#which i think we can all agree is not true | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

livwritesstuff · 2 days

Text

boston pride is today so here have an edited repost from when i walked in the parade last year

Steve is getting boring in his old age (forty-four, almost).

It was inevitable, he supposes when he looks back, and he likes being boring.

He likes the steady routine of the life he and Eddie (married for seven years, now) have built with their three daughters (four, seven, and nearly ten, a notion Steve is choosing to ignore because there’s no goddamn way Moe nearly has an entire decade under her belt already), and he doesn’t find himself making attempts to mix things up all that often.

Naturally, Eddie is the one to suggest they make the trip into Boston with their daughters for the annual Pride parade, and when he does, Steve isn’t automatically inclined to agree.

Look – Steve knows it’s important for kids to see the world and do new things and all that enriching shit, but maybe he still bears some of the scars from keeping a semi-feral pack of teenagers alive amidst the eldritch hellscape of their hometown, and it’s not like they don’t keep themselves entertained at home – Hazel had finally got the gist of Go-Fish not too long ago and that’s been a whole new ballgame Steve is perfectly content to continue exploring.

In the end, however, the logical side of him (and Eddie’s ever-persistent badgering) wins out, and come mid-June of 2011, they all make the drive into Boston to see the parade.

It doesn’t take Steve long at all to acknowledge that it was a good idea. He hadn’t been to Pride in many years (again – he’s boring in his old age), and he’d forgotten how much fun it is – a true celebration of love and happiness in the face of a lot of fucked up shit and all that. The parade’s pretty good too (definitely a few floats he hopes the girls are too distracted chasing after candy to notice and ask questions about later, but only time will tell), and so is the festival afterwards. It ends up being a really great time for all of them.

Of the whole day, though, Steve’s favorite part is the trip home, a drive that should have only been thirty minutes, but turns into nearly two hours with all the traffic on I-90.

The girls are still riding the sugar rush of an afternoon’s worth of lemonade and fried dough and candy thrown from parade floats (Hazel might be succumbing though, if Steve’s quick glances in the rear-view mirror at the way her eyes are drooping closed are anything to go off of), and it seems as if the day’s contagious joy had followed them into the car. Robbie and Moe have been asking a lot of questions – mostly chatter about what floats were everyone’s favorites and who got the best face paint until Moe, perceptive as she’s always been, hits them with, “What’s Pride for?”

Which turns into, “Why do people think it’s a bad thing?” and that becomes, “So how did you and Papa fall in love?” at which point Eddie, who’d been fielding their daughters' questions so Steve could keep his focus on the stop-and-go highway traffic, launches into a dramatic and involved retelling of how their relationship had begun nearly eighteen years ago.

“So I told him that I liked him and what do you think Papa said?” Eddie eventually asks as he approaches the end of the story.

“What?” the girls ask with eager smiles and wide eyes.

“Nothing,” Eddie says ruthlessly, a wicked grin on his face.

“Alright,” Steve cuts in over the laughter coming from the backseat, “Let’s not be dramatic. I said something...eventually, and it wasn’t even that long later – four hours tops.”

“That’s right,” Eddie concedes, “And then we all lived happily ever after and all that jazz.”

“Good,” Robbie says, “’Cos if you hadn’t, today wouldn’t happen.”

“Hate to break it to you, sweet pea,” Steve replies, “but I’m pretty sure Pride would still happen even if Dad and I weren’t there for it.”

“We wouldn’t be here," Moe corrects him, "All together.”

Steve blinks.

Jesus Christ, these kids are gonna be the death of him. Can’t drive the damn car if his eyes are misting over, can he?

“Yeah,” Eddie says as he reaches over to curve his hand around the back of Steve’s neck, “Yeah, bug, that’s true.”

And thanks goodness for that.

#it's a very sweet moment and then robbie hits them with “so am i gay because you're gay?”#and eddie has to be like “uhhhh no it's not like genetic or whatever”#eddie: also......you're adopted so that's not relevant either #and then they have to explain to hazel what being adopted means (again) and she cries about it (again)#liv's steddie dads verse #steddie #steddie dads #steve harrington #eddie munson

198 notes · View notes

spencerreidsbookfairy · 3 days

Text

apologize

yallllllllllllll if you want this to be a series pls lmk and alsooo should she forgive them and not write songs about them or should she??/

I just sat there. Listening to them but i wasn't gonna bitch out and change my set, my set was awesome my 3 grammys tell me that

Stage time

The crowd is filled with famous faces im more nervous about the team then the other celebs im surrounded me as i walk on stage they give a kind clap i decide to shake the team a little bit as i remember they have no idea i heard them

‘’ ahh guys im so grateful to be here ’ as you guys know i made the song what was i made for, for the barbie movie which was amazing and i can talk about it for hours

but i will try and make this quick i don’t wanna have you guys fall asleep mid song.’’

The team is in my direct eye of sight i see each and every one of their faces drop especially spencers

The instrumental starts playing

I used to float, now I just fall down

I used to know but I'm not sure now

What I was made for

What was I made for?

I take a short pause during that pause i look at the team who still looks uneasy after my comment

Good

Takin' a drive, I was an ideal

Looked so alive, turns out I'm not real

Just something you paid for

What was I made for?

I think in my head “the songs almost over three more songs and you'll never have to see those assholes again.’’

Think I forgot how to be happy

Something I'm not, but something I can be

Something I wait for

Something I'm made for

Something I'm made for.

The audience claps, genuine claps the faces of happy celebs that enjoyed my performance buried the insecurity that my songs, my career wasn't good enough the team also claps i assume its because they don’t wanna look bitter.

“Today has been such a blessing thank you guys so much.’’

I leave the stage leaving to my dressing room

I knew Spencer would try to come and find me but i didn't think he'd bring the team too.

‘’Hey.’’ spencer says his team practically hiding behind him

“ hey’’ i say back what else can i say my mind i all over the place

‘’ you were outstanding out there everyone loved you, im proud’’

Hm. proud.

‘’Proud? Proud of me? Or your team for not falling asleep mid song.”

The room was so quiet you could hear a strand of hair drop.

‘’I would say it isn't what it sounded like but that wouldn't be true.”

His team is looking at each other figuring out if they should say something

The peppy girl garcia says something first, well she tries to

“ we owe you such-”

“No.”

“No?” she says voice shaky

“You didn't say anything wrong matter of fact you were the only one who defended me, not even he did” I say as I point a finger at Spencer who just looks down in shame and guilt.

“Listen y/n you gotta understand we just want what's best for reid-”

“Exactly’’ jj chimes in “it's nothing personal were just overprotective” she says with a nervous giggle

“Obviously we were immature and went way too far to attack your profession’’ emily says breaking her silence

Now, i'm a sensitive person i can’t help but choke up while trying to stick up for myself against 5 people

“i..’ ‘ you can hear me about to cry i look down so i don’t have to see their pity faces

Where did my confidence go why can’t i talk without crying

“I just wanted to impress you guys with this performance you guys were so cool and nice in my eyes”

They all look so guilty when they can literally hear the cry in my throat.

‘’And you” i say while looking at spencer ‘’ you made me feel like you understood me, understood my music, why i make music.’’

“I do!” spencer tries to defend

‘’ no, or else you would have DEFENDED me instead of bitching out and agreeing with your friends’’

I have never been in a room this quiet

“Anyway i wanna get home and shower its been a long day’’

I get up to walk away and spencer tries to stop me but i pull away and grab my stuff and leave

Prove them right. Make a song about them.

#spencer reid fluff #spencer reid smut #spencer reid x fem!reader #spencer reid x y/n #spencer reid x you #criminal minds incorrect quotes #spencer reid imagine #spencer reid x famous!reader #spencer reid x singer!reader #spencer reid angst

77 notes · View notes

sherwood-scribblings · 3 days

Text

HUNGER GAMES (SUNRISE ON THE REAPING) THEORIES: the "sunrise" over the reaping is maysilee

I have been going so absolutely bats off the wall ever since the SOTR announcement that I spent a whole day formulating my theories into in-depth essays and backing them up with canon... here ya go.

So, after some analysis of everything we know about the saga, chapter 14 of Catching Fire, and how Collins writes so far...

I present my theory on the new hunger games book: that the "sunrise" over the reaping is symbolic of Maysilee Donner, the former owner of the mockingjay pin.

I think Maysilee is going to be a symbol of the goodness, kindness, light, etc, of humanity, in the face of the reaping, in the face of violence and war. Aka the theme of the entire series. Aka a symbol of defiance just like Lucy Gray and her kindness. I mean, losing all his metaphorical light is what causes Haymitch to become a drunk... And likely to become so protective over Katniss and Peeta.

I also think the cover is going to have a mockingjay and a sunrise. Cause, Suzanne Collins is VERY intentional about her titles. The themes she uses. The imagery. The covers. It's all part of the story.

HOW COLLINS HAS USED THEME BEFORE

TBOSAS was called "songbird and snakes" which was symbolic of the nature of good vs. evil.

There's essays everywhere about how the songbird represents good (in Lucy Gray) and how the snake represents evil (in Coriolanus Snow), how they are symbolically shown to have both natures by using both snakes and songbirds as weapons, but one nature ultimately prevails. TBOSAS is about the struggle between humanity's two natures, and how we can ultimately prevail in one or the other. The crest of the mockingjay and the snake, is symbolic of said theme.

Songbirds represent everything Lucy Gray is—free, wild, untamed, kind, colorful, a singer, a performer, honest and moral and true and good.

Snakes represent everything Coriolanus Snow is—deceptive, cunning, ruthless, adaptable, charming, determined to survive, everything sly and wicked and game playing.

And yet, they are shown to have the inverse as well. Lucy Gray is also cunning, and deceptive, and determined to survive. Coryo is also caring (about certain people), honest (he's bad at lying, and in THG he agrees to never lie to Katniss), and enjoys the idea of freedom.

They wield both natures and this struggle is portrayed throughout the story. Hence: A Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes. Hence: a snake and a bird on the cover.

Suzanne Collins is also no stranger to complimentary characters.

Lucy Gray and Snow are inverses of each other, both similar and wildly different. They work well... Until the difference in their nature tears them apart.

She makes use of complimentary characters to emphasize theme throughout her books, constantly. We see with Katniss and Peeta, how Katniss is war-torn, distrusting, afraid, how easily she could become like Snow, how her motivations for security could become corrupted into a ruthlessness to survive just like Snow was driven by his fear. She is difficult, jaded, and tormented, but underneath that she does have a heart of gold and wants goodness to prevail.

Peeta is her dandelion in the spring, her hope, representative of the goodness left in humanity, he seems soft but he is a lot stronger than his peers would think or give him credit for. She clings to him because in a world of darkness he serves as light, as a reminder that not everyone is selfish, that kindness and morality do exist even if she's inclined to think people just are out for themselves.

He is full of light and her darkness falls for that because she needs light and goodness to heal, to believe, to fight for.

He is her compliment, where she is afraid, a survivor and a fighter, and sometimes rude or selfish seeming, and struggles to show her emotions and how much she cares, more like Haymitch—

Peeta is kind, brave, soft, and charming, has a way with people's hearts, and yet also strong in his own ways and in his morals, determined not to let the capitol force him to lose his humanity.

This nature of humanity, of goodness, of light, is reflected in other characters.

Prim is that role to Katniss as well. She is a soft girl, innocent, sensitive, tender hearted, kind, a healer, which is part of why Katniss loves her so much.

Prim is a reminder of humanity, which Katniss needs, and it's why Katniss chooses Peeta over Gale. Prim is also contrasted against Katniss. Rue likewise, is similar, she's a symbol of hope and kindness set against Katniss.

We see this utilization of complimentary characters all over— Haymitch and Effie, one being a crude yet intelligent and snarky arrogant tormented and drunken victor from District 12, the other being a prim and proper rich Capitol girl, airheaded, brainwashed, sheltered, yet endearing and caring all the same. They're polar opposites, but they work so well together, both as teammates and as friends. There's a reason the fandom ships them and sees them as the beer uncle and wine aunt of THG, as parental roles to Katniss and Peeta.

Suzanne Collins knows what she's doing. She knows how to write characters that compliment or parallel each other and how to weaponize symbolism and imagery for a powerful theme. (Katniss and Peeta, Lucy Gray and Snow, Haymitch and Effie, Katniss and Prim, Prim and Rue, Katniss and Snow, Rue and the mockingjay, Snow and Coin)

HOW THIS APPLIES TO SUNRISE ON THE REAPING

If she describes young Haymitch as arrogant, snarky, nonchalant, dangerous, smart, capable, etc... Maysilee is likely gonna be his compliment: kind, moral, gentle, soft, willing to call his more selfish means out.

She's the one who saves him and had the idea for the alliance. She's the one who split because she didn't want it to come down to killing each other.

I am convinced the reason Haymitch sets up Peeta and Katniss to work together as teammates from district 12, is because he did that with Maysilee.

He's doing what him and Maysilee failed to do. They agreed to break off the alliance, and look what happened. She died. Why do you think he's so insistent on Katniss and Peeta working together? That Peeta is keeping her alive, that she doesn't deserve him, that she should be more grateful?

Because he sees Maysilee in Peeta, and himself in Katniss. Haysilee (regardless of if they're a ship or platonic) is a gender reversed parallel to Everlark. Perhaps he's harder on Katniss because he sees himself in her, and kinder to Peeta because he sees Maysilee in him. For all we know, Haysilee could have even incited their own rebellion that the capitol snuffed out (suzanne said the main theme of SOTR was essentially propaganda and lies, covering up the truth for the masses).

MAYSILEE IS SOFT LIKE MADGE & PRIM

Further on why I think Maysilee will be a soft sunshine girl—because her niece, MADGE, is exactly that. Golden haired, kind, softened. Selfless. Everything the capitol tries to destroy. Everything the capitol sees as rebellion.

Madge likely got her soft nature from her mom or her aunt (Maysilee), who are twins. They also all have sunshine golden hair.

It's essentially implied Madge is like her aunt.

And guess what? Prim is a blond soft girl and it's implied she's like HER mom, who was close friends with Maysilee.

Katniss' mom was also a soft girl before the trauma shut her down. Clearly Prim gets her own sunshine healer nature from her mother, because Katniss is more is rugged and protective like her father. She fills in for protecting them when he dies, and even notes her mom is too soft and fragile to deal with certain hardships the way Katniss does.

If Katniss' mother is friends with Maysilee, not to mention their daughter and niece are both soft healer kind sunshine girls who seem to take after the rest of their family.... It's likely that Maysilee is like Prim and Madge. Birds of a feather flock together and all. Of course they would bond.

MAYSILEE IS A SYMBOL OF LIGHT

Here's more on why I think the sunrise is Maysilee.

Madge gave the mockingjay pin to Katniss, from Maysilee. SHE WAS THE FORMER OWNER OF THE MOCKINGJAY PIN. THE WHOLE REASON THE REVOLUTION STARTED.

Maysilee is another form the mockingjay takes. Just like Lucy Gray, just like Rue—a symbol of hope and resistance. A tribute from District 12, so determined not to let the capitol change her true nature, to take her humanity and morals, that it lights the spark to create a fire.

Do you think Haymitch looks at Katniss, and sees Maysilee's pin? Do you think he sees the mockingjay prevail in the face of the reapings, and all he can see is her?

"Sunrise on the reaping" is a symbolic title. This is Suzanne Collins. This is how she writes.

"A ballad of songbirds and snakes" summarizes the themes of that book, the nature of good vs evil. Lucy Gray is the songbird, Snow the snake.

"Sunrise on the reaping" translates to light, hope, new beginnings, in the middle of war and violence.

Collins said this book was going to focus on propaganda, how the media LIES to people, puts them in the dark for easy submission, to not see the truth.

You know what you need to illuminate the darkness of a lie? To see anything at all, including the truth?

Light. You need the sun. A sunrise.

Real or not real? How do you see what's real if you don't have the light to see it by?

Sunrise ON the reaping. Not over. ON.

A sunrise casts light ON the reaping. On the violence of the capitol.

Kindness and hope casts light on the bleak violence and darkness of the capitol. Our humanity is the one true form of resistance. It's the main theme of the series.

This book is going to be about casting light on lies and darkness. On the capitol. The book will be about light prevailing over darkness.

About kindness and hope being the truth that acts as defiance against violent propaganda. Against Snow's beliefs that "there is no hope for humanity, we are all dark and twisted."

This book will be the inverse of Snow and Gaul, of TBOSAS. If Ballad is about how humanity can fall into darkness and evil, Reaping is its compliment, it's about how humanity can be light and good.

All darkness -> light exists -> fire sparks

(Ballad) (Reaping) (Catching Fire)

(@ aurynauthor on Instagram summarized that for me<3)

Maysilee is the sun, the warmth to start a FIRE... Her niece gives Katniss, the girl on fire... Her mockingjay pin.

Maysilee, perhaps, is the true mockingjay.

Katniss compares her death to Rue's, when she watches Haymitch's games. We thought Rue was the mockingjay, but... What if the mockingjay isn't just one person? What if the mockingjay is a symbol, something larger than life, something anyone with the kindness and heart and resistance to stand against evil can be? Like how Katniss and Peeta publicly honor and mourn their fallen tributes when they ought to be entertained alongside the capitol, who is aghast by such displays of emotion.

Maybe that light is some of what the capitol is covering up with propaganda in this book, but it escaped in the form of the pin and Haymitch's survival.

The mockingjay is everyone. Lucy Gray, Rue, Katniss... Maysilee.

Perhaps when Haymitch sees that pin on Katniss, he remembers. When the mockingjay becomes a symbol of resistance, when Maysilee's sunlight sparks the heat for a flame... Perhaps then Haymitch can understand why Maysilee saved him. Why he was the one to survive, and she was the martyr.

How her legacy and her pin lived on even after she faded from history, just like the mockingjay bird itself—small and insignificant, survived against all odds, becoming something stronger.

Maybe, even after her death, even when he forgets the good she taught him and he gets drunk to block out the memories of what happened afterwards, when he has to train up a girl with a mouth of fire and a mockingjay pin, and a boy with a heart of gold and the wits to survive, District 12 tributes, teammates, children he sees someone else in...

Even after the truth of what really happened on the 50th Hunger Games is lost to history and propaganda. Even after all the death and violence.

After all the darkness, the lies Snow preaches, that humanity will always fall into selfishness and survival and cruelty, that nothing and no one can prevail or be different.

Maybe Maysilee and her kindness was the sunrise on his reaping.

36 notes · View notes

japortalisman · 17 hours

Text

first off, no hate to this person or any of the people agreeing - at the end of the day, people have different thoughts/interpretations of star wars and its characters, so it's no big deal. but i just wanted to talk about this post/sentiment because i've seen it a lot in the fandom and i'm still new to SW. disclaimer that i'm actively watching TCW at the moment, so take my opinion with a grain of salt

i know most everyone is going to disagree with me on this, but to be kind of blunt, i feel like people like to be purposefully obtuse when it comes to anakin's characterization and it often seems to come from this place of trying to come off like an intellectual ('well *EYE* knew anakin was toxic/evil/a piece of shit the whole time ☝️🤓 ' type energy). i have various thoughts on this and i'm gonna start with the more nitpicky ones and then finish with what i think is the real reason we all disagree

for starters (again, this is just nitpicking) jedi do kill people and it's reasonable to think anakin has killed people prior to the tusken raiders just by nature of his position as a jedi (aggressive negotiations, etc etc). what makes it 'okay' is jedi, by nature of their beliefs, don't commit war crimes by killing the defenseless or innocents. but my point is that killing is already something he's likely done, whereas being a macho toxic fuckboy to his wife is not.

i guess your opinion on this next part of it varies depending on your thoughts when it comes to human nature/morals/whatever, but to ME at least, slaughtering a village because they enslaved and tortured his mother to death is definitely fucked up (because he also took out the innocents), but it's not the exact same thing as being abusive to his wife? like i'm not even trying to debate which one is worse either atp, i'm just saying both things are different and have different pathways of thinking to get to that point. with the tusken raiders, you can clearly see how anakin got there, even if it was wrong, fucked up and arguably evil when it came to the defenseless people he didn't know.

but putting those points aside, i think the main thing we're disagreeing on with the whole TCW characterization vs prequels characterization of anakin is the when of it all. like for ME (you're free to disagree), anakin's behavior of actively hurting padmé when he force choked her in ROTS was SUPPOSED to be 'out of character', and because of that it signaled that he was an evil sith lord that's now too far gone. that was the marker, right behind him killing the younglings. which people also do talk about when they're arguing about this topic:

the difference in thought i'm having from this person is from MY personal perspective, from a story-telling technique/standpoint alone, i just don't like the idea of putting toxicity towards padmé before that marker (what he did in ROTS). it fucks with the whole classic myth type tragedy of it? anidala is supposed to be somewhat idealized even if something like that shouldn't be irl. that's why luke 'redeems' darth vader and brings him back through a mirror of padmé's love for him. we're supposed to recognize vader is a villain, yes, but we're also supposed to take from the story that padmé's love for him was worth it in the end. and that the circumstances of that situation in ROTS (and leading up to ROTS) created the perfect storm to cause anakin to 'fall' and become a sith lord. the tragedy of it is that he WOULD have kept being a good person, without that perfect storm of circumstances (grooming from palpatine, feelings of isolation from parental figures, being heralded as this chosen one, his own arrogance/passion, trauma from how his mother died, force visions plaguing him that he KNEW would come true like with the one of shmi's death, etc).

for ME, as a story, i like that anakin's push into evil is signified by the force choke. the youngling slaughter is definitely like "well, he's gone now", yeah, but when we see him choking the person he was fighting to save? a character we've been personally watching love him the entire movie? that's when we know anakin is lost. so to try and be like 'well, he was just like this all along' undermines that tragedy of this scene that i just talked about. that's why a lot of people don't like some of TCW anakin's characterization. because it undermines that over-arching story. is the prequels-trilogy darth vader story unrealistic to real life? yes, completely. but that star wars story is not supposed to mirror real life. in real life you would not tell luke skywalker to try and save a man who genocided people, destroyed a planet and upheld a dictatorship for one of the most evil men to ever exist. but you have to suspend some of your disbelief in order to enjoy the story. it's just art. and sure, it's 'valid' if you want to accept anakin's TCW version along with some of those scenes people critique. you're free to think he was just toxic and bad all along, but i just think that's a shame and i disagree personally because i don't like what it does with the flow of the story or the work of art that's both trilogies overall. something i think encapsulates it well is this quote written by matthew stover in the ROTS novelization:

"The dark is generous and it is patient and it always wins – but in the heart of its strength lies its weakness: one lone candle is enough to hold it back. Love is more than a candle. Love can ignite the stars.”

in this situation, the candle was anakin and padmé's love for each other, persisting in their son. and the message wasn't that anakin was toxic and evil all along? it was that their love persisted and it came back in the end because it couldn't be blotted out by evil or death.

you could even delve into the force choke scene deeper? it's really the perfect example of 'a storm of bad circumstances' that make it a tragedy. because no, there's NO excuse for what anakin did and at this point he has slaughtered actual children. him hurting padmé is 'evil'. however, (and i know nuance goes to die on the internet, which is part of why i'm writing this lmfao) from anakin's perspective, padmé had just brought obi-wan to kill him. it's not a justification but it does establish the length padmé had to go to (we as the viewer know she didn’t go to that point, but anakin does not know this) in order for anakin to be 'evil' and toxic with her. he had to think that padmé was actively trying to kill him in order to force choke her. and even AFTER he was burned alive and lost his limbs to obi-wan (someone he saw as a father figure), the first thing he thought when he came to was if padmé was alright. he still loved her. and at this point he still thought she wanted him dead and hated him. it took him thinking padmé wanted him dead and hated him for him to snap enough to force choke her?

so with that in mind, yeah, people are going to view anakin's characterization in regards to her in a specific way. some people prefer that that was his breaking point into evil towards her, because of the story it's attempting to tell with the original movies. and him being this macho man towards her over things smaller than that just doesn't feel organic to what we saw in the prequels and it doesn't seem consistent with the flow of that over-romanticized story being told.

people are free to disagree or not like that over-romanticized story (in fact many people don't? and that's one of the reasons why some people don't mesh with star wars or anidala) but i'm not sure why they're surprised some people don't like that clash of characterization between prequels anakin and TCW anakin. this gets even more complicated when you factor in how people didn't like how anakin was overly romantic and 'simp'-like and even hayden had backlash for his acting and just his existence in the role. so of course when making a cartoon for kids, that younger boys would probably be watching, they would distance themselves a bit from that romance vibe and make it more 'obvious' he's just darth vader

#if you disagree with me then make your own post because you're not gonna change my mind on this #but i'm writing this just because i wanted to get my own thoughts out #and share a perspective that i recognize is not a popular one on here #i honestly don't even think there are many anidalas in general #anyway #anakin #anidala #metas #anakin skywalker #pro anakin skywalker #tagging it as this because i know people will be pissed? but like i recognize he's a villain so #star wars #anakin x padme #anakin x padmé #japortalisman #tcw critical

22 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 2 days

Text

F.6.3 But surely market forces will stop abuses by the rich?

Unlikely. The rise of corporations within America indicates exactly how a “general libertarian law code” would reflect the interests of the rich and powerful. The laws recognising corporations as “legal persons” were not primarily a product of “the state” but of private lawyers hired by the rich. As Howard Zinn notes:

“the American Bar Association, organised by lawyers accustomed to serving the wealthy, began a national campaign of education to reverse the [Supreme] Court decision [that companies could not be considered as a person]… . By 1886, they succeeded … the Supreme Court had accepted the argument that corporations were ‘persons’ and their money was property protected by the process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment … The justices of the Supreme Court were not simply interpreters of the Constitution. They were men of certain backgrounds, of certain [class] interests.” [A People’s History of the United States, p. 255]

Of course it will be argued that the Supreme Court is chosen by the government and is a state enforced monopoly and so our analysis is flawed. Yet this is not the case. As Rothbard made clear, the “general libertarian law code” would be created by lawyers and jurists and everyone would be expected to obey it. Why expect these lawyers and jurists to be any less class conscious then those in the 19th century? If the Supreme Court “was doing its bit for the ruling elite” then why would those creating the law system be any different? “How could it be neutral between rich and poor,” argues Zinn, “when its members were often former wealthy lawyers, and almost always came from the upper class?” [Op. Cit., p. 254] Moreover, the corporate laws came about because there was a demand for them. That demand would still have existed in “anarcho”-capitalism. Now, while there may nor be a Supreme Court, Rothbard does maintain that “the basic Law Code … would have to be agreed upon by all the judicial agencies” but he maintains that this “would imply no unified legal system”! Even though ”[a]ny agencies that transgressed the basic libertarian law code would be open outlaws” and soon crushed this is not, apparently, a monopoly. [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 234] So, you either agree to the law code or you go out of business. And that is not a monopoly! Therefore, we think, our comments on the Supreme Court are valid (see also section F.7.2).

If all the available defence firms enforce the same laws, then it can hardly be called “competitive”! And if this is the case (and it is) “when private wealth is uncontrolled, then a police-judicial complex enjoying a clientele of wealthy corporations whose motto is self-interest is hardly an innocuous social force controllable by the possibility of forming or affiliating with competing ‘companies.’” [Wieck, Op. Cit., p. 225] This is particularly true if these companies are themselves Big Business and so have a large impact on the laws they are enforcing. If the law code recognises and protects capitalist power, property and wealth as fundamental any attempt to change this is “initiation of force” and so the power of the rich is written into the system from the start!

(And, we must add, if there is a general libertarian law code to which all must subscribe, where does that put customer demand? If people demand a non-libertarian law code, will defence firms refuse to supply it? If so, will not new firms, looking for profit, spring up that will supply what is being demanded? And will that not put them in direct conflict with the existing, pro-general law code ones? And will a market in law codes not just reflect economic power and wealth? David Friedman, who is for a market in law codes, argues that ”[i]f almost everyone believes strongly that heroin addiction is so horrible that it should not be permitted anywhere under any circumstances anarcho-capitalist institutions will produce laws against heroin. Laws are being produced on the market, and that is what the market wants.” And he adds that “market demands are in dollars, not votes. The legality of heroin will be determined, not by how many are for or against but how high a cost each side is willing to bear in order to get its way.” [The Machinery of Freedom, p. 127] And, as the market is less than equal in terms of income and wealth, such a position will mean that the capitalist class will have a higher effective demand than the working class and more resources to pay for any conflicts that arise. Thus any law codes that develop will tend to reflect the interests of the wealthy.)

Which brings us nicely on to the next problem regarding market forces.

As well as the obvious influence of economic interests and differences in wealth, another problem faces the “free market” justice of “anarcho”-capitalism. This is the “general libertarian law code” itself. Even if we assume that the system actually works like it should in theory, the simple fact remains that these “defence companies” are enforcing laws which explicitly defend capitalist property (and so social relations). Capitalists own the means of production upon which they hire wage-labourers to work and this is an inequality established prior to any specific transaction in the labour market. This inequality reflects itself in terms of differences in power within (and outside) the company and in the “law code” of “anarcho”-capitalism which protects that power against the dispossessed.

In other words, the law code within which the defence companies work assumes that capitalist property is legitimate and that force can legitimately be used to defend it. This means that, in effect, “anarcho”-capitalism is based on a monopoly of law, a monopoly which explicitly exists to defend the power and capital of the wealthy. The major difference is that the agencies used to protect that wealth will be in a weaker position to act independently of their pay-masters. Unlike the state, the “defence” firm is not remotely accountable to the general population and cannot be used to equalise even slightly the power relationships between worker and capitalist (as the state has, on occasion done, due to public pressure and to preserve the system as a whole). And, needless to say, it is very likely that the private police forces will give preferential treatment to their wealthier customers (which business does not?) and that the law code will reflect the interests of the wealthier sectors of society (particularly if prosperous judges administer that code) in reality, even if not in theory. Since, in capitalist practice, “the customer is always right,” the best-paying customers will get their way in “anarcho”-capitalist society.

For example, in chapter 29 of The Machinery of Freedom, David Friedman presents an example of how a clash of different law codes could be resolved by a bargaining process (the law in question is the death penalty). This process would involve one defence firm giving a sum of money to the other for them accepting the appropriate (anti/pro capital punishment) court. Friedman claims that ”[a]s in any good trade, everyone gains” but this is obviously not true. Assuming the anti-capital punishment defence firm pays the pro one to accept an anti-capital punishment court, then, yes, both defence firms have made money and so are happy, so are the anti-capital punishment consumers but the pro-death penalty customers have only (perhaps) received a cut in their bills. Their desire to see criminals hanged (for whatever reason) has been ignored (if they were not in favour of the death penalty, they would not have subscribed to that company). Friedman claims that the deal, by allowing the anti-death penalty firm to cut its costs, will ensure that it “keep its customers and even get more” but this is just an assumption. It is just as likely to loose customers to a defence firm that refuses to compromise (and has the resources to back it up). Friedman’s assumption that lower costs will automatically win over people’s passions is unfounded as is the assumption that both firms have equal resources and bargaining power. If the pro-capital punishment firm demands more than the anti can provide and has larger weaponry and troops, then the anti defence firm may have to agree to let the pro one have its way. So, all in all, it is not clear that “everyone gains” — there may be a sizeable percentage of those involved who do not “gain” as their desire for capital punishment is traded away by those who claimed they would enforce it. This may, in turn, produce a demand for defence firms which do not compromise with obvious implications for public peace.

In other words, a system of competing law codes and privatised rights does not ensure that all individual interests are meet. Given unequal resources within society, it is clear that the “effective demand” of the parties involved to see their law codes enforced is drastically different. The wealthy head of a transnational corporation will have far more resources available to him to pay for his laws to be enforced than one of his employees on the assembly line. Moreover, as we noted in section F.3.1, the labour market is usually skewed in favour of capitalists. This means that workers have to compromise to get work and such compromises may involve agreeing to join a specific “defence” firm or not join one at all (just as workers are often forced to sign non-union contracts today in order to get work). In other words, a privatised law system is very likely to skew the enforcement of laws in line with the skewing of income and wealth in society. At the very least, unlike every other market, the customer is not guaranteed to get exactly what they demand simply because the product they “consume” is dependent on others within the same market to ensure its supply. The unique workings of the law/defence market are such as to deny customer choice (we will discuss other aspects of this unique market shortly). Wieck summed by pointing out the obvious:

“any judicial system is going to exist in the context of economic institutions. If there are gross inequalities of power in the economic and social domains, one has to imagine society as strangely compartmentalised in order to believe that those inequalities will fail to reflect themselves in the judicial and legal domain, and that the economically powerful will be unable to manipulate the legal and judicial system to their advantage. To abstract from such influences of context, and then consider the merits of an abstract judicial system.. . is to follow a method that is not likely to take us far. This, by the way, is a criticism that applies…to any theory that relies on a rule of law to override the tendencies inherent in a given social and economic system” [Op. Cit., p. 225]

There is another reason why “market forces” will not stop abuse by the rich, or indeed stop the system from turning from private to public statism. This is due to the nature of the “defence” market (for a similar analysis of the “defence” market see right-“libertarian” economist Tyler Cowen’s “Law as a Public Good: The Economics of Anarchy” [Economics and Philosophy, no. 8 (1992), pp. 249–267] and “Rejoinder to David Friedman on the Economics of Anarchy” [Economics and Philosophy, no. 10 (1994), pp. 329–332]). In “anarcho”-capitalist theory it is assumed that the competing “defence companies” have a vested interest in peacefully settling differences between themselves by means of arbitration. In order to be competitive on the market, companies will have to co-operate via contractual relations otherwise the higher price associated with conflict will make the company uncompetitive and it will go under. Those companies that ignore decisions made in arbitration would be outlawed by others, ostracised and their rulings ignored. By this process, it is argued, a system of competing “defence” companies will be stable and not turn into a civil war between agencies with each enforcing the interests of their clients against others by force.

However, there is a catch. Unlike every other market, the businesses in competition in the “defence” industry must co-operate with its fellows in order to provide its services for its customers. They need to be able to agree to courts and judges, agree to abide by decisions and law codes and so forth. In economics there are other, more accurate, terms to describe co-operative activity between companies: collusion and cartels. These are when companies in a specific market agree to work together (co-operate) to restrict competition and reap the benefits of monopoly power by working to achieve the same ends in partnership with each other. By stressing the co-operative nature of the “defence” market, “anarcho”-capitalists are implicitly acknowledging that collusion is built into the system. The necessary contractual relations between agencies in the “protection” market require that firms co-operate and, by so doing, to behave (effectively) as one large firm (and so resemble a normal state even more than they already do). Quoting Adam Smith seems appropriate here: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” [The Wealth of Nations, p. 117] Having a market based on people of the same trade co-operating seems, therefore, an unwise move.

For example, when buying food it does not matter whether the supermarkets visited have good relations with each other. The goods bought are independent of the relationships that exist between competing companies. However, in the case of private states this is not the case. If a specific “defence” company has bad relationships with other companies in the market then it is against a customer’s self-interest to subscribe to it. Why subscribe to a private state if its judgements are ignored by the others and it has to resort to violence to be heard? This, as well as being potentially dangerous, will also push up the prices that have to be paid. Arbitration is one of the most important services a defence firm can offer its customers and its market share is based upon being able to settle interagency disputes without risk of war or uncertainty that the final outcome will not be accepted by all parties. Lose that and a company will lose market share.

Therefore, the market set-up within the “anarcho”-capitalist “defence” market is such that private states have to co-operate with the others (or go out of business fast) and this means collusion can take place. In other words, a system of private states will have to agree to work together in order to provide the service of “law enforcement” to their customers and the result of such co-operation is to create a cartel. However, unlike cartels in other industries, the “defence” cartel will be a stable body simply because its members have to work with their competitors in order to survive.

Let us look at what would happen after such a cartel is formed in a specific area and a new “defence company” desired to enter the market. This new company will have to work with the members of the cartel in order to provide its services to its customers (note that “anarcho”-capitalists already assume that they “will have to” subscribe to the same law code). If the new defence firm tries to under-cut the cartel’s monopoly prices, the other companies would refuse to work with it. Having to face constant conflict or the possibility of conflict, seeing its decisions being ignored by other agencies and being uncertain what the results of a dispute would be, few would patronise the new “defence company.” The new company’s prices would go up and it would soon face either folding or joining the cartel. Unlike every other market, if a “defence company” does not have friendly, co-operative relations with other firms in the same industry then it will go out of business.

This means that the firms that are co-operating have simply to agree not to deal with new firms which are attempting to undermine the cartel in order for them to fail. A “cartel busting” firm goes out of business in the same way an outlaw one does — the higher costs associated with having to solve all its conflicts by force, not arbitration, increases its production costs much higher than the competitors and the firm faces insurmountable difficulties selling its products at a profit (ignoring any drop of demand due to fears of conflict by actual and potential customers). Even if we assume that many people will happily join the new firm in spite of the dangers to protect themselves against the cartel and its taxation (i.e. monopoly profits), enough will remain members of the cartel so that co-operation will still be needed and conflict unprofitable and dangerous (and as the cartel will have more resources than the new firm, it could usually hold out longer than the new firm could). In effect, breaking the cartel may take the form of an armed revolution — as it would with any state.

The forces that break up cartels and monopolies in other industries (such as free entry — although, of course the “defence” market will be subject to oligopolistic tendencies as any other and this will create barriers to entry) do not work here and so new firms have to co-operate or loose market share and/or profits. This means that “defence companies” will reap monopoly profits and, more importantly, have a monopoly of force over a given area.

It is also likely that a multitude of cartels would develop, with a given cartel operating in a given locality. This is because law enforcement would be localised in given areas as most crime occurs where the criminal lives (few criminals would live in Glasgow and commit crimes in Paris). However, as defence companies have to co-operate to provide their services, so would the cartels. Few people live all their lives in one area and so firms from different cartels would come into contact, so forming a cartel of cartels. This cartel of cartels may (perhaps) be less powerful than a local cartel, but it would still be required and for exactly the same reasons a local one is. Therefore “anarcho”-capitalism would, like “actually existing capitalism,” be marked by a series of public states covering given areas, co-ordinated by larger states at higher levels. Such a set up would parallel the United States in many ways except it would be run directly by wealthy shareholders without the sham of “democratic” elections. Moreover, as in the USA and other states there will still be a monopoly of rules and laws (the “general libertarian law code”).

Hence a monopoly of private states will develop in addition to the existing monopoly of law and this is a de facto monopoly of force over a given area (i.e. some kind of public state run by share holders). New companies attempting to enter the “defence” industry will have to work with the existing cartel in order to provide the services it offers to its customers. The cartel is in a dominant position and new entries into the market either become part of it or fail. This is exactly the position with the state, with “private agencies” free to operate as long as they work to the state’s guidelines. As with the monopolist “general libertarian law code”, if you do not toe the line, you go out of business fast.

“Anarcho”-capitalists claim that this will not occur, but that the co-operation needed to provide the service of law enforcement will somehow not turn into collusion between companies. However, they are quick to argue that renegade “agencies” (for example, the so-called “Mafia problem” or those who reject judgements) will go out of business because of the higher costs associated with conflict and not arbitration. Yet these higher costs are ensured because the firms in question do not co-operate with others. If other agencies boycott a firm but co-operate with all the others, then the boycotted firm will be at the same disadvantage — regardless of whether it is a cartel buster or a renegade. So the “anarcho”-capitalist is trying to have it both ways. If the punishment of non-conforming firms cannot occur, then “anarcho”-capitalism will turn into a war of all against all or, at the very least, the service of social peace and law enforcement cannot be provided. If firms cannot deter others from disrupting the social peace (one service the firm provides) then “anarcho”-capitalism is not stable and will not remain orderly as agencies develop which favour the interests of their own customers and enforce their own law codes at the expense of others. If collusion cannot occur (or is too costly) then neither can the punishment of non-conforming firms and “anarcho”-capitalism will prove to be unstable.

So, to sum up, the “defence” market of private states has powerful forces within it to turn it into a monopoly of force over a given area. From a privately chosen monopoly of force over a specific (privately owned) area, the market of private states will turn into a monopoly of force over a general area. This is due to the need for peaceful relations between companies, relations which are required for a firm to secure market share. The unique market forces that exist within this market ensure collusion and the system of private states will become a cartel and so a public state — unaccountable to all but its shareholders, a state of the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy.

23 notes · View notes