MovieChat Forums > The Castle (1999) Discussion > Great Libertarian film!

Great Libertarian film!


Heart warming movie with a strong anti-government message. Need more films like this!

reply

[deleted]

Seconded...

The touble is most Yanks have about as much clue on political theory as they do on cricket.

reply

Help me out here, is a Yank a Brit or an American (as in USA, not Canada or Mexico)?

reply

As the saying goes, when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Certainly applies to OP.

reply

Oh really? how about dudes from the balkans cause i too see a libertarian message!? loved it when he said 'it's bloody common sense'.

___________
Look upon me! I'll show you the life of the mind!

reply

Communism was tried and failed, libertarianism is too stupid to even be tried, Somalia is as close as you will get to a Libertarian society.

Libertairaiism does suit the psyche of a section of American society, those who are stupid enough to believe that without supporting your fellow countryman you can still be patriotic, that paying taxes is evil, and that a country which is so philosophically bankrupt as the USA is a godo role model for others.

reply


libertarianism is too stupid to even be tried


Libertarianism has already been tried. In 1776 to be exact. And it succeeded. Overwhelmingly.

The United States itself was founded upon Libertarian principles. Most US founders were Libertarian in their belief systems.

In fact, a noted Presidential Historian recently said that Libertarian Ron Paul is 'today's Thomas Jefferson'. Libertarians and the US founders are indeed that similar.

One of the very few differences between Libertarians of today and the US founding Libertarians is that the US founders tended to be accepting of slavery. Slavery is seen as abhorrent in current day libertarian thought. Same with barring women from voting.

Otherwise, current day Libertarians and most US founders hold almost the exact same type of belief system.

So was Libertarianism too stupid to even be tried? Or were you just too stupid to know that it already has been?

reply

Comments like the one youve replied to are best left answered! but I guess youve done a more noble deed by replying! It shows the sheer ignorance and delusion of some people. And gets even more annoying when people PRETEND they know what they are talking about! "Libertarianism is too stupid to be tried"!

reply

Individualists who hold individual freedom and equality to be of the highest importance are known as "liberals".

Individualists with roughly the same viewpoint as liberals, but taking it to an even more radical level by advocating for the severe reduction or outright abolition of the state or any kind of authoritarian institution are known under the umbrella term "anarchists".

And yet, from all conversations I've had with those who claim to be American libertarians, they always vehemently say that they are not anarchists, and most certainly not bleeding heart "libturds". They absolutely despise liberals, despite the fact that what Americans today call "libertarianism" is actually a reinvention of classical liberalism (i.e. "market" liberalism, as opposed to "social" liberalism that modern liberals follow). Heck, libertarians outside the United States are better known as anarchists among themselves and to other people, and yet American libertarians tend to dislike being called as such, seeing it as a "left wing" appellation.

So what are you really then? I've said this before in other threads, but I've always found American libertarians puzzling. Even contradictory.

Most other individualists focus on social issues like privacy, justice, or human rights. American libertarians, on the other hand, seem to be more about letting big business do whatever they want, even when it impinges on individual liberties. Not to mention, their stances on social issues tend to be conservative (i.e. authoritarian, in the "everyone must follow tradition or else" way).

Many members of the "grassroots" (yeah right, haha) Tea Party, for example, claim to be libertarians. Even as they fall all over themselves supporting things like citizenship papers check based on your ethnicity, suspension of habeas corpus rights like the Patriot Act, or pushing their brand of evangelicalism to be made part of the constitution. They're also highly nationalistic and xenophobic, odd for people who claim to hate the US government. All of the latter are NOT about individual rights.

Seems to me that Libertarianism in the US is really just another name for hyperconservative authoritarianism, just with someone else in charge. The only thing they have in common with other individualists is that they distrust governments. And even then, not that much. As the government most American "libertarians" object to seems to only be Obama's.

reply

Libertarianism has already been tried. In 1776 to be exact. And it succeeded. Overwhelmingly.

The United States itself was founded upon Libertarian principles. Most US founders were Libertarian in their belief systems.


Try telling that to the slaves.

reply

strong anti-government message.

The movie's main conflict is resolved in the protagonist's favor by none other than the High Court of Australia, which happens to belong to one of the three branches of government.

I think, if there's an intended message, then it's a lot more straightforward: Stand by your principles and by what you feel is right, and don't back down, even if your adversaries seem omnipotent.

reply

well, that's what libertarians say! Stand by your principles!

reply

It's also what everyone else says, and that's my point. The movie's message, if there is any, is far too general to be interpreted as strictly pro-libertarian.

reply

[deleted]

Not true.

reply

[deleted]

Darryl Kerrigan is just a working class Australian trying to hang onto a house he loves. Politics has nothing to do with it.

reply

Americans have to bring their warped political spectrum into everything.
Liberterians want to live on armed compounds, wrapped in the flag, clutching a bible with guns.

reply

It's not an anti-government film you twit. (Not least because it was made with government funding through Film Victoria)

Did you even understand the premise of the film?

Kerrigans live next to airport. Airport wants to expand. Airport is big business. Big business lobbys hard so that the Legislature will do all that they can to facilitate the expansion, under the guise of supporting job creation and all that waffle. Little bloke stands up to them - not to the government per se, but to big business. Takes his case to the High Court (which is, as pointed out, one of the 3 arms of government) and wins.

reply

At first I thought the movie would be quite leftist, considering how it starts by making fun of this little family which seems full of simple-minded people, but it's not the case at all:

- The whole judicial case relies on the sanctity of private property above all else.

- They win the case by appealing to the constitution.

- The scene where Darryl tries to defend his case by himself in front of the judge, saying "You can't just walk in and take a man's house" to which the judge replies "what is your argument?", shows that the little guy understands basic natural rights better than most intellectuals.

- The scene where Dennis Denuto explains that Airlink is a government authority that benefits the Barlow Group shows that Big Business and Big Government go hand in hand.

In the end, you simply can not get more libertarian than this.

reply

The case does not rely on the sanctity of private property. The government has a constitutional right to acquire his land on "just terms."

Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia says the Commonwealth has the power to make laws with respect to "the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws."

In the movie, Darryl's lawyer makes a convincing argument based on "just terms" from the passage above. The court has a lot of discretion here, and they end up siding with Darryl. Alternatively, the court could've decided that "just terms" meant substantial monetary compensation.

The Constitution of Australia gives the courts a lot of leeway deciding what constitutes "just terms". However, there is nothing in the Constitution that protects the sanctity of private property above all else, as you claim in your post.

reply

Oh, fu#% off!

reply

Tell this libertarian he's dreamin'.

reply