SHIELD was the executive arm of the WSC. And even setting HYDRA aside, SHIELD was adopting some deeply questionable policies; Rogers was challenging Fury about them before either of them had any idea of HYDRA's involvement, and his concerns seem to have been borne out.
The American constitution is ultimately based on oversight of the government by the governed; not on oversight by some elite body. SHIELD functioned as such an elite body, and it was used as a tool by people who wanted (as Brecht put it in Die Lösung "To dissolve the people and elect another." Rogers's ultimate solution, and Romanoff's, was to expose all of SHIELD's records to public view, enabling public oversight again.
We can talk about "in favor of some kind of oversight" if you like. But just because I like sea bathing doesn't mean I want to be pickled in brine. Establishing a general principle does not mean establishing everything that anyone might claim is an application of that principle.
Nor can you allow people with too much personal power to put other people in danger - which is precisely what Steve is doing. Or you can - and people die (which is what is happening in far too many places in the world right now.)
And what oversight does anyone have over the Avengers? Or over any superheroes? The people? I suspect they are the ones clamouring to get the Avengers under control.
Tony learned this the hard way, travelling from "privatising world peace' to agreeing to some form of oversight. Steve, on the other hand, appears (from the trailer, which probably does not give the whole story) to believe in his own image - that he is always right and above the law. (And, indeed, Chris Evans has articulated Cap's position as something not far from this.)
Well, that gets us to some rather basic questions of political philosophy, which I think would be off topic for this thread. The fact that this trailer raises that kind of questions holds some promise for the substance of the film, though.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2015-11-30 11:14 pm (UTC)The American constitution is ultimately based on oversight of the government by the governed; not on oversight by some elite body. SHIELD functioned as such an elite body, and it was used as a tool by people who wanted (as Brecht put it in Die Lösung "To dissolve the people and elect another." Rogers's ultimate solution, and Romanoff's, was to expose all of SHIELD's records to public view, enabling public oversight again.
We can talk about "in favor of some kind of oversight" if you like. But just because I like sea bathing doesn't mean I want to be pickled in brine. Establishing a general principle does not mean establishing everything that anyone might claim is an application of that principle.
no subject
Date: 2015-12-01 06:01 am (UTC)And what oversight does anyone have over the Avengers? Or over any superheroes? The people? I suspect they are the ones clamouring to get the Avengers under control.
Tony learned this the hard way, travelling from "privatising world peace' to agreeing to some form of oversight. Steve, on the other hand, appears (from the trailer, which probably does not give the whole story) to believe in his own image - that he is always right and above the law. (And, indeed, Chris Evans has articulated Cap's position as something not far from this.)
no subject
Date: 2015-12-01 10:36 pm (UTC)