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.
And this image of libertarian utopia also is very amusing.
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.
- Cartoons on libertarian ice fishing and libertarian lifeguards.
- A mosaic showing 24 types of libertarians.
- A poster showing how the world sees libertarians.
- A 23-photo montage of libertarian problems.
- The answer to the riddle of why the libertarian chicken crossed the road.
- Alleged libertarian views on fire departments can be seen here and here.
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.
July 30, 2019 Addendum: The original ambulance image vanished from the site I linked, so I created my own version.
[…] I’m always happy to share anti-libertarian humor, even when I think it’s based on false premises (such as libertarian breakfast cereal, libertarian Somalia, libertarian lifeguards, and a libertarian ambulance service). […]
[…] I’m always happy to share anti-libertarian humor, even when I think it’s based on false premises (such as libertarian breakfast cereal, libertarian Somalia, libertarian lifeguards, and a libertarian ambulance service). […]
[…] I’m always happy to share anti-libertarian humor, even when I think it’s based on false premises (such as libertarian breakfast cereal, libertarian Somalia, libertarian lifeguards, and a libertarian ambulance service). […]
[…] I’m always happy to share anti-libertarian humor, even when I think it’s based on false premises (such as libertarian breakfast cereal, libertarian Somalia, libertarian lifeguards, and a libertarian ambulance service). […]
The 1972 Libertarian platform realized Mary Meyer’s warning to Tim Leary that psychedelics threatened both mercantilism and socialism. Infiltrators of all looter persuasions promptly infiltrated the LP and wrecked its platform of gradually replacing deadly coercion with voluntary trade. Anarchists leapt to assist fascists in demanding the return of coathanger abortions so as to spare the tender feelings of superstitious conservative snowflakes, and demanded surrender to Soviet communism an alternative to “coercion” by the world’s shortest Constitution and its Bill of Rights. So of course “we” are the laughingstock of all predators for letting this happen.
https://www.eastvalleytribune.com/local/the_valley/fire-department-started-from-scratch-will-succeed-longtime-rural-metro-team/article_78c7c182-602b-517c-a62e-19b514fc9b80.html
[…] let’s not get hung up on technicalities. I’m for good political satire, even if I don’t agree with the […]
[…] A libertarian ambulance service. […]
[…] A libertarian ambulance service. […]
[…] Let’s add to our collection of libertarian humor (see here and here for prior […]
[…] shared several examples of anti-libertarian humor, most of which are fairly clever because they seize on something that is sort of true and take it […]
[…] my collection of anti-libertarian humor (including an article aboutlibertarian law enforcement), some good leftist tax cartoons, a Fox News […]
InsureBlog – Fire department lets house burn down
The lefties mock libertarians and a free and cooperative market for being heartless toward people in trouble. But, this is a projection of leftist policy, not the market. It is government bureaucracy which witholds help if your form 39-B is missing. The leftists are just as determined as any group to limit their costs, and are as indifferent as any bureaucracy.
A local fire department let a house burn to the ground because the owner had not paid his $75 fee.
This is a shockingly stupid response by the fire department, a local government agency. Yes, the homeowner should have prepaid the fee. But, the response should have been to put out the fire and charge the homeowners for the full service costs.
A private fire service would have extinguished the blaze at the request of the frantic owner and sent the homeowner a bill. There are plenty of examples of this in private marketplaces.
This puts the lie to the idea of a benevolent government. They will impose or allow any loss to make their point, rather than handle the short-sightedness of the homeowner with some flexibility.
—
A similarly shocking result of leftist planning is that they don’t mind fitting the individual into the great design, and you will have no way of bargaining your way out (unless you are a former politician or union boss).
Fair Distribution of Life-Years
Ezekiel Emanuel is director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at the US National Institutes of Health and an architect of ObamaCare. His brother is Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s former Chief of staff.
Ezekiel Emanuel wrote in The Lancet medical journal Jan 2009 [edited]:
=== ===
Allocation of healthcare by age is fair, unlike allocation by sex or race. Even if people aged 25 receive priority over those aged 65, everyone who is now 65 was previously 25.
It would be ageist to treat 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods. It is fair to treat them differently because they have already received more life-years.
=== ===
Summary: We treated you when you were young, so it is fair that we not treat you when you are old. You already received your treatments.
Our politicians have maintained themselves in power by making promises, essentially buying votes. The promises had to be dramatic and simple. The medical care promise has been “pay into the system, and we will do everything possible to keep you alive and functioning as you become old and sick”. Everything possible by their construction is what is left over after they care for their current tax and voting base. Promises? You must have misunderstood.
A free market doesn’t work this way.
I was surprised to find out that I can’t post links to your things on Facebook.
The AK-47-toting drug-grower in the poster is, I believe, actor James Franco in a still from Pineapple Express.
Don’t know why the philosophy is so difficult for people who think they’re the smartest people in any room to grasp. (I’m talking mainly about “liberals”–and by “liberals” I mean of course “tax-happy, coercion addicted, power-tripping State-fellators–plus some of the more traditional conservatives who like to wield the Mailed Fist when God tells them to.) I can only assume it’s deliberate “straw-manism.”
It’s always funny to me when libertarians confront the philosophy the Hive is actually promoting, these allegedly smart and sophisticated people suddenly turn into Phil Hartman’s Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer from DNL: “This concept of ‘statism’ you talk about . . . this is new to me. I have never heard of it. What is this ‘statism’ of which you speak? All I advocate is doing good . . . ” Just man up, statists, and come clean about you advocate: “I want people to do A, B and C, and I’m willing to use the aggressive force of the State to compel them to do what I want them to do.” That’s not do abstruse or difficult to say, is it?
[…] DAN MITCHELL ON dumb things people say about libertarians. […]
cheer up on Georgia…
Their schedule and their conference just moves them into a bid for seed number 2-4. In all likelihood, the sec is going to get 2 teams into the playoffs. One will be a conference champion, and one will be a team that doesn’t get a chance to play, despite a one loss record.
There are two paths for Georgia…if they can win out.
South Carolina wins the east, or they win the east. They get into the playoffs in either scenario, but the latter would require them winning the conference championship game.
Georgia didn’t lose to a crappy team, at home, late in the season…
10 of the teams that are ranked ahead of them will, as the season goes on.
Just take care of business.
[…] Thoughts on idiotic and ignorant things people say about them. […]
A fine example of self=deprecating libertarian humor.
“Simply stated, if you end drug prohibition, then criminal gangs and cartels will lose their markets.”
As much as I agree with the idea of legalization from a PURELY libertarian standpoint, the above still rings as untrue with me.
If you think that in the ghetto, the dealers that currently do exist are going to give up their markets, and that buyers are just going to purchase from outsiders, then I don’t think you understand the fact that it is a separate society from the rest of America. America was more united in the consumption of booze back in the 1920’s.
That is going to sound racist, but it’s not meant to be so.
I see the gun/weed poster as a social and not an economic point. The premise being that if weed were legal then people would be too stoned and mellowed out to be violent. Not particularly sophisticated humor, but more logical than you you credit it.
“we need tougher gun control laws to stop the violence done by drug dealers”
It seems the simplest logic bomb would be to ask if the tough drug laws can’t keep drugs out of the hands of drug dealers what confidence does anyone have that tougher gun laws will be able to keep guns out of their hands.
This does bring up something that has always puzzled me, though. I often hear people say that we need tougher gun control laws to stop the violence done by drug dealers. If only we had stricter restrictions on guns, then the drug dealers wouldn’t be able to get guns and the violence would stop. But this seems like a rather indirect solution to the problem to me. Surely the fundamental problem with drug dealers is not that they have guns, but that they have drugs. So to put all the drug dealers out of business, why don’t we just pass laws making it illegal to sell drugs? Then, of course, all the drug dealers would have to stop selling drugs, and there’d be no reason for them to resort to violence.
What? You say there are already laws against selling drugs? Well now I’m confused. If drug dealers still manage to get drugs even though they are illegal, what makes you think that they won’t be able to get guns if you make guns illegal?