Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Watch along at reason.tv as Kurt Loder of MTV and Rolling Stone talks with Nick Gillespie about technology, freedom, and fighting back against the nanny state in all its incarnations.
Just click on the image below:
|11.16.07 @ 12:04PM|#
Have to wait till I get home to watch. I have some vague recollection of hearing Loder describe himself as "libertarian".
|11.16.07 @ 12:39PM|#
Warren:
I have the same recollection of Bill Maher, and we all know how
well THAT turned out...
|11.16.07 @ 1:12PM|#
When you look at the poll numbers for the candidates, it is easy to conclude that America wants a nanny state. The anti-nanny state candidates are in single digits. Well, Ron Paul may be the only anti-nanny state candidate.
|11.16.07 @ 1:28PM|#
Kurt Loder of MTV and Rolling Stone talks with Nick
Gillespie about technology, freedom, and fighting back against the
nanny state in all its incarnations.
Well, not ALL of the nanny state's incarnations -- Loder tried to
duck the question about allowing segregation in private businesses,
saying in effect, well, gee, that's not what America's about, so
why should we allow it?
GILMORE|11.16.07 @ 1:29PM|#
"Get a Loder this"?
ouch. ick. ptew. yuck.
The "'crying on the outside' kind of clown" line was nice off the
cuff
Paul|11.16.07 @ 1:32PM|#
Loder tried to duck the question about allowing segregation
in private businesses, saying in effect
I haven't seen the interview yet, but I mean, can we give the man a
break?
|11.16.07 @ 1:44PM|#
When you look at the poll numbers for the candidates, it is
easy to conclude that America wants a nanny state. The anti-nanny
state candidates are in single digits. Well, Ron Paul may be the
only anti-nanny state candidate.
It could just be that most people roll their eyes the
grade-schoolish "nanny state" label that libertarians still seem to
think is clever and pursuasive.
|11.16.07 @ 1:57PM|#
It could just be that most people roll their eyes the
grade-schoolish "nanny state" label that libertarians still seem to
think is clever and pursuasive.
Would these be the same "most people" who DON'T roll their eyes
when some smarmy politician justifies the latest legislative
opression with "but ... but ... it's for The Children"?
|11.16.07 @ 1:59PM|#
Would these be the same "most people" who DON'T roll their
eyes when some smarmy politician justifies the latest legislative
opression with "but ... but ... it's for The Children"?
Perhaps. Normal people do recognize that the well-being of children
is important.
Paul|11.16.07 @ 3:27PM|#
Perhaps. Normal people do recognize that the well-being of
children is important.
And at any cost, natch. Oh, and diminishing returns be damned. Give
up a bunch of freedoms for a negligible if non-existent uptick in
the overall health of children across a broad demographic, we're
all good there, too. Not even to mention that the welfare of the
child is first and foremost the responsibility of the parent. But
yes, I know, sometimes parents need a little help when it comes to
keeping the little nippers from eating too much candy, drinking too
much soda and playing too many violent video games. Afterall,
what's a parent to do? Next thing, you'll be expecting us to
actually engage with our kids and find out what they're doing.
That's a slippery slope that has no end, to be sure.
|11.16.07 @ 3:35PM|#
Slightly o/t but I'm really tired of tv features on my
interwebs. If I wanted to watch tv, I'd be doing so. If I'm on the
webs, I want to read.
And looks at pics too.
But NO TV.
|11.16.07 @ 3:42PM|#
Dan, why do you hate freedom?
Because it's just another word for "nothing left to lose".
|11.16.07 @ 3:53PM|#
Well, not ALL of the nanny state's incarnations -- Loder
tried to duck the question about allowing segregation in private
businesses, saying in effect, well, gee, that's not what America's
about, so why should we allow it?
"There was a time in this country not to long ago when the brutal
unjust institutions of segregation, rather then reform, threatened
to tear the very fabric of this nation apart....smoking in bars is
no such threat."
That is what he should have said.
|11.16.07 @ 8:06PM|#
I roll my eyes at the left's "patriarchal state". What goes around comes around.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245