Today's Mises daily sucks

Don't have a lot of time so I'll be brief.

 

http://mises.org/daily/6125/Occupy-Gotham

 

I'm sure zach's heart is in the right place, but this article is by far the worst Mises daily I have every come across.

 

"Wayne Enterprises was not bailed out."

It is a fictional company. How could you assert one way or the other? Because it fits your narrative better to assume it wouldn't?

 

"...villians who wish to see Gotham descend into chaos and Anarchy."

Yes, because chaos is synonymous to Anarchy. I can respect Zach's minarchy, but how did this piece ever get through the editor. If there is one thing that the majority of austrian scholars today stress most, then it is that anarchy does not mean chaos.

 

I'm very disappointed by this piece being published on the Mises home page. For one, the topic is largely unimportant. What is easier than a pop-culture reference? Secondly, it feels like the whole piece is just an apology for what most austrian scholars today believe in. These two points alone make the whole piece come off as a PR move for the institute.

 

On top of all of that, the piece is unorganized, contains several grammar errors, and assumes facts that cannot be assumed. Sorry Zach. Drop the minarchy and then come back with something a little more substantial to tell us. 

BransonBow:

write a better one

Well, if I were to do a write up on a movie that I felt displayed some kind of Libertarian ethic, it would not be any of the Batman films. Sure, there are perhaps some mildly visibly parallels to libertarian ideals in the batman films but I can think of a better movie. In fact, I am in the process of doing a write up on just such a movie: the new Wes Anderson movie Moonrise Kingdom. So far my piece is titled: ​Moonrise Kingdom: a Rothbardian Fable.

I won't spoil it for you, but if you haven't seen the movie, here is the skinny:

          The film is set in the late 1960's on a small, fictional island off the coast of New England. Living on the island are two twelve year olds kids. One is an awkward yet precocious boy named Sam who has recently been orphaned and is now living in a foster home which largely ignores both him and his well-being. His primary motivation in life is to become the best boy scout in his troup; that is until he meets Suzy, his soulmate. Suzy is a highly misunderstood problem daughter of two wealthy attorneys whom's marriage to each other could be aptly described as flimsy.

          The two twelve year olds, finding a common thread of alienation in each other, fall in love and run away together to elope in the woods. Sam, having developed many survival skills during his time as a boy scout, proves to be more than capable at taking care of Suzy during their time in the woods. He pitches tents, creates fires, forages and hunts for food, and in the process of doing these activities, Sam imparts to Suzy much of his knowledge. In turn, Suzy shows Sam the love and attention he so desperately craves. She lets him paint her in the (partial) nude. She reads to him and instructs him on the finer points of music and culture. But, perhaps most importantly, Suzy lends an attentive ear to all of the things he has to say.

          Throughout the film, both Suzy and Sam sacrifice for each other in various ways. In several cases, this sacrifice often amounts to violent defense of the other from harm at the risk of each's own bodily safety.

          Before long, Sam and Suzy are discovered on a beach sleeping together in a tent. It is at this point that the two of them move beyond a mere physical dedication to each other. Once separated, both of the kids dedicate to each other severe emotional sacrifice in the face of the overwhelming opposition to their romantic escapade by many different parties. Suzy's family does not permit Suzy to see Sam, and Sam is placed under the custody of the Captain Sharp, the sole police officer of the island (played by Bruce Willis) until the social services agent (Tilda Swinton) can come to the island to collect him. Throughout their separation, however, both Sam and Suzy stay true to each other, defying all authority to reunite at the soonest opportunity possible *this shows their maturity whereas most kids would cry a few days then move on.

          Among the various villains portrayed throughout the story, the primary one, or at least the one posing the greatest threat to the kids freedom of choice and association, is the Social Services agent. She seeks not only to take Sam far away from the island and away from Suzy forever, but also to commit Sam to a specialized state owned juvenile detention center where he will be "treated", against his will, for non-existent "behavioral problems". Like most government employees at all levels, this social services agent feels she can diagnose a problem without even examining it, and so she recommends that Sam undergo Shock Therapy (we know how well that treatment went for most who underwent that procedure).

          Perhaps the most interesting line in the movie comes from Captain Sharp, Bruce Willis' character. In the scene, Sam has just been put into police custody and is awaiting the social services agent to come and collect him the next day. Sam converses with Captain Sharp, debating the legitimacy of his confinement and isolation from from Suzy. He makes several very Libertarian points, to which Captain Sharp replies, "Well kid, I can't argue with anything that you're saying, but then again, I don't have to because you are 12....I'll admit though, you're probably smarter than I am. Hell, you are smarter than I am. You're the most mature kid I've ever met. You want some beer?"

 

Great Film