Informing Individuals: Stossel takes his message to print

National Review Online ^ | 1/22/2004 | Ethan Wallison

[wysiwyg]

I bought his book on a whim last week at Costco and I've nearly finished it. I highly recommend it to everyone who values freedom. Some here won't like it because, as noted above, Stossel describes himself as a "classic liberal." He thinks that the War on Drugs™ should be abandoned, most abortions should be legal, homosexuality is perfectly natural and that prostitution should be legal, amongst other things.

However, the basis of the book and the underlying thread is ever-expanding government power and the gradual loss of our rights. The more Stossel gets under the skin of the "Totalitarian Left," as he calls them, the better.

Again, I highly recommend this book to anyone that honors the Constitution, loves America and values freedom.

P.S. It's also available at Costco for $14.29 (Item# 765357). Amazon sells it for $14.97.

[wysiwyg]

Also, I'd like to point out that Reason Magazine ran an excerpt of Stossel's book that's worth a read whether you're considering buying it or not.

[atomicpossum]

I enjoy Stossel simply because he is the only individual I see in the field of journalism that actually uses a thought process to evaluate an issue. He is not simply a parrot for the latest press releases or for the Conventional Wisdom.

[Wingy]

My copy arrived yesterday from Amazon. First I'm reading Dick, toe-sucking, Morris's Off with Their Heads, Stossel is next, then Myrna Blyth's Spin Sisters. It keeps my mind off whatever Kerry is up to.

[wysiwyg]

...he is the only individual I see in the field of journalism that actually uses a thought process to evaluate an issue.

I agree. I used to think that O'Reilly was following in Stossel's footsteps. Used to. I can't even stand to watch him anymore.

[robertpaulsen]

"Stossel is basically a Libertarian (he prefers "classical liberal")."

The difference being ....?

[dubyagee]

If we're lucky, we'll never "die" from it. Either way, Stossel's book is an impassioned plea to Americans to catch the disease while it can still be cured.

I've read it. It is a great book. There was a brouhaha in my county recently because a discount store was allowed to renew it's lease and the library had assumed the lease would expire allowing them to take over the building. I've written a letter to the editor suggesting they read Stossel's book, but so far they've only printed the ones crying about the injustice to the library. They don't get it. Right now, that free enterprise is contributing to our economy, once the library takes over...it will be a drain on it.

[wysiwyg]

The difference being ....?

To quote Stossel, p. 181:

But the mainstream media are tilted so far to the left that they call me conservative.

I guess they call me that because I believe the free market is a good thing—but what's conservative about the market? It's unplanned, unpredictable, scary, noisy. "Libertarian" is a better term for my beliefs. But it's a lousy word. People think it means "libertine," and the Libertarian Party has had flaky people like Howard Stern run for office. Maybe "classical liberal" is a better term for what I am. Liberals were originally the ones who advocated freedom and tolerance.

Not lately.

Does that answer your question?

[robertpaulsen]

Yes. Other than the spelling, there is no difference.

[wysiwyg]

Other than the spelling, there is no difference.

Granted. Another excerpt from his book, p. 133:

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we don't need government. I'm no anarchist. The worst places in the world are the places that have no security, almost no rules. We need rule of law. but do we need so much?

The founders' vision of limited government is one of the greatest philosophical achievements of humanity because it protects people while leaving them free to pursue their own interests. That freedom is what makes so many other good and creative things possible.

The first paragraph points out an important difference between "classic liberal" and some Libertarians. There was a little-noticed movement a few years ago to replace the Texas Constitution with one that almost completely abolished government; everything, including defense, police and courts was to be handled privately. I can only imagine the chaos.

The second paragraph is in stark contrast to what current liberals believe.

[Protagoras]

Pathetic, as usual.

[flashbunny]

robertpaulsen: #2 on the list of reasons to have an ignore feature on this forum.

[wysiwyg]

By the way, PING!

[robertpaulsen]

"Pathetic, as usual."

Yeah, yeah. Your mother wears combat boots.

Care to weigh in on this? Can you tell me the difference, if any, between a classical liberal and a Libertarian?

[Protagoras]

It was already explained to you, you CHOOSE not to understand. It would be impossible to have you understand or agree no matter what you are told. Your obsession prevents you.

Therefore it's just another circle jerk with the consumate jerk.

[Protagoras]

robertpaulsen: #2 on the list of reasons to have an ignore feature on this forum.

I'm afraid to ask what number one is.

[robertpaulsen]

Hey, just say you don't know. It's OK.

[Protagoras]

Hey, just admit you can't be convinced there is a difference, It's OK.

[wysiwyg]

I've obviously missed something. Were my replies above just a waste of time? Inquiring minds want to know...

[Protagoras]

Were my replies above just a waste of time?

On this poster,,,of course. he doesn't want an answer and he isn't open to the info, his purpose is to troll. As always.

It's an obsession with anti-freedom people.