Dennis Prager interviews John Stossel (3 of 4)

Discussing Stossel's book "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity". . .
June 28, 2006. . .

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• 20-20
• 20/20
• ron
• paul
• christopher
• hitchens
• ayaan
• hirsi
• ali
• richard
• dawkins
• salman
• rushdie
• andrew
• sullivan
• noam
• chomsky
• bill
• maher
• real
• time
• new
• rules
• keith
• olbermann
• rachel
• maddow
• ann
• coulter
• glenn
• beck
• rush
• limbaugh
• sean
• hannity
• o'reilly
• dennis
• miller
• hugh
• hewitt
• michael
• medved
• thomas
• sowell
• john
• stossel
• interview
• speech

[jeffersonianideal]

The only consistency is your inconsistency. I have responded directly to many of your points. Since my answers are not the ones you prefer, you brush them off. You say you do not throw the word moral around and then, in the same sentence you admit using it "very generally". If you consider a certain form of behavior such as gambling immoral then it is your right not to gamble. You do not have a right to prohibit others from gambling. Once again, I do not agree with the LP on every issue.

[upandopen]

1. I agree that the definition of morality is a very ambiguous and always disputable one. What I said in that last comment is that there are certain things we all can agree are immoral (whether we want to make them illegal is an entirely different issue).

2. I don't consider gambling immoral, and I don't want it to be illegal. Neither does Dennis Prager. We've gone back and forth for ages now but you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

3. The LP wants gambling to be legal, as you do.

[jeffersonianideal]

Part 2:

Libertarians believe that personal liberty is coupled with individual responsibility. So long as someone does not deprive another of life, liberty or property, a persons pursuit of happiness is by way of their own moral compass.

[upandopen]

I am a libertarian, so I know the definition. We agree on the definition, so I don't see the relevance of stating it.

[jeffersonianideal]

Part 3:

Morality by way of mass enforcement does not equate with freedom and is definitely not the responsibility of government. Nor should morality be imposed upon citizens the by way of State sponsored or a state influenced religious system of beliefs. Moral moderates and zealots alike are certainly entitled to exercise their free speech rights. They do not have the right to impose their definitions of morality on everyone else through legislation.

[upandopen]

Once again, we both know and agree about what libertarianism is, and stating its definition does not enlighten the discussion. You have responded to none of my points.

[MaurDL]

@upandopen lol I know I'm late to the party but I find the arguement betweem you two interesting. I was having a debate of sorts myself with Jeffersonianideal a week ago on a Freedom Watch upload.

[jeffersonianideal]

Finally something we can agree on but if there are certain things we can all agree on are immoral, we haven't covered them in this exchange. Please recall that I never said Prager wanted gambling to be illegal. I said I could find no evidence that he was in support of legalized gambling. To suggest that I follow libertarian philosophy or any other political code of belief blindly is imprudently presumptuous. You have never inquired about what I specifically agree and disagree with.

[upandopen]

1. You do follow a political philosophy blindly - libertarianism.

2. I don't throw the word 'moral' around. I have used it very generally. However, for example, if a man gambles and goes on to lose most of his money and his family hence comes close to starvation, then I do consider that immoral.

[jeffersonianideal]

Part 1:

Could not resist one more response. While I do not follow any political philosophy or religious dogma blindly, I have never been confused about what it means to be a libertarian. You throw the word moral around as if there is a textbook standard that serves as a immovable benchmark for what is right and what is wrong.