We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

This pretty much says it all…

man_vs_state.jpg

via The Hipster Libertarian

15 comments to This pretty much says it all…

  • Alisa

    I hear that it has been reworded from the original, which read ‘poor vs. rich':-)

  • ragingnick

    notice the man ‘stealing’ is wearing a top hat – clearly a signifier of wealth. The cartoon suggests the only reason he is rich is because he is stealing from the worker.

    In other words the cartoon is marxist nonsense

  • In other words the cartoon is marxist nonsense

    Yeah because people who use the state to rent seek are never the wealthy, right? Actually it is an exquisite anti-statist detournement, even if it is lost on you, a bit like this.

  • Richard Thomas

    Nonsense. The state would require the fisherman to deliver the money himself using implied threat of force.

  • Alisa

    Yeah because people who use the state to rent seek are never the wealthy, right?

    The rent-seekers become wealthy by means of rent-seeking – but not all wealth is acquired by such means. I tend to agree with ragingnick: the graphics strongly smack of class warfare, although the change of wording not only rectifies that, but also sends the boomerang back towards the original creators.

  • Alisa

    Richard: not before it would require him to fill all of the appropriate forms.

  • JohnB

    Surely Marxism, and other socialist systems, are a tool of the elite hidden behind worker camouflage, ragingnick?

    Has it never bothered you that the wealthy bankers have not effectively objected to the recent stereotyping?

    Even played along with it by accepting widely publicised bonuses way out of proportion to reality.

    And these are the guys that control things?
    (Which should include the media, of course.)

    Well, yes. No doubt they do. But perhaps, clearly, not quite as has established in the popular perception.

  • the change of wording not only rectifies that, but also sends the boomerang back towards the original creators.

    That is exactly what detournement aims to do.

  • Bogdan from Australia

    The most precise and yet most universal description would be a “human of a smart and honest work versus a PARASITE”

    Both groups exist in all stratas of human family.

    A state that has been created to serve us all and protect us can certainly become a parasitic worm on our collective human body.

    So can even an initially succesful businessman.

    Like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Blomberg, Zuckerberg for example.

    All of them begin at some stage to collaborate with a parasitic leftoid regime to secure not only a lush government contract financed by money stolen from hard and smart working citizens but also to secure a competition free enviroment.

    On the other side, the most powerful impulse that drives a lumpenproletariat to support a parasitic regime is to secure a system where “IT” will be relieved from the obligation of thinking.

    In response “IT” will excuse and forgive its leader even to most immoral and vile behaviour.

    Wasn’t the politically primitive American mob willing to forgive Clinton his degenerate antics in the White House and defend him to death.

    Edward Kennedy was not only one of the most immoral political figures in America’s history. He was also a traitor and yet for the American Left he has always been a hero.

    What we have always to bear in our minds that the existing political construction in which the PARASITE can outvote a HUMAN OF SMART AND HONEST WORK and steal his money with impunity has nothing to do with a true DEMOCRACY.

    Such a sytem is a PARASITOCRACY.

    We don’t have to accept that.

    And certainly we have a moral right to fight such a degenerate socio-political construction with any means.

    As we would with an open slavery…

    Greetings from Ausie.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Well said, Bogdan. Especially the part about successful businessmen who go on to become successful…parasites.

  • Alisa

    Zuckerberg?

    Clinton?

  • Laird

    I don’t know about Zuckerberg; I don’t think he has become a parasite. (Yet.) He provides a service which the market values (why it does is beyond me, but that’s irrelevant), and he is being rewarded for his acumen. We can revisit this point once he starts pressuring the government to mandate the use of his service, or to hamper his competition. But not until then.

    But Clinton always was a parasite. His only saving grace is that at times he is an entertaining one.

  • Paul Marks

    Laird – agreed.

  • James Waterton

    I have no doubt that this was originally a (rather ham-fisted and backward) critique of the relationship between the rich and the poor. However, it is far more pertinent as an illustration of the relationship between the citizen and the government.

    I mean, how does a rich man “steal” a poor man’s fish? By selling him something he wants. It’s a voluntary trade.

    But a government does exactly* what is displayed to a worker.

    *ok, the violence the state will bring to bear against the worker if it isn’t able to obtain the fish from the worker is not represented. Nevertheless, I still think it’s an elegant demonstration of the relationship between the government and the taxed that would introduce a new perspective to someone who hasn’t thought about such things before. A picture being worth a thousand words and all.