iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

Many libertarians I know personally have an unwavering faith in free markets. Regulation, taxes, and government is always bad, deregulation and privatization is always good. I consider myself more of a realist than these people. Pure, unregulated capitalism inevitably leads to monopolies and corruption. Strong, smart government is needed to keep the game fair and foster competition.


Jimmy

Republicans also like to say that government shouldn't pick the winners and that markets know best. The problem with markets is that they only do what is best for markets and they care nothing for the task of leading a global power.

Imagine this phone conversation some 20 years in the future: Hello Boeing? This is Col. Jones, Air Force procurement. We're having a little trouble with the Chinese, Could you speed up delivery of some more F-22's?

Boeing: Of course, Colonel, let me transfer you to the plant manager in Shanghai.

At some point, statesmen have to step in and guide a rational industrial policy.

[c1ue]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

I think we can agree to disagree.

I have worked with illegals on a day to day basis; I employed a number of them for distributing real estate flyers for my mother.

This was more than 10 years ago; these people were fruit pickers/vegetable harvesters in the appropriate season.

Some of these jobs are now mechanized because of GM - the fruit varieties these days are much harder (firmer) than before but look ripe.

It is possible things have changed.

[grapejelly]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

Libertarianism is I think all about principles. The principle of freedom and liberty. That means no government except for a few things.

We are all brought up in government schools to believe that government is necessary and that nothing would happen to make life "fair" if it weren't for government.

But if you stick to principles, you can see that nobody has a right to steal what you have. Nobody has a right to force you to do something you don't want to do.

You want to pay people not to work? Fine. Pay them but don't hold a gun to my head and make me pay for your project.

You want to pay people a "fair" wage? Fine. You pay them but don't force me to.

You want "universal health care" or a "safety net". Fine. I opt out. Don't force me at the point of a gun to go along with your program.

Oh, but you say, our health program is a "public good" and there is no way for me to opt out.

That is because you designed it that way. You made it a public good by forcing me to pay for it in the first place. Don't force me to pay and I won't play.

That's Libertarianism.

[rj1]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

I'm a libertarian simply because our country can't afford all the responsibilities it currently has and its citizenry wants. If the citizenry believes the government should finance more, than we need to get to work on our country being Balkanized so that people can pick and choose which statelet they want to be in. I also am a fiscal libertarian because I believe it lessens graft and corruption, which means that the money that government does have if they have less is spent better and wiser.

I'm generally conservative on social issues, but I do not believe you can force morals on others, you can only show morals to people and it is up to those people if they accept them or not. So for instance I think abortion is wrong but I am a realist on the issue and just think it's here to stay, so all rhetoric on the issue from both sides is meaningless.

I'm very pro-military due to upbringing and I have more respect for military leadership than government leadership, which I guess is a hard position for most libertarians to accept. However, all libertarians should know that there is nothing more anti-government than the military (I mean that in an entirely good way).

[GRG55]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

Simple enough for me: I want gov't out of my personal life but all over my public life. If next to no government is anyone's ideal, here's your libertarian dream world: the Citarum river in Indonesia. You're welcomed to move there. Me: I'll stay and suffer a bit of government, that you.

The tragedy of the commons writ large...

[jimmygu3]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

Libertarianism is I think all about principles. The principle of freedom and liberty. That means no government except for a few things.

We are all brought up in government schools to believe that government is necessary and that nothing would happen to make life "fair" if it weren't for government.

But if you stick to principles, you can see that nobody has a right to steal what you have. Nobody has a right to force you to do something you don't want to do.

You want to pay people not to work? Fine. Pay them but don't hold a gun to my head and make me pay for your project.

You want to pay people a "fair" wage? Fine. You pay them but don't force me to.

You want "universal health care" or a "safety net". Fine. I opt out. Don't force me at the point of a gun to go along with your program.

Oh, but you say, our health program is a "public good" and there is no way for me to opt out.

That is because you designed it that way. You made it a public good by forcing me to pay for it in the first place. Don't force me to pay and I won't play.

That's Libertarianism.

GJ,

A number of members have pointed to countries where these policies (or lack thereof) have had disastrous results. Can you point to some that are doing well under your brand of Libertarianism?

Jimmy

[grapejelly]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

GJ,

A number of members have pointed to countries where these policies (or lack thereof) have had disastrous results. Can you point to some that are doing well under your brand of Libertarianism?

Jimmy

What county has followed these policies? Name one please.

[jimmygu3]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

What county has followed these policies? Name one please.

As WT said, third world countries. As Ann said, Indonesia. I'll add Sudan. Pretty damn close to anarchy. Anarcho-tarian Spin: The Janjaweed are simply excercising their freedom. The other ethnic groups are unable to defend themselves because they made poor choices. The invisible hand of the market has a machete. :eek:

[grapejelly]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

As WT said, third world countries. As Ann said, Indonesia. I'll add Sudan. Pretty damn close to anarchy. Anarcho-tarian Spin: The Janjaweed are simply excercising their freedom. The other ethnic groups are unable to defend themselves because they made poor choices. The invisible hand of the market has a machete. :eek:

No this is nothing to do with what I am talking about. Sudan and Indonesia have groups of people who routinely use deadly force against others. That is as far from Libertarian as you can get.

Closer to what I am talking about in some ways would be the US in the 19th century ex-Lincolns' administration, Hongkong and Singapore more recently in some ways. Note that economic freedom and low taxation contributed to all three miracles of growth and do not necessarily coincide at all with political freedom.

[Vangel]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

There are many flavors of Libertarian. I just read the blog of a guy who calls himself a Left Libertarian. Go figure. I consider myself a progressive Libertarian, that is, socially liberal but financially and fiscally conservative.

The principles of Libertarianism are too important to be left to ideology and religiosity. I'm starting this thread to develop the iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian. We'll frame it with the extremes and the community can fill in the wee parts in between.

Flat Earth Libertarian: Get rid of all government. No taxes. Privately owned Air Force. Build your own roads and sewer system. Slavery is acceptable as long as there are no sales taxes.

Left Libertarian: The government, while infinitesimally small, provides for our every need, eliminates all risk in life, provides health care and education and jobs and so on, but costs nothing. See also: Utopian Libertarian.

Utopian Libertarian: No taxes or government. But I like to hunt, fish, and camp and don't like pollution, so just enough government to keep the chemical and mining industries from ruining the environment. And I don't like toxic crap in my food, either, so just enough government to keep the food industry from putting too many dangerous chemicals in my food. And no toxic chemicals in my cat's food, for that matter, so just enough government to keep the China's food industry from poisoning my cat. And no dangerous car designs that let the hood pop through the windshield and cut off my head in an accident like they did before laws went into effect, so just enough government to pressure the car industry into making expensive design changes for safety. And I don't like guys driving 100 MPH in the breakdown lane, so just enough government to police the roads. And... (fill in the blank 1,000 things government does that Libertarians can't live a day without)...

It all comes down to principles. Many people who claim to be libertarian seem to accept coercive actions by the government in the name of social progress/harmony/(insert word here) or providing some service that the market is supposedly unable to deliver. For some reason the very people who understand that government can never be trusted to look after our food supply, energy needs or even deliver the mail at a reasonable cost seem to think that it is capable of delivering education, health care or law and order more effectively.

Even if we put aside that little problem that governments have never been able to deliver goods or services more effectively than the unhampered market the so-called libertarians put themselves on the losing side of the argument because once they accept some coercion they give up the moral and ethical high ground and give the statists an advantage when those statists argue their case for more government or use the 'necessity of defence' argument that has been used to fight many unnecessary wars.

The argument in favour of a voluntary society is too long to cover here. If you have the time and the desire to review a rigorous discussion of the libertarian position I suggest that you take a look at the The Ethics of Liberty.

[EJ]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

It all comes down to principles. Many people who claim to be libertarian seem to accept coercive actions by the government in the name of social progress/harmony/(insert word here) or providing some service that the market is supposedly unable to deliver. For some reason the very people who understand that government can never be trusted to look after our food supply, energy needs or even deliver the mail at a reasonable cost seem to think that it is capable of delivering education, health care or law and order more effectively.

Even if we put aside that little problem that governments have never been able to deliver goods or services more effectively than the unhampered market the so-called libertarians put themselves on the losing side of the argument because once they accept some coercion they give up the moral and ethical high ground and give the statists an advantage when those statists argue their case for more government or use the 'necessity of defence' argument that has been used to fight many unnecessary wars.

The argument in favour of a voluntary society is too long to cover here. If you have the time and the desire to review a rigorous discussion of the libertarian position I suggest that you take a look at the The Ethics of Liberty.

This has been a fruitful discussion. My two cents.

One need not rely completely on theory. There are plenty of real-world examples of pure or near pure libertarian society in the world today. Paradoxically, these tend to be places where even Flat Earth Libertarians do not want to live.

You can visit nearly any 3rd world country and find a society that conforms relatively well to the definition of pure libertarian society. Government supplies little in the way of law and order and involves itself in only marginally in daily life. In the absence of government, typically warlords or private armies supply security and extract what little economic surplus the people can produce. History shows that even developed societies can revert to such medieval structures quickly when the western legal institutions that have developed over the past several hundred years fail. I doubt even Flat Earth Libertarians would choose to eliminate these institutions on purpose. One can argue that the US is warlording over the world and that is a valid point, but it is due to failure of the political system to enforce Constitutional law and international law; the elimination of the legal institutions and laws will not foster peace.

My view is that there is over time and from place to place a continuum from too much government to too little and that in the real world balance is provided through the political process, where a strong institutional framework exists. In western societies a dynamic tension between the political forces pressing for more government and the forces pressing for less provides a healthy balance. Eliminate either and government turns either dysfunctionally communistic (slavery to the state and equal distribution of poverty) or dysfunctionally free market (institutions of government co-opted by money interests).

Rule by money interests is what occurred in the financial markets as a result of Greenspan executing his libertarian ideology in the banking system and financial markets 1987 to 2006. The system naturally evolved to extract economic rent via credit dependency and continuous debt service (see New Road to Serfdom).

My favorite market analogy is a highway. To function, speed limits and other rules of the road, lanes, driver's licenses, insurance, maintenance, and policing are minimum requirements for high level function. You can find countries where some or none of these do exist; these are places where you do not want to drive. Again, one does not need to rely on theory. Take Costa Rica, for example. "Although the speed limit is usually 50 mph, Costa Rica holds the world's highest auto fatality rate (18 deaths per 100,000 kms., as opposed to 2.7 deaths in the U.S.)" The rules are there but are not enforced.

Markets are similar. Without speed limits and other rules of the road, lanes, licenses, maintenance, and policing they cannot function. It is ideology – fantasy – divorced from reality to believe otherwise. Certainly these need to be reformed from time to time if they become too restrictive or too loose; with the political process providing the balance. Costa Rica market failure recently occurred in the US housing market. The rule breakers got into a pileup and we'll all be squeezing by in the breakdown lane for 10 years or more.

As the credit system and the FIRE Economy born of free market ideology and fantasy decline in crisis, voices pressing for greater economic freedom will be drown out by those pressing for greater government involvement in the markets and economy to rescue the economically injured. The system will lurch from too little regulation to too much. That is unfortunate and presents a great irony: the greater socialism in our future is the result of the misguided application of libertarian fantasies of our past. When everyone tires of the relative poverty it will produce – via inflation and economic stagnation in my view – we shall go the other way again. Some day the political system can gather the wisdom to avoid these extremes and settle on a pragmatic and less ideologically driven approach.

[Vangel]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

I'll give it a try. I'm also socially liberal and fiscally/ financially conservative.

I strongly believe in a balanced budget, definitely at the personal level and as much as possible at the government level. I've lived a life that any "Bush/ Reagan conservative" would be proud of, never any government handouts ever, worked my way thru college, grad school, and rest of my life, saved and invested, and expect to pay for my own old age.

And the truth is, I can't stand the "core conservative" philosophy of social Darwinism and every man for himself only.

We don't all start from a level playing field and sometimes it's very appropriate to give our fellow man "a hand-up". All the great religions of the world tell us this. We are our brothers keepers, to quote Christianity. In hunter-gatherer societies, where mankind has spent its entire existence except for last 10,000 years, sharing is THE strong value, not competition. It's how they survive in good times and especially bad times.

I've travelled a lot in third world countries, where government is weak and/ or corrupt. Traveled with non-profit organizations where I was able to meet the average (often very poor) citizen.

Imagine living in a country where there is no unemployment insurance, no social security system, no FHA-guaranteed mortgages, no student loan system, where even primary schools are not free (parents skimp to pay fees), no county hospitals, basic health care is unaffordable so you can't see a doctor when you break your leg (I saw that in Ghana) because there are no laws that say hospitals must treat even the indigent in emergency rooms, very poor infrastructure and roads because laws against corrupt politicians and businesses are not enforced. There the buyer must truly beware because there is so little regulation to thwart the predatory and unscrupulous. Also no Small Business Administration to assist small businesses, interest rates are usurious beyond what we can imagine, and you sink or swim, alone.

In many ways, some of these thirld world countries meet the definition of a "Pure Libertarian" society. And, believe me, they are not places where most people would choose to live.

In many of these societies, family, tribal , and ethnic ties are very strong. And much of the reason is that they are your only social safety net.

My opinion is that we need enough government regulation to keep the system as fair and honest as possible. Also to provide basic infrastructure, free education through high school, basic health care for all citizens, and a "helping hand" to society's less fortunate members.

I feel strongly about giving a "helping hand" from government. A child who is born to a single teenage mother, to drug addicts or alcoholics, to very poor parents who make minimum wage, etc. is going to have a much harder time making it into the professional classes than a child born to educated, professional, or wealthy people. There are alway a few exceptional children who do rise above this environment, but they are rare, that is why they are called exceptional. The journey is arduous, fought with peril (especially in teen years), and few mistakes are allowed.

You don't seem to trust some people to co-operate and to do what is right. That is fine. But what makes you certain that giving other people a monopoly on force is a good idea?

And how does one justify funding a "helping hand" by coercion? Why should some people be forced to pay for programs that governments choose to help certain special interests if they oppose those programs? After all, some people oppose programs because they do not believe that governments are capable of delivering them effectively and they oppose the waste of scarce resources that may be used to increase the overall standard of living for society. Why do we need a massive bureaucracy to fight poverty when that bureaucracy has wasted trillions and made things worse? Why do we need healthcare regulations when we long for the good old days when healthcare was cheap because in the unregulated environment costs were easier to control and that made insurance affordable to most people?

I could go on but I hope that I have made my point. History shows us that unhampered societies have higher standards of living and happier citizens than those in which the state is much larger and interferes much more.

[Vangel]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

This has been a fruitful discussion. My two cents.

One need not rely completely on theory. There are plenty of real-world examples of pure or near pure libertarian society in the world today. Paradoxically, these tend to be places where even Flat Earth Libertarians do not want to live.

You can visit nearly any 3rd world country and find a society that conforms relatively well to the definition of pure libertarian society. Government supplies little in the way of law and order and involves itself in only marginally in daily life. In the absence of government, typically warlords or private armies supply security and extract what little economic surplus the people can produce. History shows that even developed societies can revert to such medieval structures quickly when the western legal institutions that have developed over the past several hundred years fail. I doubt even Flat Earth Libertarians would choose to eliminate these institutions on purpose. One can argue that the US is warlording over the world and that is a valid point, but it is due to failure of the political system to enforce Constitutional law and international law; the elimination of the legal institutions and laws will not foster peace.

My view is that there is over time and from place to place a continuum from too much government to too little and that in the real world balance is provided through the political process, where a strong institutional framework exists. In western societies a dynamic tension between the political forces pressing for more government and the forces pressing for less provides a healthy balance. Eliminate either and government turns either dysfunctionally communistic (slavery to the state and equal distribution of poverty) or dysfunctionally free market (institutions of government co-opted by money interests).

Rule by money interests is what occurred in the financial markets as a result of Greenspan executing his libertarian ideology in the banking system and financial markets 1987 to 2006. The system naturally evolved to extract economic rent via credit dependency and continuous debt service (see New Road to Serfdom).

My favorite market analogy is a highway. To function, speed limits and other rules of the road, lanes, driver's licenses, insurance, maintenance, and policing are minimum requirements for high level function. You can find countries where some or none of these do exist; these are places where you do not want to drive. Again, one does not need to rely on theory. Take Costa Rica, for example. "Although the speed limit is usually 50 mph, Costa Rica holds the world's highest auto fatality rate (18 deaths per 100,000 kms., as opposed to 2.7 deaths in the U.S.)" The rules are there but are not enforced.

Markets are similar. Without speed limits and other rules of the road, lanes, licenses, maintenance, and policing they cannot function. It is ideology – fantasy – divorced from reality to believe otherwise. Certainly these need to be reformed from time to time if they become too restrictive or too loose; with the political process providing the balance. Costa Rica market failure recently occurred in the US housing market. The rule breakers got into a pileup and we'll all be squeezing by in the breakdown lane for 10 years or more.

As the credit system and the FIRE Economy born of free market ideology and fantasy decline in crisis, voices pressing for greater economic freedom will be drown out by those pressing for greater government involvement in the markets and economy to rescue the economically injured. The system will lurch from too little regulation to too much. That is unfortunate and presents a great irony: the greater socialism in our future is the result of the misguided application of libertarian fantasies of our past. When everyone tires of the relative poverty it will produce – via inflation and economic stagnation in my view – we shall go the other way again. Some day the political system can gather the wisdom to avoid these extremes and settle on a pragmatic and less ideologically driven approach.

Again I disagree. I believe that you are framing the argument in a way that allows you to make points that cannot really be justified. You claim that the real world shows us plenty of almost libertarian societies. Well, I don't see the examples as libertarian at all because when most libertarians talk about society they mean one in which the laws protect people and their property from intrusion.
Libertarians are not prone to utopian gibberish and understand that there will always be crime and discontent in a human society. They also understand that there will be a need and a market for law and order. Where they often disagree is the position of who is best capable of delivering that law and order. I think that it is your position that you need a government monopoly on power in order to have law and order. But I would argue that there is no reason why your assertion is correct. After all, governments are terrible at delivering the mail, producing food, goods or delivering education, health care or other services. Why should I accept the statement that governments are any better at providing law and order than the market, which is clearly superior in the areas that I just listed?

A good example would be to look at Somalia, which lost its government in 1991. Without a government you would think that the country would move towards chaos and that things would be worse for the people that needed law and order to protect them. But that never happened. When Peter Leeson looked at statistical data from the CIA, the UN Development Project, the WHO and the World Bank and compared current figures with what happened from 2000 to 2005 with 1985-1990 (the last five years under the central government) he found that things got a lot better.

Life expectancy went up by five percent. It is still too low but the trend is up. Immunization rates for children went up by one third for measles and 70% for TB. The number of physicians per person went up by 18 per cent. Infants born with low birth weight dropped by 98%. The infant mortality rate was reduced by 24 per cent. The maternal mortality rate dropped by 31%. Fatalities due to measles dropped by 30%. Access to sanitation, health facilities, radios, televisions and telephones improved and the percent of the population that lived in extreme poverty declined. Of the 18 development indicators that Leeson examined, 13 clearly improved
after the collapse of the government while only two, adult literacy and school enrollment, clearly declined. The last two are attributed to a reduction in aid.

A later study by Benjamin Powell, Ryan Ford and Alex Nowrasteh of the Independent Institute reaches the same conclusion. The study found that of 13 measures, Somalia ranked in the top 50 percent of 42 Sub-Saharan nations nations in six. It only ranked near the bottom in infant mortality, immunization rates, and access to improved water sources. But all of the measures had improved relative to other countries since the collapse of the Somali state.

The Somali economy is getting stronger. It is the biggest exporter of livestock in Eastern Africa. Without a national regulator the telecom sector is booming and access to cell phones is cheaper than anywhere on the continent. International investment is flowing into the country as Coca Cola, Dole, DHL, GM and other companies have established a presence. These companies went in even though the country has no statutory law. But it certainly has a legal system that is adequate in settling disputes without the need of a central government. If anything the introduction of a state would introduce legal chaos and probably create another vampire state that is typical when some men are given monopoly power.

I do believe that your analogy about roads is a good one. But I would say that the issue is not about having signs on the roads but how those signs and placed, what they say and who owns them. I believe that it is implicit in your argument that it is all right for some bureaucrat to arbitrarily decide what the limits should be and that once they are posted everyone will (or should) try to comply. Well, I really don't know what the limits should be and would have a market process decide on the nature of the signs and the information they contain. Instead of having an arbitrary limit set by political hacks and lobbyists it is preferable that the owners of the highway can choose to have different limits on different sections on the basis on local conditions, customer feedback and rigorous analysis. If the owner does a bad job s/he will lose customers and will have to adjust just as businesses do now.

Having grown up in a society where very bright folks tried to plan the economy and bungled it every step of the way, I don't have the type of faith in central planning that seems to be advocated on this board. In the case of the economy the biggest problem seems to be the monopoly power that the central banks seem over creating money out of thin air. Such power cannot possibly be justified in any society that wants to call itself free. And neither can government intrusion into the economy as it intervenes to pick winners and make others losers.

I have to cut this short because the kids want me to take them swimming.

[World Traveler]

300,000 die in 1991-1992 Somalia Famine

300,000 die in 1991-1992 Somalia Famine, President Bush (Sr) sends in U.S. troops in 1992 to enable relief efforts and prevent further starvation, (relief efforts stymied due to fighting among local warlords).

Below is exerpt from Frontline/ PBS. Same info available from many other publications.

Civil War and famine Long-time dictator Siad Barre is forced out of Mogadishu in January, 1991. Conflict between the Somali National Movement (SNM), Aidid's party, and other factions causes clan infighting, leading to famine and lawlessness throughout portions of the country. An estimated 300,000 Somalis die of starvation during the year of civil war that followed Barre's ouster.
March 3	Ceasefire Warring faction leaders sign a ceasefire agreement, which includes provisions to allow a UN monitoring mission into Somalia to oversee arrangements for providing humanitarian assistance.
April 24	UN Military Observers to Somalia UN Security Council approves UN operation in Somalia, pursuant to the ceasefire agreement. In July, 50 unarmed UN military observers are deployed to Mogadishu to monitor the ceasefire.
August 15	Operation Provide Relief (United Nations Operation in Somalia -- UNOSOM I) UN humanitarian relief effort begins.
December 4	US President George Bush launches Somalia intervention Deteriorating security prevents the UN mission from delivering food and supplies to the starving Somalis. Relief flights are looted upon landing, food convoys are hijacked and aid workers assaulted. The UN appeals to its members to provide military forces to assist the humanitarian operation. With only weeks left in his term as president, George Bush responds to the UN request, proposing that US combat troops lead an international UN force to secure the environment for relief operations. On December 5, the UN accepts his offer, and Bush orders 25,000 US troops into Somalia. On December 9th, the first US Marines land on the beach. Bush assures the American people and troops involved that this is not an open ended commitment; the objective is to quickly provide a secure environment so that food can get through to the starving Somalis, and then the operation will be turned over to the UN peacekeeping forces. He assures the public that he plans for the troops to be home by Clinton's inauguration in January.

[metalman]

Re: 300,000 die in 1991-1992 Somalia Famine

300,000 die in 1991-1992 Somalia Famine, President Bush (Sr) sends in U.S. troops in 1992 to enable relief efforts and prevent further starvation, (relief efforts stymied due to fighting among local warlords).

Below is exerpt from Frontline/ PBS. Same info available from many other publications.

Civil War and famine Long-time dictator Siad Barre is forced out of Mogadishu in January, 1991. Conflict between the Somali National Movement (SNM), Aidid's party, and other factions causes clan infighting, leading to famine and lawlessness throughout portions of the country. An estimated 300,000 Somalis die of starvation during the year of civil war that followed Barre's ouster.

good one.

Libertarians are not prone to utopian gibberish.

yeh, right. as prone as socialists, if you ask me. socialists turned inside out. fanatical, utopian, incapable of valuing 10,000 yrs of civilization. "the state is evil!" too much state is evil. too little is evil.

humans are a fucked up animal. no way do you want them running round loose without a state strong enough to enforce the law.

did you see apocalypto? ok, so mel gibson has some "issues" but this movie is great. the spanish ships show up at the end. what do they represent? yeh, that's right. civilization. treasure it.