From Superhero Babylon:ROTHBARD RETURNS

Jmaurone's picture
Submitted by Jmaurone on Sat, 2008-10-04 17:18.

from Superhero Babylon:

 LIBERTY magazine has just published a slew of reviews on the recent rise in superhero movies, including the much-discussed DARK KNIGHT. The increase in superhero movies certainly is telling about our need for heroes, but the theme of these movies is also telling, in that heroes are increasingly seen as ideally being self-sacrificing Christ-symbols with feet-of-clay, whose redemption comes from service to others. Jo Ann Skousen, in her review of THE DARK KNIGHT, writes:

 There is an unsettling undercurrent about the superheroes that Hollywood is producing...The new breed of superhero still stands for "truth, justice, and the American way," but the new truth seems to be the American way really isn't full of "justice." In fact, the new episodes released this summer focus more on the damage left by the superheroes than on the good deeds they perform–a not-so-subtle jab at America's self-imposed role as the world's policemen.

 I agree with Skousen that this is 'disturbing." Witness the reaction in SUPERMAN RETURNS to Superman's, um...return: "Does he still stand for truth...justice...all that stuff?"

 The American way is reduced to "stuff." Whether one is a friend of foe of Libertarians, the current consensus is that America has either betrayed or been betrayed its ideal. I have a problem with the Libertarian critique, however, for their misuse of Ayn Rand's principle of the non-initiation of force. Under the influence of Murray Rothbard, the Libertarians condemn America for taking self-defensive measures. A full explanation is beyond the scope of this post, but I want to make the parallel between the Rothbardian ideal and the current perception of superheroes as fascist-like big brothers, i.e., THE DARK KNIGHT and Alan Moore's WATCHMEN. (A full argument is made for this in the book THE MYTH OF THE AMERICAN SUPERHERO, which erroneously makes the argument that the answer to fascism is an American democracy, as opposed to an American republic.)

 The Libertarian view finds itself with a strange bedfellow in the Christian take on heroes. Both try to put shackles on the self-preservation of the individual to the benefit of the aggressor, Christianity, with its mantra of "turn the other cheek," and Libertarianism, with its abhorrence of violence by the state to protect its citizenry (in favor of anarchy or "competing defense-agencies.") Christians would have their god do the dirty work, while Libertarians would not have the government get their hands dirty with the one job it's supposed to do (protect people from other people, delegating the use of force not to "men" but to "law." Rothbard wrote, in FOR A NEW LIBERTY, that "not only should there be a joint disarmament of nuclear weapons , but also of all weapons capable of being fired massively across national borders...Only if governments are deprived of weapons of offensive warfare will they be forced to pursue a policy of isolation and peace." Um, okay...different methods, different philosophies, same outcome: any hero who stops a villain or dictator is to be punished, whether it's the Christian commandment of "thou shalt not kill" or the Libertarian prohibition against taking down murderous regimes.

At any rate, an interesting collection of articles that, for better or worse, show that heroes are important, too important to be defined by just anyone. Whatever valid points they might have (I certainly don't see proper heroes as being my overseers!), they undercut those points with a skewed view of what America was meant to be; not a democracy, but a "republic...if you can keep it."


( categories: )

 No problem, Aaron, thanks

Jmaurone's picture
Submitted by Jmaurone on Mon, 2008-10-06 04:44.

 No problem, Aaron, thanks for the comments. I agree with you that Rothbard would most likely have taken out the Joker personally...Eye. But as someone who was once sympathetic to Rothbard, I now, personally, find it ironic that both he could be considered a "vigilante," like Batman was...vigilante in the sense that he refused to delegate force, or, maybe more accurately, preferred a "free market" of "competing defense agencies"...isn't that, in a way, what superheroes are? (Landon Erp has taken Batman to task for a lack of accountability...). And now, ironically, Batman, moreso than any other superhero, is considered "fascist," even among his "superfriends." (Then again, Frank Miller's THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS evens the score, putting Batman in the vigilante role while Superman is a tool for a fascist American regime...). Go figure...

 But yes, I do not mistake Rothbard for a pacificist...Smiling But I no longer agree with him that a nation should not use its military to intervene when...ahem...rationally required...and that's the real connection in the article: that "superheroes" are drawn parallel to governments in that regard. 

 


Thanks for the background on

Aaron's picture
Submitted by Aaron on Mon, 2008-10-06 04:31.

Thanks for the background on comic book heroes being considered fascists. I wouldn't draw your conclusions concerning individual ethics from Rothbard comments on nations and nuclear weapons. Though I don't think he wrote explicitly on the topic, I think he would have considered it the same issue as whether Carl or Dave down the street could own nuclear weapons. Whatever his problems, Rothbard was an individualist through-and-through, and didn't think that a collective such as a government could have rights that its constituent individuals do not. His relevant ideas concerning individuals are pretty clear, and in 'Ethics of Liberty' (chapter 13, 'Punishment and Proportionality') he supported moral right to retribution including capital punishment as the valid response to murder. He also supported (spread through EoL and FaNL) not having to relinquish your rights to defense or punishment to a government, so essentially vigilante rights (with the caveat that one should expect to have to prove the justice of your action to others..).

I don't get the impression you're as concerned with Rothbard as about societal view of hero archetypes, so I know this discussion is a diversion. I just feel compelled to defend Murray in this instance since, though there are particulars to criticize, Quaker-esque pacifism or condemnation of vigilanteism aren't among them.

Aaron


Fascist or no?

Jmaurone's picture
Submitted by Jmaurone on Sun, 2008-10-05 18:17.

 It doesn't seem odd to me, Aaron, but then, there is a bit implied in this article that you might not know unless you're a comics fan: the trend in recent years is to label superheroes as fascist, especially Batman.  (That was made clear in DARK KNIGHT. But I (I think) I see why you consider it odd: superheroes are often vigilantes, and Rothbard tends more towards "free market" defense agencies. So the irony is that a vigilinte is seen as a fascist. There are a few stories dealing with the perception of the Justice League as an oppressive regime (Kingdom Come and JUSTICE come to mind, and just wait til WATCHMEN THE MOVIE comes out...) There is a whole book on the topic THE MYTH OF THE AMERICAN SUPERHERO, which calls for less "fascist)individualism and more "democratic" heroes. Rothbard's criticisms of government intervention in foreign affairs (read the nuclear arms comment) mirror plainly the criticism of superheroes as authorities intervening in the affairs of others. (Their is even a storyline in the Batman comics featuring an atagonist named Anarchy

If my understanding of Rothbard is wrong, I'll listen to any comments. But based on the quote about disarming government, I stand by my connection.

 

..............................................................................................................  SuperheroBabylon.blogspot.com

 


This is an odd set of

Aaron's picture
Submitted by Aaron on Sun, 2008-10-05 03:40.

This is an odd set of connections. I overall liked the 'Dark Knight' movie - despite major issues such as Batman being a pussy about killing Joker. Rothbard had serious philosophical grounding issues leading to some problems at the high level, but I still have great respect for his contributions to laissez-faire economics and libertarian political science. So let's tie them together.. Rothbard was against killing innocents, but was rabidly for justice against proven evil - so I bet if you stuck a cape on Murray he'd have had the moral courage and the balls to grind the Joker into the pavement. Smiling


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.