Right? Not Stossel

Vancouver 24 Hours ^ | June 2, 2006 | Irwin Loy

[Lorianne]

John Stossel thinks sweatshops are good for workers, while minimum wages hurt the poor.

Controversial? Sure. Just don't call him a Conservative.

"I'm a Libertarian," according to Stossel, the TV network consumer reporter turned staunch free-market defender. "I hold beliefs Conservatives abhor."

Speaking at a luncheon hosted by the conservative Fraser Institute think tank yesterday, Stossel made it clear his politics don't quite fall within the traditional left or right wing spectrum.

He takes no issue with gay marriage, for example, while he says sending troops to Iraq "wasn't a good idea." At the same time, lefties likely won't love his views on global warming - "Those environmental guys," Stossel said, "seem to be acting more like psychics than following the science."

But Stossel's contentious governments-are-bad preaching also extends to drug laws, which he says are causing harm.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"Those environmental guys," Stossel said, "seem to be acting more like psychics than following the science."


Cant' argue with that.

[rottndog]

But Stossel's contentious governments-are-bad preaching also extends to drug laws, which he says are causing harm.


Just an accurate observation of the facts--keep the emotions out.

[Echo Talon]

he's right 50% of the time...

[Andy from Beaverton]

irwin_loy@yahoo.com

[muir_redwoods]

Many traditionalists don't like the implications of libertarian ideas but very few have cogent arguments against them.

They simply don't like them.

[BW2221]

"he's right 50% of the time..."

That's 100% better than most libs.

[sono]

And the MSM ...

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

For Stossel to predict that if we eliminated the WOD all the problems associated with recreational drug usage would disappear is no different than, as he says, the ecowhackos following psychics instead of science.

[SShultz460]

Both his books were phenomenal, but I didn't particularly care for the format of the second one. It's content was great though

[Zhang Fei]

Many traditionalists don't like the implications of libertarian ideas but very few have cogent arguments against them. They simply don't like them.

Many libertarians don't like the implications of traditionalist ideas but very few have cogent arguments against them. They simply don't like them.

[muir_redwoods]

"Many libertarians don't like the implications of traditionalist ideas but very few have cogent arguments against them. They simply don't like them.

I have many cogent arguments against many traditionalist ideas, I refer you to the Bill of Rights for a synopsis.

[rottndog]

For Stossel to predict that if we eliminated the WOD all the problems associated with recreational drug usage would disappear is no different than, as he says, the ecowhackos following psychics instead of science.


He's never said anything of the sort. He says and believes that it's not the governments business to police what people do to themselves, and he simply points out that after decades of the "WOD", drugs are more plentiful, cheap, and easily obtained than ever.

[misterrob]

The WOD is a failure just as much as the War on Poverty has been on fixing that issue.

What's the difference between sitting at home knocking down a 5th of Jack Daniels each night and sitting at home smoking dope, doing blow or anything else? In the end you still wind up wasted out of your mind and going nowhere. Prohibition proved you cannot regulate nor legislate morality and attempting to do so only invites criminal activity.

[cowtowney]

"For Stossel to predict that if we eliminated the WOD all the problems associated with recreational drug usage would disappear is no different than, as he says, the ecowhackos following psychics instead of science."

He did not say that.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Stossel did say that. He sets out in elaborate detail how legalizing drugs will solve the drug problem.

Read "Give Me a Break" for his absurd hypothesis.

[Zhang Fei]

I have many cogent arguments against many traditionalist ideas, I refer you to the Bill of Rights for a synopsis.

The Bill of Rights doesn't argue anything. It assumes a whole bunch of stuff out of whole cloth. I happen to agree with most of what it assumes. But they are principles, not arguments.

[rottndog]

Haven't read the book, but I don't think he would say that all the problems associated with drug use would go away. No government WOD would mean that we would simply be exchanging one set of problems for another, while achieving the benefit of getting the government out of the practice of policing what people choose to do to themselves.

BTW, how is his hypothesis any more absurd than the failed prohibition we have now?

[cowtowney]

Let me explain... No, there is too much. Let me sum up.

From Stossel's latest book (Myths, Lies, etc):

MSM are not objective
Pesticides are not that harmful
Radiating food is good
There is no cancer epedemic
DDT saves lives
Schools are not as violent as people think
Road Rage is not epidemic
We are not running out of oil
Enviros who claim we are drowning in garbage are full of it
Women earn less because they want different things
Most businesses are honest
Price controls create shortages and hardships
Price gouging is good
Price controls hurt the poor
Minimum wage helps some workers but hurts more
Outsourcing creates American jobs
MSM does not understand economics
Sweatshops help people
Businesses don't necessarily believe in free markets
Republicans do not shrink government
Farm subsidies do not create plentiful food
We don't need government to fund PBS
Public officials are frequently hypocrites
Enviromental regulators are radical activists
Educating children is too important to be left to government monopolies.
Public schools have lots of money, but waste it
Mediocrity in public school teaching is rewarded
Homeschooling is a good option
Vouchers make all schools better
Buying on the internet is not that risky
Premium gas is a waste of money
Gas is Gas. Brand names don't matter
Product lawsuits deprive us of safer products
Malpractice lawsuits hurt many patients
Lawsuits take away our choices
Antidiscrimination lawsuits don't stop discrimination
Class action lawyers get rich at the expense of consumers
Expert stock pickers are usually not
You can marry a cousin
Mouthwash often makes your breath worse
Washing with antibacterial soap is unlikely to make a difference.
A dog's mouth is not clean
Sparing the rod is not that good of an idea
Boys and girls need different lessons
Religious people are happier
Global warming is ...you'll have to read the book

This is a great book with footnotes galore. There are many, many more subjects. I agreed with everything except one thing.

Great book!

[taxesareforever]

Many traditionalists don't like the implications of libertarian ideas but very few have cogent arguments against them.

I really believe that there is a difference between a (L)ibertarian and (l)ibertarian. I fall into the class of (l)ibertarian because I do not agree with everything the (L)ibertarians espouse to. But if I register as a voter my party affiliation would be Republican because there is not (l)ibertarian party.