Tucker Carlson and John Stossel on Terrorism and Health Care!

[loupgarou5z3w]

@umrmecheman

Also, military spending *is* largely being privatized, via "private contractors": Blackwater, etc.

[loupgarou5z3w]

@umrmecheman

I'm well familiar with the views of Stossel & other such libertarian scum. For them the only legitimate purpose of government is protecting their precious property. Of course, they try to obfuscate this with all sorts of high-minded prattle about "freedom."

[Syphalis1]

wow.... just wow.

although I definitely disagree with your views, I don't refer to you as scum.

I am definitely a Libertarian (like the founding fathers were). So far this year I have opened a new business, creating 12 new jobs in Michigan, all while dealing with all of the governmental imposed hurdles. In the past 6 years, I have headed, contributed to, or organized fund raisers that have raised almost $50,000 to many worthwhile causes (I am not anywhere near rich). I use logic, not names.

[loupgarou5z3w]

@Syphalis1

Business people create jobs not to do anyone else a favor, but to have more productive capacity so as to make more money, themselves. I'm glad for what government hurdles there are & am determined to add more so that business ppl are forced to give their workers better pay, benefits, & conditions. Relying on business ppl to do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts is a recipe for the immiseration of working folks.

The Founders were also slave-owning aristocrats.

[Syphalis1]

Yes, creating jobs is not a favor....

Greed is what leads to innovation, advancement, a better economy. When you 'force' businesses to pay their employees more, that means less jobs, it means less new businesses will open... it means a worse economy. Google American Samoa and look what raising the minimum wage there did to the economy.

It's not the'goodness of their hearts', its that what is good for them helps others. I opened my business to make money and HELP the economy.

[loupgarou5z3w]

@Syphalis1

What's good for business often hurts others. Paying workers next to nothing & giving them no or paltry benefits is great for the owner's back account but lousy for the workers. Workplace safety eats into profits & employers would love to see OSHA eliminated. Making safe products & not polluting can also be unprofitable. Businesses have a right to make a profit but they also have a social responsibility. If a business won't pay a living wage, then it doesn't deserve to exist.

[Syphalis1]

That's why in a free society, you can go get another job! If some place treats it's workers like crap and doesn't pay them well, no one will want to work for them, they will lose any talent they have, they get a bad rep, and they will go out of business.

I have had 15 different jobs in my life (this is my first ownership role)... OSHA has NEVER helped me. If you have an unsafe work place, and someone is injured, you get sued. You don't need bureaucracy to regulate. The Free Market will do it.

[loupgarou5z3w]

@Syphalis1

Suing is not part of the free market. It involves (government) courts & law enforcement. Civil lawsuits are a state institution largely delegated to officers of the court.

Americans have decided that employers do not have a right to treat employees any way they want & pay them as little, & give them as few benefits, as they please. There is no such thing as a natural right. In a democratic society people together decide what rights are appropriate & assign them through govt.

[Syphalis1]

Courts are a necessary part of the free market. One of their main responsibilities (and over all government) is to enforce contracts.. as stated in the Constitution.

People do not assign me my rights. The Constitution guarantees "certain unalienable rights". If our rights came from the people through the Gov, we would all be victims to what Plato described as the 'Tyranny of the Majority'. People (and government) are fallible. This is why we have the Constitution...we just need to follow it

[loupgarou5z3w]

@Syphalis1

You are confusing the US Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, which reads: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The Declaration lacks power of law; at any rate both it & the Constitution are creations of human beings. We're all subject to the tyranny of the majority; it's a matter of degree.

[Syphalis1]

No, I knew where it came from. But the Constitution was constructed as an extrension of the Declaration, a legal structure by which to limit Government and ensure the rights of all, and to restrict the tyranny of the majority.

The main point of my argument is follow the Const. It is an ingenious document. The second you accept the belief that the Gov as the right to regulate personal behavior that harms no others, you deny the belief in freedom. Gov laws bring damaging unintended consequences

[Syphalis1]

In business, it is 'doing favors', creating better products, offering better pricing, better service, that bring success... and this is good for EVERYBODY!.

Ben Franklin was an Aristocrat? So the Constitution is a worthless document?

So where should jobs come from? Government should just assign them, and everyone gets the same pay? This already failed, comrade.

Free markets and free societies lift people out of poverty. They can do far more for the avg man than any Government can...

[loupgarou5z3w]

@Syphalis1

The Founders on balance were anxious to protect property--which, not coincidentally, they had plenty of--& maintained slavery & denied the vote to women & even white males who lacked property. The Founders were advanced for their time but retrograde by modern standards.

Save your talking points about gov't assigning jobs & setting equal pay for all for someone else. I'm not a socialist, but a social democrat. Free market incentives do not suffice to serve workers' interests.

[charlesvan13]

It's really silly of those liberals who reacted "oh no, he's a muslim. People are going to hate arabs now."

[protectedparody]

Tucker Carlson is a Ron Paul supporting republican. He is not a neo-conservative. This means both Carlson and Stossel are constitutionalist libertarians. They are two of the few in the media along with Judge Andrew Napolitano. Fox is slowing becoming the voice of reason in television news.

[loupgarou5z3w]

Geraldo says Hasan could have committed the Fort Hood massacre because "he had a toothache." What a horse's ass. Geraldo's got egg on his face now that it's undeniable Hasan was motivated by religious extremism. & Stossel with his libertarian drivel that all government is bad, even to combat terrorism--another horse's ass.

[umrmecheman]

@loupgarou5z3w he is from the milton friedman school of thought that gov't should be very limited but both believe that gov't should do law enforcement, foreign policiy, military, etc. Quit making un-educated assertions. Stossel is not an anarchist. He believes that gov't is wasteful and inefficient, but he does believe they should do things that the constitution spells out for them. They waste money military spending too like everything else but that is something that can't be privatized.

[sclf]

Is this the best excuse the gop can come up with? No wonder they in trouble and i hope they loose their left nut in 2010 cause they sure as hell right nuts.

[JAKECUB100]

Stossel isn't a Republican, Carlson is.

[mattjnor98]

@JAKECUB100 Actually, Carlson is a Libertarian. He has been a supporter for Ron Paul for a long time,

[malerror]

free health care yaaa!

[MooseOfReason]

I think Stossel should have gotten more time to speak. I would much rather hear from him than Tucker.

[funktroop3r]

Yeah because he's a legitimate member of the press who doesn't bother to speculate on things he doesn't know for sure.

[aqelfaris]

So what else is new? Geraldo is the price we pay for "fair and balanced," I guess. What a douche-bag!

[MDK236]

Basically