You are here: Home > Liberty & Freedom

Archive | Liberty & Freedom RSS feed for this section

To Pledge or Not to Pledge: A National Anthem Protest Story

By on September 20, 2016 in Entertainment & Pop Culture, Government Reform, Liberty & Freedom

Kaepernick sits on bench during AnthemI have a complicated relationship with the Pledge of Allegiance and other nationalist rituals like singing the National Anthem, so I was hoping the whole issue stirred up by San Francisco 49er’s Quarterback Colin Kaepernick would go away quickly. Its too difficult of a conversation to have on social media, where nuance goes to die. Yet, I found myself itching to have a go at it. Had it just died on the vine after it started, I could have left it alone. But as other players and even non-athletes continue to join or approve of his protest, combined with another story I keep seeing in my feed about a Native American public school student in California, Leilani Thomas, who sat for the pledge having her grades lowered, I feel the need to talk this one out. I assume I’ll get criticism from all sides of this debate, which is a slot I’m familiar with.

Let me get this out of the way. The First Amendment allows us the ability to speak and express ourselves however we want (without physical violence) free of censorship from the government. This does not grant us freedom from criticism, or consequences for those views (as long as its not the government punishing us as is the case against that CA student). Speech we disagree with is best combated by the counter-speech we do agree with. If you’d like to know more about the distinction between government censorship and criticism by the average person, Popehat’s “Hello, You’ve been referred here because you’re wrong about the first amendment” is a great read.  I do believe that we all need to do better to foster the spirit of free speech, therefore shouting down someone you disagree with rather than engaging them in calm debate is counterproductive and wrong, and that punishing someone for their speech (like an employer censoring, or firing someone, or you boycotting a business) should be undertaken with extreme caution.  Speak with your “enemies” and try to convince them through rhetoric, or at least get them thinking about something they may have never thought about before you try to humiliate them, or destroy their lives.

Ok, I hope that is fairly clear.  Now, back to my complicated relationship with patriotism.

I love singing the National Anthem.  I love all the feels it gives me.  I love the ritual of standing, removing a hat, placing hand on heart.  I love the swell of the music.  I love the challenging range (I usually have to switch octaves as I’m a solid baritone-alto).  I love that the lyrics include a line about rockets (which can be conveniently timed with real rockets going off).  I love the picture that is painted by the poetry.  I love the hope and inspiration it gives me as I imagine that flag waving through all the chaos of battle.  I feel similarly about the flag it self.  I believe almost always in showing respect for what the flag represents, especially if I am surrounded by veterans who consider it a sacred embodiment of the sacrifices they gave and their brothers and sisters gave, some with their lives.  I love the theater of it all.  I love the whole thing.

But… I also think pledging allegiance to a flag, or any inanimate object, is silly.  A flag cannot do anything for you.  Its a piece of cloth.  Its a symbol of things, not the things themselves.  But I would take it one step further.  I think pledging allegiance to anyone or anything is silly.  More than that, I feel its dangerous.  Allegiance is beyond loyalty, which can also be tricky.  Allegiance means whatever it takes, you hop on board the train of obedience.  It is blind allegiance to a country, a king, a ruler, a government, or a flag that can lead to atrocities committed in the name of those things by unquestioning followers.  I never want to allow a pledge I made as a child under extreme peer pressure to determine the course of, or to define, my patriotism.

And I am a patriot.  I believe strongly in the ideals this country was founded upon.  I believe in the idea of self-determination.  That all men (and women) are created equal, endowed by our creators (whatever you want that to be) with inalienable rights to pursue happiness, be free, and to live unmolested by any one or any group (government included).  If I were to pledge fealty, it would be to those ideals, not to the government, and not to a piece of cloth.

But, for me, there is a difference between the Pledge of Allegiance and the Star Spangled Banner, which leads me to one of my criticisms of Kaepernick and his like-minded protesters. Let me first explain the differences before I reveal the criticism.  The Pledge of Allegiance is, at its core, anti-American.  I would never call a person who wants to pledge freely un-American, that is their free choice, but the concept of the pledge itself to me is strikingly antithetical to the idea of individual free expression. Its intent is to strengthen nationalism so that even the idea of questioning the Pledge is seen as subversion.  It is disturbingly similar to rituals dictators in totalitarian regimes demand of their captive citizens. These rituals usually begin by indoctrinating children before they can really question the idea of what it means to be a patriot.  It is an irony that the Pledge gained a resurgence during the 1950’s (when the “Under God” clause was added) as a response to the Cold War and anti-communist witch hunts.  To me, being a patriot is upholding the ideas enshrined in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and in the philosophy of individual self-governance that came before them, and has been refined since them.  The idea that each of us has but one life to give, and it is our own so long as we are peaceful.  The Pledge teaches us the opposite.  It teaches us how to collectivize our thoughts.  It teaches us to speak by rote memory, without thinking about or necessarily believing in the words.

But the National Anthem is different for me.  The Anthem is a celebration of those ideals this nation was founded upon and strives to achieve.  Its a recognition that one man watching a battle from afar can be moved to inspire others simply by writing powerful words.  Its a recognition that while we have never perfectly implemented the ideals the Founders fought for, we keep striving for them.  The Anthem should always be optional for free citizens, but it doesn’t demand our loyalty.  It only reminds us of what is worth fighting for.

That is where Kaepernick has it wrong.  There are serious problems in America.  No reasonable person can doubt that.  But the country is vast, and has also come a long way from where it began.   The lives of the people of color killed by police that he is protesting cannot be served justice by protesting the beautiful goals for the country our symbols, in particular those represented during the singing of the National Anthem at a sporting event, represent.  Protest the individual police departments that have done wrong.  Protest the politicians who enacted specific policy (or who fail to do so) that lead to some of the unjustices.  Protest the specific racists who keep us all in the past.  Agitate for legal reforms.  Give your time.  Give your money.  But don’t protest the vision.  Don’t protest the idealistic dream of liberty and justice for all.  Don’t protest the brave Americans who have risked and sometimes lost their lives to push us one step closer to realizing those goals encapsulated in our symbols.  It makes no sense, and will have no measurable effect except to make those locked in solidarity with you feel like they are doing something.  They are not.  Nothing meaningful will come from sitting or kneeling during the Anthem.  In doing so, “protesters” are only helping to conflate the idea that our dreams are the same as our reality.  The Anthem and our symbols represent the end game.  The goal we’re hopefully all wanting to achieve.  They don’t represent when we stumble, and fall down, and slide down the moral arc of justice a few notches.

I have a dream.  My dream is that while I would fight to the death for Kaepernick’s right to protest, I wish that he would realize he’s only further dividing us when we need the common bonds the Anthem symbolizes the most.

Peace,

PersephoneK

P.S.  Dear Mr. Kaepernick, you basically render your opinions about oppression and state violence moot when you wear a t-shirt supporting Fidel Castro. Please try googling stuff about him.  Hint: He’s a viscous, murdering dictator.

Kaepernick Loves Castro

Kaepernick Loves Castro

Comments { 0 }

I Am We the People, And So Are You

By on May 12, 2016 in Liberty & Freedom, Recommended Reading

image of dumpster fireMany years ago, I read Ayn Rand’s [easyazon_link identifier=”B0082RHM4A” locale=”US” nw=”y” nf=”y” tag=”persephonek20-20″]“Anthem”[/easyazon_link] and in hindsight, it completely changed the path of my thinking.

Let me pause for a moment to take inventory on who is still reading. I mentioned Ayn Rand in my first sentence, so I assume a handful of readers decided to skip the bailing and just jump ship. If you’re still with me, I assume it means you either disagree with Rand but have an open mind, or are not offended by the mere mention of Rand’s name. I actually hope it’s a little bit of both. For those of you I lost, although you’ll never read this, I hope there comes a time when ideas contrary to your biases cause you to dive in more deeply to understand someone else’s perspective. Until then, best of luck in your utopia bubble.

Back to you, dear reader, who has stayed the course. Don’t worry, this is not going to be all about Ayn Rand. For the record, I have only read one of Rand’s books, and do not consider myself a “Randian” although I do find many of her ideas kickass, and others not so much. I felt it was important to begin by invoking her for three reasons:

  1. Reducing the reader pool to people with open minds,
  2. Reading “Anthem” changed my mind, and
  3. Rand once said that the “smallest minority is the individual.”

The last two items are completely intertwined for me, and have shaped my current political philosophy. More on that later.

Last week (I’d originally drafted this on 5/5/16 but had some blog tech issues and couldn’t post) , I read an article by Elizabeth Nolan Brown that summarized Nebraska Republican Senator Bob Sasse’s epic rant on the completely awful choices for President the American people will be faced with next November (Sasse says “there are dumpster fires in my town more popular” than Clinton or Trump). But something else he said stood out to me even more than that colorful one-liner:

“The main thing that unites most Democrats is being anti-Republican; the main thing that unites most Republicans is being anti-Democrat. No one knows what either party is for—but almost everyone knows neither party has any solutions for our problems.”

For me, sadly this is a broadly true assessment, and it’s the main reason I loathe all party politics. Humans are innately tribal. We all have tendencies to form bonds with people similar to us, join together for comfort, friendship, and security, and to defend each other when the other side tries to knock us down, even if the other side is justified. These bonds were a significant factor in the survival and evolution of our species. Tribalism is not necessarily always a problem. It’s the same mechanism that galvanizes us to join together to fight for and against causes that affect us. But in the modern world, in particular in the modern political world, this tendency manifests itself too often in defending our political tribes above everything else, even to the point of ignoring clear evidence to the contrary. I see far more knee-jerk defense of the tribe, or the tribe’s dogma, than I hear discussion of political philosophy, and the reasons for our viewpoints. Do we even know what our viewpoints are, or are we simply parroting the party line or the talking head of choice? The reason I hate political parties of all stripes, but especially the Democrats and Republicans, is that aside from having far too much power concentrated with two very similar authoritarian brands, they reduce us to being no more advanced than our tribal-bonded ancestors, relying on instinct to join together to protect the camp from perceived threats, rather than elevating the other aspects of our nature, namely our capacity for reason, logic, and nuanced thinking to creatively solve problems.

In short, at their core, all political parties force us to think as collectivists, and there is very little room for the individual, of which I am among the strongest champions.

This brings me inevitably back to Ayn Rand. Sorry if you thought I’d forgotten her.

If you have not read “Anthem” I would strongly recommend you do. There’s evidence “Anthem” inspired George Orwell’s dystopian masterpieces. Anthem is a quick, short read. It’s not a literary masterpiece. Rand’s native language was not English, and that comes through in her prose. But it does reflect her perspective as having been raised in the Soviet Union in a middle class Jewish household, and as someone who once lived under communist, authoritarian rule. Her father was a pharmacist whose business had been taken over by the state, and these experiences are reflected in “Anthem.” The story takes place in a fictional, dystopian world where there is no such thing as the individual. Even the word “I” is not allowed. All people refer to themselves as “we” and they have names that sound more like they came off an assembly line (Equality 7-2521 and Liberty 5-3000). They have virtually no choices in their lives. They are assigned jobs they cannot escape, and are told what is appropriate to think. Every aspect of their lives is centrally planned. They have no free will, no ability to change the course of their lives, and are beholden to the will of the state for everything.

Obviously, it’s an extreme example of even what Rand lived through in the Soviet Union, but as with all science fiction, it is meant to bring into focus ideas about our own lives we may take for granted. It did this for me as a tenth grader when it made me question what does it mean to be an individual? Living in society means living with other people, and therefore leads to conflict over how best to live with others. “Anthem” asked the question does living in society mean we must sacrifice being an individual for the perceived good of the people?

Based on my anecdotal observations, the answer to that question by many people today would be a very quick “yes.”

Modern western society emphasizes the “collective good” above the individual. That in order to achieve the collective good, ideas need to be generated by consensus. That equality of outcome is the highest standard for the collective good. That sometimes, or often, it is required and good to suppress an individual’s needs or wishes to achieve the best result for all of society.

I actually agree that the goal of achieving the collective good is noble. But where I diverge from (what seems like) most people (on the right and the left) is in thinking that the collective itself is like a single organism. In reality, there is no one thing that is “society.” Society can only ever be two or more individuals living together with some mutually agreed ways of interacting. So, Ayn Rand was correct when she said that the “smallest minority is the individual.” The only way, in my view, to maximize the collective good, is to maximize the autonomy of the individual without sacrificing the equal autonomy of another individual. Once equality of outcome becomes the most important goal, individual autonomy must naturally be reduced. We can’t have it both ways. But we can have equal protection to live as individuals with preordained, natural rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

No single person agrees with everything the group(s) they belong to supposedly believes. Party politics, religion, and so many other factions and types of GroupThink make it difficult to be an individual, especially when we’ve eroded the framework that promotes individualism, and in many ways made that very term a pejorative.

While this election cycle has been depressing for so many reasons, it has in some ways excited me. The appalling choices the Democrats and Republicans have given us encouraged some people –even some entrenched deeply in the parties themselves like Sasse — to break away from their collective safety net, and question what they really believe. It has encouraged them to think about why they support a candidate instead of following along the party line like lemmings. Perhaps when the dust settles, people will have reverted back to the status quo. Many of the #NeverTrumpers are already backpedaling, and the majority of people tend to vote based on who is the lesser evil of the party they align with, rather on the merits of the person.

The lesser evil is still evil.

As an individual, you must be able to live with the consequences of your choices, so I will not tell anyone who to vote for or against. I won’t even berate you if you vote for Hillary or The Donald.  That is for you to decide.  All I ask is that you take some time before November and think about what you as an individual believe in. What do you stand for? Does it matter more to you that your tribe wins, or does it matter that you supported a person who adheres to the framework within which you want to live your life? What is that framework?

Another wise piece of science fiction once posed two seemingly opposing viewpoints I feel are relevant. In Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan (TWOK), Spock sacrifices himself, and while succumbing to radiation he recalls an earlier discussion he had with Kirk by saying “Don’t grieve, Admiral. It [his choice] is logical. The needs of the many outweigh…” Kirk finishes for him, “The needs of the few.” Spock adds, “Or the one.” This is a powerful endorsement that the group matters more than the individual, even if it means death.

In the next film, Star Trek: The Search for Spock (TSFS), after the crew of the Enterprise risks itself to get Spock back (in a complicated rejoining of his body and soul), Spock asks Kirk why to which Kirk responds, “Because the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.” This directly contradicts the sentiment in TWOK, and suggests that there are times one person is more important than the group.

It seems on the surface, TWOK endorses a collective way of thinking, whereas TSFS highlights an individualist way of thinking. But, if I may, I would rewrite these two lines of thought, and join them together in much the same way Spock’s mind and body were rejoined as two entities that can’t survive without the other, and say it this way:

“The needs of the individual, properly protected and left to flourish, lead to the good of the one, the few, and the many.”

That sentence, I believe, summarizes my current framework for successful human society. That is the lens through which I see all political decisions and ideas. That first there is no “we” without an individual person, without an “I”. Each person is constructed from a myriad of properties forming who they are, what they care about, what they think and want, and what they are capable and incapable of achieving. No single group, party, faction, or tribe can completely encapsulate each one of us. And we shouldn’t want, or need one to completely speak for us, either.

When you (and I) embrace our unique identities as individuals, and see each other as individuals first, society at large (whatever that really is) will thrive. Until that time, we are forced to endure the will of the tribes.

Peace,

PersephoneK

P.S. If you want to learn more about Ayn Rand and her philosphy (and common misconceptions about her), I recommend this 3-part interview with Yaron Brook (President, Ayn Rand Institute) on The Rubin Report:

Comments { 0 }

My Thought Evolution on Freedom: Remembering 9/11

By on September 11, 2015 in 9-11-2001, Atheism & Skepticism, Government Reform, Liberty & Freedom, US & International Affairs

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-liberty-image26285626Two obvious points: 1) Its been a really long time since I’ve blogged!  2) Obviously, its the 14th anniversary of the attacks of 9/11/2001.

I’ll skip the boring and lame reasons for #1 and focus on #2 today.  Every year on 9/11 I feel like I should have something profound to say. I never really do, and today its especially true, but I do have something to say.  I started this post on my Facebook page, thinking it was just going to be a sentence or two, and it quickly blossomed into a full post, so it sparked my enthusiasm to fire up the old blog again.  This should be a short one, though.

9/11 changed the course of my life. That is not hyperbole. If it had not happened, I’d be leading a different life in many ways. Not a better or worse life, just a different one. And I’d be a different person with very different viewpoints on many topics, if I had a viewpoint on those topics at all. 9/11 was the butterfly flapping its wings across the world creating the storm of my life.

I’ve spoken before about how 9/11 changed my views of religion (specifically here and here), but I think what stands out most to me today, is how 9/11 changed my view of what it means to be free. 9/11 was also my birth, or maybe the beginning of my adolescence, as a libertarian (although I had no idea what that term meant at the time).  9/11 itself evoked extreme feelings of patriotism for me, as it did for many Americans.  It sparked me to join the fight by going to work for an agency involved in the “Global War on Terror”.  That experience led me to learn more than I ever had before about economics and Classical Liberal philosophy.  Perhaps a future post will dive more into why that happened.  In turn, what I learned in those areas has altered my view of 9/11 from what it was the day it happened and the first few years afterwards.  I no longer think of today as a day of unbridled patriotism.  Instead I think of it as a reminder of how far the country has come from the ideals it was founded upon.  I still believe that the “American Experiment” was one of the greatest endeavors humans have ever attempted. We always have been and always will be a work in progress. I’m worried that we have given up on the effort to live up to our ideals, however, and are heading down a path of becoming the thing we fought against.

I feel truly lucky to have been born in America.  I’m one of the lucky few of the billions who have lived in my time and before.  9/11 taught me that where a person was born shapes a lot of who they become, and I don’t take that for granted.  But I also don’t accept blind patriotism anymore.  I believe in the ideals of individual liberty, and I fear that 9/11 pushed us as a nation further away from living up to those ideals.

That terrible day should never have happened. The lives lost should have been able to continue their days as if nothing had happened, but instead they were stopped in time too early. Not a single person deserved what happened to them that day, except for the 19 participants in the plot. So, I remember those lives today with honor, even though I never met one of them.  And I will continue to honor them by remembering that they were individuals with hopes and dreams, wanting to live their own lives in peace.  That those men who took their lives thought more of the next life than this one, and took away the choices of 2,958 (I do not count the hijackers in this total) in this life is haunting.  9/11 taught me that this life is the only one we know we have, and that my right to interfere in the lives of others going about their own business is (or should be) limited.

Peace,

PersephoneK

world-trade-center-lights

Comments { 0 }

Of Bonfires and Water Vapor – Why Banning eCigarettes Sucks

By on April 30, 2014 in Liberty & Freedom
Photo Credit: dreamstime

Photo Credit: dreamstime

I do not smoke. I have never smoked. No one close to me has ever died as a result of smoking. My mother smoked for most of my childhood, but she quit around the time I started college, and has been smoke free for nearly 20 years (congrats mom!). She quit with a friend. He had been ordered by the doctor to quit, and was not so lucky. He died in 2007 after suffering from cancer for years. He was a lifelong smoker. I’m so thankful he dragged my mom to those meetings.

I tell you all of that because I want to make it clear, I really don’t have a strong bias driven by personal experience when it comes to smoking and cancer, but I have seen what they can do, and have thought about the “what-ifs” when it comes to my mom. In the last year or so I have become obsessed with stories about attempts (and successes) to ban e-Cigarettes. Recently I read a fantastic article originally posted in Forbes (which I read at reason.com) by Jacob Sullum called Save E-Cigarettes From the Children. It’s pretty short, so I recommend checking it out. It’s one of many such articles I’ve read in recent months (due to my obsession), but for some reason it prompted me to finally write about the subject after months on hiatus from the blog. It occurred to me there are probably two major reasons for my eCigs obsession despite the lack of a real reason for the emotional attachment to the subject matter.

Banning or significantly restricting e-Cigarettes

  1. Literally might kill people, and
  2. Epitomizes one reason why rushing to enact laws is scary – the reasoning is often based on flawed interpretations of (or no) science and/or evidence, or bald faced lies.

Sullum’s article nicely and succinctly highlights the evidence (taken from the same report several Senators are using to persuade the FDA to regulate e-Cigs) showing the strong correlation between increased use of e-Cigarettes and decreased use of tobacco-based (traditional) cigarettes as well as the lack of evidence for e-Cigs being a “gateway” drug to using tobacco. And most (almost statistically all) e-Cigarette smokers were traditional cigarette smokers first.

Here’s what we do know. Cigarette smoking definitively increases the risk of causing cancer. If you want to know some truly terrifying stats and what it does to your body, there is a deluge of evidence on the web. I’d start with the CDC which tells us that one in five deaths per year is caused from smoking related illnesses.

ONE IN FIVE…

That is a staggering statistic. That is more than the total deaths per year caused by HIV, illegal drug use, alcohol use, car crashes, and guns COMBINED.

It is not the nicotine in cigarettes that is primarily harmful. Addictive, yes. The harm is in the carcinogens. You may not want to know this either… campfires produce up to 30 times as many carcinogens as cigarette smoke. Campfires are deadly. I’m not joking. More than 4 million people worldwide die because they heat their homes and cook with solid fuels (usually wood, but also dung and coal). Essentially, 4 million people worldwide die from campfires. Why aren’t we banning them as well? The reason I suspect is that in the West, where we can cook food and heat our homes without polluting the air, our sense of reference is out of whack.  We often don’t realize how amazing our lives are in the West.

And perception is a bad tool for legislation. E-Cigarettes look like “real” cigarettes and campfires are nice for cooking smores therefore e-Cigs are bad and campfires are lovely. In other words, there is no logical reason for banning one and allowing another, and any reasons given are completely anti-scientific, or ignorant. If politicians and their supporters really want to save people’s lives, they should first ban all campfires, then cigarettes, and then cars, cleaning solutions, choking hazards, rat poison, all the things on this list of ridiculous things that have killed people, and water*. These are all things that are dangerous in certain quantities or situations (to name a tiny few). Yes, I said water.  Drinking too much water can kill you. It’s called hyponatremia.

However, only one item on the list of things I mentioned kills about 400,000 Americans each year. You guessed it (I hope)… its cigarette smoking. If e-Cigarettes remotely have a chance in taking a chunk out of that total, and the only reason for banning them is that they may appeal to kids (who often smoke themselves before trying e-Cigs), or they “look like smoking,” then any attempt to ban or restrict them is morally decrepit and willfully ignorant in my opinion. Absent any strong evidence that they present a danger (to kids or adults) that puts them anywhere near balancing out the lives they could save by helping to end smoking, they need to be allowed, and allowed anywhere (although I would support a private business owner’s right to restrict them even though I’d think that business owner is dumb).

Finally, something has come along that can literally save thousands if not tens to hundreds of thousands of people’s lives. That is not hyperbole. If politicians and their supporters actually cared about saving lives above scoring popularity points or appearing like they’re “doing something for the kids”, the world would be a better place. I may be but one tiny insignificant vote, but any politician at any level for any party who supports any measure to limit or ban these life saving devices will not have my vote, nor my respect (not that they’d probably care about the latter).

As a person pro-not-killing people, and who is anti-bad-reasoning-used-to-restrict-liberty-or-pretty-much-make-any-decision, I suspect this subject will continue to be high on my list of stuff to watch for years to come.  Its a shame I have to bother.

Cheers,

PersephoneK

*No, I do not really want to ban these things… obviously that would pretty much violate my Classical Liberal values.  And it would be absurd.  But I’m sure some people want to ban many of them.

Comments { 0 }

How I learned I’m a Religious Marxist and Other Silly Things

By on December 10, 2013 in Atheism & Skepticism, Liberty & Freedom, Ruminations

dreamstime_s_7671893_GOLDCoinsToday, I was told two things about myself I didn’t know (add groan). The first being I’m a Marxist. The second being that since I’m an atheist, I subscribe to a religion. While it’s entirely possible I misunderstood the person’s intent (this was after all a Facebook discussion, which aren’t known for their details and included people I’ve never met in real life), I don’t think I did. And it made me want to explore these hilarious ideas more in depth.

As an atheist, I’ve been told many times by religious people that atheism is a religion, and the variation of that is it takes a lot of faith to be an atheist. Let me start by using the dictionary definition used by the person who told me atheism is a religion:

Religion (noun): a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

There is a lot there, but from what I can tell, atheism does not meet any of the criteria listed. Atheism is not a set of beliefs about anything. There is no universal doctrine about creation, the purpose or nature of the universe. There are no devotional observances or rituals that all atheists must subscribe to. There is no one all-inclusive moral code. Atheism is merely a rejection of any supernatural supreme being aka god(s). That is the only thing that binds atheists together. Now, from that lack of belief, there naturally come many similarities in world views, but not always.

Religious people often mistake passion for religion. One can be passionate or outspoken about the topic of atheism or theism. But that passion does not automatically make one religious. This distinction confounds me, and most atheists I know. It’s usually thrown out as a red herring in order to make the atheist look like a hypocrite for daring to care about whether or not people believe in god. I care about world peace, ending hunger, women’s rights, music, and movies. Does that mean I am part of corresponding religions for each of those? Any reasonable person would have to say no. Religion, as its definition states, includes a supernatural agency (or agencies), and devotion or rituals related to that agency. Atheism does not meet this requirement.

Regarding me being a Marxist… this is even funnier. There was a time, in my younger and Christian days, when I very well was headed down a somewhat Marxist path. I’ve always been a capitalist, but I can remember a window of time during high school when I began to see the world from a Haves and Have Nots lens. When I saw the pursuit of material wealth as crass and corrupting. I saw Jesus Christ as the ultimate example of an egalitarian leader, showing us how to live together in peace and harmony. I did not want to be thought of as one of the greedy money changers in the Temple that angered Jesus so much in the gospels. And those money hungry Ferengi on Star Trek just seemed gross.

Then I learned about Adam Smith and John Locke. I read Frederic Bastiat and Milton Friedman. I learned, despite not being exposed in public school or through the mainstream media, that Capitalism overwhelmingly has increased human well-being over pretty much every other social strategy every conceived by man. This isn’t theoretical. Its reality. That data was supported by my anecdotal observances, especially when I worked for the Federal Government. I learned about incentives, and how they really matter. I learned that what many people think is Capitalism, isn’t. Capitalism is not the dominance of big business, riding on the wings of big government to squash the little guy. That is crony capitalism, where the government colludes with business to control the markets and pick winners and losers. True Capitalism is the most democratic process there is. It’s the way I as an individual can most make an impact every single day in the course of society. The United States currently leans more towards Crony Capitalism than most libertarians would prefer. This results in “too big to fail” banks, local restaurants crowding out the food truck competition, and ridiculous licensing rules making entry into a business all but impossible for many would-be entrepreneurs. All of which leads to more power for the established businesses and entrenched politicians, and less power and higher prices for the consumers. In true capitalism, businesses must serve their customers well, or they will exist no more. Serving consumers (read you and I) well means a better economy. A better economy leads to more prosperity for all. This is not Marxism. This is not shared work and shared fruits. Crony Capitalism may be closer to what Marx was fighting against. He saw the businesses and the governments with all the power, and the little guy getting beat up time and time again (figuratively and literally), powerless to control the winds of fate. In true Capitalism, the little guy holds all of the power. The little guy gets what he wants for better prices, leaving him with more money to get other things (or services) he wants.

The person who called me a Marxist did so because he Marx was an avowed critic of religion. He called it “the opiate of the masses.” This might be one area where Marx and I see eye-to-eye (hey, I’ll give credit where it’s due), but his prescriptions (ore his followers interpretations of them) for overcoming religion were about as far in the other direction as I could be. Communist governments are usually a-religious. Christians I have met often assume that where atheism resides, so must communism, socialism, or Marxism. I won’t even get into the ridiculous barb often thrown at atheists that most of the atrocities committed in the 20th Century were committed by atheists, but I will merely say that it is a logical fallacy to suggest that because one is an atheist, one must be a Marxist. As I mentioned earlier, atheists have no universal moral code or philosophy. It is merely the lack of belief in a supernatural deity or deities. Marxism is a philosophy for how society should behave. As an atheist libertarian, I believe in the proven power of capitalism to solve many of the world’s problems. If I could ever be accused of being religious, it would be regarding my love of capitalism. It has done far more in the name of ending human suffering than anything else the world has known.

But to do so, would defy the definition of religion. So I won’t.

Cheers,
PersephoneK

P.S.  I wrote this extremely quickly and didn’t edit it at all (except to spell Ferengi correctly and add some hyperlinks).  Apologies if that’s evident.  Sometimes you just have to get ‘er done!

Comments { 0 }

Paying Tribute to Serious Themes in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

By on December 4, 2013 in Entertainment & Pop Culture, Frivolity, Liberty & Freedom, Quotes, Recommended Reading

CatchingFirePoster_MockingJay[quotepress id=”1428″]

Let me get this out of the way. I’m terrible at writing movie and book reviews. A good review isn’t a play by play of what happened, but rather a critique of the story, discussion of its themes, style, and execution. As much as I love films and books, you’d think I’d write a ton of reviews. Part of me wishes I would – or could. But the plain truth is I’m awful at them. I don’t want to mentally or physically take notes when I watch a movie or read a book. I want to enjoy the story. I think about its themes, usually heavily, but they swish around in my mind like clouds high up in the atmosphere, constantly changing and reforming, blending together to form new ideas over time. I see something different every time I look. Usually my thoughts about the stories are less than coherent or eloquent enough for someone to want to read. There’s no way I could write a timely review immediately after I finish a story or watch a film. Doing so would ruin the experience itself. Besides, I’d be sure to miss something important, and then the review is set in stone as if those were my only takeaways or thoughts for eternity. That would be annoying.

With that in mind, I wanted to share a few thoughts on The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, which I watched for the second time in a week last weekend (and will probably watch again), and The Hunger Games series in general. I loved the books, loved the first film, and think the latest film takes them all up another level. In short, I loved so much about Catching Fire. If you want to know my thoughts on some of the film’s details (like how amazing Jennifer Lawrence is as Katniss, or the improved quality of the direction and action over the first film, or how well the film adapts the book, or its attention to detail, or the delightful absurdity of Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman, or, or, or…), ask me in the comments section, and I can go on and on. But for my time with you right now, I’d rather stick to some of the bigger themes of the entire series, focusing on the Catching Fire pieces most, and how my view of them might be different than what is generally discussed with these stories. For my more fangirl review of the first film, go here. But basically this “review” will be about what inspires me about The Hunger Games’ world and characters, and what draws me to re-watch, reread, and obsess over them.

Suzanne Collins (the writer of the novels) has said her inspiration for the story came from late night channel surfing, flicking between television reruns of reality show

s and war coverage. It’s so simple in conception that this would be writer is insanely jealous. From that simple merger of ideas, she created a deeply rich and layered world. This is the essence of creating believability, especially in what is truly a science fiction story, set in a future dystopia, a culture created from the wreckage of the vaguely explained collapse of society which included at some point in its history a nuclear holocaust and world-wide flooding (I suspect they came in reverse order), changing the landscape, shrinking the United States in area and in population size, and leading to the complete reformation of how society works, but with subtle reminders that this was once our current country. The world was remade over time spans unidentified (but would seem to be far in the future if the technology like hover crafts and giant game arenas with diabolical computer generated manipulations are any indication) eventually resulting in the current structure of the country called Panem contained within the former United States. Panem is divided into 12 (er… 13) districts, each ostensibly serving a specific resource niche for the shared resources of the entire country, but in reality mostly serving its Capitol and the totalitarian dictatorship, currently led by “President” Snow, that controls everything. The Capitol (probably located somewhere near present day Denver), along with one or two nearest districts, are rich and spoiled. Its people seem to want for nothing. They are consumed with outlandishly self-absorbed lifestyles, living in a bubble that is an enhanced distortion of present day Hollywood. They love their entertainment, fashion, and over the top parties. But most of all, they seem to love The Hunger Games, the annual Survivor-esque battle to the death between 24 children from each of the districts (one male and one female) aged between 12 and 18. The districts themselves, at least 3 through

12 keep the Capitol rich in resources and labor, but suffer the most in the Games. They are too poor to train “career” tributes who volunteer for the games in place of those who  are randomly “reaped” in a lottery, and who win almost every year. For the people of the districts, especially the outlying ones like District 11 and 12, the annual event is a reminder that they are powerless over the Capitol, and that two of their children are likely about to die in a brutal nationwide broadcast that is mandatory viewing. During the Games, as the people in the Districts starve, work intolerable hours, have little time for education, and suffer the carnage on live TV, those in the Capitol (seemingly not required to offer up their own children) wager on the outcomes, and cheer for their favorites. The sole survivors each year are lifted up as the ultimate celebrities for the rest of their lives, which are spent being paraded around year after year, reliving their victory, which came at the expense of 23 other young lives. They are forced to face the families of those they’ve slain in a Victory Tour, pretending to extol the Capitol, which makes them appear somewhat sociopathic to each District’s citizens, and likely eats away at the Victors themselves. We learn in Catching Fire that many of those Victors, don’t handle their success very well. In The Hunger Games novel, Katniss constantly talks about how she finds Haymitch, her mentor and previous District 12 Victor, as disgusting drunk. By Catching Fire, she’s joining him in a drink (which I was thrilled to see was included in the film as its one of my favorite scenes). Celebrity isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

It’s easy to see how most discussions about the meaning of the Hunger Games series is an indictment on our shallow celebrity culture, crass materialist excess, and how the impoverished and lowly masses are squashed while the Capitalist ruling class is propped up on their backs. Collins makes a point to use references to ancient Rome throughout her narrative. Many of the names of characters and places are taken directly from Rome.

Panem is the Latin word for bread, as in “panem et circenses” meaning “bread and circuses”, a critique of how the Roman political classes distracted the common people from engaging in serious politics by giving them bread and games, like gladiator fights to the death. For some, the Hunger Games represents the classic Marxist struggle of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat. The all-powerful Empire against the lowly citizen.

I don’t see the story this way at all, at least not in that exact framing. The truth, whether or not Collins realized this herself, is “bread and circuses” is a reference to the Fall of the Roman Republic into an autocracy. The elected politicians bought votes by diverting attention away from the concerns of politics and civic duty. The people were happy to have free grain and games and in return gave up their own power over the government by electing those who would take if from them. This eventually led to one man seizing power rather easily, and the Republic became an Empire. It would seem to me, that Panem has already had its transformation from Republic to Empire, but we’re beginning to see Rome’s Fall. The Visigoth’s are standing on top of the hill with their eye on Rome. They just need something – a spark of motivation, inspiration — to push them towards the gates.

For Panem, that spark is Katniss Everdeen, the heroine from District 12 and co-winner of the 74th Hunger Games, known to the people as the Mockingjay, a hybrid bird that was never supposed to exist, abandoned by the Capitol’s scientists to die when it didn’t serve their purposes, but which flourished on its own in freedom.

One reason I’m drawn to stories set in dystopian futures is that they are usually (intentionally or unintentionally) discussions of how collective societies destroy individual liberty, leading to the destruction of the society itself. Whether or not that was her intention, for me, that is exactly the world Collins created, and that is exactly the dominant theme in her stories as I see them. When we first meet her, Katniss is a coal miner’s daughter who loves to hunt. She regularly defies the rules to escape to the forest, ducking under the poorly monitored fences of her district so she can keep her family alive. She wants nothing more than to live a quiet, unassuming peaceful life volunteers for The Hunger Games when her 12 year old sister is reaped despite her name only being in the lottery one time (candidates can add their name to the bucket in exchange for food for their families). In that single act of uncalculated bravery she inspires a nation to stand up for themselves and be brave, too. This single individual act of selflessness, followed by a string of defiant acts within the arena itself, result in her being lifted up as a symbol of rebellion.

She is Panem’s Rosa Parks.

Like Parks who only wanted to rest her aching feet, not inspire a civil rights movement, Katniss had no intention of inspiring anyone to revolution. She only wanted to return home alive. Unlike her friend Gale, she would have been content to live out her life quietly, without causing too much attention, tolerating the tyranny of her government. That is just the way it is, in her point of view. When she breaks the law by hunting, or participating in the black markets, it’s purely for survival, not as a political act. When she “volunteers” (someone must go to the Games, they’re not voluntary), all she cares about is surviving so she can save her family both in the immediacy of saving her sister from the Games, and also to survive them herself to take care of them later. That’s all that matters to her. She is not a leader. She is not an idealist. She is rough and practical. She is a survivor.

In the first film, the night before they go into the Games, the other District 12 Tribute, Peeta says, “I just don’t want them change me… Turn me into something I’m not. I just don’t want to be another piece in their game… I just keep wishing I could think of a way to show them, that they don’t own me. If I’m gonna die, I wanna still be me.” Pragmatic Katniss replies that she can’t think like that. She needs to win because as sole breadwinner, she needs to take care of her family. Despite that, she does exactly what Peeta hopes to do. She risks her own oblivion in the rigged Games time after time by defying the Capitol (consciously or unconsciously), and like Rosa Parks, she becomes the symbol of a struggle she doesn’t organize or lead. In the first film/book, she does this by first showing kindness and respect to her fallen friend Rue, and later by convincing the Head Gamemaker Seneca Crane that she would rather die and deny them a Victor than kill Peeta to win. She rebelled against the Capitol when all she wanted to do was rest her aching feet.

In the second film, the Capitol intends to make her pay for inspiring the people to do the same.

Panem is both a fascist totalitarian dictatorship and a collective society. There appears to be commerce, but if it is not outright owned by the state, it is certainly controlled and manipulated by the state. The Districts serve the ruling class of the Capitol. There does not appear to be any democratic system of government, at least not with any real power. The “President” can determine who lives and dies on a whim. He can even change the rules of the annual Hunger Games, as we learn in Catching Fire when he forces an all-star celebrity death match in lieu of the traditional 12 to 18 year olds being drafted, thus breaking the agreement that Victors would live life in peace and comfort. The President’s power is absolute. Even the citizens of the Capitol are pawns to him. They may lead mostly frivolous lives, but even Hollywood starlets often have their lives controlled by the forces of their celebrity, something Haymitch explains to Katniss and Peeta when he tells them they will never get off the Victory Tour train. Their lives, as rich as they are now, will never be their own. I suspect many more in the Capitol feel that way than we are initially led to believe. Even Effie Trinket, a symbol of all that is shallow and air-headed in the Capitol’s masses, proves to be less clueless in Catching Fire as we and Katniss initially assumed. She’s merely made the best of the situation she’s been given in life. Year after year she watches her Tributes from District 12 get slaughtered. Any non-psychopath with a job like that needs to find meaning in it, or go insane. She puts on a happy face, but we see in Catching Fire that she is heartbroken by the situation Katniss and Peeta have been put into yet again. Perhaps the rest of the Capitol’s citizens aren’t what they seem to be either. None of them are truly free to be individuals, and speak out against the President or his government. They are not as free and distracted by bread and circuses as we thought. When the Victor’s all hold hands at the end of Flickerman’s interview show before the Games they shout out and boo, demanding that the games get cancelled. Even the normally unflappable Flickerman is visible shaken. And we see what happens to those who make statements against the President when Katniss’ friend and popular designer Cinna is beaten in front of her just before she’s thrown back into the arena.

I’m often surprised that people see Fascism and Communism as two opposite ends of the political spectrum, when to me they’re more like the ends of a circle meeting up like an Ouroboros, the head of the snake eating its tail. Each philosophy uses different tactics leading to the same conclusions. Ultimately in each, the state controls the individual. Yet even within Panem which is under the complete control of the Capitol, the people’s desire to be free is evident, and the failure of the government to provide what the people need – despite the entire country devoted to sharing its resources — is striking. Even the state controlled security forces known as Peace Keepers often look the other way and allow the people to do what they need to do to survive. It is through her own efforts hunting, and selling the game on the black markets that allow Katniss to feed her family. She even sells to the Peace Keepers on occasion. The state cannot even control those it employs directly. Katniss hides her bow and arrows in the woods because they are illegal for citizens to own. The citizens in each district have little control over their future professions, as each district serves one or two primary functions dependent on the resources of their region. There is little mobility between the districts, and any that exists is state sanctioned. This is a world with few choices, yet individuals find a way to do the best they can despite the odds.

Propaganda is the glue that holds the country together. We first see it in the film the Districts are forced to watch prior to the reaping, that Effie has memorized. And after their victory in the 74th Hunger Games, Katniss and Peeta become national celebrities. They are forced to shill for the Capitol by extolling its virtues, and thanking it for the glory the Hunger Games allows for them. Yet, along the way she unintentionally continues to inspire individuals to risk their own lives as she and Peeta make their way throughout the districts on their Victory Tour. By showing compassion and kindness to Rue’s family, and by standing up for Gale during the live broadcast of his flogging, she inspires them more still. The citizens of Panem know what happens to anyone who defies the Capitol, but they rise up anyway. Even in the face of escalating brutality by the Capitol, and isolation from each other, they form a rebellion. The Hunger Games does indeed knit them together, but not in the way the President and his propaganda machine intend. On the surface, the reasons for revolt may simply be that the poor districts are tired of seeing their sweat and blood go to feeding the Capitol while they starve, and live in squalor. But starvation is merely a symptom of the greater loss of freedom. The citizens in the districts are not empowered to pursue their own dreams, and make their own lives better. They are not even empowered to turn off the television, let alone prevent their children from fighting to the death each year. They are powerless in every sense of the word, yet the black markets, hunting in the forest, and one girl’s choice to volunteer to die shows them that the individual always wants what the state cannot, or will not, provide. That despite the President’s rhetoric, his sole purpose is to maintain his own power, not care for and feed his people. As individuals begin to realize this, and want more than they are allowed to have, they begin to band together and fight for individual manifest destiny, and for each other. All it took was one defiant girl sparking a fire. One person really can change the world, even if they don’t want to.

Ask Rosa Parks.

Yet the road to liberty is paved with pot holes and protruding stones. Humans are complex creatures, capable of great virtue, and great sin. Sometimes we destroy those that matter most to us. I’m looking forward to the next film Mockingjay where these themes take interesting, and all too frequently true, turns by showing that even among the previously repressed masses, the seeds of corrupting power are difficult to control. That without concern for individual rights, and individual dreams, the tendency is for ambitious individuals to throw bread and circuses at the politically indifferent or misguided in order to distract them from their own rise to absolute power. In Mockingjay [vague spoiler alert], we will learn about the corrupting nature of the pursuit of power, the seeds of which are sown in the events of Catching Fire. We’ll learn more about how those caught in the crossfire, too often the average citizen and the young, are manipulated, damaged and killed in the struggle for power. In Catching Fire, Katniss struggles with PTSD caused by her experience in the first Games. She transforms from a symbol for rebellion into the tool for a new would-be dictator. She goes from being a piece in the Capitol’s Games, to a piece in the new power struggle. She wanted neither. She wanted to be left alone. She wanted to live her life in peace. Perhaps in the end, at the end of the trilogy (or in the case of the films, the quad-ology), I hope Katniss will find herself in a world not controlled by tyrants who try to use her as a piece in their games of power, but controlled by individuals doing as they wish while living in peace. It only takes an accidental spark to light the entire corrupt, fragile system on fire. Eventually, even the absolute control of a despot cannot contain the dreams, or snuff out the natural rights, of individuals. When the powerless are inspired to take back what is rightfully theirs and recognize that their lives are their own to live, that’s when the human spirit rises up to its full potential. It is through individuality and self-determination that we become a better society as a whole. Forced shared values, forced shared resources isn’t virtuous. As Katniss repeatedly shows us in these stories, even when the game is rigged so that there can only be one survivor, human kindness finds a way to exist and thrive. That’s a lesson worth remembering.

Cheers,
PersephoneK

 

[easyazon-image align=”center” asin=”B004XJRQUQ” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41B9tVfXdJL._SL160_.jpg” width=”114″]
Comments { 0 }