Interesting article

http://www.reasonmag.com/news/show/116787.html

12/7/2006 4:07:38 PM

Quote :

"First and foremost, it is scabrously funny and antinomian"

I'm not finished reading yet, but this line is pretentious as balls.

Other than that, good reading so far.

Quote :

"“Muslims enraged over cartoon.” And I said, “Oh, shit. What did we do?” "

hahaha

[Edited on December 7, 2006 at 4:15 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2006 4:11:19 PM

Well, pretty solid article, but I didn't like how they didn't get around to talking about the title of the interview until the last question or two. Kinda weak in that regard.

12/7/2006 4:31:11 PM

now we just need one on "South Park Liberals" and we'll cover all 3...

12/7/2006 4:55:36 PM

i really dont think you could argue that they are liberal. conservative and libertarian yes, liberal not really.

12/7/2006 4:56:50 PM

what would you classify pro stem cell research, pro choice, pro gay marriage, pro sex change as?

12/7/2006 5:01:48 PM

libertarian

12/7/2006 5:08:45 PM

so then what is the liberal view on those issues?

12/7/2006 5:14:22 PM

so am i the south park liberal?

i support any ideology that advocates humiliating scientology.

12/7/2006 5:38:47 PM

the retarded use of liberal, conservative and libertarian to describe South Park gives me a headache.

12/7/2006 5:42:17 PM

WHO TOOK A DUKE IN THE URINAL?

12/7/2006 5:45:24 PM

Quote :

"so then what is the liberal view on those issues?"

Liberals and libertarians share many views on social freedom.

Libertarians believe that we own our bodies and our property. We can do with them as we wish as long as we do not hurt someone else or damage their property.

12/7/2006 7:37:06 PM

The reason why libertarians more readily associate with conservatives is because while we fully support social liberalism, we perceive it to be the norm. Stem Cell research is legal, abortions are legal, and gay marriage is a non-issue because the Government should not recognize any marriage, straight or otherwise. So why should we waste time voting in accordance with social issues when we feel secure in these rights.

Meanwhile, economic liberalism is rare, a huge chunk of our income is taken by Government for purposes we do not support. I cannot start a business without a government license. I could die waiting for the FDA to approve the drug I need. The EPA is suing me for clearing drainage ditches on my own property. The ESA is condemning my property because of a damn wood-pecker. I could go on. As libertarians, we WISH for change on the economic front because we know our economic liberty is insecure, and therefore historically vote based on economic issues.

Now, it turns out that Republicans are no more conservative than 1950s Democrats, so we have no idea who to vote for anymore. As of 2008 taxes are going to be as high as they were in 2001: 6 years of Republican rule didn't even manage to cut taxes permanently. So, I suspect libertarians will either not vote for awhile or strategically vote in efforts to split government: If the white house is Republican, vote democrat for Congress, or vice versa.

[Edited on December 7, 2006 at 8:04 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/7/2006 8:03:17 PM

this is more about political correctness than liberitarianism

12/7/2006 8:48:32 PM

Quote :

" Parker: A big key to us is that we both grew up in Colorado in the ’80s, and we wanted to be punk rockers. When you were a teenager in Colorado, the way to be a punk rocker was to rip on Reagan and Bush and what they were doing and talk about how everyone in Colorado’s a redneck with a gun and all this stuff. Then we went to the University of Colorado at Boulder, and everyone there agreed with us. And we were like, “Well, that’s not cool, everyone agrees with us.” And then you get to Los Angeles. The only way you can be a punk in Los Angeles is go to a big party and go, “You can say what you want about George Bush, but you’ve got to admit, he’s pretty smart.” People are like, “What the fuck did he just say? Get him out of here!”"

12/7/2006 10:39:32 PM

so it's "rebellion for the sake of rebellion".

probably the lamest type of rebellion there is.

12/7/2006 10:45:22 PM

they wanted to be punk rockers

12/7/2006 11:08:29 PM

SLC punks

12/7/2006 11:39:45 PM

punk is dead yo

travis killed it

12/8/2006 1:39:19 AM

Quote :

"the retarded use of liberal, conservative and libertarian to describe South Park gives me a headache."

While you're right, in the sense that they didn't set out to make the show one way or the other, calling them "South Park Conservatives" or "South Park libertarians" is much easier than "Creators of South Park libertarians." And, their personal political feelings come out in the show in a variety of places, but not overtly enough to call the show one way or the other.

It is pretty clear though, from their own admission that they are libertarians, and would more readily identify with conservatives than liberals, although they identify with neither.

12/8/2006 7:53:21 AM

Quote :

"I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals"

-- Matt Stone

12/8/2006 9:43:03 AM

Whatever their label, I like their view on free speech.

12/8/2006 12:24:35 PM

Quote :

"SLC punks"

Quote :

"The Fight: What does it mean and where does it come from? An Essay: Homosapien. A man. He is alone in the universe. A punker. Still a man. He is alone in the universe, but he connects. How? They hit each other. No clearer way to evaluate whether or not you're alive. Now. Complications. A reason to fight. Somebody different. Difference creates dispute. Dispute is a reason to fight. Now, to fight is a reason to feel pain. Life is pain. So to fight with reason is to be alive with reason. Final analysis: To fight, a reason to live. Problems and Contradictions: I am an anarchist. I believe that there should be no rules, only chaos. Fighting appears to be chaos. And when we slam in the pit a show it is. But when we fight for a reason, like rednecks, there's a system, we fight for what we stand for, chaos. Fighting is a structure, fighting is to establish power, power is government and government is not anarchy. Government is war and war is fighting. The circle goes like this: our redneck skirmishes are cheap perversions of conventional warfare. War implies extreme government because wars are fought to enforce rules or ideals, even freedom. But other people ideals forced on someone else, even if it is something like freedom, is still a rule; not anarchy. This contradiction was becoming clear to me in the fall of '85. Even as early as my first party, "Why did I love to fight?" I framed it, but still, I don't understand it. It goes against my beliefs as a true anarchist. But there it was. Competition, fighting, capitalism, government, THE SYSTEM. That's what we did. It's what we always did. Rednecks kicked the shit out of punks, punks kicked the shit out of mods, mods kicked the shit out of skinheads, skinheads took out the heavy metal guys, and the heavy metal guys beat the living shit out of new wavers and the new wavers did nothing. What was the point? Final summation? None."

[Edited on December 8, 2006 at 1:29 PM. Reason : .]

12/8/2006 1:28:49 PM