The Classic Liberal Blog

I have seen the movie, several times now. Part of the reasoning for such is my utter awe with the tech put into its development, partially to try to decipher the politics as I was too blown away by the special effects the first time around to do anything other than respond viscerally to it. I admit the emotionalism was very raw, and while this movie incorporates several tried and true devices, they are no less effective. I lament the death of Joseph Campbell, he'd have a field day with this one.
Having said that, when deciphering the politics on this, despite the green face of the film, I found it very, very libertarian in its politics. The all powerful state against the property rights of the Na'vi inhabitants, the individual as the force against the state. Jake Sully even goes on simpler version of a Francisco D'Anconia type speech, with his simple message about teaching those who think that they can take what they want as to how wrong they really are. This message should resonate with every man who has chafed under government assertions, always arrogantly stated and backed by guns. Rand would stand with Jake Sully in this. Again, people get lost in the corporate greed theme, which risks being mistaken for being anti-corporate. But again, why should a company win out in a battle for resources over a group that owns the land on which they are found just because they are bigger? I can not think of one, and I too would shoot at whomever was driving a tractor across my land, hell bent on nothing further than it's destruction and plunder. I think Debbie Schussel would as well. Unobtanium (I know, stupid name but 10 seconds worth of dialogue could have made it a practical joke between scientists or some such) is all over the planet. If the richest deposit happens to be on my land, and I don’t want to sell to you. Sorry chum. Sure James Cameron is no Heinlein with his naked assertions of sci fi libertarian righteousness (as a side note, he does seem to have borrowed generously from Poule Anderson’s “Call Me Joe”), but I doubt Debbie Schlussel would stand behind Time Enough For Love or Stranger in a Strange Land either.
The Planet as a sentient being is no more of a reach than most articles of faith asked by us of any of the world's ancient religions. And the planet was the technology. You did not need a computer, all data was stored in the planet's network. Want to ask an ancestor, plug in. Need to learn to ride a horse or fly, plug in. When you have the ability at hand, development of such utilizing other labor and resources is kind of a waste of both, isn’t it? So why not go green, it’s all there anyway. Cameron spares his characters the tough choices that we humans have to make everyday in terms of shelter (mother tree), transportation (horses and banshees provided, not too much training needed), food readily available, climate permitting a light clothing load, bioluminescence to light the night. While not quite Eden, it’s a pretty close commute from Pandora, once you learn the basic tricks of the trade. Cameron’s world provides, so ask any economist where the utility is to be found in modifying the system? Anyone who looks at this and says, “we must go green, to the exclusion of all else” is living in a fantasy world, not the real one. But anyone who looks beyond such will plainly see the libertarian message plainly, the justice inherent in the observation of property rights. It remains interesting to me to see how many in the Hollywood left lionize the individual, and the evils of big government, in their films, while seeming to stand directly opposite such in their stated politics.
I apologize for being a little all over the place in this essay, too many thoughts to organize in one brief response. And Mr. Cameron, thank you, I did love it so.