The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, October 27, 2011
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...rew-napolitano

---

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 *are* choices 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.

Basically, yes.

Roads and other infrastructure can be built privately by those who have interest in doing so. Personally I'd rather see more high-speed rail than more roads.

Those who want to pay into a social safety net of some sort can do so if it pleases them. This also can be done privately, i.e. we don't need government to fullfill that niche. Everyone shouldn't be forced (via taxation and threat of imprisonment) to buy into a poorly run beareaucratic mess of a social safety net.

Not my responsibility.

We "live in a society" regardless of how the society is structured. It's not more or less of a society depending on the form of government. People who "lose" are not "hung out to dry", they are perfectly welcome to act as they please, as far as I'm concerned, and I wouldn't get in their way.

I'm a libertarian and I do believe in evolution... ...not every libertarian is a right-wing Christian nutcase. I hate how polarized politics is, there is no room for middle ground or complicated/nuanced stances.

And the system totally fails to look after our interests -- time and time again. Why support it or try to make it bigger and more complicated all the time?

Basically, yes.

Again, you can do these things without a huge formal government. Perhaps the problem with socialists is that they are unable to see how the various functions they automatically associate with government can also be handled privately.

See above.

LOL sample-size-a-ments

You have a psych degree? How do you know why I do what I do? I've found that almost nobody has any idea why I do what I do.

Politicians just get bought out by large corporations anyway. Happens over and over, one politician after the next, regardless of how they are held accountable by the voters, it's a problem with the system. I believe if there was little/no regulation of the "health insurance industry" that the insurance companies would be forced to compete by the market & provide a product that was more satisfying to society at large.

We still have one of the best health care systems in the world. There will always be sick people and there will always be logistical difficulties to getting everyone the care they want.

I would also argue that the parameters of competition are severely bound by regulation (see above) and that without such regulation insurance companies would be forced to compete more vehemently, resulting in a wider array of options and more aggregate client satisfaction.

No, because I like free internet porn.

...

Isn't government just a giant system that people can't really fight back against? So you want to add more of this system? You think there won't be victims under the watchful, benevolent eye of the govt?

I just want a chance to play and win. I don't want to be just a statistic.


I honestly don't care, this isn't my problem.

Without government unions would sometimes be smashed by the government? OK....

And your point is...?

Have fun holding the leviathan accountable...

This is why Jon Stewart's interviews can be so insufferable. He's clearly an intelligent guy and very good at what he does, but its painfully clear based on these questions that he has made no effort to understand libertarianism or a libertarian worldview.

A lot of those questions amount to no more than trolling, others make it seem like he doesn't even know what libertarian means.

Stopped at #4 when it said libertarians don't believe in evolution.

Really, Mr. Wolfcastle? Because after three years of reading the Politics forum and the wider internets, I still haven't seen reasonable answers to many of these questions, just a mixture of verbal sophistry and market deification.

MK's answer to 11 seems to be you can trust corporations but not politicians because they get bought out by corporations which strikes me as a little odd.

fyp

These questions are horribly shallow, but considering the answers that we recieved already, we see why we never delve deeper.

Libertaranism exists today in a few countries. We see what is/did happen to those countries, and it's far from pretty.

Military: Owned by one or two groups. The soldiers do no answer to anyone at all. They rape, steal, and basically do whatever they want.

Roads: non-existent or tolled by the military, go back to military subject to see what will likely happen.

Unfortunately, Stewart is badly misinformed about the history of Unions.

How does the military situation happen? Well, those that have the money don't have to do anything with it. In fact, they live quite fine, and according to post #2: oh well. I have the money and I supply the guns, what are you going to do without a gun? Oh, right, nothing.

No matter how you chop it, the rich will create a totalitarian govment-like entity and destroy the poor. There is no good reason to think that the new world would somehow create something better. Not in America, not in Russia (where that experiment collapsed in less than 10 years), and not in Africa.

I've tried on many occasions to ask libertarians hard questions, and the cop-out is "someone will figure it out" and that is so lame. You mean to tell me you stand for something and you have no clue how to make it work?

1. Yes

2. Not a question

3. The losers likely will be relegated to prostitution (for the attractive) or drug testing (for the uggos) in a free market. This may be degrading, but both should pay living wages.


4. This question makes an assumption that Libertarians are Creationists ******s so I will skip this one as it is beneath me.


5. Not a question

6. The government is comprised of people and people are inherently evil, so yes. Anything that reduces monopolistic control of people therefore must be good.

7. Not a question and that's the third time, ******.

8. Still not a question you ****ing worthless ****** lib POS.

9. Non-question

10. Non-question, ******, ******.

11. We don't trust corporations more, but a single corporation is comprised of less people (evil) than a federal government so they will do the individual less damage in the long run.

12. Health care questions are not worth debating because everyone is such a ****** they feel entitled to eternal life and are never satisfied with any answers that do not meet that criteria. I suggest they take up Zen Buddhism and embrace the idea of non-being.

13. No.

14. Not a question.

15. NAQ

16. Because mining sucks balls and they wanted more money to make it worth it. But they knew if they asked for more money the owner of the mine would replace them with workers willing to work for lower wages. So they decided to band together and shut down the mine until their higher wage demands were meet. They also conspired to beat the living **** out of anyone that would dare try to take their jerbs at the owners desired wage. This is an understandable market outcome based upon threat of violence and more proof that man is inherently evil and should have as little control as possible over other men.

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." WAT, Oh and still not a question, that is called a statement.

18. I'll respond to the first question, no.

19. NAQ.

These were put to a Republican self styled libertarian conservative, Andrew Napolitano. The "you guys dont believe in darwinism" stuff is about conservatives and Republicans in general.

This isnt a TED talk, the questions are written at a level that his audience would be asking and Steward is likely on the upper end of the scale for understanding what a libertarian thinks. Also he is a comedian, see "this isnt a TED talk".

They could call it "Questions for Conservatives".

And the roadz question was weird. The only anti-road libertarians I've ever interacted with are on this forum. And there's like 5 of them.

lol anti-road libertarians. what, those of us who prefer flying cars?

You are missing the interaction around it. The lead in was something like "government has never done anything to increased freedom", leading to that statement/question from Steward about how he thought roads and infrastructure increased freedom.

The big problem with this thread is these arent questions to libertarians. These are some questions Steward asked to one specific conservertarian.

I haven't heard a good answer from a liberal to the question of "how much of my money are you entitled to?" among others. That doesn't mean the question itself isn't a bit ridiculous.

Your "not a question" response reeks of douche. Here's why:

I think the questions are around where people's general attitudes are towards libertarians, so it's probably good to have answers to persuade people.

wow jon stewart is stupider than i thought.

No not really, but some governments tend to act in such a way, over time, to decrease liberty. I dont really care about liberty as some magical end in itself, however.
Ok. This isnt a question, but it sounds good to me.
What should "we" do with them, or what should I do with them? I would like to help them, both for compassionate reasons and because I think it is beneficial to me to incentivize others to make unwise gambles like starting a business.
I would never suggest leaving them hung out to dry. I'd help them for the reasons in question 3.
I completely agree.
LOL of course not. Government is the same as everything else. No one and no thing is "evil." Government is merely self-interested, the same as everything else, and its incentives are, in my opinion, often in direct opposition to my happiness, and the happiness of society. The problem comes when we assume that Government somehow IS fundamentally different (not "evil" but "good") than other actors.
Or eat a frozen Chilean, or exterminate a race, or murder an eyewitness....Yes, sometimes you have to do very terrible things, I guess.
I agree, sometimes you have to do terrible things. Now, of course, the problem I have with the military and war is that no one views it as this horrible, terrible thing that we sometimes have to do as an absolute last resort, akin to slaughtering innocent people, but instead its "God bless the USA" and "Hoooooraaaahhhhh"
Good thing there arent any examples of more invasive, restrictive governments that "didnt work."
No, I give it to them because I think they're gonna hire a bunch of people, that if I make a false move, will shoot me in the ****ing head, or at least kill my dogs.
It doesnt seem in the least bit insane to me. Although large corporations are certainly insensitive to my wishes and preferences, they arent NEARLY as insensitive as elected officials are.
Why is it that *without* competition the postal service is bankrupt?
**** no. I wouldnt go back to 1990. Is the pro-government argument now "Hey, we may be ****ing abysmal, but even we couldnt counteract 120 years of technological progress!"?
Yes. I mean...this is sort of the opposite of the previous question, right? So you want to get people coming and going with this disingenuous argument?
That is probably true. The law of unintended consequences is a bitch, aint it?
Desperation. Cleverness.
Really? Why make such a chicken**** version of this argument, and limit it to labor unions? You are really just saying "Without the government you would be being both mouth- and ass-raped every second of every day by burly biker dudes."
Yes, of course. Are you racist? Would you shop at a segregated store? Neither would I. Or anyone I know. So...I mean, thats a niche right there I guess....
This isnt a question, but very few things are "necessary" in the sense I assume you mean. It sure is overwhelmingly LIKELY though.


Whew that was tiring.

that was more of a tactless remark than a question, but Judge Napolitano answered it well.

The biggest question I have for Libertarians is this:

Have you considered the possibility that many of your critics understand Libertarianism at least as well as you do, and reject it not because they are evil socialists, but because they find your political philosophy to be overly simplified, excessively dogmatic, and that it hand-waves away far too many fundamental aspects of human irrationality that need to be dealt with?

So when I fail to be convinced of the idiocy of libertarianism, its because I'm a dogmatic fool, but when you fail to be convinced of its veracity, its my fault?

Sure. Everybody's free to have their own political viewpoint.

Have you considered that possibility for whatever viewpoint you subscribe to?

I watched this extended interview for the first time yesterday. I thought the judge's antics on stage, appealing to the crowd or even the staff, looking all around the studio rather than at the host or the camera, looked something less than comfortable/confident.

I thought Jon Stewart did a good job of allowing the Napolitano time to explain his points fully, and I would expect he would go back on the show it ever inclined.

Who are you in all of this? I'm saying I haven't seen anything in my readings regarding the virtues of, shall of we say, very-small-to-zero-government libertarianism that transcends the limitations summarized in zikzak's post (right there above yours.) But why would this be primarily your responsibility? And why am I supposed to account for your experience and understanding of libertarianism?

....I wasnt saying it was literally MY fault.....