Posted on 09/15/2014 8:33:27 AM PDT by Kaslin
I’m very depressed that my beloved Georgia Bulldogs lost to the South Carolina Gamecocks. So instead of writing about a serious topic, we’re going to enjoy some laughs today by reviewing some new anti-libertarian humor.
I’m a libertarian, of course, as are all decent and humane people.
But I appreciate clever humor, even when I’m the target. This video about Somalia being a libertarian paradise, for instance, is an excellent example of political satire. It takes a stereotype and milks it for some great laughs.
I also have to tip my proverbial hat to the person who put together this image of libertarian utopia.
It’s misleading, of course, since libertarians either have no problem with local paramedic services or they believe in private contracting of such services. But for purposes of humor, this image is great satire since it combines the stereotype of libertarians being all about profit and the stereotype of no basic government services in a libertarian world.
If you liked the above image, here’s some additional anti-libertarian satire that is similarly amusing.
Now let’s look at some anti-libertarian humor that falls flat.
As I suggested above, political humor effective is effective when it seizes on something that is true and then applies that stereotype to an absurd situation.
But this next image makes no sense. It implies that there will be more violent, drug-related crime in the absence of prohibition.
But there’s lot of violence surrounding marijuana and other drugs precisely because they are illegal and that creates lucrative opportunities for sellers in the black market.
Simply stated, if you end drug prohibition, then criminal gangs and cartels will lose their markets.
If you don’t believe me, ask yourself why there was lots of violence during the Al Capone era in the 1920, whereas you don’t see Heineken and Anheuser-Busch engaging in shoot outs today.
Or let’s look at the issue from another perspective. What if the lifestyle fascists banned cigarettes. Right now, with cigarettes being legal, there’s no violence between Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds. But imagine what would happen if cigarettes went underground and their distribution was controlled by thugs? Of course there would be violence.
I’m not trying to turn this post into a lecture on drug prohibition, so I’ll stop here. But I did want to expose the intellectual vapidity of the person who put together the second image.
By the way, some of my libertarian friends complain when I share anti-libertarian humor. I have three responses.
1. I share lots of humor mocking statists and regular readers know that advocates of bigger government are my main targets.
2. Self-confident people should have the ability to laugh at themselves and libertarians (thanks in part to Obama) have ample reason to be confident of their ideas.
3. I’m more than happy to share pro-libertarian humor. The only problem is that I’ve only found a handful of examples.
Libertarian Jesus scolding modern statists.
This poster about confused statists.
The libertarian version of a sex fantasy.
So feel free to send any new material my way. All (good) political humor is appreciated.
Liberals want legal dope. They argue that the inevitable taxes the dope brings into the state are good and productive. They also turn a blind eye to the new laws, rules, policies and regulations (bigger government) that are set in place by the state to control the sale of legal marijuana.
Liberals are hypocrites.
The thing you learn on threads like this is that many self identified “Conservatives” are no different from progressives. They want big government control just as much as any liberal. They just want to control different things.
Oh, OK.
I don’t think that’s why they want to legalize drugs though.
Yet you want to TRASH responsibility.
Sounds more like you need to put the pipe down. You suggest that libertarians and liberals are the same. Not so. I guess it comes form cheap name calling not hard fact.
It is not unusual to have different ideas what a word means but it really seems strange to be at complete opposite.
Liberals?
Some conservatives and libertarians also support legalization. See any wod thread here.
I prefer taxes on drugs, alcohol, entertainment, gambling and the like. These taxes are non-confiscatory. Unlike withholding and property taxes I am forced to pay them. I can choose to not engage in the other things or not and not owe taxes.
Your problem us you are a big government conservative. Look at the growth of law enforcement in the last two decades. Wod soldiers.
Your illogical depiction of libertarians as liberals is easily dismissed by their call for less government control in our lives.
Your support of that doesn’t make you conservative it makes you a nanny stater.
See tagline. Libertarians ARE liberals.
I don’t think that’s why they want to legalize drugs though.
____________________________________________
Yes it is. See post 66.
These libs ADMIT they prefer taxes.
So you are anti-conservative, and support the most radical social liberals, the Libertarians.
That is bizarre, and you cannot be a conservative and a Libertarian, libertarians social liberalism is listed in post 7.
Here are examples of that list in the actual language of the Libertarians.
What is their position on abortion: Zero restrictions.
“1.5 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”
How about gay marriage, gay adoption, homosexuals in the military etc?
“1.4 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.”
Wait until you see their position on immigration.
No, there aren’t “both”, they are social liberals, the excuses they use for their social liberalism can vary, especially depending on who they are speaking to, but their political agenda doesn’t change.
If Libertarians were social conservatives, then their only gripe against conservatism would be on national defense issues, instead, social issues are the dividing line.
Post seems to be magic to you.
I said I am conservative but you can’t read that right and say I am anti-conservative?
You said you are anti-conservative, and a libertarian.
It says “anti-social”. If I was social I would not continued the argument with you.
Go Play in traffic.
Bye.
Your opinion is illogical. There are such dramatic differences get wren the two, it is weird to run into you and the comments of some of the others.
There are several responses on this thread alone the show you how ridiculous your comments are.
Until you recognize tha to small government, reduced taxes, reduced control of our lives by government for example in education, environment, business are ideals and libertarian positions, you’ll be lost in the fog.
When someone says they are socially conservative and libertarians are social liberals they are meaning that conservatives want more governmental controls over or lives. The first step is to recognize that you don’t see freedom from government as that big of a deal.
Then you will go toward the light.
You can not put all libertarians in the same pot. Not all are like Ron Paul. There are some sensible ones out there, the author and John Stossel are just a couple of examples
So you are against social conservatives is what you are saying.
I think he was making a play on words: 'antisocial' conservative (hence the connection to PTSD). I didn't get it at first either.
John Stossel is just a typical libertarian, pro-abortion, pro-gay and the rest of the list in post 7.
Oh, good grief.
Have a beer Tex, and settle back down.
At best - you are hijacking conservative ideals and claiming they represent libertarianism.
At worst - you are a flaming Social Liberal; a libertarian.
As it is, you are a hypocrite who has ignored all the obvious signs that libs are not conservatives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.