tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post7898945432481845866..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: Stossel on FrackingGus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-59954444580752496772011-05-19T07:24:56.570-06:002011-05-19T07:24:56.570-06:00Gus,
Thank you for your response.
VQGus,<br /><br />Thank you for your response.<br /><br />VQAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-31325953241696166892011-05-18T16:47:25.427-06:002011-05-18T16:47:25.427-06:00Well, Stossel doesn't speak directly to the st...Well, Stossel doesn't speak directly to the story you bring up, of course, but his column is an indication that you might be on to something.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-61653416155915335122011-05-18T15:53:32.633-06:002011-05-18T15:53:32.633-06:00Chesapeake Energy has just been slapped with a $1 ...Chesapeake Energy has just been slapped with a $1 million dollar fine for methane contamination. Last I checked there was no proof that it was because of fracking or that it was anywhere near unsafe levels. <br /><br />The people around here, of course, immediately assumed it was true. The moment that the drillers got here in Pennsylvania the locals started with their dire predictions. They focus on all the negatives and ignore the economic value.<br /><br />I've been somewhat quiet on the issue because I actually like to have the facts before I speak. I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing actual damages.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11669416607724456121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-79317262117117287952011-05-18T10:50:03.503-06:002011-05-18T10:50:03.503-06:00VQ,
The relevant issue is not whether we should a...VQ,<br /><br />The relevant issue is not whether we should associate at all, ever, with a libertarian or a conservative, but the nature of such an association. (i.e., whether such an association grants moral sanction to irrationality). <br /><br />I obviously can't speak on behalf of ARI, but in their case, to appear on a television show hosted by a conservative or a libertarian is fine so long as it is clear that one is identified correctly <i>as</i> being from ARI, or at least that there isn't something about the appearance that would cause a reasonable person to conclude that, say, ARI is a libertarian organization, or that the speaker sees Objectivism as compatible with libertarianism or conservatism. As far as I know, neither Stossel nor Beck unfairly edit their guests or otherwise make them look like they support views they don't support, and their audiences know their guests' views are distinct from the hosts'. In other words, nobody thinks Yaron Brook might be receptive to anarchism or the idea that there are many mutually contradictory philosophical bases for something vaguely known as "liberty" just because John Stossel interviews him.<br /><br />Contrast this to a hypothetical case of a professed Objectivist taking part in a debate, hosted by the LP, whose subject is the question, "Is limited government or anarchy the proper goal of individualists?" Since the Libertarian Party sees this as an open question and, as Schwartz makes abundantly clear in "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty," its adherents fundamentally reject the need for philosophical principles in answering political and practical questions, the professed Objectivist is treating that debate as if it is a rational discussion. <br /><br />Or, to take a really clear-cut example from my college days, when I was young and foolish, what would it mean to "debate" a creationist on whether evolution occurred, if, no matter how good your arguments were, he'd just say, "I have faith?" The minute he says that, he might as well say, "I reject reason." To continue the conversation is to help him pretend (to himself or others) that he is rational. Now, you can't read minds, and sometimes you can get surprised by such things, but suppose I were warned beforehand -- in the form of an invitation to take part in such a debate by, say, Campus Crusade for Christ?" You KNOW, by the nature of such an organization that it regards reason as optional, so your participation in that debate could reasonably be construed as your belief that it will be a fair fight. You'll get nowhere -- except towards helping them look good to people who might not know better. You argument, no matter how good, will be undercut by your implicitly saying, "I agree that faith overrides reason, when push comes to shove," which you did when you agreed to speak on terms you knew to be unfair.<br /><br />I hope this helps.<br /><br />GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-16392042284429780982011-05-18T08:13:30.903-06:002011-05-18T08:13:30.903-06:00Regarding Stossel:
I was reading about the Kelley...Regarding Stossel:<br /><br />I was reading about the Kelley/Peikoff split recently. In an article by Peter Schwartz, he comments that we should not associate with Libertarians because it sanctions their irrationality.<br /><br />So I was wondering if you had an explanation as to why ARI has been appearing on the John Stossel show (I believe he's a Libertarian). Or even why we're going on the Glenn Beck show (is there a fundamental difference between Libertarians and Conservatives that would change the circumstance of going to a Conservative rally as opposed to a Libertarian one?)<br /><br />I'm inclined to think that they (ARI) are right in going on the Stossel and Beck show, but I can't figure out how it's justified. Do you have any ideas?<br /><br />Thanks,<br />VQAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com