I was behind you. I was also thinking of what to say, in case the mic went on to the next row.
I suspect rather is not a problem of public speaking but that as listeners in a lecture we often kind of relax, not expecting it to be seminar.
Note: I was thinking of citing De Tracy if the mic continued on, but was worried that might end up being confusing. Do you think that would have been a good response? That is, because our sensations are capable of eliciting actions only from us, we can derive self-ownership, property rights, and by extension, the right to decide what to do with our own person property, which is owned by our mind as our minds owns our bodies. (Maybe its a good thing the mic didn’t reach me? )
Yeah I think it’s pretty clear Andrew Napolitano is an anarchist at heart. But I doubt he’d give a clear answer if asked in public, anarchism is still a lot more controversial than minarchism. It might not do his career much good. It’s fine though, the judge(and Ron Paul) are bringing lots of people to libertarianism. They’ll discover anarchism on their own from there.
“Judge Nap has questioned the need for national defense on national television. I’m fairly certain he’s an anarchist.”
He could be simply advocating for State’s rights. In fact, that’s what he usually does. Also Ron Paul.
Their rhetoric usually can be summed up as less power to federal government and more power to States. The argument is usually: “The Constitution doesn’t grant the Feds this power or that power. Such power is left to the States…etc.” It’s almost never “It should be up to the individual”
As if States wold not just fill the vacuum left by the government. Look at Europe.
And don’t say it’s a strategy because if it is, it sucks! The goal has to be explicitly clear, even if it’s sort of vague, such as individual rights, private property, etc…
No. He explicitly questioned the need for national defense. There’s a distinct difference between national defense (a public good according to mainstream economic theory) and defense provided by the federal government. He questioned the former, not the latter. And Ron Paul has come out in favor of a voluntaryist society.
It couldn’t be clearer that Nap and RP are anarchists. The only difference between them and, say, Lew Rockwell is that Nap and RP have never used the term “anarchist” to describe themselves.
Wether or not he is behind closed doors shouldn’t really be the issue with the Judge. Because sooo many more people see him on tv. He is on freaking tv every weekend. His audience and potential audience pwns every LvMI fellow, it is what he puts out on tv that matters. What he said when he was a guest on Stossel was GREAT. However, that was before his show went on tv.
I think the main questions to ask are
Is his show format effective? Its very Hardballesque. And that could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on where your coming from.
Does he have enough real libertarians on his TV show? Doesn’t seem like it to me. He is really pushing the limits of what can be considered ‘big tent’
before, when it was an internet show it would be just the judge throwing out softballs to Lew for 10 minutes, and there would be like 2 LvMI folks a week. Now we are lucky to get 1 LvMI person on every other week in a 7 minute segment shared with 2 other people that just laugh at whatever the Austrian view is w/o actually saying why its such a crazy idea.
You’ve gotta remember that while it is his show, Fox has a lot of say in the matter as well. Knowing their hunger for maximum ratings(RIP all shows that get cancelled by Fox after being shuffled around a ridiculous amount), I wouldn’t be surprised if they told him that having “Real Conservatives” on his show would have to happen.
Oh, and if he actually had that many LvMi folks on, there would be the(rather large) chance that more people would see people like Glenn for the cons that they are.
I got the sense, from watching it, that it was Tom Woods that really pushed Napolitano to questioning minarchism. Judge also said that Stossel got upset when Napolitano said that taxation is theft, because then all of Stossel’s viewers asked him why he doesn’t say things like that. How beautiful would this be? Woods makes Napolitano an anarchist. And, Napolitano makes Stossel an anarchist.
I’d wager it’s a negligible amount(And I’m nowhere near the position of a FOX Exec!) for a show that’s in a saturday morning timeslot, with reruns on weekend evenings. Not exactly the time most people are watching TV.
Don’t get your hopes up there. Stossel is a real Friedman worshipper, and by that, I mean David D. Freidman’s father.
That’s possible but I don’t see Stossel advocating for arresting private court entrepreneurs when we’re at minarchism. His inconsistencies will become clear to him at due time.