from here: http://www.leftycartoons.com/the-24-types-of-libertarian/
I believe this is stage 2 in the intellectual battle. Anyway, if you can debunk these 24 misconceptions, then you’re ready to be sent out to battle.
doesn’t seem like much to debunk, they’re only jokes. But the apostle is a little unfair however, especially since any attempt to explain ourselves will result in a “history of economic theory” lecture -it’s not possible to rhetorically communicate the ideals of freedom, you must engage others on a truly intellectual level.
I’m with you fakename, The Apostle was the only one that really irked me.
Yes. The problem is that it is a long road to libertarian conclusions. One can’t express or transmit libertarian political philosophy through sound bites.
Without knowing the underlying science and philosophy libertarians sound just like petulant brats who don’t want to pay their ‘fair share’.
There is hope, though. Through some attrition I’ve converted a friend of mine from full fledged socialism to “post-hayekian socialism”…it’s a start. Education is key.
The “Too Smart for Science” one got me. That is the opponents of Liberty can not conceive that govenrment provided science has corrupted the scientific community to such a degree that the Scientific Community itself has been fooled into believing in this global warming nonsense. But to make matters worse the social science community and especially the economics community have rejected the ideas of freedom, free markets, free association and efficiency for the idea that there are these gifted humans capable of commanding the world and making it a better place.
^Brilliant, that was hilarious too.
The “Too Smart for Science” and “Arrogant” ones annoy me, haha. Because libertarians actually realize that most people commonly believe in global warming for one reason: they know someone whose sister’s friend saw a review for An Inconvenient Truth, a movie promoted by a senator.
What misconceptions? You can find half of those personality types on this forum on any given Sunday.
I thought it was funny because it was true.
which one am i?
What misconceptions? You can find half of those personality types on this forum on any given Sunday.
I thought it was funny because it was true.
Cite?
which one am i?
Stoned 
Perhaps in “typical” fashion we should make one for the statists.
damn, I was hoping for arrogant or ‘more libertarian than thou’…
I must redouble my efforts
Yeah right.
link to finished version in post below…
LeftyCartoons is one of my favourites.
His race cartoons are very very good for putting down standard racist writebacks online.
A lot of these “racialist” characters who have come out of the woodworks to say, “We don’t HATE other races; we just think we are different and need to protect our own culture” while thinly veiling contempt for other ethnicities in their streets just for their appearance and manner have become rather widespread on the internet.
Now, when such people use anti-affirmative-action rhetoric, it is not for positive creation, but negative protection. The reasons cited will always be for protecting their country club lifestyle, not because affirmative action harms minorities more than it helps them (see Malays in Malaysia).
LeftyCartoons breaks through all these shameless pretensions and exposes such people for what they are.
As for this cartoon on libertarians:
People, remember that Lew Rockwell once told Thomas Fleming jokingly: “Joe Sobran calling himself a libertarian? Is he a tax cheat or a child molester? I just ask, because it seems people these days become libertarians to make up for their moral failings.”
Classical liberalism seems to attract all kinds of garbage, and it’s good that other people make fun of them. We don’t need rubbish like Alex Jones fans, Randians, Republican Party cheerleaders, Southern American racists, third-rate conspiracy bloggers, Tea Party degenerates, Paul Craig Roberts, and other people calling themselves as champions of liberty these days.
You don’t realize how much we benefit from this mocking of such characters.
Frankly, I think stuff like this isn’t even worth replying to, if you want to have serious intellectual discussion. But, just for fun:
Naive: Legitimate criticism. There are a number of people who blindly assume a governmentless society would be able to formulate laws and organisational procedures without elucidating the process by which they believe this would arise**.** People like Long et.al actually put the effort to go out and examine the incentives for law creation and historical examples of such.
Petulant: Legitimate criticism. And it’s not just in the political sphere I see this kind of thing, either.
Too Smart For Science: Has the author ever heard of Piltdown Man? Climategate? No doubt he or she would decry any studies to the contrary of the IPCC’s as “Funded by Big Oil interests”, and yet somehow thinks research grants, fame and government protected positions are not sufficient motivations (let alone the incentives for their backers..) for climate scientists to falsify data, exaggerate or simply lie.
Arrogant: Legitimate but rather generic criticism. There are people like this all over the political spectrum.
Left-wing: I don’t even understand the point of this one. Is it a jab at the mutualists near-complete isolation from just about everybody except factions of left-anarchists?
Denial-ican: A fairly silly criticism. The fact that one may be pragmatic enough to see that third party voting is not a viable option for the immediate future doesn’t indicate blind loyalty to party principles. Compare this person’s stated principles with the Republican Party platform (and the actions of its members).
More Libertarian Than Thou: Has some truth to it. A lot of discussions I’ve seen here and on the FSP seem to devolve into oneupmanship festivals where the next person posts a more radical proposal than the last.
Terrified: Now this is just plain hypocritical. There are paranoid nuts of a libertarian bent (Alex Jones, David Kramer, just to name a couple) but isn’t it the other sorts who are always screaming “If it wasn’t for government, children would work in coal mines for 28 hours a day for half a cent, people would have to sell their internal organs just to pay the rent, the economy would have collapsed after the banks and we’d all be slaves of the evil bourgeious overlords!”
Too Much Heinlein: Holy crap, it’s Billy Dee Williams! I do like the irony of having what looks like a black dude proclaim his superiority, though. I’ve not read Heinlein, but if I heard someone saying this IRL, I’d think more of Rand.
The Island: You know, I’ve never been to America, but unless I’m very mistaken (and putting the income tax nuts aside), I don’t think paying for (and attending) government education, social security and government roads is a voluntary act. If it is, someone better tell Irwin Schiff. The guy’s been in the slammer for what, 30 years now?
Creepy: I was so disappointed when I learned that this guy wasn’t wearing a trenchcoat. Seriously, he looks less like a pedophile and more like a metrosexual Dr. Evil from Miami. In any case, please show me those pedophile libertarians so we can all mock them and laugh at their creepy stupidity.
Selectively Frugal: Legitimate criticism, though I can see equally legitimate concerns that “temporary” tax hikes to keep the budget solvent may prove anything but temporary.
Nepotist: Wealthy, established pundits? The guy even bears a resemblance to Krugman! Projection at it’s finest, folks.
The Apostle: No, wait, I was wrong. This is projection par excellence. I don’t think I need to elaborate.
Atlas: That is funny, but a rather ironic criticism for someone who would probably consider himself a “champion of the people”.
Consistent: What the hell is with this guy’s nose? He looks like the product of a love affair between a Spy from Spy vs Spy and a human.
The Historian: Ah, yes, I’m sure the Founding Fathers would have agreed that big government and high taxes are a wondrous thing. That’s why they were notable for always paying the British Empire’s tea taxes and obeying every letter of their laws.
Gunner Joe: Uhh… right. Citation needed, bro.
Bizarrelly Hypocritical: I’m not going to say a word on this one, for obvious reasons.
Briefly Tempting: What’s with this guy’s head? Has Arnold from Hey Arnold turned to political activism in his middle age?
Whitey: I just love the expression on this guy’s face. The parody having him as a moral guardian really hit the nail on the head. Also, for the slow: Supporting someone’s right to control their own property doesn’t mean you would do the same in their situation or that you morally approve of their behaviour.
Missionary: It’s a Vykker! Run for the hills!
Caveat Emptor: This has some basis in truth, but it’s really better aimed specifically at the anti-division-of-labour/paleo/grow-your-own/DIY crowd than libertarians in general.
Stoned: You said it, buddy.
This whole thing sounds very photoshoppable. I smell more parodies (perhaps a nonpolitical one) brewing.
Some of these just indicate how poorly people understand our positions, e.g. the caveat emptor one…
Non-funny strawmen.
