TheEgoist Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 Judge Andrew Napolitano yesterday guest hosted Glenn Beck's show on FOX News. In that hour Harry Binswanger, a man whom I have a deep admiration for, appeared to talk the growing excesses of government. Now, I've never liked "The Judge" (as he is affectionately called by libertarians), but I viewed my dislike for him as the same general distaste I have for other conservatives who base their core arguments on "God and the constitution". I knew he had hosted Beck's show before, and I didn't really care. That was before I knew that he had appeared before on the Alex Jones show, andhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_9eTLkrT8k. I've talked about Jones before in discussing what I think is wrong with the Right. A year ago, I wouldn't have done that. A year ago, Alex Jones was anathema to most Republicans and conservatives. But in the past year, under the influence of figures like Ron Paul and Glenn Beck, the Right has continued to accept more and more of the Jones types. Whether it be the Oath Keepers who talk about martial law, forced vaccinations and concentration camps or affiliates of the Jones show who go on FOX News to talk about how the Swine Flu was intentionally put into circulation so that the government could control us more, there is something seriously wrong. We have a man who now is a somewhat frequent guest on the show that is the Flagship for conspiracy theorists, racists, anarchists and other disturbing groupings guest hosting on a major news network, that itself claims to be the only source for fair journalism. Not to mention he has his own show hosted by FOX Online. Now, I understood the rationale for appearing on Beck. He appeals to a lot of people who might be interested in Objectivism and truly limited government. However, now, I don't know how much longer the ARI or any intellectually honest person or organization can continue to appear on the show that seems to, if not endorse, at least fully sanction what the radical Right has to offer. I do not say this in criticism of the Institute, but in warning. Continue appearing on this show and others like it, and you'll be supporting with your appearance the views of the some of the worst political elements in America. I plan on drafting and sending a letter to whatever address the Institute associates with these kinds of things. I think it is at least worth bringing it to the attention of someone there. This is different than speaking at a Republican meeting or on a show hosted by a very religious conservative. This is about appearing on and being associated with nihilism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 By your statements, I'm gathering then that you object only to where he was stating a message as the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Compare Alex Jones to van Jones, then come back and tell me whether the left nuts or right nuts are more dangerous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 More of this nonsense? I'm not seeing how appearing on a show equals to a "sanction of the radical right!" Did Binswanger saything about conspiracy theories? Did he say anything about racism? Did he say anything about anarchism? No, he talked about press freedom. So what's the problem then? Supported with his appearance? What does that even mean? Is he only supposed to "appear" next to other Objectivists? Am I sanctioning the "radical right" because my parents are conservatives and I go to their house? I don't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 I don't know about Judge, but the risk of being confused with the so-called libertarian right (folks like Ron Paul) is definitely higher than the risk of being confused with the religious right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 I don't know about Judge, but the risk of being confused with the so-called libertarian right (folks like Ron Paul) is definitely higher than the risk of being confused with the religious right. Alex Jones is a bit of both, SN. He is opposed to things like gay marriage, abortion, talks about secularism and thinks Christianity is being squelched both by Atheism and various pagan religions. He's also with the libertarians on a lot of conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve (Not that it's bad, but that it is a conspiracy by a bunch of Jews) and other such non-sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Compare Alex Jones to van Jones, then come back and tell me whether the left nuts or right nuts are more dangerous. Never claimed the Left wasn't with its dangerous elements, and of course it is the dichotomous spit in power right now. However, if as opponents of the Left we want to make a stand for individual rights, we have to reject what seems to be a rise in some of the worst elements of the "right wing" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Grathwohl Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 I'm not quite sure why so many here seem to think that appearing on these programs is a sanction to their idiotic behaviors and beliefs. The only entities that encourage and allow idiotic talk show hosts to exist are the networks they broadcast on, their sponsors, and themselves. If an honest person has something to say, cable television is a great outlet for it so long as the content is not censored. And frankly, I'm happy that so many on the right have become more radicalized. I'd judge their actions well before I even considered judging their ideas, and their actions have only brought further interest to Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and the ARI - not less. Yes, they're wrong, but that doesn't mean we couldn't use their actions to our advantage. "The Judge" has been much more of a friend to Objectivists than you may realize. He has had Yaron Brook on shows he's hosted, and has in general been quite favorable towards Objectivism despite the fact that he is a heavily pronounced Catholic. Yes, he's a religious conspiracy nut libertarian, but he's also one of the only people to broadcast the ARI, and those related to the ARI, in a positive (or rather, equal) light. Regardless of how awful the right may have become in recent years, it's still no match for the hardcore left. Their beliefs and actions have a much more negative impact on not just Objectivism, but every Objectivist's personal life as well. I'd take lower taxes with a larger presence of lockjaw white trash shouting religious nonsense over socialism any day of the week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtaylortitle Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Very "confused" comments here. Judge Napolitano begins his videos each day with "defending your natural rights". I know of no one else in the televised media that does that. Our liberties as men and women derive from reason which results in the principles of natural law/rights. Religion is not mentioned. In partial defense of Beck's show, other than rediculous comments about our rights coming from a god or a Bible (which the Bible no where explicitly states those rights), he does examine in depth the statist's inter-connections and, thus, where Obama and his czars really stand on our freedoms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Very "confused" comments here. Judge Napolitano begins his videos each day with "defending your natural rights". I know of no one else in the televised media that does that. Our liberties as men and women derive from reason which results in the principles of natural law/rights. In an attempt to unconfuse you, rights do not come from "natural law," the Judge is wrong when he talks about natural rights. Natural law is a muddled libertarian concept that comes from Rothbard, Hoppe, and others who plagiarize from Rand and inject their own (bad) ideas into a libertarian ethics system. Religion is not mentioned. That is false. The Judge is religious and mentions religion less than Beck certainly, but it's not a contest of who mentions things less than the other. They're both wrong when it comes to rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted November 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 In an attempt to unconfuse you, rights do not come from "natural law," the Judge is wrong when he talks about natural rights. Natural law is a muddled libertarian concept that comes from Rothbard, Hoppe, and others who plagiarize from Rand and inject their own (bad) ideas into a libertarian ethics system. Natural law explanations existed far before Rand and the libertarians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Natural law explanations existed far before Rand and the libertarians. Yes I worded that wrong as I was in a hurry. I meant to suggest that the particular brand of "natural law" Napolitano subscribes to is the kind of libertarian theory postulated by Rothbard and his paleolibertarian/conservative groupies. I agree that one of the positive aspects of Beck's show is the segments where he delves into some of the Obama cadre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted November 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) Actually, Napolitano doesn't even believe in natural law, but in divine law The Judge sets up a dichotomy as either "Divine rights or government created rights". (That video also shows his disgusting alliance with neo-Confederates. This is not a man or a movement to be trusted) Edited November 14, 2009 by TheEgoist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maarten Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Still, I don't really see the issue. ARI has several old appearances on the Thom Hartman show (I believe) by Objectivist Intellectuals, and I doubt anyone would claim that they sanctioned the host's views by appearing there? I think it would potentially be different if the Objectivist spoke at, say, a fund raising party for a Neoconservative... but I don't see that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted November 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 I'm judging here based on the levels of depravity. Do you think it would be appropriate for an Objectivist to appear on one of thee conspiracy theorist's radio shows, for instance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 I'm judging here based on the levels of depravity. Do you think it would be appropriate for an Objectivist to appear on one of thee conspiracy theorist's radio shows, for instance? It depends. Why shouldn't ARI appear to whoever will invite them and give them a fair hearing, provided they have a target audience. I don't know why you keep focusing on conspiracy theorists and Alex Jones though. I've never even heard of him until I read about him on here and researched him. What exactly is the danger he poses? And if he is so anti-reason, all the better to go on and speak the truth, if he has a big enough audience to merit the time spent on it. Was it "inappropriate" for Peikoff to appear on The O'Reilly Factor? What is the reason for these rules on where you should or shouldn't be allowed to appear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freestyle Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 There is nothing to fear in getting out Objectivist ideas. It should be the goal. I say go on every talk-show that will have you. If everybody in the world read Atlas Shrugged think how many more Objectivists there would be. Sure, some will not understand the ideas. Some will twist the ideas. Some will lie about the ideas. That happens now. Objectivism appeals to reasonable people. To whatever extent they exist in any audience, it is worth reaching them. P.S. I found out about Alex Jones a while back when I was researching conspiracy theories. I watched a few of his youtube videos and listened to some of his radio/web shows over about a 1 week period. If I'd have been exposed there to someone I found reasoned that led me to Objectivism that would have been to my benefit. (This isn't how I found out about Objectivism, mind you. That was thanks to Atlas Shrugged, of course.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dollardoctrinaire Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 These definitely are exciting times! Any publicity is good publicity as the saying goes. Although I don't care much for second handers and moochers like the tea-party redneck morons, hopefully their actions will cause some intelligent, decent and educated people to be enlightened by Miss Rand's words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) ...second handers and moochers like the tea-party redneck morons... Objectivist spokepersons have participated in tea party events and appeared as speakers on the platform, you arrogant little prick. Edit: Upon reviewing your post history, I judge you to be a troll who has not written a single sincere thing. Edited November 14, 2009 by Grames Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 second handers and moochers like the tea-party redneck morons... What an ignorant statement. The Tea Parties are a result of the people becoming fed up with an overbearing and out of control imperial government. "Rednecks?" Have you been to a tea party? I have, are you calling me a redneck moron? Should only an intellectual (in their own minds) elite be in charge of the ignorant massses? Rather like unto Plato's Republic, is it not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dollardoctrinaire Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 I'm sorry, I just do not trust "mobs" and mob mentality is the anti-thesis of individualism. As an individualist, I'd rather follow Kira Argounova and not take part in such marches among the unwashed masses. This is just going to lead to more collectivism IMO. Feel free to disagree with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 I'm sorry, I just do not trust "mobs" and mob mentality is the anti-thesis of individualism. As an individualist, I'd rather follow Kira Argounova and not take part in such marches among the unwashed masses. This is just going to lead to more collectivism IMO. Feel free to disagree with me. I shall. This is about people reasserting their individuality against greater state control of every aspect of their lives. i suppose one could sit aside and let others do the heavy lifting, then reap the benifits. That seems rather "second hander" to me, though. If you were a true individualist, you would think for yourself rather than emulating a heroine in a novel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted November 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 I'm sorry, I just do not trust "mobs" and mob mentality is the anti-thesis of individualism. As an individualist, I'd rather follow Kira Argounova and not take part in such marches among the unwashed masses. This is just going to lead to more collectivism IMO. Feel free to disagree with me. I think you are far too harsh in your criticisms. The tea party movement had its good elements, though they have since been vanquished by the religious. But still, there are honest and genuine people who support individual rights that go to these protests. They aren't red necks or ignoramuses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Grathwohl Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 I think you are far too harsh in your criticisms. The tea party movement had its good elements, though they have since been vanquished by the religious. But still, there are honest and genuine people who support individual rights that go to these protests. They aren't red necks or ignoramuses. There have been two major tea party movements in this country - the first being the Ron Paul movement's tea parties, filled with conspiracy nuts and fringe idiots - the second being the Glenn Beck tea parties, filled with religious freaks and white trash in general. Saying that the tea parties are legitimate just because Yaron Brook and other Objectivists have taken part in them is equal to saying that Bill O'Reilly is a legitimate news anchor just because he had Leonard Peikoff on his program. I went to a tea party in my local area, saw the signs and the people that attended, and immediately left. Remembering the Ron Paul tea parties a few years back, and after further researching the current tea party movement, I concluded that the tea party movement is not worth my time or energy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 I'm sorry, I just do not trust "mobs" and mob mentality is the anti-thesis of individualism. As an individualist, I'd rather follow Kira Argounova and not take part in such marches among the unwashed masses. Now you're also insulting Ayn Rand, by suggesting she would approve of your thoughtless insults. 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.