USA Politics

I think it's fair to say that even the most anti-police activists would agree that it's OK for the police to shoot a guy if he is in the process of repeatedly stabbing someone!
 
What's the opinion here on Glenn Beck?

I was sorting out my bookshelf and found a book of his I bought a while ago on some trip but never got to read. It's called "The Overton Window". Anyway, wiki'd him and it turns out he's some crazy politician or something.
 
Not a fan of his, though I do not care for most "talking heads/radio hosts" ... even those who have a position I may agree with.
 
Should probably leave it on the shelf. :p He's probably one of the crazier talking heads out there, huge conspiracy nut. I haven't looked at many of his books but from what I've seen his storytelling is pretty weak and just a vehicle to some backwards political message. He's just a crazy American radio/TV host.
 
Damn. I only really picked it up because the back cover blurb made it sound like a post-apocalyptic book, and dad told me he'll buy me one book from the book store. Didn't wanna refuse a free book :p So I guess this guy is like Alex Jones, eh?
 
Yea a lot like Alex Jones. Apparently the two dislike each other though, go figure.
 
Because they compete for the same market of stupid. Glenn Beck is never right. Even when he's got the right conclusion (and he almost never does) he is wrong on how he reaches it, or how he interprets it.

Case in point: remember the Boston Marathon bombing? During the media splash afterwards, a student who was Arabian got named as a possible accomplice to the Tsarnev brothers. He wasn't, and the FBI had simply checked the guy out and cleared him. Most news outlets dropped the story. Not Glenn Beck, who pushed it, claimed the kid was part of the conspiracy, and then claimed that he had uncovered evidence proving the kid was a terrorist. This evidence was never released, and the kid is currently suing Glenn Beck for slander. Beck's legal response is that the kid is a public figure because of his news coverage and therefore the bar for slander must be set higher. Of course, he is only a public figure because, well, goshdarnit, Glenn Beck spent weeks telling people he's a terrorist.
 
11390240_10152909505929117_6622184628951302377_n.jpg
 
Cornfed Hick said:
Aha. This explains your negative view of libertarianism. You don't understand it. It's not about money. It's about freedom. Money is simply a natural outgrowth of freedom. Consider: if I ask you to do something that benefits only me, you have the freedom to say "no, fuck you." So, I have to offer you something in return. Could be barter, but money is more efficient, because it is freely transferable. People have a problem with taxes because, if you're taxed at ~50%, that means that for six months out of the year, you are working as a slave laborer for the government. They take the fruits of your labor and give it to others. That is, indeed, a bit of an oversimplification, but it makes the point. Libertarianism is about liberty. You may decide not to work and drop off the grid. If you can survive that way, great. Thoreau did that -- he wasn't concerned about money or possessions, he cared about liberty.

That said, most libertarians are not anarchists. They understand that there is a role for government, because of the "free rider" problem identified by economists -- e.g., "why should I pay for national defense if everybody else is going to pay for it, anyway?" I'm an attorney, so my whole career is predicated on the notion that the state should use its police power to enforce certain express or implied contracts. The government also serves a social insurance function, because a crack baby is incapable of buying a private insurance contract to cover her own health care, child-rearing and education. The problem with a welfare state, however, is that it encourages and rewards free riders. My brother is a professor, and most of his work day is spent applying for government grants to do economic research that no one gives a shit about except him. (And he makes fun of me for being a blood-sucking lawyer!) At least he works. The notion that the government can force you to work primarily for the benefit of others is not only economically inefficient, the libertarian would say it is immoral.
Click to expand...
Just curious, Cornfed. Does this oppose libertarianism in some way?
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-33119960

Great isn't it, that there are offcials (who, I assume, represent some form of government) decide about matters for the interest of more people rather than having a minority profit, at the cost of others? Too much freedom can fuck up a state.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top