The Costs of Being Left Alone

Prompted by a recent tweet, I began to ruminate on the idea that certain people only want to be left alone. Now, that can seem extremely enticing, indeed for some even desirable. The problem is, many of the people who want to be left alone don't really want to leave you alone necessarily.

The tweet in question is provided by famous whistleblower and defector Edward Snowden. In it he compares being afraid of Libertarians politically to being afraid of cats. I do admit that, on some level, there is a bit of a point as the Libertarian Party of the United States is so whacky in its politics that the odds of them ever forming a stable government are damn near impossible. However, the ideas that they do hold are downright terrifying in what they could do to you.

I've never understood the political fear of Libertarians.

"Sure, they're not in power now, but someday they might take over and... uh, leave you alone, I guess, since that's kind of their whole deal."

It's like being afraid of cats.

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) November 3, 2022

Lest it sound like I'm just down on libertarians, I'm not really. Libertarian ideology actually has a few principles in personal liberty, property rights, freedom of speech, and various decriminalization ideas that I do admire. However, most of that was coopted from it's original libertarian socialists/anarchists of the late 20th century and bastardized into an extremely schizophrenic defense of laissez-faire capitalism, which means many of the good things about the ideology do come from a completely different place in the political spectrum. That one of the main ideas of libertarianism is that it wants to completely dismantle many existing government regulations on just about everything and let "the market" take over is really just an enormous problem. Essentially, while I like their take on personal liberty and rights, I find their look at trying to craft a society to be downright horrific.

I've written a bit before using fictional examples of how this is probably a bad idea, but I'd like to just make a quick summary of why that is. For reference, in the Libertarian Party's platform is a stated desire to allow employers to refuse to recognize a worker made union, effectively negating the leverage of collective bargaining or such protections. While it is not against unions, it does not offer any protection or inherit legitimacy, which is an enormous blow to the mere existence of labor organizing when one traces its history.

Secondly, it supports free market solutions to healthcare. The free market solutions in the United States as it already exists are so hideously expensive and inefficient in delivering care that it's near cartoonish, and this is with minimal government intervention in the healthcare system. Among wealthy nations it has the highest rate of hospitalizations from preventable causes, and the highest number of deaths from preventable causes. Quite simply, it spends an enormous amount of money on healthcare, while creating an enormous financial barrier to actually seeking that care (indeed, most bankruptcies in the US result from unexpected medical spending). Any objective analysis would conclude that the problem rests with the issue of making healthcare a commodity rather than a public service, but the Libertarian Party concludes the opposite.

Thirdly, it supports market based solutions to the environmental crisis. This is, put simply, almost so ludicrous that it barely rates a comment. However, it is an insidious idea that is in vogue that we can simply use the free market to get out of climate change, even though oil and gas companies spent decades running climate denial propaganda, and private corporations are notoriously unaccountable for the environmental damage they cause, while overselling their commitment to fighting it. But the market will solve all!

While these are just small examples of what is really wrong with the Libertarian platform and ideology, let me swing this back to Snowden's original message. He says "Sure, they're not in power now, but someday they might take over and... uh, leave you alone, I guess, since that's kind of their whole deal."

Let's look at this for a second; on one hand, he's saying that with a Libertarian government they will say "We can't tell you what to do," and well, sure, here's a question? What's the flip side of "we can't tell you what to do?" It's "You can't tell me what to do."

That's where the problem sets in. It's a similar problem I have with anarchism, where it depends very much on community norms and peer pressure to enforce conformity, but in libertarian ideology the extreme emphasis on individualism creates a Randian nightmare where what you want doesn't really matter if no one is going to bother to help you. With one ideal of libertarian ideology being a "night watchmen state" which merely enforces contracts through the judiciary and police, while enforcing the 'non-aggression principle' through the same and defending liberty with an army, the ability to do much beyond basic property rights becomes a bit complicated.

Broadly speaking this is a problem with both libertarianism and anarchism since both tend to look at the vacuum a loss of government function would create and assume utopia. As the old adage goes, nature abhors a vacuum and so something must fill it. In the libertarian world that's the market, which as I lay out in my longer essay, has no accountability to the public good. 

As an example, let's say for instance that a company builds a factory on a river. Since there is no regulation on what kind of waste they can dump into that river, they begin dumping harmful industrial byproducts into it. This causes the local environment to be poisoned, leading to the drinking water supply of a local town to be contaminated and people die. Naturally, some people will organize and try and sue the company that caused it. In the libertarian philosophy, case closed, but is it? Quite a lot depends on the people being able to afford a good legal team, and a company which has the capital to build that factory in the first place will almost overwhelmingly be able to afford a good legal team (or potentially SLAPP suit the problem away before it starts). The corporate legal team will almost inevitably win this, and the people who have lost loved ones or who are still living with a poisoned water supply will still have that problem. The overwhelming legal defense for the corporation might be "it was their individual responsibility to prepare for what might happen, no one stopped them from looking into living downriver from a factory might be like, it's their fault if they weren't prepared!"

If that seems like a ludicrous idea, projective personal responsibility onto the victim, allow me to refer you to the story of the MacDonald's Hot Coffee lawsuit. Despite becoming the poser child for a frivolous lawsuit, most of what you know about the case is actually wrong. The victim, Stella Liebeck, was a 79 year old woman who was in a parked car when she accidentally spilled coffee on herself, because the coffee was at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C) it caused third degree burns to her legs an genitals, nearly killing her, requiring extensive surgeries and skin grafts, costing 20,000$. Liebeck merely wanted her medical expenses covered, but MacDonald's framed this as a case of greed, among a litany of other crazy claims. Indeed, this was framed as a 'personal responsibility issue" and a concentrated effort was made to portray this as a "clumsy, greedy woman wanted money for her own mistake" rather than "company serves coffee capable of melting skin" to the public. That Liebeck won was astonishing.

Though let me give you another, more concretely libertarian example. In his book A Libertarian Walks into a Bear,  tells the story of personal liberty run amok in a New Hampshire town called Grafton. A weird mix of libertarian activists moved in and, effectively, took over the town government. They cut services to the bone, paring down police, fire, road maintenance, and even the public library to an absurd degree to the point where they almost existed in name only. The town's legal fees skyrocketed because it became an extremely litigation heavy region, the local police force was so handicapped by budget cuts that they could hardly ever put their single police cruiser on the increasingly pothole cratered roads for fear it was so unsafe, and the number of accidents and medical incidents practically overwhelmed what medical services were available.

The title comes from the fact that, by doing away with bylaws and many other ordinances that prevented big groups of people from living in the woods, trash began to be dumped everywhere. So bears showed up. With easy food, and some people even feeding them just because they enjoyed it, bears lost their fear of humans. That led to confrontations and bear attacks. When some frustrated people got mad at people who fed the bears, they were told that anything that happened wasn't really the bear feeders problem.

As I said, the flip side of "we can't tell you what to do" is "you can't tell me what to do" and as seen here, with the government pared down to nothing, life got immeasurably worse as no one bothered to take responsibility for anything. The book did show a fascinating divide among the libertarian ideology, and how many people had such broad ideas on what libertarianism is. The author treats most of the people sympathetically, and does an excellent job showcasing the slow motion collapse of a civil society. While he treats the people with sympathy (and occasional incredulity) I can say for certain that there was a lot of "fuck you, got mine" on display, which unfortunately tends to be a very common underlying theme in many proponents of libertarianism. 

These examples are, overall, just a few reasons why people are genuinely afraid of libertarianism politically. While the broad ideas of freedom and individual liberty are indeed admirable, they come attached to a series of poorly thought out other political ideas. From dismantling healthcare to effectively ceding economic primacy to unaccountable corporations, libertarian political emphasis on individual freedom does not make up for the broad structural damage it could introduce from a lack of protections or responsibility. 

My Stoic Journey

A few year ago now I stumbled across the idea of stoicism from fellow blogger Jeffery Brooks. It was mere chance that I saw a post he had done on the nature of stoic philosophy and down a rabbit hole I began to travel. It has been an exciting journey of self discovery I would love to share with you!

Stoicism is, in a nutshell, an ancient philosophy which teaches the value of self control through the practice of virtue. The idea is that if one practices virtue, you can become a clear and unbiased thinker. Practicing virtue leads to a better life, and focusing only on what you can control, your reaction to things, allows you to weather the blows of life better than simply giving in to base emotions. The power of the stoic philosophy is well put by one of its greatest thinkers Epictetus:

Philosophy does not promise to secure anything external for man, otherwise it would be admitting something that lies beyond its proper subject-matter. For as the material of the carpenter is wood, and that of statuary bronze, so the subject-matter of the art of living is each person's own life. (Discourses 1.15.2)

The stoic philosophy extolls the four cardinal virtues. These are; wisdom, justice, courage, and temperance. In the stoic mind the evils of the world follow from ignorance of these principles, or men acting out against their nature, or the innate logic of nature (the logos). Practicing and refining your life around these virtues then is a goal to be strived for and it is not merely a set of spiritual beliefs but something to be strived for. There is an art to stoic living, one that requires, like exercise, constant practice and refinement.

In order to better understand this refinement, the words of the Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, can still be easily read in his accidental book of philosophy Meditations. The private thoughts of an emperor written down for personal consumption, they are the innermost reflections of one of the most powerful men in the world as he chides himself, tries to direct his energies to a more productive use, and reminds himself that he is mortal and fallible. Indeed, one can take some of his thoughts and reflect on it well every morning to cope with life's stresses:

“Say to yourself first thing in the morning: today I shall meet people who are meddling, ungrateful, aggressive, treacherous, malicious, unsocial. All this has afflicted them through their ignorance of true good and evil. But I have that the nature of good is what is right, and the nature of evil what is wrong; and I reflected that the nature of the offender himself is akin to my own -- not a kinship of blood or seed, but a sharing in the same mind, the same fragment of divinity. Therefore I cannot be harmed by any of them, as none will infect me with their wrong. Nor can I be angry with my kinsman or hate him. We were born for cooperation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of upper and lower teeth. So to work in opposition to one another is against nature: and anger or rejection is opposition.” (Meditations, Book II.I)

It was not with that great and venerable emperor philosopher I began my journey however, it was through the work of Massimo Pigliucci in his work How to be a Stoic. It is an easily accessible book, with diagrams and endless personal anecdotes on the stoic lifestyle, its challenges, and how to live by what the ancient philosophers said. His work is easy to read for a philosopher novice, and he draws heavily on the works of others and tries to break down their language so that it is more accessible to a 21st century reader. Through it all he succeeds admirably, and does a very concise job in showing you the path to living a stoic lifestyle.

I immediately followed this by reading Epictetus's Discourses. It is a good read, but one that is much better suited to someone who has studied philosophy before. Going onwards I immediately read Meditations, which has stood the test of nearly a thousand years! Edited into digestible chunks, it is merely the musings of Marcus Aurelius. Easy to read for many and something that should be read and appreciated!

From there I read a few of the works of Seneca and Cicero, both great writers and thinkers in their own ways. My most recent read however, was from a very modern source, Nancy Sherman's Stoic Wisdom: Ancient Lessons for Modern Resilience. 

Sherman writes in a very conversational style, only occasionally drawing on the exact words of the ancient writers and instead utilizing her own personal knowledge of stoicism to inform you on how to apply this ancient wisdom to your modern life. From hectic schedules, to cellphones, to the pandemic (which struck as she was writing it) she applies the different ideas of stoic virtues and ways of living/thinking which are so useful to stoics. I sincerely recommend this accessible read to anyone hoping to see how this ancient philosophy is very applicable to their modern lives!

For my own part, having accessed Pigliucci's work and then read through the stoics and managed to try my hand at the stoic way of living through the wisdom of these sages, and finally more recently through the work of Sherman, I am attempting to incorporate its practices into my everyday life. Whether it's Marcus Aurelius's admonishment for every morning, or simply remembering there is very little I can have physical control over in my life, I attempt to bring those ancient ideas forward.

What has been of some great comfort is that stoic practice has directly influenced modern cognitive behavioral therapy, which I also practice. I remind myself what I can control, what I can or should think about, and set concrete expectations on what I can do. It has been very helpful living in these trying times.

Stoic thought too has influenced Christianity, with the Apostle Paul using stoic arguments and metaphors in his epistles to the early churches. The stoic virtues and ideas of consistently refining yourself to the rigors of modern life and the world have resonated with Christian audiences, and can be very useful in guiding the Christian faith. At least I have found so anyways.

Stoicism is though, a powerful philosophy for the modern world. A series of ideas and practices which have withstood the test of time and are as applicable to life now as they were when the first stoic, Zeno, began to spell out his thoughts to his followers all those millennia ago! Hopefully these ideas have been instructive and offer a little glimpse of the philosophy I enjoy, and hopefully you can explore these resources and find out more for yourself as well!

Freehold and Jennifer Government: The Ideas

Picking up from where I left off in Part 1 of this analysis, I shall expand on why I think that the societies portrayed in both Freehold and Jennifer Government are fundamentally the same. Though first, I will begin on spelling out the inherent differences.

The first, and perhaps most important thing to point out is that each is set in a different genre and telling very different stories. Freehold is a work of science fiction set far in the future telling a refugee and war story fleshing out the authors view of a realistic libertarian society with minimalist government and maximum personal freedom. Jennifer Government on the other hand is a satire set on present day Earth which instead takes rampant consumerism and corporate greed to its absurdist conclusion while also pointing out the de-fanged nature of a minimalist state and the problems that would cause.

Different genres, different aims, and very different stories.

Picture is my own

With that in mind though, I do want to explore why these societies are almost twins of one another.

“The idea of freedom is inspiring. But what does it mean? If you are free in a political sense but have no food, what's that? The freedom to starve?” - Angela Davis

Firstly, the society of Freehold has a very simple ethos "work or starve" which to some might seem reasonable. This will only effect the parasites who leach off the system of course!

Unfortunately, any dispassionate examination of economic reality would lay this brutal all or nothing system bare for the failure it is. It is a very inhumane dog-eat-dog ideology which rests at its core on an unworkable idea. This idea is that everyone has an equal starting point when engaging in economic activity. No one has any innate advantage over another person or everyone is capable of contributing to society equally. This idea is very much in error.

Now, I just want to make clear this is not necessarily a problem with libertarian thought per-say, but a problem with both libertarian and anarcho-capitalist economic thinking. It is fundamentally obvious that not all men are created equal. Some are born poor, some rich, some stronger, taller or weaker, shorter and so on. That divides the playing field at birth.

As an example, someone born into a poor family will very much be handicapped by their lack of access to greater resources or even basic living costs on some hands. Studies have shown that it is extremely difficult for those born into poverty to advance beyond that line, leading to an endless cycle. In some cases and countries this can be overcome, but it does tend to rely on government assistance or grants and loans, whether unemployment insurance or school loans in order to attend higher education.

Someone born into a wealthier family by contrast, has many advantages. They do not need to worry about the struggle for daily needs like food and rent, they have much more access to both higher education and the social circles which allow for social advancement. Whether the option of choosing more prestigious (and better connected) private schools or the simple expedient of not having to rely on loans to even get a higher education, someone born into a wealthy family has an inordinate advantage over someone born poor or even to a middle class family.

In that vein, let me use an example from Freehold. When Kendra arrives on the Freehold, she is sent to a job agent to try and find employment:

“I realize there may not be anything in inventory or a related area,” Kendra acknowledged. “But I can do loading, stocking or whatever, until something administrative shows up.”
“The problem is,” Calan explained, “that all the light jobs get snatched up by juveniles looking for spending money, veterans get preference for technical positions and unskilled heavy jobs are rare, with the industrial base we have. If you can lift fifty kilos regularly in this climate, I can find a few, but they don’t pay well.”
“Fifty?” She repeated, shocked. “No, not for very long.”
“That is the detail. I can recommend a couple of prospects that usually aren’t hiring, but will probably make an exception for you. They both offer training. Cavalier Enterprises and Bellefontaine.”
“What would I be doing?”
“Cavalier Enterprises is one of the most respected escort services in Jefferson. They offer dancers, modeling, escorts for business or social functions, massage and exotic sex fantasies. The Bellefontaine is a club that offers erotic dancing and they specialize in dancers with rare or off-world looks.”
Kendra was silent in amazement. A chill shot down her spine and all the way to her left heel. She opened her mouth twice and finally got out, “No.”
“They are both excellent companies,” Calan stated simply. “I occasionally visit the Bellefontaine myself.”

The obvious problem here is that, outside easily lost menial labor, Kendra has no real special skills. The implication too is that if she were not attractive she would probably have no choice but to work in backbreaking menial labor which would slowly grind her down. In essence, she has no negotiating power in the system and if she had not gone over the head of her agent and asked for other options she would have been trapped, but the point stands that if she did not have other skills which were deemed useful she would have been stuck with the physical labor.

In comparison, the hapless Hack Nike has both a self-esteem problem and a negotiating problem. He always gets screwed at his quarterly wage negotiations because he won't stick up for himself. A problem with consistently negotiating your wages is that you don't really have the power to properly negotiate if you're bad at that very act or have no one to negotiate on your behalf. Hell, the problems Hack faces are that he then foolishly subcontracts away from the contract he didn't read before he signed!

Problematically we also see that corporations themselves will penalize individual employees in the world of Jennifer Government for things as mad as their replacement at a job might not be as good as them. This of course can be interpreted as satire, and arguably should be, but the process of rewarding or punishing employees based on successes isn't exactly a new idea.

Essentially you do not have freedom of choice in these societies, you have an illusion of freedom. When the alternative is starvation and death perhaps not just for yourself but for your family, then whoever has your paycheck in their hands has you at their mercy and the power imbalance would be absolutely catastrophic.

I'd next like to address the bigger problem in both worlds, lack of government intervention and corporate accountability.

“Accountability. This is the primary ingredient missing in politics, corporations and financial institutes.” ― Brandon A. Trean

From dreamstime.com

In the world of Jennifer Government the government is a joke and corporate oversight is a laughable concept. The paraphrase Ayn Rand through Robert Heinlein "I would say that my position is not too far from that of Ayn Rand's; that I would like to see government reduced to no more than internal police and courts, external armed forces — with the other matters handled otherwise. I'm sick of the way government sticks its nose in everything, now." The government only exists to adjudicate disputes and prevent crime, or enforce punishment if you can afford it. Ironically in that world they don't even seem to have a monopoly on military power! The Freehold is much the same. The government exists only to adjudicate, prevent crime, and keep invaders at bay. At least they appear to have the monopoly on force though.

However, it should be noted in each case that the government in each world is, effectively, powerless. While this is part of the driving plot of Jennifer, in Freehold it is a very background case.

As an example, the government adjudicates lawsuits between individuals and presumably corporations. The biggest scandal presented in Freehold is that since there are no government standards, private corporations, three large ones specifically (several smaller are mentioned, but for all intents and purposes that is irrelevant) are ratings firms who rate various products based on their reliability and quality. It turns out one firm has had employees taking bribes to up ratings and as this news leaks consumers boycott the company and it devolves into a mass of lawsuits.

Simple enough right? The lawsuits will be taken care of and the companies guilty will be held responsible. In the real world we're quite aware this doesn't work, but on the Freehold this would be far, far worse. In an ideal world, this kind of whistle blowing would end up seeing a company held responsible for their misdeeds. However, a particular problem (especially in the US) is that the company could just begin handing out SLAPP lawsuits. In brief, a SLAPP lawsuits would be designed to censor and intimidate anyone who wants to harm either a corporation or a very powerful person. It is a pet tactic of Donald Trump and John Oliver has a very detailed piece on the matter which points out why it is so harmful since those handing them out can often afford to drown people in expensive legal action.

Boycotts rarely work in reality, and in a world where 'work or starve' is the ethos, then the consumer would have virtually no power to boycott. The journalists who leaked the stories would be SLAPPed silly, and the employees who took bribes would probably already have their asses covered by management if it weren't management in the first place colluding to get better money in exchange for hyping up products from certain companies, no matter how bad said product was.

This is by no means unrealistic. Whether it is colluding to fix the prices of ebooks, illegally manipulating interest rates for profit, fixing emissions tests to sell vehicles that let out too much poisonous gas, creating fake bank accounts without client consent, among other things, these are just a few examples of the blatantly illegal and manipulative practices carried out by both individual and colluding corporations to the clear detriment of the consumer. More notably, even in a world where we see governments coming down hard on these practices, many of these corporations still exist and can screw over their customers more.

What is worse, is that in Freehold and Jennifer Government, even the mild punishments experienced in real life are impossible. The corporation is only beholden to its bottom line, not the consumer.

In the case of the latter novel, the lack of ability to enforce such accountability is the driving theme. In the former, that lack of accountability means that Freehold would essentially be an oligarchy where the various corporations run wild and no one can do a thing about it.

The Freehold, unlike the United States and affiliate nations in Jennifer, does not even have a government capable of oversight. It doesn't even have a traditional democracy. Instead, it is 'run' by a Citizens Council. To whit:"Citizens pay for the privilege of ruling, getting a small stipend in return and the court fees paid are more generated income. The military and safety patrols charge for any assistance we render on duty and most of the large corporations donate a small percentage to the military as an insurance against our need in industrial accidents. They also use us as testing and advertising for any products we may find useful."

Now while that seems great in theory, I think you can see where this would fall apart rather horribly with where I've been going. It is explicitly stated Citizens do give up their means to wield their political power. However, there is nothing which says they cannot be given gifts to play favorites. Surely bringing out a Citizen for dinner is nothing suspicious, selling them a property at a discount, donating to their District upkeep among other means? There seem to be no restrictions on what a Citizen can receive from private residents of the Freehold, and then who would enforce those restrictions? Petty bribery is practically enshrined in the American system with dark money influencing politics and cushy jobs promised to retiring politicians in exchange for their support. In the Freehold that would be even more pronounced. And you would have no oversight body, Congress, Parliament or Supreme Court, to turn to for redress. They would almost inevitably be in the pockets of these corporations.

Much worse is that then the military has much of its funding (how much is never clear) coming from corporate donations as insurance against natural disasters and presumably social disorder. Would that extend to gifting the officers and certain men who needed to be influenced? Almost certainly. While in a throwaway line it is mentioned everyone on Freehold is armed well enough to overthrow the government if they chose, with the corporations controlling the products and the government, and the military in their pocked to back it up, well you have a recipe for corporate dominance.

Speaking of that dominance, let's discuss monopolies.

From wikimedia commons

"I am not denying that monopolies are terrible things, but I am denying that it is readily easy to dissolve them through legislation of that nature." ― Alan Greenspan

A monopoly is an economic situation where a single company controls access to a specific service completely. However, an oligopoly or a cartel, is where numerous companies control access to a resource and collude on how to distribute it. This can be seen today by the domination of certain industries by a small number of corporations. Two of the most infamous examples are Microsoft, which developed the idea of EEE (embrace, extend, extinguish) in order to try and corner the tech development market. The second is Walt Disney Studious which owns a truly disturbing number of mass media assets which is still being unraveled to this day.

Then we have the problem of oligopolies, where a small number of companies can collude to set prices or at least create an illusion of competition. This is seen in the case of mass media communications, such as four companies controlling over 90% of the cellular communications market in the US. In Canada this can be seen by three companies dominating the supermarket industry, four companies dominating the cellular communications industry, and three dominating the internet providers industry.

In Jennifer Government this is exactly the problem. Two massive corporate oligopolies, US Alliance and Team Advantage, dominate the market. You can either shop with them or you shop with no one and smaller stores simply go out of business. In fact the driving desire to win that competitive game nearly starts a shooting war! But the point is that consumers have an illusion of choice. They are deciding to eat at Burger King or Macdonalds, shop at Walmart or Sears, not go to the small business up the street. It is an either or situation which is being created. It's a terrifyingly real possibility.

On the Freehold you would most likely end up with an oligopoly by default. With no oversight and no method of redress, corporate dominance would just be the way it is.

This is possible because the free market does not necessarily bring the best ideas to the top. There is no invisible hand to guide and self-regulate it. Without a firm hand to stop someone from cornering a market, and many times even in spite of it, you have to work very hard to prevent the moneyed interests from simply dominating it as they see fit.

But all these dangerous signs aside, what about personal freedom?

"To change your mind and to follow him who sets you right is to be nonetheless the free agent that you were before" ― Marcus Aurelius 

In both worlds, we find lands of fairly astonishing personal freedom. Drive how you want, be as promiscuous as you desire and no one will shame you if its all in good fun. You can buy any weapon you want, even up to lethal missile systems and weapons of mass destruction (on Freehold at least). Drugs are easily available, you can legally go out and inebriate yourself to whatever level you desire. The worst thing you might do is violate a contract or fail to pay your debts.

But as discussed before, is this freedom?

Some would argue enthusiastically yes! Small government! Privatization is the way! But is it? Privatizing a public service not only has been found to cost the public more, but has yet to be shown to be either more efficient or safer. So arguments put forward by both protagonists (and antagonists) in each story can be very, very detached from reality.

Neither society would have any means, beyond charity, of helping people in need. Whether it is something as simple as community snow removal, or even providing healthcare to the needy, an absence of a government to step in and attempt to provide these services, you would instead find widespread suffering and poverty. The corporation doesn't care.

What happens when personal freedoms begin to get in the way of profits? Could they then coerce or attempt to regulate those freedoms away or make a profit from punishing disobedience? Punish consumers by hiking prices or denying access, or simply invoke their monopoly and put people out in the cold who attempt to pressure them? All real possibilities by non government entities.

Truthfully, Jennifer Government is a very keen expansion on what the Freehold would devolve into. There are no elections, and those who govern are going to become either impotent and irrelevant or simply cronies of a larger for profit driven machine. Dissent is either pointless or a death sentence, and over time the very idea will be foreign with the brutal reality of your society laid out for you. But if enough people, and well armed people at that, become desperate enough, would work or starve make fight or die an option?

The end of these societies might then end up being all out war between those on top, or all out war against those on top from the bottom up.

Either way, these two societies are twins of each other I think, perhaps not in the way their authors imagine. While Freehold is meant to show off a 'realistic' libertarian society, and an interesting one is created to be fair, that very liberty and lack of oversight brings to mind more images of the world of Jennifer Government. Vast corporate dominance of global affairs and no one who can reign them in. The little man on the bottom had best get out of the way.

Freehold and Jennifer Government: The Stories

As part of my Great 2020 Re-read I took it upon myself to go back to two novels of varying seriousness. One was a novel I picked up a decade ago, Michael Z. Williamson's Freehold which is a guilty pleasure of mine, and the other is Jennifer Government by Max Barry. One is an interesting story of an alternate society in the far future, while another is a satirical look at a society in the near future. Both are ironically, fundamentally the same society.

That though is a rather simplistic explanation with a broad brush. On the surface they are extremely different, with different cultures, naming conventions, and even different planets. The ideology that unites them however, is fundamentally the same.

First though, let us introduce our two focus cases. First up is the novel I originally read, Freehold.

From Wikimedia Commons

This was the debut novel by Michael Z. Williamson, for Baen Books. Published in 2004 it was his first full length novel and though it shows at points, it is still an exciting read. My original review still does stand, though I've soured more on some aspects of the story over the years.

Set roughly in the 26th century, it tells the story of Kendra Pacelli as she flees unjust charges of embezzlement in the military on the UN dominated Earth to the only independent planet in human colonized space, the Freehold of Grainne. Self described as "the first truly free society in human history" it is set up as a libertarian paradise (more on that in Part 2) and is meant to be a contrast to the bureaucratic nightmare of Earth. You can do almost anything you want, so long as you are willing to accept the consequences for your actions. Own any weapons you like, drive however erratically you like, love who you like, and sign whatever contract you feel free to. No one is forcing you after all!

Kendra experiences quite a lot of culture shock, but eventually adjusts to her life in the new colony.

When political friction between Grainne and Earth forces her to move into the military, we spend a huge portion of the second act looking in depth at military training on Freehold. It is brutal, harsh, and very difficult. Kendra passes and officially joins the Freehold Military Forces. As she was in logistics in her old military life, she fits right in to logistics in her new one. Getting into the groove of her new job, she again gets caught up with Earth/Grainne tensions as 100,000 malcontents are shipped into the Freehold to stir up trouble. They succeed masterfully, and the UN government declares they are going to annex the Freehold for their own good.

Of course, this leads to war and the UN invades. Needless to say though, that for all the well portrayed horrors of war, the Freehold wins by some pretty far reaching deus ex machina which probably could have been better concentrated on with both a wider cast of characters and some further research. The war largely did depend on a very 20th/21st century understanding of strategic warfare and combat to be believable.

That said, it is a guilty pleasure read, and I fully acknowledge it. Worth a bit of a read if you find the idea interesting.

Now this next book, I actually have only very fuzzy recollections of where I picked it up. However, I do recall it being uproariously funny and I definitely read it shortly after reading Freehold. That book is Jennifer Government. Written in 2003, it is an excellent satire of rampant consumerism and corporatism, and turns on its head the idea that a dystopian future requires a totalitarian government!

From Wikimedia Commons

The story begins twenty minutes in the future where much of the world has become the US. Or literally, the United States has expanded into much of the world through corporate purchase. These countries have become part of the US led trade bloc, having gradually given away their sovereignty to become part of the largest, freest system in the world! There is minimal government, no elections, and you're free to do whatever you can afford! Just make sure you read that contract! People have done away with surnames, and you know yourself by the company you work for!

The world of Jennifer Government Blue = US led countries Red = non-US trade blocs Green = fragmented markets

By user Sannita, Wikimedia Commons

Enter one Hack Nike, who works as a middle merchandiser for Nike. One day his water cooler
malfunctions so he travels to the floor above him to try out the one there. It is here he meets John Nike and John Nike. They offer him a fast trace to advancement, he can help them whip up sales for a new line of shoes being sold, and all he has to do is kill some kids! Too bad he didn't read the contract before he signed it!

With all the madness going on enter Buy Mistui, who is unfortunately witness to one of the shootings. Helped out by the barcode tatooed agent Jennifer Government, they both end up on the path of a sociopathic businessman as another cast of colorful characters are sucked into the mayhem. From a militarized NRA gunning for Government agents, companies trying to crash each others servers, to shootouts on the Burger King floor, its a total madhouse as sales come before lives!

Written in 2003 it has some pre-internet vibes which do date the story. But it does really capture consumerism gone mad as corporations have license to do whatever they want since unless you have money, you can't really bring them to task since the government has no right to tax in order to set a budget.

This really complicates the life of Jennifer as she has difficulty going after the bad guys when they do bad things. She's being constantly asked where the money is going to come from, whether she could do things to cause less collateral damage (and therefore expose the government to lawsuits) and if she's sure she can even bring the executives to justice if she has the evidence. Money doesn't grow on trees after all. Meanwhile, if you have the cash the Police can investigate crimes or prevent them preemptively, but it will still cost you. And if there's an emergency, have your credit card number ready so you can pay in advance before they respond!

Other than the murder investigation, the main conflict is between two major loyalty programs taken to its logical extreme. US Alliance and Team Advantage compete against one another to have the biggest consumer base on the block, and John Nike is determined that his side, US Alliance, is going to win big. He is going to wipe out the competition.

As this is written as a satire the humor comes from the over the top situations and unlikely circumstances our many poor characters find themselves in or the ridiculous extremes they will go to in order to get the win. I had quite a few laugh out loud moments, especially as one poor side character Billy Bechtel kept running across Jennifer Government in the worst ways possible. All the poor man wants to do is go skiing! The outlandish desire for consumerism people showed was pretty funny. Late in the novel Jennifer and her partner Calvin are running through a riot and Calvin keeps getting distracted by the good deals he sees.

Its a funny story with a very satisfying conclusion and I genuinely want a laugh about our society and consumerism. Really takes the piss out in an enjoyable way. If you want a laugh in this mad modern world, very worth a read.

With the stories out of the way; why do I think they portray the same society? In worlds where the market is unchecked and money talks, what do you think would happen? Stay tuned for Part 2 as I launch into a much more long winded explanation!

The Super Soldier Conundrum

Recently I read an article regarding the very unhealthy obsession Western media has had for the Spartan mythos. While it does concentrate on the modern far right's unhealthy obsession with what has always been a deeply problematic image, it did get me thinking about one other aspect of the Spartan image. The super soldier.

Now, perhaps the most well understood modern reference to the super soldier is the men and woman of the SPARTAN program from the Halo franchise. I admit, I grew up on those video games and surrounding media, and found them cool, as any young adult uninformed about the horrors of war would. What did help was that the novels by Eric Nylund, especially Fall of Reach, went to great lengths to describe the blatant immorality and cruelty in the creation of the SPARTAN program. Essentially kidnapping and torturing children to create a group of well trained and augmented soldiers superior to any individual soldier produced via natural training.

Naturally though, this does raise the question of what purpose an augmented super soldier actually serves? Especially in a science fiction setting where a warship in orbit is probably far more useful than an augmented super soldier on the ground in most situations. Sure a squad of elite super soldiers faster and more deadly than a platoon of regular men may be useful in a surgical strike, but would they actually be worth more in an age of nuclear arms and guided missiles? The obvious rejoinder would be that even today special forces serve a purpose, for surgical strikes and to help gain information, but they are not war winners by themselves. Even a group with exponentially more ability than the modern SAS or Navy Seals would be of questionable utility in many respects vs slightly more augmented regular soldiers.

To be honest, creating a super soldier program makes very little sense. It offers no innate advantage over regular special forces outside specific context, and the costs/morality is something which is horrific to consider. Unless you are engaged in infinite war, like the Space Marines in Warhammer 40k, then you really don't have a use for them. And even if you do construct them, what on earth do you do with them in peace time?

My own, as yet unpublished novella Integration, deals with this idea. Could a super soldier really reintegrate into society peacefully? Can they even be seen as anything other than a threat by the government which created them? Would someone indoctrinated into military service be able to just hop back into civilian society without issues?

Ultimately, this is really an answer for fiction to think about. Well, so far at least...

2312

Another one not for the re-read, but this is yet again a great science fiction work! Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is another by Kim Stanley Robinson. I take you to the future, three centuries from when it was penned. The exciting world of 2312.

From Amazon

We start our primer to the 24th century on Mercury. There the great mobile city of Terminator crawls ahead of the ever pursuing sun, allowing for the permanent colonization of the planet. Enter our protagonist Swan Er Hong, an artist on the planet out doing a 'sun walk' a journey of staying just ahead of the deadly star. Her famous grandmother, Alex, the Lion of Venus, has just died. Swan is gathering in the city with her family and friends, when she meets with a representative from the Saturnian league a 'toad faced' fellow named Fitz Wahram who was also a friend of Alex's. Even before the funeral is complete however, things get strange. An inspector from Interplan (think the Space Police) Jean Genette, comes asking if Alex had any enemies.

Little does Swan know, but her grandmother was involved in a Solar System spanning plan. It centered around the Mondragon Accords, which were to develop a semi-planned economy for Earth and all the settled planets, moons, and terrariums which act as floating habitats for humanity in the void. All of these are looked over by qubes, small quantum computers with advanced AI in them. The AI though, are not truly self-aware. But if that is the case, why was Alex so intent on keeping her work away from the artificial eyes of qubes? And why did she keep so much hidden from Swan and the qube implanted in her head, Pauline?

This sparks a long journey around the Solar System, from the mobile city of Terminator on Mercury, to the great ridge covered moon of Saturn, Iapetus. We take a floating tour of where humanity has advanced to in the 24th century and get to bask in how far we have come, but also how far we have fallen.

We see that Earth is still a place of extreme inequality, and great desperation. The sea level has risen by 11 meters in the past few centuries, flooding great metropolises like New York, and sending entire coastlines to the bottom of the ocean. The only ice sheets left are in Antarctica and Greenland. Meanwhile the ravages of global warming have led to mass extinctions, great desertification, and billions dependent on food grown in the many thousands of terrariums and then shipped down the orbital elevators to feed Earth's masses.

Meanwhile, in space those living on the terrariums have lives of great luxury. They have access to quality healthcare, need to worry little about their material health, and can afford to undergo many progressive gene therapies to live long and happy lives measuring over a century, or in some cases two and maybe more! Mars has been terraformed, and Venus is well on its way to being turned into another Earth, but one with a substantially higher gravity. The moons of Jupiter and Saturn are being colonized and terraformed, and the future outside of Earth seems very bright.

Terrarium, by Tom McDowell

Naturally, this sparks resentment from peoples on Earth. They feel left behind or resentful of spacers, and that they live in luxury while the majority of humanity does poorly. The spacers then feel that the Earthers are ungrateful, backwards and unwilling to work to solve their own problems.

This is one of the central conflicts of the story as Swan and Wahram go back and forth between the habitats of the Solar system and Earth, trying to continue the secret project that Alex's grandmother was working on. But the issue of the qubes also looms large throughout the entire story.

Exploring the Earth and the settled solar system in this story makes for an engaging read, and that we do it through the eyes of two characters who alternately detest and desire one another, is pretty fun.

Swan is a very headstrong, antisocial, and - even by the standards of the 24th century - heavily augmented woman. She has undergone numerous gene therapies, had a qube directly transplanted into her head, and even eaten lifeforms found on the oceans of the moon Enceladus. With all this, she has trouble with people, and a difficult past which continuously haunts her, giving her trouble beyond her comfort zone. It also makes her short tempered, and not extremely understanding of the motivations of others. This proves quite capable of biting her in the ass on occasion.

In contrast we have Wahram, who is slow, methodical, and not nearly as ready to jump into extreme situations. He has lived for years around Saturn, working as necessary, and supporting a small family creche he is apart of. His friendship with Alex was because he believed in her vision of the Mondragon Accords unifying humanity through an interdependent economic system, and using the terrariums to help keep species that had gone extinct on Earth alive. Whether Swan can live up to that vision is anybody's guess.

The relationships of these two is central to the plot, making for a kind of cute read.

Our supporting cast is fairly small. Mqaret, Swan's grandfather, plays a the role of an elder father figure to Swan, helping her in the background. Jean Genette, the Interplan inspector who is galavanting about the Solar system on his mission to find out if Alex's fears of the qubes has any basis, and finally Kiran, a boy who rescues Swan from the slums of New York for rescuing her, and he is inadvertently thrown into the chaotic workings of the governing body of Venus, the Venusian Working Group.

Each character has an important role to play in the overall plot, and they do each help round things out to a satisfying conclusion in the end.

The plot itself is not what one would call, action packed. It is more driven by drama, emotional soul searching, and trying to piece out whether any of the main casts fears are actually there at all. It does make for some interesting overarching mysteries. We do have some very fun action sequences though, and bits of adventuring and derring do which would not look out of place on older classics. The scenarios will look very familiar to other sci-fi lovers!

This story though, is largely one which revolves around an interplanetary adventure and romance. It manages to tell both stories quite well I think, and I did not find myself getting bored, even if I admittedly skimmed a few more emotional soul searching internal dialogues. The interactions between the lead characters were always fun, and made for good ways to build both tension and the world around them. With the secondary characters fleshing things out, an amazing story came to light as I progressed through their adventures.

The way the story is set, with chapter headings telling you who we will be seeing and then extracts from in universe documents giving important context and background, the reader will never feel totally lost.

What really sucks you in is the amazing work done on building this vision of the lead up to the year 2312, how the Solar system works, and an honest examination of how, despite all the progress, humanity has not achieved utopia. This was a futuristic setting which I couldn't get enough of. It was familiar enough that I could grasp much of what was going on, while being alien enough that I had a little trouble wrapping my head around many of the concepts in it. That said, it was amazingly conceived and I loved all the detail that went into crafting such a complex and nuanced future, but one not so alien as to be impenetrable. It presented problems, and was bold enough not to decide on easy solutions.

Anyone who earnestly enjoys good science fiction would also be sucked into this world I think, and I believe you too will be happily drawn into the world of 2312. Please enjoy this one!

Atlas Shrugged Part III

God alone knows how, but the producers managed to waste enough money to make three of these dumb movies. It took a small fortune to create these disasters, but it took them only an hour to drain my brain of any, even halfhearted, enthusiasm for watching this last film! As before, please check out the reviews of this film alongside my friend Andrew over at I Choose to Stand where he looks at all three like me!

After Part II bombed even more spectacularly than the first film, making less than a quarter of its stated budget back, the series seemed to be in some limbo for a while. There was even talk of optioning it for a musical (God wouldn't that have been annoying?) way back when. However, this fortunately (sadly?) did not come to pass and instead they did what they had done for the last two installments, scrapped the old cast and hired all new actors making things even more confusing for people.

In a now hilariously familiar story, the budget for this film was only half of its predecessors, with some 440,000$ of that being raised on Kickstarter. Really, this film should have been called Atlas Shrugged Part III: The Search For More Money. In should come as no surprise that from a budget of 5 million, the film made only 800,000$ back at the box office. Considering what this was, even in comparison to Part III of the book, there isn't any question of why it bombed even worse than it's predecessors.

Now as someone who had read the book I will admit full disclosure to being interested to seeing Part III of this film series. It was, in themes, set pieces and story, very different from the first two parts which can be very well described as "business people talking business" with some bland mystery coloring the background.

Part III of the novel however, had one large section of ideological screed, followed by some rather entertaining pulpy action bits and the close up examination of society collapsing. Trains stop running, harvests are left to rot, and sections of the country break into open civil war. It's actually rather gripping stuff as we see the United States collapse into anarchy as part of the plan by the megalomaniacs heroes of the story.

Atlas Shrugged Part II

So we come to Part II of this nonsense, and let me tell you it just gets sillier from here. If you have missed it, my friend and fellow blogger Andrew Cowie has also done a review for this film over on his blog I Choose to Stand and it is well worth reading!

After the first installment of the Atlas Shrugged trilogy bombed fantastically. The idiots Randian heroes who had made this film decided rather than let the free market do the talking as their own philosophy would compel them to do, they were going to double down on their idea and decided the world must learn of the brilliance of their prophet's ideology.

The only problem was that now, after making less than a quarter of their budget back from the first film, the plan of financing it with profits was no longer feasible. The strategy? Hire an all new cast because keeping actors is expensive! Well, there was also a massive debt sale in order to keep the film afloat, and a big investment of personal funds. Apparently this film, when you tally up marketing and everything, cost as much as the first one. If that was the case oh boy did it have problems.

It seems that the other portion of the plan was to stoke the public's expectations by keeping it from being screened by critics pre-release so everyone would have to be surprised and appalled at the same time. This fantastically misleading article from Fox News in 2012 has the producer John Aglialoro stating "The integrity of the critics are going off a cliff...Why should I give them the sword and they are just going to use to decapitate me with?" The article of course blames the 'Liberal Media' for casting the movie down, but as a National Post review of Part I by Peter Foster notes: "Still, if it sinks without trace, its backers should at least be proud that they lost their own money."

Turns out, the film wasn't proud with just losing its own money, it didn't even need to give anyone else the sword to decapitate itself! The film made even less money than the first, and received an even lower rating from critics and audiences alike!

Why might that be you ask?

Atlas Shrugged Part I

Years and years ago, my teen self made a monumental mistake. I discovered a supposedly great work of fiction which, according to some people I knew, would change my life. To their credit, they weren't wrong. However, the book I read Atlas Shrugged did not change my life for the better. Instead, it left me knowing what true evil felt like. The magnum opus of philosopher madwoman (and Superman arch nemesis)  Ayn Rand, it was written explicitly to solidify her economic, philosophical and political codes. Essentially, this is the Bible of the weird philosophy of Objectivism.

This strange little philosophy has had a disproportionate effect on world economics and thinking, especially in the United States of America. It has influenced politicians, philosophers, gurus, and most significantly, the head of the United States Federal Reserve who oversaw the disastrous policies leading to the 2008 Financial Crisis. Some would say that isn't a coincidence. Reading its long drawn out piece was misery personified.

Imagine then, to my chagrin, discovering way back in 2015, that after years of simmering in development hell some fanatic acolyte far sighted visionary John Aglialoro, had finally decided to bring Ayn Rand's creation to the screen.

God Help Us

Now, for a quick cliff notes version of Objectivism. Essentially it is be selfish for selfishness sake. To use the fancier terms, pursue your own enlightened self interest (rational egoism) and that laissez-faire capitalism is the only system which can allow you to pursue this. There's more boring 'metaphysical' stuff about how true reality can be expressed through art or human will, but its dull as watching paint dry so Rand wrote a book. Atlas Shrugged is intended to showcase how this life is to be lived. For a normal, sane person, it's pretty awful stuff.

Unsurprisingly, it has largely been roundly rejected by the civilized world and people at large, but, also unsurprisingly, rich right leaning white people tend to love it overwhelmingly.

Discussion over a movie adaptation has been in the works for decades, near since Rand first wrote it. However, while she was alive Rand was uncompromising with her vision and always demanded strict control over any script, something no producer or Hollywood exec was going to give her. Even after she died Objectivists still hoarded the story lest its purity be 'spoiled' by Hollywood elites. Eventually Aglialoro bought the rights, but numerous conflicts with writers and executives stalled the film from going anywhere. In the 2000s, there was talk of a two part series directed by Vadim Perelman, with people like Angelina Jolie apparently being considered to star. Finally, with the rights running out, in 2011 Aglialoro basically poured 20 million into this new film trilogy so he wouldn't lose them.

So what is there to say about this film?

Hang on a Minute: A Discussion of Execution

Recently, I found myself in the oddest discussion. At work I began talking about hangings with someone after we had been discussing the punishments of the earlier eras. How exactly the conversation got to this point I'll never know, but suddenly we were discussing hangings.

The concept of execution by hanging has been around for centuries. It is still the go to method of vigilante mobs, and the method of execution in Japan (where in July the plotter of the Tokyo Subway attacks was executed). In concept it is remarkably simple. In its more 'scientific' form, the condemned is dropped from a height calculated to break their neck and kill them instantly. In its simplest form, it chokes off the airways of an individual via strangulation. Either way, absent intervention, you're dead.

These kinds of executions were often carried out in public, and are a staple of films for just that reason. From the classic Clint Eastwood Westerns, Pirates of the Caribbean, to the oldest films first made. Heck, the last public execution in the United States was in 1936, the execution of Rainey Bethea in Kentucky, drawing a crowd of 20,000.

Public executions were common spectacles. Going as far back as society itself to show the power of the state. They were seen, apparently commonly, as a macabre form of entertainment. It was an interesting dual purpose in keeping the masses happy and showing the power of the state in one event. An interesting example in Canada is the execution of Patrick Whelan in 1869 at Ottawa. He was accused of killing Thomas D'Arcy McGee, and it is almost undeniable he was railroaded through a trial aimed purely at establishing his guilt. Some 5,000 people turned out to watch his execution.

It is interesting that, in my hometown of Perth Ontario, we also had a series of public hangings.

The story I am the most familiar with is the hanging of Thomas Easby in 1829. Easby, whose wife and four children were found dead in the charred remains of their log cabin. Only one child survived, and with rumors flying that Easby had killed his family, he was promptly adopted by a neighboring family. The story goes that the child would beat dolls and say "This is what daddy did to mommy" or when seeing a fire built, remark something similar. This led to Easby's arrest.

He was tried and convicted, and finally sentenced to death. It led to a public holiday in Perth allegedly "Schools were closed, work of all kinds suspended, and settlers came from all parts of the District, bringing with them their families to witness an event which it was hoped would have a great moral influence on the community." There was a sort of carnival atmosphere I have read, and many brought picnics to witness the spectacle.

The second public hanging took place in 1851, when Francis Beare was hung in front of the court house. Apparently many 'well dressed females' were in attendance for this killing. It seems as though people were eager to see justice done. Though it is mentioned there was less of a carnival atmosphere at this execution.

Now, what I did not know, was that the last execution in Perth took place in 1910, though it was not public. Rufus Weedmark was convicted of strangling his wife in 1910, and sentenced to hang. Since public executions were now no longer allowed, he was hanged inside the confines of the county jail. Apparently a 'great crowd' gathered around the jail, but could not see anything.

These are the only hangings that took place in Perth, but at no point did they fail to draw a crowd.

It is interesting that we are drawn to such grizzly spectacles, and that we can find so much fascination in reading about them. Now, not everyone does, as the woman I was having this conversation with felt that it was rather ghastly and moved on from it. Maybe we are heading away from such fascination with it.

However, considering I've just written this piece pondering on the subject of hangings, and you're reading it...maybe not.

Ender's Game

Hello again readers and welcome to my first post for November. Here I am going to be reviewing and commentating on a hot new film, Ender's Game which is of course based on the work of the same name by author Orson Scott Card.

In this review I'll be speaking on both the film and the controversy surrounding it, of which yes, there is quite a bit.

As an important (I think) aside, I have read neither the book Ender`s Game or any of Card`s other work save for one of his 'how to' books on writing and the book Empire. This isn't something I usually do but I felt that I wanted to see an awesome sci-fi movie and had too many other things on the go to stop and read the novel first.

Without further ado, let's sit back and take a look at Ender's Game!

The film starts out with a brief intro showing the first Formic invasion stating how the invasion had just barely been beaten off and that humanity was unprepared, which cost millions of innocent lives. Now humanity prepares for the next inevitable invasion. In order to win they need to get a commander who can lead them to victory. To that end humanity has established the Battle School where children are brought to train in the art of combat and leadership.

We start off with our title character Ender Wiggin (Asa Butterfield) as he fights another classmate in a scuffle over Ender's crushing defeat of said classmate in a simulation. The fight leaves the classmate bruised battered, and ultimately broken as Ender crushes him so that the bully will never pick on him again.

Little does Ender realize that this is all an elaborate test set up by the commander of Battle School, Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) who is a mentor figure and kingmaker looking for the next great commander to fight that battle against the Formics. For Ender's brutal beat down of the bully, and his justification that he wanted to ensure the bully never picked on him again he is promoted and sent to Battle School.

However, he is separated from his caring and empathetic sister Valentine (Abigail Breslin), and his sociopathic and overtly violent brother Peter. Ender has deep personal issues about which sibling he takes after most, he is terrified of his brother Peter, and loves his sister Valentine more than anyone else in the world. Who he most emulates is a character point the film latches onto really well and garners quite a bit of sympathy for Ender as he struggles with who he really is.

Meanwhile Ender excels in Battle School outperforming his fellow cadets in almost every way, along the way he makes friends with characters such as Bean, Petra (True Grit's, Hailee Steinfeld), Ali, and student antagonist, Bernard. Eventually he preforms so well that he is given command of his own army (Dragon Army) so he can prove his worth in the fighting to come.

I don't want to spoil the plot for those who haven't seen it, or to bore those who already know all the details from the novel. Needless to say the film is excellent in its pacing and how it touches on all the moral issues and the different ethical and personal relationships the characters in the film have.

From addressing the morality of child soldiers (brought up in a wonderful performance by Viola Davis) to the proposed genocide of the Formics in order to ensure they can never harm humanity again, and to the attitude to do what it takes to absolutely win the film touches upon many important issues. I particularly felt the impact of the child soldiers discussion where Colonel Graff begins to care more about the necessity of winning over the morality of what happens to your enemy or the men you train to win. I was also impressed by the view that doing whatever it takes to win isn't necessarily the right thing, even though it may be the practical thing.

Now the film itself was well acted. Harrison Ford was an amazing Colonel Graff and every moment he was on screen was pure gold, and Asa Butterman proved himself as a truly capable actor taking on the role of Ender, I was blown away. I for one was at first worried the producers would subvert Ender's character for Ford's when I first saw the trailer, but thankfully those fears were unfounded and the dialogue and sub-plot between the two was woven into the film quite well giving us the dual perspectives of the trainer and the trainee in an interesting comparison of goals and motives. Ben Kingsley's later role in the film is just fabulous, and despite his late appearance the film is much better off for him being in it. Truly you would have been hard pressed to put a better cast together.

That's not to say none of the actions weren't over the top or just a bit goofy. Some of the actions the director had Butterman undertake were fairly cheesy. His over the top arm gestures at some points were visually distracting and seemed pointless, taking away from the focus of some otherwise dramatic moments. The character of Bonzo also seemed to have a perpetual scowl all the way through the film, but that didn't detract from his characterization, just from the range of emotions he could show.

The supporting cast played their roles wonderfully as well, none of them can be said to have screwed up. Whether it was Breslin as the compassionate sister guiding her little brother, or Steinfeld as the friend and companion to Ender the dialogue and interaction between the characters came off nicely and didn't feel stiff or forced in any way. The reactions and emotions seemed raw and real to me, I was quite pleased when watching them.

One beautiful thing about the film was the amazing diversity the cast offered. Gone is the all white cast of buff space marines, here we have children (boy and girl) from all over the world, of radically different backgrounds. Muslims, black, white, Asian, and Latino, we have a diverse and truly global cast represented on screen. It felt like a united effort by the Earth, Hell the International Fleet's commanding officer (and Graff's superior) is a Middle Eastern man! We even have the wonderful Nonso Anozie as Sergeant Dap, a humorous supporting character for Ender.

Visually I would say the film is nothing special. It establishes all the shots it needs and incorporates the free fall mechanics into scenes (especially the Battle Room setting) well and used just enough CGI to keep the flow smooth and believable. The film won't be winning any awards for breaking new ground in CGI or camera shots but it uses the shots and imagery effectively for what there is.

The film gave us only a small number of locations to see and it worked with the film just taking these areas and running with them, from Ender's home, the Battle Station and the International Fleet outpost, we get just a small series of sets that are all incorporated into the characters daily routines, making them feel that much more real.

The musical score was well done as well. I hate to say nicely simplistic, but they established wonderful tension and atmosphere with a small set of musical cues that ran fabulously from start to finish. I was caught up in the emotion of it all and staggered or stressed by the music in the correct spots and it was used to good effect to set the tone of each scene.

Finally however, I come to the controversy which surrounds this film. Much of the controversy comes from Card's outspoken anti-homosexual and gay marriage attitude, and the fears he might use this film to soapbox those views. Thankfully though those fears proved unfounded. However, many felt they should boycott the film in order to keep Card from obtaining royalties or funds he might get from the ticket sales. This was done to prevent him from reaping the rewards to continue with his 'homophobic agenda'.

Now while Card has said some legitimately nasty things about the homosexual community, and while I personally disagree with those views I will say this; just because the author holds these views does not make it right for people to boycott this work, which contains nothing that reinforces those views. Authors personal opinions and their works can be (and in many cases are) separate from each other. Those who decided to boycott the film just because Card (who had very little control over what went into the film) held these views not only cheapen the hard work of the actors and crew who made this film, but also prove their own ignorance since Card will not be receiving one red cent of the ticket proceeds.

The fact is that yes, Card has said some bad things, but those are also his personal opinion, which as far as my knowledge goes, does not extend into his works, and it certainly comes up not at all in this film. I quote the film's producer Robert Orci "the movie should be judged on its message, and not the personal beliefs of the original author," and I hold the same view.

So I would end this review with a plea to those who might be considering boycotting the film or who currently are to give it a chance. The film isn't about homophobia, hating gays, or demonizing gay marriage. It is a film which is well acted, well put together, and raises some thought provoking moral questions about war, it's consequences, and just what measure a non-human's life holds.

If you'll put away whatever disdain you have for the author of the book, you can go see a fantastic film which doesn't disappoint and stars Harrison Ford once again rocking around in outer space.

Until next time readers!

Atlas Shrugged Part II

Well considering the monumental failure of the first installment of the Atlas Shrugged film series which was in part due to it's terrible acting, poor adaptation, and even worse source material, imagine my surpirse when I found out they were doing part two.

Now I think anyone who followed the films has probably known about this for some time, but courtesy of Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature (an excellent blog dedicated to demolishing all of Ayn Rand's silly ideas) I've seen the most recent trailer for part two. Well let me just say that other than being dramatically large hams (but hey, given the subject material...) and still peddling tha nonsense ideology they managed to actually make this movie look interesting. Now that's quite a feat.

The trailer is actually pretty well and competently strung together, the actors all seem more human (or at least doing their best to take the subject matter semi-seriously and not verge on self-parody) and capable of putting on a brave face. I for one would be delighted if they portrayed this film as a subtle parody of Rand's works, still interesting to watch but the actors very aware of just how dumb everything being spoken and preached to the audience, is. For a great example see Micheal Ironsides preformance in Starship Troopers.

Now this of course is probably not going to happen (sigh) but a man can hope. Rather than totally skip out on even viewing this film, like part one, I may actually pirate it after it's DVD release.

Having read the book (four months of agony) I remember that I liked part three the best as at least things happened without hundreds of pages worth of useless build up. Part two in comparison was only marginally interesting. Still slow and ranting but its conclusion was worthwhile at least.

I'm certainly looking forward how they can pull of some of the 'heroes' blatant near terrorist attacks in a positive light for a modern audience (I only say near because of their intention to not kill people but deny resources, but considering where many of these attacks take place and that many were for essential items the chances of not doing so is nill). Not that I predict to many normal people seeing this film. Hell I'd see it, mostly to criticize of course but that's because I so passionately loathe the material behind it. Though seeing how they manage to pull off some of Rand's more questionable moral points would be interesting in the least. If, as it looks, they put everything in a straight, pulled right off the page way, then I can see this film getting even more hate from potential audience members. It might not even be a bad film if they dumbed down the author rant message and presented it as more right-wing mantra with the parable of bad government put up to eleven. Sadly though since it's coming straight from the heart of Objectivist theory that is all but improbable.

Well that's all for this post folks. Hopefully you won't go see this movie do what I do (and many of its other 'fans' did) and pirate it off the internet!

Here's the trailer for your viewing 'pleasure'. Enjoy!!