saint_matthew wrote:No, people hated it because it was a terrible story, that would have destroyed the Marvel universe, as it reduced every superhero down to a petty governmental functionary. No more Batman style vigilante characters, no more Runaways.
But as i have mentioned a couple of times now fiction =/= reality.
Yeah, not buying this. I can see the fanbase saying "this story sucks!" because the story sucks - and, really, many people did, and they're not exactly wrong. However, what also happened is that the fanbase largely sided with the Anti-Reg side, completely blindsiding the writers. You're attributing that to the meta-level Pro-Reg-is-bad-for-the-narrative angle, when it's unlikely that as many as one fan in a thousand actually thought that way. The readers overwhelmingly sided ideologically with the Anti-Reg movement.
saint_matthew wrote:There is no such thing as civil liberties, civil liberties is a concept, one that no two countries agree on. Heck even the American Civil Liberties as laid out in the The United States Constitution/Bill of Rights has been altered over time as new situations arise... An i can most assuredly promise you that when the United States Constitution of Earth 616 was written, no one was thinking about people with the power to sterilise every living thing on a planet with an idle thought.
/facepalm. Except registraion of mutants doesn't remove any benefit of basic civil liberties, either as a nebulous concept, or as an expression of that concept as layed out in Constitution/Bill of Rights. In fact it dos the exact opposite: It expands the law, to also cover those individuals & to protect mutants from humans & humans from mutants, equally & without bias, under a unified legal system.
Its just a boring superhero comic
Again with the meta-level argument. We hadn't GOTTEN to the boring part yet. The fans weren't saying "We're worried that this will lead to dramatically reduced stories opportunities!" They were saying "Cap Was Right." So yeah, hogwash.
As for civil liberties, I don't think you'll find the "you are precisely as free as we decide you are at the moment" argument to be particularly compelling to, say, an ethics board. Yes, civil liberties have changed in the last two hundred years and change, but typically to guarantee more, not to single out a specific group for extra scrutiny under the law. "Equal protection under the law" is kind of a THING, in the United States. Pretty much the fundamental ideal, in fact.
You did summarize the Pro-Reg argument from the books quite well. Allow me to respond by repeating some of the more common Anti-Reg arguments.
"Wait, this is the same government that periodically persecutes us with extreme violence, and now I'm supposed to file my name, home address, phone number, and parents' names with them?"
and its corollary,
"Isn't this awfully similar to what Hitler did to the Jews/gays/Catholics/Gypsies/cripples/politically inconvenient, as a precursor to killing them?"
Identifying your victims is an important first step in state-sponsored genocide, among other atrocities. Even if you trust the current people in power not to do so, there is such a thing as an Election Cycle, and you never can be sure who comes next, and you can't exactly take the power you granted them away.
But hey, I'm sure there's nothing to worry about. It's not like the government is taking known super-powered individuals and violently coercing them to do its bidding, right? Ooooh, waitaminute...
It's no surprise that Captain America championed the Anti-Reg side. It violated some of his core values. The writers made a good decision placing him there. It's just strange that they didn't then take the logical next step and say "and he's absolutely right."
"If my enemies were to gain access to this information, I'm screwed! I don't have the resources to go public! My friends and family will be vulnerable!"
There's a reason the Pro-Reg people tended to be the public heroes, while the secret identity heroes tended toward Anti-Reg. Heroes with secret identities tend to not be doing it for the giggles. If their enemies find out who they are, they're in a lot of trouble.
The end of Civil War attempted to sweep this under the rug, saying "Well, SHIELD is going to have the list, and Tony is going to have SHIELD, so the information isn't publicly available! It's not that bad!" Sure, because government computers are never, ever hacked. I'm sure every time that list is used for anything, whether for its intended purpose or the inevitable Congressional debates over related topics, some or all of the related information isn't going to be out in the world and much, much less secure than the (dubious) safety of SHIELD's servers.
Every superhero's identity would be public inside six months. Casualties among superheroes, plus their friends and family, would spike immediately.
"I was born with my powers. Suddenly, I need a license to exist?"
For better or worse, laws requiring registry of a thing are attempts to control that thing. Want a legally binding marriage? Need a license. Want a firearm? Need a license. Want to fly a plane? Want to drive a car? Want to vote? You need to register all of these things, because the government has decided that it needs control over these things. And for the most part, that's okay. I don't feel that it infringes unduly on our freedoms to have oversight over these important things, whether they're potentially life-threatening or merely life-changing. You're entering into these things voluntarily, and you understand what you're getting into.
Requiring a person to be registered just because they exist, though, enters into some really dubious legal and ethical territory. It's not as if people with inborn powers made the decision to do so, yet they're automatically entered into a system to be monitored and supervised the way a criminal is.
TL;DR: The whole Pro-Reg argument is unethical and wrong and dangerous, whether you're talking about just mutants or super-heroes in general.