I think you will enjoy it.
[url]http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=948&FS=Star%2BWars%2Band%2BOur%2BWars[/url]

"Cannot find server"

Check the link?

I'm not a big Star Wrs fan, so I didn't read the story, but the link worked.

That's kind of a stretch.  He's just imposing his beliefs on Star Wars.

The article reads like yet another rant by an America hating, self loathing liberal pin-headed academic with full tenure.

[size=5]Bring the boys back home.
Bring the boys back home.
Don't leave the children on their own, no, no.
Bring the boys back home.[/size=5]

Actually, the author had a lot of pretty intelligent things to say.  The only problem is that he places the blame of the Civil War, rising fascism, and the end of the Republic on "neoconservatives" when in fact the perpetrators were ultra-leftist pro-totalitarian socialists and federal control nuts (Lincoln was hardly a socialist, but certainly against the idea of people knowing what's best for themselves).

Yes, I think this is an interesting theory on the source and meaning of Star Wars.  I don't know what George Lucas actually meant to convey, but the author of the essay takes a libertarian perspective on "empires" and American history.  

I am sure that many libertarians would agree that the government has grown in scope and power, and that as a result we have lost some of our liberties.  The author makes the point that the US Gov't at the beginning was limited, which is the opposite of today (he claims that the change for the worse took place during the Civil War).  

Redman, I see your point about who is blamed, but I think the author is not looking to place blame on a specific group.  I think he is trying to say that this growth in government power occured under all kinds of administrations over the years.  He thinks we have been suckered by the political elites of the major parties into giving up our rights and freedoms.  We have given our freedoms over to the "benevolent, caring U.S. gov't."  

This extends to U.S. foreign policy. Most of the founding fathers were isolationists, who wanted to be free of "foreign entanglements".  Perhaps we would not have the problems in the middle east if we had NEVER chosen sides.  The middle east is empire building and meddling at its worst.  A good argument could be made saying that the US is an empire.  If we were not an empire, we would not be policeman for the world.  

Do we really have to be EVERYWHERE?  We will please some people when we intervene, but we will also form blood enemies who will seek to destroy us.  How hard will it be for someone 20 years from now to bring in a 10 megaton nuclear bomb into New York harbor and vaporize NYC (a likely possibility IMO)?  Do we really want to be all things to all people?  Is it worth it?  Maybe it is best not to impose ourselves and our views on others.  Who really cares how some idiots in Asia, Africa, South America and the Middle East choose to ruin their lives?  Why get involved when there is no real beneficial return to american citizens?  This view opposes the great Republican president Teddy Roosevelt's view of foreign policy which was highly interventionist.

This linked essay is NOT a liberal viewpoint.  This is a libertarion viewpoint.  It is about self-determination.  It is anti-big government.  The Ludwig von Mises Institute is a low tax, free market libertarian capitalist organization.  It is not a movie review site.

If you read it, you'll know that it's not a story about STAR WARS and its Empire.  The author is merely using the Star Wars trilogy to make a point about real life empires (especially our US Empire).

I just thought it an interesting take on the story, true or not.

Turn that statement 180 degress around please. The Mises Institute is so far right, to the right of it is the WALL (just like me [:D]).

They are practically against any form of government intervention you could thing of, short of protecting people's private property rights from theives, murderers, etc., but even how the government monopolizes that industry peeves them.

You should check out their site and read up about Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises, two of the greatest economists of the 20th century.

[url]www.mises.org[/url]

Belloc, thanks for posting that refreshing article. It's nice to see Mises stuff get posted over here.

themao [chainsawkill]

Before I start, if I remember correctly, you're from Red Star Firearms right? You're products are great. Keep up the good work.

Anyway, neoconservatives are descendants from mostly ex-socialists and Trotskyites in the 1930's. Irving Kristol, the "godfather" of neoconservatism was an ex-Trotskyite himself, who still relishes international socialism. He said it himself in his book entitled "Neoconservatism". More or less, their goal from the get go (along with the goal of William F. Buckley and National Review magazine) was to get the old guard, anti-war, anti-state conservatives to come to their side. This meant supporting the Cold War and "military industrial complex" to fight the communists....and what a great job our government did of fighting those communists! Why, Russia emerged more free in 1991 than they were in 1951, whereas America is less free now than it was in 1951! [whacko]

This in mind, neither FDR, Wilson, or whomever you may have in mind are true "fascists" or ultra leftists. Today, these people would be considered moderate or conservative social-democrats by our standards. So-called, precursors to the neoconservative movemtnt. Get a piece of paper out and look at what George W. Bush supports (Medicare, Social Security, etc.) and compare that to FDR's historical legislative likings (New Deal crap, etc.). Hell, FDR would be more conservative than George W. Bush AND Ronald Reagan.

Here are some good articles my friend wrote on this topic. It has a bunch of links to books and articles:

[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy25.html[/url]

[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy23.html[/url]

And Joseph Sobran (ex-communicated from NR mag by Buckley himself):

[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/sobran/sobran100.html[/url]

Do a search on LRC for some more. Just read the articles on the site. It's updated 5 days a week. Hang out there for awhile, it'll change your perspective on things like it has mine.

themao [chainsawkill]

I consider political doctrine to be circular, not linear.  By this I mean if we were to look at conservative Vs liberal, they would be fairly close together on a circle.  If you compare fascism and communism, they are at the bottom side of the circle, but right next to each other.  If this way, ultra ultra right is almost equivalent to ultra ultra left.  

Skimming the article ,if what you say is true, would lead me to believe that liberarians believe in isolationism.  Isolationism is what we tried to do before WWII...didn't work too well.

Maybe I just dissed it because it's just like all the articles that come from www.lewrockwell.com, I never agree with any articles posted there.

If the entire Star Wars saga ends up being an allegory of America and Western Civilization, I'll be able to tell on my own.

It's just that I get annoyed when people impose their own personal political beliefs, like the asswebbian position that the Confederacy was a bastion of freedom crushed under the dictatorial heel of Lincoln, onto Star Wars.  

Raven

The Confederacy was a bastion of freedom (if you were white), crushed under the dictatorial heel of a ruthless Lincoln.  And make no mistake about it, the South was crushed.

The fall of the Confederacy put an effective end to real Americans being able to determine their own fate.  

I'm surprised an Arkansas boy don't understand it.

It's not circular by any means. Take these two polls:

[url]http://www.politopia.com/[/url]

[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy14.html[/url]

If "conservatives" and liberals are close together on your circle, this would mean that their views are the same. If I'm ultra right, as I say, this would mean that I support high taxation, strict government regulations, centralized banking, limited freedoms, hate crime laws, practically no gun rights, etc. That doesn't make much sense to me, since I do not support any of those things. Who do you exactly consider to be on the "ultra right" anyway?



It worked quite frigging well until World War I, when Wilson decided to permanently mess up the balance of power in Europe and decide WWI's outcome. What did we get from helping the "allies"? The Treaty of Versailles. What did this treaty produce, as most historians would agree? Adolf Hitler. As for Japan, they were kinda of POed about our tariffs on oil and raw materials. Like FDR REALLY cared about all those poor Chinese and SE Asian natives he claimed to be protecting.

Regardless, the last time America was invaded by any army was in the War of 1812, when the British torched Washington DC. We started that war any way, since we decided to help out a bunch of American loggers out with their land disputes with Canada. I believe we attacked some fort near present day Montreal. I don't remember, I'd have to pull out my American history book.

themao [chainsawkill]

And rich.

No, isolationism worked very well until the US became powerful enough for other nations to care about. And the only way it would work again is if we became powerless enough for them to cease caring about us.

AK is short for Alaska.  Arkansas is AR.  

LOL, and you would think Flash would know that, being from WA...unless WA is short for West Alabama... [;)]

I consider ultra right to be fascism, and ultra left to be communism.  Neither allows citizens any rights that you list above.  I would say they are right next to each other on the bottom of the circle.

Both Nazi fascism and Soviet/China communism were/are were leftist organs of power.

Actually, to paraphrase G.K.Chesterton (I think),
Isolationism has not been tried and found wanting, isolationism has not been tried.

In the 30's the American people were isolationiists, most of the Congress and Senate were isolationists, Roosevelt, however, was quite busy sticking his nose in everyone's business. Japan was not right to bomb us, but they did not bomb us because we were practicing isolationism.

I will be attending Attack of the Clones.

And i don't give a crap what anyone says.

Guys---
"If I am going to learn some lesson from a movie, that movie will be 'Double Duty Blondes'!" (quote from Me, 2002)

In real life the only movies with a lesson that I have ever seen are "Zulu", "Midway", "Tora, Tora, Tora" and "Black Hawk Down". The lesson is to have professional motivated troops and firepower at the right location.

What was the dispute between the Trade Federation and Naboo about anyway?  I never understood that part of Episode I.

Slaveholders have no real concept of freedom or liberty.  It would have been better, though, for their slaves to have staged a rebellion and hanged every one of their owners from the nearest tree, the only proper fate for any slaveholder.

No.



Hardly.  FDR was a socialist, period.  It's just that conservatives don't really exist anymore.  The difference between the Democrats and Republicans are so minute they are almost indistinguishable from one another.  They get into little snits over stupid small shit, but agree on almost everything else, particularly in the realm of governmental power.

The only [i]true[/i] conservatives are libertarians.

Do you realize what an ass you just made of yourself with that purely idiotic statement?

The vast majority of the Confederates [b]were not[/b] slave owners.  You would know that if you hadn't been so thoroughly indoctrinated in public school with the "it was about slavery" bullshit.

Furthermore, the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence (Jefferson), Consitution (Jefferson and Madison), and Bill of Rights (Jefferson) were slave owners.

Perhaps his earlier piece describes it better:

Star Wars Revisited
by MARK THORNTON


It was peace and prosperity versus taxation, inflationism, protectionism, imperialism, and war. The good guys win this one and people are applauding in theaters throughout the country. The movie of course is "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace," one of the finest allegories on classical liberal political economy to ever appear on screen.

One has to wonder if George Lucas hasn't been reading Ludwig von Mises or Murray N. Rothbard during the long sabbatical that he has taken since his last major movie project. As a wealthy capitalist and businessman, Lucas certainly knows all too well what the government means to wealth and what the market means to the success of complex production processes like a major motion picture.

As the movie opens, the Republic is falling apart due to taxation, protectionism, bureaucracy, and corruption. The Dark Side, accurately labeled the "federalists" (who were the centralizers in American history), is trying to enforce its franchise on trade taxes by trying to intimidate a small peaceful planet that believes in free trade, peace, and republican virtues.

Queen Amidala refuses to pursue any path that might endanger peace and start a war. Her country of the Naboo was at first subjected to excessive taxation and is being blockaded; a path that she rightly fears will lead to war. She attempts to appeal to the central government for an end to the trade restrictions, but quickly discovers that the Republic's Galactic Senate is dominated by bureaucrats and yammering special-interest groups interested only in manipulating the system to their own benefit.

When the legislature proposes to establish a commission to look into the claims that people are suffering, Queen Amidala realizes that established political channels are totally corrupt. She packs her bags for home and prepares to defend her country. What we are watching here are the telltale signs of a decaying empire, where the common good, peace, and liberty are no longer held at a premium.

Along with that–-and consistent with the experience of Imperial Rome and the US–-we see the effects of currency depreciation. This depreciation affects all people who use the money, even in such parched, desert places like Tatooine, where a Jedi warrior tries to exchange credit-based money of the Republic for necessary supplies. He is turned down because the money is no longer valued on the periphery of the Republic. As a result they must resort to barter, which is exactly what Mises said is the final result of inflation.
[url]http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=277&month=11&title=+Star+Wars+Revisited&id=44

[/url]

Slaveholders belong at the end of a rope.  Anybody who treats another human being as property does not truly believe in liberty. Explain to me how a slaveholder can believe in liberty instead of trotting out the same tired "it wasn't about slavery" rhetoric that CSA apologists always use, if you want to convince me otherwise.

But, I thought that AR stands for Armalite?

So since abortionists treat other human beings as property to be disposed of for profit they belong at the end of a rope??

Fact:  Most Confederate soldiers and citizens did not own slaves.

Fact:  The Framers did own slaves.

Fact:  Pennsylvania had the largest slave population North of the Mason-Dixon line.


The war was not fought over slavery, and the fact that a small minority of Confederates owned slaves does not change that.  People in the North owned slaves as well, so your argument is cyclic.

If you don't believe the Founders were pro-freedom that is entirely your prerogative.  I suggest that you move to a country that has always believed in freedom and liberty.  Iff'n you cane fine one.

The UN is a better analogy to the Galactic Republic than is the US, or the Union States.

Remember that the members of the Galactic Republic are all sovereign nations.

The Galactic Republic goes from being an alliance to being a nusiance to being a beast, just like the real UN. It is corrupt and evil.

Murderers and slave owners are two different things.

Murderers deserve death always.

Slave owners only deserve death when they murder.

Remember, slavery has been the typical human condition since the dawn of time.  True freedom has been rare.  The majority of slaves were treated fairly, because after all, they were valuable to their owners.

Nice history factoids.  You have yet to explain how one can be a true believer in liberty and simultaneously deprive a human being of it by treating him as property.

First off, Lucas' thinking behind Star Wars is not economic or political, it is mythological.  The series is based on ideas and character types that appear in the heroic mythologies and legends from around the world.  Common types such as everyman heroes, heroes, demi-god heroes, demi-god villains, etc. are present in all cultures around the world with startlingly similar character and even story cores. Lucas has stated OUTRIGHT that the Star Wars series is based loosely on those concepts and seeks to bring those concepts into the modern age.

Is it informed by Lucas feelings and beliefs on economics, politics and culture?  Hell yes, but it is not a conscious allegory. It is practically impossible for a human being to divorce him or herself and his or her creative output from his or her belief system. It colors and informs everything we do and say.  So if you look at it closely, you could certainly draw some inferences about what Lucas does and does not believe in, but as with all humans, I think you would also find dramatic contradictions as well.

politicians start wars for entirely different reasons than why privates fight them. the politician's business then becomes to persuade the privates that it's their fight. the war was at least in part about slavery, and to deny it is absurd.

the confederate government refused to give up slavery even though it was known to be an impediment to foreign recognition and a drain on the south's desperately needed manpower. that says a great deal about the priorities of the govt and the wealthy landowners who controlled it, then arranged the laws so they didnt have to fight.

marvellous as their accomplishments were, the founders never fully addressed the idea stated in the declaration, "all men are created equal".
Jefferson became convinced that the slavery issue would destroy the union. fortunately, IMO, he was wrong.

So what you are saying, again, is that unless we all stand against the "peculiar institution" of tearing children from their mother's womb, and erradicate this wanton butchery and barbaric savagery from our land, none of us are free?
I couldn't agree more.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are [b]created[/b] equal."

So really Golgo, what you are saying is that unless ALL life of human origin is protected, no life of human origin is safe. Outstanding!

As far as the Confederacy as a bastion of libertarian thought....horsepuckey.

The  Civil War was about slavery...for the North.  The North had largely developed a political and social belief system and ethic that considered slavery to be vile and inhumane.  The South's insistence on slavery was unsupportable to the North. The South was unwilling to get rid of the slave system because it's economy was critically ties to that pool of cheap labor.  States Rights vs. Federal Control was a justification laid out for the more philosophically minded and for the poorer folk who did not own slaves.

As far as the contention that the majority of Southerners did not own slaves and thus were not motivated by the preservation of slavery...you are right, but it's a moot point.

Why?  Because the poor slobs in the countryside didn't make the policies that sent them to war.  The rich folks who DID OWN SLAVES made the policies.  They made their decisions based on the impacts on them and those close to them (other rich people who owned slaves) and justified their decisions to those beneath their social stations in whatever terms would bring them on board.

This was also true in the North.  The vast majority of northerners couldn't care less about the lot of slaves in the South, they were too busy working for their keep.  The educated elite of the North DID care about slavery and were incensed by it.  As America expanded westward it was critically important to them that slavery not be expanded with it into the new territories.  And that's where it all came to a head in Missouri and Kansas where radicals from either side clashed violently.

Slavery and the threat of the dissolution of the Union was what galvanized northern soldiers. Slavery was a more important deciding interest to the north than to the south to be certain. Likewise it is certain that other issues were used as justification to bring men to war in the North, but Slavery and the preservation of the union were central.

It's never just one issue and often the issues that motivate the powerful are not the same ones they use to motivate the masses.

As for the founders who owned slaves, there is substantial evidence in the historical record that they had extremely mixed feelings about the issue and many took extraordinary pains to be just and humane "masters."  They also took pains to make it fairly easy for their slaves to achieve freedom and many freed their slaves upon their own deaths.  Of course that doesn't absolve them of the sin of it.  Holding other human beings in bondage is not moral. But the founders were not perfect people, they had failings and were people of their time just as we are people of our time.

Nevertheless, large intellectual and idealistic arguments were fought over the issue of slaves during the formation of the republic.  A large chunk of the delegates working on the Constitution wanted all slaves to be freed and all rights and privileges of citizenship in the US to be extended to them.  THe time was not yet ripe however and it became apparent that the Constitution would not be ratified if that language remained.  It was a political compromise necessary to ensure the union of the several states into a strong nation.  However, the issue came up continually from then until the Civil War and long afterwards.

Its never as simple as we want it to be.

question: with human cloning looming ever nearer, it will soon become possible to grow a human from a single cell.
are all human cells now going to be accorded the status of human, and protected?

Hmmm...  I don't remember any mention of "federalists" in TPM.  What the Trade Federation wanted from Naboo wasn't clear -- were they trying to get a monopoly on all imports and exports from the planet?  It seemed very odd that an organization devoted to trade would be blockading a potential trading partner.

Actually, Lucas was quoted in Time Magazine recently as saying this movie is political, and how republics go to dictatorships not by revolution, but by simple acquiescence.  He even paralleled that famous quote with "freedom isn't taken by military force or threat.  People give it freely in exchange for 'safety.'" (paraphrased)  And that's exactly what happens in this movie.  Funny enough, but it's that horrible Jar Jar character that brings it about.   Now given that Jar Jar was voiced by a black actor and his swagger was motion captured from a black actor, what does that say about Lucas' view of the African-American? [}:D]

God Bless Texas

God Bless Texas

Iceman is exactly right.  Though most of the common soldiers in the war on the southern side did not own slaves and were undoubtedly fighting the war for noble reasons, the POLITICIANS of the Confederate government most certainly DID own slaves and most certainly DID prosecute the war to preserve the institution that supported their economy.
Make a hero of Robert E. Lee...he deserves to be considered one.  But Jefferson Davis and the leaders of the confederate government were neither heroes nor libertarians.

An interesting side note regarding the CSA and slavery...

Article I, Section IX of the Confederate Constitution ([url]http://www.civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm[/url]) prohibited the importation of slaves:

"The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or territory not belonging to, this Confederacy."

I don't know why.

possibly because importation would have cut in on the profits of the slave breeders?
the question that intrigues me is the confederate constitution said the confederation was permanent. if they'd secceeded, how long till georgia and north carolina want to leave the confederacy? and would it have started another war?

if our republic is truly going to turn into the empire, then may the force be with us.