Thank you for this find. I didn't originally think it was crazy and was wondering if you just had a political axe to grind... which I realized was a mistake on my part once he arrived in the alternate universe. A few pages in and it just spiraled into madness and proselytizing.
This thing is a hilarious continuous propaganda piece. There's even a part where the cop (he's the main character) tries to advocate for gun control, but gets shamed and shouted down for even daring to think of wanting to infringe of people's 'natural right' to own any kind of handcannon they could want. And everyone has a super nano handwavium hospital at home, and genetically uplifted monkey butlers (because of course)
In all fairness, he was arguing for the abolition of gun ownership and claimed people only wanted them because they were phallic symbols. The response he got was equally ridiculous; how in the hell would someone have heard arguments against allowing gun ownership in an anarchy that has no way to outlaw anything?
It is hilarious in how many plot-holes it has (true to form for any an-cap propaganda piece) but it is actually fairly well paced, for the most part: Its like watching a michael bay instructed version of Atlas Shrugged
but ya - that's "enlightened selfishness" for you.
Your Ayn Rand references are off-base; objectivists aren't anarchists. This is extreme libertarianism
. The author even explicitly says where in his ass he pulled this philosophy out of in the third sentence on page 0
. Why would anything in this comic be confused with selfishness considering how much free shit Win won for hitting the portal lottery?
oh, and there doesn't really seem to be any black people in the comic - but there sure are a shitload of anthro-chimps running around being servants. No thinly-veiled slavery imagery here, nope, not at all.
I didn't draw this conclusion, but I did find the chimps incredibly distracting. "If only we got rid of governments! Then everyone would have a talking monkey best friend!"
I mean holy shit, how much wish fulfillment do you need in one comic?
Tom - lets try to keep it on topic about the comic, not about gun control. My jabs about the comic's stance on the topic was chiefly that its so hilariously one-sided and with such contempt for any kind of gun control.
Strange how it was on-topic when you and Shan were agreeing with each other. The abolishment of gun ownership vs. unlimited gun ownership is a core part of this comic so I don't see why it shouldn't at least be compared to the real world in relation to the comic. For example, Australia's gun confiscation and buy back measures have resulted in an upswing in gun crimes, especially home invasions. At the same time, it's kind of baffling that the comic would depict most of its violence occurring with home invasions
(I'm about 1/3 in), especially since most people live in fortress mansions.
The pro-gun ownership arguments in this comic are insane in context, which I say as someone vehemently opposed to gun control. Take any situation where confusion occurs. Say there's a crazy person who starts shooting people at a mall. They get shot to death, but, other people startled by the gun fire pull their guns to defend themselves. Some fire. It's unclear who started the shooting, so people are in a stand-off. How does this get diffused? In the real world, when the police show up, you have a universally recognized authority to demand the fight stop who you are reasonably sure is going to try to resolve the violence. In this world... who tells everyone to stop? Who untangles the mess when everyone is ready to kill each other? I'm aware there are private police forces, but why would they get involved when there's no way to profit?
Getting away from guns, there's also issues with how this society manages without prisons. The author decided everyone sues each other, and if you don't make restitution you're publicly shamed and no one will
do business with you. There are two glaring problems, one with each aspect of the world.
1) If I commit a crime in this alt universe I am required to pay money for it. What if I'm a rich scumbag and the only thing that gets me off is drugging women and having my way with them? There's no way the "hired judge" is going to know I'm rich and adjust the penalty so it actually hurts me; citizens can mint their own money so there's no central accounting of who has how much, credit cards, or credit bureaus. "Maybe they'll use your criminal record?"
How's a judge going to get my rap sheet in the first place when there's no centralized record keeping? This is a society we're repeatedly told wouldn't allow a database of criminal's fingerprints, remember. Why in the hell would they refuse to take fingerprints but keep enough data to positively identify me by things that aren't even unique? Why would it even matter in a world that is apparently borderless? If there were enough criminals, how could people even keep track of them all when you don't have to show ID to do pretty much anything?
2) The idea that nobody would do business with me if I didn't pay restitution (effectively causing me to die cold and hungry) would be a pretty awesome deterrent. Eeeeexcept that's totally unenforceable without a government, so the punishment really is that nobody should
do business with you. We currently live in a world where celebrities can get away with all sorts of crimes even though we're supposed to have governments that punish everyone for committing them. What about a celebrity in this world? There's nothing stopping someone from failing to shame them. Then there's the wealthy to think about. I have to stress the point: you're ordered to pay restitution but you can refuse
. There's no taking of property by force, so if you had a small fortune you could just have a second party do your trading for you. Hell, someone could build a business around that; with a 5% markup you could easily get rake in a ton of money for spending other people's money.
Besides those, there are other major holes in the story.
Maybe I haven't read far enough yet, so anyone feel free to correct me, but how does anyone know who owns what property? To be clear I mean land. Alternately: houses or apartments on land. We again hit the problem of lacking a central authority on the matter. If I sell a house I own how does the change in ownership become publicly resolved? What if I sold it to three separate parties and skipped town with their money? Who owns it?
How did anarcho-capitalism spread worldwide? The problem with anarchy, which amazingly I can recall getting referenced in Mongolian stories that predate Genghis Khan's era, is that in a time of crisis there are no leaders to rally people and direct their efforts. What stopped the British from invading these assclowns after their government dissolved? What stopped the French, for that matter? They were giving away land to pay debts. Another name for land with your enemy sitting on it is "staging ground". If I am Britain and I can do whatever I want with my property, why wouldn't I decide to use land I was just given for that? Even if they didn't pay Britain back with land, the problem with money is it's fluid. Britain can just trade for it with someone else who has it.