Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Announcing Jon Stewart Vs. Whereaminow

Recs

28

October 28, 2011 – Comments (16)

I am thrilled to see Jon have Judge Napolitano on his show tonight. I just finished watching my DVR recording and it's time to hit the sack.

The great thing about this interview (and I am excited about watching the full clip on the web link later. Jon ran out of time ) is that Jon asked what I would call "the best articulated mainstream liberal challenges to libertarianism."  That's a little different than saying the best challenges to libertarianism.  For that you'd have to possess a deeper understandinging of those thorny ethical issues that philosophers twist themselves and others up in.  But for the mainstream liberal view, Stewart spoke it tonight with more clarity than I can recall hearing.

So what I'm going to do this weekend is write up a post tackling each question one by one with my answers.  Judge Napolitano was great and brilliant, but I can do better :)

[Of course given time and a keyboard rather than the pressures of the lights, Judge would wipe the floor with me. Both he and Jon did an excellent job and a full formal debate between the two would probably be outstanding.]

I think it'll be a fun challenge.  And I think you'll enjoy the continued conversation.

We'll see you this weekend, probably over football.

David

16 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 28, 2011 at 5:25 AM, FleaBagger (29.32) wrote:

1 rec and no comments is no condition for one of your blog posts to be in, David. Here's a rec and a comment to encourage you to get to that write-up.

Report this comment
#2) On October 28, 2011 at 5:38 AM, dbtheonly (< 20) wrote:

Well Flea,

Certainly shows your impartiality when you are "reccing" before Dave has posted any questions to be debated; as St. Louis showed last night, "it ain't over 'til it's over". Or in this case; begun.

Report this comment
#3) On October 28, 2011 at 5:59 AM, FleaBagger (29.32) wrote:

Are you the same person as dbjella? Or is there more than one "db," thus putting the lie to your screen name? Cartainly shows your impartiality, stealing someone else's screen name and then lying about it. Or, alternatively, sneaking around with aliases and whatnot. How is anyone supposed to trust you?

Report this comment
#4) On October 28, 2011 at 6:02 AM, FleaBagger (29.32) wrote:

I've decided I should address the issue of "impartiality." Judges are supposed to be impartial. Friends are not. Maybe CAPS is supposed to be an unfriendly world of impartial judges evaluating each other's ideas, like the barren world of Vulcan on Star Trek, with logic and facts, but no life or beauty or camaraderie. No, just kidding. There's no way in hell CAPS is supposed to be like that. You're just an idiot.

Report this comment
#5) On October 28, 2011 at 6:06 AM, catoismymotor (39.82) wrote:

+1 Rec.

It is still weird to see you posting things at non  Middle East hours.

I look forward to reading your offerings.

 

Report this comment
#6) On October 28, 2011 at 6:54 AM, dbtheonly (< 20) wrote:

Flea,

 Well your name is certainly descriptive. A small biting insect.

I've been around since 2007 & the "handle" was a gift. I know of no connection to any other combination of db.

You've got a mind like a steel trap, rusted shut.

Report this comment
#7) On October 28, 2011 at 2:59 PM, eldemonio (98.85) wrote:

I've come across quite a few db's on CAPS.

Report this comment
#8) On October 28, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

David- Thanks for the heads up. Just watched the show. Two of my faves.  Awesome to see two great minds of polarized conviction not only tolerate and respect each others perspectives and interpretations, but be genuinely interested in exploring each others ideological interpretations.

Stewart nailed it when he said it's easy to talk past each other tho sharing many beliefs.  The problems come when applying any ideology to one's interpretation of the real world, seasoned by one's past experiences and personal situation. I would say there as many "real worlds" as people.

As situations change, ideologies change and interpretations change- rationalized and justified in the individuals own mind and personal situation. Example-  a minimum wage worker would quickly go from "tax the rich" to "No way, that's my money" after hitting the lottery. Maybe a better example- would you steal food or watch your children starve. Here's one you can relate to- Ayn Rand's website has an article right now titled "Social Security is Immoral".   She wrote- "There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction." but she took medicare AND social security payments when diagnosed with lung cancer.  Or Charles Koch who (as you know, I'm sure)  has not merely promoted libertarian ideas generally but in particular founded the Cato Institute, which has done more than any other single organization to wage war on Social Security, wrote a letter to Frederich Hayek on On August 10, 1973, appealing to Hayek to accept a shorter stay at the IHS, hard-selling Hayek on Social Security’s retirement benefits, which Koch encouraged Hayek to draw on even outside America.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/friedrich-hayek-joins-ayn-rand-as-a-hypocritical-user-of-medicare.html

I think sometimes it is too easy to discount (or dismiss) the "human" factor when discussing any philosophy, be it political, economic, or theological, down to raising children. As entertaining and challenging it may be to argue ANY ideology, in the end it will be a fruitless exercise in futility. I must admit tho, all futility aside, no one enjoys honest cerebral exchange more than me. 

Make sure to check out Chatsworth Park. Not quite the same since Charlie and Co. went away, but a very cool place to explore. Gotta go apply for this job- http://reno.craigslist.org/etc/2669862311.html  Looking forward to your retort. +1 rec.  Best.

Report this comment
#9) On October 28, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Frankydontfailme (27.25) wrote:

FB - ignore mental midgets.

Report this comment
#10) On October 28, 2011 at 10:22 PM, kdakota630 (29.45) wrote:

Thanks for the heads up on the Judge Napolitano interview on The Daily Show.  I'd have missed it without you.  However, living in Canada, I can't see the full interview, just what The Comedy Channel will allow.

Looking forward to your "continued conversation."

Kdak

Report this comment
#11) On October 29, 2011 at 2:22 AM, FleaBagger (29.32) wrote:

Hi, Franky - some people just don't appreciate satire (e.g. comment #3), and I suppose comment #4, being serious, was a bit harsh at the end. He may be a person of average (or above average) intelligence who puts forth no effort to think about what he says before he says it. Still, criticizing someone for showing partiality on a website where everyone is encouraged to have "favorites" is a bit dense, at best. I write comments like 3 for fun, and like 4 to point out things to people willing to learn, and I never hold out high expectations for people who demonstrate themselves to be dense.

And for anyone who is interested in fleabags (and therefore the probably definition of "fleabagger"): http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fleabag 

Report this comment
#12) On October 29, 2011 at 11:00 PM, tomlongrpv (75.54) wrote:

David,

I promise you disagreement (with your views, not Stewart's).

tomlongrpv

Report this comment
#13) On October 30, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

How do you like that David, now that you are in the "greater Los Angeles" area, you already have a local politician who promises to disagree with you on whatever you may opine.  Nice.

Report this comment
#14) On October 30, 2011 at 4:52 PM, whereaminow (21.50) wrote:

ROFL @star

Well, since he's a politician, I consider myself blessed that he doesn't agree with me.

David

Report this comment
#15) On November 06, 2011 at 12:09 AM, tomlongrpv (75.54) wrote:

David,

 It must be comforting to always "know" everything.  One can "know" that all "politicians" are "bad" without even knowing any of them or having any knowledge of what they actually do.

Let me know if and when you figure out that you actually know very little.  That will be the day when you actually know enough to have an opinion worth considering.

tomlongrpv

Report this comment
#16) On November 13, 2011 at 7:22 PM, whereaminow (21.50) wrote:

One can "know" that all "politicians" are "bad" without even knowing any of them or having any knowledge of what they actually do.

I don't know any politicians personally.  But I know that you're a tool. At least, that's the evidence you've presented on my blogs.

Look bro, you opened your mouth, not me.  You came on this blog for no reason except to tell us that you're not going to read or listen to anything I have to say.  That = major d**che bag.  Don't cry wolf now about how I am a know-it-all.  You stepped in it.  Be a man and own it.

David

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement