This article came as a direct response to an article posted by Rob Taylor, a fellow Moviepilot Creator, which itself was written in response to an article by Trevor Norkey, another Creator, which can be found here. In this article, I am endeavoring to take the position that both sides of this dispute are, in fact, wrong. Both of them make some very valid points in defense of their positions, but I am writing to show how these points actually demonstrate that neither side is truly correct in its stance on superhuman registration.
The argument from Team Cap's perspective
According to Team Cap, in order for heroes to save a city, country, or even the entire world, there will always be sacrifices, both financial and physical, that must be made. Rob's article argues that the government cannot be counted on to control the superheroes, and those on Team Cap are all people who have, in one way or another, fallen on the wrong side of one or more governments. The government, according to Rob, has no great track record with its minimal efforts at controlling superheroes in the past, so why should we trust that they will be able to do so in the future? Now let's look at what Trevor and Team Stark have to say.
The argument from Team Stark's perspective
According to Trevor's article, Team Stark is in the right. But what position does Team Stark hold to? Well, in a nutshell, they believe that the government needs to regulate superhero activity in order to save lives. According to Team Cap, to save many, a few must be sacrificed. But when "many" refers to billions and we're saying "few" in terms of millions, we quickly run into problems. It's the classic problem: save a few but let many die as a result, or save the many but in so doing sacrifice the few. Team Stark wants to stop this problem before it begins by saying there's no need to sacrifice any...if superheroes agree to abide by regulations so they don't end up doing more damage than those they're fighting.
Now that we've established each side's arguments, let me go on to state that although both sides raise some valid points that need to be addressed, neither of them are 100% accurate in their point of view. Team Stark is correct that superheroes require regulation in order to not create more problems than they solve, but Team Cap is right that the government's horrible track record with superhero supervision doesn't offer us much confidence in its leadership potential. That is why I say both sides are wrong and we must instead tread the path of middle ground.
How a compromise should work
Pleasing everybody is impossible, but the most mutually beneficial course of action for all involved parties is for there to be superhero supervision. Now on the surface, that might sound like a direct endorsement of the position held by Team Stark. But that is only half of the equation. The other (and by far more important) half of this equation is that the government should not be responsible for said supervision. Now I know what you're thinking. Three sentences ago, I was endorsing Team Stark, and now I appear to be jumping on Cap's bandwagon. But the fact of the matter is, the best group to be in charge of regulating superhero activity is, in fact, the heroes themselves. With the heroes policing one another, no one of them can get out of hand without the rest clamping down on them. This would mean that each hero is responsible to ensure that their comrades (as well as they themselves) do not simply "go rogue". If one of them decides not to play by these rules, the other heroes will be obligated to stop them by whatever means necessary.