[MOVIE] Just finished watching 'REPO MEN'. *Everyone* here must watch this!!!!

[Sentient Void]

Wow... just... wow. What an amazing movie. Probably one of the better new movies I've seen in a *long* time!

5/5 stars - EASILY.

Screwed up, GREAT action, original, gets you thinking bigtime, and with an ending you WILL. NOT. SEE. COMING. AT ALL.

YouTube - 'Repo Men' Trailer HD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl9Nvg4yuus)

Ultimately, this is a movie about CONTRACTS. Being a libertarian - it gets you thinking big time about contracts, and such a scenario in the movie, and is great for debate about the morality of such a scenario.

I watched this movie with my girlfriend (who is a staunch libertarian as well)... we both loved it a LOT.

Anyways, we got into a little debate about it in the end... I was trying to reason my way through trying to figure out a libertarian answer as to why people's organs couldn't be repossessed, even if they signed a contract, based on inalienable rights to self-ownership (though now I'm thinking that repossession of the organ(s) would not violate self-ownership, since you'd still own yourself, just not the artificial organ), etc... and my girlfriend took the position that I was wrong, and that a contract is a contract and that's that, even in this situation. Imagine that - she took the more HARDCORE propertarian libertarian position than I did (and I'm a fucking AnCap)! Needless to say, I was both impressed and proud with her, lol.

Ultimately, I conceded that she was probably right. People should be allowed to sign such contracts, and the company should have the right to repossess their property. Not only that - but is allowing people to violate such a contract *really* the most moral position? What if the inalienable position were correct, and the company had no right to repossess? What would actually happen? If people were allowed to violate such a contract without recourse, many more people would have a lot less reason to pay it at all, and more people would choose default. The company would easily collapse, and it would not be a viable business. Then - *no one* who couldn't afford to pay for it straight up would even have the chance to be able to get access to organs (which, by the way, were very expensive to manufacture and were anywhere from $600,000+) to save their own lives, from even the fairly wealthy to the sub-prime markets and many, many more people would die without this technology. Is it *really* moral to deny people the chance to utilize this technology (if it were available) to potentially save their and their loved ones' lives?

Of course, we would say that in a free-market they wouldn't loan out to non-credit worthy customers, but we still must acknowledge the possibility of even AAA credit people to default (which does happen, though rarely).

I'm sure many and even most would pay their bill regardless (they had payment plans, etc), but we have to admit, there would be some situations where people suddenly could not pay (let's say there were sub-primes and they got rate systems that worked similarly to ARM's), or people lost their jobs or became disabled, etc... this would lead to situations requiring repossession, unfortunately.

What do you guys think?

DISCUSS!!!!

[Kludge]

Contracts aren´t always moral. Libertarians who aren´t philosophers (who instead rely on "Common-Sense") often have no interest in morality - it´s always about Justice, no matter how cruel or counter-productive. The "political" trouble in this argument is you have to blame the "victim" for carrying out their absurd punishment. OTOH, going against this argument, you could say the best way to prevent moral hazard is to threaten the most vile torture imaginable for failure to uphold contract terms -- live vivisection without anesthesia is my favorite.

[Sentient Void]

Contracts aren´t always moral. Libertarians who aren´t philosophers (who instead rely on "Common-Sense") often have no interest in morality - it´s always about Justice, no matter how cruel or counter-productive. The "political" trouble in this argument is you have to blame the "victim" for carrying out their absurd punishment. OTOH, going against this argument, you could say the best way to prevent moral hazard is to threaten the most vile torture imaginable for failure to uphold contract terms -- live vivisection without anesthesia is my favorite.

This is a very special case and scenario.

The difference is, repossession is explained and part of the voluntary contract to the person accepting the loan for the artificial organ. The company isn't punishing them, just repossessing their property to reclaim their losses. This business would otherwise be completely non-viable, or at least unavailable to anyone who couldn't afford straight-up purchasing the artificial organs.

Depending on the organ / part, some may survive the repossession while others may not. This is all part of the contract and understood and explained to both parties. It's explained explicitly, orally, and on paper.

The ultimate question is this, Kludge - are you willing to make it against the law for this corporation and a person to engage in this voluntary contract? And if so, on what grounds is your reasoning? Is it moral to ban such contracts? How would it bring justice by making such a contract illegal?

EDIT - Also, obviously I'm not expecting anyone to just lay down and let someone repossess organs - they would and probably should probably fight it for self-preservation... as would I... just like the company has the right to try to repossess their property based on the mutually agreed contract.

[BuddyRey]

My kid sister made me watch it last year. It was fabulous, and I suspect it will go on to become a huge cult hit like Rocky Horror.

[Kludge]

The ultimate question is this, Kludge - are you willing to make it against the law for this corporation and a person to engage in this voluntary contract? And if so, on what grounds is your reasoning?

I don´t believe in using government to achieve a moral society, but I would be extremely put off (at the very least) by any company which followed through with killing or otherwise physically harming individuals because they failed to pay off a loan. I suspect many others would, too, and in this way, the free market will punish these disgusting individuals... if it were a moral society.

But I´ll point out that you keep insisting we look at the Justice aspect -- that the corporation should be allowed to repo organs. I don´t disagree, but I don´t think the corporation should repo organs and I would probably hate anyone who engaged in organ repossession.

[specsaregood]

meh, the movie was "ok", could live without seeing it.

doing the organ repossession was stupid, I would have rather pushed for forced slavery if I was the company.

[Sentient Void]

I don´t believe in using government to achieve a moral society, but I would be extremely put off (at the very least) by any company which followed through with killing or otherwise physically harming individuals because they failed to pay off a loan. I suspect many others would, too, and in this way, the free market will punish these disgusting individuals... if it were a moral society.

But I´ll point out that you keep insisting we look at the Justice aspect -- that the corporation should be allowed to repo organs. I don´t disagree, but I don´t think the corporation should repo organs and I would probably hate anyone who engaged in organ repossession.

I pretty much agree with everything you're saying, but how do you think they would go about punishing them? Probably by boycotting them and letting everyone know about these (I agree) heinous repossessions. But at the same time, would the free-market really end up destroying or successfully punishing such a company or finding a way to stop these repossessions? Would demand really drop for such artificial organs, body parts and contracts? When it comes down to it, I'd think anyone who is about to die from a failing organ, won't let such things get in the way - they'd want to live, or a chance to live, even if it meant signing such a contract, reluctantly, with the risks involved. I'd think the company would still remain solvent and profitable.

I would definitely hate such sick individuals who did these things as well (hell, even now, people generally don't like and even hate regular repomen for cars, houses, etc but this definitely brings it to a new level), and would not associate with them, myself.

[libertybrewcity]

cool, about to watch it right. only has a 6 star rating on IMDB..

[Sentient Void]

cool, about to watch it right. only has a 6 star rating on IMDB..

Maybe it's just me - but I feel this movie really got a bad rap from the critics. I really enjoyed it!

Hell, Fight Club got horrible reviews from the critics - but I loved that as well.

[jkr]

kilz the people, leaves the building.

....short sighted.

[nunaem]

How about indentured servitude as a consequence of the failure to pay when repossession entails death? This may or may not be as profitable as repossessing the organ but it would mean more customers as any rational person would think twice about signing a contract that could mean death.

[silus]

Haven't seen any good reviews. Rottentomatoes kills this movie: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10012068-repo_men/

Repo MAN, on the other hand is at 97%. I'll still watch it, though, because of your enthusiasm.

[Sentient Void]

How about indentured servitude as a consequence of the failure to pay when repossession entails death? This may or may not be as profitable as repossessing the organ but it would mean more customers as any rational person would think twice about signing a contract that could mean death.

I dunno... I would definitely think including indentured servitude in the contract for failure to pay is the *nicer* route to go to recoup *some* of the loss... but I don't think people would abide by it and they may naturally resist and claim the inalienable right of self-ownership (and rightly so), making indentured servitude unenforcable and potentially expensive (the company would have to provide food, shelter, etc as well).

Plus, being a company driven solely by profit, repossessing organs would recoup a *lot* more of the loss - whereas indentured servitude is not particularly productive, especially if it's against people's will.. and again there's the issue of the costs associated with it.

Also, it seems to me that repossession of organs may not actually violate the principle of self-ownership. After all - people would still own themselves, just not the organ, which isn't theirs in the first place.

[specsaregood]

Haven't seen any good reviews. Rottentomatoes kills this movie: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10012068-repo_men/

Repo MAN, on the other hand is at 97%. I'll still watch it, though, because of your enthusiasm.

That is because repoman is awesome.


I shall not cause harm to any vehicle nor the personal contents thereof, nor through inaction let that vehicle or the personal contents thereof come to harm. It's what I call the repo code, kid. Don't forget it -- etch it in your brain. Not many people got a code to live by anymore.

If you haven't seen repoman, enjoy it before repomen.

[Zippyjuan]

I thought this was going to be about the similarly titled already cult classic from the 1980's. I haven't seen the newer film but have seen this one many times.
YouTube - Repo Man, The Death of Duke (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKIaS0lh-uo)

[Jace]

Hmm... When a nation defaults, does it justify war? One of the reasons Woodrow Wilson invaded Haiti was to prevent defaults on Citibank loans.

If a company like Goldman Sachs lends billions to Mexico, which can't pay them back, I would rather Goldman Sachs just go under for making a stupid, risky loan, rather than having the US taxpayer bail out Mexico, and in turn, Goldman Sachs. And I certainly don't believe war is an answer to default.

This looks like my kind of movie. But, in my opinion, killing someone for defaulting on a loan is a little extreme. In the real world, if you default you don't even go to jail. You just go bankrupt and the lender comes after your remaining assets, and eats the loss. That is, unless the lender is politically connected enough to get a bailout.

I'll have to check out this movie, though. Thanks for posting the vid.

[Sentient Void]

Hmm... When a nation defaults, does it justify war? One of the reasons Woodrow Wilson invaded Haiti was to prevent defaults on Citibank loans.

If a company like Goldman Sachs lends billions to Mexico, which can't pay them back, I would rather Goldman Sachs just go under for making a stupid, risky loan, rather than having the US taxpayer bail out Mexico, and in turn, Goldman Sachs. And I certainly don't believe war is an answer to default.

This looks like my kind of movie. But, in my opinion, killing someone for defaulting on a loan is a little extreme. In the real world, if you default you don't even go to jail. You just go bankrupt and the lender comes after your remaining assets, and eats the loss. That is, unless the lender is politically connected enough to get a bailout.

I'll have to check out this movie, though. Thanks for posting the vid.

Definitely - it's very thought-provoking, IMO... and I really enjoyed it overall for tons of reasons. Make sure you post your thoughts!

As for your analogy on Goldman Sachs, hell I would rather them just go under too and definitely am against any bailout at the expense of anyone else. At the same time, I think this is a little bit different, because such loans are more akin to investments and losses are much harder to recoup in that situation. I think this is more like loans for individual specific items in the first place, like a car or a house, where the loan is explicitly for that item, and that item itself becomes the collateral as well, and it is relatively inexpensive and isn't as rough and time-consuming a process to repossess and recoup losses.

It's definitely extreme, but without these contracts for loaned artificial organs, these people would have surely died. And with the such insanely high cost to produce these items, repossession seems like the only viable option for keeping such a business going - that does seem to save many more lives.

Of course, I would hope that the market would be free enough to have multiple competitors and increased productive capacity over time, ensuring lowering costs and prices for them more and more over time, and making them more affordable reducing such risks. Although it would minimize, it surely still wouldn't eliminate the potential for repossessions... it also seems to me though that in this movie, 'Union' (the company) has a granted monopoly status.

[Matt Collins]

Hmm... When a nation defaults, does it justify war? One of the reasons Woodrow Wilson invaded Haiti was to prevent defaults on Citibank loans. Source? :confused:

[BenIsForRon]

Good God, this forum's gone off the deep end.

Corporations have no right to take organs regardless of any contract. Only if the organ is taken out with the consent of the person who loses the organ, when it is lost. If someone agrees to give up an organ, but changes their mind a week before the organ is to be taken out, then they get to keep the organ. Fuck the contract.

[Matt Collins]

I just watched it.


Within the first five minutes I realized what it was:

A BLATANT PIECE OF PROPAGANDA!


I recognized it immediately in one of the first scenes as soon as the family was sitting down in front of the sales guy and they were being told that they needed to sign up for the transplant and it was obvious that the family couldn't afford it from the looks on their faces but yet they could finance it. At that point it became instantly recognizable to me that the film had an agenda: make the big bad healthcare companies look like evil capitalists. :mad:


Couple that with the timing of the film here in 2010 in the middle of the healthcare debate, and no one can deny that there was a distinct purpose and underlying tone this film was trying to convey. Who ever created this thing was trying to turn public opinion against insurance and healthcare providers in the hopes that it might help in the support of government run healthcare.

I admit the film was entertaining, but go back and watch at least the first 15 minutes of it and if you're perceptive you'll see exactly what I am referring to. One really cannot let their guard down and turn off their brain at all these days.... if they do they're likely to get sucked into the conformity-groupthink that is so pervasive. It's sickening.

Perhaps my involvement in politics (and largely hanging around RPF) has made me into a cynic, but it was just shockingly obvious. The people in the room watching the film with me all thought I was crazy when I said it too, but the gears in their heads were turning after I mentioned it so I could tell that I was on to something.

[BenIsForRon]

Honestly dude, the insurance companies deserve all the bad rap they get. I think it's just an issue in the fore of people's minds, and made a good background for a plot like this.

I haven't seen the movie, but anytime someone here yells something about some movie being propaganda for some globalist plot, they're usually just being paranoid.

[messana]

Repo MAN, on the other hand is at 97%. I'll still watch it, though, because of your enthusiasm.

Repo Man the Genetic Opera is probably one of the best movies I've seen in a decade.

[Mini-Me]

When someone is in breach of contract, the aggrieved party doesn't exactly get to violently correct the situation in the manner of their choosing or even as specified by the contract. If someone violates or disputes a contract, that's what courts and arbitration are for. We live in civilization, not the jungle. ;) There are lawsuits for that kind of thing, and if decided subjectively by jury in a free society, they would put an effective case-by-case check on the validity of contracts. If you engineer an unusual and uncustomary contract that operates on the farthest frontiers of sanity...beware, for it may not always be upheld as strongly as you hoped. ;)

Jury trials throw a nice context-sensitive wildcard into the mix, which I think is an important balance when the law itself is highly axiomatic and property rights-based (as it should be in a free society). Even a judgment in the plaintiff's favor should probably result an alternate form of repayment to violent kidnapping and surgery for "repossession." Maybe it would result in bankruptcy, but that's just a risk of extending credit to anyone. An unintended consequence of this is that organ lenders would be reluctant to lend organs to anyone with insufficient collateral, etc...but since juries would decide based on context rather than precedent, it shouldn't be such a huge risk that no company at all would take it.

[MelissaWV]

Good God, this forum's gone off the deep end.

Corporations have no right to take organs regardless of any contract. Only if the organ is taken out with the consent of the person who loses the organ, when it is lost. If someone agrees to give up an organ, but changes their mind a week before the organ is to be taken out, then they get to keep the organ. Fuck the contract.

Yep. Pretty obvious you haven't seen the movie. Maybe you should at least read up on what it's about before saying this thread is proof the forum's going off the deep end? They aren't "taking organs." The corporations are "taking back organs." The organs are artificial. They are transplants. They are, say, an artificial heart or a lung or kidney or whatever else. They are expensive replacement parts, and as part of the contract if the person doesn't pay they can be repo'd.

Those of you arguing the company will fix its losses by taking back the organ in question are being a little silly. Do you think that something as personal as an organ will be reused? Is there really such a market for used parts like that? Would there be anything to gain from the doubtless expensive methods that would need to be employed to make a repo'd organ ready for resale?

Taking back an organ is ridiculous on pretty much any level you look at it, even before you get into the immorality of the act of ripping someone apart to get your property. You'd have to be an idiot to sign such a contract, as in reality the smart contract would be to, if you default, be made whole to the extent you were prior to the implantation. In other words, the implant would need to be removed in as sterile and professional an environment as it was originally put in. Your payments, such as they were, will be a total loss to you... but will go towards the corporation getting back some of the expense of the procedure itself. Otherwise, when the corporation rips out the organ, they are getting back 100% of their product, but leaving you with 0% regardless of how much you've paid on it. That makes no sense.

The solution would be to have collateral that is actually compensatory for the value of the new organ and the procedure. As one person pointed out, this might be a building or a house or a business or car or jewelry or whatever else. There could also be a less costly "full payment" option, which would likely depend greatly upon charities and similar organizations coupled with the ill person's own resources. It would be less costly because the company, seeing that it is incredibly advantageous to get these things paid up front and avoid the collections nastiness and the expense of removal, would offer a discount for such payments.

Anyhow, that's all theoretical. I did see parts of the movie, including the end that you "never see coming," and I wasn't that impressed with it. It was silly and didn't play by its own rules at all, which is the only thing I won't forgive a movie for doing.

[Brian4Liberty]

Sounds like an interesting movie.

[dannno]

I just watched it.


Within the first five minutes I realized what it was:

A BLATANT PIECE OF PROPAGANDA!


I recognized it immediately in one of the first scenes as soon as the family was sitting down in front of the sales guy and they were being told that they needed to sign up for the transplant and it was obvious that the family couldn't afford it from the looks on their faces but yet they could finance it. At that point it became instantly recognizable to me that the film had an agenda: make the big bad healthcare companies look like evil capitalists. :mad:


Couple that with the timing of the film here in 2010 in the middle of the healthcare debate, and no one can deny that there was a distinct purpose and underlying tone this film was trying to convey. Who ever created this thing was trying to turn public opinion against insurance and healthcare providers in the hopes that it might help in the support of government run healthcare.

I admit the film was entertaining, but go back and watch at least the first 15 minutes of it and if you're perceptive you'll see exactly what I am referring to. One really cannot let their guard down and turn off their brain at all these days.... if they do they're likely to get sucked into the conformity-groupthink that is so pervasive. It's sickening.

Perhaps my involvement in politics (and largely hanging around RPF) has made me into a cynic, but it was just shockingly obvious. The people in the room watching the film with me all thought I was crazy when I said it too, but the gears in their heads were turning after I mentioned it so I could tell that I was on to something.



Who gives a FLYING FUCK did you have the patience to sit through it!?!? Fucking insane!!! OMG this movie is ridONKULOUS!! If you want to watch a crazy movie, sit through this and don't give up after 5 fucking minutes, it's A LONG ASS MOVIE!!

And don't tell me that somebody who kills someone for their job by repossessing organs isn't a messed up person, and tell me you wouldn't consider such a job... especially knowing about how our monetary system encourages debt and increases repossessions..

[sratiug]

Contracts are immoral. You can't sign away rights that God gave you.

[Matt Collins]

Who gives a FLYING FUCK did you have the patience to sit through it!?!? Fucking insane!!! OMG this movie is ridONKULOUS!! If you want to watch a crazy movie, sit through this and don't give up after 5 fucking minutes, it's A LONG ASS MOVIE!!
No, I never said I didn't finish watching the movie. In fact I did and I rather enjoyed it. It was a good story line with a hell of an ending. But like crack, one knows it's polluting your brain, but one consumes it anyway because it feels good. I recognized it for propaganda within the first 5 minutes and so I knew that going into the rest of the film; it kept my guard up.

[Romulus]

No, I never said I didn't finish watching the movie. In fact I did and I rather enjoyed it. It was a good story line with a hell of an ending. But like crack, one knows it's polluting your brain, but one consumes it anyway because it feels good. I recognized it for propaganda within the first 5 minutes and so I knew that going into the rest of the film; it kept my guard up.

I agree with you Matt. My BS warning system is on high alert from any big budget Hollywood piece.

[Natalie]

I started watching it and thought it was lame and turned it off. This thread makes me kind of wish I had sat through the whole thing though...

[dannno]

No, I never said I didn't finish watching the movie. In fact I did and I rather enjoyed it. It was a good story line with a hell of an ending. But like crack, one knows it's polluting your brain, but one consumes it anyway because it feels good. I recognized it for propaganda within the first 5 minutes and so I knew that going into the rest of the film; it kept my guard up.

If you realize it is propaganda then it isn't negatively affecting you. It is those who don't know it is propaganda who would be negatively affected.

[dannno]

I started watching it and thought it was lame and turned it off. This thread makes me kind of wish I had sat through the whole thing though...

Ya it gets crazier and crazier.. ending definitely insane, you won't see it coming no matter how much you try and figure out what is going to happen..

[Matt Collins]

Ya it gets crazier and crazier.. ending definitely insane, you won't see it coming no matter how much you try and figure out what is going to happen..
It reminds me of that old short story "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" :)

[Kýrie eléison]

It reminds me of that old short story "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" :)

That's a really sad story. :[

[MelissaWV]

Ya it gets crazier and crazier.. ending definitely insane, you won't see it coming no matter how much you try and figure out what is going to happen..

I must be pretty sick and jaded. I saw it coming.

Almost any recent movie in which the protagonist is involved in some shady business finds a drama point by causing them to be affected by their dirtywork.