Skip to main content

FAST FIVE AND LIBERTARIANISM

I reserve the right to be wrong.



Tonight watching a silly but very entertaining action movie put me in a blogging mood.

So the movie Fast Five is set in Rio de Janeiro, and sets its plot against the backdrop of Brazilian economic inequality. Interestingly the villain is a rather wicked kingpin who is said to own the city, but not by naked cruelty or viciousness. His empire is one of carrots and sticks.

In one scene early on in the film this villain, Reyes, is talking to a couple of potential business partners in a plushly appointed office, and he contrasts the Spaniards with the Portuguese in their respective colonisation policies towards the area that is now Brazil.

The Spaniards charged in, killing everywhere they went, and in turn were slaughtered by the more numerous locals. The Portuguese, on the other hand, gave the natives gifts, which then turned into a form of bondage, by making the natives rely on them.

This Reyes treats the slum-dwellers in much the same way, by funding schoolrooms, water pipes, and power for the favelas. This reminds me of certain institutions in the real world. But who could I be talking about?

We don't choose where we're born, so we don't choose which society to be born into, and what kind of rulers we end up with. By and large there's only so much room in society for us humans to act, whether to produce, sell, give, whatever! And in the civilian sector it is only voluntary production, selling and giving.

The state sector can do these three things as well, of course. The Soviet Union did a marvellous job of it, and Cuba, Laos and North Korea are doing a marvellous job of it now, having succeeded in reducing their civil societies to husks in the face of massive state co-option.

This only serves to illustrate the moral bankruptcy of any unaccountable, irreplaceable mafia. Well, guess what, Fast Five showed me an irreplaceable regime get replaced.

This movie's twin themes are family and freedom. Seems pretty legit to me. The band of fiendish robbers are doing their dastardly deed with the express intent of undoing the unaccountable tyrant Reyes and destroying his hold over the people of the favelas. It's a bit of a vendetta against this evil gangster too, and admittedly the end kinda jumps over the impact his defeat will have on those who were subservient to him.

In any case, the imprisonment of being made reliant on an outsider who does not know or care about you is a gut feeling we all know, whatever our political bias. Our struggle continues, whether it be the struggle to be free, or merely the struggle to be heard, to be listened to, to simply be taken seriously!

For now, I reserve the right to be wrong, and watch as many shitty movies as I like, and infer whatever Libertarian mumbo-jumbo I want to from them!



On the next Ecomony Blogtime; ECON 3a, the economy as national system!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Private Ownership and the Emergence of Field-based Agriculture

Quick update: There is a nicer, fancier article on this very subject on another blog. If for some reason you read my article below, treat yourself and partake of properal's piece too . ~~~ There is a paper by Samuel Bowles and Jung-Kyoo Choi called 'Coevolution of farming and private property during the early Holocene' and it is wonderful. It leaves a few stones unturned and its thesis needs to be empirically verified or falsified but it really begins to clarify the intimate relationship between the form of agriculture that we refer to as farming on the one hand and private ownership on the other. Their thesis is that technology was not the driver that led to long-term (inter-generational) farming, but also that farming did not follow some moment where the folks in a society all said "hey, let's all have private property now!" Rather, what they posit is that farming and private property actually coalesced, ad-hoc and over a multi-generational time-fram...
Post a Comment
Read more

I AM AN AUSTRIAN

Is it so wrong? Really? Just humour me, dudes and dudettes. I am an Austrian. I am a Libertarian. I am an Austro-Libertarian. I'm evidently also a hypocrite, as I've used most of these words without capitals in past posts. Oops. I've made Austrian economics my home because it accords better with certain concerns of mine; why have a subjective theory of value and then lump desires and capacities into aggregates? Why declare that economic facts can be gleaned from the movements of particular markets at particular times in the past? Rothbard sums up the problem with both phenomena in a way that no mainstream economist ever would, since to do so would be to admit that there are entire fields of modern economics that are, at best, pointless, and at worst, harmful. NOT MAINSTREAM? Why is Austrian economics not mainstream? It rejects the efficacy of aggregates and mathematical formulae to arrive at economic truths. According to the Austrian worldview,...
Post a Comment
Read more

1318 - The Evil Capitalists Own Your Mom!

The New Scientist ran a piece  on the economic relationships between the 43,060 transnational corporations in the world as of 2007. It turns out that 147 of 'em are thick as thieves, which each of those 147 entirely owned by one or more of the others within that clique. Naturally some anti-capitalists have decided that this proliferation of tight interconnections constitutes the proof that not buying what someone's selling will fail to put that seller out of business. Takes all sorts to make a world, brah. Is concentration scary in itself? No; John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability. Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core’s tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable . “If one [compan...
Post a Comment
Read more