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.
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.
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.
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.
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”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.)
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.
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?