Here’s a fantastic video dramatizing the fact that pirates and emperors are really the same thing.
Here’s a direct link to the video on YouTube.
Find out more here
Hat tip to Sunni for alerting me to it.
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/6569/schoolhouse-rock-pirates-and-emperors-or-size-does-matter/
Schoolhouse Rock: Pirates and Emperors (Or, Size Does Matter)
Previous post: Trust me, all is well
Next post: Beautiful Chaos
{ 38 comments }
The only problem was that they forgot that the Sandinistas were also pirates. Other than that, spot on.
I thought this was pretty witty and well done. The fact that it’s a cartoon means kids might unwittingly absorb a serious political/philosophical message, which makes it extra lethal.
My one gripe is that on the “About” page of the movie’s website, it says it was inspired by the writings of Noam Chomsky. Oh, brother!
If only people could learn why tyrannical power is bad from a libertarian, rather than a hypocritical socialist!
I think the criticism of the Sandinistas might be implicit. The video doesn’t say that they WERE NOT pirates or emperors.
I get the larger point you’re making, but the video is morally relativistic anti-American propaganda that furthers socialism instead of libertarianism.
How is the video by itself relativistic anti-American propaganda? And how does it by itself further socialism instead of libertarianism?
It criticizes pirates and emperors (petty criminals and governments) on the same grounds: initiation of physical force against innocent civilians.
It doesn’t advocate socialism.
Perhaps if you put it in the context of the creator’s self-proclaimed sources…but the video by itself is not explicitly socialist and need not necessarily be viewed to be socialist even implicitly.
By showing the sandanistas cutting down the “Mine” flag on Nicaragua, with people cheering around them, it implicitly asserts that they were not pirates or emperors.
Perhaps…but the people cutting down the “Mine” flag with the “Ours” saw are not clearly labeled as Sandinistas, unlike in the previous scene. One might interpret them simply as the Nicaraguan people.
We could criticize the “Ours” group on the same grounds as the pirates and emperors if they engage in the same sorts of activities. A Nicaraguan socialist democracy is as open to criticism on the grounds given in the video as is the US democratic government.
The video is anti-imperialist. Indeed, it is more than that. It explicitly criticizes the initiatory use of physical force against innocents. But perhaps it is expecting too much to expect it to be explicitly anarcho-capitalist.
No, they are shown to be sandanistas. Immediately prior to the scene in which they cut down the flag, we see a rally with a flag which reads “SANDANISTAS: Power to the People!” and a cheering crowd.
My sister forwarded this to her rabidly socialist fiance, and I expect him to recieve it with the usual Marxist flare. “This is proof that greedy capitalist imperialists are exploiting the people of the world!”
Does what little remains of the liberal (not american liberal) movement not have artistic talent within it’s ranks? I think it would be proper for you libertarians to make some animations such as this… They are easy to learn, and provacative; much more so than listening to professors who never learned the art of speech (Walter Block in mind) rambling on about not-clearly evident truths.
Geoff,
I have to agree with the others. The video is explicitly anti-American and by omission pro everybody else. It is OK to be against both the Contras and the Sandinistas on the grounds that both were puppets of Empires. It is a small cowardice to pick on the lesser of two evils because the smaller evil won’t put Pollonium in your lunch.
I’ll repeat myself: I like mises.org but when something is posted that could also appear on Internaltional ANSWER or the World Workers Party website it gets my back up. The only people keeping Austrians and Libertarians out of popular politics are Austrians and Libertarians.
Don’t try to defend the video. Say it makes a good point about X but omits an equally good point about Y. No one doubts that you dislike a large federal government but don’t leave them room to believe you do not dislike totalitarian commies too. And for darned sure don’t try to defend not hating commies in comments.
One answer to the pirate versus Alexander the Great question is that ultimately such emperors became law&price makers versus law&price takers. After all why do a handful of actors make millions whilst most are lucky to be an extra? Why do millions of golfers pay to whack a dimpled ball around a course when the professional golfers make millions for the same activity? Why do many entrepreneurs ends up going nowhere whilst some become millionaires or even billionaires? Like it or lump it even villians have their super-productive folks.
“The video is explicitly anti-American”.
Balderdash. One may call it anti-imperialist or simplistically one-sided, but opposing what the Reagan administration did – largely illegally – in Nicaraugua or is doing now in Iraq is NOT anti-American. The video opposes policies and behavior, on the grounds that they are arguable morally bankrupt.
Is someone who takes a similar position, not on moral ground but on the grounds that policies that the video criticizes are counterproductive, also anti-American? Then include me.
Whether the video or anti-American or not strikes me as irrelevant. How many libertarians are patriots? I’m not. The video is only anti-American insofar as the foreign policy of the federal government is concerned, I don’t see any vitriol intended for the civilian population.
The general thrust of the cartoon was that pirates and emperors are the same thing. To most Americans incubated in the public education morass it might come as a shock to think of the United States government being in reality antithetical to its supposed ideals. In this sense, the cartoon succeeds quite well in demolishing that myth.
When did I defend “not hating commies”? In any event, which is worse? A democratically elected socialist party? Or violent and dictatorial militant group shooting and bombing its way into office?
I think some of you are interpreting the video only in the context of who created it. And I think you’re being a little too negative and critical. It’s counterproductive. Why can’t you just take a video that is, for once, very nearly 100% libertarian, enjoy it and cheer? How many such videos are out there? If you find it necessary to interpret the one thing in the video that might not be libertarian as such, it won’t be hard for you to point that out to whoever you show it to.
Moreover, how an anti-American socialist interprets the video is irrelevant. That doesn’t automatically make the video anti-American and socialist, it just means that anti-American socialists fail to recognize fully the video’s much more general message even while misinterpret it as saying only something more particular.
It’s not anti-American. It is anti-Imperialist. If Americna happens to be imperialistic, and it is, to the extent that it is imperalistic so much the worse for America. The video starts off citing Augustine on the idea that countries without justice are like criminal gangs (City of God, Book IV, Ch. 5).
I agree with the commentor who said that libertarians need to make such videos ourselves though. I have no skill in this sort of thing, but perhaps some libertarians interested in film and animation can get into this.
Very entertaining. I loved the implication that the idea is so simple that even a child can understand it.
As for whether or not it’s explicitly socialist–I don’t really think so. Remember, arnarcho-syndacalist and anarcho-communists both agree with ancaps that government is bad, but they diverge on how things should and would be structured in its absence. So at least they got part of it right, and that part is what the video is about.
I don’t think that the video is saying that governments are bad per se. It seems to be saying that as long as a government is popularly elected, then its leaders are not pirates. That is the weakness here: the implication that as long as there is not explicit mass violence used against a population, then the rulers’ actions are morally legitimate.
The claim that the U.S bankrolled bin Laden is one that just won’t die, which is odd considering that he was already independently wealthy, supported by Saudis and hated America. Osama and the M.A.K deny any connection to America, the C.I.A or I.S.I, the C.I.A officers that did support the mujahideen denied any activities with “Afghan Arabs”, the I.S.I also denies any support for M.A.K. Nobody who was in any position to know what happened has claimed there is any connection. It is entirely an urban legend that began because the C.I.A supported some mujahideen, Osama formed a (insignificant, the Afghans at best tolerated and occasionally killed Arabs) part of the mujahideen, so according to the logically challenged q.e.d the C.I.A supported bin Laden. There are similar claims that America created the Taliban, but they are wrong. The U.S (and many others) assisted the Afghan mujahideen in kicking out the Soviet puppet (not the same thing as client) state, which resulted in warlordism (which some anarch-capitalists here seem to like a lot). The Taliban arose during the warlord area as a reaction to it. By that time America did not give a damn about Afghanistan.
The common left-wing narrative about the idiotic Iraq war (I am referring the second one waged by the current president, not the first by his dad) is best debunked by another leftist, Michael Neumann, in Counterpunch.
Iraq was not America’s client state, it was a Soviet client state. That’s why during the Iran-Iraq war the Soviet weapons were on the Iraqi side and the American ones were on the Iranian side (due to the Shah being an American client). If you look at the numbers, America played a piddly role.
Insurgency is attempting to overthrow a government. The word indicates a goal. Terrorism is the use of fear for political purposes attained by sensational (as in front-page-news-making) violent acts against civilians. It describes a method. One can be an insurgent terrorist, an insurgent non-terrorist, a non-insurgent terrorist or none of the above. The Contras were a diverse group which included a lot of former Sandinistas. They did eventually depose the Sandinistas by winning elections, though reformed former Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega has recently won an election to come back to power.
The video is correct in that Manuel Noriega was a C.I.A asset for a number of years before his relationship with the U.S soured and he was deposed. To apply the Noriega model to Saddam or (even worse) Osama is simply faulty.
Finally, why the hell would Alexander the Great say “thou”? He was Macedonian, not Ye Olde Englishe.
P.S I am not attempting to here to justify any actions by anybody, just to correct statements that contradict actual recorded history.
T.G.G.P: “Finally, why the hell would Alexander the Great say “thou”? He was Macedonian, not Ye Olde Englishe.”
Dare ye est question la value subjective?
John Hancock was a rum bootlegger smuggler. Damn mercantilist anti-tax no do-gooder collectionZ dodgers!
D. Saul Weiner: “I don’t think that the video is saying that governments are bad per se. … That is the weakness here: the implication that as long as there is not explicit mass violence used against a population, then the rulers’ actions are morally legitimate.”
Per se? What is that?
If Mises said *anything*, it was to explicitly describe violence as violence, without regards to non-definition.
If .. then .. was upbraided by Mises’ either/or.
N’est-ce-pas?
P.S. Per Se, does the “D.” stand for … ?
What are you clapping-trapping about rtr? Many a Libertarian here has supportted the use of retaliatory-force to repel initiatory force, such as a home-owner chasing out an intruder.
A clap a priori *trap* pre-supposes an expectation of falsity. I don’t make the mistake of retaliatory {Viva!} force, or do I? From Ye Olde to Nouveau “Many a”, let thee who is without fiat dollars pay the first bill.
I just love well-defined loaded terms like, socialism and home-owner!
Anyways, I dunno, what am I’m doing? … what am I doing? Oh yeah, I’m *declaring* that Pirates and Emperors *really* aren’t the same thing? Not even close. But notice my perceived restraint, I’ve yet to even mention Nobel Prize # double digits. I’ve more than showed restraint.
First of all, Pirates were declared, Emperors were defined!
huh?
Huh yeah. Undefeated. It’s more *fun* to declare gut feelings in advance, and prove them later. What shall we dedicate my Nobel Prize #10 to?
… I mean I’m kinda lagging on my 5 per week average …
Am I not inspired? Is there no challenge?
To TGGP, note there is also a talking duck in it too!
Ahh so you understand all about talking duck quackery, to define it so well? Like Bernoulli, like the mass discover “Eureka” geometry guy, I’m all about using the trivial in pursuit of beauty, when it benefits my selfish pursuits. So “talking ducks” … are a priori valued “higher” than non-talking ducks … ?
Yup, uninspired. Such is the sacrificial contribution of “scientific” Austrian economics every “generational” demarcation shift or so. I even took on “might makes right” in anti-Thrymocratic Nobel Prize proof #8 or #9. It might’ve even sucked, but fearful congregation alignment bows down. People here are still unaware the ABCT has been proven false.
So, like, yeah …
Yeah. I guess we’ll *all* be waiting, because *you’ve* got *nothing* to say. Lemme know … {Yawn} Bedtime.
Pride + Austrian economics tradition … *still* being pwned by former Chicago School peeps.
But that’s what happens when one pulls an entire populatory field back to a fundamental *juncture*. Yeah, a bunch of youZ totally wasted your timeZ. Flip side of $1,000 vs. $1M in the boxes, negatives, that “paradox” … in the tradition of the science, was, not so good and wrong. But worst of all, Mises *knew* it (re: Rothbard) and kept his mouth shut “in the name of” the “overall mission” …
Top Dog Numero Uno,
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<————————- Capiche?
If you disagree, now’s tha time to say so.
Yeah, even so, the automatic exact word note function is still lacking …
I shouldn’t be bothered with secretarial aspirations like discovering my favorite exact Mises quote re: “people are either freely trading with one another or they are not. There is no third way.” It’s on here somewhere. Book? Chapter? Verse?
Or another post of b.s. could work too … that’s why they call it “humor”, cause they didn’t quite know you we’re gonna laugh … Anyways, chop, chop.
quack quack quack
Absolutely. rtr want a quacker! I sometimes appreciate how it EZ it was looking back. But let us save the *juice* of proof for another time. You don’t think a “School” gets this wet every decade do ya?
Lol, got posters at mises.org typing things in reply to me like “quack, quack, quack”. But those are the semi-annointed… I mean, if you’re going to *worship* can’t you get tha fundamental facts of worship straight first? kthx, nite!
Quack back. You’re it. Who do *you* trust to explain the economics of the situation? Don’t worry TLWP, I’ll recommend the Mises store stock some short skirts for your brazen personality. Only $2.95 for extra civility with your *handling*.
Like I was saying, I’m going on Nobel Prize #10, astonish me … I see a controlled feeding of the pigeons experiment in your future. I say you embrace what you serve!
And those were affirmative pretty words for you. On the floor we would have paged your busy “runner” body with the number for the “Manhole” too! Just to ingratiate n00bs like you.
But thanks for one day looking out for what you surmise as the slightest of errors. Competition, keeps me on my proverbial laurels, at least compared to the likes of “y’all”. /wave
Apologize if I must, if y’all are just so weak to shrink from my simple challenges, I’m just *desperate* for some- blah -blah anyone, anything to teach me anything new. It get’s to be lonely at the top, always giving the lessons. If I had an equation for every game recognition of game … hmmmm idk. Why don’t you try to volunteer to be my next egotistical victime? Not only does the World need ditch diggers too, but in my case rose petal throwers also! Smear me. Please!
And so they “tried” …
But I’m sure the next civil LVM must be in highschool by now taking notes to placate your pain? Yeeee-hah! In the meantime, have fun continuing to be *humiliated* by me, for scientific a priori advancement, nonetheless. Austrian “*Butt*” pirates lmao! If only you could first *prove* the futility of econometrics … Another day, another post without enough dollah >.>
Who’s the “collection” for then anyway, if not *me*?
RTR,
I see mostly incoherent babbling that doesn’t prove a thing. Nobel Prize? Not even close.
You don’t know what “per se” means? Look it up.
The ABCT has been disproved? Prove it. In any event, how is it relevant to this post?
TGGP,
That article you cite on the Taliban proves that American created the conditions necessary for the Taliban to flourish. It also says that before that America supplied the Afghan resistance with some weapons and training. Did you read all the way through?
It appears from your source on Iraq that the US gave important aid to Hussein, selling him helicopters and chemical and biological weapons. The source even says this was an important strategic concern for the Reagan administration. You should read more closely. And that’s just what we know about.
Geoffrey
Wow, some people haven’t been getting their daily dose of attention. People might take you more seriously, rtr, if you weren’t so good at acting the fool. Last night’s display was definitely rock bottom.
There, feels better to have someone respond, doesn’t it? That’s just the boost you need to get cracking on your next Nobel, eh?
I have no idea what rtr was saying either.
Geoffrey: You say that I am wrong because the U.S created the conditions necessary for the Taliban to flourish. I said in my post that the U.S assisted the deposing of the Soviet puppet state, resulting in warlordism and the Taliban arose as a reaction to the warlord era. The main difference between our accounts is that you give the U.S full ownership of the conditions, while I consider it a large player but not the only one. In the Iran-Iraq war I do not consider the U.S to be a large player, it’s contribution was dwarfed by the Soviet Union, China, Brazil and Egypt (the remaining 6 percent of arms sales aren’t entirely American either) which is why I called it “piddly” not “non-existent”. It even gave some assistance to Iran through the Iran-Contra deals. To try to portray Iraq as an American client state would be a fundamental misunderstanding of the geopolitics of the time. It was a Soviet client state and hostile to U.S interests in every respect other than with regard to Iran, and even there the U.S was not an exclusive supporter of Iraq. The war-for-oil narrative that the video supports is also incorrect, as America was getting more oil and more cheaply under oil-for-food than after the invasion. Those who try to portray the idiots in Washington as machiavellian evil geniuses only come out looking stupid themselves.
TGGP,
I agree, Washington policy makers are definitely not geniuses.
I didn’t say that the US was solely responsible for the mess in Afghanistan. But that hardly exculpates the US government.
I’d hardly say that selling Hussein helicopters and chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction is unimportant. I don’t think it is enough simply to look at percentages of aid in terms of monetary value.
Iraq may not have been a client state by a strict definition back then but Washington was at least trying to manipulate the political situation in the Middle East, and the video criticizes that. Would you say that Iraq is a client state now?
is there a difference??? do emporeres go out and plunder or do they convince pirates to go out and plunder themselves?
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }