Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does John Stossel represent mainstream libertarian belief?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
    Stossel's vision though, which you described as mainstream, is one of sheer anarchy. When he advocated for zero border security he went full nutball. That's not restrained government. That's a total absence of government.

    I believe in minimal regulation, but I believe regulation should exist.

    I believe that law should not restrict the rights of the individual, but I still believe in law and order.

    I don't think the US can or should be world cop, but I also don't believe in full on Fallout Shelter style isolationism.

    On his last episode this dopey kid was suing Obama because the NSA collects phone metadata. But I'll bet dollars to donuts she broadcasts more about her life via Facebook than whatever data they collected. That is the funny kind of crazy but I don't want it running this country.

    The ideal libertarian world that Stossel has been describing is basically a cross between an Upton Sinclair/Charles Dickens urban jungle (which libertarians like Stossel and Beck have openly declared the good old days on their respective TV programs) and the Thunderdome. No law. No security. No morals. Mexican cartels can roll across the border and murder at will, women are exploited, and canned food could be preserved with formaldehyde for all anyone knows.

    I remain a Republican but I will run screaming to Bernie Sanders before inviting that kind of chaos.
    Funny. I have watched every episode, and I've NEVER heard him advocating ANY of what you are claiming. I don't think we are processing the same thing the same way, because if I'd thought he was advocating NO security, NO law, and NO morals, I wouldn't watch him.

    Comment


    • #17
      Funny. I have watched every episode, and I've NEVER heard him advocating ANY of what you are claiming. I don't think we are processing the same thing the same way, because if I'd thought he was advocating NO security, NO law, and NO morals, I wouldn't watch him.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Its typical of Conservatives and Liberals to create a "strawman" that doesn't exist or is an exaggerated view to attack whom they perceive as a threat or an idea that conflicts with theirs. They have no one to blame but themselves for the big oppressive Federal Government they have created, all in the name of safety and fairness for the children of course. 20 trillion dollar debt, deficits on each budget as far as the eye can see and the politicizing of each and aspect of American life. This is what they defend when attacking Libertarians and notice how they run to one another's "side" to prevent any real change to the status quo. A liberal and conservative will hold a collective turd, claim they have the clean part and join hands defending that turd!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
        Stossel's vision though, which you described as mainstream, is one of sheer anarchy. When he advocated for zero border security he went full nutball. That's not restrained government. That's a total absence of government.

        I believe in minimal regulation, but I believe regulation should exist.

        I believe that law should not restrict the rights of the individual, but I still believe in law and order.

        I don't think the US can or should be world cop, but I also don't believe in full on Fallout Shelter style isolationism.

        On his last episode this dopey kid was suing Obama because the NSA collects phone metadata. But I'll bet dollars to donuts she broadcasts more about her life via Facebook than whatever data they collected. That is the funny kind of crazy but I don't want it running this country.

        The ideal libertarian world that Stossel has been describing is basically a cross between an Upton Sinclair/Charles Dickens urban jungle (which libertarians like Stossel and Beck have openly declared the good old days on their respective TV programs) and the Thunderdome. No law. No security. No morals. Mexican cartels can roll across the border and murder at will, women are exploited, and canned food could be preserved with formaldehyde for all anyone knows.

        I remain a Republican but I will run screaming to Bernie Sanders before inviting that kind of chaos.
        I read that post closely, and on its surface, it appears rather reasonable. Scratch it inch deep, however, and something is clearly very wrong.

        Take the borders, for instance. Guys like Stossel aren't offering chaos in the face of proper regulation: they're describing chaos that merely presents a pretense of order. Our southern border has been in a state of regulatory collapse for the last quarter-century. That's a fact. The Tucson Border Patrol Sector has averaged over 150 homicides per year for the last sixteen years. That's chaos, not proper regulation: streams of people traipsing through the desert, led by coyotes carrying two gallons of water apiece. That today's reality, and it's been that way for years.

        The "regulation" offered up by establishment Republicans and Democrats alike is, in reality, more of the same: either unrealistic deportation and fence schemes, or glorified open borders. No one -- certainly no establishment figure -- dares broach genuine immigration enforcement: AT THE WORKPLACE! Hell no. Too much campaign cash would be jeopardized if INS/ICE were to be truly empowered to enforce workplace compliance. And to even broach the subject ending the obviously ruinous War on Drugs likewise engenders strong reactions, mostly from LE types and their waterbearers in the Fourth Estate and Moral Majority crowds. Our borders are porous because the powers-that-be want them that way. Period. All guys like Stossel have said is, if we're to have open borders, then let's end the charade of enforcement and just open the borders legally to the degree that they're obviously open by deliberately poor enforcement. End the hypocrisy.

        On so many pressing topics of the day, the fat boys in front of microphones and legislative chambers propose all kinds of great-sounding plans, and some even manage to be enacted, yet virtually all of them fizzle into nothing in the end. In many fields our legislation is nothing more than words on a paper, written for the sake of appearing to "do something," while relieving its authors of any obligation to deliver any act of substance. We already live in a state of anarchy. Our "achievement" has been to allow ourselves to be deluded into believing that government as we've known it actually does anything effectively.

        Look Dorothy: Toto pulled back the curtain -- and it revealed an ******* merely posing as a wizard. So why are you angry with the dog?



        Are you in such desperate need of absolution that you'll stump for the political process? Can it get any lamer than that?
        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Armored Fist View Post
          Funny. I have watched every episode, and I've NEVER heard him advocating ANY of what you are claiming. I don't think we are processing the same thing the same way, because if I'd thought he was advocating NO security, NO law, and NO morals, I wouldn't watch him.
          Did you catch the episode two weeks ago on Fox News? I believe that was the episode where they were talking about Mexican border security. It was on either a Saturday or Sunday. I'll see if I can find a clip.

          Here's a link to the show I was talking about:

          http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/st...law-and-border

          OPEN BORDERS?: Jeffrey Tucker of Laissez Faire Books argues that we should have NO border controls. That was the law in America until the Immigration Act of 1882 banned "idiots, lunatics, convicts and persons likely to become a public charge." Stossel and Tucker debate.


          Stossel seemed to be buying what Tucker was selling. IIRC they asked the audience and they were buying it hook line and sinker too.

          I do not buy into NO border controls.
          Last edited by Pirateship1982; 30 Sep 15, 15:03.
          A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
            Did you catch the episode two weeks ago on Fox News? I believe that was the episode where they were talking about Mexican border security. It was on either a Saturday or Sunday. I'll see if I can find a clip.

            Here's a link to the show I was talking about:

            http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/st...law-and-border



            Stossel seemed to be buying what Tucker was selling. IIRC they asked the audience and they were buying it hook line and sinker too.

            I do not buy into NO border controls.
            I did see it, and I don't think Stossel was "buying into it". I think he was leaving it open to honest and intelligent discussion. I think you may be confusing Stossel not actively disagreeing with his guests as supporting their position. He's a host, after all.

            Comment

            Working...
            X