As I do every Monday through Thursday, barring repeats, I viewed The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night. Ideologically speaking, Stewart is definitely left of center, especially when it comes to social issues. However, unlike some other talk show hosts, like Sean Hannity and many other such hosts on cable news channels, Fox in particular, Stewart actually tries to listen to his guests and understand where they're coming from. Stewart has had many conservative guests on his program and once in a while, he might go on a long rant, but he's not angry like Hannity or O'Reilly and for the most part, he is able to engage in a very civil and thought-provoking back-and-forth with his guest.
So, last night, Stewart's guest was Judge Andrew Napolitano, whom describes himself as Libertarian. As the interview went long, there are three portions of the interview on the web to view. I went and viewed the second and third part this morning and followed that by reading all of the comments. Wow, Libertarians were in full force on the boards. Geez.
Just like everyone else, I believe Libertarians have a right to their own opinion and to express those very opinions. However, I am a bit troubled by their philosophy. While I believe there is such a thing as too much government, I also believe there's such a thing is too little government and that appears to be the extreme in which many Libertarians' beliefs fall. Their basic philosophy is the less government, the better. That is debatable and it ultimately depends upon one's starting place for the government's level of activity and/or control. So, in certain scenarios, I would agree with that sentiment. However, it appears as if a majority of Libertarians believe that statement in just about any and all possible scenarios. Just as the visual I receive is a none-too-pleasant one when I think of government having too much control, it is also not very appealing for me to envision a government which doesn't do much of anything. Although, to be honest, with Congress in a basic stalemate, it can be debated whether government is doing much of anything or not currently.
I'd really love to believe that everyone as individuals could basically govern themselves, be afforded all of life's essentials and live happily ever after, but just as we've beared witness to problems arising in certain countries due to the government having too much control, the same can be said of the other extreme, where government hardly holds any control. I'd like to believe that Libertarians and the most liberal of Democrats could find a middle to which they could both be reasonably satisfied. But, judging by many members of the tea party's commentary, they're tough to budge, which is reminiscent of both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. How I wish we could come to a middle, where we don't allow government to strip us of basic human rights, yet at the same time, don't become obsessed with with the notion that the government is inherently evil. It's all about compromise. Members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, could learn a few things from successful married couples. There will always be differences in opinion. That's fine. But, sacrifices eventually have to be made and the two parties have to come to a compromise in order to make things work. When they don't do that, the marriage becomes dysfunctional and eventually ends. I'd think that would be fairly common sense, but then again, what do I know?
So, last night, Stewart's guest was Judge Andrew Napolitano, whom describes himself as Libertarian. As the interview went long, there are three portions of the interview on the web to view. I went and viewed the second and third part this morning and followed that by reading all of the comments. Wow, Libertarians were in full force on the boards. Geez.
Just like everyone else, I believe Libertarians have a right to their own opinion and to express those very opinions. However, I am a bit troubled by their philosophy. While I believe there is such a thing as too much government, I also believe there's such a thing is too little government and that appears to be the extreme in which many Libertarians' beliefs fall. Their basic philosophy is the less government, the better. That is debatable and it ultimately depends upon one's starting place for the government's level of activity and/or control. So, in certain scenarios, I would agree with that sentiment. However, it appears as if a majority of Libertarians believe that statement in just about any and all possible scenarios. Just as the visual I receive is a none-too-pleasant one when I think of government having too much control, it is also not very appealing for me to envision a government which doesn't do much of anything. Although, to be honest, with Congress in a basic stalemate, it can be debated whether government is doing much of anything or not currently.
I'd really love to believe that everyone as individuals could basically govern themselves, be afforded all of life's essentials and live happily ever after, but just as we've beared witness to problems arising in certain countries due to the government having too much control, the same can be said of the other extreme, where government hardly holds any control. I'd like to believe that Libertarians and the most liberal of Democrats could find a middle to which they could both be reasonably satisfied. But, judging by many members of the tea party's commentary, they're tough to budge, which is reminiscent of both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. How I wish we could come to a middle, where we don't allow government to strip us of basic human rights, yet at the same time, don't become obsessed with with the notion that the government is inherently evil. It's all about compromise. Members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, could learn a few things from successful married couples. There will always be differences in opinion. That's fine. But, sacrifices eventually have to be made and the two parties have to come to a compromise in order to make things work. When they don't do that, the marriage becomes dysfunctional and eventually ends. I'd think that would be fairly common sense, but then again, what do I know?
Comments
Post a Comment