Jon Stewart debates libertarian judge Andrew Napolitano

heropsychosays...

I like having Libertarians in discussions because they're a good voice to have because market forces are potential solutions to various issues, because sometimes we do turn away from market forces too soon. However, the philosophy just flat breaks down as any other philosophy does, and I think this debate kinda proves it. Stewart keeps coming back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forced public businesses open to the public to desegregate. According to libertarian philosophy, the free market should have ended segregation by citizens who were conscientious objectors to boycott any public business that was practicing racial segregation. If you notice in the debate, Napolitano skirts this when pressed, and kept saying the gov't should have desegregated gov't institutions, but that skirts the issue of what should have been done in privately owned public businesses. It's a point where libertarian philosophy breaks down, and true hardcore libertarians either know it and try to avoid it because it is so unpalatable to the general population, or they will outright admit that would be their stance and advocate for it.

Public schools are another example. The simple fact of the matter is the general population was not generally educated until the gov't began public schools, and society is all the better for it.

Drachen_Jagersays...

But, as a judge isn't he a willing servant of that which he rails against?

I thought there was some sort of rule that you had to be smart to be a judge? Oh... Right, I forgot Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts who seem to believe corporations are people and bribing judges should be legal (yeah, I'm not kidding, sadly).

I honestly can't even watch this guy, I'm afraid I'll put my fist through my screen. If what I said is covered in the video, my apologies.

heropsychosays...

I don't like his ideology either, but railing against the majority is often completely moral. At various points in our history, the majority of people were in favor of:

Slavery
Jim Crow
Restriction of women's rights including voting and property ownership
Forbidding the teaching of evolution in schools

The guy is right that a main function of the judicial branch is to protect minorities against the majority. Individual rights are protection of rights against both the gov't AND other people.

Because judges are typically not elected, or at least elected as often, there was an intent to keep judges to be more independent from the masses.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

But, as a judge isn't he a willing servant of that which he rails against?
I thought there was some sort of rule that you had to be smart to be a judge? Oh... Right, I forgot Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts who seem to believe corporations are people and bribing judges should be legal (yeah, I'm not kidding, sadly).
I honestly can't even watch this guy, I'm afraid I'll put my fist through my screen. If what I said is covered in the video, my apologies.

siftbotsays...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Daily Show, government, Reggie Jackson, taxes, free market, John' to 'Daily Show, government, Reggie Jackson, taxes, free market, Jon Stewart' - edited by xxovercastxx

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More