From my blog:
Great post.
When I’m having a discussion with somebody, that is usually one of the first questions I’ll ask: Under what circumstances are you personally willing to use violence? It’s pretty amazing how universal the NAP is when taken down to the individual level. Nearly everybody says that they would only use violence to protect themselves and their property.
The trick, though, is getting people to see that getting the government to do your dirty work is no more moral than doing it yourself. People just seem so caught up with the notion that once people get together to form the collective known as the State, the concept that they had previously taken for granted, the NAP, completely goes out the window. The situation is somewhat strange considering how often these same individuals claim the government to be nothing but an extension of “the people.” If they really did belived that, they would see that “the people” is only the sum of individual persons, for which the NAP held.
Go figure, though.
That was a brilliant scene from a brilliant film. That film is one of the very few cases where “the hype” is actually true. The joker was brilliant. The writing was brilliant. The direction was very good as well. The symbolism of Two-Face was also brilliant. Two-Face also chose to put his decisions in the hands of another. Sometimes “the court system” and sometimes a coin. Before he was injured he had a two headed coin that he would flip to decide if he was going to kill someone or not. “Heads you live, tails you die.” In other words he chose not to kill anyone. After his injury one side of the coin was blackened. One side of his face was whole, the other side was injured. Now he chose to be - - diabolical. He chose to let his coin (now a 50/50 chance) choose who dies and who lives.
The film did have a lot of libertarian undertones, although of course there were some non-libertarian aspects as well. I’ve always thought that Batman was the most libertarian superhero (Superman always seemed rather fascist to me [:P]).
I think the relationship between Superman & Batman in the DCAU (DC Animated Universe) hit the nail on the head concerning Superman being a more simplsitic, naive depiction of good that is motivated by emotion easily. From what I remember, Batman had to frequently “look out” for Superman, especially after when he & Darkseid fought in the JLA Animated Series.
You just reminded me of Red Son.
Yeah, I’m a nerd.
Did he have the power to feed 20000000?
“Luthor runs for, and wins, the American presidency, with Jimmy Olsen as his running-mate. He has succeeded a President “Friedman”, whose misrule resulted in food riots and tanks on New York’s First Avenue. Whether or not this is the late economist Milton Friedman is unclear. Using his scientific expertise, massive economic capital and dictatorial powers, he returns prosperity to his country, overcoming the secession that had sundered the United States fifteen years beforehand.”
He fed the remaining 150000 with his own wealth?