PDA

View Full Version : SCOTT BIESER ON THE PROBABILITY BROACH


MattBrady
02-22-2005, 11:04 AM
<a href="http://www.newsarama.com/Creator_Owned/ScottBieser/TPBfront_cover.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.newsarama.com/Creator_Owned/ScottBieser/TPBfront_cover_t.jpg" width="175" height="246" hspace="2" border="0" align="right"></a><i>by Daniel Robert Epstein</i>

To the artist’s own admission, <b>The Probability Broach</b> is full color graphic novel that is also thinly veiled propaganda for Libertarian ideals. Whether it’s viewed as a good comic book story is for the public to decide. But one has to respect the artist, Scott Bieser, for putting his views right out there in the world.

Too often when people reveal themselves they are often asked or sometimes even forced to put themselves back where no one can see them. For years comic book writers like JM DeMatteis and Jim Starlin have been accused of foisting their views on unsuspecting comic book fans in stories that subtly promoted a certain belief, but Bieser isn’t doing that. Instead, his philosophies and feelings in the adaptation of science fiction author L. Neil Smith’s <i>The Probability Broach</i> reveals themselves on every page.

<B>Newsarama</B>: What’s happening today?

<b>Scott Bieser</b>: I’m just transitioning from one project to the next. I’m promoting <b>The Probability Broach</b> and I just finished the script for a shorter book. An obscure one that a fellow commissioned me to do on the life and thoughts of a 19th century French economist named Frédéric Bastiat.

<B>NRAMA</B>: You’re definitely not taking the low road in your work. So, for people who don’t know it, what’s <b>The Probability Broach</b> about?

<a href="http://www.newsarama.com/Creator_Owned/ScottBieser/TPBp051.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.newsarama.com/Creator_Owned/ScottBieser/TPBp051_t.jpg" alt="page 51" width="175" height="246" hspace="2" border="0" align="left"></a><B>SB</B>: Just to give a bit of history about the book, first - the story was written in the late ‘70s and at the time it was set in 1987. So imagine a 1987 in which all the trends from the ‘70s had persisted. Back then we had decreasing amounts of energy available, increasing amounts of government control of the economy so basically Reagan never happened. What you have is a world in which the energy shortage was so severe that most civilians ride bicycles and only important government personages and other VIPs ride cars. The pollution situation had not improved because the economy is going into the toilet so we have this dystopian future where the story begins. We have this homicide detective named Edward William Bear who everyone calls Win. He’s investigating the murder of a physicist at a university that’s about 65 miles north of Denver. As soon as he starts the investigation he starts getting pressure to drop the case. He’s about to do just that when his boss gets murdered and several attempts are made on his life. He smells a rat and decides to continue the case. He winds up in the physicist’s laboratory where the bad guys follow him and there’s a big shootout. Some of the equipment gets turned on and he winds up getting blown through a gateway between universes.

He wakes up in this beautiful park and he can’t figure out where he is. He thinks he’s been blown into the future. Soon he figures out that he’s in an alternate universe so he finds his doppelganger. He then that there is a conspiracy from his universe of government agents and a dissident faction in the other universe to try to take control and end freedom to bring about a new authoritarian government. So the story is Win battling the other faction known as Hamiltonians.

<B>NRAMA</B>: How did you come to adapt the book come about?

<B>SB</B>: Originally the book was written because the author, L. Neil Smith, broke his foot so he was laid up for several weeks with nothing to do but write. Now he’s written over 20 novels. I had heard of him in science fiction circles many years ago but I had never picked up anything he had written until 1997. I found <i>The Probability Broach</i> and fell in love with the story. Via the internet I got acquainted with the author and found that we had a lot in common. A mutual friend, who unfortunately died recently named Kerry Pearson, was better known on the internet as Lux Lucre, suggested that in order to expand the audience for Neil’s work I should do a graphic novel based on it.

<a href="http://www.newsarama.com/Creator_Owned/ScottBieser/TPBp079.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.newsarama.com/Creator_Owned/ScottBieser/TPBp079_t.jpg" alt="page 79" width="175" height="246" hspace="2" border="0" align="right"></a>Neil then rewrote his book into a script. He has had some comic experience because he wrote a couple of stories for Marvel Comics in their anthology called <b>Open Space</b>. So Neil sent me a script then I edited it for space and for a better visual flow. It took me about 18 months to draw the book and get it published.

<B>NRAMA</B>: So you put it out through your company?

<B>SB</B>: You can call it self publishing but it’s basically my brother’s company. My brother was a computer guy who had a small ISP in Austin Texas. He managed to sell it before the dot com collapse and I persuaded him to invest some of it in a publishing company called Bighead Press so he could publish this and keep me fed and sheltered. I had been working in the computer game industry through most of the ‘90s for Interplay Productions until I was laid off in 2000 and it took me another six months to find a job.

At that point I looked at that industry and decided to return to my first love, comic books. I had done some work in comics in the ‘80s on a part time freelance basis and enjoyed it even though it didn’t pay much. I started looking for comic work and did some book illustrations. Then I did <b>A Drug War Carol</b> with Susan Wells and then, <b>The Probability Broach</b>.

<B>NRAMA</B>: Do you not handle the business side of it?

<a href="http://www.newsarama.com/Creator_Owned/ScottBieser/TPBp098.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.newsarama.com/Creator_Owned/ScottBieser/TPBp098_t.jpg" alt="page 98" width="175" height="246" hspace="2" border="0" align="left"></a><B>SB</B>: Oh yes I do. I wish I had someone else to do it because it’s not my forte. My brother and I work it out together even though he’s in Texas and I’m in California. It often works out better to ship the books from his place though I interface with the printers. Now that we are in the distribution/marketing phase we are both going at it as much as we can with the time constraints. He has another business and I’m home schooling two sons. It gets a little hectic but it’s very rewarding.

<B>NRAMA</B>: Was it more expensive doing the book in full color?

<B>SB</B>: It sure was. Neil really insisted it would be in color so we tried to take advantage of it. In the beginning of the book, in Win’s universe, all the tones are kind of faded and sepia shaded then when we get into the other universe everything is bright with full Technicolor. It’s sort of an homage to <i>The Wizard of Oz</i>.

<B>NRAMA</B>: What do you draw with?

<B>SB</B>: I run a completely paperless art studio. I do all my drawing on Wacom Tablet using Photoshop and I use Illustrator for all the text and sound effects stuff.

<B>NRAMA</B>: Was <b>A Drug War Carol</b> done that way as well?

<B>SB</B>: Yes it was.

<B>NRAMA</B>: How was switching from drawing by hand to computers?

<a href="http://www.newsarama.com/Creator_Owned/ScottBieser/TPBp106.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.newsarama.com/Creator_Owned/ScottBieser/TPBp106_t.jpg" alt="page 106" width="165" height="251" hspace="2" border="0" align="right"></a><B>SB</B>: I did the switch when I left comics in the 80’s. Back then I was drawing with a pencil and inking with a brush. Then in the computer games business all we had to draw with was a mouse. It was like drawing with a brick and eventually we transitioned over to graphics tablets. I learned to use the stylus doing graphics for games and when I went back into comics I just stayed with that. The hardest part is that when you are drawing using a pen or pencil you see the image forming underneath the tip but when you are drawing with a stylus, it's occurring somewhere else and it takes a while to adjust. It’s not easy for people to do right off the bat.

<B>NRAMA</B>: How is <b>The Probability Broach</b> selling?

<B>SB</B>: I wish I could say it’s going like gangbusters but that wouldn’t be true. It’s doing fairly well through Amazon.com and there is a local bookstore in Riverside California called Renaissance Books which I’ve sold several dozen copies through. Like most small independent press our marketing is not what we’d like it to be. We’re looking for a book trade distributor to get us into places like Barnes and Noble.

<B>NRAMA</B>: Obviously <B>The Probability Broach</b> is a book that wears its politics on its sleeve, but surprisingly enough I read that you left the Libertarian party.

<B>SB</B>: I like to think that I’m too Libertarian for the Libertarian party. Ever since it was formed back in the 1970’s there has been a contingent in the movement that has said that electoral politics is a bad idea. Some of them thought it was a bad idea for practical reasons such as there never being enough of us to make a dent. All it would do is just show people how weak we are. There are others who raise certain moral concerns about the morality of trying to oppose its own will on other people.

My position is sort of a combination of things. I ran as a candidate for election three times, once as a city council candidate in Austin, another as a state legislative candidate in Texas and in 1992 I ran for state assembly in California. None of it seemed to do any good so you have to sit back and think that if none of it works you have to change your tactics. So I’m changing doing that and I think the movement should shift into trying to get our viewpoint out as far and as broadly as possible. I also have observed that cultural and political values don’t get transferred through electoral campaigns. All those do is mobilize people that already think the same way you do.

<a href="http://www.newsarama.com/Creator_Owned/ScottBieser/TPBp182.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.newsarama.com/Creator_Owned/ScottBieser/TPBp182_t.jpg" alt="page 182" width="165" height="251" hspace="2" border="0" align="left"></a>The way people form their political opinions is through the stories that they read when they are children then adults. I think the movie <i>Bambi</i> has done more for the environmental movement than probably any other single project because it gave people the idea of nature as something beautiful and grand with humans as being evil intruders who wreck everything. If you look at a lot of the rhetoric from the environmentalist movement you see that value being repeated and propagated so libertarianism needs a <i>Bambi</i>.

<B>NRAMA</B>: <b>The Probability Broach</b> would have a tough time being the <i>Bambi</i> though…the message isn’t very…subtle.

<B>SB</B>: No it’s not and there are different schools of thought on that. I think subtlety is useful and has its place but I think being in your face also has its place and you need both. Neil is someone who is very good at in your face work. He basically lays out what freedom is and what a free society ought to look like. He is unique in that most libertarians who write about the future tend to write dystopias and how horrible things are going to get. Maybe the more positive ones have the heroes escaping and going off and forging their own future somewhere. <b>The Probability Broach</b> was the first book that showed what an ideal libertarian society might look like. Not necessarily what it has to look like but one direction it might go. People complain about preaching to the choir but it’s necessary because it keeps the choir singing.

<b>The Probability Broach</b> serves two purposes. First it’s a good way to introduce people, who might be open to the idea, to libertarianism. It’s also a good reinforcement and energizing tool for libertarians who understand the basic ideas but have gotten a little tired of having to go against the flow so often. Personally it helps inspire me to keep going.

<B>NRAMA</B>: What do you think of the people that would attack the book for being propaganda?

<B>SB</B>: It is propaganda and what’s wrong with that? Nearly every book that’s worth reading has a point of view or has a theme it’s trying to represent. Some books are very subtle about it, others are very sneaky and some books are very honest about it like <b>The Probability Broach</b>. I don’t think it needs to be defended except that we defend the ideas that the book represents.

<B>NRAMA</B>: Are you interested in doing mainstream books again?

<B>SB</B>: Sure, I’d love to. I haven’t read superhero comics for a long time but if a good writer or editor approached me about an interesting project I’d love to take a crack at it. What really interests me more is expanding the comics medium beyond the superhero ghetto it’s been in all this time. I’m quoted somewhere as having praised Fantagraphics for dragging comics kicking and screaming out of the superhero binge and there are other good companies out there like Top Shelf. I like NBM even if they don’t like me very much. I sent them a proposal for doing <b>The Probability Broach</b> and they sent something back saying they didn’t like the art. It was from [NBM publisher] Terry [Nantier] himself so at least if I get dissed I get dissed by the best.

<B>NRAMA</B>: What made you join the Libertarian Party in the first place?

<B>SB</B>: I was 18 years old and I picked up a book that was a collection of essays by Ayn Rand. The book fascinated me with its brazenness which was exciting. I love her other books but I didn’t really accept all of her philosophy though I liked a lot of the ideas. Especially the ideas of individualism and how each one of us should be free to run our own lives. Then a year after I discovered Rand’s work I discovered the Libertarian Party which was essentially promoting the same basic ideas even though Rand didn’t want anything to do with the party because they didn’t agree with her a 100 percent. I like the idea that a market economy really offers most people the best opportunity to fulfill their own destiny.

<b>The Probability Broach</b> is 192 pages and retails for $19.95

Check out the official site for <b>The Probability Broach</b>
http://www.bigheadpress.com/

gon
02-22-2005, 12:12 PM
The first sample page kind of reminds me of Mr. A.





Without the subtlety. ;)

MichaelCoughlin
02-22-2005, 01:32 PM
A Libertarian comic book? WHOOHOO! Any group of folks that are farther to the right than I am are alright by me (oh please people, don't read into that too much).

JONAS
02-22-2005, 01:48 PM
<B>I like the idea that a market economy really offers most people the best opportunity to fulfill their own destiny.</B>

It is a nice idea but what if it does not work?

Timothycat
02-22-2005, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by MichaelCoughlin
A Libertarian comic book? WHOOHOO! Any group of folks that are farther to the right than I am are alright by me.

Libertarians aren't right of conservartives on the axis of politics. Google "political spectrum" under google images and you'll find a lot of interesting diagrams of political spectrums.

Best,
TimK

Jason Seaver
02-22-2005, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by MichaelCoughlin
A Libertarian comic book? WHOOHOO! Any group of folks that are farther to the right than I am are alright by me (oh please people, don't read into that too much).
It's a little more complicated than that. Us libertarians love the civil rights, for instance.

mpdfuzz
02-22-2005, 02:21 PM
Well thank goodness the 124 members of the Libertarian Party have their own book now!

DCON
02-22-2005, 02:21 PM
I know what book im not picking up anytime soon ..LOL ... Libertarian comic book?!?!?!...LOL...LOL:D

how many trees where cut down to bring out this book? ...LOL .... or is it made out of hemp?...LOLOLOLOLOLOL..... :D


What is this a joke?

qnetter
02-22-2005, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Jason Seaver
It's a little more complicated than that. Us libertarians love the civil rights, for instance.

But hate actually protecting them, believing the market will do so for you. Keep clapping, Tinkerbelle will come back any second now.

shy guy
02-22-2005, 03:21 PM
Yeesh. Judging from the concept and the preview pages, this thing sounds like preach-o-rama.

MichaelCoughlin
02-22-2005, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Timothycat
Libertarians aren't right of conservartives on the axis of politics. Google "political spectrum" under google images and you'll find a lot of interesting diagrams of political spectrums.

Best,
TimK

grumble.

IN GENERAL, people tend to place libertarians farther to the right of conservatives.

i don't need to google this crap. i've got a degree in it.

MichaelCoughlin
02-22-2005, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Jason Seaver
It's a little more complicated than that. Us libertarians love the civil rights, for instance.

As do conservatives. It all depends on your definition of "civil rights".

Mr. !
02-22-2005, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by MichaelCoughlin
As do conservatives. It all depends on your definition of "civil rights".

What would be the difference between libertarians and conservatives regarding civil rights? Is there more than one definition of "civil rights?"

BurgundyTears
02-22-2005, 04:49 PM
For years comic book writers like JM DeMatteis and Jim Starlin have been accused of foisting their views on unsuspecting comic book fans in stories that subtly promoted a certain belief
Jim Starlin tried to foist his views on people? That's a new one to me. Given his obsession with utterly ruthless, 'flawless' and fiercely independent über-villains perfectly capable of murdering trillionsd of innocents without a second thought in their search for self-improvement, what would that be according to this logic? Fascism? :confused:

jmarshall
02-22-2005, 04:56 PM
As do conservatives. It all depends on your definition of "civil rights".

It's funny how conservatives are the only ones that need to have civil rights "defined".

Anders Wolleck
02-22-2005, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by BurgundyTears
Jim Starlin tried to foist his views on people? That's a new one to me. Given his obsession with utterly ruthless, 'flawless' and fiercely independent über-villains perfectly capable of murdering trillionsd of innocents without a second thought in their search for self-improvement, what would that be according to this logic? Fascism? :confused:

what was written and you quoted is that theyve been accused!!!!! not that they did anything!!!!

also read some more starlin. there is a philosophy there

TVerBeek
02-22-2005, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by MichaelCoughlin
As do conservatives. It all depends on your definition of "civil rights".
{sigh} It helps to use clear, well-understood terminology rather than expecting everybody to understand what you want it to mean. One of the reasons the Libertarian philosophy has failed to catch on is that no one understands the usually-quite-valid points they're trying to make... in academic Libertarianese. Maybe this book will do a better job.

For example, Libertarians generally don't promote what most people call "civil rights" (which usually involves the government stepping in and telling business whom they have to hire, schools how they have to be run, etc), but are instead passionate about "civil liberties" (which is all about getting the government to shove off and let people do as they choose). Sure, there's some overlap, but they're very different political philosophies which are also at odds in many areas.

Likewise, Libertarian views don't map onto the "conservative"/"liberal" axis as it's popularly understood. That axis is mostly about "Should government do A, or should it do B?", when the Lib answer is "No". Which is why using that terminology just confuses matters. It's a bit like trying to argue where "Maus" fits on the continuum between "Superman" and "Archie".

jmarshall
02-22-2005, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by TVerBeek
It's a bit like trying to argue where "Maus" fits on the continuum between "Superman" and "Archie".

So is Superman liberal and Archie conservative?

BurgundyTears
02-22-2005, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Anders Wolleck
it doesnt seem like youve read much Jim Starlin or this article
Plenty actually, but I was surprised by the assessment.
what was written and you quoted is that theyve been accused!!!!! not that they did anything!!!!
I've caught that part, but was curious about what exactly he was accused of.

also read some more starlin. there is a philosophy there
That Mary Sue-isms are very tiresome in his recent work? ;) (Sorry I couldn't resist, but I actually did like the original Warlock mini as well as Dreadstar) Seriously though, first you're saying he hasn't tried to spread political views, then that he did? Please explain. :confused:

Anders Wolleck
02-22-2005, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by BurgundyTears
Plenty actually, but I was surprised by the assessment.

I've caught that part, but was curious about what exactly he was accused of.


That Mary Sue-isms are very tiresome in his recent work? ;) (Sorry I couldn't resist, but I actually did like the original Warlock mini as well as Hardcore station) Seriously though, first you're saying he hasn't tried to spread political views, then that he did? Please explain. :confused:

All i;m saying is that the article said that others have said that he does espouse his philosphies in his work

David Bird
02-22-2005, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by MichaelCoughlin
grumble.

IN GENERAL, people tend to place libertarians farther to the right of conservatives.

i don't need to google this crap. i've got a degree in it.

I too have a degree in this and I support you, Michael. A hundred years ago the far right were monarchists. Fifty years ago they were fascists. Today they are the neo-conservatives/libertarians. The political spectrum shifts over the years.

Re: different civil rights. Different political positions assume people have different rights. There is a lot of common ground here, but it isn't always the same. The left has a concept of human rights, which is a proactive persective, arguing that the government should promote equality, etc. Neo-con/lib believe that there should be a very limited understanding of rights (to vote, to free speech), and leave it to individuals to protect/promote their own rights.

I haven't time to write more (at work), but I don't place much stock in libertarianism.

Kerouac
02-22-2005, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by jmarshall
So is Superman liberal and Archie conservative?

I dunno, I think you've got it backwards. Archie is quite the libertine, what with his philandering ways and all. And I've always felt Superman was a willing pawn of the military-industrial complex.

Btw, the above is all in good fun.

Matt

David P. Lyons
02-22-2005, 08:47 PM
A Libertarian comic book?

Who said they don't make comic books for children anymore?

David P. Lyons
02-22-2005, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by jmarshall
As do conservatives. It all depends on your definition of "civil rights".

It's funny how conservatives are the only ones that need to have civil rights "defined".

How does that follow? If civil rights aren't defined, people claim that any particular policy preference they have is a "civil right." Without clear definitions in politics we end up with Supreme Courts that decide presidential elections based on "equality," Presidents that start wars based on "freedom," and, again "Supreme Courts" that manufacture rights based "substantive" notions of "due process."

Nat Gertler
02-22-2005, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by mpdfuzz
Well thank goodness the 124 members of the Libertarian Party have their own book now! This seems aimed at libertarians, not Libertarian Party members. There are plenty of libertarians outside of the party; much of the individualist philosophy can make it hard to adhere to the organization of a party.

And part of the problem with putting them on the left/right chart (besides the obvious problem with a one-dimensional measurement of something that is far from one dimensional) is that the definition of "conservative" has changed. The modern definition seems to stick to the sort of administration we have today, promoters of more government control over individuals, higher government spending, deficit spending, corporate welfare, and military adventurism, none of which fit in with the classic conservative stance.

(And actually, as marketing: the number of registered Libertarian Party members is larger that "regular X-Men customers", who have many books of their own.)

Erik K
02-22-2005, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by DCON
I know what book im not picking up anytime soon ..LOL ... Libertarian comic book?!?!?!...LOL...LOL:D

how many trees where cut down to bring out this book? ...LOL .... or is it made out of hemp?...LOLOLOLOLOLOL..... :D


What is this a joke?

And the people with no idea of what they're talking about crawl out of the woodwork, trumpeting their ignorance to the world. I'm not a Libertarian, but I have to say that you obviously saw the "Liber" part of the word and allowed your brain to shut off.

Hint: You've got the stereotype down, now you just have to pin it to the proper group.

Regulator
02-23-2005, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by JONAS
I like the idea that a market economy really offers most people the best opportunity to fulfill their own destiny.

It is a nice idea but what if it does not work?

Hi, welcome to Earth! How long will you be visiting us?

Mike S Miller
02-23-2005, 01:11 AM
This is a great thread. lol.

I usually cast my ballot for the libertarian candidate whenever there is no one on the ballot that I agree with on at least 70-80% of the issues. Usually happens to one or two candidates on any given ballot. Not that I think the Libertarians will ever win anything, but at least I'm not wasting my vote.

That, and I'm for the legalization of industrial hemp. :)

qnetter
02-23-2005, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by Mike S Miller
This is a great thread. lol.

I usually cast my ballot for the libertarian candidate whenever there is no one on the ballot that I agree with on at least 70-80% of the issues. Usually happens to one or two candidates on any given ballot. Not that I think the Libertarians will ever win anything, but at least I'm not wasting my vote.

I'm always amused when those who have the most privilege and are most opposed to liberty proclaim themselves defenders of it.

David Bird
02-23-2005, 01:56 AM
Libertarianism is crippled by its simplistic view of the world and by its naivete. For example, they (and yes, I am generalizing, but not unfairly) have a a great fear of the power of the state. It is the root of all evil. But trust in the marketplace, including big business, to set everything right. There is no realization that a large company, especially a monopoly or oligopoly, can have the same effect on individuals, their lives and liberties, as any government. And in a libertarian world major corporations would act without accountability.

Libertarianism supposes an ahistorical world, in which everyone is reduced to the same theoretical individual. And teaches that we will all live peaceably in freely entered into contracts. These points have interesting implications. But what if libertarians were to take over an American government -- at the state or federal level -- and were faced with a decision dealing with Native Americans. These Natives have historic treaties with the US government. To a libertarian an individual is an individual, there are no special rights. But there are treaty rights, contractual rights, granted by historical and legal measures. What is to take precedence? Most libertarians I have spoken with would chuck out the treaty and insist the Natives be treated like any other American. So what about there importance of contracts? Without a government, who will enforce them?

Because libertarians like to believe we're all the same, they feel they can dismiss and not address reaal life concerns like these. In a libertarian utopia they would all just evaporate in the new shiney, happy world.

ScottBieser
02-23-2005, 02:39 AM
In response to various comments above:

The last I heard, which was about six months ago, the paid membership of the Libertarian Party is a little less than 20,000 people. At its peak, it was about 35,000.

Various public opinion surveys have indicated that about 2-4 percent of the American public describe themselves as philosophically libertarian. And surveys based on charting positions on issues while avoiding ideological labels indicate as much as 16 percent of Americans at least lean strongly towards libertarianism.

I rather suspect mdpfuzz got his 124 number by counting the pimples on his posterior.


The "left-right political spectrum" is an 18th-Century idea that barely worked then and causes a great deal of confusion now.

For example, we think of people who want to legalize drugs as being on the left, and people who support the right to own guns as on the right.

Libertarians want to legalize drugs and also support the right to own guns. Where do you put them, in the center? But then where do you put people who want both guns _and_ drugs to be forbidden?

The most confused notion I've seen so far is David Bird's bizarre term "neo-con/libertarians."

That's somewhat like the term "carnivore/vegetarian." The only common thread linking libertarians and neoconservatives is there are too many of both of them in the Republican Party.

Libertarians "challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual." (From the LP Statement of Principles) Or, put another way, libertarians believe that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another person, nor to delegate or incite such an action. (On the other hand, truly defensive force against initiated force is generally not only smiled upon, it is encouraged.)

Neoconservatives champion the cult of the omnipotent state and are happy to shred any individual rights (such as the right to free speech and assembly, the right to privacy, the right to self-medicate, etc.) that get in the way of their policy goals.

Both ideologies support "the free market," but the libertarian "free market" is completely laissez-faire, with no prior-restraint regulation or government management. The only role for government, if there must be a government at all, is in the enforcement of contracts.

The neoconservative idea of "the free market" is better described as "crony capitalism," in which politically favored "contractors" get fat off of taxes extorted from everyone else, or enjoy a regulatory regime stacked in their favor.


David also believes that libertarians don't appreciate the dangers presented by "big business." By which I think he means, the giant corporations which have become more powerful than many national governments.

It is true that many libertarians have been so focused on debunking the Marxism and New Deal leftism that they have forgotten the wisdom of some of their own teachings about this. Adam Smith noted that businessmen seldom get together and NOT conspire to rig markets in their favor, and seek to establish cartels, or even monopolies.

But the insight of libertarianism is that in order for these attempts to succeed, they must have the collusion of the state to enforce and support their cartels or monopolies. Without an enforcer, some members of a cartel will always cheat and undercut their co-conspirators. And a monopoly rarely exists for very long without some government law or regulation restricting or prohibiting entry by competitors, or in the case of a resource monopoly, the development of substitutes.

The goal of libertarians is to make the state so small and weak that it cannot enforce anyone's cartel or protect anyone's monopoly.


Libertarianism recognizes that individuals often band together into groups, such as tribes, or communities, or even national governments. And there is nothing wrong with this so long is force is not initiated against an unwilling party. Bird's question about Native Americans is somewhat puzzling to me, because I don't know specificly what treaty provisions are supposed to be conflicting with what other rights.

I think that generally treaties should be respected, and the sovereignty of Native American reservations should be respected.

It almost seems like Bird is criticising libertarians for being too egalitarian, which is a new one to me. But in fact we recognize that each person is unique, with a distinct set of talents, skills, strengths, and weaknesses. In fact, this is a fundamental reason why the division of labor is so important to economic growth -- when people can focus their time and energy on what they do best, more goods and services can be produced, and people become wealthier.

In a condition of freedom, some will grow very wealthy, others will not. Some will care, others won't. Whether the disparity between richest and poorest would be wider in a truly free market rather than the mixed system we now have, is something libertarians tend to debate with one another.

ScottBieser
02-23-2005, 03:45 AM
... and by the way, I'm flattered to be compared with Ditko.

TroyCarter
02-23-2005, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by ScottBieser
Various public opinion surveys have indicated that about 2-4 percent of the American public describe themselves as philosophically libertarian. And surveys based on charting positions on issues while avoiding ideological labels indicate as much as 16 percent of Americans at least lean strongly towards libertarianism.

I'm one of the ones that falls on the border between Libertarian and Anarchist. I've been looking for more small press graphic novels, though, and I might just have to check this out.

BurgundyTears
02-23-2005, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by David Bird
I too have a degree in this and I support you, Michael. A hundred years ago the far right were monarchists. Fifty years ago they were fascists. Today they are the neo-conservatives/libertarians. The political spectrum shifts over the years.

Re: different civil rights. Different political positions assume people have different rights. There is a lot of common ground here, but it isn't always the same. The left has a concept of human rights, which is a proactive persective, arguing that the government should promote equality, etc. Neo-con/lib believe that there should be a very limited understanding of rights (to vote, to free speech), and leave it to individuals to protect/promote their own rights.

I haven't time to write more (at work), but I don't place much stock in libertarianism.
*Salutes* I like you. You observe and analyse in ways similar to myself. :)

David Bird
02-23-2005, 10:32 AM
Scott,

Welcome to Newsarama! I am justing getting ready for work now and may not be able to respond to all your points until late tonight, but I always enjoy a well reasoned debate. While I don't agree with your political views, I do wish you success with your venture, and I hope you make your presence felt on Newsarama beyond this one thread.

I don't think libertarians are "too egalitarian". Rather, it is assumed in libertarian thought that every person is equally capable of defending their rights and person. In the real world, now and historically, the adage "the rich get richer and the poor poorer" it only too true. Without the intervention of someone to limit the strong and ameliorate the problems of the poor, a system only becomes more unequal and a libertarian political culture makes no means to protect the powerless.

David Bird
02-23-2005, 01:30 PM
Hello again! I have a free moment and thought I would respond to your questions about equating neo-conservative and libertarian.

The simple answer is: I am not an American, nor living in the US, so I didn't take into account the differing associations the terms have in different countries. My mistake. I understand how you would be surprised and even a little confused by my pairing of the two. The current American administration certainly has a lot of self-described "neocons," who seem to use the term to mean little more than being a part of the latest, assertive generation of conservatives. Actually, from what I read of the American press, "neo-con" is mostly used as an insult by opponents of Bush's administration, without any consideration of its origins or ideological underpinnings.

What I am referring to when I write neo-conservative is the generation of classical liberals who came to prominence with the rise of Thatcherism and Reaganomics. Their link to libertarians is simple: they have been at the forefront of using the marketplace to solve public policy questions. Most noteably through the concept of privatization. These people are the original "neo-cons" and through their activities libertarian concepts have enjoyed real world applications.

The results of those applications, however, are far from fantastic. Their have been successes -- the number of homeowners in the UK -- and terrible failures. In the long term probably the worst of these will be the effect private control is having on the availability of clean water, particularly in the third world, and the effects of the economic restructuring enforced on poor nations by the World Bank (though the latter has had some success stories as well).

I could go on, but my work break is over. Later.

ScottBieser
02-23-2005, 01:31 PM
Rather, it is assumed in libertarian thought that every person is equally capable of defending their rights and person. In the real world, now and historically, the adage "the rich get richer and the poor poorer" it only too true. Without the intervention of someone to limit the strong and ameliorate the problems of the poor, a system only becomes more unequal and a libertarian political culture makes no means to protect the powerless.

Historically, in the real world, agencies created to protect the "weak" from the "strong" only get captured by the "strong" so they can more handily and thoroughly oppress the powerless.

What libertarian theory assumes is that everyone is _responsible_ for defending her own rights. The weak may band together to better protect themselves, and firearms widely distributed among the populace can (assuming people are willing to use them) serve to broadly distribute and generally equalize political power.

(Careful students of Black history, for example, know that it was only when black families organized and armed themselves that they were able to stand up against the Ku Klux Klan and it's "night riders." And it was when black families allowed themselves to be disarmed that atrocities like the 1921 Tulsa Riots occurred. And such historians get really dismayed when black political leaders call for more gun control.)

Not all libertarians are quite as hard-core ans Neil and I are about this, but we tend to see self-defense as a basic biological function that cannot be delegated to some "wise overlords," even when the overlords have to stand for election.

ScottBieser
02-23-2005, 01:55 PM
Ah, I see the source of your confusion. This sort of thing often occurs in transatlantic conversations.

In America, "neo-conservatism" is a very distinct philosophy with a small number of very influential adherents.

Most of the elder generation of neo-cons were originally Trotskyites in their youth, who became disillusioned with Marxism and socialism, but not with authoritarianism. They basicly substituted crony capitalism for "worker's socialism" in their theoretical constructs and then carried on. The principal theoretician for this ideology was an academic named Leo Strauss, who taught political science at Yale (if I'm not mistaken).

The difference between Trotskyism and Stalisnism, was that Trotsky wanted to focus on spreading socialism worldwide whereas Stalin was more inward-looking, seeking to shore up and consolidate power at home first. This "internationalism" persists in neo-con doctrine, and explains their drive to dominate the Middle East in particular and the world in general.

The younger generation of neo-cons were never Trotskyites but most of them tended to start out as moderate leftists but were repelled by the failures of socialism in Europe and Asia. And of course some of them (there are some like this in most movements) are entirely in the game for power, and see this movement as the most suitable vehicle for them.

"Neo-conservatism" is "conservative" in the American sense principally in its support for traditionalist "moral" values (against alternative lifestyles) and its support of corporate capitalism.

What you had termed neo-conservatism, essentially Thatcherism, is what we usually call "classical liberalism," related to 18th- and 19th-Century liberal ideas. Thatcher's favorite economic philosopher, Friedrich Hayek, called himself a classical liberal. And you are correct to relate this philosophy to libertarianism, for while there are important differences both doctrines descend from a common philosophical lineage -- the original "liberalism" of Locke, Smith, Say, Cobden, Bastiat, and others of their times.

Comics -- they're not just for high-brow academics anymore. ;)

David Bird
02-23-2005, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by ScottBieser
Historically, in the real world, agencies created to protect the "weak" from the "strong" only get captured by the "strong" so they can more handily and thoroughly oppress the powerless.

Typically, governments do end up being dominated by the strong, but the solution is not to get rid of government. Rather, it is to ensure that the government is open, democratic, and accountable. Without it the strong run roughshod over others and arming the populous -- which I actually don't have a problem with, in itself -- is an ineffective solution for more than one reason.

The strong have superior means with which to arm themselves and to monitor others. So the weak are less likely to succeed. And the weak are also less likely to try. Contrary to the leftist idea of the worker revolt, the disenfranchised generally accept that they are disenfranchised and spend their energy on just living from day to day.

Revolution tends to come from the middle class. This is where the tie between democracy and capitalism is to be found. Capitalism creates a middle class and this class insists on being a part of the decisions which impact their lives. Even the leaders of Marxist revolutions tend to come from the middle class.

More importantly, though, the strong don't come to dominate simply because they are strong. As a student of government I have formulated what I call Bird's Law of Political Organization: Any society will promote the success of those who in turn ensure its success. I noticed this first when looking at fascist and authoritarian governments and their use of state terrorism. Where, I asked myself, do they get all these psychotics to do their bidding. The answer is that such people are always there. But they have no outlet without a government which needs them. Likewise a bureaucratic government like ours (modern government) is going to promote the success of lawyers and accountants, because they and their methods are the ones most likely to ensure its success. They may fly in the face of democratic practices, but such inconsistancies will be rationalized away by the systemic need for these very practices.

And again! I am out of time. More later.

David Bird
02-23-2005, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by ScottBieser
This sort of thing often occurs in transatlantic conversations.

I am actually up north in British Columbia, but you're basically right, we are using the same term to mean different things.

I won't be able to get back to this until very late tonight, if I can't squeeze it in now, so...

Re: my post at the top of the page. I just wanted to finish it up by noting that privatization has not been a great success. While governments sometimes do enjoy in influx of capital due to the sale of some public utility or property, costs seldom decrease and levels of service diminish. Even more importantly, accountability is lost.

Re: my last previous post. Where I was going here is to point out that the powerful would be a de facto government, whether they were called so or not. Whatever the principles the society was inspired by will be reinterpreted to suppport the status quo. There are many historical examples of societies continuing a great variance to their stated values. For example, for almost a century America declared that all men were created equal, while keeping many of its people enslaved because of their skin colour.

Some form of mediation will exist in order to ensure the civil society and this will be the government. The powerful will take an interest in it, and their values and interests will be promoted.

While the governments of large, modern nations may seem to exist as something a part from the individual, this only true in some terms of some facets (governments can, for example, have interests opposed to certain individuals or groups). Governments exist as mediators of interests and representations of society as a whole. Individuals can be protected, through the enshirement of democratic values and practices, openness and accountability, but the libertarian ideal of a modern society without the state is naive.

DukeGlendale
02-23-2005, 08:25 PM
It is amazing how open-minded some of the people here are, comparing this to a children's book.

Libretarians believe in limited government, civil liberties, responsibility, and most of all freedom (Such as the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail.) Most libretarians are for gay marraige and also privatization of social security.

Although I don't agree with some of their views, I respect it and am intrigued by thieir view of the world.

Some of you might have read Alan Moore's V for Vendetta. This book is a pro-anarchist book (closer to libretarian views than liberals or conservatives). Is that a children's book?

Personally, I agree with some libretarian ideas and some conservative views. But I still read most of the comics out there (mainly written by people with "progressive" or liberal views). Corporations and the rich often play a recurring role as villians in these books. Then you have comics where Hal Jordan is called a conservative, without providing any supporting proof except that he is a racist.

The point is all books, comics, movies, and news programs are biased to the writer/creator's experience and views. This isn't a bad thing if you expose yourself to different points of views. I'm telling you to go out and buy this book, but atleast this guy comes out and says that his work is biased to the way he views the world.

Or would you prefer them to lie to you and say they are "fair and balanced" like some news channels.

Nat Gertler
02-23-2005, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by DukeGlendale
Most libretarians are for gay marraige and also privatization of social security. Actually, most libertarians I've heard from on the subject aren't for the privatization of Social Security. They're for the abolishment of it.

BurgundyTears
02-24-2005, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by Nat Gertler
Actually, most libertarians I've heard from on the subject aren't for the privatization of Social Security. They're for the abolishment of it.
Most libertarians I've spoken to have been full-fledged social darwinists who want to abolish all ethical laws and replace them with man's ability to enforce his will upon others and defend himself from others attempting the same. Apparently propagating a strategic form of genetic cleansing in the long-time perspective. Then again, they've been of the younger computer-game generation variety.

Regarding the lack of widespread libertarian entertainment sources spreading their ideals to the young and malleable, would South Park, Team America and the like from Trey Parker & Matt Stone qualify? :confused:

About V For Vendetta spreading purely anarchist ideals. From interviews I was under the impression that Alan Moore was extremely liberal in his world-view, so this seems confusing, given that I can actually see the point of this analysis. :confused:

David Bird
02-24-2005, 01:13 PM
Two things:

First: If you go to Scott's website (www.scottbieser.com) you will find the first 42 pages of Probability Broach available online.

Second: Scott! Is your book available through any vendors (Ingram, etc)? I ask because I order graphic novels for the store I work in and I haven't been able to find anything, though I did get the ISBN through Amazon.

TRaik
02-24-2005, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by David Bird
Scott! Is your book available through any vendors (Ingram, etc)? I ask because I order graphic novels for the store I work in and I haven't been able to find anything, though I did get the ISBN through Amazon.

For what it's worth, the Big Head Press (http://www.bigheadpress.com) website mentioned as the publisher in the initial posting notes that the book is available through the specialty comics wholesaler Cold Cut Comics Distribution (http://www.coldcut.com/), so it seems your store could order the book through them. Barring that, the site also says that interested retailers should contact sbieser@bigheadpress.com directly to order copies.

In the original interview, Scott Bieser mentions "Like most small independent press our marketing is not what we’d like it to be. We’re looking for a book trade distributor to get us into places like Barnes and Noble." so maybe their representation among traditional book trade wholesalers isn't quite set up. Since they're obviously working the comics market via Cold Cut, I'm wondering if they're listed with Diamond Comics Distributors and, if so, I'm wondering if Diamond's book trade distribution side might take them on. Then again, maybe they'll wind up distributed to the book trade by National Book Network (http://www.nbnbooks.com) which, after all, already distributes Cato Institute publications... ;)

David Bird
02-24-2005, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by TRaik
In the original interview, Scott Bieser mentions "Like most small independent press our marketing is not what we’d like it to be. We’re looking for a book trade distributor to get us into places like Barnes and Noble." so maybe their representation among traditional book trade wholesalers isn't quite set up. Since they're obviously working the comics market via Cold Cut, I'm wondering if they're listed with Diamond Comics Distributors and, if so, I'm wondering if Diamond's book trade distribution side might take them on. Then again, maybe they'll wind up distributed to the book trade by National Book Network (http://www.nbnbooks.com) which, after all, already distributes Cato Institute publications... ;)

Yeah, I did notice that, but more info about where I can get the book would be better. Ordering from self-publishers can actually be a problem, and it is compounded if they aren't local. If they can get on with National Book Network, that would be great. I just placed an order with Diamond Book Distributors and probably won't have a minimum order for a while. If it were available from a vendor that the store makes frequent orders to, that would be the best case scenario.

If Scott's away too long, I'll just PM him. I am interested in ordering, but it may have to wait until its easier for a retailer to get.

David P. Lyons
02-24-2005, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by DukeGlendale


Some of you might have read Alan Moore's V for Vendetta. This book is a pro-anarchist book (closer to libretarian views than liberals or conservatives). Is that a children's book?



No, but, but then, the dialogue in V for Vendetta wasn't polemics masquerading as genuine conversation. Moore did his work subtley, which qualifies as a more mature form of art. Also, Moore's political views, generally socialist/anarchist, have always struck me as non-programmatic, which thus sets him apart from the generally immature approaches to politics that most "liberals," "conservatives," and libertarians take.

David Bird
02-24-2005, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by David P. Lyons
No, but, but then, the dialogue in V for Vendetta wasn't polemics masquerading as genuine conversation. Moore did his work subtley, which qualifies as a more mature form of art. Also, Moore's political views, generally socialist/anarchist, have always struck me as non-programmatic, which thus sets him apart from the generally immature approaches to politics that most "liberals," "conservatives," and libertarians take.

Agreed.

TRaik
02-26-2005, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by David Bird
Yeah, I did notice that, but more info about where I can get the book would be better. Ordering from self-publishers can actually be a problem, and it is compounded if they aren't local. If they can get on with National Book Network, that would be great. I just placed an order with Diamond Book Distributors and probably won't have a minimum order for a while. If it were available from a vendor that the store makes frequent orders to, that would be the best case scenario.

If Scott's away too long, I'll just PM him. I am interested in ordering, but it may have to wait until its easier for a retailer to get.

Oh, I absolutely understand. It's always easier for a retailer to order stuff when the manufacturer of that stuff can make it available through the routes the retailer already works with, and it doesn't quite seem as if this publisher is quite there yet.

For what it's worth, if you're serious about stocking graphic novels for your store, you might find it worthwhile to open an account with Cold Cut Comics Distribution (http://www.coldcut.com/) if you can. They do specialize in alternative/independent works of the kind Diamond Book Distributors doesn't emphasize, but (if I recall correctly) Cold Cut's minimum order size is very managable. They've got a pretty good reputation for efficient fulfillment and customer service, so they can be a pretty good source if the other usual suspects (Diamond, B&T, Ingram, etc.) fail you.

Nat Gertler
02-26-2005, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by TRaik
They do specialize in alternative/independent works of the kind Diamond Book Distributors doesn't emphasizeI think you may be missing just who DBD carries and what their roll is, confusing them with Diamond Comics Distributors (who actually do a good job of carrying alternative material, although Cold Cut is good at catching things DCD lets slip through the cracks). While DBD is Marvel's distributor to the book trade, Marvel is only recently back with them. DBD is the distributor to the book trade for Strangers In Paradise, Alternative Comics, Antarctic, Astonish, Cartoon Books, Checker, Stray Bullets, Ait-PlanetLar, Top Shelf, Slave Labor, and more. It's hard to see them as not emphasizing alternative material.

However, DBD is not a company an individual store will generally deal with directly. Instead, they'd go to a book wholesaler, such as Ingram or Baker And Taylor -- another level of middleman.

David Bird
02-26-2005, 10:40 AM
There is a reason we don't deal with Cold Cut, but for the life of me I don't remember what it is -- no returns? -- I'll call them next week.

Our individual store does deal with Diamond Book Distributors. Its a little complicated, though. They don't have Canadian distribution rights to a lot of things, which makes it hard to make minimum.