You can use the internet to watch the episode. I believe in you. (S10E21)
Here is a recap someone wrote about it.
Basically Peter opens a business in his home and is shut down for not having a business license. He then joins the tea party and supports the complete disbanding of the local government. The result is a crime infested, smog ridden riot in which the town gets together and reasons that they create a small government to prevent said result from occuring regularly.
It seemed, to me, aimed at us (anarchists) and McFarlane is a tremendous liberal being used essentially against Ron Paul by Fox. I don't know about viewing demographics, but I'd guess anyone who is a republican watching will see that as "why Ron Paul (or maybe voluntarists/anarchists) is (are) wrong."
I liked the episode as I do not expect MSM to shill for ancaps, but it tripped over all of the same fallacies everyone always does and it helped to propgate them further. Seth McFarlane isn't doing us the same kind of favors Jon Stewart is.
McFarlane should stick to what he knows - comedic art. His politics is 100%, pure shit.
Clayton -
^^^ This
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
I watched this episode last night and was sorely disappointed because it portrayed most people as monsters, with the only thing holding them back was government and its law. I don't believe in that viewpoint, at all.
The result is a crime infested, smog ridden riot in which the town gets together and reasons that they create a small government to prevent said result from occuring regularly.
If the town gets together and reasons that they should create a small government, then the town doesn't need a small government to get together and reason.
If everyone in a town believes they need a small government to get together and reason, then they will plant the seeds of leviathan. If everyone gets a clue, however, they will contract with each other for security and dispute resolution services.
The basic misconception that people have about anarchy is that policemen come from mars, and criminals come from venus.
Because there is no political support for legalized chaos, it is clear that nobody in your community actually wants chaos, save a couple of teenage punks. So going back to the Family Guy example, where everyone in the town is meeting to discuss how to achieve an environment of order that enables the division of labor. If they don't establish a government immediately, friends and family members will contract with people in their social networks to provide security and dispute resolution services. Any community has a virtually inexhaustible supply of security guards, as demand will always meet supply in terms of marginal units.
It was the fallacy of the classical economists to consider goods and services in terms of large classes; instead, modern economics demonstrates that services must be considered in terms of marginal units. For all actions on the market are marginal. If we begin to treat whole classes instead of marginal units, we can discover a great myriad of necessary, indispensable goods and services all of which might be considered as “preconditions” of market activity.
http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap13.asp
Why didn't the London rioters go near residential areas? Because there were thousands of sleep-deprived people peering out their windows with a baseball bat in one hand and a knife in the other. The commercial areas were empty by comparison. Take an extreme hypothetical example, that the British government suddenly vanishes and every store in London gets sacked by the rioters. What happens next?
At this point, we can categorize criminals into two groups; those who can tie their shoelaces and those who cannot. Those who can't tie their shoelaces are not going anywhere. Those who can tie their shoelaces are smart enough to know that they desperately need a society that utilizes the division of labor and mass production. After all, they're parasites! What parasite wants to grow his own food and knit his own clothes, just so he can go out pillaging other people's vegetable gardens and clotheslines?
After somehow sacking every store in London, the looters wake up one morning to find themselves very hungry. They rush out into the shopping centres, only to find that every last can of food has been stolen, and everything else is rotting. Do they then converge on the suburbs?
Hell no. The suburbs are full of armed vigilantes patrolling the streets, ready to put to death anyone found carting a plasma TV screen. We know these vigilantes would vastly outnumber the looters, because there has never been any political support for unorganized looting. Since the government collapsed, the 99% would have formed their own protection associations and dispute resolution mechanisms, if only for the meantime. If they have all been reading Rothbard, however, they know that they don't need to create a new institution for a problem they already solved. Eventually, protection associations will develop complex ways of dealing with criminals. Production will get back into gear because even the looters want to survive.
Aristophanes:It seemed, to me, aimed at us (anarchists) and McFarlane is a tremendous liberal being used essentially against Ron Paul by Fox. I don't know about viewing demographics, but I'd guess anyone who is a republican watching will see that as "why Ron Paul (or maybe voluntarists/anarchists) is (are) wrong."
I think that's reading too much into it. MacFarlane has always been a typical Hollywood liberal, save for the fact that he doesn't seem to mind making fun of liberals...kind of like Stewart. Which is kind of funny, considering Stewart wasn't very happy about it when he became one of those liberals.
But when you have a show like that you have a pretty free reign on the content, and if it's left-leaning, so much the better, in the minds of the Hollywood execs.
Have a look at Penn Jillette pointing out his ridiculous hypocrisy. Guy's not being used. It's just one episode, and it's all his idea. Every other mention of politics in the series has a pro-liberal slant. Brian is a typical leftist, and of course, as the most intelligent character always plays the voice of reason when he comes in with his leftist bias. They've made fun of Republicans and conservatives in general on countless occasions. If Fox really had that much influence or cared that much about a cartoon sitcom, there wouldn't be as much pro left-wing crap on there.
I agree it was nice to see him skip over a lot of cheap shots he could have easily taken. And while I agree Jon Stewart has done a few favors, it's kind of like someone kicking you in the shin and then giving you some ice to put on it.
I saw the episode I thought it was funny. If people look to Family Guy for affirmation of their political ideology then that says something about them right there.
I doubt anyone is looking to Family Guy for affirmation. I'm not sure where you got that idea.
But I guarantee if they're finding it even in their primetime sitcoms, it sure does a lot to reassure and reinforce those leanings.
Well if that's true (and I really don't know how to try to collect data about this) then it's an effective use of media to advance a political ideology.
But I am inclined at this point to think it's just a funny cartoon.
"The result is a crime infested, smog ridden riot in which the town gets together and reasons that they create a small government to prevent said result from occuring regularly."
What a devistating critique! D:
bloomj31: Well if that's true (and I really don't know how to try to collect data about this) then it's an effective use of media to advance a political ideology. But I am inclined at this point to think it's just a funny cartoon.
I never suggested it wasn't really just a cartoon. (i.e. I never suggested it was some kind of propaganda front). It's just a cartoon that happens to include tells of the creator's ideological leanings, that obviously inform and influence at least some of the joke-making, situations, and subject matter. Again, a lot like The Daily Show.
Aristophanes: It seemed, to me, aimed at us (anarchists)
It seemed, to me, aimed at us (anarchists)
One, not everybody on this site adheres to the identity of being an anarchist--case in point, me. Two, I don't think the self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalists on here are really anarchists. Anarchists thwart all systems and all legal authority. In essence, there is no law. Many, many anarcho-capitalists on here have stressed that capitalism is good (and capitalism is, indeed, a system), and those same individuals also maintain that theft is wrong, thus they thwart the efforts of central government and the state on the whole. Anarchists are more similar to communists, in my estimation, in that communists do not believe in private property. Property means rules, frankly. You sow it, you reap it, it is yours, which means it is nobody else's, which means nobody can take what is yours, otherwise it is theft. Tell me about any proclaimed anarcho-capitalists on here who are ok with theft; I think you'll be hard pressed to find them.
Aristophanes: Seth McFarlane isn't doing us the same kind of favors Jon Stewart is.
Seth McFarlane isn't doing us the same kind of favors Jon Stewart is.
Jon Stewart isn't doing anybody any favors. As intelligent as the guy is, he's not too smart, specifically when it came to defending the Occupy movement. Many of these ragtag hipsters tore down businesses and attempted to ruin capitalism; also, many want their debts to be wiped away and to have government funding because they "deserve" it or some crap. It's straightforward socialism, and it's disgusting.
I've never had a communist explain to me where in the process the State is done away with. It doesn't wither away and die...this is never stated, but only inferred by some readers of Marx. (Not by me though, I think it, communism, was written into a Hegelian dialectic - it is a never ending cycle not a progression of history. The proletariat 'wrests capital and control through democracy into the hands of the state' and in doing so, it merely flips the positions of the classes necessitating the process over again.)
Anarchy, even as you describe it, is fully compatiable with the division of labor. If you call that "a system," I think you take "anarchy" to literally. The division of labor doesn't need a state to develop, but it does need a state to prevent it from developing. Communism is a non sequitur. Anarchy is adherence to natural law (minus property if you want) resulting in social darwinism. Communism seeks to do away with the resultant of social darwinism. It is for pansys if you ask me.
I rarely watch JS anymore, but I do remember a skit where Samantha Bee was at Occupy and she pulled this:
SB: "So you think internet is a right?"
OWS: "Yea, everyone should have access to it."
SB: "So, why don't you take your laptop down there and let one of the poor OWS people use it?"
OWS: "Well, this is mine."
SB: "I thought you don't believe in private property?"
OWS: "I don't. But, like, this is my personal property."
SB: "Oh, so personal property is differnt from private property."
OWS: "Yes, exactly."
All in all, I don't think JS really tried to hard to stick up for them.
"Let's tax these greedy rich people so they can pay for my healthcare!!"
- Seeking credibility the irony reeks the streets; the scrubs at Occupy soldier on.
What pissed me off was their characterization of the Tea Party movement as anarchist, even though earlier in the show it was described as being about "lower taxes" and "limited government".
Wasn't funny at all and in my book the episode wouldn't even qualify as "satire".
Buzz Killington: What pissed me off was their characterization of the Tea Party movement as anarchist, even though earlier in the show it was described as being about "lower taxes" and "limited government". Wasn't funny at all and in my book the episode wouldn't even qualify as "satire".
Most Tea Partiers I know are immensely easier to talk with than the 912ers. The 912ers are Rick Santorum supporters who believe morality is a matter of national security, bla bla bla. I like the Tea Partiers for the most part, except many of them need to read up more on history. Abe Lincoln, for example, is idolized for no good reason as many on here would likely agree. Also, they fight against central government, yet by promoting the constitution, they thereby support it. While I appreciate the Constitution, I love the Bill of Rights, and these people have no idea what form of government we had under the Articles of Confederation, which was formed exactly how they want the U.S. to be formed now, yet nobody brings it up. States were truly sovereign until Washington pushed the Whiskey Tax and used the newly formed fed gvt to enforce it. A tragic day, no doubt.
triknighted:Most Tea Partiers I know are immensely easier to talk with than the 912ers. The 912ers are Rick Santorum supporters who believe morality is a matter of national security, bla bla bla. I like the Tea Partiers for the most part, except many of them need to read up more on history. Abe Lincoln, for example, is idolized for no good reason as many on here would likely agree. Also, they fight against central government, yet by promoting the constitution, they thereby support it. While I appreciate the Constitution, I love the Bill of Rights, and these people have no idea what form of government we had under the Articles of Confederation, which was formed exactly how they want the U.S. to be formed now, yet nobody brings it up. States were truly sovereign until Washington pushed the Whiskey Tax and used the newly formed fed gvt to enforce it. A tragic day, no doubt.
Ya I'm pro-Tea Party, the episode pissed me off mainly because it misrepresented the TP platform.
Buzz Killington:What pissed me off was their characterization of the Tea Party movement as anarchist, even though earlier in the show it was described as being about "lower taxes" and "limited government".
It's the only way he can make fun of it/paint it as bad and unreasonable...straw man it. Again, Macfarlane is incredibly confused:
(you can jump to 2:30)
John James:It's the only way he can make fun of it/paint it as bad and unreasonable...straw man it. Again, Macfarlane is incredibly confused: (you can jump to 2:30)
Ya I've seen that, as well as the clip of Penn, Seth, and that other bimbo on Larry King Live. I guess McFarlane finally got around to making fun of the Tea Party...and made himself look like a complete dishonest ass in the process. Of course, anyone complaining about it will be shouted down with chants of "it's just a cartoon!", even though the episode is so blatantly political. =P
Well, not all TV shows are mainstream propaganda. South Park is consistently libertarian, and the classic era of The Simpsons was mildly anti-state greatly due to libertarian John Swartzwelder, who wrote the largest number of Simpsons episodes (the other writers usually emphasised leftist objections to the state). Occasionally you'll find random episodes of other shows that outline libertarian problems with the state. I saw an episode of Everybody Hates Chris that perfectly illustrates the harmful effect of the minimum wage law, for example.
As for Seth McFarlane, he has always been overrated to some degree, but he has gotten worse the more he has done (The Cleveland Show is terrible).
Apparently even some on the Left weren't buying it...
Even liberals are getting tired of mindless leftism. In this week’s episode of Family Guy, the show lampooned the Tea Party. And Carter Dotson, writing in TVFanatic.com, wasn’t buying it:
“And, really, I think the characterization of Tea Party supporters as just basically anarchists seemed like too much of an exaggeration to be funny. I may lean liberal myself, but the anarchist characterization pushed past the point of exaggeration into just plain inaccurate.”
MacFarlane has decent writing in American Dad. It is all against mainstream republicans, but I think it is better than his other shows. He comments on Zionism and makes light of CIA torture programs. MacFarlane did a voice for some stupid cartoon movie where he played a robot named I.S.R.A.E.L. and there is a part where he is flying along the highway and decides that he is tired so he stops in the middle of the highway to take a nap. Needless to say it causes problesm for the people who are using the highway. So, I don't think he is all bad.
From the review article
The mention of big business being behind the movement, often in phony ways like Carter Pewterschmidt posing as "Joe Workingman," is something that the show needed to spell out for the people they were trying to reach, but it felt like they were just stating the obvious to anyone even barely paying attention.
The left didn't think it was bringing to light new facts. Just stating the obvious. The problem isn't with innaccuracy as much as it is simply preaching to the choir.
Buzz Killington: triknighted:Most Tea Partiers I know are immensely easier to talk with than the 912ers. The 912ers are Rick Santorum supporters who believe morality is a matter of national security, bla bla bla. I like the Tea Partiers for the most part, except many of them need to read up more on history. Abe Lincoln, for example, is idolized for no good reason as many on here would likely agree. Also, they fight against central government, yet by promoting the constitution, they thereby support it. While I appreciate the Constitution, I love the Bill of Rights, and these people have no idea what form of government we had under the Articles of Confederation, which was formed exactly how they want the U.S. to be formed now, yet nobody brings it up. States were truly sovereign until Washington pushed the Whiskey Tax and used the newly formed fed gvt to enforce it. A tragic day, no doubt. Ya I'm pro-Tea Party, the episode pissed me off mainly because it misrepresented the TP platform.
Good to know, buddy. I like the Tea Partiers for the most part, they have good hearts and use their heads. Not so for the 912ers from what I can tell as I mentioned earlier, LOL. The same arguments today against the Tea Party are the same arguments the Federalists used against the Anti-Federalists (naturally, since the Federalists were the big government assholes that sought to change things). Many Tea Partiers don't know that though; they have this mythical understanding that before the current constitution, our first constitution allowed "anarchy" and "insurrection" because there was no federal government to stomp out rebellions. In my humble opinion, the Articles was the time when America flourished with true state sovereignty.
Aristophanes:it is simply preaching to the choir.
Yeah that was largely my point. It's the same thing with The Daily Show. And anything Bill Maher does. So much so that even the host himself gets tired of the drone-ing...
(Of course Jon Stewart doesn't though. He's too much of a softie with low-self esteem. He's not going to go anywhere near biting the hand that feeds him. At least Maher has the honesty to state the obvious.)
At least Maher has the honesty to state the obvious.)
Unless it has to do with war and Israel. Then, Maher is all blinders and no honesty.
I thought war was the only thing he agreed with Ron Paul on. What does he say about Israel?
"What does he say about Israel?"
That wasn't anything like what I thought it would be. All he basically said was he was a "supporter" and essentially implied that he felt like the US should provide aid and support to the country. I was actually a little disappointed with Scheuer there in the way he came off...seemed pretty heartless. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with him on the US not getting involved, i just think he could have put it in a more tactful manner.
So I mean, I guess I could understand saying Maher is confused or misguided or just wrong on Israel in the sense that he thinks the US should dedicate American lives to defending them, but as far as I can tell, he basically agrees with Ron Paul on war policy.
Yeah, I know. I've developed a distaste for Israel as they seem to outweigh our own political issues. I purposely lump them in with Saudi Arabia.
Maher's position sounds to me that if Israel needed me to go die for it that he'd be casting his ballot in favor of a draft.
Aristophanes:Yeah, I know. I've developed a distaste for Israel as they seem to outweigh our own political issues.
I think that largely stems from the bleeding-heart ignoramus' need to have some cause to support and helpless subordinate to take care of. They know so little about virtually everything, that the few things they know get magnified and championed basically to an unrelenting ridiculous degree. Things like "helping other people is virtuous" and "minorities are people just like anyone else." Obvious things that only morons would even question. They pick them because they are easily reassured in their position.
So with something like Israel, it's incredibly easy...you're actually hitting two in one...helping minorities. They don't know enough to comment on our own domestic issues and not open themselves up to challenge...but how can you be against helping the Jews? Protecting them from persecution by the evil extremists? These were the people who were rounded up by the Nazis for godsakes!
When you put it that way, my typical distaste for him does seem to creep back up.
He's not good at that either. Family Guy is just a ripoff of The Simpsons except half as funny.
The Simpsons seem to be becoming less funny. At first I thought it was only Family Guy, but now both shows are starting to focus more and more on politics- making fun of Rush Limbaugh and guest starring Michell Obama for example. What ever happened to Mr. Plow?
This isn't off topic.
But the Simpsons lost its moral flavor in like seasons 9 and 10. It has been topical since then. Every once in awhile there is a decent episode.
Didn't the Simpsons make the point early on that all cartoons are ripoffs of each other? When the homeless guy sued the creator of Itchy and Scratchy? We can rag on Seth MacFarlane for making unfunny cartoons, but let's not strawman him with content ripoff. Family Guy and American Dad are both decent shows, AD more so.
If those seasons were around the time of the movie, I'd have to agree.
The movie was between seasons 18 and 19........
Swing and a miss on my part!
I just saw the episode on Hulu. The episode conflated government with law, assumed if government does not do X then X will not occur, and omitted any libertarian rebuttal, but I don’t expect super sophisticated political analysis from an animated sitcom. I repeatedly laughed aloud at this episode.