sam on April 02, 2011, 04:58:59 pm
I was expecting anarchy in space, not romance in a place indistinguishable from New York.  Where are the zero g shootouts between the vigilante posse and the bad guy gang? 

SandySandfort on April 02, 2011, 07:38:29 pm
I was expecting anarchy in space, not romance in a place indistinguishable from New York.  Where are the zero g shootouts between the vigilante posse and the bad guy gang? 

Anarchists need love too.

Corydon on April 02, 2011, 09:59:49 pm
Where are the zero g shootouts between the vigilante posse and the bad guy gang? 

That sounds awesome!  You should totally put that in your webcomic!  And post a link- I can't wait to read it.

NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on April 02, 2011, 10:29:26 pm
Where are the zero g shootouts between the vigilante posse and the bad guy gang? 

And can you do it on a roller coaster?

quadibloc on April 03, 2011, 01:54:11 am
Well, I'll have to admit that having the shootout in zero g would avoid it being indistinguishable from, oh, say Tombstone, Arizona.

But, of course, the limited nature of that admission highlights the weakness in the original complaint.

On the other hand, I'm not going to complain that this comic fails to, say, deal realistically with an encounter with aliens having a truly alien biology (let alone an alien social system) or other Big Ideas of science-fiction after the manner of, say, Arthur C. Clarke. This isn't that kind of a story - and it's shown quite a bit of variety so far; earlier on Mars, there was something for people who liked detective stories, for example.

spudit on April 05, 2011, 10:38:36 pm
A Dymaxion driveby?
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

macsnafu on April 06, 2011, 10:50:57 am
I was expecting anarchy in space, not romance in a place indistinguishable from New York.  Where are the zero g shootouts between the vigilante posse and the bad guy gang? 

Part of the point, I think, is that anarchy really isn't all that unnatural, and wouldn't be radically different from what we know now, at least on the surface.  It'll still be people interacting with people in obvious ways.

And if you want rayguns and spaceships and shootouts with the bad guys, then what you really want is a space opera strip, not an anarchy in space strip.   I enjoy space opera, too, but this strip really isn't space opera.
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

happycrow on April 07, 2011, 08:11:53 am
Most of the self-proclaimed anarchists I've met would result in gunfights in space; they've tended to be precisely the noncooperative, "social 20-20" types discussed in the strip.  I can EASILY see most of my Texan neighbors using a "needed killing" defense in such circumstances, let alone a "got tired of his crap" defense.

sam on April 13, 2011, 05:03:22 pm
And if you want rayguns and spaceships and shootouts with the bad guys, then what you really want is a space opera strip, not an anarchy in space strip.   I enjoy space opera, too, but this strip really isn't space opera.

The absence of militias, heroes, vigilantes, and rentacops from the comic strip has led Glenn Watson to reasonably conclude:
AnCap libertarians are idealists, naive idealists.  You guys are like liberal communists.  You don't take into account human nature.

Its sweet really.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 09:44:41 pm by sam »

mellyrn on April 14, 2011, 08:37:48 am
Quote
The absence of militias, heroes, vigilantes, and rentacops from the comic strip has led Glenn Watson to reasonably conclude:  [silly "human nature" allusion snipped]

And you, like GW and Holt, lack the cojones to express this in the first person, as in, "I know that I myself, sam, would run completely amok, freely killing, raping, and pillaging, if there were no central authority to stop me."

You guys always have to put it in the abstract & hypothetical:  "humans" need to "be controlled" (apparently by something that isn't human).  You never self-reference:  "I need to be controlled by something external to myself, because I by nature can't or won't control myself."

Your "human nature" fig leaf is comfortably vague, never defined.  And never, ever personal.

quadibloc on April 14, 2011, 09:12:51 am
And you, like GW and Holt, lack the cojones to express this in the first person, as in, "I know that I myself, sam, would run completely amok, freely killing, raping, and pillaging, if there were no central authority to stop me."
That isn't due to a lack of courage, it's due to a lack of truth.

However, your logic is flawed. Some tiny fraction of humanity, as we know, does go around freely killing, raping, and pillaging unless met by force. The members of this tiny minority do damage at a level far out of proportion to their numbers. If they manage to organize themselves so as to be able to resist the organized self-defence of the peaceful law-abiding majority... whether it's a posse or a bad old government is not relevant to the argument I'm making here... you get something like the Zetas in Mexico. When the government decides to harness this minority as a tool for their dictatorial ambitions, you get Hitler's brown shirts.

When people live in cities, and when there are disparities in income such that some people feel themselves unfairly disadvantaged, and some of those people are in some way in cohesive social groups, you have a very high potential for crime. Sufficiently high that if one relies on self-defence instead of a constabulary, you're likely to get a civil war - i.e. the KKK tries to deal with the problem of crime in the slums by driving all the blacks into the next town, but the Black Panthers have other ideas. (If the KKK has a membership composed only of kooky bigots, yes, they'll be cowards. If, however, the crime problem gets to the point that they, or some other similar but less extreme organization has a... broader... membership, I wouldn't rely on that.)

Since people have good reason to believe that the auto factories of Detroit and the steel mills of Pittsburgh could not be re-opened by a society running on Libertarian principles, although a socialist state could do that if it put its mind to it, and they perhaps lack the imagination to see how AnCap would suddenly make job opportunities of other kinds spring up all over, thus solving the big problems of economic inequality... they will fear scenarios like that.

And all that without having to believe in some universal human tendency to, under normal circumstances, kill, rape, and steal.

I hope this has clarified what this part of the debate is really about, but if those whose views I have tried to clarify feel I have not done so correctly, they can always speak on their own behalf.

Another Scott on April 14, 2011, 09:20:07 am
And if you want rayguns and spaceships and shootouts with the bad guys, then what you really want is a space opera strip, not an anarchy in space strip.   I enjoy space opera, too, but this strip really isn't space opera.

For good space opera on the web, there is Schlock Mercenary: http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ and Spacetrawler: http://spacetrawler.com/

mellyrn on April 14, 2011, 12:34:33 pm
Quote
And all that without having to believe in some universal human tendency to, under normal circumstances, kill, rape, and steal.

Don't tell me, tell the ones who do believe in some universal tendency to kill, rape, and steal.  They're the ones saying that I don't see that alleged universal human tendency and therefore my anarchistic opinions are fluff & air.  They cite "human nature."  They say humans need to be kept on leashes.  And they say it as if they themselves are somehow not of those humans -- as if it applies to others

"They" being, specifically, Glenn and Holt directly, and sam indirectly, and not some vague amorphous "them".

I want them to own up to being aliens, or to own up to their own "human nature" need to be controlled by an external force -- or, preferably, to drop the "human nature" dodge.

The one thing I know about human nature is that while this:
Quote
Some tiny fraction of humanity, as we know, does go around freely killing, raping, and pillaging unless met by force.
is true, it's also true that the fraction of humanity that can live without a group is much, much tinier.  We are by nature social entities, and therefore we by nature cooperate, without coercion.  Even me, much as I like, even need, some solitude.

GlennWatson on April 14, 2011, 01:12:25 pm
Quote
I hope this has clarified what this part of the debate is really about, but if those whose views I have tried to clarify feel I have not done so correctly, they can always speak on their own behalf.

I have studied a lot of history and I have tried to figure out why people do the thing they do.  200 year ago people like me owned slaves.  I don't.  Am I better than them?  I doubt it.

If Napoleon had been born 50 years later he would have been a might fine artillerymen and nothing else. 

Is Gandhi better than Hitler?  Is Glenn better than Mel or worse.  The differences are negligible if they exist at all. 

I do believe in right and wrong but I also believe in survival. 

I know this.  Humans are weak and selfish, all of them.  They must be controlled in some way.  I am human and don't like to be controlled.  Its a problem for which I have no solution.  But pretending it is not true is silly.


sam on April 14, 2011, 04:17:04 pm
The absence of militias, heroes, vigilantes, and rentacops from the comic strip has led Glenn Watson to reasonably conclude:

And you, like GW and Holt, lack the cojones to express this in the first person, as in, "I know that I myself, sam, would run completely amok, freely killing, raping, and pillaging, if there were no central authority to stop me."

Militias, heroes, vigilantes, and rentacops are not central authority.

I expect I would be one of the heroes, indeed I have been one of the heroes, but some people, quite a lot of people, would freely kill, rape, and pillage, if not forcibly stopped.  This I have personally observed.

« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 04:55:01 pm by sam »

 

anything