You know what this reminds me of? There was some cheap ass webcomic in the very early 2000s that had an Amish protagonist. I only remember a single comic where the main character is watching TV and has some pundit say that poor and homeless should be shot. Then our Amish hero sets the pundit’s house on fire rendering him homeless.
The pundit declares himself poor without his house and is promptly shot by his own followers because they made good his beliefs on shooting the poor and homeless. It was actually kinda funny.
But that being said, it amazes me just how often people forget the lessons of the past. The great depression seriously changed America’s views on poverty being an entirely individual failing for many, many decades. Even into the Nixon administration he had to remind everyone that he was a New Dealer and wasn’t going to roll back any of that shit. They had to wait until baby boomers, who did not grow up in the depression and were the ungrateful beneficiaries of the numerous programs in its wake, were the main voting block before beginning to roll that shit back.
It’s also kinda incredible just how the libertarian and conservative propaganda apparatus really nullified most criticism of this shit. While that was always case even back in the 1930s, it was never to this extent.
Ayn Rand was not libertarian. She herself said that many times. And as a libertarian - we don’t want her.
Anyway, tired of that idea of libertarians as conservatives small enough to kick.
Bailing out big companies is not libertarian. Considering them above the law isn’t that, too. While Ayn Rand was fine with both and kinda thought that there are better and worse people, more and less useful, and the more useful must be catered for, bending laws included. She was basically an inverted bolshevik, where for those guys all economical problems could be solved having one unchecked state-corporation with instead of many, for her all problems could be solved with many unchecked corporations.
Also calling USA before and during depression a completely free economy would be kinda insincere. It’s also not libertarian to shoot at strikers.
You know what this reminds me of? There was some cheap ass webcomic in the very early 2000s that had an Amish protagonist. I only remember a single comic where the main character is watching TV and has some pundit say that poor and homeless should be shot. Then our Amish hero sets the pundit’s house on fire rendering him homeless.
The pundit declares himself poor without his house and is promptly shot by his own followers because they made good his beliefs on shooting the poor and homeless. It was actually kinda funny.
But that being said, it amazes me just how often people forget the lessons of the past. The great depression seriously changed America’s views on poverty being an entirely individual failing for many, many decades. Even into the Nixon administration he had to remind everyone that he was a New Dealer and wasn’t going to roll back any of that shit. They had to wait until baby boomers, who did not grow up in the depression and were the ungrateful beneficiaries of the numerous programs in its wake, were the main voting block before beginning to roll that shit back.
It’s also kinda incredible just how the libertarian and conservative propaganda apparatus really nullified most criticism of this shit. While that was always case even back in the 1930s, it was never to this extent.
Perhaps http://meninhats.com?
Nope. That comic is actually decently drawn, also the format is too short for that kind of story.
Remains me of when Spawn put the Leader of the KKK in Black face and they lynched him.
Ayn Rand was not libertarian. She herself said that many times. And as a libertarian - we don’t want her.
Anyway, tired of that idea of libertarians as conservatives small enough to kick.
Bailing out big companies is not libertarian. Considering them above the law isn’t that, too. While Ayn Rand was fine with both and kinda thought that there are better and worse people, more and less useful, and the more useful must be catered for, bending laws included. She was basically an inverted bolshevik, where for those guys all economical problems could be solved having one unchecked state-corporation with instead of many, for her all problems could be solved with many unchecked corporations.
Also calling USA before and during depression a completely free economy would be kinda insincere. It’s also not libertarian to shoot at strikers.
Is this copypasta I’m unfamiliar with