If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   John Stossel explains why he is moving from the commie loving ABC to the fascist fanatics at Fox   (reason.com) divider line 198
    More: Interesting, John Stossel, ABC News, prime time, network television, fox, individual liberty, risk assessment, point of view  
•       •       •

5535 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 17 Sep 2009 at 5:52 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



198 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-09-17 12:43:13 PM
awesome:

When I did my first TV special, I pointed out that regulation itself, by stifling innovation, can make life less safe. Two producers angrily objected, saying, "No respectable journalist would say that." The senior producer on the program smugly told me, "You just can't say that on network TV."
 
2009-09-17 12:45:48 PM
That blog reads like an "I"M LEAVING!!" thread.

Dr.D should have hit him harder.
 
2009-09-17 12:47:15 PM
Do Libertarians think there should be no regulation of anything?
 
2009-09-17 12:48:48 PM
AdolfOliverPanties: Do Libertarians think there should be no regulation of anything?

here's the party platform so you can easily research that answer
Link (new window)
 
2009-09-17 12:50:09 PM
AdolfOliverPanties: Do Libertarians think there should be no regulation of anything?

To over simplify it, sort of. It's more of a don't regulate stupid crap like drugs/sexuality/personal decisions. They're also very honest about their opinions, which gets them in trouble because they aren't massive liars.
 
2009-09-17 12:51:52 PM
But Glenn Beck IS a massive liar.

Drugs shouldn't be regulated? That's idiotic. Maybe there is too much regulation on drugs, but some is needed. I'm all for thinning the herd of people who overdose, but medicines need to be safe.
 
2009-09-17 12:52:49 PM
"When I did my first TV special, I pointed out that regulation itself, by stifling innovation, can make life less safe."

Genius.

"Hey, if nuke plants don't leak radiation now and then, how in the hell are we going to learn how to clean up after a radiation leak more effectively?"
 
2009-09-17 12:56:06 PM
Lando Lincoln: Hey, if nuke plants don't leak radiation now and then, how in the hell are we going to learn how to clean up after a radiation leak more effectively?"

pretty massive reductio ad absurdum there
 
2009-09-17 01:03:33 PM
albo: pretty massive reductio ad absurdum there

No, that statement follows assuming the first.
 
2009-09-17 01:04:02 PM
AdolfOliverPanties: Do Libertarians think there should be no regulation of anything?

They will say that they do not want a lack of all regulation, but philosophically I don't think that is present in their basic tenants.
 
2009-09-17 01:07:56 PM
The only Stossel story I truly remember and appreciate is when he did the piece on the "Will Work for Food" people at busy intersections. He would offer them menial work in exchange for food and they would always decline.

Then he went to a homeless shelter where a group of ostensibly able-bodied men were sitting around and he had a list of jobs from a temp labor place and one man replied with a line that is still in use at my job to this day.

When asked "Why don't you come with us and take one of these jobs right now?" he replied:

"I can't. You see, I'm drinking today."

Needless to say, this instantly became the official response when given a task of any time.
 
2009-09-17 01:08:03 PM
China agrees. You shouldn't regulate the lead in the toys they ship here.
 
2009-09-17 01:08:32 PM
AdolfOliverPanties: Do Libertarians think there should be no regulation of anything?

I think that is what the Anarcho-capitalists want.

Libertarians are somewhere between that, and where we are now.
 
2009-09-17 01:10:31 PM
Mr. Coffee Nerves: The only Stossel story I truly remember and appreciate is when he did the piece on the "Will Work for Food" people at busy intersections. He would offer them menial work in exchange for food and they would always decline.

Then he went to a homeless shelter where a group of ostensibly able-bodied men were sitting around and he had a list of jobs from a temp labor place and one man replied with a line that is still in use at my job to this day.

When asked "Why don't you come with us and take one of these jobs right now?" he replied:

"I can't. You see, I'm drinking today."

Needless to say, this instantly became the official response when given a task of any time.


did he show anyone who took him up on the offer?
or did he leave those on the editing room floor?
or do you really think everyone was like the people he chose to show you?
 
2009-09-17 01:18:23 PM
albo: pretty massive reductio ad absurdum there

Please explain how regulations stifle innovation. Because John Stossel sure as hell didn't.

I suppose a lack of regulations led to the innovation of credit default swaps - that was a great innovation, wasn't it?
 
2009-09-17 01:29:29 PM
Lando Lincoln: albo: pretty massive reductio ad absurdum there

Please explain how regulations stifle innovation. Because John Stossel sure as hell didn't.

I suppose a lack of regulations led to the innovation of credit default swaps - that was a great innovation, wasn't it?


Some regulation may prevent innovation, but not all innovation. But that is the basic problem I see with libertarians, they see government as bad. Some of it is, but they want to do away with almost all of it, while at the same time adhering to a fantasy that the private sector and coorperations will regulate themselves.

They believe that business that don't do what is in the interest of the common good will fail as they are voted out of existence by not being patronized. Except for that to happen the truth of what these businesses do must be known to the public, which is exactly where the government can help the individual, and thus the libertarian ideal is broken.
 
2009-09-17 01:36:24 PM
Please explain how regulations stifle innovation. Because John Stossel sure as hell didn't.

you know, he does have a blog and you know how to google, right?
Link (new window)
 
2009-09-17 01:36:57 PM
dim witted porn 'stache moron. is that plain enough?
 
2009-09-17 01:46:51 PM
STFU, Magnum.
 
2009-09-17 02:05:43 PM
Lando Lincoln: Please explain how regulations stifle innovation. Because John Stossel sure as hell didn't.

I was digging around in the history of automotive safety a while back and came across a good example.

In the US we required sub-standard headlights compared to what was allowed in Europe for decades. It was a pretty good example of using safety regulations as a manner to protect existing businesses instead of ensuring actual safety.

I'm fuzzy on the details but if you really want me to dig it up for you EIP.
 
2009-09-17 02:08:48 PM
albo: you know, he does have a blog and you know how to google, right?
Link (new window)


You can't bring facts into this 2 minutes of hate for anyone other than authoritarians.
 
2009-09-17 02:09:33 PM
AdolfOliverPanties: Do Libertarians think there should be no regulation of anything?

I don't understand why people keep asking things like this.

Libertarians (at least classic ones) are not anarchists. Plain and simple. They believe government serves a role, just not as big of one as right now.
 
2009-09-17 02:11:04 PM
Good luck to him. I'm not going to begrudge the guy for disagreeing with me, and I hope his show does some good. Hell, if it's a good show, regardless of lean, it will raise the bar for that shiathole Fox News.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, did he spend most of that article arguing that ABC shouldn't have stifled him, when his free market ideals should have said "I worked for a corporation with an agenda, and they carried out their agenda. It was awesome"?
 
2009-09-17 02:32:06 PM
Stossel goes from Libertarian to Fark Libertarian. Gonna be fun watching him parrot talking points and state wild accusations in the form of a question.
 
2009-09-17 02:40:09 PM
erveek: Stossel goes from Libertarian to Fark Libertarian. Gonna be fun watching him parrot talking points and state wild accusations in the form of a question.

Ha.
 
2009-09-17 02:48:40 PM
downstairs: I don't understand why people keep asking things like this.

Because they've never heard a Libertarian argue in the affirmative for the regulation of anything.
 
2009-09-17 02:55:27 PM
FTA: "Every reporter has political beliefs. The difference is that I am upfront about mine."

Thanks for letting us know, asshole. News flash (remember "news?"): If you admit to bias then you're not a journalist. You're just a pundit. So, you'll fit right in with Beck and Hannity, you goddamned hack. Enjoy your stay in the abattoir.

Y'know, I'm sure Brian Williams votes, too. But the fact that he makes a little OCD game about his political neutrality to the point that he constantly jokes about it with Jon Stewart means that he can still be taken seriously as a journalist...whereas you cannot. News can never be wholly trusted when it comes from someone with an admitted partisan agenda.

Cronkite wept.
 
2009-09-17 03:10:45 PM
tallguywithglasseson: Because they've never heard a Libertarian argue in the affirmative for the regulation of anything.

I can think of maybe six times in favor to the 10,000 times against regulation, and most of those 10,000 times, it was phrased in a way that sounded like all regulation was bad. So yes, I do think of Libertarians as being one step up from Anarchists. My general definition of of Libertarianism is massive, unmitigated corporate rule over the government, with as small as a government as humanely possible and the biggest element left is the police to save the CEOs when the people riot. That's what Libertarians sound like to me.
 
2009-09-17 03:11:25 PM
tallguywithglasseson: Because they've never heard a Libertarian argue in the affirmative for the regulation of anything.

Usually because the obvious stuff isn't argued by anyone. I agree with the regulation of food and perscription drugs to a certain point, for instance. I'm positive it goes a bit overboard, but I would never say all food and perscription drugs should be purely free-market, with no oversight.
 
2009-09-17 03:16:19 PM
downstairs: but I would never say all food and perscription drugs should be purely free-market, with no oversight.

img225.imageshack.us
 
2009-09-17 03:27:01 PM
We've been there. This is what you get with no regulation:

greenchameleon.com
 
2009-09-17 03:33:23 PM
downstairs: Usually because the obvious stuff isn't argued by anyone. I agree with the regulation of food and perscription drugs to a certain point, for instance. I'm positive it goes a bit overboard, but I would never say all food and perscription drugs should be purely free-market, with no oversight.

How about pollution of air and water?
 
2009-09-17 03:41:36 PM
Our Man in Nirvana: We've been there. This is what you get with no regulation:

Oh, like that doesn't happen today.

Head On, apply directly to the forehead! Head On, apply directly to the forehead! Head On, apply directly to the forehead!

Granted, you can't actually claim something will fix your ailment unless you have data to back it up, but that doesn't stop quacks from selling us modern day snake oil.
 
2009-09-17 03:42:07 PM
tallguywithglasseson: downstairs: Usually because the obvious stuff isn't argued by anyone. I agree with the regulation of food and perscription drugs to a certain point, for instance. I'm positive it goes a bit overboard, but I would never say all food and perscription drugs should be purely free-market, with no oversight.

How about pollution of air and water?


Geolibertarianism and Georgism (new window).
 
2009-09-17 03:45:18 PM
Hobodeluxe: Mr. Coffee Nerves: The only Stossel story I truly remember and appreciate is when he did the piece on the "Will Work for Food" people at busy intersections. He would offer them menial work in exchange for food and they would always decline.

Then he went to a homeless shelter where a group of ostensibly able-bodied men were sitting around and he had a list of jobs from a temp labor place and one man replied with a line that is still in use at my job to this day.

When asked "Why don't you come with us and take one of these jobs right now?" he replied:

"I can't. You see, I'm drinking today."

Needless to say, this instantly became the official response when given a task of any time.

did he show anyone who took him up on the offer?
or did he leave those on the editing room floor?
or do you really think everyone was like the people he chose to show you?


Dude, I used to BE a TV reporter. I assure you that the "Man on the Street" interviews that featured well-reasoned opinions delivered thoughtfully by people sporting a full set of teeth and bereft of face tattoos were almost always removed by the editor in favor of "the ternader sounded like the front stretch at Talladega!"

Trust me, I'm fully aware that Stossel probably shot more footage than Kubrick that day and "forgot" to include the ones that didn't fit the script he wrote the day before.

You can't deny the quality of a line like "Sorry, you see, I'm drinking today"
 
2009-09-17 03:48:30 PM
I admit it would be nice if we could go back to this, however.

cdn.edu-search.com
 
2009-09-17 03:50:42 PM
Whether it's in a nice salad or a douche, vinegar is still vinegar
 
2009-09-17 03:57:42 PM
Our Man in Nirvana: I admit it would be nice if we could go back to this, however.

That company's name is eerily similar to "Fabrikam", the generic example company Microsoft's documentation uses.

I'm sure there is a point to this.

/Probably not.
 
2009-09-17 04:19:19 PM
tallguywithglasseson: How about pollution of air and water?

Some of it is nutty, but yes: that is public space.

The government telling me what i can do in the space owned by the people? I'm generally cool with that. In my business or home? I'm generally not.

And I'd divert to states rights whenever possible (which would not be 100% of the time, but when it can it should).
 
2009-09-17 04:21:33 PM
I have to assume that Stossel is going to replace O'Reilly. I mean O'Reilly just came out in favour of the Public Option for health care. I can't imagine Fox is going to keep him around anymore.
 
2009-09-17 04:26:18 PM
Mandatory in case it hasn't already been posted.

Libertarian Paradise


http://video.google.ca/videosearch?hl=en&um=1&q=libertarian%20paradise&ndsp=20& i e=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iv&start=0# (new window)
 
2009-09-17 04:27:14 PM
mrshowrules: Mandatory in case it hasn't already been posted.

Libertarian Paradise

now clickable

Link (new window)
 
2009-09-17 04:34:10 PM
mrshowrules: mrshowrules: Mandatory in case it hasn't already been posted.

Libertarian Paradise

now clickable

Link (new window)


Nice. Another case of somebody confusing libertarians and anarchists.
 
2009-09-17 04:35:30 PM
jbuist: . Another case of somebody confusing libertarians and anarchists.

Shocking how easy it is to confuse them, isn't it.
 
2009-09-17 04:36:03 PM
mrshowrules: Mandatory in case it hasn't already been posted.

Libertarian Paradise (snarky video of Somalia)


Absurd hyperbole doesn't do either side any good. If you're too dense to understand the reason why what your little video proposes isn't even close to the Libertarian party stance, then don't bother posting.
 
2009-09-17 04:48:40 PM
Libertarian, n. [...] in the United States the term has been hijacked by those who have very little in common with classical lovers of liberty (who desire equal liberty for all). It now normally refers to a member of the Libertarian Party, an altruistic person who works to ensure that all other persons have exactly (and only) the amount of liberty that their money can buy.

Libertarian Party, n. 1) An oxymoron; 2) A group of socially permissive Republicans [..] who dislike paying taxes to support anything other than the repressive facets of the state (police, army, prisons, etc., a certain amount of repression being necessary to the 'Libertarian' vision of 'liberty' -- that liberty, of course, being the liberty of the rich to pile up loot without interference from the riffraff).
 
2009-09-17 04:52:26 PM
If I were Geraldo's mustache, I'd be worried.
 
2009-09-17 05:07:42 PM
Good for him. Maybe he'll raise the average IQ at Fox a point or two
 
2009-09-17 05:16:17 PM
tallguywithglasseson: downstairs: Usually because the obvious stuff isn't argued by anyone. I agree with the regulation of food and perscription drugs to a certain point, for instance. I'm positive it goes a bit overboard, but I would never say all food and perscription drugs should be purely free-market, with no oversight.

How about pollution of air and water?


There all for it.
 
2009-09-17 05:16:55 PM
They're all for it.
 
Displayed 50 of 198 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report