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.
Libertarians are social liberals, that is why they are not conservatives.
...
Libertarians are social liberals, that is why they are not conservatives.
I always thought Libertarians were Conservatives.
Addiction is a possible outcome of using a drug, including the drug alcohol - but is far from inevitable for any drug ... and it's not clear how imprisoning a person for the crime of risking addiction is more decent than allowing them to choose their own risks. Same goes for prostitution.
Now this could be a strong indicator of the mass of opinion on the subject. Or, I suppose, it only means that most people with a sense of humor find Libertarianism worthy of mockery.
Or simply that it's easier to be humorously against something than for something.
No, if they were conservative then they would be conservative, and not be trying to defeat conservatism.
Read post 7, that is an accurate description of their political agenda, the parts that they don’t want you to know, unless they are speaking to liberals, then they play down the economics and play up the portions listed in post 7.
Libertarians show different faces of their politics to different groups, they can shape their discussions to reflect interests that appeal to whatever audience, for liberals, they focus on their radical social liberalism.
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."
Post 7 reads more like republicans. Here in Colorado liberals and libertarians are opposite. Libertarians are far right wing to me not liberals.
Before you say "well we have laws against murder and yet murder still happens," the laws enable us to put murderers in cages, where they belong, if not inject them with poison. So it is a useful remedy. You will have to explain how putting either or both people who wish to voluntarily exchange sex for money in jail helps anyone. But, maybe you just want to take their money. Which is also not an act a decent person would want to do.
No it doesn’t and you know that, why do you think libertarians are out to defeat conservatism?
It is the libertarian agenda in plain language.
Truth is every republican candidate is courting the libertarian vote. Liberals hate them .....democratic politicians despise libertarians. Conservatives and libertarians are natural allies. Just not to a few so-cons on this board who paint all libertarians with the same broad brush.
Libertarians I have met have all been very bright people. Smart cookies, every one.
I did not doubt there would be a well-reasoned explanation as to why drug addiction is decent and prostitution is humane.
Ronald Reagan was not a libertarian, and disagreed with them, Reagan was a conservative.
That brilliant statement he made to the libertarian magazine in 1975 while campaigning, was just the right way to start the interview, and to set the tone before he continued and started telling them how he disagreed with their social liberalism and being weak on national defense.
Care to show us Reagan’s writings and speeches on libertarianism?
No Libertarian I’ve ever met has believed that drug addiction is decent or prostitution humane. The belief is that the cure is worse than the disease, in my exposure to them. I flirted with big “L” libertarianism in the 90’s and am still somewhat of a small “l” one.
I am not a libertarian, and I disagree with them. I am a conservative.
The libertarians I know are right wing conservatives. I think you are confusing liberalism and libertarianism.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Libertarianism
I left the libertarians because of abortion and national defense issues.
I think most of them are dedicated to their beliefs.
What I see amongst conservatives is a willingness to vote moderate even when they agree with the moderates views.
Conservatives should develop a new second party and make the GOP the third party.
I’d put some money into that.
Perhaps after bush or Romney is nominated more people will believe that.
Disagree not agree
Libertarianism (big L) is a utopian vision; an elegant theory. But as a wiser man then myself once observed:
“In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.”
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.