Stossel's episode on Atlas Shrugged on FOX

[Hieder]

Someone posted a link to John Stossel's blog and how he did a show on Atlas Shrugged. I looked up the show on youtube and gave it a watch last night. It was pretty good. It was done in the fashion of a sort of panel. The audience either supported or (mostly) bashed the political ideals presented in the book. Some of this opposition resorted to ad hominem attacks against Rand. A panel of bankers and businessmen who really liked Rand's philosophy and succeeded because of it were there to counter argue the arguments presented by opponents of the book.

In the show, Stossel also covers a current event about legistlators banning fish manicures in several states. He uses this as an example of how regulation is killing business development.

I've never listened to what Stossel had to say before, but he really seems to be on the right track as far as my political interests go. I don't know how often he does these kind of shows though. Still, it was a breath of fresh air from the shows fox news usually plays.

[Oleksandr]

[Moderator note: moved to Deep Thoughts, modified thread name.]

Stossel is essentially a libertarian with all the flaws that come with that, i.e. a disregard for morality. He proved that by ending this show on a note that Capitalism is good because it serves the society best, and later on his fox blog when somebody pointed it out to him that he was wrong for ending his show on that note, he responded with "Well, can't we like Capitalism for both parts?" That means - and his show ending proves it - he is for Capitalism b/c of its altruistic results not b/c of the justice of the producers keeping their earned products and payments.

It was good to have a show on Capitalism but don't think of a Stossel of anything close to admirer of Objectivism.

[Hieder]

Thanx for moving it. I can see how this could be a deep discussion, but I initially intended just for some casual remarks or response.

You're right, he did say that about capitalism or at least it was his general argument, but that's not how libertarians think so he wouldn't be libertarian on that note. Thanks for pointing it out.

Libertarianism is not a philosophy, so it wouldn't cover deep moral issues. It is only a platform for government. It only deals with ethics when it comes to what government can and can't do. Thus it says government can't do anything that would infringe on the ability of an individual to willfully persue their rational self interest. In other words, it's not government's job to tell you what is moral and what isn't. Capitalism because of altruism is not what libertarians believe. And if it is reasoning based on utilitarian motives then it is the opposite of what libertarians believe. I may be a libertarian, but I don't claim "libertarianism" as my moral philosophy since it isn't one.

I'd like to hear your oppinion about libertarianism maybe if you wanted to move it to a PM. You seem to have some negative undertones towards it, but I can't understand why. As far as I can see, a libertarian government would be the best suited government to fulfill an objectivists desires. I would describe TTI's government over its employees to be libertarian.

[Iudicious]

I watched the show. I'm glad to see Objectivism represented, at least a little bit, in the media, and John Stossel was a good medium of getting out the message. Is he philosophically sound? No. Is he useful? Yeah. I wouldn't rely on John Stossel for any moral support, but I think the guests on the show did a pretty good job of that. John Allison and Yaron Brook both did an excellent job, and I'm glad they were able to get in the message about rational self interest.

[Oleksandr]

Libertarianism is not a philosophy, so it wouldn't cover deep moral issues. It is only a platform for government.

If this was so, then why did Murray Rothbard write so many books that dealt with non-goverment issues, such as his book Ethics of Liberty?


For an in-depth Objectivist analysis of this issue, I suggest starting with “Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty,” reprinted in Voice of Reason. (Available in any US public library.)

[musashi]

I just watched the 6 parts and didn't see the Libertarian bit. Seemed like they presented the Objectivist perspective very well.

If anything they left the counter argument to chance audience members. That is a certain FAIL in my opinion. There are plenty of hot topics around these concepts, but I think these counter opinions take a good deal of consideration. Throw the “man on the street” into the discussion and you get the usual religious or altruistic drivel. They could have done better with the counter point.

In fact the fish manicure could have been a great discussion if the Bureaucrat had even an ounce of creativity. The Bureaucrat could have put an un-medicated Hepatitis C victim (changed from AIDs – the water neutralizes the HIV virus) in the bath just prior, and then asked Stossel if he wanted his child to be the next customer. Now that would have made for some interesting television!

Regulation can often be horribly conceived, but it serves a purpose in codifying acceptable practices. In effect well crafted regulations become the rational Objective standard that we base our judgments upon. This Bureaucrat’s solution was an out right ban – not very creative.