1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/13218/the-24-types-of-authoritarians/

The 24 Types of Authoritarians

July 10, 2010 by

A cartoon inspired by “libertarians”.


Todd S. July 10, 2010 at 6:41 am

I looked at the “libertarians” cartoon… seems like the author’s knowledge of libertarianism is limited to the CATO institute and Tea Partiers.

Ragner July 10, 2010 at 6:59 am

Yeah Todd, its so horrible that the Tea Party is actually bringing the people and part of the Republican Party towards Libertarian ideas, books, and websites. I think you would fall under the boxes of Petulant and More Libertarian than Thou.

Seattle July 10, 2010 at 8:09 am

Fact is although the Tea Partiers have their hearts in the right place, they do not operate within a consistent logical framework and thus are easy for commentators to discredit. And if the public considers a discrediting of the tea partiers as a discrediting of the entire freedom movement, this is a very bad thing.

cs July 10, 2010 at 10:03 am

Agreed. Jon Stewart catches Glenn Beck on his inconsistent ideology all the time.

West Virginia November 19, 2010 at 1:44 am

I agree with this statement. Tea Partiers are more or less just whiners. They dislike what’s going on, but don’t have a solution to fix the problem. Anybody can complain, but what this country needs is solutions to it’s problems.

JC July 2, 2011 at 6:07 pm

Actually, the solution is simple.
Abolish the wrongly named and privately owned Federal Reserve and return to Constitutional ways. It will take a little while but its a beginning.

Passifire July 10, 2010 at 2:20 pm

“Yeah Todd, its so horrible that the Tea Party is actually bringing the people and part of the Republican Party towards Libertarian ideas, books, and websites. I think you would fall under the boxes of Petulant and More Libertarian than Thou.”

As full of wit as your are, it would do you some good to actually be acquainted with the criticism leveled against the tea baggers.


James E. Egolf says:

I have little respect for many of the tea party/libertarian types I met. Most get Social Security/Medicare benefits, unemployment benefits, and/or welfare benefits WHICH THEY DEMAND. Yet they claim they are against these benefits. According to one poll, most of the tea party/libertarian types favor the tar baby wars in Western Asia. Yet, they do not understand Ralph Bourne’s quote, “War is the health of the state.” These wars cost more than what Americans can afford. 80% of the tea party/libertarian types believe the federal government snoops should have the power to interlope and spy on Americans via phone calls, E-mail, etc. That IS NOT freedom. War is what gives governments tyrannical power.

The tea party/libertarian types want a constitutional test for voter elgibility, but they themselves do not know the Constitution at all. When I have asked what is the Elastic Clause, they do not know. When I ask what rights go with what amendments, most do not know there is a Bill of Rights.

The leaders of the tea party/libertarian types are often hypocrites. Michele Bachman wants to “wean Americans off Social Security and Medicare.” However she has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in farm subsidies FOR NOT USING HER LAND. A Senate nominee from Oregon wants to do the same, and he too has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in farm subsidies. Bachman’s husband just got a huge state grant for his phony counseling clinic. Rand Paul complained about Medicare, but he was reminded that he is paid via Medicare re many of his patients. His answer was, “The government has a responsibility to make sure doctors have a comfortable living.” He also said that any criticism of BP is un-American. BP means ‘BRITISH Patroleum.” He also approved using nuclear weapons against the Iranians which means the massacre of possibly millions of innocent women and children.

Sarah Palin said she was against government health care. But she took her grandson to Indian Affairs Medical Faciltiy and the Alaska Native Medical Center for medical care. Both of these programs are government health care providers. She also claimed she used to go to Canada to get free medical care via the Canadian taxpayers.

I understand the concern about big government, but I know hypocrisy when I read and know about it. One of the tea party crowd heard my wife is from Guam. He said she should be deported. In vain did I try to explain that Guam is a US territory ceded by the Spanish per the Treaty of Paris of 1898. In vain I tried to explain that per the first paragraph of the 14th. Amendment that my wife is a bona fide natural born US citizen. He did not know what Guam is and confused it with Guatamela. He said he and his tea party folks would come to the house, detain her, and call immigration authorities. I figured this knucklehead was immune to reason and knowledge but not immune to self defense. So, I told him that if he tried that stunt, he would discover why I nicknamed my wife Machete Momma and to be sure he and his friends had their dental and health insurance paid. He retreated and no one has arrived yet.

Guard July 12, 2010 at 3:40 am

One concept I see pop up here once in a while is the idea that people who receive some benefit from government “demand” them. (You mentioned Social Security/Medicare benefits, unemployment benefits, and/or welfare benefits.) Isn’t the demand from those who vote for and publicly support these programs, not from the ones who receive them? Or would you expect that to avoid “hypocrisy” everyone should continue to pay taxes while scrupulously avoiding getting any benefit from them? I don’t get it.

Chris January 21, 2011 at 2:54 am

James, I have no friggin’ clue where you get your information on Libertarians but you sir, are way, way off of what a TRUE Libertarian is.
A true Libertarian does not believe in intervention of any sort. Yet, you try to discredit Libertarians by using Republican ideals which call for no intervention in most areas and intervention in others.
The problem with the Tea Party is that it has too many Republicans and not enough Libertarians. Dude, the Libertarians bailed on the the Tea Party long ago. Most of them, including myself, knew the Tea Party would get hijacked by the NeoCons.
I would also like to point out that the page for the 24 types of Libertarians has comments inactive. So there is no room for debate. Just a bunch of usual Liberal BS that has absolutely no truth to it whatsoever. Liberals love to “fix” problems with more problems. Then, they use the excuse of a modern failure that has been implemented to give an excuse for an old problem that they caused.
I would be willing to debate any of these Republican and Democrat A holes and I would be sure to put them in their place with sound economic policies, and irrefutable proof of the benefits of a free society and a free market. Until then, both Republicans and Democrats, alike, are little brats who never take the blame for anything. Instead they would rather point the finger at each other. I, on the other hand, point the finger at both of them and tell them, where we are today, is completely and totally YOUR FAULT.

Jeff August 13, 2011 at 2:10 pm

I don’t think you will gather a large crowd if its you in the debate. Exchange your debate prep time for some higher economic education. Sorry, Chris, but life, society, capitalism, and economics are not as simple as libertarians make them out to be in our nation.

PJ August 22, 2011 at 12:12 pm

Mr. Passifire. I thoroughly doubt if you have ever even heard or read anything libertarian. Have you ever listened to Ron Paul? Have to ever read anything directly from the Libertarian Party? I don’t think so.

yofed August 31, 2011 at 3:29 pm

sounds like Mr. Egolf has no clue what a Libertarian is, and how Tea Partiers in today’s incarnation, are so NOT Libertarian in their views… please, tell me, what is YOUR opinion, as Mr. Egolf’s warrants zero consideration.

Todd S. July 13, 2010 at 12:10 pm

It wouldn’t be horrible except that isn’t what is happening. The Tea Party is making neo-cons only slightly less warlike and that’s about it. The Tea Party is no closer to libertarianism than is the GOP. And not sure how you found my remark petulant. I guess you fall into the box of Indignant Convert?

unsheepled one December 23, 2010 at 9:07 am

I ‘ll be glad to give a display of petulant remarks: The tea party is the GOP in a new, shorter dress on a new corner. They are at a minimum trained , warmongering mental slaves( Pavlovs dogs come to mind, they’ll froth on command) who REFUSE to get off the ideological hegemony plantation. They wont get it ; ever ; just like billions before them who loved and died for their statism.

Sarah July 10, 2010 at 7:16 am

I think the point is that this cartoon is oh so awesome that it destroys all that the other cartoon has to say.

Artisan July 10, 2010 at 8:17 am

I love it. It has a strong “psychological type” drive… (mother State), which C.G. Jung probably wouldn’t have despised .

michael July 10, 2010 at 9:02 am

I wonder whether the author of those moronic caricatures ever stopped to wonder why any actual human being would be like any of them. If they seem to dumb to be conceivable, maybe they don’t exist at all. Maybe people who don’t share this curious philosophy (libertarianism) aren’t actually like any of those stick figures. They may just have thoughts that exist outside the universe the cartoonist imagines.

Inquisitor July 10, 2010 at 11:31 am

Maybe you should look at the libertarian ones which pre-empted this, and perhaps just shut up period. God you’re annoying.

Bill Miller July 10, 2010 at 1:52 pm

Considering that this was a response to a similar cartoon about libertarians, maybe you should read that one before complaining about this one.

Bill Miller July 10, 2010 at 1:57 pm

Plus, I’ve met most of them in person (Petty Tyrant, Green Zealot, MHTT, Elitist, Nanny-stater, bereaved parent, and Freeloader being the most memorable ).

James August 24, 2011 at 5:07 pm

I agree entirly… and so apparently does the person who revamped this cartoon. I hate to be the third person to point this out Mike but some arrogant statist drew these and tried to fit libertarians into archetypes. This one just uses those same pictues and flips the table more to show how positivly rediculous the first one was than for the sake of actually putting statists into these boxes. Its an attempt to ridicule ad hominen libertarians which some smart guy looked at and said “hey, you could do this to anyone. It means nothing.”

jesus christ July 10, 2010 at 1:29 pm

i fully approve of the content of this comic

Jeremy July 10, 2010 at 5:59 pm

Jesus has spoken. The debate is over. The comic rocks.

Chad Rushing July 10, 2010 at 8:35 pm

I have to wonder why the author of this revised comic strip was not boldly honest enough to write “Holy Bible” on the book held up by the Theocrat rather than the euphemistic “The Wyrd of Gawd,” since that is obviously what he had in mind. However, that might have tipped off too many of the Bible-believing Christians who serve as “useful idiots” within the ultimately humanistic libertarian movement. I say that as a former “idiot” who now promotes Christian theonomy instead.

michael July 11, 2010 at 10:07 am

Interesting, Chad. I’d have thought the people here were more on the skeptical side of the theological debate. Where do you stand on the abominations of Leviticus? Should they all be included in the Civil Code?

I’ll admit to being in concert with you in one area: the notion of Jubilee. That ancient rabbinical law was designed to periodically bring down the mighty and elevate the lowly. Every fifty years all debts were to be erased, and all slaves freed. I would love to see the Kingdom return in that degree.

Otherwise I’m not much on Christian Identity or Rushdoony’s Christian Reconstruction movement. But I like the idea of dealing out a new hand of cards every fifty years. That would teach a proper lesson in both the Judaic and the Christian sense.

Windy July 13, 2010 at 2:50 am

Perhaps he used “Wyrd of Gawd” because he was also including religions other than Christianity which are just as authoritarian, and in some cases even more so?

James August 24, 2011 at 5:10 pm

Islam anyone? Cant leave them out, also cant leave out the cult of medicine.

michael July 10, 2010 at 8:56 pm

Fair enough, guys. I took your advice and went to the one lampooning libertarians. I thought it was very funny. And somewhat apropos.

Here’s another one that always annoys me: Mallard Fillmore. I always get creeped out by the kind of person who would find that one funny. Yet it’s popular.

I guess that’s the difference between one person and another. PS, I did appreciate the ‘Green Zealot’ and the ‘White Sheep’. I’ve seen people like that.

Old Mexican July 11, 2010 at 1:11 pm

Re: Michael,

I took your advice and went to the one lampooning libertarians. I thought it was very funny. And somewhat apropos.

And yet, you wrote:

I wonder whether the author of those moronic caricatures ever stopped to wonder why any actual human being would be like any of them.

I am wondering if you felt offended by the cartoons lampooning statists… maybe they struck a cord there…

michael July 13, 2010 at 10:37 am

Certainly. It made me realize that everyone’s offended when someone from outside their group caricatures them incorrectly. We all use stereotypes– but they only become offensive when they’re perceived as being wrong.

That’s the problem I have with Millard Fillmore. He doesn’t seem funny because he pictures a world that’s inaccurate. Not one that’s all TOO accurate. So great satire, it would seem, would lie in figuring out exactly who the people you’re satirizing really are. And then pinning them down on paper.

mpolzkill July 13, 2010 at 10:43 am

Michael is always careful to avoid unfairly caricaturing people from outside his group.

Scott D August 22, 2011 at 2:04 pm

I know, right?

Lemmywinks July 11, 2010 at 9:52 am

“Yeah Todd, its so horrible that the Tea Party is actually bringing the people and part of the Republican Party towards Libertarian ideas, books, and websites.”

I think the libertarian movement would do better to focus on convincing the more intelligent people on the left, rather than cater to right wing reactionaries. The transformation from (the modern definition) of the liberal, to libertarianism is basically just the acknowledgement that the government is not altruistic, and it will likely cause more problems under the guise of being a solution providers.

For the tea party people (sweeping generalization to come)….they really don’t care about principles. They think their lives suck because of immigration, welfare, minorities, and terrorism, and all it really results in is misguided frustration. At the same time, any state benefits which go directly to them, are totally legit. If someone is stupid enough to believe Glenn Beck, I seriously doubt a Hayek book is going to save them. Any state benefits which go directly to them, are totally legit.

Basically..the problem with the modern left is with economics, while right-wingers still remain the tools of their much wealthier masters. I think someone has to see the benefits of societal freedom before they can understand the arguments for economic freedom.

mpolzkill July 11, 2010 at 10:23 am

“the libertarian movement would do better to focus on convincing the more intelligent people on the left”

How does Michael’s latest round of inanities make you feel about that idea? (not that I think you should focus on righties, you’re right about that)

Lemmywinks July 11, 2010 at 2:24 pm

I see your point….

In seriousness though, it’s going to be hard to destroy firmly grounded ideology on both sides, but the latest popular liberal books I’ve read have presented persuasive libertarian arguments….although the author’s rarely seem to realize it.

Take the Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. The author is a pretty straight forward socialist, but most of her book is dedicated to criticizing the IMF and government assisted corporatism. Ofcourse…..she uses the ridiculous actions of the IMF as a way to criticize capitalism, when the reality is that she is making an argument for more free-markets and less central planning.

Same with Chomsky on foreign policy. As a long-term Chomsky reader, I still have no idea what in the world he is trying to advocate when he talks about economics,, but his more popular work has always been his foreign policy, which presents some of the best cases of non-interventionism I’ve ever read.

I find it kind of strange that Michael says he doesn’t know anyone who fits the traits in this cartoon. I can’t imagine a smoker who wants smoking banned, or someone who like taxes for the sake of taxes, but most of the other ones seem to be fairly common attitudes. Some of them would have accurately described myself at one point.

mpolzkill July 11, 2010 at 3:22 pm

No, I think you’re right, it is tough though.

I imagine you’ve seen this:


I’ve actually met the two types you said you can’t imagine. Though the one who wanted his taxes raised was a really smart guy and a librarian. Outrageous cynicism.

PaulO July 12, 2010 at 2:25 pm

Wanting to pay more taxes? Warren Buffet comes to mind, as one well-known example.

Windy July 13, 2010 at 2:55 am

Bill Gates for another.

Russ July 11, 2010 at 5:45 pm

“Basically..the problem with the modern left is with economics, while right-wingers still remain the tools of their much wealthier masters….”

I think the problem with the left is much more than a mere lack of understanding of economics. It’s a much more basic belief that anything that is really worth doing can only be done collectively through government, and anything that is done individually or for personal gain is somehow wrong. This belief is held even by many “intelligent” leftists. It’s a worldview problem, and I’m not sure that anything can be done to get rid of it once it’s in place.

As for the Tea Partiers, I believe that you’re right that most of them have no coherent philosophy whatsoever. But I also believe that they have a much better intuitive understanding of freedom than most lefties do. Granted, they hold inconsistent beliefs, but that’s mainly because they’re new to thinking about politics, and it takes a while to cut through all the wool that’s pulled over their eyes every day by the schools, the press, the media, etc., and think clearly about these things. Besides, if you were forced to put money into the social system for 30 years, it’s human nature to want to get some of that money back out. I don’t really even see that as hypocritical. It’s just people wanting to make sure they don’t get screwed. The only problem is, they haven’t figured out yet that if they don’t get screwed, their kids or grandkids will.

I have more hope in the Glen Beck fans than I do the Noam Chomsky fans, honestly, although most “intellectuals” consider the Chomskyites more “intelligent”. Sooner or later, you have to question just how “intelligent” a person is, if he is incapable of learning, eventually, that socialism doesn’t work.

mpolzkill July 11, 2010 at 6:21 pm

“Sooner or later, you have to question just how “intelligent” a person is, if he is incapable of learning, eventually, that socialism doesn’t work.”

This coming from the guy who says he learned that he needed the protection of the Federales after 9/11.

Ryan July 11, 2010 at 11:55 pm

Sooner or later, you have to question just how “intelligent” a person is, if he is incapable of learning, eventually, that socialism doesn’t work.

There is a difference between being smart and having reliable judgment. There are plenty of intelligent people out there who seem to use their intelligence solely to keep themselves continuously deluded. In 1984, Orwell talks about how much mental agility is required to successfully perform doublethink.

Lemmywinks July 12, 2010 at 6:00 am

“I think the problem with the left is much more than a mere lack of understanding of economics. It’s a much more basic belief that anything that is really worth doing can only be done collectively through government”

This is true, but it’s just as equal for right-wingers. The tea-party people support torture, state-sponsored terrorism, subsidized agriculture, and the prosecution of non-aggressive actions (through the war on drugs), while being too stupid to realize that this is just as socialist as a government run medical system. The virtue of selfishness is negated when it’s the selfishness to get the government to force other people to do what they wouldn’t do willingly, and both the modern left and right are guilty of this.

Many of the left’s pet causes (environmentalism, for example), would likely fair much better in the context of liability and property rights, whether than our current trend of regulation. They just don’t realize it.

mushindo July 12, 2010 at 8:49 am

Lemmywinks said:

I think the libertarian movement would do better to focus on convincing the more intelligent people on the left, rather than cater to right wing reactionaries.

Here I tend to agree. I have long felt insulted at being classified as ‘right wing’, which carries more than a hint of fascism, and whose ranks ranks are filled with people who would not hesitate to make crimes of everything they disapprove of.

If those on the left who are sincere couild just understand the true nature of economic interaction properly, they would be libertarians. But they dont so they aren’t.

Lew Rockwell said it very well: as regards the left (love social freedoms, hate economic freedoms) and the right ( love economic freedoms, hate social ones), its the libertarian’s job to convince each side that the other guys are half right.

Davi Barker July 11, 2010 at 9:01 pm

While appreciate the coverage. This was not the final version of the cartoon. I still need to change the Freeloader, and there’s a high res version I haven’t posted yet. I should have it done Monday, is there a place I can send the final version?

Let me know

Davi Barker - SF Muslim Examiner July 12, 2010 at 11:18 am

Here’s the final version

Tel July 16, 2010 at 8:40 am

No way, the freeloader was so cool.

Besides, the freeloader is the second half of the Baptist and Bootlegger team, he is an essential part.

Isaac July 12, 2010 at 2:57 pm

Seems we’re missing one type: those who see order without the state as simply impossible, all the while participating in hundreds of well-ordered completely non-state created/maintained voluntary institutions.

This might be the toughest battle to fight – convincing people that the orderly parts of their lives which they like were not created by government, are not maintained by government, and would not go away if government did.

Michael A. Clem July 12, 2010 at 4:06 pm

I notice that comments are off at the 24 types of Libertarians page… I thought lefties wanted to encourage freedom of speech?

AspiringAustrian July 15, 2010 at 4:25 pm

It’s awesome. I’ve met so many of these people. Thumbs up

call me socialist July 24, 2010 at 1:58 pm

I actually like this cartoon… but ironically I bet the writer would have to fall into one or another of these categories. If he’s a true libertarian, than what is his explanation for why Americans don’t commonly put libertarians into office? He would probably have to say that people are indoctrinated by the system. This means that he thinks people are too dumb to avoid falling into indoctrination, therefore putting him in the elitist snob category…

Also- it seems evident to me that mainstream libertarian philosophy is a bit of a Utopian idea… and I could see him fitting into the dreamer category except that the dreamer would be thinking “Everything will just work itself out without taxes and regulations. A perfect system will be able to naturally flourish without the government stepping in.”

Sounds tempting, but I think there are reasons that governments DO exists and I think partly its because it makes a societies’ systems more efficient. I think libertarians have valid points about economics, but they see things too purely through the lenses of one theory which they have established. Societal interaction is too complicated to simply state that taxation is always negative. There really is no solid reason why taxation could never be positive. I’m all for getting rid of useless taxation- but I also believe that the organization of our system under the influence of a unified force will bring about more efficiency than the chaotic evolution of society.

mpolzkill July 24, 2010 at 2:16 pm

Call me “elitist snob”.

You *are* indoctrinated and have been trained to be resistant to understanding libertarianism or the true nature of society. You didn’t fall into your indoctrination, you arose up through it.

What’s your opinion of KKK members, past and present?

And you are the Utopian, another thing they gave you without your knowing.

Two kinds of elitist snobs, btw: those who force their opinions on others and those opposed to such a thing.

Dave Albin July 24, 2010 at 2:31 pm

“Useless” or useful taxation – I guess you get to choose for us what to do with the stolen money – that is why taxation is never positive. Efficiency, of course, is an important concept and allows businesses to survive and thrive. The problem is forcing people to do/not do/buy/not buy things in the name of “efficiency” imposed on us by the state.

Thinker July 24, 2010 at 3:22 pm

SOCIALIST!!!!! (you asked for it)

More seriously, perhaps you would care to offer a theoretical justification for your tired, old (and thoroughly debunked with simple economics, I might add) statist claims? Inquiring minds want to know.

Dagnytg July 24, 2010 at 5:47 pm

I’m going to assume that you are new to austrio/anarcho-libertarian theory and responding as a newbie… which is good.

First and foremost, I don’t think libertarians would see their ideas as utopian. Freedom is not utopian. Freedom takes work and responsibility. It requires the understanding of risk and reward. Anyone who understands theses premises knows that in a free society the world is not going to be equal.

Some will have more than others but it is the fairest system and even those who have less will have more. (Let’s face it…it’s better to be poor in the semi-free America than say Zimbabwe, Venezuela, mainland China, N. Korea or even Mexico. Of course being poor in the U.S., has overtime, become more difficult due to inflationary gov’t policies (the most punishing) and barriers to employment such as minimum wages, etc.)

“Organization of our system under the influence of a unified force will bring about more efficiency than the chaotic evolution of society.”

Need I not point out the historical lessons of “unified forces” trying to make a more efficient society- Nazi Germany, USSR, Maoist China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia…and sadly many others.

I suggest you reconsider and look at the phenomenon of the Internet. Its evolution has been chaotic and yet extremely efficient. Your posting is proof of that. The fact that the gov’t has basically kept its hands off the Internet is a lesson to all of the unlimited possibilities of spontaneous generation.

The journey to becoming an anarcho-libertarian is not an easy one. It takes great introspection of ones beliefs, emotions and fears. It takes an understanding of the ideas of many Austrian/ Libertarian thinkers and requires a re-thinking of history. It’s a continuous and evolutionary process.

Most of all, it demands that one believe that people are inherently good when given the chance. (That’s what separates us from the Fascist, Communist, Socialist, Democrat, Republican, and many others.)

Call me socialist-I wish you the best in your journey and I hope one day we will “call you Libertarian”…good luck!

just an idiot August 3, 2010 at 2:12 am

is it just me or when people say “Taxes are theft” aren’t they just mad that they know the price they have to pay? Cause the way I see it if you don’t want to pay a sales tax don’t buy any thing just like the argument don’t like walmart don’t buy there. The way I see it whenever I buy something I have absolutely no idea where the money goes after the transaction and whether or not it supports something want to support. in my experience people don’t notice something until it is right in their face and don’t care where something comes from or how it got there if they want it. A lot of the things taxes pay for are often things I am entitled to or something I benifit from in the long run primarily because of the interconnectivity of society in general.

The question of wheter people are inherently good is a strange one because it is clear that we as humanity aren’t exactly that good when given a chance after all 60% of males surveyed said they would rape if they thought they could get away with it, and I’m sure that many of us would do something unseemly if we could get away with it. after all why would we need security if we’re inherently good.

One final question if a group of people think that individualism is great and most of them agree to it doesn’t that make them a collective?

Scott D August 22, 2011 at 4:48 pm

guard, below, points out the obvious difference between taxation and market transactions. You lament that you cannot trace what happens to the money you spend at the store, which is a very common left-wing anxiety. A basic understanding of how profits are utilized in the entrepreneurial process would, I think, help to ease your mind considerably. The short answer is that your money will be used to buy more inventory, to pay workers, and to hopefully reward business owners, upper management and stockholders for good decisions, or to punish them with losses for bad decisions. If they are doing their job properly, you will be rewarded with the quality of products you receive and will continue to shop there. If they are not, you are free to shop with a competitor, marginally reducing their profits. The lefty’s concerns stem from a belief that the acquisition of wealth is, by definition, wrong, refusing to acknowledge the enormous yet taken-for-granted good that has been achieved in serving customers’ needs.

Your statistics on rape seem very suspect to me. I was able to determine that the quoted number comes from a Women’s Action Coalition survey back in the early 90s when that group was active, but could not find the actual survey or any other evidence to corroborate its findings. One tidbit that I found was that the targeted group of males were actually college students, not the general populace. So, I would reject these rather alarming and decidedly unrealistic numbers without access to the methodology behind them.

“after all why would we need security if we’re inherently good”

Somewhere around 1% of the population are psychopaths. That is, they are human predators, seeking satisfaction in one way or another through the use or destruction of others. These are people with no empathy, no sense of ethics or morality. They have difficulty learning, grow bored quickly, and have a heightened sense of self-importance combined with a low regard for others. Vexingly, they are often very good at lying and are often otherwise quite skilled in manipulating others. When you consider that 1 out of 100 people that you come in contact with daily have this dangerous and inhuman bent to their consciousness, it suddenly becomes clear why the remaining majority of people have a collective need for protection from such amoral opportunists.

“One final question if a group of people think that individualism is great and most of them agree to it doesn’t that make them a collective?”

Collective action or ideology versus individual action or ideology is irrelevant. What is relevant is aggression vs. voluntary action. Aggression cannot be justified, whether it is a single person harming another, or a nation’s army attacking the people of another. Once you get past the strawman caricatures of libertarianism, it becomes much more difficult to reject it out of hand.

guard August 3, 2010 at 3:23 am

Yes, it’s just you. The issue is force: if you do not pay the tax, you will be fined, if you do not pay the fine you will be thrown in prison, if you try to escape from prison you will be shot. Taxing is theft under force of arms.
Don’t buy anything? You have to grow your own food. But wait, the land is taxed. Trade for your food? Trades are taxed. Begging? Maybe, but be sure to report your income. It will be taxed.

Misanthropy Today August 23, 2010 at 2:16 am

An earlier comment about having better luck converting liberals than tea partiers.

I disagree because I see most liberalism as sort of a default, safe political ideology (think Fisher-Price) whereas the tea partier types are at least active and passionate about something, certainly lacking some serious polish, but passionate nonetheless.

Liberals on the other hand all hold some kind of notion that they are doing good, just by holding beliefs (if you can call them that). I’m always worried of people who are trying to do good, as most of the human atrocities in history began with well-intentioned intellectuals trying to help those who did not know they needed help.

Scott D August 23, 2011 at 10:06 am

I’ve often thought the same thing about many liberals. Good intentions and happy thoughts seem to possess near magical qualities to accomplish good works. Accordingly, bad thoughts and unhealthy ambition have similar magical potential to do evil. The idea that a wish to do good, pushed through the apparatus of government, might actually cause even greater harm than it was mean to cure, is unthinkable, or rationalized as being somehow corrupted by bad people (capitalists).

These people do not think of economics and society in terms of multi-layered systems with unfathomably complex interactions. It is hard for them to comprehend that a single intervention can cause a long chain of causal events. Instead, every good or bad thing that happens is as a direct result of some good or bad person’s conscious decision. The market, rather than a fascinating, extraordinarily complex and self-correcting source of wealth and abundance, is seen as a tool that the smart, bad people use with impunity to get their own way at the expense of others.

http://www.hairmvp.com January 13, 2011 at 2:29 am

Almost immediately, the spectacle of men hurtling GHD Hair Straighteners at 揵reak-neck? speeds around the wooden circular track became a passionately attended spectator sport and new tracks sprung up, literally over night, across the land. By 1910, the length of the wooden 揹romes? had grown from a third of a mile to as much as a mile in circumference, while the banking had increased from a modest 25 degrees in the corners until 60 degrees became the norm.

Spectators looked down on the track from grandstands constructed above the boards, as the riders lapped the track at speeds approaching 100 m.p.h. Rivalry was fierce, for the race was not only between theI was ecstatic, and the rest of the team congratulated each other for a job well done. We’d done it. After months of hard work and dedication, the time that we put into making this one go fast paid off. We’ll definitely be heading back that way next time around, in October. You never know…we might be able to get a few more miles per hour GHD IV Purple Styler out of the old Harley 45″

We’ll have videog opened in 1909 in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Coliseum motor dome was a little less than a third of a mile in circumference; nevertheless, the new track was nearly twice as long as the bicycle velodromes which had preceded it.
daring riders, but also between the manufacturers for the increased Cheap GHD Hair Straighteners sales that were a direct result of victory for their brand. By author Daniel Statnekov.

Spam August 24, 2011 at 6:41 pm

Spam above

Neurotoxin April 29, 2011 at 1:52 am

The original “libertarians” one just reeks of ignorance. Half that stuff doesn’t even APPLY to libertarians, and the other half is the overbaked crap I hear every time I mention being libertarian to someone on either side of the spectrum, that takes about 2 minutes to destroy from a logical perspective. There are some reasonable counter-arguments but that cartoon is 0-24 for actually hitting one of them.

Toshinaka Mugiura June 26, 2011 at 11:35 am

Overall great, but I don’t understand how the “love it or leave it” guy fits in as authoritarian. Fans of unlimited government should be free to leave for bigger welfare states. Is there somebody who wanted government to expel either statists (ironically) or originalists? Not enough to be considered a “type”, if any.

Bo August 8, 2011 at 3:43 pm

Amusing but more female characters please.

Evan August 24, 2011 at 6:52 pm

I thought all of them were funny except the theocratic one. Authoritarian government today basically hates ALL religions, saying nothing can be done at all. If we had actual private property rights, we wouldn’t have this problem. Try using the raging atheist whining at religion in their private school.

Vic November 13, 2011 at 11:16 am

The dreamer makes people live in dreams. There is no movement and there is no action. Vision without actions is just like hallucination.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 7 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: