Like eminent domain, but with guns and spaceships

by Will on January 26, 2010

Of all the too-close readings of “Avatar’s” stilted politics, I enjoyed David Boaz’s take the most. He argues that the film should be interpreted as a straightforward defense of interstellar property rights.

Tagged as: Avatar

Will writes from Washington, D.C. (well, Arlington, Virginia). You can reach him at willblogcorrespondence at gmail dot com.

{ 5 comments }

1 Jonathan January 26, 2010 at 9:30 am

Yeah, that’s great. Who knew the proper spelling should have been Ke’lo

2 Jaybird January 26, 2010 at 9:43 am

If the Na’vi cannot appreciate the concept of “public use” and hate the idea that we live in a democracy, maybe they can just move to Somalia.

3 Jonathan January 26, 2010 at 10:01 am

Jaybird for the win.

4 Bo January 26, 2010 at 10:15 am

I haven’t seen the movie, but wouldn’t it, insofar as it does this, be talking more about events like the Trail of Tears and various colonial annexations than individual property rights? The property rights upshot seems less like Kelo, and more like returning the deep south back to the Five Civilized Tribes. Which, by the way, I fully support.

5 Will January 26, 2010 at 10:44 am

Ha! You both win this thread, Johnathan. “Ke’lo” and “public use,” indeed.

Comments on this entry are closed.