TOM THE DANCING BUG: After the Revolution, with the Federal Gov'mint off our backs!




  1. Wow, what a racist comic. So, anarchists are automatically white, southern, grammatically challenged, gun owners, farm owners, and work for the government? I say anarchists, because the comic indicates that the subjects depicted want an end to the state totally. This is opposed to republicans who preach (and occasionally, sort of, semi-practice) limited government while a democrat is in the white house, who I suspect are the actual targets of this piece.

    1. No matter how they could be depicted you’d try to play the victim by claiming it is racist. If it was green aliens you’d say it was anti green-alien. But be honest, 99% of the folks at the tea-bagger rallies were white men with lots of gun waving.


      Wasn’t it the Republicans who bloated the federal government the most? They added the Dept Homeland Security, expanded prescription drugs to Medicare, tossed billions to the dept of defense (who didn’t even ask for it), gave more tax breaks to the wealthy, etc.

    2. “This is opposed to republicans who preach (and occasionally, sort of, semi-practice) limited government while a democrat is in the white house”

      Because, as has been pointed out, Republicans while a *Republican* is in the White House have *hugely* expanded government. Funny how they only seem to want limited government when they’re *not* in power…

      Also, Republicans are overwhelmingly white, Southern gun owners.

      Laurkarlueng, you hit the nail on the head *twice*–without even knowing it!

    3. Where the hell is the racism, I’d like to know. Unless having characters who happen to be white doing bad or stupid things is somehow “racist”? And “anarchists”? WTH?

      I’m wondering if you’re really a Koch-puppet, earning your pay.

    4. I’ll try to be a bit more polite than some of the other replies to your post:
      They are not depicting a view of all anarchists. However, many white farm owners are anarchists. They happen to rely heavily on the federal government for the most part, so they are used as an example for emphasis, because there are so many things they receive from the government.This makes it easy to draw parallels between the characters and ourselves.

      Also, if this were to happen, the farmers in this country would lose subsidies and be unable to turn a profit, being forced into bankruptcy. No farmers = no farms = no food, causing large shortages. The only food we would have would be from imports, which we couldn’t purchase, seeing as our money is printed by the government.

      I’m not entirely opposed to small areas of anarchy existing within a limited community, but this comic shows it would not be practical on a large scale, like the elimination of the federal government.

      1. “However, many white farm owners are anarchists.”

        Really? This must be a crazy US thing. I’m sure the most deluded secessionist farmer in Australia would never refer to themselves as an Anarchist, it’s strictly the province of Uni students who want to look more extreme than the Socialist Alliance. Am I wrong, fellow Australians?

        1. You are very correct. At the moment, many white farm owners in America are led against the government by a certain group of people (who I’d prefer not to name to avoid unnecessary drama), to hopefully harm the current presidency and bring down the government, which that certain group will step in and rule. They do not call themselves anarchists, and those in charge are not, but the message becomes misconstrued as it travels down the line, and essentially ends up with anarchist ideals.

          I’m not sure about Australia, but I referenced the viewpoints in America, seeing as that’s what the comic was about (notice the burning buildings are strikingly similar to landmarks in Washington DC).

          1. You have perfectly captured the dissonance I am feeling with this discussion, right there in that there picture.

      2.’re saying that, without subsidies, farmers wouldn’t grow food, and everyone would starve?

        This is called a failure to understand economics.

        People will buy food at any price. Thus, the price might go up, which would re-incentivize farmers to grow. But, the price increase would be matched by a fall in taxes (theoretically).

        Of course, most of the farm subsidies go to giant corporations, so it wouldn’t even matter anyway. It’s just theft.

        Sometimes it astounds me how ignorant people are of economics. I think that’s a big part of the reason why we still have states…

        1. I understand Economics plenty well, thank you. I may be in high school, but I’m 1)taking an economics class and 2) the son of an economics college professor.

          Do you know why the government subsidizes farming? Because it cannot make a profit. It is an oddity, for sure, but the costs are too much for people to be able to afford food if there were no government intervention. Jobs just don’t pay enough, and if they did, it would end up causing inflation in the end anyway, and we’d be in the same situation with a lower monetary value. Even though there wouldn’t be money, seeing as there would be no government to print it.

          For example, the French Revolution (and more recently the uprising in Egypt) were partially caused by the rising of food prices because of lack of government intervention.

          Many of the subsidies go to the giant corporations, but more smaller ones go to smaller farms than anything else. The ratios of cost to price is about the same, so this point is irrelevant. Not to mention how the lack of a police force would allow these big corporations to be ransacked by hungry people in search of food, leaving only small farms. Yes, some small farms would be attacked for food, but there are so many, that number is irrelevant.

          One more thing. The farmers growing would CAUSE the rise in prices, not the other way around. If farmers aren’t planting, how is there a price on the goods they are producing? How would it rise?

          Last thing. States are separate because of regional differences in political opinion, not ignorance of economics. If this was so, there would be several thousand states in the vicinity of Glen Beck’s recording studio.

          1. Do you know why the government subsidizes farming? Because it cannot make a profit. It is an oddity, for sure, but the costs are too much for people to be able to afford food if there were no government intervention. Jobs just don’t pay enough, and if they did, it would end up causing inflation in the end anyway, and we’d be in the same situation with a lower monetary value.

            Ah, no.. it’s to protect non-competitive industries to avoid sudden mass unemployment in particular areas/industries. It’s also generally counter-productive, unless there is some sort of long-term plan to switch to an alternative (which there usually isn’t). I also call into question your understanding of economics. Unfortunately, everything isn’t quite as simple as you would like to think.

            (PS lose the 1337 5¶33|< in your handle if you hope to be taken more seriously.)

        2. In essence, the farmers couldn’t because of lack of profit. Not everybody would starve, because we would be reduced to farming for our own survival, or stealing food raised by others.

          Assuming the UN doesn’t give us aid, that is, but let’s not factor that in, because this is complex enough without factoring in international issues.

          1. Hahaha! Yeah, I got my college degree in economics. Based on the quality of several of my instructors, I’m not surprised your dad is a college economics professor.

            People need food. They will pay whatever it costs. They will only resort to growing their own if their time cost of growing food is less than the cost of the foods. Which is pretty unlikely for most people.

            Without subsidies, farmers would be forced to charge higher prices to make up the difference and maintain their livelihoods. Because the subsidies would be withdrawn across the board, this would affect all farmers, so consumers would have to pay more.
            Potential farmers would see this, and jump in and start growing food to take advantage of it. Supply would increase, which would lower the price, until some sort of equilibrium was reached. This is basic economics.

            The only counterweighing factor would be international importing, but that could only last as long as the currency could survive a sustained trade imbalance (considering agri. products are now the US’s #1 export).

            Man, you would have to get a PhD in economics to be any more ignorant about it :P

            P.S. When I said “states”, I meant governments in general.

          2. Except the US currently produces a giant surplus of corn (look it up!), the only reason it’s possible to farm in these conditions of massive surplus is because of govt. intervention – if that intervention was removed, there’d be a large number of farmers who just quit, immediately, sold their land and fucked off to the city, and some who kept doing it on the understanding that their corn would actually be worth something on the open market in the near future – way more than it has been for the last 50 years.

            Any imbalance between those two factors and market demand would result huge prices and people starving or all the farmers finding that their corn actually still isn’t worth squat and quitting the next year. Which then means everyone starves.


            I mean, the US corn subsidies are stupid, and they should be slowly phased out in favour of basically anything else but monoculturing land, but your whole country would fall apart in months if they didn’t exist.

            People will pay whatever it takes to eat, but when there’s no food left, they’ll *do* whatever it takes to eat, which is a much scarier proposition. And farmers won’t sell corn that’s more expensive to ship than it is to buy…

      3. There is a more general and broader point to make as well:

        The government provides many important services in society.

        But what is unique about the government? It is simply the one body that is able to collect revenue forcefully, and use force to enact it’s programs.

        That is the single defining characteristic of government vs other voluntary citizen bodies (charities, companies, community organization, etc.)

        Now, there are many things that people in a society want. Safe food, education, safety, clothing, communications, somebody to arbitrate conflicts, a stable unit of exchange, etc. MANY things!

        The question is, why do you need the organization that has the unique ability to use force to provide any of them?

        If these things are absent, history shows that people will gather around, both collectively and privately, and find ways to provide them.

        If there were no public schools, would the children just not learn how to read? Or would people come together to provide different educational solution? If there were no USDA, would people just eat whatever..or would food safety organizations arise, that would inspect and certify food based on their reputation alone? Would money simply disappear and be replaced by crude barter, or would different types of currency, backed by different thing (communities, banks, commodities, etc.) arise to take their place? Would people just coldly watch the poor starve in the streets, or would they band together to help them voluntarily?

        etc. etc. etc.

        The evidence that people would organize and fund charities and free schools is demonstrated by the fact that millions spend their time supporting and agitating for the government to provide these services – and gladly pay huge amounts in taxes, not because they support war, but rather because they support helping others. If the government were to disappear, doesn’t it seem reasonable that these people would divert their money to where it was most needed – and at the same time cut off all the awful criminal thing the government does too?

        With virtually all government services, if you ask yourself “do we need a monopoly on this service, provided by a body authorized to use force?” I think you will find the answer to generally be no.

        Our current system is such a vast failure of imagination…

    5. Ah, yes. All the Tea Baggers I know are white and redneck-ish. Don’t be a knee-jerk reactionary “protector” of some group under attack when they deserve to be.

    6. Anarchism refers to government. You need an economic term here. You can, for instance, have anarchist socialism. These are just capitalists. And, in regards to our current circumstance, those that advocate the misnomer that is “free” market.

    7. The comic is about right-wing libertarians, not anarchists. Anarchists, i.e. libertarian socialists, want collective control over processes of governance and production. Right libertarians want to retain private control of resources & production while reducing or wholly abolishing the role of the state in governance.

    8. This is not just racist, but ageist and heterophobic too. I demand it be redrawn to feature a young gay Sino-African and Indo-Peruvian university educated couple from New York.

    9. Hey, “anarchist”!

      How come all you anarchists always use the same logo, huh?

      Answer me that!

      Aranarchist my fat ass. Owning a black hooded sweatshirt and a black ski mask doth not an anarchist make.

      I bet laukarlueng is using a Windows box, and not a proper ‘Open Sores’ Linux variant.


      1. “So, anarchists are automatically white, southern, grammatically challenged, gun owners, farm owners, and work for the government?”

        Yeah, you hit the nail right on the head. That’s exactly who these Tea Party morans are.

        And Donald: you’re right – they’re not fat enough at all.
        Of course, with the comic being squeezed, perhaps they are! :P

  2. #1: The comic is clearly making fun of the teabaggers, who

    a) largely are white, rural, and gramatically challenged, and
    b) have railed against all of the programs mentioned.

    1. #1: The comic is clearly making fun of the American Tealiban, who

      a) largely are white, URBAN-rural, and grammatically challenged,


      b) have railed against all of the program spending mentioned.


      c) worked for 20 years in the government and are against more government (hiring) only to protect their government pensions from getting reduced, in order to provide more government services.

      I Got Mine Mil.Gov â„¢

  3. What race? It’s not racist, don’t be silly.

    I think it’s more an extrapolation of the rhetoric that says ‘we’ve got to get rid of all of our governing structures without suggesting proper alternatives’. I like tom the dancing bug.

    1. This comic is rather intellectually lazy, as are some of these comments here.

      It’s impossible to criticize the ideas of libertarian anarchism, without understanding them.

      Libertarians HAVE presented many solutions: the most influential figure in libertarianism certainly isn’t glenn beck or an idiot like that, but rather Murray Rothbard.

      He wrote a book, “For a New Liberty,” outlining exactly how an anarchist libertarian society might funtion; offering all of the services and functions of our modern economy, but basing it on the single presumption that no body can initiate the use of force. Also, the similar but less morally persuasive “Machinery of Freedom,” by David Friedman.

      Now, whether it would work or not is a fair question, but it isn’t fair to say libertarians haven’t offered any solutions.

      To call libertarians far right conservatives is asinine: he spent much of his life railing against war as the worst manifestation of the state, against the cozy corporate/state partnership that constitutes our current “state capitalist” system, and against the supreme hypocrites of the right such as Ronald Reagan.

      In fact, the primary difference between “far right” libertarian anarchists such as Rothbard and “far left” social anarchists such as Emma Goldman is a disagreement over what constitutes property rights – not really such a great divide, in the big picture.

      Both of them, however, agree that the state should not protect the wealth of the rich; both of them also question the basis of the institution of the corporation.

      So, what were the tea parties? They were originally organized by the Ron Paul movement. While Ron Paul is not a perfect figure, he was a collaborator of Rothbard, and represented the strongest anti-war, pro-civil liberties, anti-state/corporate partnership voice of the last elections (except for Kucinich and Gravel).

      Ron Paul might have his flaws, but his supporters were widely influenced by libertarian anarchist thought. Read the popular libertarian blog of lew rockwell, ron paul’s former chief of staff – you might not agree with a lot of it, but it is first and foremost anti-GOP, anti-Koch, anti-police state, and is not shy about linking to liberal commentators.

      It is these internet savvy libertarians who Fox News/the GOP fears the most – the Democrats provide a convenient foil, but the moral consistency of the anti-war Ron Paul crowd sheds a withering light on the vast hypocrisy of the GOP, who always say one thing and do another; and don’t have any conception of economic liberty beyond simple tax cuts. Look how they reacted to Ron Paul – not letting him in all the debates, not even letting him in the door of the convention, the recent thing with switching the CPAC poll footage, etc.

      So, the GOP and Fox News got together to coopt and destroy the tea party movement. So, they get their stooge Palin and Beck to fill the airwaves which stuff which kind of rings right, to bring the millions of TV watching boobs out in the streets..except that, they’re no longer protesting corruption, bailouts, corporate/state coziness, or our coming bankruptcy; but the usual meat and potatoes GOP bullshit – immigration, ‘islamofascism,’ Obama, etc. etc.

      The end result, of course, is to discredit the underlying movement in the eyes of the average person, guilt by association. “Oh, you’re a Glenn Beck? I know all about you guys! What an idiot!”

      So, that’s why I say this comic is lazy – it’s criticizing something that is designed to fail. It’s like making fun of a kid with down syndrome.

      Do you REALLY think that Fox News or the GOP want to end or in any way reduce the power of Washington DC? No, of course not. History demonstrates that they don’t, the Bush years showed just the opposite. They are just making political hay until they can get in office again.

      1. While Ron Paul is not a perfect figure, he was a collaborator of Rothbard, and represented the strongest anti-war, pro-civil liberties, anti-state/corporate partnership voice of the last elections

        Oy! Again? Ron Paul is a fascist demagogue. He is against civil liberties. The only thing that he favors is states’ rights, specifically their right to be repressive dictatorships that oppress people of color, women and GLBT citizens.

        1. Sorry but…he was the ONLY representative, R or D, to vote against the Patriot Act. He was one of maybe a couple Republicans to vote against the Iraq War. He has been the most outspoken opponent of the War on Drugs.

          Seeing how those are three of the most egregious violations of rights that the Federal government does, he deserves credit.

          I admit, I had not seen that reply to me. Neither had I read that article at LewRockwell. It really saddened me. Thanks for posting it.

          Individual rights should trump the Constitution, every time…the constitution is no god, it is in many ways a flawed document.

          As much as I admire Ron Paul, it’s mostly because I want to see him have a strong pulpit to express the good things he does say. While he may hold socially conservative beliefs I disagree with, I applaud him because he has been using all of the media exposure he has received since 2008 to talk about anti-imperialism, anti-militarism, anti-state corporatism, economic liberty, personal liberty, etc.

          If he holds frankly abhorrent views such as those expressed in that article, I am glad at least that he is keeping them to himself in the interest of coalition building.

          I must be honest – that article does make me think less of him.

          As someone who, in some ways, straddles the line between liberal and libertarian…and who sees a real possibility of a liberal/libertarian alliance to unseat many of the worst aspects of the WoT/WoD/etc. I think both sides should try to set aside the areas where they disagree, and work together on the areas where they do agree – because in the big picture, those areas (principally war) are the most important.

          1. Seeing how those are three of the most egregious violations of rights that the Federal government does, he deserves credit.

            Sorry, buddy, but those are the most egregious violations of rights that might possibly affect your privileged ass. Some of us are still second class citizens every day of the motherfucking week. Drop the mirror and take a gander at how the world looks for the rest of us.

          2. Well..I’ve never been affected by the patriot act, and don’t know anyone who has. I don’t do drugs. And I’ve never had bombs fall on me. So I, personally, am not affected by any of those issues.

            I’m just looking at the big picture: MILLIONS of Americans are in prison/jail/parole over drug related issues, prison being the deprivation of virtually all rights. It has also seen a degradation of the rights of every American. MILLIONS of people abroad have been killed, deprived of all rights, in the various wars of the last 50 years. US backed and armed dictators have deprived millions more of of all rights.

            I don’t mean to dismiss the plight of homosexuals in America. It is a serious problem. But it simply is, numerically, a smaller problem. Are there millions of gay men in jail under sodomy laws? Actually..are there any? (I don’t ask that sarcastically, I honestly don’t know).

            The discrimination that homosexuals face, it seems, is more from individuals than from the government. Of course, the government should drop all such discrimination (ie, civil union issues). But, and correct me if I am wrong, it is a problem that for the most part does not stem from the government.

            As opposed to the war on drugs, patriot act, agressive wars, etc. which stem 100% from the federal government.

            P.S. Didn’t mean to start the last post with “sorry”, would have edited if I could. Gave the post a flavor I didn’t mean.

          3. Sorry, buddy, but those are the most egregious violations of rights that might possibly affect your privileged ass. Some of us are still second class citizens every day of the motherfucking week. Drop the mirror and take a gander at how the world looks for the rest of us.

            Yeah, the Iraq War, the War on Drugs, and the PATRIOT Act were totally designed to disenfranchise heterosexual male WASPs. Maybe take some of your own advice? You’re privileged enough to not have to worry about being gunned downed by an occupational army or Predator Drone on a daily basis. I’m guessing you are the kind of knowledgeable liberal who always carries their lawyer’s card so if you were ever caught smoking dope you would be able to get away without jail time, and unless you aren’t white, would be the beneficiary of desperate sentencing and won’t have to know what it’s like to live under the loophole Jim Crow America that is the criminal class. If you don’t have an Arab sounding name or complexion, you don’t have to worry about being disappeared and tortured for the rest of your natural life every time you walk into an airport; but you might have to worry about general COINTELPRO actions if you belong to the wrong activist group.

            Ron Paul is a bigoted, heterosexist, misogynist, asshole, but he happens to also be anti-war and, at least, anti-federal surveillance and there is a dearth of such senators in Washington DC in general, and especially in the Republican Party, Sometimes getting important things done means forming coalitions with terrible people, just ask anybody who has had to stand in solidarity with the ISO. As long as Ron Paul or even his batshit son keep talking seriously about cutting defense spending, this queer will be supporting them in that regard.

          4. Wait, what?

            67 people voted against the Patriot Act. It was 357-66 in the House and 98-1 in the Senate.

          5. Sorry. I don’t know why I thought that. Ron Paul was one of three Republicans to vote against the 2001 Patriot Act, while 63 Democrats voted against it – much to their credit.

            Really sad that the “tea party” knocked out Feingold, the only senator to vote against the patriot act, and a longtime champion of Civil Liberties.

            I might agree with some of their rhetoric – but I really despise the Republican Party, more than the Dems.

            The Evil Party vs. the Stupid Party. The Democrats don’t understand the economic ramifications of a highly regulated environment for small entrepreneurs, and don’t understand how this regulatory environment has contributed to an economy where most people can’t start small businesses and must work for corporations, thus the “stupid party”..the Republicans understand plenty, they just don’t care, they actively promote a fascist system even while loudly proclaiming to support the opposite, thus the “evil party.”

          6. Yeah, that’s actually an analogy I use frequently to describe party politics.

            Just think of the ego of the nation, on a folding chair under a light bulb..Officer Bush comes along, beats the shit out of him, drives a screwdriver into his arm, says “give us what we want!” Then, Officer Obama comes in, offers a cup of coffee, some cigarettes, says “Hey man, that Bush guy is a real piece of work. I’m really sorry about him. You look pretty beat up. Listen, just give us what we want, you’ll get out of here soon.”

            One important caveat is that, depending on your demographic, Bush might be the nice guy and Obama the bad cop.

            That’s how politicians seem to be chosen – based on rising a gut reaction, either very strongly or very negatively, from large groups of the population.

            Frankly though..I don’t much like the democrats, but think more of them at least MEAN well. The Republicans as a whole are too infected with the cancer of religiosity, which leads them to hold all sorts of awful opinions.

          7. There’s one reason in particular I hate the Republicans – because they have utterly destroyed the term “the free market.”

            The free market means millions or billions of actors working under the basic rule that no one can violate the rights of each other, and every interaction must be one of voluntary mutual exchange.

            But the Republicans have twisted it to mean a system where the corporations are “free” to do what they want without fear of personal consequences.

            Business are of course very important in a free market, but whether the entity of a corporation – where the individual actors are protected from personal responsibility for their collective actions – should even exist is a very valid question.

            They have this idea of “privatization,” where the government, instead of providing the service themselves, forcibly takes taxpayer money and gives it to a private, politically connected company, giving them a for-profit monopoly on the provision of the service. It’s the worst of all worlds, it’s a fascist system, and it certainly isn’t anything to do with the “free market.”

            Republicans love the idea of “free trade,” and have actively helped companies send their jobs to slave laborers in China. Yet when you look at two of the most protected professions in America – doctors and lawyers – both charge far more than they should because of onerous licensing laws, and both of which are major contributors to the GOP..the GOP forgets all about fair trade and economic liberty.

            The price of lawyering, for instance, would drop precipitously if we allowed schools in India and the Phillipines etc. to teach US jurisprudence and either come here to be lawyers or do legal work through the Internet. There would be a similar collapse in the price of medical care in America if all of the legal protections it receives were removed. But the GOP never mentions either of these, and it was never brought up in the whole “health care reform” debate, because they know which side their bread is buttered on.

            The free market is simply a beautiful thing – the distributed intelligence of billions of people coming together to solve our common problems, in peace and mutual respect/benefit. The US/GOP model of state capitalism, that they call the “free market,” where corporations receive all sorts of unfair benefits, is an abomination.

          8. The free market is simply a beautiful thing…

            Where? Where, in the actual world, does there exist a true free market? What are you basing all this on?

          9. If you live in a world permeated with slavery, you don’t have to have seen a working system without slavery to know it’s a bad idea.

            Likewise, even though there are few truly free markets in the world today (except on small scales, one can say that a market where no player is allowed to use force or violence, and all transactions are based on voluntary mutual benefit, is a better thing than one where some actors are privileged to use or violence.

          10. Simply that most people reject violence and will not support violent entities. How many people would actually support war if they directly had to pay for every engagement out of their own pocket? How long would any company survive, if they were known to use aggressive violence against their competition?

          11. Well, if you’re really interested in market anarchist theory, here it is:

            All parties will need to be a member of good standing with an arbitration/insurance/police agency. These might be combined or be separate agencies, generally called “Dispute Resolution Organizations”.

            You will not NEED to be, of course, but it will be difficult to enter into any sort of substantial contract without having one of these agencies as a guarantor of your goodwill.

            If you break the contract, the other parties arbitration agency will come to yours asking to be made whole. If it is decided that you have indeed broken the contract, you will not be considered in good standing until you make right.

            Similarly, any acts of violence, either privately or in commerce, will be dealt with between the two agencies. Being an insurance agency, they will compensate you for your losses for the crime, and thus have an incentive to actively prevent the crime. If your agency decides you have indeed committed violence, you will lose the protection of your agency if you do not compensate the victim.

            This whole scheme is made possible by the invention of databases, which would prevent people from hopping around between agencies. The longer you had been with your agency, the more weight it would carry when you wanted to sign contracts.

            In some ways, of course, it is similar to our current system of jurisprudence – with the major difference that you can choose which body you are a member of, that there will be a natural disincentive to corruption because people would choose another agency, and that no agency could ever initiate violence or force.

            It’s a bit similar to the idea of panarchy, which is based on governments that don’t have a geographic monopoly, but where people can choose which government they are a member of each year – competing governments.

            So, there you go.

          12. The free market is simply a beautiful thing – the distributed intelligence of billions of people coming together to solve our common problems, in peace and mutual respect/benefit.

            Where, in all you described, do you get solutions to common problems? You’ve called out a number of evils from government involvement, but you haven’t explained why things like wage slavery and cartels would suddenly evaporate, and most hints at free markets suggest they wouldn’t. Just as natural selection produces well-adapted creatures but is ruthless to them, distributed intelligence is powerful but need not be kind to the units involved.

          13. Solutions simply come from people, working together. The most important thing is to not prevent them in an way from peacefully providing solutions – something we do many ways in our society. The morality of it comes from basic human morality. Certainly, not all people are moral..but a hell of a lot of them are. The state has become the principle tool by which those who are not moral disrupt the peaceful activities of those who are.

            I think I did actually explain that somewhere up there, but it’s a long thread. Through stupifying education, through restrictive trade laws that prevent people from starting their own cottage businesses and create and protect artificial cartels (in areas ranging from drugs to medicine to food services), etc.

            If you are really curious for that answer, read Gabriel Kolko’s “The Triumph of Conservatism” (the ‘triumph’ being the falsely named progressive era) for a start.

        2. Here’s what I like about Ron Paul: Recently, he gave a speech at CPAC – a meeting of some of the most conservative members of the GOP.

          Now, there are many things he agrees with all of them on: he’s pro-life, socially conservative, supports stricter immigration controls, etc.

          He could have made plenty of political hay pushing these meat and potatoes conservative issues.

          But he didn’t. I watched his whole 20 minute speech. What did he talk about?

          He talked about the evils of war, the dangers of empire, the GOP’s awful record on civil liberties, the hypocrisy of the GOP’s record on spending vs. their rhetoric, etc. The many issues that he disagreed with most of the audience on.

          This is why, whatever he is, he is not a demagogue. Demagogues seek political power for themselves. That is not his goal.

          Being an old codger, he remembers another time, roughly 100 years ago: when the GOP and conservatives were anti-war, anti-police state, anti-wasteful spending, etc.

          Ron Paul might not be perfect in terms of civil liberties, but he is far above the average of the GOP.

          I really do feel that his goal, rather than establishing political power for himself (he is like 80 or whatever), is to bring help the GOP remember these very important roots.

          Even if you disagree with absolutely everything the Republicans might stand for, I think everyone on this board can agree that a Republican party that was more pro-civil liberties and anti-war would be a good thing for both the country and for the world.

      2. Thanks for the ‘fo bro. Very informative. Though I don’t think this is particularly a hit at libertarian leaders as much as it is targeting people who repeat libertarian war cries without any real consideration of how to implement them in a practical way.

        The majority of ‘protesters’ in the street holding placards and shouting slogans like those in the comic probably couldn’t articulate how a libertarian society would work and I feel this is the main drive of the comic’s message.

  4. @laukarlueng By your comment, I take it you have missed the point of the comic. Allow me to clarify.

    Some of those who most loudly cry for a return to simpler times with minimal federal government are often heavily reliant upon that same government. This is irony, and that irony is the wellspring of the above comic’s humor. It is important to note that there is a great degree of hyperbole in the above comic. This exaggeration is meant only to enhance the humor and is not be taken as an accurate depiction of any persons belonging to any political party.

    I hope this comment will soothe any negative feelings about the comic you may still be experiencing.

  5. So, it’s a distortion of the truth to put forth a point of view? Understood.

    As a real anarchist, I find it annoying.

      Wow. Thanks for the great laugh this afternoon.

      1. While I don’t agree with his statement, you shouldn’t have to be part of a targeted group to be offended by discrimination.

    2. Bwahahahah! “a real Anarchist…” bwahahahahahaha! Honest to goodness you are pullin’ good satire, yo! “Annoying…” Bwahahahahaha! Stop it, I’m dying!

    3. As a real anarchist, you may want to invest in a sense of humor. Or at least remove the stick form your ass. Anything to give you a sense of joie de vive.

      “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution.”
      –Emma Goldman

      1. If you were a *real* anarchist, you’d know that she didn’t actually say that ;)

        In reply to Anon #50: Thanks for taking the time to educate us about our own philosophy! We’d never have realized that those who call themselves anarchists are not all ideologically in step!

        For anyone who’s curious, the majority of anarchists (in my experience) do not consider “anarcho-capitalists” to be anarchists whatever they call themselves, for the simple reason that capitalism is seen as an inherently heirarcical system. “Anarcho”capitalists are for the most part just extreme libertarians, whereas other forms of anarchism seem to have sprung out of the communist tradition (hence the term “libertarian socialist,” which incidentally is what I call myself when I am not up to taking the uninformed ridicule that is often the reaction to identifying myself as an anarchist)

    4. As a real anarchist, I find the font stack on this site intolerable. Helvetica Neue? Trebuchet MS?! THE MASTER’S TOOLS WILL NEVER DISMANTLE THE MASTER’S HOUSE!!

    5. That’s the problem with so many anarchists: Everything becomes a serious BFD. Did you think one cartoon was supposed to present The Truth about anything in all its complexity and nuance? Seriously? IT IS A CARTOON not a textbook. At what point in your life did you lose every bit of your sense of humor and your ability to take things in context?

  6. @aHarshDM: Yeah, well, why can’t he do funny heartwarming things, like Family Circus, instead of refudiating the patriotism of Real Americans? Huh? Huh?

    * * *
    Interesting. If I click on the “comments” link, a properly imaged version is displayed.

    If I click on the preview picture on the front page, the squeezed version appears.

  7. I’m with laukarleung. The comic would have been funnier is he was a mulatto civil engineer and she was a phlebotomist of Asian/Native American descent. And their house should be a combination split-level colonial/yurt.

  8. I live in Southern California now, but I spent the first 24 years of my life in the deep south. This strip isn’t racism or hyperbole. This is what these people are like. This is how they talk. This is how they look. These are the things they say. NOT ALL PEOPLE FROM THE DEEP SOUTH, but the super-conservative tea party types who he is depicting.

    As much as I would like to say that this sort of depiction is mean-spirited and counterproductive and that rural republicans are just normal people like you and me who have a different take on government and modern life, it just isn’t the case. They are incredibly ignorant, narrow-minded, unsophisticated thinkers who most of the time misunderstand the most basic fundamentals of the topics they will talk about.

    I know these people. They are family members, friends, old teachers, neighbors, classmates, etc. I really, really wish I could say that this cartoon was some sort of grotesque exaggeration, but in far too many places this strip works as an incredibly accurate, fair-handed representation.

    1. The open and curious minded southerners I’ve met tend to keep a low profile and avoid drawing attention to themselves. Like the smart kid in a school full of bullies.

  9. “Wow, what a racist comic. So, anarchists are automatically white, southern, grammatically challenged, gun owners, farm owners, and work for the government? ”

    Actually, most anarchists I’ve known have been white and grammatically challenged.

    But I think these people are supposed to be libertarians (this comic also works for hardcore libertarian ideologies, except I think most libs would support keeping the post office)

    But also, what everybody else said about the TPC folks. And it’s not actually racist as much as it is classist, frankly, since the characters a variant of “white trash” stereotypes.

  10. Haha! Stereotypes. Don’t worry about Ma and Pa, their moonshine still hidden acres of marijuana will get them through.

  11. Not a particularly insightful comic. I’m not an overly sensitive anarchist like laukarlueng (or really anything even approaching an anarchist at all), but this comic seems to be a combination of strawman argumentation and appropriation of the most idiotic members of a movement as representative.

    Boring ideological hackery.

    1. Meng I confess maybe you didn’t really get it. Anybody who’s *from* the southern part of the USA has seen so many people exactly like this in their lifetimes that it’s come to be expected.

  12. Well, I am convinced by this comic! Time to end U.S. farm subsidies once and for all! Then, we can attack social security and then medicare!

    Who’s with me?

  13. Yes, obviously Mr. Bollling is ridiculing anarchists here. The teabaggers are notorious for their slavish devotion to the likes of Noam Chomsky, Emma Goldman and Howard Zinn.

    Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ll be at the doctor’s office as I seem to have sprained my eyeballs from rolling them so much.

    1. You’re right Bookburn, the last three checks I got from the USDA were direct deposit to my checking account, no mail involved.

  14. As a real anarchist, I find it annoying.

    Conversely folks with common sense find ‘anarchists’ annoying.

  15. It’s amazing how well, and quickly, the trolls can derail what could have been at least a slightly amusing discussion on the cartoon. Anon at 3:28 really hit it–this is satire, but not too far from reality. Sadly.

  16. @aHarshDM That was a wonderful summary. Certainly needed because there are many people who take everything they read literally.

  17. A better depiction of life post government would have included a panel with the rugged individuals holed up in their home while it was under siege by the local warlord’s militia for not paying their tribute.

      1. “Just walk away. Give me the chickens, the cows, the corn and the whole farm, and I’ll spare your lives. Just walk away.”

    1. You should really study some market anarchists such as Rothbard.

      Do you really feel that, in your present city, life would be ruled by armed gangs if it weren’t for the police?

      I don’t know about you, but in every city I’ve lived in, the police didn’t seem so interested in helping anybody.

      The free market anarchist idea consists of free market police. Instead of paying taxes, they would be funded by local business owners, homeowners, and a fee tacked on rents.

      The difference being that these police would actually have an incentive to serve the interests of the community – if they failed, or charged too much, they would see their contract terminated. The same can not be said of our model of policing, where the police can do whatever and the people can’t do a damn thing about it.

      A lot of thought has been given to preventing them from becoming rival warlord functions. Google “dispute resolution organization,” a cornerstone of the market anarchist society.

      The basic anarchist question is this: “Do we need to give one group a monopoly on violence to provide the necessary structures of peaceful society?” The answer, as far as I can see, is no.

      1. The basic anarchist question is this: “Do we need to give one group a monopoly on violence to provide the necessary structures of peaceful society?” The answer, as far as I can see, is no.

        The answer in every society that has actually confronted the “plurality of initiators of violence” in real life seems to have pretty reliably gone in the other direction. I wonder why that is.

      2. The free market anarchist idea consists of free market police. Instead of paying taxes, they would be funded by local business owners, homeowners, and a fee tacked on rents. The difference being that these police would actually have an incentive to serve the interests of the community…

        Oh right, because that worked so well back when there were private fire brigades.

        From the Wikipedia entry on Fire Stations:

        If the fire was in a building covered by a rival insurer, some brigades would deliberately obstruct that company’s fire brigade in an attempt to give rise to greater property damage (and subsequent expense to the insurer).

        How does their “incentive to serve the interests of the community…” mesh with their libertarian incentive to be free to make as much money as possible? Or in your mind does this ideal anarchist/libertarian society somehow require there to be only one police force, with no rivalries?

        Which brings me to “Instead of paying taxes, they would be funded by local business owners, homeowners, and a fee tacked on rents.” Um. Do you actually know what “taxes” are?

        Guess what — it’s exactly that, except that they are distributed across those who can afford them so that the one person in the apartment block who doesn’t want to pay her “police fee” while all her neighbors are paying doesn’t get to freeload and enjoy the benefits of a safe neighborhood without paying into it.

        1. It’s funny, because I was just thinking how much better we would be off as 10,000 tiny, profit-driven kingdoms.

        2. Blocking a rival company’s fire brigade is a crime. ANY system must have some mechanism to prevent criminal behavior and compensate the victim. This is something market anarchists think about a lot, in a way replacing our current court system with arbitration/insurance companies called “dispute resolution organizations.”

          Of course, taxes play a useful role in society. Even without government, there would be some sort of fees analogous to taxes.

          The question is, what is the natural and right penalty for not paying your taxes?

          On the one hand, not being entitled to the services that they pay for, social ostracism as a deadbeat, etc?

          Or, on the other hand, being dragged off to jail, and having your house stolen from you?

          Which seems more fair, which seems more just?

          1. On the one hand, not being entitled to the services that they pay for, social ostracism as a deadbeat, etc?
            Or, on the other hand, being dragged off to jail, and having your house stolen from you?
            Which seems more fair, which seems more just?

            Neither? How about a moderate fine, or your wages garnished? It doesn’t have to be one extreme or the other.

          2. Man, you really aren’t getting it. The “private firefighters” would work their hardest only for the people with the most money. If some rich asshole with more money decided that he wanted to watch your house burn, he’d hire all of them to play video games with him while your house burned. He would thus pay the highest market cost in order to monopolize existing capacity temporarily. Who knows? maybe your neighbor needed all of them to strip for a bachelorette party.

            In fact, such a business would have much excess labor (time spent waiting around for fires) so what would they do? Other stuff, (strip, pose for calendars) perhaps at the cost of readiness, to make more cash.

            Some things are best run in an inefficient fashion because of other benefits, like stability. It’s also easier than having to figure out the 9000 bills you would have (FD, PD, roads, parks, schools, etc, etc, etc. Basic, lifesaving services should never be a commodity for the highest bidder, even if the quality or price efficiency suffers somewhat.

          3. Right. That’s why it’s impossible to buy food on the free market – because the rich people pay all of the farmers to raise silkworms so they can wear a new pair of silk undies each time they crap. That’s why it’s impossible to hire a car mechanic on the free market – because the rich people have hired them all off to maintain their fleet of Maybachs and Rolls Royces. That’s why it’s impossible to hire someone to clean your house – because these dastardly rich people have hired them all off to take part in their perverted sexual fantasies.

            I don’t know if you’re trolling here, or just haven’t spent much time observing how the economy works. If a company really screws up offering it’s service, consumers react virulently. Boycotts are not an uncommon thing, and companies listen to them.

            Current firefighters also have much excess readiness..why would a private vs. public department be any different in how much they train?

            You’re perfectly free to use an inefficient, kleptocratic service for whatever you want, in order to keep your bills easier. But what right do you have to support the use of violence on me to make sure I pay for and use those services, too?

      3. Do you really feel that, in your present city, life would be ruled by armed gangs if it weren’t for the police?

        The police are one of several armed gangs ruling my present city.

  18. Personally, I think the comic is a bit understated. I grew up in Oregon, near Eugene, Oregon. Eugene has a university and a good number of hippy/anarchist types who regularly try to take on “The Man”, complain about the cops, etc. What I could never understand is why they would do so, when virtually the only thing preventing the majority of local rednecks from shooting them were “The Man” and his minions the police.

    That kind of irony exists in a lot of places, and as one reader above has astutely noted of his southern upbringing, this rendering isn’t as abusive as you’d like it to be. My own family, while paying for my college education, ALSO voted to reduce property tax; in Oregon, that’s significant since they have no sales tax. I explained over and over that since everybody paid property tax, but only THEY paid my tuition, that cutting property taxes would increase their cost. “No!” they said, “The gobblement is taking too much money”. That was in 1990 when my tuition was $450 a term. By 1992 when I graduated it was $900 a term. Best part? They never, even to this day, understood the connection.

    My folks are Red staters through and through. I vote explicitly to cancel out their stupid voting in the hopes we can right the ship. But every time I watch the news, hope dies a little in my heart.


  19. Anarchism is not the absence of Government. It is the absence of Rulers.

    Most Anarchists believe that a Government formed along true democratic lines, with strong safeguards in place to check power, and an equal disbursement of the benefits that Government brings is a valid method of organising a society.

    We do not want to tear down society, we just want a society where no one person, or group of people, has unchecked power over anyone else. Whether it be the tyranny of a dictator, or the tyranny of the masses.

    1. Akheloios “Anarchism is not the absence of Government. It is the absence of Rulers.”
      But then how will you know how long things are?

    2. Most Anarchists believe that a Government formed along true democratic lines …
      we just want a society where no one person, or group of people, has unchecked power over anyone else. Whether it be the tyranny of a dictator, or the tyranny of the masses.

      Er, what’s the difference between “true democratic lines” and “tyranny of the masses?” Do you want decisions to be made by a majority (the masses) or not?

  20. Some posters on this thread have not seen:

    * Signs at Tea Party rallies asking government to keep its hands out of Medicare.

    * Polls that indicate a good subset of Americans do not understand that Medicare is a government-run program.

    * Polls that indicate people believe that Social Security is already bankrupt. (Truth: it will have to reduce benefits in a few decades if changes aren’t made that are quite modest in scope.)

    * Multiple stories about Tea Party candidates who want the federal government to stop spending money for things who accept farm subsidies and other government checks. (They typically don’t admit this.)

    There’s a lot more, too. Government programs that work are considered outside of the government because they work. Basic services, such as fire, police, road building and maintenance, emergency response, ferries, and so forth, are invisible to much of America as a reason that money is spent (and where their tax dollars go).

    No, no, it’s all government employees and their inflated paychecks and benefits. That’s the problem.

    1. But…social security is bankrupt. There is no money in the Social Security account. All it holds are treasuries – IOUs from the US government.

      If any company run their pension fund this way, the CFO would be frogmarched off to jail (unless they were politically connected, of course).

      Social Security is, literally, a ponzi scheme. It’s worked OK so far, but…

      1. where is it that you think the several billion dollars of SS funds should live, if not in the US treasury? should the president stuff them under the mattress? maybe lock it up in a little safe kept under the congress?

        the funds flow in. they are going to be kept around for decades. so they go to the US treasury, which lends the money at a given rate of interest. much like you do with your savings when you give them to a bank of some kind. do you have some alternate proposal? and while we’re here, do you actually think that your bank actually has all your cash sitting in vault somewhere? or are there maybe just IOU’s there too, and hence the danger of “a run on the bank” when everyone decides to collect at the same time?

        if only we could run government more like a business … sheesh.

      2. and to reinforce what i just said, what you described is exactly how all pension funds are run, except that the IOUs tend to be from other companies rather than the US Treasury.

      3. All it holds are IOUs from the Federal Government? Uhm… you do realize that ALL MONEY IS is IOUs, typically originating from the Federal Government, right? It’s certainly not the gold standard or anything even close to it, but the reality is, all money represents debt, and the vast majority of that debt is governmental debt the world over. Saying that “all the money so-and-so has is someone else’s debt” is kind of irrelevant, considering there really aren’t many other forms of “money” out there.

  21. Summary of this comments page:

    Someone who doesn’t understand the comic says the comic is wrong.

    Then a bunch of people who don’t understand anarchism say anarchism is wrong.

    Ah, the Internet.

    1. “Then a bunch of people who don’t understand anarchism say anarchism is wrong.”

      In fairness, Anarchism is the difficult middle child of politics who dresses emo and hides in their bedroom listening to MCR while revelling in how misunderstood they are.

  22. As an Anarchist, I find the Tea Party movement disturbing. People who wish to keep the benefits of Government for themselves, whilst refusing those same benefits to everyone else are a bit selfish to be honest.

    I quite like Tom the Dancing Bug :D

  23. Be sure to burp the trolls before putting them to bed. They get fussy when you overfeed them like this.

  24. It’s absolutely amazing how 99% of the commenters totally missed the point of this toon. So I’ll explain it in very simple terms. “Entitlements” are bad…. UNLESS THEY ARE YOUR ENTITLEMENTS, THEN THEY ARE NOT ONLY GOOD, BUT DESERVED AND NOT TO BE QUESTIONED.” Got it?
    I found it hilariously sarcastic and pure irony at its best!

    1. I don’t think you understand how percentages work. The majority of people who are commenting about the comic understood it, and I only see one person who missed the point entirely. That’s more like 2%. Amazing!

  25. The same people who support the Tea Party now also supported Bush when he increased spending while decreasing revenues. The financial BS is a smokescreen. Look at what the Republicans are picking as the targets of their budget cuts: Birth Control, Public Broadcasting, the EVIL ObamaCare bill. Kill the unions. They don’t care about saving money. They want to gut programs that benefit the middle class and poor and give all the money from those programs to the rich. They should actually be called the Feudalist party.

    Also, they get the support of the people pictured in the cartoon by playing the “government’s gonna tell you how to run your life” card as well as the “We need to get Jesus back in charge of the USA” card. Most of these voters could care less about spending cuts. They want a theocracy, and won’t settle for less.

  26. For the anarchists:

    It’s important for people to understand that there are two very distinct groups of you. One group, which would agree with much of what the Tea Party says, believes that the “free market” will benefit us all–it has been the federal government, they say, that has been screwing everything up by intervening. If only the government would “get off our backs,” then this country would flourish and we’d all be safe from exogenous economic disaster for ever and ever.

    The other group sees the State as the authoritative arm of the capitalist class. Thus, anything the government does will have to be very cognizant of the capitalists’ interests and/or their own power interests. Thus, seeking out a revolution vis-a-vis the State is hopeless.

    One group of you believes in free market capitalism (largely because, I believe, you haven’t seen it in real action yet). The other group of you is suspicious that the State will ever be able to transcend the grave ills of capitalism. In other words, one of you likes capitalism, the other doesn’t.

    Everyone else pretty much sees the battle as a big fight between an amoral, impersonal economic system and a federal authority that can (potentially) to tame the system’s more egregious offenses.

    What is an economy for if not for people?

  27. I would like to share this on facebook but I don’t want the text beneath the link to be that idiotic “this comic is racist” comment. It shouldn’t work that way.

    1. Why not – more people check it out. Everyone want to see drama.

      I never got Anarchists. Destroy a gov. and another pops up in place. Usually its a more oppressive gov. with military power backing them up.

      In an EOTWAWKI scenario, you end up with a type of feudalism.

  28. If you live in the West, you no longer live in a Democracy. When financial and corporate interests “own” the duly elected government, that system is a Corporate Dictatorship.

    Anarchism isn’t a solution though, some form of true Democracy is. I personally believe that it is impossible to achieve this without revolution. The current pseudo-democracy is too far gone to self-regulate. The rot and corruption is too embedded to be cut out without seizing the power and assets of these corporate puppeteers. We need a complete redistribution of wealth and power, and the rich aren’t going to give it up without a fight.

    While I feel revolution in the US, UK & some of Western Europe is inevitable, and will happen in most of our life times, it’s going to take millions more people to become disenfranchised before this happens. I suppose at a guess, based on pressure caused be oil depletion, growth in india and china, widening economic inequality, etc… some time in the next 10 years.

    Pass this off as tin-foil hat rhetoric if you like. I’m earmarking cash for a bunker.

    1. re: “While I feel revolution in the US, UK & some of Western Europe is inevitable, ”

      Nope. Won’t happen unless things get REALLY bad. Like 1930’s depression bad. We are too placated with our iPhones and iPads and streaming Netflix and fried Snickers bars.

      I guess I am an optimist. I still think overall we are doing well.

      re: zyodei

      Yay, Libertarians!

    2. Awesome summation.

      I’m somewhat anarchistic, I don’t like the government oppression of our rights, but I’m happy with reasonable entitlement programs. I do thinkk a fall is in the works, too much going too wrong, too many people too scared, broke, and unhappy.

      But the lack of middle ground here is sad. I loved the tea party when it first started, but it rapidly turned to crap, like so many other movements and now it is a ridiculous joke.

      And for all of you who love to throw around the term “gun toting white”, screw you. I am a gun toting left winger, and yes, I’m fairly white. It’s pitiful that you all assume anyone white who owns a gun is a right winger.

      1. You know the Tea Party has been the same shit the entire time, right?

        We’re not talking about a popular movement that got co-opted here; we’re talking about astroturf.

  29. This whole cartoon is odd.

    I can’t tell if it is satiric, or just classist.

    This cartoon makes it look as if urbanites have all the answers and should ensure that farmers do as they are told. I’m not sure if that is the intent. If the intent is to make fun of some unique political party, my apologies for myself missing what is obvious to Tom and the others for getting it.

    However…here’s irony and a reality check to Americans…about 82% of your population lives in urban and suburban settings.

    It’s not 18% of your population in rural settings that is changing your political landscape. I find it highly doubtful that a decentralized 18% population that is as uneducated, unskilled, unmotivated, and illogical as portrayed in this cartoon really would be able to exert that much control.

    I also find it hard to believe that anyone really believes that radical/social conservative Republicans or Teabag Party members are for the majority of their membership within this 18%.

    The reality is probably scarier: the vast majority of these members and those that are like them are in suburban and urban centres.

    1. “It’s not 18% of your population in rural settings that is changing your political landscape.”

      This demonstrates a lack of understanding in regards to the composition of the Senate as well as the electoral college. Since we don’t have proportional representation this 18% has an unusually strong voice in our political system.

  30. You miss a few things.

    Anarcho-capitalists also believe the state is a tool of the capitalist classes. That’s a major reason why they want to eliminate it.

    “an amoral, impersonal economic system” vs “a potentially helpful federal authority”

    Here’s where your logic falls off.

    An economic system simply consists of the independent actions of millions and billions of economic actors. There’s nothing inherently immoral about it.

    Contrast a peaceful market to the actions of the state: wars, prisons, soul crushing schools, the creation of massive poverty, etc. etc.

    Can you find ANYTHING nearly as bad in what the market does?

    Virtually all of the great evils come from market actors manipulating the state, NOT from the market itself.

    The immorality comes in when the states intervenes to help some actors over others.

    The market gets a lot of flak, but look around you – virtually everything good and useful you can find in your life (that is a physical good) is created by the market.

    Virtually all of the horrors and destruction in the world are caused by states.

    There are many left-libertarians out there, I would count myself among their ranks. They argue that a free market does not inherently produce giant conglomerates: because many people want to buy from small producers, want to support their local economy; and because small companies are often better at innovation. What creates the giant corporations are not natural market effects, but rather the various favors corporations receive from the state: protection from individual liability, regulations and licenses that can be difficult or even prohibitive for the small business but no problem for corporations, taxes that can better be absorbed by large companies, etc.

    Thus, drastically reducing the scope of government (as well as the legal definition of corporations) is a valid strategy to reducing corporate power.

    So, we’ve been trying a “big government” solution to curtailing corporate power for about 70 years now. The government is hyperbolically larger than ever. How’s that whole “reducing corporate power” thing working for ya?

    1. Virtually all of the horrors and destruction in the world are caused by states.

      Its equally true to say that virtually all of the horros and destruction in the world is caused by people. So lets come up with a plan to get rid of them too.

      States cause horror and destruction and they also enable progress and liberty. The fact that so many libertarians and anarchists (both capitalo- and anarcho- varieties) have such a hard time with this apparent contradiction says a lot about their philosophy’s capacity to contain the realities of existence.

  31. The conservative Tax Foundation says Kentucky received $1.51 back from Washington for every dollar it paid in federal taxes in 2005 (the most recent data on the Tax Foundation’s website.)  Them durn Kentucky hillbillys are just a bunch of welfare queens, living off the taxes paid by blue states like California (which only gets 81 cents back on the dollar), Connecticut (69 cents), Illinois (75 cents) and New York (79 cents).

  32. Parasitism is contagious.

    Oops, that was courage.

    Americans won’t recognize the former or understand the latter.


    folks in glass empires ought not fly drones

    1. As much as many Americans would not understand this, I, as one do, therefor disproving your third statement. I agree with the two above it.

      And I’m not sure what to think of the statement on the bottom.

  33. Let’s see… the Teabaggers/anarchists are uneducated rural welfare recipients…

    On top of that, they also STEREOTYPE people!

  34. As a pretend anarchist, I heartily endorse this comic, and the satire for which it stands. Unlike Australian anarchists, anarchists in the United States are not unicorn students. Many of them have two, three or even four horns. It should also be noted that in the scene in Richard Linklater’s film Slacker, in which the Old Anarchist character is introduced, there is a semi-trailer advertising Ron Paul’s candidacy for the House of Representatives in the background. This is not to say that anarchism is opposed to organization. Far from it! On the contrary, anarchism is in favor of organization, to the extent that it is directly democratic and federal, with immediately recallable representatives. The Haymarket Martyrs considered themselves Socialists, Anarchists, Marxists and Libertarians, and saw no contradiction in these descriptions. In the 125 years which have elapsed since the Haymarket Tragedy, anarchism has undergone many changes and refinements. There is no one, true anarchism, and there never shall be. There is an ur-anarchist impulse which is present throughout human history, from Lao-Tzu and Diogenes through Wat Tyler, Cudjo, Harriet Tubman and Nestor Makhno. But I digress.

    1. Okay, for the second half of your comment, where you say anarchists are not opposed to organization, are you serious? I mean, isn’t anarchy the absence of government?

      And, if you weren’t joking, wouldn’t it then be possible to chang the government into an anarchy?

      1. Okay, for the second half of your comment, where you say anarchists are not opposed to organization, are you serious? I mean, isn’t anarchy the absence of government?

        This is just what I mean: do you see organizations around you that are non-governmental? If so, then maybe you could picture how an anarchistic society might function.

      2. You have correctly deduced that my comment above was intended to add a note of levity to these otherwise grim proceedings. However, clearly the time for levity is now past, so I will attempt to limn the question of “organization and anarchism” briefly:

        This question (i.e. “how can anarchism advance the cause of organization in human society?”) is, of course, not original to this discussion. On the contrary, it is one of the questions that has come up in virtually every lengthy discussion of anarchism as an ideology since the middle of the 19th century, when the international anarchist movement first coalesced. Since anarchism has never had a central ideological authority, different theorists have approached this question from different angles, and come up with very different answers. One tendency, which we could call, for convenience sake “individualist anarchists” indeed generally takes the position that any organization of society is likely to result in creeping authoritarianism, and therefor people are best served by creating a society which operates with the absolute minimum of organization or organizations. One of the tendencies in opposition to this line of thought could be called, again, for convenience, the “syndicalist/Wobbly” tendency. That group often argues that, as the economic base of society describes how a society functions, the best way to organize society is through unions of producers who own the means of production, and that those unions, acting in concert, could provide a fair and just way of making larger social decisions. There are also those we might lump together under the sobriquet “municipalists”, who aver that, in limited amounts, something like a government might be worthwhile, so while they would not support a state, per se, they could live with small assemblages of people wielding governmental authority (a la a “New England town meeting”).

        Of course, these broad categories are an attempt to simplify a complex history of thought that goes back even further than the 170 years of “official” Western anarchism (i.e. further back than Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s 1840 publication of Qu’est-ce que la propriété). Many, many anarchist writers have offered their ideas about the question of “anarchism and organization”. If you would like to pursue the question in more depth, I’d suggest starting with Alexander Berkman’s What is Communist Anarchism? for an older perspective, or with one of the more recent overviews of anarchist thought such as Colin Ward’s Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction or Ruth Kinna’s Anarchism: A Beginner’s Guide. Your local library (Piotr Kropotkin, a leading anarchist, felt that public libraries were an important step forward in the liberation of working people) should have some good resources, otherwise there is quite a bit of anarchist writing available for free on the internet, or for purchase through publishers such as AK Press, or through the nefarious capitalist enterprise

  35. I only came here to read Percival Dunwoody’s response, but I don’t see it yet.
    I suppose if I just keep refreshing he’ll travel back in time to when the comic was posted and make the first comment, right?

  36. Individual rights should trump the Constitution, every time…the constitution is no god, it is in many ways a flawed document.

    It’s always fascinated me how many people talk with pride and honour about the constitution as if it is god. It’s just some smushed up animal skin with ink on it, but some would rather let people suffer than desecrate Bible MkII. It just seems bizarre to me.

  37. Zyodei,

    What history are you referring to, where in the absence of a working gov’t people take care of all the things a gov’t does? And does so without re-creating the gov’t?

    Your argument is silly. The gov’t of the US IS people coming together to create the services they need. The fact that not everyone agrees about how those services are provided, their quality or any other things isn’t evidence that the system doesn’t work. It’s evidence that they system DOES work, because the system is designed to represent a majority view, NOT answer to the needs of every individual.

    This was created by the people, for the people, and the construction of the gov’t body is of the people.


    As a medievalist, I have to say that history (the history of Western Europe anyway) shows pretty much the opposite of what you claim. In any void of authority, strong men of some type will impose their will on others through force. They always have; sometimes even if there *isn’t* a power void (see: The Norman Invasion). The only way to oppose this, a way fought for with blood, money and ideas is the current democracy we live in. The system exists the way it does because of the problems of the past it was created to solve. That it does not work perfectly (according to you) does not mean it doesn’t work. It means you don’t understand the system.

    1. I don’t have to look to history. I look around me, to see all manner of energetic, idealistic, intelligent people perceiving the problems of the world and working to create solutions to them.

      I also see all manner of problems that are caused by state intervention, either well intentioned but short sighted or malicious.

      The idea that we create the government is just silly. If that is the purpose, why have a government at all? Why not just let people choose for themselves what services they want to pay money for?

      Democracy is not a moral system. If 51 people vote to murder the other 49, is that OK? No, of course not. People can come together and decide what they want to do, but that majority quorum does NOT give them the right to initiate force or violence for anything.

      And anyhow, the whole thing is totally broken – tens of millions of Americans joined together to vote for Obama, primarily because they wanted an end to the wars. So, what happened?

      We have a system where the government provides compulsory education for all students until high school – and up to 30% of them come out functionally illiterate. We have a system where the government regulates the safety of food – and yet food contamination is frequent, and the overall nutritional quality of the food supply is abysmal. We have a system where the government provides all roads, yet the ill effects of suburbans sprawl that this policy has subsidized has lead to an abysmal quality of life for millions. We have a system where government presumes to protect the masses from drugs, and yet drugs are as prevalent and dangerous as ever. We have a system where government highly regulates the supply of all medical services, and yet harmful practices such as over-prescription of antibiotics persist and even basic services have been priced out of the reach of the common person. etc. etc. etc.

      All of these stem, I argue, from the monopolistic, static nature of government services; where changing or replacing the service is very difficult or impossible; and where the service is responsive to the cumbersome, slow, inherently corruptible political process instead of what people actually want.


      The process of some warlord gaining power starts with convincing the people that they need a warlord to protect them.

      Certainly, there are power struggles. But, unfortunately, once a monopoly on violence is wants to expand. Every war is the result of some power that be trying to extend their power over someone else.

      THE INVASION OF NORMANDY? Man, you need to get your head out of the history books. “strong men of some type will impose their will on others through force..even if there isn’t a power void.” That’s EVERY war! WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, IRAQ?? just to name a few recent US involved ones. Come on.

      The point is that, establishing some dominion of force, isn’t a protection from anything..there’s a very real and constant danger that that body will continue to infringe weigh more and more heavily on the population of the country; or that it will go abroad on some bloody adventure.

      Sure, there are defenses to be made for the “state democracy” system..but to say that it is the ONLY way is just absurd. How many millions of people have been murdered by this “only way” to achieve peace??

      I feel that the course of human history has generally been a progression of abandonment of immoral and awful ideas, which seemed necessary at the time. Slavery, child abuse, racism, homophobia, abuse of women, etc. have all reduced over time.

      The wretched idea of the state, the people giving their trust in some body higher than themselves, that will protect them from all baddies and provide their every need, an faulty idea that has caused so much human not long for this world.

  38. I might have written this before, but it’s such a good analogy:

    Democracy is like going to a grocery store; but instead of choosing what you want from the shelves, at the entrance you find two shopping carts. You can only choose one cart or the other, even if you want some items in both, other items in the store, or you don’t want anything at all.

    Either way, you will pay for and receive the contents of one of those carts. Except! There’s no guarantee that you will get the cart you want, you don’t actually have much of a say in the matter. And whichever cart is chosen, the items in it might be removed or swapped around later without your consent. You will still pay the same price.

    There is nothing you can do about it, All sales are final.

    1. No, it’s really NOT a good analogy. Because you CAN pick from different carts…but usually there’s very little reason to do so.

      Teddy Roosevelt, John Anderson, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader all would argue that you had a choice in who to vote for. In fact, like it or hate it, one can hardly deny that the Tea Party candidates certainly show that sufficiently motivated voters CAN choose something else.

      That you are exist on the political fringe has no bearing on the realities of American political life.

      1. Hahaha..right. And how many of those carts got chosen? Umm…0. When was the last time a 3rd party won any major office? Bernie Sanders, OK, who else?

        So, you have demonstrated there are other shopping carts…and they might have some really enticing items in them…but YOU can’t have anything in them!

        I think you need to think about my analogy a little bit more.

    2. I think that is a tolerable analogy for how bourgeois democracy works in a first-past-the-post, winner-take-all, two-party system, most of the time. There are other visions of democracy, some of which have been put into practice.

      The old Bircher slogan “America is a Republic, Not a Democracy” often comes to mind when I look at how electoral politics works in the US. Of course, the John Birch Society saw that as a feature, rather than a bug, but even a broken pig finds an acorn twice a day.

  39. Joseph Heller told this joke better (and so have quite a few others), but given what a, uh, vigorous discussion Ruben raised, I guess it’s served a good purpose.

    1. That’s simply not accurate. I’ve read many people ignorantly saying “look what happens when you have a free market in firefighting,” about that event, but it’s it’s simply not a valid comparison.

      Why? Simply, because the firefighters in question were GOVERNMENT employees, providing a monopoly service, without any fear that their department would be displaced for poor performance.

      In a free market, what seems likely to me is that the company would charge a high rate to save the house – maybe several thousand dollars, but far less than the replacement cost of a new house. They would have every incentive to do so.

      To think that a profit seeking fire department would simply stand there and watch while the house burned down is absurd. They would both lose money immediately, and lose standing in the community that would hurt them in the long run. Only government agencies, protected from the market (ie, protected from the opinions of the citizens they serve), could do anything so stupid.

      1. There wasn’t anything preventing private entrepreneurs from coming up with their own competing free-market fire service. There just wasn’t any profit motive- firefighting is expensive and $75 a year is a good deal.

        Of course, even if such an alternative was available they likely would have passed on covering the home due to its “pre-existing condition.”

        1. The thing that prevents them – and this applies across a broad range of areas, education being an obvious example – is that everyone is already forced to pay for an existing service. No one is going to pay another $75 a year when they are already paying $75 a year. Why? This is one of the most destructive side effects of government services – the crowding out of entrepreneurs who cannot compete against a service that everyone is already forced to pay for.

          1. The thing that prevents them – and this applies across a broad range of areas, education being an obvious example – is that everyone is already forced to pay for an existing service.

            With all due respect, I believe this is an example of the exact opposite.

          2. You make it sound like some horrible conspiracy. Who would want a private fire company? Some things I can maybe understand, but firefighters? Is there some brewing, massive underground resentment against guys who run into burning building to save your ass and happen to work for a municipality?

          3. In this case, nothing was preventing them as the fire department was not funded by a mandatory tax in the house’s area but an optional fee to cover the cost to the municipality for services rendered beyond their jurisdiction. If somebody really wanted to compete with them, they could have. However, it would have been very hard because the $75 fee was not how the Fire Department was funded more generally and a private option for such a small customer base would have to charge much more just to break even. Try again.

          4. They could have: except that it would have been economically unfeasible.

            $75 is indeed a very low fee. It is subsidized by people who live in the city. No private company could come anywhere near, because they don’t have the power to tax people in the city.

            Of course, no company is going to set up shop providing services only to the rural residents – they would have a customer base of maybe a hundred homes, and in order to pay for a fire truck and station would have to charge $10,000 a year each – and if the $75 a year option was available, no one would buy their service.

            In a free market, if there were no public fire departments anywhere…this would not be such a problem. Providing fire services is something that has high fixed costs. If they could recoup these fixed costs by providing services to thousands of residents in a city, they could they afford to expand out to more rural areas. Maybe the cost would be higher – say a few hundred dollars a year – but it would be provided. It’s fair for people in rural areas to pay more, otherwise urban residents are subsidizing their lifestyle choice.

            Likely, in a totally free market, you would see more innovations in the provision of the service – such as a company producing a modular fire fighting pump that could be stored in a garage and carried on the bed of a pickup truck, so that even a couple people could provide basic low cost firefighting services for their communities as a side business.

          5. “In a free market, if there were no public fire departments anywhere…this would not be such a problem. Providing fire services is something that has high fixed costs. If they could recoup these fixed costs by providing services to thousands of residents in a city, they could they afford to expand out to more rural areas. Maybe the cost would be higher – say a few hundred dollars a year – but it would be provided. It’s fair for people in rural areas to pay more, otherwise urban residents are subsidizing their lifestyle choice.”

            But this is EXACTLY what is happening with the public fire dept! They recouped the fixed costs by providing service to those in the city via taxes, and offered expanded coverage to those outside the city for an additional fee.

            If anything, according to your model, the public fire dept is even more efficient, because the additional fee was $75, whereas in your proposal, it’s a few hundred dollars.

        2. I think I get it now. It’s the same as people being opposed to universal health care: some people don’t want to pay for cheap, community-funded care, they want to pay for their expensive individual care.

  40. This isn’t productive. I’m not a fan of the Tea Party or anything but I do understand that making fun of them doesn’t help anybody.

  41. All Tea Partiers are Redneck Idiots who have no idea what they’re talking about! LOLZ!

    [citation needed]

  42. Anon #57 “This cartoon makes it look as if urbanites have all the answers and should ensure that farmers do as they are told. I’m not sure if that is the intent. If the intent is to make fun of some unique political party, my apologies for myself missing what is obvious to Tom and the others for getting it.”
    Would you prefer it be an ex-military retiree and his retired public servant wife complaining about socialized healthcare? Or how about any other number of people who insist that they don’t use the government programs that they use?

    zyodei #58 “But…social security is bankrupt. There is no money in the Social Security account. All it holds are treasuries – IOUs from the US government.”
    SS is fine (and with minor changes will continue to be so). Wall Street wants to loot SS like it did your 401K.

    “Social Security is, literally, a ponzi scheme. It’s worked OK so far, but…”
    A ponzi scheme that lasts four generations is not a ponzi scheme.

    mhulsebu #120 “To be consistent they should probably drive a GM or a Chrysler…Ford did not take bail out money.”
    Yes. Except for the money they took.

    Lobster #118 “This isn’t productive. I’m not a fan of the Tea Party or anything but I do understand that making fun of them doesn’t help anybody.”

    “Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

  43. Anyone who doesn’t see the brilliance of what this cartoon is pointing out… IS part of the problem.

  44. So, because government agencies hold us hostage by making sure we’re dependent upon subsidies, we should bow to their virtue?

  45. “Even if you want no state, or a minimal state, then you have to argue point by point. Especially since the minimalists want to keep the economic and police system that keeps them privileged. That’s libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves. No! If you want to make the minimum-state case, you have to argue it from the ground up.”

    Kim Stanley Robinson, in Green Mars (1993), p. 371

  46. For all those who say the cartoon is exaggerated, hyperbolic, and/or racist:

    Come spend a month in fracking Texas. You will change your mind.

    Don’t get me wrong, there are lots of things I like about Texas (like men in ropers and cowboy hats who happen to also be progressive and well-informed – yes, they do exist; and Texican friends who throw hella awesome barbecues), but the majority of people I encounter on a day to day basis are pretty similar to the characters in the cartoon.

    Example: I have a friend who is part of a family of ranchers: they ranch cattle, oil, and natural gas. The last two have made them millionaires. The first one gets them subsidies. But they oppose “government waste.” Do they need subsidies to survive? Hell no. Ranching isn’t even their main occupation. It’s a “hobby.” But they’re also not about to let go of the little paycheck that supports their hobby. One of the cousins in this family was a devoted Republican, and he joined the Army right out of high school… at which point he started reading more, talked with his C.O.s (and is now an officer, himself) and eventually decided that the “old white men in Washington” have no idea what they’re doing insofar as defense-spending goes. He is now essentially a pariah because his family has decided he’s “communist.”

    We are talking about people who don’t understand communism, or socialism, or the difference between the two (and who think libertarians are evil because they’re almost called “liberals”), and they are convinced that Nazism, because it was called “national socialism” is a form of socialism and not a euphemistic term for an authoritarian government.

    But hey, what do I know? I’m just a “communist” putting a liberal spin on everything…

  47. Democracy of a non-homogeneous group is merely tyranny of the majority. IMO, micro-democracies, polity’s of very small population, are probably the best governments.

  48. The free market anarchist idea consists of free market police. Instead of paying taxes, they would be funded by local business owners, homeowners, and a fee tacked on rents.

    What you describe matches perfectly the Mob and Protection Rackets.

  49. Honestly, I didn’t this comic was really fair. It’s a funny running gag, kinda, but it two-dimensionally frames the idea of “non-government” as if it would mean a world without farms, jobs, mail, etc.

    I wish the two hillbillies were identified. Are those Republicans, tea party nuts, libertarians, or anarchists?

    I mean, obviously, it would defeat the purpose of the comic (lulz) to point out the idea that those benefits could be provided for in another way, that doesn’t require a government system (which they see as a bloated, corrupted apparatus.)

    The advocates of “non-government” that I’ve spoken with usually do have plans for what to do to replace all those benefits. they don’t intend to cut every system the government was running. they see government as a monopoly. just another big corporation. I don’t know about the viability of all those plans, but I don’t think they’re quite as hypocritical as this comic implies.

    The comic almost equates any “non-government” idealist as being a stupid hick… Not really a sophisticated or difficult joke to pull off. His other work on BoingBoing has so far been far better. :)

  50. @107: Anon was talking about the Norman Invasion, not the Invasion of Normandy. Also, you mention that Americans voted for Obama in order to end the wars, but imply that Obama has instead singlehandedly enervated government services, and that the solution is to completely abolish said services and let anarchy reign. Lolwut?

    1. Why did people vote for Obama to end wars? He made no such campaign promise. He has not ended anything. Everybody wanted him to end the wars, but he very clearly said he would not. Nor has he restored habeus corpus or ended warrantless wiretapping.


      Same shit, different guy.

      1. On his website, Mr Obama promises he “will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months”.

        US election: Barack Obama wobbles on withdrawing Iraq troops

        A lot of people voted for him to end at least one war, because unlike the people in the White House and Congress, they don’t have all kinds of different definitions for things like ‘combat’, ‘brigades’ and ‘war’, to pull out of their asses as the situation calls.

    2. Right, sorry, I was typing a bit sloppily and made two mistakes. I understand he was talking about the Norman war against the Anglo-Saxons – my point is that every war is a similar thing, you don’t have to look back 1000 years to find something like this, there are enoughe examples in the last decade. Also, “what happened?” was supposed to be an open question, not an opening for the next paragraph. The next paragraph is a separate idea. I didn’t edit it carefully.

  51. Anarchists, if you don’t recognize your movement in this comic, it’s obvious not talking about you. Next up: anyone upset that this portrays all farmers as being anti-government, even though that’s not how your cousin the farmer voted in the last election?

  52. I’m personally offended by that gun. There’s no receiver, and it doesn’t look like any gun I’ve seen. What a jerk.

  53. Another thought on the “public vs. private fire service” thing: the greatest value you get from a responsive fire department isn’t that they’ll put out your house when it catches on fire- it’s that they’ll put out your neighbor’s house before the fire spreads to yours in the first place. In effect, by paying the modest fee that homeowner’s neighbors had been subsidizing his safety for years while he did nothing for them in return.

  54. What I find most disturbing here is the resemblance between Ma and Nate the Neoconservative. Could it be…

  55. Wow. The current of this thread seems to have transformed as much as the conception of anarchy itself. I just spent a bit reading the entire thread. So much intelligence, yet so much reification of reality models. Regardless of whether they are economic, political, philosophical. I find it insightful to look at base etymology often.
    In this case we have “without+authority”. Organization (A set, an occasion of experience, et cetera) in existence without authority.
    My academic focus has only been on religion generally, and ethology of reality models in particular. In light of this, one may appreciate that I am not attempting to invalidate any of the above claims, or the reality models of which they are an expression of.
    Yet it cannot be ignored that, the development of the concept of ‘(organization) without authority’ is quite different between occidental and oriental reality models. The former has developed an understanding which can only exist in light of political or economic models. The latter seems to have developed an understanding which exists a priori such models, and appears to be synonymous with reality/universe/nature itself.
    One does not have to read a history of anarchy in the west (though I do recommend G Woodcock’s balanced analysis) to see how the occidental tradition ‘seats’ anarchy within a frame of politics and economy. One only has to read this (for the most part very intelligent) comment thread. An understanding of this concept in the west can be found by reading Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, and the accessible history of Chinese philosophy by Fung Yu-Lan.
    I hope this adds something to what is being thought and said about a funny comic… man that dancing bug makes me laugh!

  56. Sorry about the punctuation and typing that last ‘west’ which is meant to be ‘east’. Typing while tired :)

  57. My daughter e-mailed me copy of “After the Revolution”. Here’s some bills introduced into Montana Legislature this term by Tea Partiers/Conservatives/Republicans/General Kooks. But, hey, we elect ’em. Ya gotta love it. Welcome to Monana, “The Last Best Place”. A bill to allow spear hunting. A bill to allow hunters to have silencers on ther rifles. A bill to allow concealed weapons anywhere, including churches and bars and, no permit required. A bill to allow the formation of local militias. A bill requiring the FBI to get permission from the local sheriff before serving a warrant. A bill to end US membership in the UN. A bill requiring presidential candidates to show proof of citizenship. And the list goes on. At least we have term limits in Montana but I suspect that there’s more waiting in the wings. Welcome to Montana; home of the Freemen and the Unibomber. Signed, A Montana Rancher.

  58. On the silly post that starts this list off:
    Wow, what a racist comic… (etc.)

    Disemvoling is fantastic, and I support it a lot. I also understand that this comment does not contravene posting guidelines.

    However, the tendency of “first posts” to create the idea line which can, and in this circumstance certainly does, skew the discussion into drivel, happens too often, and its a form of hijacking. The religious right, which studies show fill the ranks of the “anti gummint” crowd, the astro-turfed, paid for by the Koch brothers crowd are in demographic terms much as described.
    I wonder if we could randomize the display of comments, so that commentors 14 through eight thousand etc, wwouldn’t think that the first poster is the point that needs discussion.

    In any case, it grates on nerves to see a discussion sidelined like this.

  59. Agricultural subsidies have and continue to kill millions in the developing world by stopping them competing for market share, hence preventing the adoption of efficient industrialized farming and also by artificially inflating food prices.

    American “liberals” should be ashamed of themselves for supporting this policy..

  60. Hey guys, USA is a more socialist country than you think of. Is that bad?, not at all!. :)

  61. Wow what a freak-out thread this comic has started – frankly I find the discussion much more interesting than the obvious premise of the strip. And thanks to some of you for pointing out the truths about the origins and corruptions of this latest anti-government movement.

    Two things though- be careful what you say, there are more sedition laws on the books now than ever before; and secondly, before you start knocking the guns-n-gold movement (really guns-n-gold/silver), I have done over 300% return with my guns-n-gold, vs. the poor and risky returns of the traditional markets, without having to add to any bankers pay.

  62. Smaller government concentrates more power into fewer hands. The smallest government I can think of is one man, a king.

    1. …and a King always runs the Government as a private business.

      Something for American conservatives to ponder.

Comments are closed.