Libertarian Davi Barker emails me a link to her (his?) remix of my “24 Types of Libertarian” cartoon, “The 24 Types of Authoritarian.”
S/he has changed all the words in my cartoon, turning it into a mocking of both liberals and conservatives. Good for Davi for posting such a good-humored response.
I’d only make two criticisms: First, the credit could be clearer — it now says “by Davi Barker,” but I wish it had said “by Davi Barker, reusing drawings by B. Deutsch” or something. (It does say it’s a “parody” of my work, but “parody” doesn’t normally imply “only the words have been changed, otherwise it’s not my work.”) Not a big deal, just a preference of mine.
Secondly, I like the reworking of “the Island” into “Drug Warrior,” but Dani should have redrawn the crumpled-up piece of paper in his hand and made it into a pipe. C’mon, folks — details count! (I liked the little police hat and vest added to my gun-totin’ dude, though.)
Can I ask how exactly it is useless pointing to such evidence? Namely, what is so very different in the human race, what has evolved so much that we then didn’t need states, but now we do? I would think the evolution of our morals would make it more and more possible, rather than the opposite.
I find that a bit far-reaching. How do you know that this is what always happens? Also, a functioning State means ultimate force in the hands of a minority; why, that sounds like what happens when a warlord wins over the others! Hey, didn’t the Talibans win state-ship that way in 1997? Yes they did! And the US was happy that they’d put the warlords down.
That’s the origin of all states, despots who conquer a population by force. The last evolution in Statism is a fairer kind of despotism, called ‘democracy’, with some attempts at checks and balances, but as an American you know where even that leads to. You want to centralize ultimate force in a minority, I want to equalize it among everyone.
I don’t think you’re understanding me. Government precludes everyone living a happy life in his or her own way; that’s what it necessarily implies. Non-government makes it possible. If you had bothered to read some of the links I gave, you would have seen Anna Morgenstern’s article, with a very clear title: Anarchism: Necessary But Not Sufficient.
Oh come on! Do I need to explain how some people call themselves libertarians, but they’re not? Here, take a look at this. In the first place, whoever takes power anywhere is NOT a libertarian. There’s no power to take over innocents.
Jake:
Yeah, I expect that’s a decent qualifier, at least more or less. Myca just didn’t give it, though he may have intended to.
Really? That’s funny. Are you admitting that cooperation and noncoercion is impossible? If not, why? If it is possible, then why not fight to make that happen? Sounds like you’re an awful person who just accepts wrongful behavior as a fact of life. Also, unlike you, I sometimes get outside my house, and I find that there’s already a lot of cooperation and noncoercion going on, and I don’t see why it’s such a utopia to widen that kind of behavior to the whole society, since most of it already practices it. You’re certainly not helping things by having robocops on the streets giving strange orders to innocent people. Finally, I would have thought cooperation and noncoercion were inherently worthy goals for a society, even though I realize you may be too lazy or cynical to do anything else but type things on websites like this one.
Mordecai, this webpage is not an anarchy; it’s despotic. Please stop making comments like “Sounds like you’re an awful person…” and “unlike you, I sometimes get outside my house…” and “…I realize you may be too lazy or cynical to do anything else but type things on websites like this one.” If you won’t make your case without insults, then you’ll be asked to leave this blog.
I’m sorry, was I just told something about wanting a pony with Anarchy? That is insulting as well, it’s saying to me that I’m an idiot engaging in childish wishful thinking. I say that he’s got this vitriol coming to his face, and I’m happy to get kicked out of here, if you think this is alright but when I get back to him it’s all off.
PS: It’s also making a mockery of all those who work actively to help people, outside the State, and I’m among them. There’s a lot of sacrifice getting dissed by this knob with his pony joke.
Mandolin,
BTW, thanks for the multiple references you’ve given. The descriptions of entirely different ways of thinking are fascinating. It also shows that in order to achieve a libertopia or anarchtopia that ways of thinking in the vast majority of the world must be changed first.
Yes, he mocked your policy by saying that it was like wishing for a pony. That’s not the same as “sounds like you’re an awful person,” because it’s attacking a policy, not attacking a person. If you genuinely can’t tell the difference, then you’re not someone I want to talk to, and please never post on this blog again. But my guess is that you know perfectly well that there’s a difference, and you just want to dodge taking responsibility for your own freely chosen actions.
The specific example you brought up aside, I don’t read every word of every thread, and I don’t have time or mental energy to step in every time someone says something wrong. Therefore, often comments that I should moderate will go unmoderated. If you can’t stand that inconsistency, then you shouldn’t post comments here.
I’d say it’s discrimination in favor of your like-minded friends. I do understand that you have this power and so I’m making a copy of this page, if some are interested in further discussion elsewhere.
http://comedieus.blogspot.com/2010/08/re-24-types-of-authoritarians.html
I’m not sure that’s such a strong distinction. I’m the one supporting the policy that he likens to wishing for a pony; it should be obvious that I’m gonna take it personally. If you say everyone sucks, although you haven’t named me, I’m included in the everyone, and so I’m entitled to a bit of rage. I did not attack him in this backhanded way, true. I prefer straight shots.
Sure. The vast majority of the world needs to be convinced that it’s wrong to hurt or oppress someone else. That’s gonna be such hard work. I don’t even know where to begin. More seriously, people are already convinced of that; they’ve decided to trust a minority to do the work, and do not realize that the minority is itself doing the oppressing and the hurting. Once you apply the already widely held values to the authorities, you get anarchy.
Can you provide any data to support your assertion that most people are, “… convinced that it’s wrong to hurt or oppress someone else?” Your belief is not a fact. We can again look to Somalia (among a myriad of other locales) to see that the truth of your statement is in doubt.
I’ll refer you to comment #198 where I wrote:
There are plenty of people not running the state who would do the oppressing and hurting if they could and do the oppressing and hurting when they can get away with it. If you don’t think that the majority of the world requires a radical change in the way that they think in order to achieve your utopia, I can only believe that your social contact with human beings is extremely limited.
And I’ll refer you to comment 201, where I reply to the above point in this way:
Just to expand some more, I’m saying that the government is itself a bully, and needs to go away for that reason. Another bully would also need to be dealt with, even if he had nothing to do with the government. That’s the Not Sufficient part in the title above. Just ask yourself whether, for your protection, you would prop up an army of fascists and have them roam the land for criminals (of course, killing innocents and destroying liberties on the way), or you would have grass-roots organizations work up self-defense classes and such. Your way will centralize force in the hands of an elite, my way will democratize it and make the danger of tyranny a remote thing. The more equal the power, the less threatening and corrupting it is. This is so clear I don’t even know why I need to make the point.
That was a response to comment 196 and not, in fact, a response to my comment at 198. But pretending that was a response to me… Morgenstern is full of belief in fairy dust and pixie magic and supports that with wishful thinking rather than any actual evidence. As Somalia demonstrates, her position would lead to warlords & despotism without a radical change in the thinking of nearly 6.7 billion people.
You can’t get there from here without going through intermediate steps. You either don’t appear to care about that or, for no stated reason, believe that change in modes of thought aren’t necessary.
You don’t appear to view the culture of warlordism replacing the current state(s) as the most likely result of dismantling the state right now. Why?
You need to make your point over and over again because you provide no evidence to support it. Myca and I both believe that what you’re advocating results in Somalia. We hold up Somalia as evidence of this. You hold up as evidence of your position… nothing but repetition.
As things stand now, yeah, I’d rather have the police/army than grassroots self-defense classes and vigilante squads. I am much, much safer that way. If everybody thought in ways much more like what Mandolin linked to in comment # 199 then your way would be a possibility.
This has to be the most hateful position taken as yet. Power does not corrupt, and equalizing force means that you will be ending up with Somalia. Centralize everything and create the elite! All hail to the chief!
Myca and Jake are proud to present to you, the new motto!!
“Power corrupts, absolute power protects you from bad guys, so shut up already.”
Say, you don’t want to have monarchies or military dictatorships with that? I don’t know, democracy seems a bit dangerous, a bit weak! Power is too shared in those systems, it doesn’t seem to be very safe.
More seriously, all those complaints about using the word authoritarian, and now this? That’s what you are. There is no doubt now. Just go kill and oppress innocent people you monster.
You are much safer under a fascist State? Oh sorry. I thought you had some concerns about safety. You meant that you had some concerns about your own individual private safety. The safety of everyone else can go to hell. Have you ever heard of the Holocaust? Probably, you have, but you consider yourself one of the Good Guys, thus on the side of the fair State, so what have you to fear? The others can suffer and die, hey?
Go kill and oppress innocents you monster. ;-)
That’s a teensy bit of a distortion, Mordecai.
I’ll ask again. How do you see getting to your goal from here? What are the steps necessary. So far you’ve indicated that no steps are necessary other than abolishing the state. You’ve yet to answer how that results in a situation better than that of Somalia.
Wishes about current modes of thought bring about things like Somalia and, in the other direction, the Khmer Rouge. These are the things that we’ve seen historically when the state is abolished for populations over about 1000. Your lack of concern closely parallels that of the Khmer Rouge to their society during their revolutionary period.
A monster I may be, but I’m a monster that wants as little death and suffering as possible. I’ll take that over a magic pixie duster who isn’t the least bit concerned about what happens to the vast majority of humanity as long as the state can be abolished immediately.
Perhaps you aren’t familiar with the definition of Fascist State. I’ll give you a clue – the existence of a police force and/or a military does not define one.
Can you look out your window? Do you get out and see the opposite? That people routinely and constantly hurt or oppress one another?
Also, Hobbes, when are you finally going to set up a military dictatorship? Your country badly needs that. I’m sure they’d love it, especially the Muslims. And camps? Have you thought of camps?
By the time the police and military are roaming the streets, I’m pretty sure you’ll have reached the Fascist level.
What? What? What? What? What? What? What?
You gotta be kidding.
This is so grievously false that …
No! You are not real! This is a dream!
I said again and again and again, and I re-quoted and re-pasted without end, and still, the message did not seep in.
ANARCHY DOES NOT SUFFICE BUT IS NECESSARY.
I’m indicating right now, and SCREAMING
THERE ARE STEPS OTHER THAN ABOLISHING THE STATE THAT ARE NECESSARY TO TAKE.
Mordecai,
The police and military are roaming the streets in the US as we speak. The US is a fascist state? You’ve lost all semblance of a connection to both common definitions and to reality.
I can look out my window. I see the opposite. I see that people routinely and constantly hurt or oppress one another. I don’t have to look hard for that.
That’s not funny! I know someone who died that way!
Then lay out your steps, please.
Other than abolishing the state ASAP, what is it that you’re advocating?
Can you name any of those steps? You have not yet done so. If you say that there are steps to take to get to your goal but you refuse to name them, well, I’m going to believe that you don’t think that there are intermediate steps necessary.
For example, I say that the mode of thinking of the vast majority of humanity must change in order to reach your goal and you reply that that isn’t so. You have so far refused to identify intermediate steps.
Screaming, “Anarchy is necessary but not sufficient,” isn’t naming a single intermediate step. It sounds more like a cover for not actually having a plan other than “Abolish the State now!”
? I was under the impression that the US was a fascist state indeed, as much in terms of civil liberties getting trampled as in terms of public-private alliance. But maybe from your end it looks absolutely normal. The water is getting slowly hotter.
Didn’t I mention, as a way of illustration, grassroots self-defence organisations? I don’t see what is so alien in police officers that they are the only ones capable of doing policing or insuring the (actual) safety of people. I cannot be very specific, because people will have to assess their own needs and provide for them. In very broad terms, self-government would be the one intermediary step, and people would have to fill in the details themselves. If there’s a usual bunch of nasty kids that people know about, they might decide to learn some martial arts and have a group of people who volunteer to confront them together. I really cannot know what they’ll do, but only that they won’t wait for a government to help them.
In which comments did you name any steps? I’ve read all of your comments in this thread and you do not – not a single time – name even one intermediate step. You do a lot of commenting against existing states and state structures but you don’t write – not a single time – about steps needed to get to your goal.
I also see a lot of insults tossed at several people commenting in opposition to you.
I have to say that you’re lying when you claim to have defined your intermediate steps between the existing state and your utopian system.
I do see gems like
Now that is grievously false.
Self government is your goal. Self government is not an intermediate step between the State and Self Government.
You rail against the state but you have no plan to peacefully get to your goal of self government other than “grassroots self-defence organisations.” Is there anything else needed?
Are there any states that are not fascist? Which ones?
That’s out of line.
Mordecai, you’ve been warned once, but it’s clear that for all your rhetoric about cooperation and peaceful coexistence, you much prefer to sling juvenile insults at those who disagree with you politically.
This is why I think your proposed world wouldn’t work. Mostly, I think people are a lot like you. I think they pick fights and have no idea how to disagree civilly.
You’ve been asked for evidence to support your position. It’s obvious you have none, but I’m going to give you one more chance. If your next post includes evidence for your position or a roadmap to your desired world, you can keep commenting. If it includes an insult aimed at another poster, you’re banned.
It’s one or the other.
—Myca
Statelessness and Self Government are not identical. The latter makes the State redundant, and is a more probable route to Statelessness than outright disappearance or “smashing.”
A political disagreement? No, this is a legal disagreement. I don’t disagree over this or that use of the captives’ money. I disagree that that there should be captives at all. And I’ll insult any authoritarian who says that America is not a Fascist State, and that he feels much safer with police and military roaming the streets. And if you ain’t happy about that, go and ban my ass. I’m proud of what I said, and I’ll say it again till the day I die. Ban my ass. America is a Fascist State, and no one is safe from police and military officers roaming the streets. Go on, ban me. You know you want it.
Also, evidence and roadmap-> lol. Roadmap, that’s the word they used when they tried to bring about peace in Palestine 20 years ago. That’s also the word they used when they tried to quell the rebellion in Iraq. Now you want a roadmap to statelessness, but you forget that I’m not a government official who peddles you with lies and deceit, and cheap uninformed talking points. People will provide for their needs, and do what needs to be done. I am not God and cannot know what to do for everyone. It’s up to everyone to find out and take power. If I’m more specific, I’m not an anarchist.
In what way does your definition of statelessness differ from your definition of self government?
I have completely changed my mind and I now love the state! The state bought me a new bike! The state gives me warm snugglies!
—Edited for clarity
I’m sure that your wish will be granted at any moment, Mordecai.
Help, help! I’m being oppressed.
So utopia will come about as people decide what it is that they want to do. That’ll work because people are inherently good and kind and altruistic.
Forgive me if I prefer to go down a path with more of a defined plan and more of a defined goal.
Dreams and wishes is what you’re advocating.
You know, if everyone would just be polite and cooperative like me, Libertarian paradise would reign over the earth.
—Edited for Clarity
I think that you have that partially correct. Most people are against crime against themselves. I think most people are for crime if it benefits them. You see it every day. Get too much change? Bank error in your favor? Take office supplies from work?
So, if I understand correctly, you want some sort of change to some kind of self governance and you want people to start making that change in some unspecified manner.
I want the same thing. It’s called dreams and wishes. You’re advocating for something that is vague and undefined.
“The state is oppressing you. You must abolish the state and become self governing. I’m sure you’ll all come up with the best way to do that,” is not an effective program.
What you want is so far from possible at the present or in the foreseeable future that I don’t get why you do it at all. If I were in your position I would be encouraging the changes in thought & societal consensus that would lead to your desires becoming possible. In fact, I am in your position and I spend my time encouraging thought and behavior that is necessary to get to the endpoint that I think is ideal. I do that because there is not point in insisting that my endpoint is good and achievable.
What you are doing now is presenting a happy funtime world that most of us understand won’t exist within our lifetimes and you’re advocating doing something that will lead to worse outcomes for the vast majority of people in the present and foreseeable future. It isn’t a winning strategy.
I don’t see how your preferred endpoint is any more desirable nor any more achievable than any other utopian vision.
If only that dreamy dreamboat state would ask me for a dance during a slow number, I could die happy.
(Edited for clarity).
Mordecai has been banned for being unable to participate in civil society in a useful way.
—Myca
Once I was trying to impress the state, and I put my tongue on a lamppost in winter. Ouch! So embarrassing.
(Edited for clarity.)
I just don’t get it. If your entire position is “The U.S. is a fascist state, and anyone who disagrees with me is an authoritarian who deserves to be insulted,” then…I mean, what do you expect? 99% of people disagree with you. Good luck with that.
Before Mordecai went completely off the deep end, he mentioned his idea about grassroots self-defense organizations. This type of thing is something libertarians mention all the time–without the State, we’d have volunteer defense groups, volunteer firefighters, volunteer EMTs, self-organized utilities, etc.
Thing is, I have stuff I do in my life. I don’t want to do any of that crap. I don’t want to have to hire people myself for things the government currently provides or figure out who is competent/trained or any of that. I am happy to pay taxes and then work on what I want to work on in my free time. Personal safety/oppression aside, how do we get from a system where there is a government system to organize and license people to a system other than word-of-mouth trust circles while maintaining the benefits (communications, medicine, transportation, etc) of modern society?
Personally, some form of democracy seems to work most effectively. I would readily agree that the current system in the US could be vasty improved, but I would greatly prefer tweaking what we have to wholesale overthrow to an untried system.
My love of the state has so completely taken over every bit of my brain that I can no longer understand what being “banned” means. All I can think of is how lovely the state’s eyes look in the moonlight.
(Edited for clarity.)
“24 types of Authoritarians” is far more accurate and humorous than any of the anti-libertarian bull that Mr. Deutsch scribbles.
And it’s better drawn, to boot!