300
by Max Raskin
Thus, my criticisms of this film are based purely on its political message--it would be disingenuous to deny the cinematic power of wanton brutality. I also cannot ignore some libertarian aspects of the message. Yet although the film defends some critical arguments for private national defense, at base, the message of 300 is one of war, tyranny, and imperialism. The story is a historical one, but for the purposes of this review, I am going to overlook any inaccuracies and take the film’s account at face value. Briefly, three hundred Spartan warriors went to battle against over a million Persians who were commanded by Xerxes. By channeling the Persians into a narrow corridor, numbers counted for nothing, and the battle was a true match of fighting power. Led by their king, Leonidas, the Spartans managed to kill over half a million Persians and though they lost the Battle of Thermopylae, their sacrifice won the war for Greece. Sounds innocuous enough. Fundamentally, this is about the ability of privately organized individuals, who volunteer to go with Leonidas, to overcome the power of a highly centralized Persian army. As with all services on the market, defense is provided in the most efficient way that satisfies consumer demand. An increased division of labor will allow for those with natural proclivities for beating the crap out of people to become soldiers for a living. Unlike in the State army where bureaucracy and nepotism determines promotion, private armies would be run as all businesses on the free market are run, i.e. based on how capable the company is at providing defense. Leonidas and his Spartans were fighting a defensive war – the kinds that would be fought in the absence of a State. Because they knew the territory and were committed to waging a guerilla war against the enemy, the Spartans were certain to prevail. Further arguments for the privatization of national defense can be found in The Myth of National Defense. So superficially this movie supports the libertarian ideal of a free people defending their property in the absence of State coercion. Unlike the "slave army" of the Persians, the Spartans prided themselves on being "freemen." But were they? How can a society where young boys are kidnapped and trained for military service possibly be considered free? A scene in the movie portrays the 300 approaching a group of non-Spartan Greeks; when the ragtag Greeks explains that they are bakers, farmers, and potters by profession, the Spartans reply with a jockish "ugh," announcing that they are killers by profession. How can a society where all men are killing machines possibly maintain a division of labor and produce valuable goods and services? When the State forces the resources of society into war through conscription, taxation, and inflation, those resources are diverted from other more useful projects…like producing togas. The film also expounds the classic neoconservative battle cry. While Spartan society was based on a rule of law and freedom, the Persians were monolithic evildoers. In reality, as Dr. Touraj Daryaee notes:
Indeed, Greece was not innocent in the war – the Athenians provoked the Persians by unjustly attacking the city of Sardis and pillaging it. But it’s okay, because it’s freedom looting. The demonization of an enemy allows for tyranny to take over. Leonidas and the Spartans have very few qualms subverting the rule of law to achieve their bellicose ends. But this is the contradiction of the state; it seeks to protect its citizens’ rights by systematically violating them. On the free market this is no problem. Courageous private citizens like Leonidas would have been allowed to wage their successful just wars – they just wouldn’t be allowed to enslave others to do it. As Daryaee concludes, we must be wary of movies such as 300:
September 6, 2007 Max Raskin [send him mail] goes to high school in New Jersey. He was a summer researcher at the Mises Institute in 2007. Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com |
