John Stossel is fucking amazing.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

John Stossel is a rare specimen, indeed; a mixture of Man, Beast, God, and Supersayan. John Stossel is to libertarians what Jerry Rice was to 49ers wide recievers during the 90's and late 80's. He's one of the only men I am have ever seen that can argue why the free market is not only more apt then the government at running things, but why the Free Market can actually perform the specific goals that the government attempts, except better. I have yet to see an argument he was wrong about, and I have yet to see him resort to any of the desperate, dirt bag tactics that other reporters so frequently stoop to.

The man is flawless. His oppinions are facts. His stuttering makes him sound adorable.

Deal with it, socialist f00ls.

[Masterzakk]

At 11/26/08 02:44 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: John Stossel is a rare specimen, indeed; a mixture of Man, Beast, God, and Supersayan. John Stossel is to libertarians what Jerry Rice was to 49ers wide recievers during the 90's and late 80's. He's one of the only men I am have ever seen that can argue why the free market is not only more apt then the government at running things, but why the Free Market can actually perform the specific goals that the government attempts, except better. I have yet to see an argument he was wrong about, and I have yet to see him resort to any of the desperate, dirt bag tactics that other reporters so frequently stoop to.

The man is flawless. His oppinions are facts. His stuttering makes him sound adorable.

Deal with it, socialist f00ls.

I don't worship him but by what you say it then I like him. You also hate socialist such as I maybe coffee? Nah whatever I'm too young for this to some people.

[Tancrisism]

At 11/26/08 02:44 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: The man is flawless. His oppinions are facts. His stuttering makes him sound adorable.

Give me an example shnukums.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 11/26/08 03:18 AM, Tancrisism wrote:

Give me an example shnukums.

Of what? A general brilliant point that he makes?

[Minarchist]

John Stossel is good at presenting his arguments, but while I have a hard time taking you seriously, you're probably not very well read on libertarian literature. Bastiat's The Law is a great place to start.

[SolInvictus]

At 11/26/08 02:44 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: John Stossel is a rare specimen, indeed; a mixture of Man, Beast, God, and Supersayan.

i've come to announce there is way too much win in this thread. tone it down before you collapse the universe.

[marchohare]

I don't suppose I have anything to add, except to weigh in as another Stossel fan. As far as I'm concerned he's one of the finest investigative journalists in the business, quite possibly the best.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 11/26/08 12:25 PM, Minarchist wrote: John Stossel is good at presenting his arguments, but while I have a hard time taking you seriously, you're probably not very well read on libertarian literature. Bastiat's The Law is a great place to start.

"I can't take you seriously because you just gave an example of someone who scientifically and logically proves that Libertarian economics are financially viable, via real world examples and undeniable figures and statistics. If you where smart like me, you'd base all your knowledge on the subject on 150 year old opinion writings that don't actually adress the issue of financial improvement under the free market, because god knows the fact that it's 150 years old is much more important then the fact that it doesn't actually provide direct, real world examples. And it makes me feel much more "indy""

Go away.

[MortifiedPenguins]

Actually John Stossel is the reason why I believe in free markets now.

He's, according to Nietzche's and my theories, the Ubermensch.

[Minarchist]

At 11/26/08 05:50 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: "I can't take you seriously because you just gave an example of someone who scientifically and logically proves that Libertarian economics are financially viable, via real world examples and undeniable figures and statistics. If you where smart like me, you'd base all your knowledge on the subject on 150 year old opinion writings that don't actually adress the issue of financial improvement under the free market, because god knows the fact that it's 150 years old is much more important then the fact that it doesn't actually provide direct, real world examples. And it makes me feel much more "indy""

Who do you think influenced John Stossel's thinking? Do you think his ideas are original? His strength is in presenting the arguments, none of which are original.

[animehater]

I always find it amazing how he's always so calm and cool.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 11/26/08 06:42 PM, Minarchist wrote:

Who do you think influenced John Stossel's thinking?

Reality, as you would know if you read the mans works. All of John Stossels education lead him to feel a strong affinity for mixed-market capitalism and government intervention.

Through his personal experiences and logical deductions, he shifted his belief to free-market Libertarianism. Your implication that Stossel's ideas where influenced by 150 year old oppinion writings is wholely untrue; 100% of his beliefs are based on supported facts and personal experiences. He believes in the free market because of all the times he, as the foremost investigative journalist in the world (bold claim, but I'll stand by it), personally reported on and discovered instances of the free market working.

Do you think his ideas are original? His strength is in presenting the arguments, none of which are original.

Actually, considering he makes each and every one of them up, from scratched, based on his own personal research and experience, they are origional as it's going to get. Although the points he argues may have been discussed before, his actual arguments are 100% his. His books aren't page after page of him giving worthless opinions like "The Law" (sorry, but oppinions do not do shit in shaping the political spectrum, you need FACTS), nor is it page after page of him stating other peoples opinions. It's page after page of him giving hard facts and statistics, then going on to put them into factual context.

The only times he shifts into the murky waters of opinions are when he leaves the Arena of Economics, but even then, when discussing his opinions, he still uses an endless supply of facts to prove that his opinions are, if not correct, then at least logical conclussions based on real world examples.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 11/26/08 06:47 PM, animehater wrote: I always find it amazing how he's always so calm and cool.

Don't be toooo impressed. He CAN'T get mad or exited, even when he wants to, or his stuttering will go off. I think what allows him to control himself, however, is his self-assurance that he WILL win the argument in the long run because he's a fucking Ninja. I mean, when someone like you or I or anyone else debate, we sometimes get heated because we percieve an "opening" to take the lead, and feel like we must jump on it, quickly, before we lose the chance; this is mere human logic. When you know, for a fact, that you'll have tons of opportunities to rip the argument open, I suspect it's easier to let one or two things go and not become heated.

[Minarchist]

I guess you don't even read much of Stossel's writing... he constantly refers to Bastiat specifically.

Government is "that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else," wrote Frederic Bastiat, the great laissez-faire economist of Nineteenth-Century France.

What Wagoner and his colleagues hope we'll overlook is Frederic Bastiat's lesson: Government intervention must not be judged only by the immediate and obvious consequences for the intended beneficiaries but also by the unseen effects on the rest of society. Notice how he refers to it as Bastiat's lesson?

Anyway, that's what I found on the first page searching "john stossel bastiat" on Google. Anyway, I don't understand how you can rail so vehemently against something you know nothing about. Good luck in your liberty studies. I hope you continue.

[Memorize]

So basically the jist of the thread is: We need Ron Paul and Stossel to get this country out of the rut.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 11/26/08 07:14 PM, Memorize wrote: So basically the jist of the thread is: We need Ron Paul and Stossel to get this country out of the rut.

Ermm... I don't know so much about Ron Paul. Theres a few specific policies of his that I find iffy, but yeah, he's definately the best choice.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 11/26/08 07:09 PM, Minarchist wrote: I guess you don't even read much of Stossel's writing... he constantly refers to Bastiat specifically.

I've read every book he's published.

Government is "that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else," wrote Frederic Bastiat, the great laissez-faire economist of Nineteenth-Century France.

Which would be a great point, if you could somehow prove that quoting someone meant you learned what you know and where influenced by them.

What Wagoner and his colleagues hope we'll overlook is Frederic Bastiat's lesson: Government intervention must not be judged only by the immediate and obvious consequences for the intended beneficiaries but also by the unseen effects on the rest of society. Notice how he refers to it as Bastiat's lesson?

When writing a school final on Free Market Capitalism, I quoted Al Capone.

Doesn't mean that I somehow gained my free market opinions from Capone.

Anyway, that's what I found on the first page searching "john stossel bastiat" on Google. Anyway, I don't understand how you can rail so vehemently against something you know nothing about. Good luck in your liberty studies. I hope you continue.

Right. I'm the one who knows nothing about it; I find this Ironic coming from a man who's CLEARLY never once read either of Stossels books, where he explains EXACTLY who and what lead him to become a free market capitalist.

Of course Stossel has read Bastiats work, anyone who's studied economics in a good college has. I know you apparantly think that Bastiat is some hidden gem that only "true" scholars such as yourself know of, but if you dropped the smugness for a second you'd see that anyone with a basic economic education knows who the man is and has studied at least a portion of his works.

However, he completely ignored and disbelieved Bastiat and any other Free-Market thinkers. For the LARGE majority of his carreer, until relatively recently, he made a name for himself and won unprecidented praise for his work in furthering the myth of "bad" capitalism and the need of government intervention. It was his own personal experiences, and NOT the writings of Bastiat or anyone else, that eventually led him to see the errors of his ways. The issue with 150 year old opinions is that not only are they opinions, which are worthless, but they are 150 years old, meaning that many of the specifics and examples do not apply.

Again; John Stossels diehard belief in government intervention and mixed-market was driven by opinions, famous writers, and rhetoric; his gradual shift to free-market capitalism was rooted 100% in modern, currently applicable, real life examples.

[Minarchist]

Your Cult of John Stossel is nothing short of hilarious but your dismissal of libertarian theory as worthless opinion is a little over the top. 6/10, probably could have been a 7 if you had tried a little less.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 11/26/08 08:22 PM, Minarchist wrote: Your Cult of John Stossel is nothing short of hilarious but your dismissal of libertarian theory as worthless opinion is a little over the top.

No, it's not. Opinions don't do shit for the political spectrum. If your going to explain why your economic system is better then anyone elses, you need actual EVIDENCE. Insisting that Libertarianism is correct is as worthless as insisting Marxism is correct. If your the type of person who reads an opinion peace and base your economic theories on it, with out actually checking on whether those opinions pan out when given real world examples, then your the type of person who doesn't belong in the game.

6/10, probably could have been a 7 if you had tried a little less.

Wahhhh, someone didn't want to address my points individually =(

[therealsylvos]

At 11/26/08 11:10 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:
No, it's not. Opinions don't do shit for the political spectrum. If your going to explain why your economic system is better then anyone elses, you need actual EVIDENCE.

Meh, there is something to be said for arguing for the morality of a political system in addition to its efficacy.

Thats all the marxists have to argue about now anyway so it pays to adress it.

[Minarchist]

At first I thought you were trolling, now I guess you're just childishly looking for a fight. I didn't suggest that Stossel just picked up The Law one day and was convinced by it to become a libertarian. I'd guess very few people, not even myself, would become liberty-minded in this way. It takes a certain intuition to pique your interest. For Stossel this undeniably came from his work as an investigative journalist working specifically in consumer reporting.

At that point do you think Stossel just independently re-derived all of libertarian philosophy? Of course not. You can see in his writings that he's well read in libertarian literature, and those ideas have influenced him. He takes the arguments of classic thinkers and explores them in the present day. I challenge you to find an instance otherwise.

As for the power of classic arguments, Stossel himself would tell you that you're being silly to dismiss them. Consider an example of trying to convince a typical egalitarian that the public schooling system should be ended. No amount of consequentialist arguments with fancy pie charts and big numbers regarding how private schools can provide for a better education will convince them. For them it is simply necessary that everyone should be on a level playing field, even if that requires the more privileged to be leveled down. However, starting with axioms like natural law, things that every rational person can agree with, one can derive through reason and logical deduction, as Bastiat so eloquently did, libertarian principles. In fact, it can be shown that egalitarianism is necessarily a libertarian idea.

This is far from a New York Times opinion piece. The fact that you liken them to an opinion piece reveals your ignorance. Stossel, being outside academia and a fairly major media figure, has a lot of critics that present their own statistics and "facts" that contradict his research. Choosing which studies and statistics you agree with is as much an opinion as anything. And indeed, with the global economy being what it is, it may very well be that, for example, an increase in the minimum wage accompanied an increase in GDP and employment. While this may invalidate a purely consequentialist argument, the pillar of liberty stands forever upright because it is founded on reason. And through this reasoning we can ascertain the truth of the matter.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 11/27/08 01:44 AM, therealsylvos wrote:

Meh, there is something to be said for arguing for the morality of a political system in addition to its efficacy.

Thats all the marxists have to argue about now anyway so it pays to adress it.

He addresses it. His form of "morality" is by looking at the statistics that show that these pseudo-socialist welfare programs actually wind up hurting the poor economically, and that the moral goals of government aid and intervention can be matched or bettered by free market alternatives.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 11/27/08 03:37 AM, Minarchist wrote: At first I thought you were trolling, now I guess you're just childishly looking for a fight.

No, I just don't like it when people come in like smug duchebags trying to explain why people aren't as smart or knowledgeable in a subject as them because they haven't read some shitty, mega-popular writing on the subject.

You're the equivilant of the retarded 15 year old who reads The Communist Manifesto, becomes convinced that they are now a deep underground thinker, and interupts all discussions on economics by explaining why the people talking aren't very educated in the subject because "they haven't read The Communist Manifesto". Heres the problem with this retarded kids mentality; not only is The Communist Manifesto a shitty work, but EVERYONE, including the people he interrupted, HAVE read it, because despite what this retarded 15 year old thinks, it's not some "rare gem" he came across but a massively well known work that's read to death in any serious economics course.

You are a duche for thinking your opinion work is somehow "right" or "valuable" (it's a series of opinions, and by definition no ones opinions can be any more valuable then anyone elses), but your more of a duche for being smug and apparantly thinking no one but you has read this massively well known work that EVERY ONE WHO POSTED IN THIS THREAD HAS PROBABLY READ BEFORE.

I didn't suggest that Stossel just picked up The Law one day and was convinced by it to become a libertarian. I'd guess very few people, not even myself, would become liberty-minded in this way. It takes a certain intuition to pique your interest. For Stossel this undeniably came from his work as an investigative journalist working specifically in consumer reporting.
At that point do you think Stossel just independently re-derived all of libertarian philosophy? Of course not. You can see in his writings that he's well read in libertarian literature, and those ideas have influenced him. He takes the arguments of classic thinkers and explores them in the present day. I challenge you to find an instance otherwise.

He was "well read" in it WELL before he was ever a libertarian. As I said; he read these works, like any other economics student at a well off college would, and didn't believe a word of it. He'll never simply repeat the ideas of a classical libertarian thinker unless he has come across a real world example, and many of the real world examples he presents where never pondered by a great libertarian thinker.

Again; he is an investigative reporter. If he see's examples of government regulation doing good, he'll report it. If he see's examples of government regulation doing bad, he'll report it, regardless of whether or not it mirrors the belief of a great thinker.

As for the power of classic arguments, Stossel himself would tell you that you're being silly to dismiss them. Consider an example of trying to convince a typical egalitarian that the public schooling system should be ended. No amount of consequentialist arguments with fancy pie charts and big numbers regarding how private schools can provide for a better education will convince them. For them it is simply necessary that everyone should be on a level playing field, even if that requires the more privileged to be leveled down. However, starting with axioms like natural law, things that every rational person can agree with, one can derive through reason and logical deduction, as Bastiat so eloquently did, libertarian principles. In fact, it can be shown that egalitarianism is necessarily a libertarian idea.

That wouldn't work, at all. If the provable FACT that private schools provide for students better without any sort of mentionable downside will not convince someone to switch faiths into private education, that no form of rhetoric will.

This is far from a New York Times opinion piece. The fact that you liken them to an opinion piece reveals your ignorance.

The fact that you dislike me calling a series of opinions an "opinion piece" shows that your smugness is literally shielding you from reality.

Stossel, being outside academia and a fairly major media figure, has a lot of critics that present their own statistics and "facts" that contradict his research. Choosing which studies and statistics you agree with is as much an opinion as anything.

And John Stossel always goes with the facts that are provided by the MOST reliable source. Obviously the most reliable source isn't always right, but that doesn't mean you should discount it; the fact is, sometimes the National Enquirer will be right on a subject when the BBC was wrong, but I'm still always going to trust the guy who brings the BBC in as a source over the one that brings the enquirer.

And indeed, with the global economy being what it is, it may very well be that, for example, an increase in the minimum wage accompanied an increase in GDP and employment. While this may invalidate a purely consequentialist argument, the pillar of liberty stands forever upright because it is founded on reason. And through this reasoning we can ascertain the truth of the matter.

There is a difference between taking raw facts, and using fact-supported opinions to put those facts in context, and plain ol' providing opinions.

Most great "thinkers" do as such: "I have an argument, which I will support by showing why it's logical and makes sense". This seems great, but as we see from Marx, sometimes logic falls flat on it's ass when applied in real life.

Stossel basically does the following; "I have an argument, which I have developed because of experience, which I will prove beyond a doubt is true by proving that when played out in real life, it happens exactly as I say it will"

Even the best thinkers in the world can not accurately predict economics, because it's far to crazy and with too many different factors to use logic to understand. Furthermore, what was applicable 150 years ago, or 300 years ago, or 50 years ago, may not be applicable now. When studying economics you cannot look at what should logically be right, but what is provably correct. I don't care how many logical arguments you throw at me about even the most basic and accepted laws of supply and demand, I am going to want actual examples of those laws playing out in real life to accept it.

[Minarchist]

I just don't like it when people start threads like smug douchebags trying to explain why men are gods. You started a thread calling a man a god, like a retarded 15 year-old who read The Communist Manifesto and became convinced that you are now a deep underground thinker. Despite what you think, John Stossel is not some "rare gem" you came across, but a massively well known media figure that's read to death outside of serious economics courses.

You are a douche for thinking all opinions are equally valid. Is my opinion that the sky is green as equally valid as your opinion that the sky is blue? Likewise, is an opinion formed on a false premise as equally valid as an opinion formed otherwise? Marx logically derived an economic system off a poor premise: that men do not have a right to their property or liberty. It's mostly the faulty premise, that contradicts natural law, rather than the logic, that dooms Marxism, just as it doomed feudal economies, to be relics of history.

I can tell you've had little post-secondary education or you'd know that laissez-fare economics is not seriously discussed in coursework. Primarily it's the economics of the state that is taught.

As for my argument involving convincing an egalitarian, you've yet to address it. In a purely private system there's no equal playing field as there is in public or mixed education. Even if some public schools are better than others, the state still requires that specific standards ensuring that all students share the same core curriculum. The absence of these standards in the private system will necessarily leave them unsatisfied.

Furthermore, it's absolutely not true that there will be no downside to a private education system. Undoubtedly there are students who attend very fine public schools who will be unable to attend a school of equal quality under the private system. I hate to be pedantic, but Henry Hazlitt wrote an entire book on the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences to economic policy. As he wrote, it's not just true for government interventionists but libertarians as well. At the very least, we must acknowledge those that are disadvantaged by policy decisions whether it be a policy of intervention or otherwise.

Lastly, while I don't disagree that there is a wealth of information demonstrating how faulty government intervention is, Stossel is far from an unbiased reporter using the most "reliable" sources to support his reports. His stated goal is to report on the failures of government. Therefore, he uses sources that support his goal. Often you'll see him quoting Cato Institute studies and researchers. What makes the Cato Institute more reliable for you and I when others will claim the Progressive Policy Institute is more reliable? It's a difference in premise.

[Alphabit]

No one is amazing... It's just a facade.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 11/29/08 03:21 AM, Minarchist wrote: I just don't like it when people start threads like smug douchebags trying to explain why men are gods. You started a thread calling a man a god, like a retarded 15 year-old who read The Communist Manifesto and became convinced that you are now a deep underground thinker. Despite what you think, John Stossel is not some "rare gem" you came across, but a massively well known media figure that's read to death outside of serious economics courses.

Aww, cute. The issue? While my post is obviously filled with purposeful hyperbole's, you can read over it and see that I NEVER ONCE went into smug douchebag mode and acted like I knew of him and no one else did. That was all you, and your grasping at straws trying to show how that somehow applies to me.

You are a douche for thinking all opinions are equally valid. Is my opinion that the sky is green as equally valid as your opinion that the sky is blue?

An opinion that the sky is green isn't an opinion anymore then it's my opinion that the United States is the smallest geographical country in the world.

However, if you want to look at actual opinions, your opinion that the blue sky is pretty is just as equally valid as my opinion that the blue sky is boring and drab.

Likewise, is an opinion formed on a false premise as equally valid as an opinion formed otherwise? Marx logically derived an economic system off a poor premise: that men do not have a right to their property or liberty. It's mostly the faulty premise, that contradicts natural law, rather than the logic, that dooms Marxism, just as it doomed feudal economies, to be relics of history.

Again, it is your opinion that these premises are faulty; MANY others would disagree with you. Again, this is why opinions DO NOT HAVE VALUE. Facts do. You can say "Marxism is dumb!" until your blue in the face, but until you bring in some facts and real world examples to support that opinion, your views are just as "dumb" as Marx's.

I can tell you've had little post-secondary education or you'd know that laissez-fare economics is not seriously discussed in coursework. Primarily it's the economics of the state that is taught.

If an AP Economics class at my HIGHSCHOOL teaches at least the basics of it, I highly doubt your claim that Princeton doesn't teach it. I have yet to hear of ONE economist, or anyone who has legitimately studied economics, who hasn't heard of Bastiat.

Again, he isn't some rare gem of yours.

As for my argument involving convincing an egalitarian, you've yet to address it. In a purely private system there's no equal playing field as there is in public or mixed education. Even if some public schools are better than others, the state still requires that specific standards ensuring that all students share the same core curriculum. The absence of these standards in the private system will necessarily leave them unsatisfied.

I've never argued for a purely private education system; my argument has always been for a public school system with school vouchers. If anyone did not think my ideas where valid, it would be facts and figures, not opinions, I used to convince them.

You said that all the figures in the world wouldn't convince an egalitarian that a private school system works better; this is false, as most all-encompassing statements are. However, assuming it's one of the many egalitarians that WOULDN'T be convinced; you then go on to try and say that arguing natural law (and other similar things) WILL convince them? No. Maybe that makes sense in your little hypothetical internet world, but again, in REAL LIFE that isn't how things work. If someone is so diehard in their beliefs that they will simply ignore provable facts that go against their argument, it is very unlikely that general logic and rhetoric will sway them.

Furthermore, it's absolutely not true that there will be no downside to a private education system. Undoubtedly there are students who attend very fine public schools who will be unable to attend a school of equal quality under the private system. I hate to be pedantic, but Henry Hazlitt wrote an entire book on the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences to economic policy. As he wrote, it's not just true for government interventionists but libertarians as well. At the very least, we must acknowledge those that are disadvantaged by policy decisions whether it be a policy of intervention or otherwise.

I know. I misunderstood what you had meant; I was thinking more along the lines of Vouchers, not pure private education. I would agree heavily that there are a wealth of issues associated with eliminating public education, which is why I don't support doing so.

Lastly, while I don't disagree that there is a wealth of information demonstrating how faulty government intervention is, Stossel is far from an unbiased reporter using the most "reliable" sources to support his reports. His stated goal is to report on the failures of government.

No, his stated goal is to reveal scams and hucksters, as well as bust up false. In fact, for a large portion of his career, he didn't touch government; he just realized one day that, by far, the biggest scams and thieves usually have something to do with the government. Stossel believes heavily in putting risks into accurate context; this is why he passed up sensationalist pieces that report new risks that, while quite interesting and exiting, didn't actually effect a lot of people.

And his main goal, if anything, is to bust up false conventional wisdom. While this obviously leads to him attacking the government a lot (Theres a lot of false conventional wisdom regarding the government), this more often then not leads to him discussing issues OTHER then the government. This is why the vast chunk of his two books DON'T deal with the government.

Therefore, he uses sources that support his goal. Often you'll see him quoting Cato Institute studies and researchers. What makes the Cato Institute more reliable for you and I when others will claim the Progressive Policy Institute is more reliable? It's a difference in premise.

This isn't rhetorical; can you name me any times that Stossel quoted the Cato Institute for one figure or chart or whatever, when the PPI or other 'generally respected' orginizations claimed a different figure?

[Minarchist]

Aww, cute. The issue? While my post is obviously filled with purposeful good-natured advice, you can read over it and see that I NEVER ONCE went into smug douchebag mode and acted like I knew of him and no one else did. That was all you, and your grasping at straws trying to show how that somehow applies to me.

You'll see that it is an opinion in as much as any other difference in premise is an opinion. I can construct via a Method of Doubt argument a la Descartes an infinite number of ways that the sky could actually be green, and since the veracity of this claim rests on truths external to ourselves, it cannot be definitively proven. However, we can, from a logical basis, accept that the opinion that "the sky is blue" is more valid an opinion than "the sky is green" by acknowledging that sensory experiences are the best means we have to validate truths external to ourselves.

You would be correct if the "opinion" was an intuitive truth, such as "1+2=2," since it relies on the logical constructs of group theory only. But, to get back on point, the sky example was meant to be trivial. I expected someone so smart to take AP economics in high school to realize that and save me the time typing this. Consider the opinion that "The United States would be 'better off' if all black people were executed." Is this an equally valid opinion as one otherwise?

As for Stossel's education, no doubt he was taught the basics of laissez-faire economics in his obligatory economics course. The professor likely spent a lecture falsely claiming that it necessarily ended with the Industrial Revolution because workers were "abused." And then it was swept under the rug as a bygone era in our new enlightened age. Only the most intrepid students, like me and perhaps you, saw through the illogical conclusions and continued their liberty studies.

Your continued dismissal of the argument involving an ardent egalitarian is disappointing. I'll consider it dropped on your part until you're able to ready to approach a rational argument that acknowledges the supposed existence of an ardent egalitarian.

As for vouchers, they're generally seen as a means for eliminating public education, and I'm sure that Stossel would argue in favor of eliminating the public school system altogether. After all, why fund a giant bureaucracy, which is only harmful to the market?

Concerning John Stossel's goals, why not read what the man himself has to say? I must say that the stories I most want to do are stories that show how freedom works and how privatization works. As far back as 1994 Stossel was quoted in The Oregonian saying, "It is my job to explain the beauties of the free market." Writing a book about how staying out in the cold doesn't actually make you sick may help sell books, but obviously he has loftier goals in mind than dispelling such "conventional wisdom."

Lastly, of course my question regarding the relative reliability of organizations was rhetorical. If you really feel like picking through progressive contentions, then have fun. Fortunately, I don't have to waste my time digging through statistics to decide what policy decisions to support. I can look at the premise of the argument and determine if it's built on the foundation of liberty or not.

For example, consider the case of a long central bank expansion cycle. The numbers regarded as economic indicators look great! It appears that wealth is increasing, employment is on the rise, and expansion appears unstoppable. But adherents to the Austrian school of economics, likely including Stossel even though he's not outspoken on the issue, know better. The expansion is artificial and eventually the malinvestment must be liquidated. These arguments do not rely on any statistics at all, but they're undeniably accurate in their analysis and qualitative predictions. There are three kinds of lies, indeed.

[TurtlesAreCool]

At 12/1/08 06:38 PM, Minarchist wrote: The United States would be 'better off' if all black people were executed.

does anyone in america honestly disagree with this statement?

[aviewaskewed]

At 12/3/08 02:37 AM, TurtlesAreCool wrote:

At 12/1/08 06:38 PM, Minarchist wrote: The United States would be 'better off' if all black people were executed.

does anyone in america honestly disagree with this statement?

Me for one. Don't fucking troll asshole.

[zephiran]

To be honest with you, after some lurking around, I have come to the conclusion that John Stossel is flawed. He simply does not consider any other ideology but his own, and he is stuck in his own values. He might be the most influential and "true" libertarian in our time, but he is not flawless.