There was an interesting bit on last Monday's Daily Show (2/22) (around 11:00) . Samantha Bee did a bit where she was making fun of anarchists.
Superficially, you might say "Hey! That's pro-State trolling!" In one sense, that is true. In another sense, it's progress. Ridiculing anarchists is one step ahead of ignoring them. Some statists were sufficiently threatened by the truth, that they wrote a sketch ridiculing it.
Is the freedom movement moving to part two of Gandhi's success formula? "First, they ignore you. Then, they ridicule you. Then, they fight you. Then, you win." Ridiculing a viewpoint is better than completely ignoring it.
However, "They fight you!" already occurs for people who avoid taxes, use gold and silver as money, or otherwise ignore stupid regulations. Most people who resist the State and get caught are using foolish strategies, instead of proper agorism.
Samantha Bee's pro-State trolling is obviously stupid. She said "Without government, business owners would pollute." In the present, tort reform and limited liability incorporation provide State protection to polluters. Suing a polluter in a corrupt State court is an expensive and drawn-out process. Only the most egregious pollution abuses are punished. State comedians then loudly tout this as evidence they're doing a great job. "The environment!" is an excuse that State parasites invented, so they could claim more power, when the State enables polluters to get away with their crimes.
Pro-State trolls say "Without government, problem X would occur." The reality is that problem X occurs in the present, precisely because of government. This makes the pro-State trolling believable. As another example, "Without government, thugs would go around extorting from people!" This is exactly how State tax collectors operate in the present; the theft is protected by an illusion of legitimacy.
When I saw The Daily Show ridiculing anarchists, I was simultaneously pleased and offended. It's a type of progress. It's offensive, because Jon Stewart is an establishment ****sucker, but he's also the host of one of the most freedom-minded shows. There's a "debate ceiling". Jon Stewart represents one of the limits of acceptable mainstream media content. Jon Stewart is pushing the limits of the debate ceiling, making other ideas seem more permissible.
Lately, Jon Stewart has been more interested in giving President Obama a ****job than actually pointing out the foolish things he's doing. Jon Stewart says "WTF? We needed healthcare reform!" instead of "The actual healthcare 'reform' proposal was thinly disguised corporate welfare. The real problem is the State licensing cartel for doctors, combined with other harmful regulations."
When I see The Daily Show, my reaction usually is "I could do better." I'm going to try that in the next few years. I'll have to self-publish on the Internet, rather than hold my breath waiting for a mainstream media contract. If you think about it, all good comedians are really anarchists.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
The Daily Show Ridicules Anarchists
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
FSK,
The Jon Stewart show, and everything else on Comedy Central is propaganda disguised as entertainment. The Daily Show is supposedly one of the primary sources of information about the world to teenagers and college students (heaven help us), but I don't consider it a "harmless" comedy program-- the show encourages destructive attitudes among children by heaping ridicule without encouraging discussions, research, or anything productive. The little "anarchy" sketch was a prime example. Another example: a few years back, South Park tried to convince their audience that anybody who doesn't believe the official story about the September 11th attack was retarded. Why are we putting up with this? I'm convinced that the people who create and promote South Park and The Daily Show are working with the criminal network in some way.
Slight correction to the above: it encourages destructive attitudes among children AND adults as well.
>"Without government, thugs would go
>around extorting from people!"
This happens already. Just Google the term "legal extortion".
In the United Kingdom, one judge made law that unsigned contracts can be enforced. The case was about two men that had a business, one man got sick and then after a while came back and demanded a cut of his business. A solicitor waved a contract under this man's nose, he never signed it, but a court enforced the contract as if it was signed.
OK, the ruling was on a specific set of maybe unusual circumstances but now we have stupid case law in the UK that unsigned contracts can be enforced if one party relies on the contract or if parties "act" as if the contract was signed, even though it was never signed.
I once saw an episode of Hill Street Blues where a mob thug was trying to get a shop owner to sign a contract under threat of violence. Once the contract was signed, the mafia could legally extort money from the shop owner for non-existent or poor quality cleaning services.
Now in the UK a solicitor, if he has a dodgy client, can wave an unsigned contract under your nose and then if you do something that they could possibly say means you have acted like the contract might be signed, even though it was never signed, they can come and knock on your door and ASK YOUR HARD TO GIVE THEM A BAG OF CASH.
And it is legal!!!!
If challenged the crooks will cite bad UK case law.
The difference between mafia thugs and the legal profession is very small.
Does the government do something about this? No.
Anonymous has mentioned this "solicitors extorting in the UK" problem several times. Did it happen to you or someone you know?
This can also happen in the USA. If you are accused of "illegal filesharing", a lawyer can send you a letter threatening to sue you.
If a lawyer sends a letter saying "Do X or I'll sue you!", that's a type of legal extortion.
Your signature on your tax return isn't a valid contract, according to natural law, because it's under threat of violence. Try not signing your tax return or refusing to file!
State courts are completely corrupt and have practically no legitimacy, especially when one side is using the State to harass/extort.
I think the lawyer acting for the wife of a famous Scottish actor, wrote in a leaked letter than one of the points of civil law suits is harassment.
I do believe that a certain fraction of civil law suits are only about harassment or gaining unearned and undeserved money. Even if a case doesn't get to court, the lawyers gain a lot of money in stupid letter ping-pongs.
In the United Kingdom decades ago, a young man checked with his local council about the boundaries of his garden. He built something. I can't remember whether it was a vegetable patch, a shed or a fence but after checking the boundaries he built something. Decades went by. The man became a nearly-blind war veteran and his wife died. Now ACCORDING TO THE UK LAW THE FACT THAT THE MAN HAD OCCUPIED THE FULL EXTENT OF HIS GARDEN FOR DECADES MEAN THAT ALL THE LAND IS LEGALLY HIS, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT WHETHER SOME OF THE LAND MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN HIS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE POSSESSION. I.E. The law says if you occupy land for tens of years and nobody objects then the LAND IS YOURS.
However a bunch of scum-bags got hold of his address. They wrote a threatening letter address to his DEAD WIFE. Give us some of your garden or else the nasty clowns said. The old, nearly blind man was very distressed because the scum-bag lawyers had addressed the letter to his dead wife. HOW RUDE AND NASTY!!
The poor man died of a heart attack days letter after the scum bag lawyers threatened him.
The coroner said his heart attack was brought on by stress.
The story was reported by The Mail on Sunday.
Threatening people in the United Kingdom for money and/or property if done in a certain way by lawyers seems to be legal.
Why does passing bar exams in the United Kingdom, make some scum-bag solicitors feel they have a license to extort money and/or property form people?
Why doesn't the government stop these scum-bag, morally bankrupt clowns?
Personally I find more humor in Tom Woods, and by the end I actually learn something useful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-LJ3wZjD4I
Post a Comment