I'm new to this forum so I appologise if this topic has been up for discussion before, but why are libertarians in general not more exited about "the daily show with jon stewart" and Bill Maher's show? I'm from Sweden myself, and they recently started airing those shows on TV here and they seem to me to have every ingrediens to be liked by libertarians, no? They always make fun of politicians in general (their lies, incompetence, etc..) also they tend to be critical of mainstream media, Americas foreign policy, Bush's economical policys and so forth.
Any comments?
I love the Daily Show. It's ironic that the best news source available today airs on Comedy Central right after the talking muppets making prank phone calls.
--Len.
Plenty of people are very aware of the failures and harm of government in practice, yet somehow refuse to question the idea of government in theory. In their minds, the problem is not with government, but whoever happens to be running it at the time. I really enjoy The Daily Show, but I think this describes Jon Stewart.
As for Bill Maher, he calls himself a libertarian, but what he really means is that he flirts with that hip Randroid/Reason cult-of-the-individual crowd, which is something else.
scineram:Maher is a social democrat jerk.
Agreed. He claims to be libertarian, because he thinks a libertarian is a dope-smoking liberal. To his credit, though, he changed his position on Ron Paul for the better. That suggests near-human intelligence.
Both Maher and Stewart although against the non-liberterian Bush, are not Liberterian either. They are both for bigger government and less individual rights. Maher is certainly more outspoken in his progressive views than Stewart. But if you watch Stewarts show you will get a dose of big government progressive policy as well. Are they against government theft for education? Are they against government theft for health care? Liberterians are typically against the government stealing money and then attempting to provide some service that individuals are perfectly capable of providing for themselves.
Also be careful about who is truely non-interventionist in their foreign policy. Are they against the current wars? Are they against having US soldiers in 190 countries? Are they against giving any aid of any form to any NON-USA government or non-governmental institution? If you posed this last question to Maher and Stewart they would probably answer that they are for giving some aid and ergo they are not Liberterian in their foreign policy views either.
I guess I should have clarified in my previous post that I in no way am so ignorant as to think that either Bill Maher nor Jon Stewart are libertarians in the Austrian sense.
But still, I can't help but feel that there is an important difference between, for example, Jon Stewart on one hand, and Michael Moore on another. Jon Stewart in this case would be a critical voice in american media that, shall we say, at least points his weapons in the "right direction", while the latters journalism is just plain and simply counter productive in every way for libertarians.
On second thought though, I believe Bill Maher refered to Michael Moore as a "good friend" when he was on his show, so maybe I'm on thin ice here...
There is an important difference between the Progressive-Communist Lite folks and Militaristic Facists. That is their perpensity to engage in war. War is the health of the state. States use war to steal rights and wealth from the individuals. The total economic benefit for a country engaged in a war is and always has been negative.(Even the Romans who enslaved their conquered peoples, stole much of their wealth and took away all of their rights could have had similar economic gains by trading with them.)
The Founders of the USA advised their new government to avoid Entangling Alliances and European Conflicts as foreign aggression was the BIGGEST threat to Individual Liberty.
billott1: There is an important difference between the Progressive-Communist Lite folks and Militaristic Facists. That is their perpensity to engage in war. [...]
There is an important difference between the Progressive-Communist Lite folks and Militaristic Facists. That is their perpensity to engage in war. [...]
The only difference between the Progressives/Communists and the Fascists/Nationalists with regard to war is the rhetoric they use to justify it. And both groups are just dupes of the true plutocracy anyway, which will use whatever rhetoric works.
"We are living today in a highly organized state of socialism. The state is all; the individual is of importance only as he contributes to the welfare of the state. His property is his only as the state does not need it. He must hold his life and possessions at the call of the state." ― Bernard Baruch, stock speculator, and chairman of War Industries Board under Woodrow Wilson, August 7, 1918
While Stewart and Maher both have libertarian leanings, neither of them could really be called libertarians. Stewart just the other day was praising Bush for his foreign aid package to Africa. Maher attacked Ron Paul on his show for criticizing Lincoln for launching the War of Southern Independence. Both of them support mandotory health care. Colbert, on the other hand, seems to have slightly more libertarian credentials than Stewart or Maher, though probably is not a libertarian either. Just two nights ago, he show mocked NYC's crackdown on grafitti on people's own sidewalks, in addition to past mockery of the Cuban embargo, foreign interventionism, the PATRIOT Act, and the Drug War. Unfortunately, Colbert too takes the statist line on the helath care issue.
I stand corrected. The difference between the Progressive-Commies and Militaristic Facists is one of reputation. They both want to wage war both at home and around the world.
I have puchased books from Stewart, Colbert, and Maher. I first heard about Ron Paul from the Colbert Report and the Daily Show in fact. I find that thier appeal tens to come from them being unwilling to 'please thier masters' for the most part. They seem to be true individualists who refuse to be told what to do but they lack an overall philosophy that describes that it is wrong to order anybody to do anything. For themselves they would be anarcho-capitalists yet they have no desire for others to act in the same manner. They all like ron paul because he preaches what they live. Libertarians don't fully flock to them because they don't preach the same.
I really enjoy "Red Eye" on Fox News, it's irreverent and funny and they frequently have libertarian guests.