Great movies, Objectivist movies

"And remember that it was a military company in cahoots with the government. Certainly no capitalist."

I haven't seen "The Hulk" but I fail to see anything wrong with a military company (presumably a corporation specializing in defense) in contract with the government. A libertarian/objectivist country would certainly need research into military needs to protect the rights of its citizens. Who would you presume to carry it out other than a corporation? Certainly not by a government department! A corporation is a capitalistic entity, owned by risk-taking investors.

Post 61

Friday, January 16, 2004 - 11:09am

"I haven't seen "The Hulk" but I fail to see anything wrong with a military company (presumably a corporation specializing in defense) in contract with the government."

To the point of getting its authorization and support to legally own a human being ?

Post 62

Friday, January 16, 2004 - 12:03pm

"To the point of getting its authorization and support to legally own a human being ? "

No

Post 63

Friday, January 16, 2004 - 12:30pm

But that's basically what happens in The Hulk.

Besides, I can't see the military-industrial complex as anything but evil - at least, in a system where armies are public and isolationism is pass�.

Post 64

Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 2:52am

I agree with Franc ! Long live Le Hulk. I think it is ver obvious that the Hulk is the very essence of Objectivism. Don't you all agree ? Who will give me five ?

Post 65

Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 6:23pm

I didn't see the hulk, but I have to step in on this one. Bernard, you seem to be misunderstanding what Objectivists mean when we stand for the "profit motive". We do not countenance theft, nor dishonest "business" practices. In fact, the main reason we defend Capitalism is because of the sort of values it pre-supposes (commitment to excellence, coherent property rights, non-coercive trade, etc.)
To be sure, even RAND herself recognized that there were dishonerable fuckwads who posture as "businessmen". Read Atlas Shrugged: think about the contrast between Hank Rearden, and Orren Boyle. Non-Objectivists would probably both (mistakenly) consider them both "capitalists", and decry their respective quests for "profit" as evil, but there are very pivotal differences:

Orren Boyle's "business" (if you want to call it that), is selling a substandard project and muscling in on other competitors -- neutralizing the "competitive" aspect of business, in fact -- throught Government Pull. Eventually, he uses government-backed force to FORCE Rearden to provide him with a product (Rearden Metal) at extorsion-prices. Basically, coercive government-backed theft.
Secondly, it's short-sighted in the EXTREME to think that all "private" organizations are going to be noble. (However, it is NOT short-sighted to acknowledge that all 'public projects, no matter how 'desirable', are procured through taxation, and backed up with government force, which sometimes gets dissenters killed.)

But no, Bernard, by no means are we all compulsive defenders of any and all 'businesses' . In fact, Objectivism (as a philosophy), pretty much exemplifies the characteristics needed for ETHICAL business-transactions to occur at all.
I don't know if this answerd your question, but I hope it helped.

Post 66

Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 12:15pm

I don't think anyone has mentioned "Soldier" yet. Terrific movie about government drafting children to the army from birth.

Libertarian Kurt Russel stars in it too.

Post 67

Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 11:20pm

I just recently rented The Hulk because it keeps getting recommended. First by David M. Brown on his site and now by Francois. I definitely liked it.

Technically speaking, the CG was cool, and the editing to make it seem like a comic book was interesting. But what really interested me is the theme that power comes with anger. You also see this theme in Terry Goodkind's books. So does this mean that we should all get really angry so we can accomplish greater things?

Post 68

Monday, January 19, 2004 - 11:07am

Not really. The power of anger is uncontrolled - like a dream state where the self is pushed aside. Only when Banner has integrated both sides of himself - became more *aware* - can he control his powers (at least that's what I get from the last scenes).

Post 69

Monday, January 19, 2004 - 6:15pm

Somewhat like the idea that Reason and emotion must be fully integrated into an individual's life -- from the Objectivist view.

Post 70

Monday, January 19, 2004 - 6:46pm

Well, the two sides of Banner's personality - scientist, and angry but powerful being - seem to represent the dualities. Reason and emotion, intelligence and physical power. At the end, he's an ubermensch, a John Galt, fully integrated.

Post 71

Monday, January 19, 2004 - 7:08pm

Actually, I rather like Eddie Willers better. He's just so damn NICE....goes through the whole book totally hot for Dagny, and trying to do well, but.....ends up on a stalled-out train, weeping his head off!!!!
Damn.....Eddie Willer's and Cheryl (the dime-store chick) would have been good together. Would have made a decent sequel: "Objectivists in the suburbs: the eddie willer's manifesto!"
????? Okay, that was just weird.

Post 72

Monday, January 19, 2004 - 7:23pm

Yes, Eddie Willers is by far my favourite character too. I'm definitely a Willers.

Here's an idea for a personality test... what AS character are you ? lol.

Post 73

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 5:54am

How did the Hulk grow so big and keep his pants from completely ripping apart?

Post 74

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 9:28am

Probably by the power of media censorship. It's a strange power : it can nullify nudity, but can't do anything about violence.

Post 75

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 10:38pm

Speaking of Willers and the Hulk keeping his pants on, Franc, do you think that if the hulk had sex, wouldn't the sperm shoot out of the top of your head ? I think the same would apply to superman, non ? Just a thought. It would make reproduction a little hard. On the toher hand, le Hulk probably hasn't time for sex anywy.
(^_______________________^)

Post 76

Friday, January 23, 2004 - 9:01am

OoooKaaayy....

Whatever that was about...

Anywho, I just bought the newly-released-on-DVD, "Open Range".

I'm totally satisfied with my purchase. I highly recommend the film to anyone who admires the rugged individualism ( ;P ) of the men who spread the ideal of independence into the American West.

The whole movie was shot very well, the acting was good, the story was relevant--think crony-capitalism--and the charecters were all believable. It ~is~ along the lines of most westerns--good guys ride in, kill bad guys, town is saved--but it's done in an original way, and the good guys actually KNOW what they are doing is RIGHT. Ahhh. That's the best part!

Robert Duvall's "Boss Spearman" is the silver-screen embodiment of A Good Man, Through and Through. There's some violence, but not in a bloodbath way. One line of his really catches my libertarian attention: "A man has the right to protect his property and his life..."

So it's not a commie flick, and thus gets a gold star in my book.

J

Post 77

Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 12:19pm

My wife rented the movie, "Crazy in Alabama" last week, and I must say, I'm quite impressed.

The movie has two plots that are kept separate, but woven together beautifully by the end. Taking place in a small town in Alabama in 1965, when race relations are turbulent when people sleep and explosive when they're not, one side focuses on a woman, tired of being physically, mentally, and emotionally abused by her husband, decides to kill him. No longer bound by him, she follows her dreams of becoming a movie star, ignoring anybody who, on her long drive from Alabama to Hollywood, tells her that she can't, or won't, succeed.

The other plot follows her thirteen year-old nephew, who witnesses the sheriff kill a black boy for starting a sitting at a public pool. The death inspires the black community to fight for the pool. Despite deals and threats given to the boy to keep him from testifying on a grand jury, he adamantly refuses to give in on the grounds that it "isn't fair."

While it isn't the best movie I've seen (can't really agree with some parts of the woman's character and actions), it's still an inspirational story. As the movie goes, "You can bury freedom, but you can never kill it."

Post 78

Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 3:17pm

I've seen that one, Joe. It was pretty good.

Post 79

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 3:02pm