Zhuge Niu Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Do Yaron Brook's appearances on Glenn Beck's talk show constitute a sanction of libertarianism? I don't think so, but a few people having been making this argument in chat with no progress. They claim that since Glenn Beck has a libertarian ideology, that being on his show implicitly supports his ideology. I bring this to the forum to be settled, because it has been going on far too long in chat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fountainhead777 Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 As long as Brook establishes his differences and defends his views when his complicity would allow a sanction I do not think it would. Every time I have seen him on there he makes sure to differentiate his beliefs. The only people who it would appear so to are those who do not actually pay attention to the appearances or think every person on a show agrees completely with the host. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SapereAude Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Do Yaron Brook's appearances on Glenn Beck's talk show constitute a sanction of libertarianism? I don't think so, but a few people having been making this argument in chat with no progress. They claim that since Glenn Beck has a libertarian ideology, that being on his show implicitly supports his ideology. Whoever claims that it being pretty damn silly. If someone only appears before audiences directly in line with their beliefs they're just preaching to the choir.. making them ineffective. The point is to reach people like minded but apart from your own set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Having once been a libertarian, I have a hard time considering Beck to be one. Nevertheless, is Yaron Brook being on the show an endorsement of Glen Beck's religious conservatism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fountainhead777 Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 The couple of times I have seen Brook on there he makes sure to make his views on religion well-known, likely to reach capitalists who are not christian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Guest on these types of shows are brought on to present their views on a particular subject. Within the limits of TV, they get a chance to state their views. They often disagree with the host. The viewers do not assume that all guests agree with the host. I cannot think of many hosts that Brook should stay away from if invited, unless he thinks they will not let him present his case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IchorFigure Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 (edited) He appears on CNBC with Dennis Kneale as well (and many others), who as far as I can tell is a nutty leftist version of Beck. That doesn't mean he sanctions liberal ideals or the Obama administration either. Edit: I just finished watching ARC's panel dicussion with CEI and I think it is relevant to note they made a very explicit and clear point of announcing that the ARC and CEI do not hold the same views on some important issues and vice versa. Edited September 19, 2009 by IchorFigure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tito Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 I don't think it is sanction, Beck always allows Yaron to demonstrate the Objectivist position in full, something which most hosts do not. Yaron always gets to talk about the fundamentals of an issue, including the moral fundamentals that are at odds with Beck's religious ideas - if anything, it is Beck sanctioning Yaron. However, there is another issue. Beck says some lunatic things, and it may get to the point where Yaron's appearances on there are just bad PR. Allusions to conspiracy theories and the 9/11 truth movement are all acceptable things to get worked up about in the eyes of Glenn Beck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 However, there is another issue. Beck says some lunatic things, and it may get to the point where Yaron's appearances on there are just bad PR. Allusions to conspiracy theories and the 9/11 truth movement are all acceptable things to get worked up about in the eyes of Glenn Beck. I'm having a hard time following this one. It's certainly worth getting angry about the conspiracy theories and the truth movement; they are purveyors of male bovine excrement. Unless "get worked up" means something different in the UK than it does here. As an aside I don't think GB is one of those who thinks the US government was behind 9/11, though I could be mistaken, I listen very infrequently and watch never. (as another aside, on the differences between English and American, we use the phrase "Bible thumper" here where you use "Bible basher". In American slang, to "bash" is to attack, so "Bible basher" comes across the pond to us here as a reference to the agressively anti-Christian atheist groups.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Beck's point with the "Tuthers" and 9-11 conspiracists is that thery are within Obama's circle of Czar's and advisors. It is something to be concerned with. He has seemingly surrounded himself with anti-capitalists and flakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Having once been a libertarian, I have a hard time considering Beck to be one. Nevertheless, is Yaron Brook being on the show an endorsement of Glen Beck's religious conservatism? Nah, I think he's more of a Libertarian. There are plenty of religious Libertarians. To the OP, sanctioning someone in their actions means voting for them, or supporting their positions explicitly, or giving them money for a specific aim (that you thus sanction). Talking to them, giving them a ride to the airport, or even a big kiss on the cheek, does not sanction anything they do. As for Beck, I've just recently heard him claim that the government collects data off of Americans' computers, without their consent, because of a snippet of legislation in the "cash for clunkers" program. That claim has been debunked on this forum, a few weeks ago, and by many others. They are in fact collecting data from dealerships who are willing participants---it is just a technical matter. And yet, I've seen the video of Glenn Beck very animated, pointing to the camera, saying" They're collecting your information." That is not an error, or incompetence on Beck's part, it is an all out, deliberate lie, a totally unscrupulous attempt at propaganda and sensationalism. So he is not in any way someone any Objectivist should sanction. But Yaron Brook would never do that, it would be ridiculous. The differences even in political ideology, let alone character, are obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 To the OP, sanctioning someone in their actions means voting for them, or supporting their positions explicitly, or giving them money for a specific aim (that you thus sanction). Talking to them, giving them a ride to the airport, or even a big kiss on the cheek, does not sanction anything they do. That is true, but Yaron Brook has been on the show enough times to be considered a regular, I think. I'm unsure if this could qualify as a sanction for the reasons you mentioned. But at the same time, appearing on the show regularly seems to suggest "Your beliefs are inconsistent, but that's okay since Objectivist-type beliefs need to be heard". I don't think Beck is anyone you'd want to be associated with on a regular basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Did nobody notice the one of the latest episodes of Fox's Freedom Watch in which Judge Napolitano calls Yaron "the Prince of Libertarianism" then retracts it to "the Prince of the Free Market" afterward? It's just a fact that Yaron will get called a libertarian, a conservative, a liberal, a right-winger, a pro-choice secular anti-Christian progressive, or anything else you can think of by different people for different reasons. I still maintain that he should go on whatever shows will allow him to talk his piece with a modicum of professionalism. There is absolutely nothing wrong with going on TV shows or doing intellecual forums, or panel discussions and hashing out the issues with consevatives and libertarians or anyone else (like this for example.) It's not sanctioning anything, unless you actually sanction something. I don't see how you could seriously make the connection of sanctioning something as litterally "Brook on Beck = sanction." Are you serious? It's only a sanction of X,Y, or Z if he sanctions it, not if he's in the same room as a person or simply talking to them or even agreeing with them on A, B, and C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 That is true, but Yaron Brook has been on the show enough times to be considered a regular, I think. I'm unsure if this could qualify as a sanction for the reasons you mentioned. But at the same time, appearing on the show regularly seems to suggest "Your beliefs are inconsistent, but that's okay since Objectivist-type beliefs need to be heard". I don't think Beck is anyone you'd want to be associated with on a regular basis. I think even if he appears on there regularly, he just needs to be honest about his views, not accept Beck putting words in his mouth, and he's fine. I have raging liberal and conservative friends, and even if I stay at their house, or go to their child's baptism, it's still not a sanction of either liberalism or conservatism. It doesn't matter where Yaron Brook goes, as long as what he says is true to Objectivism, he's not sanctioning anything other than Objectivism. As for people's perception, they should start forming their opinions based on actual evidence, not guesses. Playing to the irrational, who don't, would be ill advised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.