Bonus Friday Cartoon: What the "Techno-Industrial System" Denies Us


Hat tip to C.S. Prakash.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I saw that today. God, that is the best cartoon I have seen in years. It is just brilliant on so many levels.

  • ||

    It was the leopards man, the leopards.

  • ||

    What a stupid cartoon.

    It's dumb and dishonest on so many levels.

    Most people who believe in the health benefits of clean water and organic foods aren't anti-science or medicine. Nor do they refuse to take anti-biotics when sick or use a lot of other things that have increased our life spans that have absolutely nothing to do with creating a larger, redder, insect resistant, genetically modified tomatoe.

    But feel free to applaud attacks on strawmen.

  • Matt Moore||

    Clap. Clap. Clap.

  • ||

    ChicagoTom:

    It's gotta be really difficult going through life without a sense of humor.

    Also, you spell "tomato" like Dan Quayle.

  • ||

    ChicagoTom,

    It is a good thing liberals are not humorless or anything.

  • ||

    Bily Connolley would blame it on the saber-toothed earthworms.

    How many ChicagoToms does it take to change a lightbulb?

  • ||

    "Most people who believe in the health benefits of clean water and organic foods aren't anti-science or medicine."

    Speaking of a straw man.

    Asshat.

  • ||

    Emmajane:
    None. ChicagoToms live in the dark recesses of their own hyper-sensitivity and irony-free humorlessness.

  • ||

    Ron,

    It would have been all the more funny if the line had been "Somethings just not right, our air is clean, our water is pure, we stopped producing greenhouse gases ages ago, we all get plenty of exercize, everything we eat is organic and free range, and yet nobody lives past thirty."

  • ||

    This cartoon is great, on alot of levels.
    But it does further a misconception about low life expectancies pre 20th Century.
    Much of the improvement in life expectancy came from greatly improving the odds of living through birth and early childhood. Alot of people died very young.
    But if you made it past, you had a reasonable chance of living into your 50's or older.

  • taktix||

    ChicagoTom:

    It's clearly a joke based on the "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

    If you're so pissed about the cartoon, why don't you go start riots in the Middle East and Europe?

    ssssss.... Sorry. Too soon?

  • ||

    Not finding something that isn't funny to be unfunny doesn not make one humorless.

    If it was witty or clever, I could understand.

    But I don't find mischaracterizing opinions/beliefs and then taking attacking that mischaracterization as witty or clever....just dishonest.

    If that makes me "humorless", well then I guess I am humorless.

    Witty humor would be to attack the reality, not the mischaracterization of reality, IMO.

    And seriously, if this is "the best cartoon seen in years" then it isn't my sense of humor that should be questioned.

    Speaking of a straw man.

    Asshat.

    Fuck you, M. Miggs.

    The implication of the cartoon was clearly that the whole organic foods movement is people who want us to go back to the dark ages and are anti-progress. I presented no straw man. Feel free to tell me where my understanding of the cartoon is incorrect.

  • Sandy||

    And of course, the water was pure from industrial pollutants but not water-borne diseases. Getting rid of that problem gave us the modern life expectancy. The rest of medicine is almost marginal by comparison.

  • ||

    ChicagoTom, you are in need of a swirlie and a titty-twister.

  • ||

    statsandmorestats:

    Generally a good point, but even as late as 1900 only 1 in 20 Americans made past age 60.

    ChicagoTom:

    If that makes me "humorless", well then I guess I am humorless.

    What you said.

  • ||

    It is a good thing liberals are not humorless or anything.

    I know, 'cause Pat Robertson is well-known for his cheery sense of humor.

    Oh, man--it's another strawman! It's a strawman festival.

  • ||

    If you're so pissed about the cartoon, why don't you go start riots in the Middle East and Europe?

    Uhmmm...how does not finding something funny translate into being pissed??

    The cartoon didn't piss me off. I just commented on the unfunnyness of it. I seem to remember quite a few H-N-R posts where tons of commenters railed about how unfunny cartoons like this in general have gotten....are they all angry / pissed too?? Or is it only people who present differing viewpoints who are labeled as angry or "pissed" and equated with Muslim rioters?

    Last I checked the point of having comments is to allow readers to post their opinions.....does not having a conforming opinion on a topic make on humorless and angry and pissed?? Just asking

  • ||

    Ronald Bailey,

    I don't think that the cartoon reflects the true nature of the life expectancy of hunter-gatherers, etc. Indeed, it is about as bad as those stupid FedEx commercials which portrary homonids living with dinosaurs.

  • ||

    ChicagoTom:
    I figure if I eat enough non-organic food, wolf down just enough genetically modified produce and wash it all down with the right amount of treated groundwater, I'll be able to shave a day or two off my life. That is, unless I also take up smoking, which should subtract another few years.
    You've really bought wholesale into the organic lifestyle bullshit, haven't you?

  • ||

    Yeah, we need higher standards for cartoons and fedEx commercials. It isn't likely that the men in the cartoon spoke modern English, either.

  • ||

    Stop propping up straw hats, assman.

  • ||

    Stop propping up strawhats, assman.

  • ||

    "The implication of the cartoon was clearly that the whole organic foods movement is people who want us to go back to the dark ages and are anti-progress."

    No it's not, dummy. The implication is that there are SOME people who still buy into the whole romantic image of the "noble savage", the majority of whom wouldn't last a weekend without air conditioning.

    Now go get your shinebox.

  • ||

    Not to gang up on ChicagoTom or anything, but you wrote earlier:

    What a stupid cartoon.

    It's dumb and dishonest on so many levels.

    Then...

    Uhmmm...how does not finding something funny translate into being pissed??

    Now - I'll take you at your word that you aren't really angry, but describing something as stupid, dumb, and dishonest, certainly isn't the same as saying it's not funny.

    I'm just saying - don't imply angry and expect people to think you're not.

  • ||

    To those who may be puzzled:

    Let me explain about the theory of "humor"--jokes for example are based on the juxtaposition of the unexpected with conventional wisdom. You see, and I'll take this slowly, the conventional wisdom is that pure air and water and organic foods lead to longer healthier lives. Now, and I hope you get this part because this is where the "joke" comes in--when the caveman says "yet nobody lives past 30" that's the unexpected conclusion--sometimes called the "punchline." Of course explaining a joke to someone who doesn't get it just ruins it.

  • ||

    Ron,

    This is SO not funny. How did Neandertals know what organic and free-range even meant without any alternative??

    (sarcasm)

  • ||

    My archeaologist friend said that in the bronze age, many (I forget the exact percentage he gave me) people did not live past 30. And those who did showed signs of trauma - broken bones and cuts. Some people got smashed in the noggin, and they would drill a hole in their head to relieve the pressure - some of those people actually survived.

    But it wasn't even so much the water or air that killed them young, but actual person on person violence.

  • ||

    Ron Bailey,

    We're all aware that this is a joke. The problem is that it isn't a terribly funny joke for those of us who know something about pre-neolithic societies (one can only assume we're talking about mesolithic people here).

  • Jim Lesczynski||

    This is the greatest work of comedy since "An Inconvenient Truth."

  • ||

    I'm just saying - don't imply angry and expect people to think you're not.

    I didn't imply angry, you inferred it. The reason I didn't find the joke funny is because it was stupid.
    Stupid is not funny, to me.

    There are plenty of stupid jokes that people don't find funny. Saying that a joke is stupid doesn't imply anger...it implies stupidity.

    I used those words to explain why it wasn't funny, to me. I suppose I could have just said "thats not funny" and left it at that -- next time I will be sure to post in an approved manner.

    Although I have an unsubstanciated hunch that I would still have been attacked by some even if I would have simply said "that's not funny"

    Maybe people inferred anger because they have preconceived notions about those they think are "liberal" or whatever other labels they like to apply to people who don't conform to their views?

    Of course explaining a joke to someone who doesn't get it just ruins it.

    So if you don't find it funny -- its because you dont get it? Good to know.

    I got the joke -- I just didn't think it was funny... I am entitled to that right?

  • ||

    Lowdog,

    Yes, but these are stone-age people; specifically pre-Neolithic people. The bronze age was well into what we would call the advent of human civilization.

  • ||

    Prediction: Our children will eat more organic food than we do, and they will have a longer life expectancy.

    I'm not implying a connection, just pointing something out.

  • ||

    Your world frightens and confuses me.

  • ||

    Phileleutherus Lipsiensus - yes, I am aware of that, I was just throwing out what little I had to contribute to the discussion.

  • ||

    Huh. I wonder if these were the guys who were doing the chimps.

  • ||

    Prediction: Our children will eat more junk food than we do, and they will have a longer life expectancy.

    I'm not implying a connection, just pointing something out.

  • ||

    Actually, now that I have my glasses on, I can see that they are actually supposed to be neanderthals. I don't think this adds any humor to the cartoon.

  • ||

    Really, that is too rich. Clearly, the prominent Mauer mandible indicates Homo heidelbergensis.

    Neanderthalensis, indeed. Harumph.

  • SPD||

    Lamar Alexander sez: "See? Even cavemen could speak perfect English! What's the big deal?"

    A great weekend to all regardless of political stripe!

  • ||

    Pro Libertate,

    I find about as much humor in this cartoon as I find poignant drama in Mel Gibson's The Patriot.

  • ||

    That movie didn't work for me, either. I liked Braveheart, even if it was a little off on the history. The Patriot, well, I can only just barely recall that it had something to do with some war we fought in. Which one was it again? :)

    I thought the cartoon was funny when we started, but now I'm having to make up anthropological humor to keep it fresh. Must be time to go home.

  • ||

    Pro Libertate,

    A little off? Now that is funny. :)

    Which one was it again? :)

    *groan*

  • ||

    I don't get it. There are no environmental regulations, no zoning regulations, no subsidized industries, no anti-poverty programs, no Social Security, and yet I'm squatting on a dirt floor and my teeth are rotting.

  • ||

    Whattsamatter, baby, ain't you libertoids got no sense of humor?

  • ||

    Actually, now that I have my glasses on, I can see that they are actually supposed to be neanderthals. I don't think this adds any humor to the cartoon.

    Yes, I think we are all sufficiently clear that you find no humor in the cartoon; that has been meticulously demonstrated (and explained) by the earnestness of your concern over the classification of the cartoon characters as pre-Neolithic, bronze-age or Neanderthal.

  • ||

    To those who may be puzzled:

    Let me explain about the theory of "humor"--jokes for example are based on the juxtaposition of the unexpected with conventional wisdom. You see, and I'll take this slowly, the conventional wisdom is that the absense of regulation and government involvement in the economy lead to greater wealth. Now, and I hope you get this part because this is where the "joke" comes in--when the caveman says "yet I'm squatting on a dirt floor and my teeth are rotting" that's the unexpected conclusion--sometimes called the "punchline." Of course explaining a joke to someone who doesn't get it just ruins it.

    Not that I'm an arrogant, condesending prick or anything.

  • ||

    God.

    Damn.


    You are all a bunch of dorks.

  • ||

    This is just now dawning on you, mg?

  • ||

    Joe, I'm including you in that statement, too.

  • uncle sam||

    It didn't strike me funy either.
    I liked the one with two cavemen sitting by a fire gnawing on big haunches, one says to the other: "It doesn't get any better than this." That was funny.

  • ||

    lol, joe wins the thread

  • ||

    That cartoon is so offensive.

  • ||

    Mediageek, but the question is, are you including yourself?

  • ||

    MainStreamMan-

    Nobody with an ass as hot as mine could possibly be a dork.

    :-D

  • uncle sam||

    Damn! It took me about 5 attempts to get past the server squirrels and I never noticed I missplled 'funny'.

  • uncle sam||

    It falls short of funny because it is excessively anachonistic.

  • ||

    Oh, and that's pronounced Neander-tahl not Neander-thul, you small-browed, inset-chinned weaklings.

  • ||

    I did not know that an un-hot ass was a required attribute of dorkiness...

    wow, you learn something new each day.
    And I thought this guy

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/kupka.jpg

    was a dork. But I guess not.

  • ||

    MSM-

    See, this is why it's good to learn something new every day.

  • ||

    Nobody with an ass as hot as mine could possibly be a dork.

    That's sooo not true. I know a few self described dorks that have some smoking hot asses.

  • ||

    mediageek,

    I'd rather be a dork than a dick. :)

  • ||

    Phileleutherus

    But would your rather have a smart ass than a hot ass?

  • ||

    Brian Courts,

    We Beavers have got to stick together.

  • ||

    MSM,

    No, I'd rather just be smart.

  • ||

    I think my work here is done.

  • ||

    We Beavers have got to stick together.

    Heh heh, yep - Go Beavs! Anyway, no offense P.L., whatever your feelings about the cartoon. I just got a kick out of the discussion of Neanderthal vs. pre-Neolithic, which I bet we both agree was at least as funny as the cartoon! :)

  • ||

    "There are no environmental regulations, no zoning regulations, no subsidized industries, no anti-poverty programs, no Social Security, and yet I'm squatting on a dirt floor and my teeth are rotting."

    That would be funny Joe if it wasn't for the fact that you really beleive that people are that helpless and would be sitting on a dirt floor with rotting teeth if it wasn't for the government to help them. It is kind of disturbing on a lot of levels.

  • ||

    Y'all are looking at this backwards ...

    It's not a joke that maligns New Earth-ers ... it's asking the question, "What good is progress if we aren't around to enjoy it?"

    Has Wal-Mart made anyone's life better? (sorry to those of you who work there ...)

    We're living past 30, and we have enabled ourselves to obliterate all life as we know it on the planet.

    Some bonus game. I'm with Chicago Tom. Not funny. I liked the joke about "..get any better..." more.

  • ||

    Brian Courts,

    Yeah. :)

    How is the work on the M.U. dome progressing?

  • uncle sam||

    The intent of the cartoon was to make a point, not to be funny. Obviously.

  • ||

    So basically, John's contribution is "That's not funny."

    Are you, by any chance, a Womyn's Studies major?

  • Gimme Back My Dog||

    joe,

    The problem with your punch line is that very few people believe that the programs you list are suppressing progress. After the libertarian revolution, that will be a better caption than the current one.

    And it is nice to know that you oppose condescension, perhaps next time you get the urge to post one of those "you guys and your little party are so cute" messages, you will shove it up your ass instead.

  • ||

    Gimme Back My Dog,

    Ha ha ha.

  • uncle sam||

    An apalling lack of civility.

  • ||

    "The problem with your punch line is that very few people believe that the programs you list are suppressing progress."

    Around here they do. A good writer knows his audience.

  • ||

    Brian Courts,

    Lebron James needs to stop shooting from outside the arc.

  • Rich Ard||

    Is this how you guys act at parties, too?

    Guy 1: "Hey, that was pretty funny!"
    Guy 2: "No, it wasn't - plus, go fuck yourself."

    I'm starting to get a clearer picture of how the intoonfada started. :)

  • uncle sam||

    "The problem with your punch line is that very few people believe that the programs you list are suppressing progress."

    It's not necessarily the programs themselves that interfere with progress, it's the ravenous beast that is required to establish and maintain said programs that eats up so much wealth. The big shortcoming of statists both conservative and liberal, is that they fail to notice any negative consequences of their favored interventions. As their perceptions usually run no deeper than the most visible, uh, the intended, benefits, and that tends to satisfy their desires.

  • ||

    What an odd turn this thread has taken.

    Anyway, The Other PL, Braveheart was way the heck off historically. I blame Randall Wallace, who also screwed up The Man in the Iron Mask. Though my objection to that flick was his failure to follow the plot of the book, not history (which Dumas ignored when he felt like it, anyhow).

    No one laughed at my chimp-sex joke? How sad. And it was topical humor, too.

  • ||

    ProL
    No one laughed because Chimp sex is very serious business...

    http://www.dlynnwaldron.com/Kissingcrop.jpg
    http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/pics2/pics3/apics2/BONOBO!.jpg


    ;~)

  • ||

    Dear Zaius--chimp porn. Why aren't I surprised?

    We haven't changed much since the early days, have we?

  • uncle sam||

    One blatant failing of the progessive view is the hopelessly flawed tendency to compare the past to the present and to assume that whatever progress has occurred can only be attributed to government action.

  • ||

    ...when we all know that all progress can be attributed to The Free Market.

    Like the reduction in workplace deaths that happened between 1900 and 1930. Or the reduction in poverty among old people that happened between 1932 and 1970. OSHA-wuzza? Social Whatnow?

  • ||

    Joe: have you complained about Republicans talking bullshit about "trading freedom for security" lately?

    And if so, then why are you praising it now?

  • uncle sam||

    ...when we all know that all progress can be attributed to The Free Market.

    Like the reduction in workplace deaths that happened between 1900 and 1930. Or the reduction in poverty among old people that happened between 1932 and 1970. OSHA-wuzza? Social Whatnow?


    Joe illustrates my points perfectly. Thanks Joe!

  • uncle sam||

    Hey! That italics closing was after the 2nd paragraph.

  • uncle sam||

    ...when we all know that all progress can be attributed to The Free Market.

    I didn't say that Joe, obviously you assumed I meant that.
    I attribute it to increasing per capita income, evolving sensibilities, and technological development. We have never really had a "free market".

  • ||

    So L.A. 10,000 B.C. is on. What an awesome show. Stuntmen fighting robot prehistoric creatures in caveman outfits. I smell Emmy.

  • Warren||

    OK so is this funny?

    "Something's just not right, our air is free, our water is unregulated, we all get to say any damn thing we want, everything we eat is untaxed, and yet nobody retires to Florida"

  • ||

    eh. Ask Grugh, the clan leader, if you can be the leader for awhile and then tell me the cavemen are living in a free-market.

    The cartoon was directed at "Earth First," people that argue for life without technology, not Democrats.

  • ||

    Who was that masked man, anyhow? Son, that was the Lone Snark.

  • Sandy||

    Booga booga!

  • ||

    So basically, John's contribution is "That's not funny."

    And I thought joe only made comments like that to me. You completely ignored the substance of what he said

    That would be funny Joe if it wasn't for the fact that you really beleive that people are that helpless and would be sitting on a dirt floor with rotting teeth if it wasn't for the government to help them. It is kind of disturbing on a lot of levels.

    which in the past you've made it quite clear you believe, and choose to make the douchebag cheap shot.

    You may have a handful of fans here, joe, and I hope that and your parasitic government job keeps you warm at night.

  • ||

    Oops, that was a smartass name I was going to post something else under, but after reflection, changed what I wanted to say.

  • ||

    They're not cavemen, they're Muslims (subtle difference).

  • ||

    Without the ENORMOUS engine of the mostly free market, what, precisely would the government do any "good" with? Frankly, I think the industrial era of the late 19th-early 20th centuries started out fairly exploitive and moved away from it socially as much as being regulated away. It's like claiming that the Civil Rights Act is what chased away most racism in this country. That's silly, and it's not true. We were 75% of the way there, and giving the government the majority of credit takes away from the people who did the hard work in the first place.

    More importantly, to the extent that the government has played a role in improving some people's lives--and it certainly has--there's always the question of whether the cost of the cure might not outweigh the benefit of curing the disease. By that, I mean that the problems could've and probably would've been solved without giving the government so much power. Power that we ALL--left, right, other--are unhappy with today.

    Asimov addressed this problem in The Foundation:

    A horse, having a wolf as a powerful and dangerous enemy, lived in constant fear of his life.

    Being driven to desperation, it occurred to him to seek a strong ally. Where upon he approached a man, and offered an alliance pointing out that the wolf was likewise an enemy of the man.

    The man accepted the partnership at once and offered to kill the wolf immediately if his new partner would only cooperate by placing his greater speed at the man's disposal.

    The horse was willing and allowed the man to place bridle and saddle upon him. The man mounted hunted down the wolf and killed him.

    The horse joyful and relieved thanked the man and said "Now that our enemy is dead, remove the bridle and saddle and restore my freedom."

    Whereupon the man laughed loudly and replied "The hell you say, giddy-up Dobbin" and applied the spurs with a will.

  • ||

    Well, the water wasn't that pure, since the source of water did the same job as a sewer...

    Unfortunately this is a tendency that homo sapiens has not outgrow. It still confuses the toilet with the water fountain, only with industrialization, there is a lot more variety of crap...

    We should be descended from cats, not monkeys....

    Specially cats as adorable as mine.

  • ||

    Catgirls!

  • ||

    Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies of it.

    EB White

  • uncle sam||

    Another shortcoming of the progressive mentality is it's apparent inability to recognize that, while events of history may stand as factual, the meanings, whys, and hows, are subject to interpretation. The progressive has bought into a particular interpretation and holds it as holy truth.

  • ||

    "The progressive has bought into a particular interpretation and holds it as holy truth."

    Unlike our enlightened Uncle Sam... give me a fucking break.

  • uncle sam||

    You may have a fucking break. Nice comeback. It really leads me to consider the error of my ways.

  • ||

    Pro Libertate, that's not original to Asimov - he's adapting it from something slightly older:

    http://www.mythfolklore.net/aesopica/oxford/47.htm

  • uncle sam||

    The holy grail of the progressive is...getting the right people in office.

    Now that's funny.

  • ||

    ChicagoTom -

    Since you didn't imply angry and I merely inferred it - the next time you're in a meeting with executives and the first speaker makes an ice breaker joke you don't find amusing I suggest you stand up and say, "It's stupid, dumb, and dishonest."

    Then take a quick poll on your way to the unemployment office to see how many assumed you were angry and how many assumed you meant "not funny."

  • ||

    Geico caveman dude-

    That cartoon is so offensive.

    I think that is one of my 'all-time' favorite commercials!

    While the 'suit' is apologizing, the first 'caveman' orders(confidently, and with just the perfect touch of 'controlled outrage'), "I'll have the duck---- w/ the mango salsa". Then the second caveman says he's "lost his appetite"... and puts that 'glare' on!

    (giggle)

  • ||

    Cartoons are not inherently funny. It takes many factors to generate their humor in a human mind. So stop declaring absolute judgements on such relative things.
    ----------
    Asimov addressed this problem in The Foundation:
    A horse, having a wolf as a powerful and dangerous enemy, lived in constant fear of his life...


    That's funny Pro L', I inferred that it was a pure "libertarian" society Ike was modeling. That "contract" drawn up in a "free market" in a society without courts and police to enforce it had a typical outcome. Them what got the power will have their will imposed on others.

    Oh, and it is _Foundation_ not _The Foundation_.
    ...just sayin'

  • Another Damned Leftie Here To ||

    What's funny is where you lifted the cartoon: From the New Yorker.

    Y'know. Hersh. Hertzberg. Trillin.

    All the superstars of "libertarianism."

    THAT'S comedy.

  • uncle sam||

    Lefties can be so diputs.

  • ||

    pseudolus:

    How right you are.

    Does anyone realize that feudal society was built of such contracts? That serfdom actually involved a contract between the serf and the lord? So how come the Middle Ages are not known as a golden age of freedom (unless you were the lord of the manor, of course)?

    The affection of many Europeans for the State comes from their ancestral memory of a strong King bringing the nobles to heel, and ensuring justice instead of the whims of the lords.

    I wonder how many libertarian propositions would bring us back to those golden days of chivalry, etc. etc...

    As for the cartoon, it is funny, but not factual. We are talking about people who a) had no germ theory of disease, who saw nothing wrong in eating sick animals, or defecating next to their water source, who did not see a need to wash their hands before eating, who took no proper care of their teeth, who had no idea of what a balanced diet was, for whom warfare was a way of life, and other features for which organic food or clean air were not enough to counteract (I do not include clean water, because humans have a way of fouling their water source - that was why wine and beer were considered to be "healthy drinks").

    So, have a chuckle, but do not take it as an argument for anything - unless the folly of solving the equation before you known all its variables.

  • uncle sam||

    Does anyone realize that feudal society was built of such contracts? That serfdom actually involved a contract between the serf and the lord? So how come the Middle Ages are not known as a golden age of freedom (unless you were the lord of the manor, of course)?

    Originally, the king was held to own everything, including the serfs, by right of conquest, until...shit, what was that document called? You know, the one that first limited the power of the king?
    IAC, libertarians do not hold up kings and such as an example of freedom or free markets, but rather as the origins of the modern state, where the people are still ruled, but with a fairly well developed illusion of consent.

    King George still rules! Ha ha ha ha ah.

  • uncle sam||

    Magna Charta

  • ||

    Yeah, Magna Carta, which limited the power of the king over the nobles.

    Note that the nobles never granted a magna carta nor anything to their serfs...

    And never mind what the king was supposed to own or rule, at the beginning they were quite powerless face to their nobles. As a French historian put it, about the first king of the Capetian line "Hugh Capet's ambintion was to be able to move in his territory without being held to ransom by some baron or other"

    If you were a serf, or a peasant, you prayed that the King was strong enugh to put down the tyranny of your lord...

    Check the Lope de Vega's play "Fuenteovejuna" where the peasants revolt against their feudal lord and kill him. He pleads "I am your lord" and htey answer "Our Lords are the Catholic Kings! (Fernando and Isabella)"

  • ||

    fletch, it's the way the first one says, "I'll have the roast duck..." and pauses, so you get this image of a caveman with a duck on a spit over a camp fire, which is then broken up when he says, "...with the mango salsa."

    Which makes you think, "Oh, geez, I just assumed..." and bam, you're in the shoes of the "suit."

    Good stuff, works on a lot of levels.

    jf, you kiss your mother with that mouth? You shouldn't - she's got scabies.

  • uncle sam||

    Yeah, Magna Carta, which limited the power of the king over the nobles.

    But also established the idea of limitation of political power.

  • ||

    After wading through all that (OK, so I quickly scrolled past much of it), I still like the cartoon.

    Apparently, some people just need to relax and enjoy. Admit it, it WAS funny, even if it offends your political/environmental/cultural view.

  • uncle sam||

    Apparently, some people just need to relax and enjoy. Admit it, it WAS funny, even if it offends your political/environmental/cultural view.

    It didn't offend my p/e/c view, but it didn't tickle me either. It's too anachronistic/contrived.

  • Andrew Ian Dodge||

    Surely Al Gore has that up on his wall as a bit of nostalgia? He probably believes people living to only 30 would be the best thing for the enviroment.

  • ||

    sam:

    Limitation of the political power over those who can fight back.

    I bet that none of the barons who forced John to respect their rights would dream of respecting their serf's rights the same way.

    "How is it that we hear the loudest cry for freedom from the drivers of Negroes"? Dr. Johnson

  • uncle sam||

    Limitation of the political power over those who can fight back.

    I bet that none of the barons who forced John to respect their rights would dream of respecting their serf's rights the same way.

    "How is it that we hear the loudest cry for freedom from the drivers of Negroes"? Dr. Johnson


    Evolution of sensibility, awareness, and understanding. It happens.

  • uncle sam||

    Oh, and... Your point?

  • uncle sam||

    I always wonder about those who express skepticism for human freedom by citing examples of violations of human freedom.
    I suppose it can't be said often enough. Libertarians oppose ALL violation of the right of humans to life and liberty. We do focus on institutionalized impingements on human rights, but then, there is VERY LITTLE disagreement on the merits of chattel slavery, at least in the Western world.
    So why would anyone bother to bring up that travesty in critiquing the libertarian perspective?
    Is it that political enslavement is more acceptable to them than chattel slavery?

  • ||

    My point is that libertarians too often cannot tell the difference between those who want freedom for themselves and others, and those who want the freedom to oppress others.

    It is their particular blind spot.

    It struck me in various libertarian fiction how they tended to romanticize organized crime types, and marvel how well run their territories were. I wonder where such confussion could come from.

  • uncle sam||

    "My point is that libertarians too often cannot tell the difference between those who want freedom for themselves and others, and those who want the freedom to oppress others."

    I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that literature, but libertarians are usually able to tell the difference. Those who want the freedom to oppress others (which is not a human right, thus not an aspecft of freedom) usually want the government to do it for them.

  • ||

    Chicago Tom:

    "There are plenty of stupid jokes that people don't find funny. Saying that a joke is stupid doesn't imply anger...it implies stupidity."

    Indeed. I did imply your stupidity.

  • ||

    uncle sam:

    There are those who do, and those who don't.

    I am afraid that your comment places you among the dense. Do you really think that those who oppress others wants the governemnt to do the job? All they want is for the government not to interfere, or at most facilitate their work.

    Ask any wife beater if he wants his wife beaten by governemnt thugs instead of doing it himself.

    There have been slave owner with or without governemtn and they prefer to use the whip themselves. All they ask of goverment is to return their property if it runs away.

  • uncle sam||

    Oh, yes. You assume much. I am among the dense, therefore you are among the undense (enlightened). I don't know how you do it. We've exchanged a few paragraphs and already you have an appreciable grasp of what I know and comprehend.

    There have been slave owner with or without governemtn and they prefer to use the whip themselves. All they ask of goverment is to return their property if it runs away.

    This is true. But is there only one kid of slavery (chattel)?
    Why did slave owners have to get the government to enact fugitive slave acts?
    Is slavery acceptable to you if it is fractional rather than total? Institutional rather than private?

    Ask any wife beater if he wants his wife beaten by governemnt thugs instead of doing it himself.

    Ask any woman who is denied legal possession of a firearm if she feels safer from that wife beater. If you think this is a silly response, it's because I'm addressing a silly excuse for political government. I have absolutely no regard for wife beaters (or husband beaters for that matter...yes, it happens). But how is the existance of spouse beaters an excuse for a government that takes as much wealth as it chooses from men and women, wages war whenever it is deemed expeedient, etc.

  • ||

    joe:

    You are still a dick for your comment to John, and as far as the comment about my mother goes; well, that's just a sad commentary on what kind of human being you are.

  • uncle sam||

    Spousal violence is one problem that the political approach has been only marginally in dealing with. Cops have difficulty in getting the beaten spouse to press charges, and stick with it. Cops have found domestic violence one of the most dangerous calls for cops to respond to.
    This is a psycho/socio/cultural issue (as with many issues) that I don't think the legislative approach will be able to provide a really satisfactory solution.
    We can see how well laws have worked in perfecting humanity and society. I'm still looking for the evidence. Are you aware of any/

  • uncle sam||

    There have been slave owner with or without governemtn and they prefer to use the whip themselves.

    OK, tell me about slave owners in a stateless society. When and where exactly was that?

  • uncle sam||

    Not that I think this is relevant to the discussion. The assumption seems to be that if we figure a way to have social order without political government, then a bunch of no-goods will decide to turn many of us into chattel slaves.

    You might consider that if Africans had been able to procure firearms during the time of the slavers capturing them for the American colonies, it would have been prohibitively expensive to go slaving in Africa. The sensibility of the times that permitted slavery happened to coincide with a very unequal state of technological development which permitted not just slavery, but also conquest for purposes of colonization around the world by a few countries, mainly England, Spain, and France.

    We could refer to this as colonial slavery. Mercantilism, where colonial governments performed the conquests and the colonial administrators and associate merchants raked in the wealth, a substantial portion of which went to the respective kings.

    But that still has little to do with the discussion. Mercantile colonialism has been left behind, as has chattel slavery in the modern world. The question is, what is next? Is political government capable of improving the state of humanity?
    I think not.

  • ||

    sam:

    There was slavery and spousal abuse in the caves, long before the modern state was invented.

    People oppressing other people have been occurring since day 1, and ranting about an institution that came much later will not change the fact.

  • uncle sam||

    People oppressing other people have been occurring since day 1

    Obviously, given that our biological heritage is animalian, mamalian, social, primate, and tribal.
    The so called "modern state" is simply an evolved tribal structure and retains, and institutionalizes, certain basic traits: expediency, tribalism, hierarchy, and brutality.

    The state, like any criminal, relies upon its ability to strike fear in the hearts of humans. that's why the law, no matter how stupid or unjust, is enforced by men with guns, ready to kill, to achieve the ends of the state.

    You may tout such a mechanism as modern, I do not.
    You worry about bullies having their way without constraint of the law. Do you never worry about bullies having their way via the law?

  • uncle sam||

    Damned server. Took me three tries to post.

  • ||

    tomatoe, and potatoe, may be spelled with or without an "e"

    Children - are we loosing sleep over this one?


    Iambe

  • ||

    judging from all these comments by the readers of agribiotech, the cartoon did not serve any purpose in our main concerns about GM crops!In factit should not have been republished here as it confused the whole issue about GM and added to the triviality which has surrounded this very important issue! Who cares if the cave man lasted only 30 years, we are in 2006 and science has progressed even with the stupidity of man, so lets elevate this debate one notch up from trivial discussions to a more enlightened one so that all the readers benefit from this important issue.

  • ||

    judging from all these comments by the readers of agribiotech, the cartoon did not serve any purpose in our main concerns about GM crops!In factit should not have been republished here as it confused the whole issue about GM and added to the triviality which has surrounded this very important issue! Who cares if the cave man lasted only 30 years, we are in 2006 and science has progressed even with the stupidity of man, so lets elevate this debate one notch up from trivial discussions to a more enlightened one so that all the readers benefit from this important issue.

  • ||

    judging from all these comments by the readers of agribiotech, the cartoon did not serve any purpose in our main concerns about GM crops!In factit should not have been republished here as it confused the whole issue about GM and added to the triviality which has surrounded this very important issue! Who cares if the cave man lasted only 30 years, we are in 2006 and science has progressed even with the stupidity of man, so lets elevate this debate one notch up from trivial discussions to a more enlightened one so that all the readers benefit from this important issue.

  • ||

    judging from all these comments by the readers of agribiotech, the cartoon did not serve any purpose in our main concerns about GM crops!In factit should not have been republished here as it confused the whole issue about GM and added to the triviality which has surrounded this very important issue! Who cares if the cave man lasted only 30 years, we are in 2006 and science has progressed even with the stupidity of man, so lets elevate this debate one notch up from trivial discussions to a more enlightened one so that all the readers benefit from this important issue.

  • ||

    judging from all these comments by the readers of agribiotech, the cartoon did not serve any purpose in our main concerns about GM crops!In factit should not have been republished here as it confused the whole issue about GM and added to the triviality which has surrounded this very important issue! Who cares if the cave man lasted only 30 years, we are in 2006 and science has progressed even with the stupidity of man, so lets elevate this debate one notch up from trivial discussions to a more enlightened one so that all the readers benefit from this important issue.

  • ||

    judging from all these comments by the readers of agribiotech, the cartoon did not serve any purpose in our main concerns about GM crops!In factit should not have been republished here as it confused the whole issue about GM and added to the triviality which has surrounded this very important issue! Who cares if the cave man lasted only 30 years, we are in 2006 and science has progressed even with the stupidity of man, so lets elevate this debate one notch up from trivial discussions to a more enlightened one so that all the readers benefit from this important issue.

  • ||

    judging from all these comments by the readers of agribiotech, the cartoon did not serve any purpose in our main concerns about GM crops!In factit should not have been republished here as it confused the whole issue about GM and added to the triviality which has surrounded this very important issue! Who cares if the cave man lasted only 30 years, we are in 2006 and science has progressed even with the stupidity of man, so lets elevate this debate one notch up from trivial discussions to a more enlightened one so that all the readers benefit from this important issue.

  • ||

    judging from all these comments by the readers of agribiotech, the cartoon did not serve any purpose in our main concerns about GM crops!In factit should not have been republished here as it confused the whole issue about GM and added to the triviality which has surrounded this very important issue! Who cares if the cave man lasted only 30 years, we are in 2006 and science has progressed even with the stupidity of man, so lets elevate this debate one notch up from trivial discussions to a more enlightened one so that all the readers benefit from this important issue.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement