Political Cartoons

This is as good as cartoons get.

Somalia has no government....it don't come smaller than that. No roads, no infrastructure, no healthcare, nobody interfering with folk going about their ordinary business: this is the Libertarian ideal....the promised land.

From:

Librael?
Lolberanada?

From:

Or just Lolliput.

From:

Ha! I like that one.

From:

jblaque.livejournal.com

A+

From:

reality-hammer.livejournal.com

Old meme is still a logical fallacy.

I suppose the flip side is that you love taxes, government, regulations and hate guns...and thus want to live in Nazi Germany!!!!1!11!11!!!

Complete and utter fail.

From:

so you equate the US today with Nazi Germany by sharing the trait of having a government?

From:

He has a minimum quota of Godwins to spray into the internets per day, or else the RNC doesn't cut him a check that day..

From:

Despite being massively evil the Nazis provided substatial Financial, Health, and Educational benefits to thier citizens. In many respects they were a Progressive's dream. But then there was the whole killing Jews/Gays/Gypsies/whoever-looks-at-us-funny deal.

Same Deal with Somalia.

Nearly unlimited personal freedom is any Libertarian's dream, but its not worth starving to death or getting shot in a 3rd world cess-pool.

In short I think he makes a valid.

From:

It depends on how literal you take the cartoon. if I take it as implying that the fringe extremist no taxes/government/regulations approach leads to a state in the US where it is comparable to current day Somalia I consider it to be spot on. I in general don't see how the opposite a libertarian state is a fascist dictatorship.

in short I think he doesn't make a valid point.

From:

Being a cartoon, I was taking it pretty literally, but I can see your point.

I don't Like Paying Taxes, Distrust Government, and Enjoy things that go boom. That said I know full well that Roads, Cops, Firemen, and the Taxes that pay for them are required to maintain our current standard of living.

That said, both sides have their loonies(some more vocal than others)

From:

Nazis hate guns? Really?

Depends if they have a foreskin or not I suppose.

But taxes, government, regulations, and gun control in modern Germany....

From:

in 1930s Germany you had to be a registered member of the ruling party(Nazi) In-order to obtain a firearms liscense.

Actual Registered Nazis were a comparativly small portion of the German Population.

Stalin followed a similar path after the war and we all know how that went.

From:

Actually the first part of your initial point is valid, notwithstanding the 'March Violets' who joined the Nazi party after Kristallnacht....
But making the comparison with Nazi Germany seems disingenuous when more apt comparisons with modern Germany or the UK might strike a note that doesn't violate Godwin's law, and Godwin's law is what we're speaking of here.

Stalin's Soviet Union, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, Mao's cultural revolution, or Bokassa's Central African Republic are/were all despotic states: if the comparison were to be made between any of them and Somalia there may have been a little more play in taking the cartoon literally. But choosing between government by mad dictator or the Somalian free-for-all Anarcho-Libertarian ideal seems like not much of a choice.

Either we accept the necessity of government and concomitant taxes or we don't. If we do the argument is over how much government is good for the people. Personally I'd vote for infrastructure, welfare, health provisions, and enough intervention to stop folk abusing other folk. I'd point you to this:

http://vox-diabolica.livejournal.com/204554.html

as part of the Government/Libertarian debate.

From:

Before you argue Godwin's Law please note that I was not the initial violater and was mearly responding to Thies' comment.

That said I do believe in playing by the rules and will concede this point to you.

From:

No concession necessary, especially if your icon is of you in service mode. Also true that you didn't initiate the violation of Godwin; and God only knows how often folk on the left have been guilty of that particular misdemeanor (me too, if the truth be known - but admittedly before I was aware of the rules governing such). And to prove my point, and my own idiocy....

What is interesting is how much those Nazis used deficit budgeting to put Germany back on its feet after Weimar fell: the social policies that stripped minorities of all their wealth notwithstanding.

Keynesian spending to moderate or end a recession is still difficult to manage properly and seems to work better in times of high unemployment and deflation, both of which circumstances the US economy appears at present in the grip. The smart money is on Obama having made the right choices, but things could change and only time will tell. I wouldn't have wanted his job in these times, but them's the breaks: and he appears to be a big enough man to grasp the nettle despite the obloquy hurled in his direction. As an outsider (I'm a Brit) I think the US is pretty fortunate to have elected him, but yet again time will tell. Fingers crossed, hey.

From:

I have no problem with the concept of deficit spending, on the condition that it is short term and the money is paid back. My chief objection is to how congress, and our society as a whole seem to be view money as both the Means and the End.

Deficit spending in itself does not lead to recovery. The Germans understood this, and as such they invested heavily in their transportation and industrial base. That is what lead to their recovery and allowed them to be competitive on the world stage.

On the other hand, our government has spent billions but has little to show for it? No new jobs have been created and our national infrastructure is continuing to deteriorate. All we've really done is maintain the status-quo.

*Points to Icon* I did 7 Years in the US Navy flying Search & Rescue, went to Iraq, Indonesia, and assorted other vacation spots.

From:

I'm with you on the infrastructure thang. I also doubt that a lot of the money spent has gone to the proper places....but as for the banks: I feel they are a necessary part of the financial infrastructure, and in the US it was (and is) politically impossible to 'nationalise' them, ergo the bailout.

I feel that much of the money 'earmarked' for pet projects has been misplaced, but I can't blame Obama for that as it happened either on the previous watch or in the transition period. The US is still (to the best of my knowledge) living with the last Bush budget. Hopefully at least some of the next spending round will go towards infrastrucure and jobs therein.

Kudos to you. Hope you didn't get sunburn whilst on vacation.

From:

I can't say I disagree. However, I think that how "necessary" certain banks are is debateable.

From:

This will no doubt be a debating point. However, I hope it won't make too much difference in the long run.

Good health and welfare to you, and may you be fortunate in what you do.

From:

dubaiwalla.livejournal.com

WIN!

From:

jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com

Another utter fail.

From:

Another utter ~~fail~~ WIN!

From:

jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com

Hating taxes =/= wanting to live in Somalia
Hating government =/= wanting to live in Somalia
Hating regulations =/= wanting to live in Somalia
Loving guns =/= wanting to live in Somalia

Hating taxes + hating government + hating regulations + loving guns =/= wanting to live in Somalia

So, another utter fail for the OP and for you.

From:

it's not about wanting to live there, just that the initial four statements applied in all their consequences and pushed to the extreme would make the US like Somalia is today.

From:

At the risk of accusing someone who posted this bit of genius of making a category mistake....You can't expect some folk to understand allegory, metaphor (be it metonymy or synecdoche) or symbolical representation of any kind.

It may be genetic.

From:

Somalia has no taxes. You'd love it there. Go.

Somalia has no government. You'd love it there. Go.

Somalia has no regulations. You'd love it there. Go.

Somalia has plenty of guns. You'd love it there. Go.

From:

jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com

Fail again. But nice try.

Here is something more accurate

China has high taxes. You'd love it there. Go
China has obstructive and intrusive government. You'd love it there. Go.
China has tons of regulations. You'd love it there. Go
China doesn't allow gun ownership. You'd love it there. Go.

Now, on to your lies:

Somalia has no taxes: I guess you didn't hear about the 2006 revolt over new taxes that was put down? Or that they print their own money? Or that they actuall do have taxes?

Somalia has no government: Really? Then what is President Sharif Ahmed? Heck if you did any research you would know that Somalia has an executive, legislative, and judicial branch.

Somalia has no regulations: It's opbvious to those with a brain (that excludes you) that if you have taxes and a government then there are regulations.

Somalia has plenty of guns: Yes, the gun runners and various militas do, but the average citizen doesn't. Once again, had you dont any research you would know this.

It's just so easy to bitch slap you around all the time.

From:

A president appointed by a parliament which was established by a few clans without general elections whose influence is limited to the sphere of territories controlled by the clans in question making the country as a whole a defacto anarchy.

From:

I have no love for taxes of any sort, anything but lean effective government, or excessive regulation. As you'd know if you'd ever written anything I've ever said on any of those subjects.

And given that I'm currently waiting to hear back from Nevada and Utah about my concealed carry firearm permit, your last one is the stupidest of all.

As for Somalia; their government is a joke, a basket case. The economy is a clusterfuck. There may be dejeur rules, laws, and government, but there is defacto anarchy.

Near perfect market fundamentalism in practice, in other words.

As for bitch slapping... is that how you treat your women? You slap the 'bitch'? Sad. Yet another difference between you and actual humans...

From:

texas-reddmann.livejournal.com

Hating taxes...put in place during Bush years.
Hating government...put in place during Bush years and only now being made to actually do its tasks, be more efficient at it, and operate with some level of accountability instead of "It's secret, we can't tell you or the bad guys will win."
Hating regulations...put in place during Bush years or earlier but never actually enforced.

So why do the conservatives hate this again? Oh, right, Rushie and FoxNews told 'em to. OK, I get it now...

From:

bord-du-rasoir.livejournal.com

oh snap

From:

hoboclown.livejournal.com

Haha, I love the look on his face in the fourth panel. "Did somebody say GUNS???"

From:

http://users.livejournal.com/__hell___yes/

oh my god, your icon. win.

From:

lafinjack.livejournal.com

(deleted comment)

From:

Whips....only with women in rubber, thank you: and even then not since my marriage unless I can persuade SWMBO that it might be amusing - I'll ask her this evening.

There's no largely militaristic autonomous region(s) of ethnic peoples or anything, right?

I assume irony here, given your evident intelligence.

True, circumstances in Somalia are as you state, and I can bring to mind theoretical Anarcho-Libertarian polities which could work: Iain M Banks 'Culture' novels posit something similar. However they are dependent on more advanced civilisations, both technological and social, than any which exist at present.

In the real world though I fear such (to use a Marxist term) Post-Millennial utopias are a trifle beyond us, especially given the levels of semi-educated debate which abound in our present politics. We always appear to be limited by those in society with the greatest limitations: in a perfect world, maybe....but alas IMHO not quite yet.

(deleted comment)

From:

As for the broader issue of a "utopia" which you raise - my question then is to ask you what issues you see that prevent such a "utopia" from forming and how conceding power to those who very well could have the "greatest limitations", and most certainly are self-interested, solves such problems.

Lack of education. Lack of resources....actually the list could go on for a bit so I'll try to put it another way.

Politics, as has been said, is the art of the possible. Given ignorance, stupidity, poverty, and that hateful normative word evil some systemic intervention into the lives of ordinary citizens always seems necessary; be it judicial or otherwise; and it has to be paid for. As you say in the thread on vox's page there have to be some safeguards to contracts and safeguards from abuse. There also have to be standards: for food, for water, for social interaction - be they laws against violence to individuals, speed limits for cars on public highways, or simple courtesies. I'm all for public funding of highways, supervision of air lanes for aircraft, and as the complexities mount in our civilisation government; as I feel are you when you think carefully about it. In reality our debate is merely about extent.

And when we allow our economy to be fucked up the arse until it has a rectal prolapse (as we have) I'm in favour of whatever it takes to put it back together, even if it means more taxes, which it hasn't yet, but such will come; and which I will have to pay despite not really being part of the problem. Y'see I believe there is such a thing as society, and our freedoms are in some respects subordinate to it: not the freedom to speak freely, nor to think freely, but certainly the freedom to act without regard to others, a position which concurs with your championing of contract law.

I'm not trying to be philosophically exact about my position: as I stated earlier I'm interested in the art of the possible, rather than the theoretical. And I'm all in favour of what works (within reason) given the limitations I see in our society.

(deleted comment)

From:

Sorry, rubber and whips await....tomorrow dude.

From:

I think you're making assumptions about my 'statist' position here. That would be like me assuming you are an out and out Libertarian, wherein I would say in response to your statement about ignorance, education etc. that mandatory education does impinge (alas only marginally) on the freedom to be ignorant. If you assume my position is frankly absurd, I hope you will of course allow me to assume that yours is too. Just because I believe there is such a thing as society and some freedoms are subordinate to it doesn't make me a Stalinist, unless you cannot see there being a distinction, in which case I'm wasting my time here (which I doubt).
Whereupon I would ask about the mechanisms that a completely Libertarian state has to deal with the problems which we both agree are endemic no matter what systems prevail. Whereas the strongly coercive state does have (admittedly often unpleasant) mechanisms for dealing with such, often at the expense of freedoms which I take for granted and regard as important.

I agree with you that individual liberty is hugely important, but the 'Climate Change' problems coming (whether man-made or otherwise) may [note emphasis] put individual liberty in a more difficult context: given the option of freedom or death perhaps most Americans would opt for death, but if the option is of some small curtailment of freedom (for example: the freedom to waste resources profligately) and life, that may yet be modified.

Another question to you: why is it appropriate for you to force me to do the same? I sincerely believe that most actions taken prevent recovery and exacerbates the problem. (1) How do you know you're "right" and that bailouts etc. are a "good thing? (2) How do you justify making me do the same, especially if it puts me in a worse situation?

(1)I don't know I'm right any more than you know you're right. That makes us equal, unless you think your position is fireproof....and I point to our present circumstances that the until recently prevailing collective opinion has got us into. The general acceptance of the Chicago School's economic thinking since the 80's has certainly provided the framework for the current mess. Which brings me to....
(2)It's called democracy - the tyranny of the majority. Just like I didn't think spending on two unjust wars was a good thing, but I had to live with it because at the time, the leaders elected by a majority (however slim) thought it appropriate. But it's okay, protest is fine by me: please feel free to protest, and by that protest influence the opinions of the majority.

At the risk of being ridiculously pedantic, laws force people to do otherwise than they would, especially given the selfishness of our society. Folk who break laws and get caught go to jail, which I'm sure in general they would rather not. Damn intrusive government, hey.

I'm content to prioritise 'X' over 'Y' on the basis of collective valuation which is the basis of democracy: I may be personally unhappy about the value placed on Bach or Beethoven's work in comparison with Coldplay's (given the differences in airplay) but I'll live with it and try to educate and inform those around me.

In general, I'm of the opinion that if it requires some jury-rigging to fix a broken mast, even at the expense of a piece of my Chippendale furniture....needs must, etc. I don't expect everyone to agree with this, but to me JFK's call to arms works in this new context: 'Ask not what your country can do for you....' however these days patriotism doesn't appear to require personal sacrifice....at least not of your wallets.

From: