Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)
Posted on 09/12/2009 7:58:01 AM PDT by jay1949
Another libertarian-leaning journalist, John Stossel, is joining the Fox News – Fox Business cable lineup. Video links to John Stossel on gun control (it increases crime), the ethanol scam, and others.
(Excerpt) Read more at news-political.com ...
YAAAAAY! (But sorry, don’t like the “libertarian” label)
Frankly, he was needed on ABC more than on Fox.
Stossel without ABC’s liberal shackles should be really good.
from the story:
“Stossel started his career as a muckraking consumer-protection journalist, out to expose the frauds and misdeeds of Big Business, but underwent a period of enlightenment and growth which eventually put him firmly in the libertarian camp.”
This is what happens when a liberal that has an unimproved brain gets an education by observation. The rest of the libs are simply stupid followers or criminal leaders.
There goes whatever balance there was at ABC
I’m sure this is good for him but I hate to see him go. At ABC he could reach an audience that normally don’t hear his kind of politically incorrect reporting. He loved to challenge the lib talking points and he is great at it.
Dunno about Dobbs; he seems to lack the panache. But we shall see, and it would be no surprise.
It’s not a label. Stossel is a libertarian. Sorry if you don’t like that.
http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/john-stossel.html
Come up with a better one - - others have tried. “Liberal” is the actual term, in the sense that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and Ben Franklin were true liberals; but the word has been usurped and trashed by the Democratic left wing. “Libertarian” comes from the same root and seems to be adequately descriptive, but I’m open to persuasion, except on one point: there’s a lot of overlap between libertarianism and conservatism, but they are not the same by any means.
If anyone was still watching ABC, I’d agree; but he was “tolerated” (= patronized) at ABC News, and that will change with the move to Fox. Good odds that he will now have a more powerful voice.
Stosell used to refuse to wear the ‘label’ too, but he has embraced it most recently:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/2009/09/what-it-feels-like-to-be-a-libertarian.html
The problem with the label is that many are ignorant on the true philosophy of liberty itself (self ownership) and how real ‘libertarianism’ applies to that philosopy. The issue is that the Libertarian Party has been co-opted by some who are borderline ‘libertine’ as opposed to libertarians per-se.
In reference to the ‘actual’ term, the closest is is ‘classical-liberal’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
This is great news. I don’t have to contribute to abc’s audience count anymore to see what he has to say.
ABC is still on the air?
I disagree. I guarantee you that ABC was limiting his creative freedom. FOX won’t. Look at what that move did for Beck.
Good references. I often remonstrate undereducated correspondents that libertarians aren’t “libertines” and most of us don’t work in libraries. The name has been wrestled over for many years — some wanted “New Liberalism,” but that just didn’t seem right, because “traditional liberalism” was more descriptive. I’ve gotten used to “libertarian” and others will if it keeps getting the exposure. I hold that a majority — if barely — of Americans agree with basic libertarian principals and this is where the battle for the country’s future will be fought.
Absolutely, wasn't it just recently that a story of his was spiked because it was unfavorable to ABC's pro Obama agenda?
maybe he senses the end of the MSM and it’s influence. I would like to see every balanced or “right-leaaning journalist at fox.
“there’s a lot of overlap between libertarianism and conservatism, but they are not the same by any means.”
Right: both generally support limited government/lower taxes because they recognize that since power can corrupt, a government that is too big can threaten individual liberty.
Inexplicably, conservatives trust this very same government not to abuse its powers when it comes to imposing personal morality in areas such as drug use, prostitution, gambling and other victimless crimes (i.e., preventing capitalist acts between consenting adults).
In short, libertarians view and treat citizens as responsible adults who must fully accept the consequences of whatever actions they take (including any adverse consequences associated with lifestyle choices). Conservatives are more prone to view citizens as responsible adults when it comes to paying taxes, but little children in need of a nanny state to set them straight regarding certain lifestyle choices.
But of course, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds etc.
And good lookin' too. = )
Exactly my point - and at the risk of getting major flamed, libertarian, in it’s present form, is equal to cop out, in my book. The present libertarian movement condones drug legalization, homosexual rights, and all of the above “get the govt out of my life” stuff. Understandable but a cop out nevertheless and too damn easy. Conservatism is the “true way”, doesn’t cop out and actually requires some rational thought and strong choices...IMHO.
Good observation — no love lost between Obama and FOX News; after all, O’Reilly had the gall to treat him with fairness rather than fawning adulation. But the odds that Obama & Gang can stop the FOX juggernaut are Extremely Slim, and Extremely Slim is going to leave town on the next bus any day now. Obama won’t take a serious shot at Fox if he thinks he’ll lose — to big a blow for a narcissist’s ego to risk — so I believe he’ll have to satisfy him self with attempts at marginalizing.
I agree with you both. He was patronized, jay, and bama, no doubt he was limited.
My only point was that at least for his ten minutes or so, or his specials, people who watched ABC got a dose of clear thinking...for a change.
Jeffersonian party would probably be a bit more recognizable to the most.
Exactly. Stossel was boxed in at ABC, but Fox doesn’t waste talent—and they could make him a major star. Will be interesting to watch.
Much as we like to see the MSM deteriorate, let’s not forget that the audience at the major LETTER networks is still huge, compared to cable.
For example, in January, 20/20 had an audience of 5.6 million, whereas, BOR, Fox’s top rated show doen’t quite hit 4 mil. So they still have infuence.
However, having said that, I look forward to Stossel’s greater freedom on Fox. Trouble is, many 20/20 viewers may not ever (for irrational reasons) tune in to Fox.
Read post 20. Big government is big government, no matter WHO’S in charge. the libertarians loathe BIG GOVERNMENT. Many “conservatives” only despise big government whey they are NOT in charge of it. That last sounds like you.
Sorry, pal but I won’t bite and your comment doesn’t cut it - nice try - and I knew one of you would post something inane like that - congrats, you WIN!!!!
You need to go here (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14054) and read this article.
“...[E]ach individual must adopt a MORAL CODE, because MORALS are what you live by when you’re ALONE. It should be taught by the families and by the churches and synagogues. Morality is not the province of government, and the reason is simple. Especially today, when we have those of the Left working overtime to destroy the influence of families and religion (excepting the Religion of Peace, it seems) and substituting laws and prohibitions for morality, we need to fight this tooth and nail. For they mean to control every aspect of our lives and the only way it can be done is if they control what to them passes for morality: promiscuity, perversion and hedonistic pleasures to tempt our children coupled with prohibitions against these very things in the law, so that they can create a nation of LAWBREAKERS, who then can be controlled. As most of us know, a FREE man or woman cannot be controlled; at most they can be killed. But a hedonistic society, plagued by the guilt of breaking laws that were never intended to be UNBROKEN, can be controlled as readily as a horse to a bridle...”
So drug-warriors are, in fact, playing right into the hands of the Left. As are ALL the prohibitionists. When you start to get government involved in what should be the job of families and churches/synagogues, you are merely opening the door to the Obambies and the Soroses and the other LEFT control freaks. The evidence for that is all around us, yet many, like you, refuse to see it. “None so blind as he who WILL NOT SEE...”
“Drug use, prostitution, and gambling are not victimless.”
Actually, IN GENERAL, they are, just as alcohol use, IN GENERAL, is nobody’s business except the drinker’s. By all means, when use becomes abuse or reckless (e.g., drunk driving), it’s quite appropriate (indeed obligatory) that the state protect innocent victims against those whose use imposes costs or consequences on others. But the fact that a minority abuse a freedom doesn’t warrant preemptive impositions on liberty against all.
Prohibition is the best example: it was enacted by moralizers and abandoned once it became clear that the policy’s own costs vastly outweighed any conceivable benefits. There are equally compelling arguments made against our current war on drugs. Criminalizing responsible behavior between consenting adults generally has the effect of promoting crime and all its attendant costs. It would be a far better use of our valuable tax resources to legalize these activities and then focus our enforcement on abuses of the privilege (e.g., underage sex slavery, property crimes committed by addicts etc.).
That this more efficient approach to maximizing incentives to behave responsibly also expands our liberty is one additional reason to commend it.
What makes you think that being against drug prohibition is easy? Believe me, it’s not. You’re immediately suspected as a pothead or crack addict and subjected to marginalizing and insulting remarks. Never mind that after 10 years off and on cancer therapy I hate the idea of taking one more pill, ingesting one more chemical . . . . And, yes, libertarians generally support the right-to-privacy and right-to-travel decisions of the Supreme Court; that doesn’t make me, as a libertarian, a “gay rights” supporter, however. Again, not exactly the easy road. What conservatives should realize is that libertarians share their views anywhere from 60% to 80% of the issues and if differences can be set aside - - and they can - - that’s the road back to liberty for all of us. Ronald Reagan’s dictum - - “Someone who agrees with you 80 per cent of the time is a friend and ally, not a 20 per cent traitor.”
Perhaps, but the Democrats believe they have pre-empted Thomas Jefferson and personally I am opposed to naming any political party after a person, no matter who. Smacks of cults of personality — “Maoism,” “Stalinism,” and the like.
It is really something of a marvel that most libertarians have adopted the term “libertarian.” Getting them to agree on such details is like trying to herd cats. There is a “Libertarian Party” to which most libertarians do not belong and which some think should not exist, the idea of a political party with a governing structure and a platform and such being somewhat un-libertarian.
LOL - - great vid - -
And decades of Federal regulation have gained us what? An expensive DEA which is incapable of stopping the flow of illegal drugs (they seem to be more available now in the small town where I live than they were 25 years ago); prostitution is no less available now than it ever has been, especially in the Federal enclave of Washington, DC; gambling is as widespread as it ever has been. The problem is not morality - - that is a battle that can be waged only in person, not by government fiat, and can be won only person by person, family by family, community by community - - the problem is that government is inherently wasteful and unproductive and thus amoral, at best, and corrupt at worst. Limit the reach of big government by the rules of necessity and you limit the damage it can do.
Bravo; and see post 39.
People are not free if they are not free to fail.
I like John a lot-—he’s a first class journalist and “gets it.”
I remember when he was starting out on 20/20 though and did an expose on professional wrestling-—tried to confront a wrestler, who slapped him in the side of the head, causing ear damage. He probably learned a hard lesson with that story.
Why don’t you like the label? It’s what he is.
Stossel is a die-hard libertarian, not a conservative. He will disappoint many Freepers if they are expecting any conservative view points from Stossel. They will love him where libertarian thought and conservativism cross over, however.
See post 29 - - papasmurf posted the video link.
If you're a true Conservative, then to some degree you're Libertarian (heading for cover!).
There's a big field there where we can meet and be friends and decide on what can be done. I'll even bring a picnic basket.
Excellent - - libertarians and conservatives (non-statist ones, at least) have much more in common than either has with the Democratic left (statist to the core).
Yep, I see it! Thanks!
As a libertarian, I am proud to report that I have been tarred, feathered, and run out of Free Republic Town on a rail more than once. Not that often, though, because we really do agree most of the time. Key information, that.
Sounds like you live in my part of the world. I’m perched on an outcrop of ridge in a town on the Clinch River. Come wintertime, not much between our house and Canada but barbed-wire fences, and some of them have strands down.
John Stossel's going to be great for FOX - and FOX will be great for him. I hope he gets his own show.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.