) vs. reactive measures (prosecution/lawsuits), but those questions do not invalidate the Free Market as a whole. Viper, during a sales pitch, talks about how the people he is talking to are not bad guys and lists some of their activities like corporate bailouts, corruption, and corporate welfare. These too are not Free Market friendly practices. Corporate bailouts and welfare is money gained, not through the market, but rather taken from the government who gained possession of it by force. Corruption is a much broader term, but in the terms of government, corruption is using the government to get an advantage rather than competing in the market without force. Corruption in business also violates consent in cases like fraud. Changing the terms of a deal, removes consent until that knowledge is shared by all involved.

Now I want to take a step back to the bailouts and welfare. There are those who consider themselves capitalists who will take government money to prop up their business. This could be anyone from a major bank down to a farmer. This is known as Crony Capitalism or in extreme cases could be considered Corporatism. These are not in line with the Free Market. Even though they may seem like it because the people participating are acting in their own interests, the force of government must violate the rights of others in order to act this way. So before blaming the Free Market, ask yourself, “How is the government involved in this?” If you can find a path from the government to the problem, you don’t have a problem with Free Markets, you have a problem with government. A general rule of thumb is, “If the government is involved or violence or the threat of violence is being used, it is not the Free Market/Capitalism/Free Enterprise.”

P.S. Charity is voluntary and therefore aligns with and I would say is necessary for Free Markets.

Advertisements
Liberty, Politics, Uncategorized

Hope for the Future

Hope speech

 

Comic books have always been a way to tackle social issues in an entertaining way. One of the most famous versions of this is the X-Men. While the struggle from the comics is one between mutants and humans, it is easy to see the connection between the mutant struggle and prejudices in the real world. As with most movements, there are different sects within the larger group. In the Marvel Universe, those sects historically were the violent Brotherhood led by Magneto and the more peaceful mutants the X-Men led by Professor Xavier.

 

In this excerpt, the new mutant, Hope Summers, is meeting Magneto and Professor Xavier for the first time and she isn’t happy to hear how they are discussing the state of the mutant struggle. The conversation takes on a competitive connotation that creates a barrier between the two sides. Hope recognizes that this type of language will only ensure that the humans and the mutants remain at odds even when they say their purpose is equality.

 

The same is often the case in today’s political dialogue. People have chosen their side and instead of talking about solutions and goals, we discuss beating the opposition. We round up people in our minds into certain groups and brand them with the assumptions we have about that group. At that point, what is the point of talking to each other? We already think we know everything about what that person thinks because we have them lumped into their group.

 

This is a problem with three roots. The first is our natural tendencies. Our brains take shortcuts often without our realizing it. To demonstrate this, often times people will overlook misspelled words or think something was in its rightful place when it wasn’t because our brain filled it in. This can happen in our interactions with each other as well. We meet someone and immediately make assumption about them based on any number of criteria (1). The second root is our culture and experiences. This is closely related to the first root, but can often compound the problem. The third root is propaganda. In today’s political climate I believe this is one of the biggest problems we have to overcome. When people consume massive amounts of hateful and divisive content it just piles on the walls separating us from each other. That divide is by design of those spreading the content. It is how they make a profit.

 

Now the danger in realizing this is to swing too far in the opposite direction and not stand for anything. Apathy is a whole problem within itself, but it is not a solution to prejudice.

 

What we can do instead is train ourselves to recognize our prejudices and try to focus on the conversation at hand. If you are talking to a Trump supporter and categorize that person as an alt-right neo-nazi you may miss what that person is actually saying. Listen to the concerns of others and then seek solutions together. This is not to say that we will always get along or agree, but for the most part we all want to see the United States of America and it’s people succeed. We can also make a conscious effort to not partake in inflammatory rhetoric. Maybe don’t click that link with the headline talking about “Crushing” the opposition or maybe don’t share or even “like” that meme that exposes the “stupidity” of someone who believes different than you.  It is up to us to change the political climate to one of working together rather than tearing each other apart.

  1. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/research-states-that-prejudice-comes-from-a-basic-human-need-and-way-of-thinking.html#.WFDetX0VJUc
Liberty, Uncategorized

This isn’t freedom, this is fear.

The movie Captain America: The Winter Soldier is one of my favorite movies. In the movie, we see the secret spy agency, SHIELD has been infiltrated by agents of HYDRA, the Nazi supernatural branch that was thought ended with the death of the Red Skull. Not only has HYDRA been discovered in SHIELD, but SHIELD is on the brink of launching a fleet of Helicarriers that are programmed to neutralize threats before they happen anywhere in the world. When Nick Fury, Director of SHIELD, shows Captain America (Steve Rogers) what they are planning, Cap is less than thrilled. What follows is a very brief, but deep conversation about the limits of security.

  • Nick Fury: These new long range precision guns can eliminate a thousand hostiles a minute. The satellites can read a terrorist’s DNA before he steps outside his spider hole. We gonna neutralize a lot of threats before they even happen.
  • Steve Rogers: I thought the punishment usually came after the crime.
  • Nick Fury: We can’t afford to wait that long.
  • Steve Rogers: Who’s “we”?
  • Nick Fury: After New York, I convinced the World Security Council we needed a quantum surge in threat analysis. For once we’re way ahead of the curve.
  • Steve Rogers: By holding a gun at everyone on Earth and calling it protection.
  • Nick Fury: You know, I read those SSR files. Greatest generation? You guys did some nasty stuff.
  • Steve Rogers: Yeah, we compromised. Sometimes in ways that made us not sleep so well. But we did it so the people could be free. This isn’t freedom, this is fear.

The World Security Council decided they needed absolute power to keep people safe. They believed they were the good guys and so it was okay to take this step in eliminating threats before a crime happened with no consideration for rights and civil liberties.

Later on in the movie, Cap and Black Widow find themselves in an abandoned base where they meet the computer version of Dr. Zola, a HYDRA scientist from WWII. In an effort to keep them occupied while an airstrike is on its way, Zola explains the connection between SHIELD and HYDRA.

  • Dr. Arnim Zola: HYDRA was founded on the belief that humanity could not be trusted with its own freedom. What we did not realize, was that if you try to take that freedom, they resist. The war taught us much. Humanity needed to surrender its freedom willingly. After the war, SHIELD was founded and I was recruited. The new HYDRA grew. A beautiful parasite inside SHIELD. For seventy years HYDRA has been secretly feeding crisis, reaping war. And when history did not cooperate, history was changed.
  • Natasha Romanoff: That’s impossible, SHIELD would have stopped you.
  • Dr. Arnim Zola: Accidents will happen. HYDRA created a world so chaotic that humanity is finally ready to sacrifice its freedom to gain its security. Once the purification process is complete, HYDRA’s new world order will arise. We won, Captain. Your death amounts to the same as your Life; a zero sum.

There is a lot to unpack in Dr. Zola’s statements, so I am just going to start from the beginning.

“HYDRA was founded on the belief that humanity could not be trusted with its own freedom.” Sounds a lot like every argument for big government ever. Whether it be the drug war, gun control, or even education. It all boils down to a belief that individuals will make bad decisions and need to be kept in line.

“What we did not realize, was that if you try to take that freedom, they resist. The war taught us much. Humanity needed to surrender its freedom willingly.”

This statement reminds me of the illustration of boiling a frog. Throw a frog in hot water and it will jump out, but slowly turn up the heat over time and it will stay in the water and die. We have accepted an erosion of our freedoms over time, usually in response to a tragedy. Economic freedoms were sacrificed in response to the Great Depression. Gun rights were sacrificed in response to the Valentine’s Day Massacre. Congressional declaration of war was sacrificed in response to the Cold War. Privacy rights were sacrificed in response to 9/11.

“HYDRA created a world so chaotic that humanity is finally ready to sacrifice its freedom to gain its security.”

I don’t believe that the state of the world is the way it is because of some secretive evil organization making calculated decisions about how to get people to give up their freedoms. An organization like that doesn’t need to exist for that outcome. Authoritarianism is as old as humanity. It is the default of civilizations. Freedom is a relatively new concept, but it has catapulted humanity into an age of unparalleled growth. Like anything worthwhile, freedom requires effort to be maintained.

In his podcast, Common Sense, Dan Carlin often asks what will happen after the next big terrorist attack in the U.S.? What rights are left to surrender? What price will people be willing to pay for that promise of freedom? Will we accept outlawing Islam? Will we accept arresting people without a trial (already authorized in the NDAA)? Maybe we will accept rounding up people of a certain background like we did with the Japanese-Americans in WWII?

The purpose of securing our rights in the Bill of Rights was so that emotion and mob rule didn’t infringe on people’s rights when a spirit of authoritarianism swept through the people. Unfortunately, those very rights have been chipped away at for 200+ years and authoritarianism is once again taking hold. It is time to take a stand for freedom. To reclaim our individual rights. Dedicate ourselves to the principles of Liberty even when we are scared or suffering. In the words of Captain America:

“… the price of freedom is high, it always has been, and it’s a price I’m willing to pay. And if I’m the only one, then so be it. But I’m willing to bet I’m not.”

Liberty, Uncategorized

Response to For all of you who aren’t sure…

Hope speech

  • For all of you who aren’t sure, it is possible to be gay and Christian.

While it is possible to be gay and a christian, it is not possible to be a follower of Christ while engaging in a homosexual lifestyle. (I can discuss further with anyone who has questions about this)

  • It’s also possible to believe in God and science.

Agreed.

  • It is possible to be pro-choice and anti-abortion.

It is still advocating for the ability to legally kill another human even if you yourself wouldn’t pull the trigger.

  • It is equally possible to be a feminist and love and respect men.

Totally, the problem is the movement has been hijacked by people who want to put men down. That is the problem with movements that focus on rights for a certain group. If you have a human rights movement, it is inclusive and no one gets put above another under the guise of equality.

  • It’s possible to have privilege and be discriminated against, to be poor and have a rich life, to not have a job and still have money.

Agreed, so don’t make assumptions about another persons history.

  • It is possible to believe in sensible gun control legislation and still believe in one’s right to defend one’s self, family, and property, it’s possible to be anti-war and pro-military.

Sensible” is the problem. The system we have now is sensible. Most proposals beyond what we have now would not stop the attacks people are reacting to. People just want “something” done. The war/military part I agree with. There is just an overcompensation after people realized how terrible Vietnam vets were treated.

  • It is possible to love thy neighbor and despise his actions.

Totally agree.

  • It is possible to advocate Black Lives Matter and still be pro police.

Once again, this is an issue of a push for equal rights being hijacked by the extremes. It is also a prime example of a symptom being addressed instead of the root, the Drug War.

  • It is possible to not have an education and be brilliant.

Academia is a scam that has the world fooled.

  • It is possible to be Muslim and also suffer at the hands of terrorists.

Pretty sure the majority of victims of terrorism are Muslim.

  • It is possible to be a non-American fighting for the American dream.

While I agree, it should be pointed out that the American dream should be simply to be free. It doesn’t actually have anything to do with being in the borders of America other than historically America was the test for freedom. I want to see people fight for freedom all around the globe and I will fight to bring it back to America, better than before (I recognize it was never perfect).

  • It is possible to be different and the same.

We are all humans with the same rights regardless of any group we may belong to. That is why I don’t like separating the fight for rights into interest groups.

We are all walking contradictions of what “normal” looks like. Let humanity and love win.

Liberty, Uncategorized

Arrow vs. Bullets

The show Arrow follows the vigilante exploits of Oliver Queen. The show has done a good job of showing his character’s growth over the years. In the first season, Oliver is “rescued” from an island after 5 years. He returns home and begins a quest to kill a group of bad people who were planning an attack on a low income area of the city with the intent to rebuild it for their own profit. Like many comic book heroes, by the second season he  swears not to kill anymore. The show is now on its fifth season and he has evolved into trying not to kill, but situation dictates.

The latest episode is called “Spectre of the Gun”. Oliver is now Mayor of Star City during the day and Green Arrow by night. In this episode, a man walks into City Hall and shoots the place up killing 7 people. Then the man gets away, but leaves behind one of his weapons. Instead of the gun ending up at the police department, naturally it ends up in the Arrow base to be examined. During this examination, Team Arrow starts to break up into “gun rights” and “gun control” groups. While discussing how to find the perpetrator, they mention that AR-15s can be bought anywhere and they are the most popular gun in America. That is true. The problem is, the rifle used in the shooting was an automatic rifle. The National Firearms Act  of 1934, severely restricts the ownership of any automatic weapon with high taxes and registration of those firearms. So the rifle the shooter used was NOT the type of  AR-15 you can buy at your local gun shop and if it had been purchased legally, it would have been registered.

During the shooting, the team member Wild Dog, pulled his own pistol and shot the gunman, but the gunman was wearing body armor. It is later brought up that Wild Dog was Dishonorably Discharged from the military and therefore could not legally buy a gun. He points out that he is still able to get one. Later in the episode it is revealed that the gunman lost his family to a mall shooter after the city council refused to pass a gun registration act. It is also revealed that the mall shooter obtained his weapons illegally and a registration would have done nothing to prevent the mall attack. I appreciate the show adding that information to the story. That was a common miscommunication between people after Newtown. He killed his own mother and stole the guns he used. No registration could prevent that. I also want to point out that the whole premise of the show is civilians illegally using weapons. If anyone should understand the futility of trying to use laws to prevent crime it should be this group of people, but some of them are missing that point.

Overall I thought the episode did a fairly decent job of covering both sides of the debate. I also appreciated the theme of not shying away from heated discussions to find answers. In the episode, they end with a “compromise” that doesn’t violate people’s rights and makes people safer. Conveniently, they don’t say what that compromise entails.

One of the issues with the gun debate is that the 2 sides are talking about different things. Gun control people see violence and want it to be stopped or at least reduced. They see statistics and body counts and news articles about how people seem to be getting mowed down by guns left and right. Restrictions seem like a common sense solution. On the other hand, gun rights people will never be persuaded by any of those things, because they are talking about rights and principles. To them, restricting guns because of how bad people use them is equivalent to restricting the rights of Japanese-Americans because of Pearl Harbor. They don’t want to be punished for another person’s actions. This disconnect guarantees that the discussion will continue for a long time. Unlike the show, we can’t just pretend a compromise exists.

I will always choose to protect people’s rights. That doesn’t mean I am not open to discussion, but know that in order to change my mind, you must convince me that people do not have a right to self-defense from both criminals and tyranny.