It is apparent that the silver screen, be it film or TV, is a way to influence public opinion. Some writers, however, reject subtlety for blatant messaging. When Andrew Cartmel was asked in an interview what he hoped to achieve as a script editor, he recalled, “My exact words were: I’d like to overthrow the government.” He got the job.

What show was this, you may ask? It was none other than the longest-running science fiction show in history, Doctor Who.

 Even with two generations Star Trek is beat out by the British alien with two hearts, and the show will be celebrating its 50^th anniversary in 2013. As the main character, the Doctor, is able to regenerate instead of dying, this has allowed for great longevity of the show and let 11 different actors bring their original take to the TARDIS, the Doctor’s time-traveling blue police box. Though it is a staple in Britain, Doctor Who attracts a strong cult following in the United States.

Throughout the show’s long history, it’s most political era was likely during the 7^th reincarnation, played by Sylvester McCoy. This was when the aforementioned Cartmel was editor, and he managed a crew concerned about the performance of the current Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. One member of the cast went so far as to tell The Sun Times that they considered her to be “far more terrifying than any monster the Doctor had encountered,” which in the face of such monsters as Daleks, Cybermen and the Loch Ness Monster, is quite a statement.

This era was dotted with plotlines which paralleled the miner’s strike, including a speech based on material from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. They even wrote a semi-transparent parody on the PM as “Helen A,” a dictator who forces her citizens to be happy. Looking at the wider range of Doctor Who, however, one can clearly find evidence for the free market, limited government principals PM Thatcher stood for.

Though she may have exercised much of her governmental power creating a strong sense of nationalism, she also espoused the idea of limiting the government, restricting public expenditure, encouraging privatization and instating tax cuts. She described her intended society as a place “Where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

Whether he intended to or not, the 6th Doctor recognized the validity of her concerns about an unchecked government. Upon returning from many years abroad, he witnessed firsthand its effect on his people, the Time Lords, who became to him the worst evil he had ever faced, “In all my travelling throughout the universe, I have battled against evil, against power-mad conspirators. I should have stayed here. The oldest civilization: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarens, Cybermen – they’re still in the nursery compared to us. Ten Million years of absolute power. That’s what it takes to be really corrupt.”

As the series continues, the too-powerful Time Lords show their true colors in denying the Doctor fair trial, in starting a genocidal Time War with the Daleks, and creating their own weapon to save themselves by warping the mind of one of their own to bring them back when the time is right. Wherever he goes, the Doctor stands up for the people he meets and is the image of liberty as he travels freely and unhindered throughout space and time in his TARDIS, doing good where he can even when it gets complicated. Though he takes Presidential control of Gallifrey once during his fourth regeneration to protect his race from an invasion, he has the moral fortitude to turn down the offer when he is again chosen during his fifth regeneration.

Though initially many of the writers of Doctor Who had leftist agendas, a second look at their work suggests that limiting government to avoid the corruption of power is in fact a good idea. Though not originally spoken to answer her critics in British science fiction, Thatcher’s quote rings true, “It pays to know the enemy – not least because at some time you may have the opportunity to turn him into a friend.” Looking at the plots of many episodes, were the producers and the former PM to meet as friends, they may find something they agree on. Desire for power is the motive behind the vast majority of the show’s villains, and if there are not governmental checks and balances enough to limit them, the Doctor will!

What was the first American college to prohibit racial discrimination in its charter? What about gender-based discrimination? Many people might guess one of the schools known for a progressive worldview today, such as UC-Berkeley or one of the Ivy Leagues. The first such school, however, was Hillsdale College, a small liberal arts school in Michigan known today for its independence from government funding and rejection of government affirmative-action programs. It’s also my college. This is the story of a small frontier school and its stand on the principles of human dignity and the importance of education in a free society.

A handful of determined men, led by Ransom Dunn, rode thousands of miles on horseback, asking for contributions from farmers and settlers, in order to raise the funds necessary to found Hillsdale in the 1840s. From the beginning, the college expressly welcomed students of all races, even at a time when slavery still thrived in the South. The founders of the College focused on the study of the great books of the Western Tradition, stretching all the way back to Cicero, Aristotle, Plato and the Christian Bible. This tradition included the same works which guided the American Founding Fathers during the birth of our nation, from the ancients up through Locke, and Hobbes. By contrast, the College eschewed the novel, pseudoscientific ideas of men like John C. Calhoun, who declared slavery good and proper based on the “intellectual” differences between whites and blacks.

Over 400 of Hillsdale’s men fought for the Union in the Civil War, dedicated to the principle that “all men are created equal.” A monument on Hillsdale’s campus, positioned near a statue of Abraham Lincoln with bowed head, reminds students today of the price their predecessors paid in the defense of liberty and human dignity.

Fast forward to the days of the Civil Rights movement. In the face of mounting political pressure, the federal government began regulating both public and private colleges in order to promote minority achievement. While Hillsdale had never discriminated based on race and boasted a far more principled track record than the federal government on the issue, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare insisted that the college begin measuring student admissions and achievement by race for purposes of affirmative action. If the college did not comply, the Department threatened that federal student loans (one of the few forms of taxpayer money then accepted at Hillsdale) would be withheld from Hillsdale students.

Following court battles, the College finally resolved, “Let the government keep its money. Let us keep our Independence.”

Today, the College takes no taxpayer funding of any form, choosing to match any government loan offers with privately donated money. Students still study and discuss the same great works which inspired the Founders of both the College and the nation. Hillsdale stands today as one of only two American colleges (the other being Grove City College in Pennsylvania) to refuse all federal money as a matter of principle. Even incredibly well-endowed Ivy League Schools often bend over backwards in order to maintain a flow of taxpayer money. Colleges exist to pursue knowledge and truth, and when that pursuit slackens in favor of currying political favor, the college has clearly gone off track. We need more strong colleges who will prioritize principles over government grants and step up to educate their students in the roots of American liberty.

In a recent commentary on Michigan Radio, Jack Lessenberry raises some important questions about the future of the Detroit Institute of Arts. He correctly makes a case for the importance of art to a community, but assumes that because of this importance, art must be publicly funded. Rather than adopting a millage to pay for the Institute, the city should look to private artists and patrons to carry on Detroit’s artistic heritage.

Lessenberry states that the cost of the museum, distributed via a property tax millage among the citizens of Wayne, Macomb and Oakland counties, will only cost a tiny amount per citizen. He overlooks, however, the argument that such a museum should be able to survive on private donations and patron support alone. The small per-person cost of the Institute does not signify that the tax is needed or justified. Assuredly, if the museum is valuable to the community, people will be willing to donate a dollar a month (or more) to keep it going strong. No one needs to be forced to pay for something that they truly value – citizens who appreciate art will give of their own accord.

Privately supported art thrives in many communities.  Not far from Detroit, the Toledo Museum of Art receives only private funding.  This museum, founded in 1901, now houses over 30,000 works of art, ranging from ancient Egyptian to contemporary American.  Farther afield, many other American art museums and institutes are supported by private philanthropy without need for government assistance, including the Getty Museum in California. Established through a charitable trust, the Getty collection includes over 40,000 works from Ancient Greece and Italy alone.  These and other examples prove that an absence of public art subsidies need not cause an absence of art.

While some Detroit citizens will donate to the Art Institute, others will be free to choose different projects within the community to support, perhaps giving to churches, food pantries, or other organizations which also improve life for Detroit’s residents. Is the Institute so important that government must forcibly take money from citizens to keep it open, thereby limiting the amount those citizens have to give charitably and pay for their own needs?

The commentary also states that, “If you rent, voting for the millage costs you nothing.” This statement implies that renting residents can, essentially, get a free benefit. In fact, increased property taxes will reduce the profits of landlords, who may in turn pass the cost on to their tenants through increased rent. There is no such thing as a tax which costs a community nothing.

Detroit’s art is indeed a valuable piece of the city’s heritage and cultural contribution, but this does not mean that citizens must pay taxes for it. Rather, we should look to private generosity: individual citizens donating their own money will take care that the funds are put to good use for the community as a whole, not just for some.

I am a sorry excuse for a Star Wars fan. Despite the fact that I have watched the movies, read many of the extended universe novels (which continue from where the last movie left off) and won my fair share of Star Wars edition Trivial Pursuit, many fans turn up their nose when they realize my dark secret; the first movie I watched of the series was “The Phantom Menace.”

That’s right, I started the movies in chronological order. Though the graphics threw me for a loop when I reached “A New Hope,” I could appreciate the first three movies as new and fascinating instead of complaining that Jar Jar Binks was a lesser character than Chewbacca. To fresh eyes, the political subplots of the prequels of the beloved trilogy are thought-provoking.

The Sith are clearly the enemies: Sidious, Maul, and Dooku wage battles with our heroes over visible, physical threats to the peace. However, beyond their lightsabers, the Jedi are less aware of the quieter work Sidious is doing weakening the infrastructure of galactic politics. It is the many interplanetary conflicts and confrontations within the Senate that pave the way for the republic to die with “thunderous applause.” 

The fall of the Galactic Republic and the rise of the Empire logically follow a pattern often seen in human history – in times of crisis, men are willing to give up their freedoms for safety. Instead of waiting for the Republic’s system to take its course, when quick action is necessary, the Galactic Senate feels safer appointing one man to be in charge. 

Here, Palpatine is for the Galaxy what Caesar was for Rome; a face for Galactic (or National) stability and power. Once gained, power like this is rarely relinquished. To both Anakin and Palpatine, power’s allure was intoxicating. As early as the first movie Palpatine was orchestrating the Trade Federation blockade of Naboo with the hopes of gaining sympathy and attention, showing the weaknesses of the current Chancellor and eventually paving the way for his installation as leader at the height of the Clone Wars. 

For centuries, the Jedi were the keepers of justice in the galaxy. Though the government allotted the funds for building the temple, the Jedi maintained their own internal affairs, responding to requests by the government to mediate peace negotiations or neutralize dangerous adversaries to the republic, but also choosing to take on private affairs when assistance was necessary. As matters escalate, suddenly the public faith in the independent Jedi is not enough. The legislators further narrowed the services of the Jedi by coupling them with the compliant Clone Army as the galactic “military” expanded. The makers of the Clone Army, it turns out, are the Sith. 

As the Republic continues to weaken, faith in the system wanes and order takes precedence over freedom. Even before this (though few fans will have perused enough histories in Wookiepedia to know it) much of the Galactic Government was run on non-binding constitutional conventions, which were more often ignored and undermined by corrupt and power-hungry politicians than heeded. Such a Republic was ripe for the fall. When the people cried out for leadership, Darth Sidious was there. 

In the end, Darth Maul with the horns and painted face was no phantom, but the real force for evil was the destructive abuse of law and representation in the Galactic Senate. If only there had been a Galactic Think Tank that could not only sense the disturbance in the force, but could warn the people of the dangers of appointing an Emperor, even for an emergency! Though it is unlikely our planet will ever be troubled by conspiring Sith, it is always vital to keep an eye on how the decisions made today can affect not only the Republic’s current stability, but the lives of future generations.

J. R. R. Tolkien’s great epic, The Lord of the Rings, contains far more than a compelling and inspirational story. A holistic worldview, rooted in a deep understanding of human dignity, pervades the entire world of Middle-Earth. Every defender of liberty and foe of oppression today should take the time to read this book—it powerfully illustrates the importance of individual action within the great struggle between good and evil.

At the beginning of the work, Tolkien describes the Hobbits of the Shire. Not far different from the English country folk whom Tolkien loved, they are, for the most part, simple, honest people leading simple, honest lives. They have few dealings with the wider world, and most Men view them as unimportant, as Hobbits are “neither renowned as great warriors, nor counted among the very wise.”

This quiet lifestyle, however, faces a grave threat from the Dark Lord Sauron, described by Tolkien in another book, the Silmarillion, as a fallen angel seeking to cover all lands with the shadow of his tyranny. In the face of this danger, a young hobbit named Frodo Baggins, who desired no part in a clash of world powers, steps up and actually volunteers for a dangerous mission to Mordor, the land of the Dark Lord himself, in order to destroy an evil Ring which would provide Sauron sufficient power to destroy all opposition. Along the way, Frodo receives help from several unexpected allies, but most especially from his loyal friend, Sam Gamgee.  Together, Frodo and Sam travel a torturous, roundabout route to Mordor, dodging numerous enemies. These two little Hobbits literally carry the fate of the world in their hands.

Tolkien powerfully illustrates the dignity and importance of human individuals through the humble heroism and Frodo and Sam. In the great struggle between good and evil, other characters, such as Aragorn, the rightful King, are called to take a visible stand and boldly defy the power of the Dark Lord. However, all their battle prowess and wise strategy against Sauron’s armies would have come to naught but for the willingness of two Hobbits to play their part. Even the smallest person has a role to play in the defense of beauty and freedom against an evil which seeks to destroy both.

So it is with us today. In modern America, few if any of us will be called upon to mount a white horse and lead a heroic charge in battle, but the principle of human dignity still applies. Our nation was founded upon it — the principle that all citizens, rather than a select few, have a role to play in their own government and in defense of their own liberty. We face an imperfect, divided world, and every citizen has a place in the struggle between good and evil, beauty and ugliness, virtuous freedom and dehumanizing tyranny. Each of us must stand up to defend the dignity of human beings if we desire to preserve the best of our heritage as Americans.

For decades, Detroit has held a “mythic status” as a lost city. One major aspect of concern is the city’s continuing trek towards financial ruin. Detroit, however, doesn’t have to join the ranks of bankrupt municipalities. Appointing an emergency manager would do much for Detroit’s financial stability – if Detroit were willing to buckle down and face reality.

Reality isn’t pretty. The city continues its struggle to make payroll. This should raise real concern when, according to the Toronto Star, the city government is surpassed only by the Detroit Public schools in the number of jobs provided to Detroit. While the city managed to escape its most recent cash crisis, the outstanding $80 million short term loan the city took out in April on the state’s guarantee is still a gloomy spectre.

Decades of financial irresponsibility continue to compound consequences. Estimations of the budget deficit run around approximately $200 million, and the long-term debt burden is estimated to be over $7 billion.  One of the city’s major problems is its rapidly shrinking population. It is estimated that the town has lost a total of 61 percent of its population since 1950, of which 25 percent has occurred since 2010. The size of government infrastructure, however, has not matched pace.

While Detroit has managed to skirt bankruptcy thus far, citizens may soon be reminded that, like Stockton, CA, money doesn’t grow on trees. Stockton recently became the largest city to ever file Chapter 9 bankruptcy, and could foreshadow things to come should Detroit have to do the same. According to Robert Benedetti, a professor of political science at the University of the Pacific in Stockton, a judge will now have the power to decide how Stockton’s debts are to be paid off.

There are other available outcomes. Ecorse is one Michigan city that has been able to successfully avoid bankruptcy with an emergency manager. Anne Schieber, Mackinac Center senior investigative analyst, reports that the city has gone from a deficit that was “50 percent more than its annual operating budget” to escaping bankruptcy. The town had spent more than it brought in for decades. However, Joyce Parker, the city’s emergency manager, has been able to make some tough calls to bring spending back in line with revenues.

If Detroit citizens are apprehensive about the possibility of an emergency manager, they must keep in perspective how much control their elected officials will lose if a judge is given control in a bankruptcy situation. Bankruptcy has major costs and repercussions. It creates a lot of uncertainty, and damage to a city’s bond rating has the potential to make improvement projects more expensive. Unions that are protective of their collective bargaining rights should keep in mind that while an emergency manager may void contracts, new ones may still be agreed to. Under bankruptcy, a judge may choose to bypass contracts altogether.

Detroit is on an unsustainable trajectory. An emergency manager is a promising strategy for stabilizing Detroit’s teeter toward bankruptcy – if Detroit is willing to undergo the discomfort of adjusting to reality. The cost of pushing it off to another generation will only make the eventual price more painful. Take responsibility, Detroit: your children’s future depends on it.

One of my recent projects here at the Mackinac Center involved typing every single line item of the Michigan Budget into a spreadsheet. If anyone remains unconvinced that our government is trying to tackle too much, I challenge them to duplicate this feat. Such an expansive government is not healthy for our state, and we must act to limit the reach of our government as an economic and moral imperative.

Our government has assumed increasing control over industries which used to be the domain of private enterprise, including education, agriculture, and health care. While the creators of such programs may mean well, they fail to see many drawbacks of using government in these areas. All government revenue is gathered using the threat of force- citizens may not simply choose not to pay their taxes. Therefore, government bureaucrats receive large amounts of money and little accountability to use it wisely, when compared with the private sector. If a private sector business uses money poorly or provides lousy service, it goes bankrupt. If a government department does the same, it will probably get as much or more money next year, and citizens will have no choice but to fund it — if they refuse to pay their taxes, the IRS will come knocking.

This year’s state budget weighs in at just under $49 billion dollars, $29.4 billion of which comes from the State of Michigan itself (the rest is Federal money). Now, who or what can actually keep track of that amount of money in detail? Even a truly altruistic and well-meaning bureaucrat would find it difficult to manage such sums efficiently. Elections provide some measure of accountability for government programs and taxes, but voters have proven unfortunately pliable when they are promised a slice of the government money pie. Couple this limited accountability with the lack of a profit motive, and it’s no surprise that public-sector spending has grown enormous, both in Michigan and the United States as a whole.

Even more importantly, government overspending carries moral as well as economic consequences. All government taxation is backed with the threat of force, and so government has a moral responsibility to its citizens to use its revenue for the common good. Taking away from citizens and then neglecting the common good amounts to little more than theft. Michigan’s legislators must ask themselves the hard question: is it really for the common good that we collect nearly $50 billion each year, redirecting that money towards projects that many citizens neither know about nor desire? Is that moral?

Of course, everyday citizens also have an important role to play. We must disown many of the favors which we seek from government. America’s founders designed a Republic: a nation in which each citizen, whether high or lowly, had a part to play for the defense of the common good.  This means recognizing the value and rights of one’s fellow men, and not using government power to make them pay for our privileges.  In modern America, thousands of groups operate in the latter way, all seeking special favors backed by government force, and blowing up the balloon of overspending.  We might desire government to provide us with some good, but we too must ask the hard question: would it be right and moral for government to take from other men and women in order to provide this for us?  If the answer is no, we must stop seeking that favor from government or else stop calling ourselves Americans.

In sum, both moral and economic arguments tell us to cut back on government size and spending.  This can be done, but it will require a great deal of individual responsibility from American citizens.  If we truly care about America’s continued freedom and prosperity, however, we will not tarry in restoring government to its proper, limited role.

As a Mackinac Center intern, I spend a fair amount of time collecting and organizing a lot of information. Charts, graphs and spreadsheets quickly fill with mountains of facts and statistics, ready to make a compelling case for smaller government. With all these figures, the statists don’t stand a chance. After all, hard data convinces citizens to change their opinions every day of the week, right?

Not even close.

Men and women are not computers, and they were never meant to be. We do not form opinions purely by cold, hard calculation and logic. We may be able to impress people with statistics, but any argument built upon numbers falls flat on its face when confronted with a humane and moral argument. This is not a criticism of human judgment, but a very important point in its favor: we really should value virtue and happiness more than the creation of material wealth. The idea of truly amoral citizens, completely ignoring human dignity, can and does fill Americans with horror. The critical question, then, is why many free-market advocates focus on materialist arguments, largely ignoring the moral ones.

This week, my fellow interns and I had the privilege of attending a speech given by Dr. Arthur Brooks, leader of the American Enterprise Institute. Dr. Brooks recently wrote The Road to Freedom, a book precisely focused on the moral arguments in favor of free enterprise. He confronted many moral criticisms of the free market movement head-on, affirming the fairness and humanity of capitalism. While many well-meaning liberals call for increased government to care for the poor, it is free enterprise, not government, which has dramatically raised living standards for all social classes in American. Capitalism stands upon the moral foundations of individual dignity and responsibility. We should be winning in the moral arena, not shying away from it!

Here lies the power of gifted leaders such as Arthur Brooks: they see the statistics, and then look beyond them to see the moral principles at play.  Russell Kirk put it well in the introduction to his work The Conservative Mind, affirming that political problems are fundamentally moral problems.

Of course, this does not mean that we should ignore facts; I will keep collecting data to use in Mackinac Center studies.  The data must be contained within a moral framework, however, for it to mean anything in the context of public policy.  Free enterprise will prosper again in America once we remember that economic freedom is not merely efficient, but good.

For more information on Dr. Brooks and his writings, visit http://arthurbrooks.aei.org/.

Wind power. The love affair between wind power and environmentalists is well known. The impact to the environment is none and the promise of free fuel tantalizing. For many, wind power appears to be the future of energy.

There is little disagreement on one of the drawbacks of wind energy: the high startup cost. The European Wind Energy Association, EWEA, gives an estimate of $1555 per KW of installed capacity. According the American Wind Energy Association, AWEA, with an average capacity of industrial wind turbines in the US standing at about 1.75MW, the cost to install an average wind turbine in the United States is $2,721,000.

Such a turbine could theoretically put out 15330MW of electricity, thus making the cost to produce one MW of electricity $8.87. But that number is far from reality. Wind power is inherently intermittent; it cannot produce electricity all of the time.

Of course, before anything else, the capacity factor of turbines must be taken into account. It is not realistic to believe that any source of energy can output its total installed capacity all of the time. Downtime for maintenance is always a factor. For most sources of energy, the capacity factor is estimated at about 90 percent. Wind, on the other hand, is only blowing at a useable speed 80-90 percent of the time. Wind, even when producing energy, blows at variable speeds and often not at the precise optimal speed for maximum energy production. As a result, the capacity factor of wind is estimated at 25 percent, by the EWEA’s numbers. While in comparison to base load energy providers the number seems low, it is actually fairly good when compared to other intermittent power sources. Solar, for example, clocks in at 15 percent. Factoring this in, the cost per MW is $35.50.

Even this isn’t an accurate representation of the costs of wind power. As any car owner would know, the price tag is only part of the story: things break and must then be repaired. Many advocates for wind power argue that O&M costs for wind power are low and negligible. At the level of 3-5 percent of capital cost per year, it would appear to be true. Yet 3 percent of $3 million is large. Studies show that in the United States O&M costs average $27 for each MW produced. A turbine of 1.75MW would cost $124,000 each year. When added up over 20 year the resulting sum is $2,484,000: Almost as much as the capital costs. Factor this into the price, and the cost per MW rises to $62.50.

But there is even more to this story. It cost $62 to generate 1 MW of wind energy. To make it useful to the consumer, the electricity must get to them. Additional costs come from transmitting electricity across the grid, which, just like anything else, has capital cost and operating and maintenance. Moreover, the farther the electricity has to travel, the more it loses it charge. In other words, energy is wasted during transmission. Transmission costs, average at about $15 per MW produced. This cost is generally under $25 but can cost as much as $79 per MW in more extreme circumstances. The cost per MW then rises to $77.50.

This is notably higher than the numbers the EWEA gives for gas and coal, $53.88 and $61.16 per MW respectively. However, $77.50 only represents production costs. The price paid by the consumer is, of course, going to be higher.

Groups now claim that wind power is cheaper than fossil fuels. While the numbers given above are only estimates based on industry averages, it is illogical that the market alone would produce such results. This does not mean those studies are wrong, but rather that government subsidies play a role in the lowered cost. The federal government spent just under 5 billion in 2010 subsidizing wind energy either by contributing to R&D, financing installation of wind farms, or tax breaks for the wind industry. With wind energy production at about 95 million MW, the government spent about $52 for each MW of electricity produced—more than enough to artificially level the field between wind and fossil fuels.

                It is often said that number don’t lie, but people do. Yet sometimes, the deception isn’t even intentional. What happens more often than not is that the numbers are not carefully considered and thus are misrepresented—by either the presenter or the reader of the information. In short, it is always worth the time to consider exactly what a number means and often more importantly, what it does not.

After the death of Ray Bradbury, the Mackinac Center featured an article which mentioned the mythopoeic aspects of his futuristic literature that inspired at least one nerdy intern to further explore the themes of liberty and free market ideals in science fiction. Mythopoeia is a term coined by men like C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein, who had a great appreciation for the power of a fantasy. The concept is that, though a myth or story may not be real, there can be real, deep truths within that are better grasped through the illustration than they would be by a direct explanation.

Human rights and freedoms are so fundamental that they are almost inseparable from a good plot. Would Casablanca have lasted this long if Lazslo was evading his taxes instead of the Nazis? Though his taxes may have been unfair, this situation will not give a feeling of gravity as effectively as an army of Nazis will. Still, it is the idea of fighting against an injustice that draws the audience in, because though they are not facing an army, there are situations in their own lives to which it relates and lends lasting inspiration. When it comes to the themes in Science Fiction, there are far too many empires, republics, and anarchies to cover in one article, so grab your blaster and prepare for hyperspace – it’s going to be a long summer of stellar posts!            

Cowboys, explosions, space ships, honor, romance … An unprecedented clashing of genres seamlessly weaves together a celebrated statement of independence in the cult classic TV show Firefly. More than just a single-season pretty face, Captain Mal Reynolds and his crew members embody many of the central tenants of men searching for a free society.

Many businesses earth-side consider moving states to avoid business-crippling regulations, but Captain Reynolds left the earth altogether! After a costly defeat in the Browncoated Rebels’ war of independence, Mal took to the sky without his love, land, or property rights, escaping into space to preserve what little freedom he had left. If this seems extreme, take a look at the policies employed by the Alliance. If every government is arguably coercive, the Alliance is unmistakably so. As he pursues the profitable trading business he used to enjoy on the outskirts of regulation, Mal comes face to face with many underworld ruffians looking to go back on a deal, but the looming danger is always coming meeting with the ever vigilant forms of the Alliance; assassins, bounty hunters and Reavers; aggressive genetic mutations of a government-funded project which has gone horribly wrong.

Though the idea of government is to protect, The Alliance becomes damaging when it refuses to admit the existence of Reavers and resolve that deadly problem they created. It also hurts in smaller ways, such as when it fails to supply medicine to a town that needs it. Mal and his crew, originally hired to steal this precious cargo, change their minds when they realize what it is and give it to the people that need it, with the Captain’s powerful assertion that there “ain’t nothing dishonest about getting’ goods to folk that need ‘em” whether or not it is against the law. 

Looking at the world of Firefly, the places where Serenity’s crew frequent and the deals they make aren’t always safe. In fact, some places are chaotic and downright lawless. Amidst these dangers, the crew always bears their arms, but only for self-defense. Their arms more often come to the aid of those in need, a testament to the ability of a principled man to police himself. Now, this is not to say that the ’verse wouldn’t be better off with some well-chosen and responsibly enforced rules. The problem comes when the Alliance is as violent and corrupt as the thieves, a central issue in Firefly.

This is the environment which prompted the statement, “That’s what the government’s for, to get in a man’s way,” spoken by a disillusioned Mal Reynolds early in the series. Even the more optimistic Shepherd Book, a passenger on the ship, noted the dangers of absolute power, remarking that a government is “a body of people usually-notably-ungoverned.” As Mal begins to regain his faith in mankind and realize that the ‘verse is bigger than him and his crew, he begins to think more about what he can do to limit the power of government vowing that there would be “no more runnin’, I aim to misbehave!”

As citizens of a republic, Michiganders have a political voice in the way Mal never did in our rights to vote, to go to court over injustices, to legally protest and chose who represents us. Therefore we can likely lay our blasters aside in favor of these less hazardous methods. But that does not mean that citizens of this planet shouldn’t always be looking out for the continuation and extension of freedom, and remain informed on the issues which pass through the wilds of the legislature. Hopefully if dedicated citizens each do their duty and keep their ships in order, our government will never become the Alliance – Firefly has already shown us how that would end!