Jon Stewart's 19 Tough Questions for Libertarians! Video response to Jon questions to Ron

[BlackTerrel]

I believe they were just taken from the Judge Napolitano interview.

Did the Judge not answer them?

 

[gb13]

Excellent video.

 

[S.Shorland]

Where is Jon asking his questions? Someone should certainly submit the video link there.Stefan is the best 'Libertarian' talker to get people thinking in simple,basic steps. 'We' should lobby to get him on Jon's show.

 

[QuickZ06]

Did the Judge not answer them?

A couple he asked like two of them that were on that 19 question list.

I really wish Jon would wake the F up already and stop being so naive in areas. He really is all for big government and thinks the dems are going in the right direction.

Why don't they have a show yet to call out all the dumb stuff that goes on in the democratic side like the Jon Stewart Show towards the republicans?

 

[Bman]

http://youtu.be/4hhSsIpjtzY
Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, responds to 19 tough questions for libertarians. Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show in the world -- http://www.freedomainradio.com

Something is screwed up with his audio on that video. Drove my ears crazy. I had to turn it off before I even got a minute into it.

 

[S.Shorland]

Walter Block and Stefan Molyneux have agreed to a formal debate at some point.I'm really looking forward to it.I know Stefan doesn't want Ron to win in case they can keep the economy together until Ron's in power and then blame the collapse on him.Hopefully they'll really get into it and thrash it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2Vv6JqkWfA

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Sources: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-october-27-2011-andrew-napolitano and http://www.reddit.com/r/austrian_economics/comments/ltrg1/jon_stewarts_19_questions_to_libertarians/

What would be your best response to these questions and statements:


[*]Is government the antithesis of liberty?

Define government. Self-government is the definition of liberty. Collectivist government is the antithesis of liberty, because the sovereignty of the individual is sacrificed to "the greater good".

[*]One of the things that enhances freedoms are roads. Infrastructure enhances freedom. A social safety net enhances freedom.

It is not a given that only the state/government can provide roads and infrastructure. In fact, private examples exist even in today's world with government.

A social safety net prevents some subjective level of poverty in some group of people by forcibly confiscating wealth from another group. In neither case is "freedom" enhanced.

[*]What should we do with the losers that are picked by the free market?

Many things. We can afford them the opportunity to learn from their mistakes. We can offer them help if we as individuals see fit to help them. If they have "lost" through the dishonesty, etc., of others, we can offer them services to seek redress.

[*]Do we live in a society or don't we? Are we a collective? Everybody's success is predicated on the hard work of all of us; nobody gets there on their own. Why should it be that the people who lose are hung out to dry? For a group that doesn't believe in evolution, it's awfully Darwinian.

Yes, we do live in a society. No, we are not a collective. We are a group of individuals who should be allowed to freely associate with whichever other individuals within the group whom we so choose to associate.

I agree that everyone's success is buttressed by the efforts of other people, but that does not mean that we should institute an agency in society with the power to take from some to give to others. Again, the just organization of society is respectful of the individual.

The "Darwinian" comment is just an ad hominem aimed at the collective group known as "conservatives", and not worthy of comment.

[*]In a representative democracy, we are the government. We have work to do, and we have a business to run, and we have children to raise.. We elect you as our representatives to look after our interests within a democratic system.

If the collective decides to sacrifice all of the male children of the collective, is the system still a good one? (And, it has... please see: the Vietnam War, the Korean War, etc.)

[*]Is government inherently evil?

Collective government that sacrifices the individual is, yes.

[*]Sometimes to protect the greater liberty you have to do things like form an army, or gather a group together to build a wall or levy.
[*]As soon as you've built an army, you've now said government isn't always inherently evil because we need it to help us sometimes, so now.. it's that old joke: Would you sleep with me for a million dollars? How about a dollar? -Who do you think I am?- We already decided who you are, now we're just negotiating.

Agreed. A little bit of the state is "a little bit pregnant." The logically consistent perspective is to advocate voluntary relationships in society.

[*]You say: government which governs least governments best. But that were the Articles of Confederation. We tried that for 8 years, it didn't work, and went to the Constitution.

"It didn't work" for whom?

[*]You give money to the IRS because you think they're gonna hire a bunch of people, that if your house catches on fire, will come there with water.

My local volunteer fire department is funded largely through local donations and fund-raising.

If I come to your house, put a gun in your face, demand some portion of your wealth, but tell you the money is going to the Salvation Army, are you any less robbed? Shouldn't it be up to you to decide which charities to which your money is given?

[*]Why is it that libertarians trust a corporation, in certain matters, more than they trust representatives that are accountable to voters? The idea that I would give up my liberty to an insurance company, as opposed to my representative, seems insane.

I'd trust these mega-corporations that have grown to the size they have through their relationships with the government no more than I trust that government itself, but I recognize that with a big government, big money gets a seat at the table, and I don't. Reduce the government, encourage competition, and allow me to decide who I associate with.

[*]Why is it that with competition, we have such difficulty with our health care system?

Health care is one of the most heavily regulated markets in the economy; health care is also one of the most subsidized markets in the economy; coupled with a currency that is inherently inflating, and you have the perfect storm of rising prices.

..and there arechoices within the educational system.

There is no real competition with the public school system when private schools must compete with an entity that is funded by taxing every person living within it's district. There's no competition with such an entity. Private schools necessarily cater to a higher-end clientele who can afford to both be taxed for the public school and pay out-of-pocket for the private school; lower-end clientele are largely going to be attracted to the subsidized option, understandably.

Ending such a system would create a flourish of new private schools catering to all kinds of students with various educational needs.

[*]Would you go back to 1890?

I can't. What's your point?

[*]If we didn't have government, we'd all be in hovercrafts, and nobody would have cancer, and broccoli would be ice-cream?

This is an absurd way of saying that those who oppose government think life would be beer & skittles without it. Please see the above responses to legitimate questions.

[*]Unregulated markets have been tried. The 80’s and the 90’s were the robber baron age. These regulations didn't come out of an interest in restricting liberty. What they did is came out of an interest in helping those that had been victimized by a system that they couldn't fight back against.

The 1980's and 1990's? Or the 1880's and 1890's? The 20th century is the story of ever-increasing regulation, and eventual collapse. Can't imagine you want to make that the basis of your argument. The 19th century is largely the story of ever-increasing growth which was squelched by the evils of the Progressive era, which features such as Prohibition, War, and the Central Bank.

Put down your muck-raker novels and check out some real history:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/user/misesmedia?blend=1&ob=4#p/search[/video]

[*]Why do you think workers that worked in the mines unionized?

Probably because they felt as though they were being treated unfairly. What's your point?

[*]Without the government there are no labor unions, because they would be smashed by Pinkerton agencies or people hired, or even sometimes the government.

Being anti-government doesn't preclude that one is anti-union. The problem becomes when the government intervenes.

[*]Would the free market have desegregated restaurants in the South, or would the free market have done away with miscegenation, if it had been allowed to? Would Marten Luther King have been less effective than the free market? Those laws sprung up out of a majority sense of, in that time, that blacks should not.. The free market there would not have supported integrated lunch counters.

Jim Crow LAWS.

[*]Government is necessary but must be held accountable for its decisions.

Cool story, bro. How's that workin' out for ya?

 

[Tonewah]

Force is the issue.

 

[CCTelander]

Those questions are addressed at libertarians. Stefan Molyneux, an anarchist, is the first to answer. Anarchists are not libertarians. Fail.

Consistent application of libertarian principle leads inexorably to anarchism no matter how desperately one tries to rationalize or justify it being otherwise.

Your personal animosity towards anarchists is showing.

Epic fail.

 

[fisharmor]

Those questions are addressed at libertarians. Stefan Molyneux, an anarchist, is the first to answer. Anarchists are not libertarians. Fail.

Huh... we weren't the ones to bring it up in this thread, now were we?

 

[jason43]

I know Stefan doesn't want Ron to win in case they can keep the economy together until Ron's in power and then blame the collapse on him.

This is my only fear with Ron getting elected. There is a system in place that could temporarily collapse itself (and then buy everything up at a discount) so that no one ever thinks about freedom again. Its preferable that the system collapse and free market, sound money sanity is used to rebuild than have us get blamed for the last 100 years of failure and fake economics if it really collapses under "our" watch.

Anyone else have that concern? Because it is a major concern of mine. The collapse will come, its mathematically unavoidable. The entire monetary and financial system requires constant unsustainable growth to service the debt, but as a result, the debts get larger and eventually (soon) you either get default (kills growth)on the debt or the debt is monetized and the currency is destroyed through inflation (kills growth).

 

[Wesker1982]

Those questions are addressed at libertarians. Stefan Molyneux, an anarchist, is the first to answer. Anarchists are not libertarians. Fail.

Instead of attacking the argument, you are attacking the person. Talk about fail? That is an auto-fail.

And thanks for letting me know that Tom Woods is not a libertarian. This whole time, I thought he was! Boy, don't I feel silly now.

 

[sailingaway]

Should this be here? It sounds like this is about libertarianism, not about Ron's campaign.

 

[Cabal]

Those questions are addressed at libertarians. Stefan Molyneux, an anarchist, is the first to answer. Anarchists are not libertarians. Fail.

...lol what?

How is AnCap, for instance, not libertarian?

What is libertarian? Advocacy of moral liberty--often based on natural rights and natural law; and opposition to the initiation of force via the non-aggression principle. This is the core of libertarianism. This is essentially the foundation of AnCap philosophy as well, which makes sense since it emerges from libertarianism.

There are other subsets of libertarianism, from left-libertarians to minarchists; but to suggest there is no anarchist subset is, quite frankly, ignorant of libertarian philosophy in its entirety.

 

[Fredom101]

Very good talk about principles of libertarians. Take what you like and leave the rest! Made me think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hhSsIpjtzY&feature=feedu

Great video, thanks for posting.

 

[craezie]

This is my only fear with Ron getting elected. There is a system in place that could temporarily collapse itself (and then buy everything up at a discount) so that no one ever thinks about freedom again. Its preferable that the system collapse and free market, sound money sanity is used to rebuild than have us get blamed for the last 100 years of failure and fake economics if it really collapses under "our" watch.

Anyone else have that concern? Because it is a major concern of mine. The collapse will come, its mathematically unavoidable. The entire monetary and financial system requires constant unsustainable growth to service the debt, but as a result, the debts get larger and eventually (soon) you either get default (kills growth)on the debt or the debt is monetized and the currency is destroyed through inflation (kills growth).

I do not share that concern. Economies are very multi-faceted and people's thinking regarding the inevitability of the future is too one-tracked. That is one possible outcome of many (and likely if we continue with progressive policies), but if we were to drastically cut spending, reduce entitlements and start paying down the deficit it would have a dramatic effect. The fact that the debt is not payable is pretty irrelevant. Everyone was saying the exact same thing at the end of the Carter administration and it turned around. America still has a lot going for it, and weaknesses in the rest of the globe also strengthen us (everyone cannot be in a recession indefinitely). The next decade is probably going to be shaky, but I don't think that everyone is going to just throw their hands up and accept the destruction of their wealth and everything that America stands for. Just my 2 cents.

 

[sailingaway]

There is another thread on this exact thing in general politics. I'll merge them.

 

[badger4RP]

so good

 

[mcgraw_wv]

Sources: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-october-27-2011-andrew-napolitano and http://www.reddit.com/r/austrian_economics/comments/ltrg1/jon_stewarts_19_questions_to_libertarians/

What would be your best response to these questions and statements:

1. Is government the antithesis of liberty?
2. One of the things that enhances freedoms are roads. Infrastructure enhances freedom. A social safety net enhances freedom.
3. What should we do with the losers that are picked by the free market?
4. Do we live in a society or don't we? Are we a collective? Everybody's success is predicated on the hard work of all of us; nobody gets there on their own. Why should it be that the people who lose are hung out to dry? For a group that doesn't believe in evolution, it's awfully Darwinian.
5. In a representative democracy, we are the government. We have work to do, and we have a business to run, and we have children to raise.. We elect you as our representatives to look after our interests within a democratic system.
6. Is government inherently evil?
7. Sometimes to protect the greater liberty you have to do things like form an army, or gather a group together to build a wall or levy.
8. As soon as you've built an army, you've now said government isn't always inherently evil because we need it to help us sometimes, so now.. it's that old joke: Would you sleep with me for a million dollars? How about a dollar? -Who do you think I am?- We already decided who you are, now we're just negotiating.
9. You say: government which governs least governments best. But that were the Articles of Confederation. We tried that for 8 years, it didn't work, and went to the Constitution.
10. You give money to the IRS because you think they're gonna hire a bunch of people, that if your house catches on fire, will come there with water.
11. Why is it that libertarians trust a corporation, in certain matters, more than they trust representatives that are accountable to voters? The idea that I would give up my liberty to an insurance company, as opposed to my representative, seems insane.
12. Why is it that with competition, we have such difficulty with our health care system? ..and there arechoices within the educational system.
13. Would you go back to 1890?
14. If we didn't have government, we'd all be in hovercrafts, and nobody would have cancer, and broccoli would be ice-cream?
15. Unregulated markets have been tried. The 80’s and the 90’s were the robber baron age. These regulations didn't come out of an interest in restricting liberty. What they did is came out of an interest in helping those that had been victimized by a system that they couldn't fight back against.
16. Why do you think workers that worked in the mines unionized?
17. Without the government there are no labor unions, because they would be smashed by Pinkerton agencies or people hired, or even sometimes the government.
18. Would the free market have desegregated restaurants in the South, or would the free market have done away with miscegenation, if it had been allowed to? Would Marten Luther King have been less effective than the free market? Those laws sprung up out of a majority sense of, in that time, that blacks should not.. The free market there would not have supported integrated lunch counters.
19. Government is necessary but must be held accountable for its decisions.

1) No, it is required to enforce liberty in a lawful country, without it, it's anarchy, and while there is liberty, there is no justice.

2) In order to have roads which increase mobility ( not the same as Freedom in the liberity sense ) you must TAKE from someone to buy it, so yes, Government provides more "freedom" to some, while reducing freedom for others. I hate that Judge N never asked, where does the money for the roads come from?

3) Clear the assets allow them to go find work elsewhere

4) We live in a country which is founded on the principles that a government is restricted in what it can do, not a country founded on empowering government to do what it pleases.

5) We are not Tzars, or IRS, or any number of consultants which are hired to enforce policy. 99% of government is chosen, 1% is elected.

6) Government is inherently inefficient.

7) All things mandated by our governming contract with the people called the constitution, Again, were not Anarchists, we are constitutionalists.

8) Again, we deemed it neccessary for our government to protect the liberties of the people by forming a VOLUNTEER ARMY.

9) A better system, well put Jon. Let's stick with what's worked for 200+ years.

10) We give money to the IRS because we are forced too. I am fairly certain we pay money to the State and City for Fire protection, and even that isn't a guarantee. States and Cities should freely organize systems like that to protect it's people. It's in the states power to do that. There is no Federal Department of Firefighters ( THANK GOD )

11) Corporations are easier to get rid of, and they are beholden to performance. You can stop buying a corporations products, today, and they require happiness of the people in order to stay relevant. A politician requires neither.

12) Don't for one second tell me there is free and open competition within the health care system... / Refuse to answer.

13) The freedoms of 1890, led to 1990, and between then there sure was a Massive amount of american innovation which was the sole reason we lead the world into the modern era. Now, we languish behind, and we have capped our innovation, removed our freedom, and we are now followers in the next era of our world, not leaders. Yes, if we went back to 1890 policies, obviously we wouldn't get rid of computers and cars, etc...

14) Who knows maybe. We however DO KNOW, that with government, we don't have those things...

16) We against corruption as well. You mistake honest, profit making well run business, who flurished with those who used back room deals and corrupt practices. We are 100% against corruption, and since you can't regulate away corruption, don't occupy so much of my tax money on something you can't stop, you can only try and clean up. The media does a better job exposing corruption than the government does anyways, and my tax money doesn't go towards that.

17) Strength in numbers, they have the right, but they should also respect the right's and liberties of another worker from taking that job you strike on. Unions are great, until they use their power in a way which restricts the liberties of another. That is tyranny, and Unions are tyrannical force when they don't get their way. That's un-American, and unconstitutional.

18) If we respected the Constitution, and protected even workers rights to pretest peacefully, no agency would harm the union, but that goes both ways and the union has to allow other workers to come in and work the jobs they refuse to do.

19) The Free Market would have ended segregation. Simple business ideas says that the business who have the most customers, wins. Someone would make more money. Segregation was won through the media and music and culture, not through legislation. We have segregation today, I can't eat at a country club unless I have paid 20k to become a member. Whether you like it our not, that's class segregation.

20) Government is required to uphold the principles of liberty and the constitution, but it is also held in check by it.

 

[fisharmor]

1) No, it is required to enforce liberty in a lawful country, without it, it's anarchy, and while there is liberty, there is no justice.

This statement is factually incorrect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0TBE-pcEi0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZi45Mf6jYY&feature=related