John Stossel: I plan to vote for Rand Paul

[jct74]

Rand Paul Isn’t Perfectly Libertarian, But He's the Best Presidential Contender We’ve Got
Yes, he avoids alienating conservatives. But has he violated his principles?

John Stossel | April 22, 2015

It's not smart to get too enthusiastic about any politician. I've been disappointed often. I believed Bill Clinton when he said, "the era of big government is over." I thought George W. Bush was a "small government guy." And Barack Obama ...

Well, never mind.

If I want limited government and individual freedom, to whom do I turn?

Ted Cruz? I want to like him. He's smart. He's read economists Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, etc. He confronted Obama's attorney general about constitutional limits on killing Americans with drones. He fought hard against Obamacare.

But he also seems so eager to go to war. It also bothers me that he praises states' independence but then criticizes President Obama for giving states a tiny bit of free rein to set drug policy.

I like Jeb Bush personally. I like Govs. Walker, Kasich and Perry. But they also seem eager to go to war in the Middle East and continue the destructive drug war in America.

So I plan to vote for Rand Paul.

...

read more:
http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/2...next-president

[Matt Collins]

Reason isn't monolithic and this shows it.

[Sola_Fide]

Rand Paul Isn’t Perfectly Libertarian...

John Stossel isn't even close to a libertarian.

[Paulistinian]

John Stossel isn't even close to a libertarian.

That's alright... my father is a hard core "conservative" but is easily swayed by the AM radio and sometimes Fox. He likes and respects Stossel though, so this is helpful.

[Crashland]

John Stossel isn't even close to a libertarian.

In what ways is he not libertarian? And are those things really enough to consider him "not even close" to libertarianism?

[Warlord]

Stossel is a big supporter of the NSA

[jbauer]

Got into a major argument about Paul vs Cruz vs Rubio. Contestant #1 was very critical of Paul's "isolationist" foreign policy.....yeah yeah... We talked about 20 minutes on the positives and negatives. I informed her that Rand was to aggressive for my taste, which went over like a lead balloon.

Neither of us moved an inch until I told her I was done arguing while leaving her on thing to think about. I pointed to my 2 girls and said that:

"I am not willing to send my girls off to fight in someone elses sandbox 1/2 a world away. I think my girls are to important to waste their lives fighting some unknown and un-named terrorist that you keep bringing up....and you know what? Other Parents kids are just as important to them as mine are to me."

[tsai3904]

Will he register as a Republican to vote for Rand in the New York primary?

[CaptUSA]

Got into a major argument about Paul vs Cruz vs Rubio. Contestant #1 was very critical of Paul's "isolationist" foreign policy.....yeah yeah... We talked about 20 minutes on the positives and negatives. I informed her that Rand was to aggressive for my taste, which went over like a lead balloon.

Neither of us moved an inch until I told her I was one arguing while leaving her on thing to think about. I pointed to my 2 girls and said that:

"I am not willing to send my girls off to fight in someone elses sandbox 1/2 a world away. I think my girls are two important to waste their lives fighting some unknown and un-named terrorist that you keep bringing up....and you know what? Other Parents kids are just as important to them as mine are to me."

But back on topic... Stossel is libertarian, but that doesn't mean "libertarians" all think alike. I don't think he's a supporter of the NSA as much as he is agnostic about them. The real problem with Stossel is that he speaks to his viewers like they are 3rd grade children.

[surf]

if Rand continues to call Graham and McWar lapdogs, i'll be in as well. hope he doesn't go overboard on the peace through strength ($$$$) though

[euphemia]

I think we can welcome his endorsement. His opinions are his own and he has an audience. This might be a good opportunity to bring him deeper into the discussion.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Got into a major argument about Paul vs Cruz vs Rubio. Contestant #1 was very critical of Paul's "isolationist" foreign policy.....yeah yeah... We talked about 20 minutes on the positives and negatives. I informed her that Rand was to aggressive for my taste, which went over like a lead balloon.

Neither of us moved an inch until I told her I was one arguing while leaving her on thing to think about. I pointed to my 2 girls and said that:

"I am not willing to send my girls off to fight in someone elses sandbox 1/2 a world away. I think my girls are two important to waste their lives fighting some unknown and un-named terrorist that you keep bringing up....and you know what? Other Parents kids are just as important to them as mine are to me."

You can't sway interventionists that way. Use someone they would typically respect against them; in this case the CIA guy.

The part these people need to hear begins @ 6:50

[jbauer]

if Rand continues to call Graham and McWar lapdogs, i'll be in as well. hope he doesn't go overboard on the peace through strength ($$$$) though

Thats the only way you're going to win the argument. We wont be able to cut billions from the war machine overnight....at least in the real world.

[Sola_Fide]

In what ways is he not libertarian? And are those things really enough to consider him "not even close" to libertarianism?

Check out his views on the surveillance state.

[Xenliad]

Does he have any influence other than being a punching bag on Fox News?

[Sola_Fide]

Does he have any influence other than being a punching bag on Fox News?

Not really. He's horrible at debating too.

[Krugminator2]

Not really. He's horrible at debating too.

Not only is a Stossel a solid libertarian, he has the single best show on television. He is the reason I am a libertarian. He admits he differs from libertarian orthodoxy on bulk data collection. That is one issue.

Stossel's specials on ABC used crack the top 10 in the ratings. His ratings were in the league of Seinfeld and Friends. Stossel was it for libertarians in the media until very recently. He gave an hour on one of the highest rated shows on television to Ron Paul in 2007. Dumping on Stossel is not amusing. He has done more for libertarianism of any living person not named Ron Paul.

[Vanguard101]

John Stossel isn't even close to a libertarian.

Stossel is a big supporter of the NSA

It amazes me how you guys think this

[Sola_Fide]

It amazes me how you guys think this

Why? He said it.

[Anti Federalist]

It amazes me how you guys think this

I don't know that he's a "big supporter" so much as "meh" when it comes to the surveillance society and death of freedom.



Why Libertarians Have Better Things to Worry About Than the NSA

Neither terrorism nor the NSA are the greatest threats to American liberty.

John Stossel | June 12, 2013

http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/1...er-things-to-w

This week, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said the National Security Agency's data mining violates our Fourth Amendment right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers" and is "tyranny that our founders rebelled against." Good for him.

In an op-ed, he adds, "We fought a revolution over issues like generalized warrants, where soldiers would go from house to house, searching anything they liked," and wonders "which parts of the Constitution this government will next consider negotiable." Good for him. I'm glad at least one senator reminds Big Government that our Constitution limits federal power.

And many libertarians are furious at this latest intrusion of "Big Brother."

So what's wrong with me? I just can't get that worked up about it.

I know Big Data now in NSA computers probably includes my phone calls. (I hope it's just time, duration, location and recipients, not my words, too, but I'm not sure.)

I know the snooping may be unnecessary. Government's claim that it prevents terror is weak: Officials say a terrorist was caught, but New York City police say he was caught via other methods. I'm skeptical about the very claim that any terribly important "secrets" are held by unhappy 29-year-olds and 4.8 million other people (that's how many Americans hold security clearance for classified material).

So it's invasive, probably illegal and maybe useless. I ought to be very angry. But I'm not. Why?

I need to keep thinking about this issue, but for now, two reasons:

1. Terrorists do want to murder us. If the NSA is halfway competent, Big Data should help detect plots.

2. My electronic privacy has already been utterly shredded by Google, Amazon, YouTube and so on.

They know with whom I talk, what interests me and how much time I spend doing this or that. They creep me out with targeted ads. How did they know I want that?! Oh, right ... I spent an hour searching ...

Then I go outside in New York City, where 16 cameras record me on my way to work.

Greedy lawyers can subpoena my private records. My employer has a right to read my emails.

My privacy is already blown.

I'm angrier about other things Big Government does in the name of keeping me safe: forcing me to wear safety gear, limiting where I may go, stripping me at airports, forcing me to pay $2,300 for more military than we need.

Actually, $2,300 is the average Americans pay for our military. I pay more. The total for all of us is more than $700 billon a year, which is, as Chris Preble of the Cato Institute pointed out on my TV show, "more than we spent at the peak of the Cold War ... fighting the Soviet Union."

The danger was greater then, when we had a nuclear Soviet Union threatening to "bury us."

Much of America's defense spending goes to defend our allies in Europe and Asia. They spend less because we spend more.

"We are suckers," said Preble. "I don't blame them. If I were in their situation, if someone else was offering to pay for my security, I'd let them do it."

And it's not clear that we do what we do efficiently. The U.S. Department of Defense is prone to the same sorts of inefficiency that plagues other parts of government. The department's brownie recipe is 26 pages long.

Military officials say al-Qaida has been weakened. Iran (someday) may build a nuclear bomb, but we managed to deter China and Russia when they had thousands.

Some people want the U.S. military to police the world: Contain China, transform failed states, chase terrorists, train foreign militaries, protect sea lanes, protect oil supplies, stop genocide, protect refugees, maintain bases in allied countries, police our southern border, stop drug trafficking and spread good through humanitarian missions. The list is endless, which is the problem.

The U.S. military can't be everywhere. And we can't hand the government unlimited power and unlimited money every time a potential crisis looms.

We must remain on guard against threats. But bankruptcy may be the greatest threat.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

Not really. He's horrible at debating too.

Yep. He really stinks at making the libertarian argument, especially on O'reilly's show.

[Crashland]

Check out his views on the surveillance state.

He doesn't even have strong views on the surveillance state. And even if he did, this one thing makes him not even close to libertarian? There need to be at least *some* differences of opinion within libertarianism, otherwise you are just making libertarianism out to be even more fringe than it already is. Stossel is an ally on almost everything and he is one of the view libertarian voices that ever gets a chance to reach the FOX News audience.

[Sola_Fide]

He doesn't even have strong views on the surveillance state. And even if he did, this one thing makes him not even close to libertarian? There need to be at least *some* differences of opinion within libertarianism, otherwise you are just making libertarianism out to be even more fringe than it already is. Stossel is an ally on almost everything and he is one of the view libertarian voices that ever gets a chance to reach the FOX News audience.

Like AF said in the thread he bumped, an issue like the NSA is where the wheat and the chaff is separated.

[hells_unicorn]

Reason isn't monolithic and this shows it.

Nothing is ever really monolithic, but Reason has been pretty bad when it comes to practical politics, and I'd argue that Stossel is the exception that proves the rule when you look at the rot that usually comes out of other writers from said outlet when the last name Paul is under consideration.

He doesn't even have strong views on the surveillance state. And even if he did, this one thing makes him not even close to libertarian? There need to be at least *some* differences of opinion within libertarianism, otherwise you are just making libertarianism out to be even more fringe than it already is. Stossel is an ally on almost everything and he is one of the view libertarian voices that ever gets a chance to reach the FOX News audience.

Stossel's views on the NSA are not only problematic from a libertarian standpoint, but also from a general view regarding the balance of power between the governing party and the governed. A rogue agency that has the ability to run roughshod over the 4th Amendment with no reciprocity to speak of is dangerous, as it will pave the way for said agency being able to control government policy by blackmailing office holders, most likely for nefarious purposes. The truth can be a weapon, particularly when someone has complete control over how it is disseminated.

I don't consider Stossel an enemy and I'm not one to tell him what category he belongs in, but his apathy on this issue is pretty revolting.

[nobody's_hero]

Stossel is a big supporter of the NSA

This. And for the life of me I can't understand why that is. I might could even cut him some slack if he supported foreign intervention but was opposed to the NSA—as any American who values privacy and protections of the 4th and 5th amendments.

But supporting the NSA is a big indicator that this guy doesn't have a clue. At least some the most hawkish republicans I know don't want the NSA to cross certain lines, but Stossel's "meh, do what you want" approach to the NSA is, as previous poster suggested, revolting.

[undergroundrr]

There's an interview on Youtube from 2/17/11 in which Ron Paul suggests he'd love to have John Stossel as his press secretary.

[hells_unicorn]

Yep. He really stinks at making the libertarian argument, especially on O'reilly's show.

In Stossel's defense, it is very difficult to make a good argument on O'Reilly's show, no matter how rational and right you are. Very few people have the patience and temperament to deal with a guy who is generally wrong about everything and so pompous and rude that he can't stand to hear 2 seconds of anything he doesn't like. In order for a person to get the better of him, they have to be able to keep their cool while getting mocked incessantly, and manage to chip away at the man's ego while still allowing him to run his mouth for 75% of the show.

Very few people have ever pulled this off, and I don't any of them were ever invited back a second time.