[Audio] Nick Gillespie argues for defunding NPR... on NPR

[MRoCkEd]

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/11/05/01

[acptulsa]

Well, I thought I might start a thread. But I like this thread.

This week on Washington Week in Review they played a clip of a victorious Rand Paul saying it was time to take government back. The 'moderator' Gwen Ifill then humorously asked, 'back to where?'

My response:

Ms. Ifill wondered aloud where Sen-elect Rand Paul 'wants to take government back to?' Well, I'm not Dr. Paul, but I am a libertarian, and I can tell you where I'd like to see the federal government taken back to. I'd like to see it taken back to a time when we didn't have to worry about fourteen federal agencies charged with the purpose completely failing to keep us safe. I would rather U.S. citizens didn't have to worry about dying while the government agencies conduct turf wars. And I would like to see the whole nation return to a time when common sense was so predominant that we would never have allowed a fifteenth layer of bureaucracy to be created in response to a failure by fourteen others, but would have insisted we peel thirteen layers off the onion and see how it smelled then.

An odd, mystical, hypothetical, theoretical scenario? Actually, I was referring to 9/11/01 and the Department of Homeland Security. But all I'd have had to do was change the numbers and I would have been talking about the salmonella-laced peanut butter about a year and a half ago, and the Vilsack-inspired Agriculture and Food law that came within an inch of making it a federal offense for farmers to sell crops at farmers' markets.

We libertarians do understand you point of view. If the federal government taxed us so much that state and local taxes become unaffordable, then all the state legislatures would become glorified federal grant petition writers trying to get their own citizens' money back. That would be great for national news agencies such as yourselves, as no news could then come out of state legislatures and news agencies could lay off dozens of correspondents.

Our point of view is that if your local fire department is controlled by Washington, D.C., and you have a problem there, you have to convince about twenty million other voters that your community's problem is more important than abortion, gay marriage and their local problems combined. Otherwise, the problem won't get solved. A ridiculous scenario? Is it? I'll just bet that, since the PATRIOT Act passed, your local fire brigade has hired grant petition writers. And we say that ain't the way to run a represenative democracy.

That's the libertarian point of view. I don't know how to demystify it any further. And I don't think it's such a difficult concept that a bunch of smart people like you can't figure it out. So, please stop pretending that our philosophy is incomprehensible.

A gracious thank you in advance, and here's wishing you and yours a memorable Veterans' Day and a succulent Thanksgiving!

[BuddyRey]

I can almost always see how marketization leads to higher quality of goods and services, but this is the only example of government intervention that always sticks in my craw and flies in the face of what I know (or think I know) about economics. I'm not sure if this is a result of taxpayer funding specifically, but public radio and television is just far more interesting and informative (IMO) than the commercial stuff. This defies every other example I can think of, wherein government involvement makes things shoddy, inefficient, and one-size-fits-all. Don't get me wrong; I'm a principled libertarian and I support the market deciding in all aspects of public life. But still, this is one ringing refutation of "competition = higher quality" that has always bothered me.

[acptulsa]

But still, this is one ringing refutation of "competition = higher quality" that has always bothered me.

And yet, and still and all, it becomes more like Nationalist Rubric Playdough (putty in the hands of power) every single year. Do you miss Bob Edwards?

I understand what you mean. But PBS and NPR at least have to maintain the pretense that they're there at our whim and no one else's, and what they do is very hard to hide. Commercial media, on the other hand, seems not to have to hide its dependence on corporate advertizing in the least little bit to be accepted.

I just wish we could get CPB and the Ford Foundation and Annenberg and those Gates monopolists out of it and fund it ourselves. But until the rich stop getting richer at our expense (and often on our taxes), I doubt we'll be able to afford them...

[osan]

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/11/05/01 (http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/11/05/01)

Holy shit, Gillespie was very strong. Interviewer tried to toss some curves and he handled them commendably well. Nick Gillespie for President!

Seriously, I was very favorably impressed. He kicked her ass and did it politely, with full cogency and truth. Smart and fast on his feet. Ultra-kudos.