Vessol
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,237
The Idiocy of Politics
- Thread starter Vessol
- Start date
Austrian Econ Disciple
Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2009
- Messages
- 8,264
Philosophy sub-forum
3
2
1
3
2
1
Vessol
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,237
Perhaps....but Stef's point is where is the evidence showing this?
All the millions of dollars raised, why not conduct some research to find out how effective the campaign was in this regard?
ClayTrainor
Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2007
- Messages
- 12,840
If only my guy could run the mafia, then everything would be better! 
BuddyRey
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,172
I would absolutely LOVE to see Stefan Molyneux on Bill Maher's panel, if Maher would ever have the balls to invite him. Maybe we need an online petition or something? After all, we live in very interesting times. If a Murphy-Krugman debate can happen, anything is possible.
Perhaps we could do something similar to what they are doing to try to get Krugman to debate. The hard thing is, Maher likes to have celebrities & politicians on, and Molyneux is neither. Maybe Colbert would be a better fit?
BuddyRey
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,172
That's a good thought, but I'm not sure if I could see that interview working very well either. Colbert loves to tightly control the narrative too, by personifying every stereotype of free market thinkers and spewing strawman arguments designed to make them look as irrational and reactionary as possible. If Stef went on, Colbert would probably drown him out with a salvo of one-liners or corral him into some pretty amusing but non-educational silliness.
Maher can at least attempt a serious conversation, but his fantastically effusive levels of smugness and self-importance quite often dominate the panel as well. Jon Stewart has the makings of a truly great interviewer, IMO, because he never lets the humor overshadow the topical discussion and is almost humble enough to be the anti-Maher. I think of these three major liberal commentators, he would give the fairest, most even-handed, and potentially very thought-provoking interview. That's just how I see it though. My two bits of copper-plated tin, submitted for your approval.
Brassmouth
Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,220
That's a good thought, but I'm not sure if I could see that interview working very well either. Colbert loves to tightly control the narrative too, by personifying every stereotype of free market thinkers and spewing strawman arguments designed to make them look as irrational and reactionary as possible. If Stef went on, Colbert would probably drown him out with a salvo of one-liners or corral him into some pretty amusing but non-educational silliness.
Maher can at least attempt a serious conversation, but his fantastically effusive levels of smugness and self-importance quite often dominate the panel as well. Jon Stewart has the makings of a truly great interviewer, IMO, because he never lets the humor overshadow the topical discussion and is almost humble enough to be the anti-Maher. I think of these three major liberal commentators, he would give the fairest, most even-handed, and potentially very thought-provoking interview. That's just how I see it though. My two bits of copper-plated tin, submitted for your approval.
Don't hold your breath on Stewart. I'm a fan of both him and Colbert, but they're clearly both worshipers of the state. Have you seen Stewart's new set?
Stewart barely ever invites even mainstream libertarians onto his show, let alone Stefan Molyneux.
This is an excellent video.
"To participate in the process is an act of shameful self-subjegation."
I coudn't have said it better. This is the first election, since I've been eligible, in which I am not voting. Our political system is an absolute joke and these Tea Party candidates are complete garbage. Like he says, you have to be delusional if you think any of these so-called "small-government" Republicans are going to make a difference. You will make a bigger difference by staying at home and refusing to participate in this charade.
"To participate in the process is an act of shameful self-subjegation."
I coudn't have said it better. This is the first election, since I've been eligible, in which I am not voting. Our political system is an absolute joke and these Tea Party candidates are complete garbage. Like he says, you have to be delusional if you think any of these so-called "small-government" Republicans are going to make a difference. You will make a bigger difference by staying at home and refusing to participate in this charade.
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
"Politics is a suggestion box for slaves"-instant classic!
CCTelander
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 9,173
That's the standard "party line," but is it actually true? There's really no solid evidence to support it.
Think about this, for example:
In my lifetime, there have been at least FOUR major movements to "shrink government," or "restore the CONstitution," or "reclaim liberty," whatever you want to call it.
In 1964 Barry Goldwater ran for President on a more or less freedom oriented platform. While it was one of the most lopsided elections in US history, with Goldwater losing, he still managed to get over 27 MILLION votes. That means that at that time TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE supported something that roughly approximates the philosophies of liberty and individual freedom.
Then there was Reagan in 1980 and 1984. Reagan, of course, also ran on a platform that at least gave lip service to the ideas of liberty and individual freedom, and won both elections in landslides. In 1984 he got over 54 MILLION votes.
In the mid 1990s we had the Contract With America. The rhetoric surrounding it was once again geared toward reigning in government and more personal freedom. It enabled the Republicans to capture majorities in both houses, and again, millions supported them.
Then came Ron Paul in 2007/08.
Now I'll grant you that the vast majority of these many millions of people were probably not "true" liberty advocates. That's not the point.
Some of them most certainly were. I can personally attest to that. How many would be just a guess.
The point is that unless most of these people died, or were abducted by aliens sometime prior to 2007/08, the claim that RP's presidential run "converted" any large number of people to libertarianism is seriously problematic.
Based on the evidence that does exist, the most likely reality is that there were LOTS of people out there already leaning toward the philosophies of liberty and individual freedom just waiting for someone to come along and "push them over the edge," so to speak. And LOTS more who were already full-blown liberty advocates just waiting for their next opportunity.
None of this is intended in any way to disparge or belittle what RP accomplished with his 2007/08 run. He may have done a TON of good. A lot of people think so.
But they're just accepting that as an article of faith. There's very little, if any, solid evidence to support the claim.
In fact, the idea that electoral politics is an effective means to educate people is a completely unproven hypothesis. The truth is, we just don't know whethere it is or isn't, or whether or not RP's 07/08 run did any significant good at all.
Last edited:
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
Last edited:
Similar threads
