Lately I have noticed people making lists of Libertarian movies and books to recommend to their non-libertarian friends. Among these such classics as 1984 and the Star Wars franchise, as well as relative newcomers like The Hunger Games have been mentioned.
I have heard people say things like: “Look, they are fighting against an evil, oppressive government, so it must be libertarian!”
I don’t want to seem too negative, but you don’t have to be libertarian to oppose an “evil, oppressive” government. Everybody I know is against “evil.” I don’t know one single person who is in favor of “evil.” I don’t see any politicians campaigning on a platform of “evil.” Same goes for oppression. I bet if you took a poll, one hundred percent of Americans and at least ninety percent of Europeans would come out solidly against “oppression.” The problem is in deciding what exactly that is.
The fiction that seems to be doing very well at the moment is the fiction that skirts making that distinction. I am not an expert on The Hunger Games. for instance, as I have not read the books and have only seen two of the movies, but it appears to be about an oppressive government that makes people fight to the death in a public arena in order to punish a rebellion that took place a long time ago when part of Panem (or PanAm?) tried to secede. So it begs the question: is this about the American civil war and what happened during reconstruction? Somebody actually asked this online. They were told no, it was not, it was just about oppressive government, but thank you very much for making the connection.
The reason this series about rebellion against an oppressive government is doing so well is that people who think the Civil War was a great humanitarian war to end slavery and people who think the Civil War ended constitutional republican government in the United States can all go see the same movie and eat popcorn and candy and feel happy to be rebels. It does not change anything in their ideology, but it only serves to convince them that they are good people and that they would fight against evil, too, if evil ever showed up. But in real life, there is no evil, and all is well with the world. Or alternatively, some of them think they do recognize evil, but they are on diametrically different sides when it comes to defining what that is.
I recently saw Star Wars listed as libertarian. I have always been ambivalent about the Star Wars franchise because I was not really sure what it was that made the evil Empire evil, other than dressing in black. I used to dismiss it as unintellectual entertainment for people with no particular axe to grind. But in 1999 something happened to convince me that Star Wars was actually anti-libertarian.
At the time, I went to see the latest movie in the series, The Phantom Menace, in the company of my newborn daughter. It was hard to concentrate on the movie, as the baby needed constant attention. She was about eleven days old. But I swear the people on the screen seemed to be saying that the bad guys were evil because they did not want to pay taxes imposed on them by the good guys!
This was the text of the opening crawl:
Turmoil has engulfed the Galactic Republic. The taxation of trade routes to outlying star systems is in dispute.
Hoping to resolve the matter with a blockade of deadly battleships, the greedy Trade Federation has stopped all shipping to the small planet of Naboo.
While the congress of the Republic endlessly debates this alarming chain of events, the Supreme Chancellor has secretly dispatched two Jedi Knights, the guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy, to settle the conflict.
So basically the greedy Trade Federation was like Amazon, selling things without sales tax, and the planet of Naboo was like the state of Missouri trying to impose sales tax on them. Which side should the Amazon Associates on Naboo be on? Which side should the consumers on Naboo be on? Tell me more about greed… Is that the attempt to get something for nothing?
I’m still not sure. I had a friend once who told me she enjoys going to the movies for the symbolism of the thing, regardless of the overt ideology. So she could enjoy a symbolic rebellion against evil and come away feeling catharsis, and it did not matter that the Hollywood establishment was getting to define evil in a way she disagreed with.
It does not work that way for me, and if you are serious about pitching libertarianism to your friends, I suggest that this is not a good strategy. If evil is not defined in a way that allows us to distinguish free market from forced market, then it’s not libertarian.
Everybody is in favor of freedom and against oppression. Libertarian fiction defines what freedom and oppression are. If that definition does not make socialists and statists and theocrats cringe just a little, then it’s not libertarian. It’s mainstream.
A few years ago I was not open to Libertarianism because I was told we needed to be good citizens and pay our taxes. Of course I will continue paying our taxes, but some of the people telling us this are Democrats with corporate interests, and they definitely benefit from laws that enable them to pay less taxes. It is the small businesses that are hurt by tax laws, not the larger corny capitalist entities. Also, one Libertarian guy on Hubpages told me I was the worst example of public school education, and that turned me off Libertarianism. I am not sure how good of a Libertarian he was, but he really was quite abrasive. But as time went by I started to notice something. Lately I feel like Democrats are training people for “my life as a robot” and Republicans are encouraing people “pretend we are religious icons like Donald Trump’s wife models naked on a plane”. What if I do not want to be a robot that follow the common core curriculum to a T? Is that such a horrible thing. What if I feel like the name calling on both sides is damaging, which it is. The common insult seems to be with both Democrats and Republicans, “my guy is better than yours”. Neither are paragons of virtue. I will never be as politically inclined as you, Aya. However, the way you present Libertarianism and Austin Petersen does is the only version of politics at the moment that does not want to make me hurl. As for the Star Wars thing, I do not think it is especially Libertarian at all. It seemed really bureaucratic with lots of rules and regulations. Honestly, I just never get maintain interest in the franchise beyond people telling me my hair look like Princess Leia.
I am so glad that you are now seeing the value of the libertarian outlook. No two libertarians agree on everything, so, of course, I understand it does not all appeal to you equally well. Because we are free thinkers, we are less dogmatic than others.
As for Star Wars — it’s not particularly libertarian as far as I can tell.