Why I hate "The Hunger Games"

Movies never upset me.  Horror movies scare me, sad movies make me tear-up, but I've never been disgusted about a movie or deeply disturbed by it until I watched "The Hunger Games".  And that's because no other movie has so accurately and brutally described the consequences of the state.  Sure, there are plenty of war movies like "Saving Private Ryan" or "Letters from Iwo Jima" that show the carnage of state power, but none of these portray the deep psychological problems that persist in a state-drunk society.

Now, I know some readers will stop there and think, "Come on, Eric.  You've gone too far this time.  Our government doesn't round up people and make them kill each other for the entertainment of others."  Well, you'd have a point there if I was looking for a literal description of the state in this movie.  Instead, let's analyze the themes presented in "The Hunger Games" and see if I'm way off base.

Disclaimers: I only watched the movie, but I've heard that the movie is surprisingly true to the book.  Second, I'm going to be covering themes in the movie that are themes of the state, if in one case I say the tributes represent one thing but in the next theme I contend they are another, it is because I am not drawing a 1:1 correlation throughout the entire movie; I am simply describing its themes.  Finally, I'm going to try to keep this spoiler free, but will be giving details of the movie you can't see in a trailer.

Lies about the State

The districts rebelled against the state.  So enamored with itself, that the state could not imagine why anyone would do such a thing.  It must be that the district is full of evil and stupid people.  These ingrates must pay for their lack of state worship, and thus each district must send two children between 12 and 19 into mortal combat.

In the recap of why the Hunger Games are necessary, the narrator notes that the districts rebelled against those that fed them.  What ungrateful wretches.  Of course, now the districts, under state control, are eating squirrels and bread is a luxury.  Those in the capitol however eat like kings, an example of the Calhoun tax feeder and tax eater paradigm that necessarily comes about when compulsion, not cooperation, is involved.  It is a lie to say that people cannot cooperate without compulsion.

Here in this country we hear the same lies.  "Who would build the roads?", "Who would keep us safe from terrorists?", "Who would feed the poor?", "Who would make sure our food isn't poisoned?"  The state is a stupid answer to these questions when the the goal of democracy is cooperation through compulsory monopoly whereas the reality of the market is cooperation through voluntary exchange and free competition.

Celebration of Warriors 

I hate veterans day, memorial day, independence day, presidents day, and any day dedicated to celebrating the state and its war mongering.  I hate the praise of soldiers.  And the pervasive coupling of Christianity and American imperialism played a key role in driving me out of the church.

In "The Hunger Games" there are primetime interviews with all the tributes - the children warriors.  The audience cheers them and congratulates them.  I thought it was weird that the author would think that congratulations would make sense to anyone.  But it's not that different from the the thanking we do to police and soldiers.  Only in bizarro world can those forced to compete and die for the state be congratulated.  Similarly, only those who beat and kill innocents for the state can be thanked.

But perhaps worse yet, are warriors just our cheap... I mean very expensive entertainment?  The hunger games are certainly there to entertain.  It's a time to turn inward into nationalism and to praise the false gods of vainglory.  Today we have reality shows like "DEA", "Coming Home", The Military Channel, and countless interviews with vets and soon to be deployed soldiers.  This type of entertainment must attract thousands or no one would sponsor it.

Not to be conspiratorial, but I found it interesting that "The Hunger Games" movie wasn't released until after the Olympics were over.  Perhaps the movie would have served too much as a mirror to the nationalism and pride endemic to the olympic games.  Why can't athletes compete as individuals?  Why do they have to represent a state?  It is sad that one must attribute his worth, his sacrifices, and his achievements to the state he is from. 

Dehumanization of the Enemy

District citizens dress in drab plain clothes.  They go about their days working in mines, growing grain, and other manual labor jobs.  They are said to have the minerals and resources that the capitol needs and so they're kept around.  The president makes it very clear that these people are not meant to be regarded as ... well ... people.  He says there are a lot of "underdogs" in the districts, his point is to belittle them, to make sure that no one starts feeling sympathetic for them.  He says that the only reason to have a winner in the Hunger Games is to make sure there's a false hope of victory, but the real goal is intimidation.  Declaring a winner is simply a mind game to keep the district under control.

So too we have the dehumanization of the enemy.  Most war propaganda amounts to this.  It was said that the Iraqi's in the persian gulf war were walking into Kuwaiti hospitals and killing babies.  Similarly, Nazi's were supposedly marching into Belgium and tossing babies back and forth on bayonets.  Tragically ironic is the fact that the U.S. does routinely kill women and children, and some even do it for the thrill of it.  Truth is the first casualty of war, and the dehumanization of the enemy is often the first victory for the state.

Getting back to the movie.  The capitol's citizens dress in ridiculous clothes.  Though not explicitly declared in the movie, they definitely have a sense of superiority.  After all, who could cheer the death of children if they first did not believe the children to be unworthy of life?  How similar it is with us, dressed in clothes that are impractical or flamboyant while looking down on those that choose modesty and comfort.  And clearly, U.S. citizens find most of the world's brown people unfit for life.  How else can they excuse indiscriminate drone strikes or continued wars of aggression?  There is one other option, as Michael Scheuer recently said, "you have to be genuinely stupid ... to believe other than intervention caused the wars we're in"

The South to some extent suffers the fate of the districts.  They're demonized, they're labeled rednecks and stupid.  The only reason - we're told - they could have wanted to secede from the United States was because they were backwards, racist, slave owners.  But let's not get hung up on this point, the story is about to get much more disturbing.

Admiration for tools of Destruction

Towards the end of the movie the games are hurried along by unleashing some genetically mutated animal that looks like an oversized pit bull.  In the control room, one of the game engineers presents it to the game master.  She asks him how it looks, and he tells her how great it is and asks her to display her work for everyone to see.

I wondered what must be wrong with these people to look at a destroyer of human life and be enamored with it.  It reminded me of a conversation I had with employees of a company involved in arms production.  They were telling me about a new project they won for a new machine gun.  This gun was to be mounted on a vehicle and would track and auto aim targets while the vehicle went over rough terrain.  These employees, who were Indian and thus I assumed not a fan of violence and war, had apparently bought into American militarism as they explained how "cool" this device would be.

This is deeply disturbing.  When the state unquestionably kills innocent lives with its weapons, how can someone cheer them? When the wars the US wages are clearly wars of aggression, how can someone develop the weapons for them?  All those in the military industrial complex are part of this.  I see BAE employees with company swag clearly promoting the US state and its military.  These people are no different than those working for the Hunger Games.  They are deluded into thinking they're doing something good for society, when they are demonstrably not, and only the veil of state propaganda can keep them in their irrational delusion.

Hopelessness of the victims

When deciding on a title for the event I'm about to describe, I found myself crying uncontrollably.  It has been over 7 years since that last happened.  It's not attachment to any fictitious character that caused this, but the all too real oppression of the state and the hopelessness many of us feel in the face of it.

Rue: killed in the Hunger Games

From the start of the games you know one of the players has no chance of survival.  But it's when her death finally occurs that the outrage of her home district is let loose.  Until that point they obediently send their children into the reaping, and they watch as others needlessly die.  But when the destructive evil of the state is concentrated in this one event it drives them to riot and attack the State's armed guards. 

But the state is ready for an uprising, those filled with love for the state stop the rebellion.  They come in with armored vehicles and hose down the victims.

Aiyana Jones: killed by Detroit cop.

Those of us who know that the state's wars on terror, drugs, and poverty are excuses for control are helpless.  When innocent children like Aiyana Jones or fathers like Jose Guerena die in these acts of control, it is the assumption of the people that these sacrifices are necessary in order for the state to keep us safe.  Those of us who only see individuals, not nationalities can barely handle the senseless destruction of human life by the hand of the state.  The real salt in the wound and the spit in our eye comes from our neighbors.  It is our supposed friends and family who berate us for believing in liberty over compulsion, who build a hundred straw men to justify an irrational system like the state.  These statists promote their progressivism, their intellect, their sophistication, all the while promoting barbarism, the war of all against all, the zero sum game of hegemony.

Jose Guerena: Killed in a drug raid.
Nothing but an empty pipe was found

As long as the masses are kept in this fog, the victims and those that see the state's evil will be put down if ever a rebellion were attempted.  So the fate of district 11 serves as a reminder of the hopelessness of justice.  It has been over 500 years since Ettiene de la Boetie asked the masses to stop obeying; I suppose we'll have to wait a little longer.

The next Hunger Games

There are three books in the series.  I see no point in being reminded of the state's evils in an allegory.  I already have to stay informed about current and historical events so that I'm ready for excuses for the state.  That's very difficult for me.  I study praxeology to sharpen the logical arguments for peace.  It's sad that peace takes so much work to defend.  "The Hunger Games" is a good distopian story; I just wish it didn't so accurately describe the problems of the state today.  In fact, we would be so lucky to have only 23 innocent people die because of the state each year.  Pondering the actual numbers is far too upsetting.

Reading list

I'm constantly citing Austro-libertarian works.  Why not just gather them in one place?

Intro into economics

Henry Hazlitt's Economic's in One Lesson
Economics is a study of opportunity costs.  This simple fact is seemingly missed by all political advocates.  Henry Hazlitt brings economics back to basic's with Bastiat's story of the broken window

Tom Woods's Meltdown
Why were the most highly educated economists of our time blindsided by the housing crash of 2008?  Tom Woods explains how the Federal Reserve induces businesses cycles - booms and busts.  The intricacies of Fed manipulations are broken down in this introduction Austrian Business Cycle Theory

Murray Rothbard's The Case Against the Fed
A more historical context for the Fed than Meltdown.  For anyone who believe the Fed exists for the sake of the people, this book will obliterate that image in the first few pages.  It's a powerful institution that exists to harness the power of Cantillon effects (for evil) and to the detriment of the poor world wide.

Murray Rothbard's Power and Market
How can we be so sure that government intervention is not ultimately beneficial?  Murray uses praxeology and cue's from Franz Oppenheimer's "The State" to show that what we need is more freedom.  When the power to violate natural rights is granted, social utility is ultimately diminished.

Murray Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State
Murray's magnum opus, this is a great book to go from "Crusoe Economics" to complex trade and discounting.  The effects of government intervention are restricted to chapter 12 but are expounded upon in Power and Market

Ludwig von Mises Human Action
(not read)  The foundation of modern Austrian economics.  The culmination of Menger's and Böhm Bawerk's work; the unadulterated Austrian theory.

Intro into Natural Right's Philosophy

Ron Paul's The Revolution: A Manifesto
A great place to start for anyone uneasy about libertarianism and believe there is something important about the constitution.

Tom Woods's Rollback
(partially read)  It might be hard to believe, but what comes out of the government and the media does not cover the full spectrum of ideas.  Tom Woods covers many of the myths that pervade the common political theory.  For those seeking an alternative, those who are worried that the mainstream solutions just aren't going to do it, this book can - if nothing else - amplify doubt in the state.

Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty
For a life changing, mind altering experience, look no further than "For a New Liberty".  Starting off by defining the goal of liberty in the context of the American revolution, Murray goes on to define liberty and apply it to every aspect of life.  Anyone who finds the state necessary to protect the environment or provide for defense will finish this book realizing that the state is everywhere detrimental to the ends they hope to achieve.

Albert J. Nock's Our Enemy the State
Some of the most power objections of the state come from ex-supporters of it.  Nock wanted to help the less fortunate, and he believed in educating everyone.  He backed the state before he understood it's modus operandi and the necessary consequences of it on society.  He abandoned Georgism and wrote this book acknowledging the State as the enemy of mankind.

Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty
(partially read) Rational ethics is the morality that all of mankind should follow.  This isn't an imposition of personal values, it is an argument derived from the human ability of reason.  In the Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard lays out the difference between a system of rational ethics and the contradictory systems that we see in government.

Hans Hermann Hoppe
Along similar lines as the Ethics of Liberty, Hans Hermann Hoppe introduces the world to Argumentation Ethics.  It's hard to prove that natural rights is universal, what Hoppe does is show that all other philosophies of ethics have contradictions.  By asserting that ethics must be internally consistent, Hoppe shows that one must choose libertarianism: a rational ethics.

Agorism

Ludwig von Mises's Socialism

(not read) Before searching for alternatives, it's a good idea to understand why the other option is inadequate.  The calculation problem that Mises developed shows that complete vertical integration - the control over all means of production - introduces calculational chaos. As Jeffrey Tucker says, "No one can read Mises's 'Socialism' and continue being a socialist"

Murray Rothbard's Anatomy of the State

Rothbard and Mises complement each other so well.  Whereas Mises, in socialism, gives the positive (scientific) reasons why the state must be rejected, Rothbard gives the normative (rights-based) reasons why it must be.  Anatomy of the State is a short overview of what the state is, how it is maintained, and - perhaps most importantly - what it is not.

Walter Block's Defending the Undefendable

This book is a mental stretch preparing the libertarian leaning individual before diving into the strenuous mental exercises he will encounter down the road.  Block asks you to analyze the most despised people in society, he then asks you to celebrate them.  After a few initial balks, you might find yourself praising the drug pusher, the slumlord, and the gypsy cab driver; I know I do.

Robert Murphy's Chaos Theory

Internalize the Externalities.  Wouldn't fire departments watch your house burn until they extorted vast sums of money?  Such a question is patently absurd after one reads Murphy's two long articles that compose "Chaos Theory".  Mathematically, Chaos Theory explains the patterns, not the predictions of how systems will behave.  So it is with this book, Murphy outlines how voluntary actions can cause intricate systems to emerge without prescribing exactly how they will emerge.

Walter Block's The Privatization of Roads and Highways

(not read) Yes, there are crazies out there who think roads would be safer if they weren't owned by the government.  They would also align resource allocation with consumer wants.  

Rothbard's For a New Liberty: It deserves a second mentioning here.  The later chapters on defense, courts, the environment, and police are extremely revealing.  But even this treatment doesn't go far enough in my opinion.  What this book does provide is a base from which to spring.  The Ethics of Liberty also is invaluable for it's discussion on just punishment.

Ettiene de la Boetie's The Politics of Obedience
It might be 500 years old but it's far more progressive and relevant that most of what gets spit out by Political Science professors today.  The lesson here is that the people are more powerful than those that rule over them.  Rothbard, in Anatomy of the State, shows that the state must convince the people that they ought to be ruled, Ettiene is like a frustrated mother who has had enough telling us to "Stop it! Stop it right now! Stop obeying dictators and be free!  What the fuck is wrong with you?  Just stop it!"