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
John Stossel and Ron Paul
ABC's John Stossel, an unabashed Ron Paul fan, sat down with the
candidate to talk about choice. No questions about whether he'll
jump parties, no quibbling about the war, no challenging his
donations: Just talk about decriminalizing drugs and de-regulating
consensual behavior. Stossel comments
on the interview at ABC's site:
Paul notes that when our country was founded, the role of the government was to protect the general welfare, enforce the rule of law in court, maintain property rights and allow for free markets and free trade — "not to run our lives, and run everything in the economy."
It's a habit of politicians to identify problems and try to "fix" them with new laws and bureaucracies.
While some of these reforms may be well-intended, says Paul, "good intentions won't solve our problems," and more often they encroach on the personal liberties that have made our country great.
The one issue I have is Paul's halting but total defense of gay
marriage. I think it's a pander: I've heard Paul tell conservative
audiences that "gay marriage" is an oxymoron and a joke, and here
he's taking the Jonathan Rauch position. But if you're going to
pander, might as well be to libertarians.
Here, from the beginning of the decade, is a shorter Stossel
segment that features Paul.
fyodor|12.10.07 @ 12:03PM|#
But if you're going to pander, might as well be to
libertarians.
Um, was that a joke?
|12.10.07 @ 12:06PM|#
Paul notes that when our country was founded, the role of
the government was to protect the general welfare, enforce the rule
of law in court, maintain property rights and allow for free
markets and free trade - "not to run our lives, and run everything
in the economy."
Name one major party candidate that has the courage to say that on
national TV.
Eric and Edward, now is your time to shine, name one.
Edward (not really)|12.10.07 @ 12:12PM|#
Nazi...blargl...stupid...Paul...goosestep...you are child
molestors!
Did I hit all the talking points?
|12.10.07 @ 12:17PM|#
But if you're going to pander, might as well be to
libertarians.
Hell, nobody else will.
Freewheeler|12.10.07 @ 12:18PM|#
"I think it's a pander: I've heard Paul tell conservative
audiences that "gay marriage" is an oxymoron and a joke, and here
he's taking the Jonathan Rauch position. But if you're going to
pander, might as well be to libertarians."
This is not a contradiction. He can think gay marriage is an
oxymoron and not believe in intervening because he understands
federal government has no role in regulating it. It is clear he
does not believe in it even in this video, same as drugs. But it's
irrelevant, government should not legislate morals. You should
understand that...
|12.10.07 @ 12:19PM|#
I think when he talked about the redefining marriage he also said that the only reason to do that is to get some kind of benefit from the Government. So, he's just saying why change the definition and create new problems, just fix the problem so as the Gov. doesn't have a role. If a church would really marry 2 men or 2 women...
|12.10.07 @ 12:19PM|#
It's not necessarily pandering; he is personally opposed,
deeply, to gay marriage.
But he is not a minister, he's a politician, which is why,
ethically, he believes he has to take the stance he does: It's not
his business.
|12.10.07 @ 12:22PM|#
Wow. Just wow. If Ron Paul were to win the primary, this
interview would be sliced up into about a dozen misleading hit
pieces taking these statements out of context.
Saying what he said in this interview took some cojones.
Dave Weigel -- got a link to what Ron Paul actually said about gay
marriage to conservative groups? Are you sure he didn't articulate
the same POV but with carefully chosen words and vastly different
emphases? Because articulating the same POV in different ways to
different audiences isn't what I call pandering -- at most you
could accuse him of being deceptive toward people not attuned to
fine distinctions -- saying mutually contradictory things to
different audiences is how I define pandering.
Other Matt|12.10.07 @ 12:24PM|#
So, he's just saying why change the definition and create
new problems, just fix the problem so as the Gov. doesn't have a
role. If a church would really marry 2 men or 2 women...
Now that would be the real solution. Have one other person you
could name as your whatever which can do all the stuff in terms of
government, and simply let marraige be a spiritual ceremony. It's
too damn easy a solution.
|12.10.07 @ 12:30PM|#
Fritz,
A number of mainline Protestant churches, including the
Episcopalians, the UUs, the Congregationalists and, IIRC, the
Methodists already perform gay marriages.
robc|12.10.07 @ 12:33PM|#
Other Matt,
Why do you need to name a person as your whatever?
Whatever the gov is providing to whatever doesnt need to be
provided by them.
|12.10.07 @ 12:33PM|#
My favorite John Stossel interview was the one which ended with him getting swatted to the floor like a pesky bug by a professional wrestler.
|12.10.07 @ 12:45PM|#
Yeah, Freewheeler is right. The whole notion that one must agree
with the laws is what some of my GOP friends can't get past. Have I
ever bought a prostitute? No. Will I ever even if it were legal?
Most unlikely. Do I recognize that paying for those services is an
issue of personal freedom and not my business? Yes.
See, there is no contradiction and he wasn't pandering.
I love John Stossel but he needs to rethink this one using his
critical thinking skills.
Its a no-brainer.
Ron Paul 2008
|12.10.07 @ 12:45PM|#
A number of mainline Protestant churches, including the
Episcopalians, the UUs, the Congregationalists and, IIRC, the
Methodists already perform gay marriages.
Strangely, that list coincides with the list of people going to
HELL!!!
Reinmoose|12.10.07 @ 12:48PM|#
A number of mainline Protestant churches, including the
Episcopalians, the UUs, the Congregationalists and, IIRC, the
Methodists already perform gay marriages.
This is a true statement. One of the Methodist churches near me
does this.
LarryA|12.10.07 @ 12:59PM|#
Why do you need to name a person as your whatever? Whatever
the gov is providing to whatever doesn't need to be provided by
them.
It's handy for two people to be able to make a long-term legally
binding commitment as a family to facilitate joint ownership of
property, joint responsibility for children, joint bank accounts
and investments, joint interest in pensions, joint power of
attorney arrangements, medical decisions in case of incapacity,
inheritance, etc.
Yes, I know much of the above can be done with individual
contracts, but it's a lot clumsier, a lot more expensive, and a lot
bigger target for lawsuits.
These advantages should be available to any adults who want to form
a family.
That said, if you personally don't have a current will, someone
with a current durable power of attorney, and your current medical
statement, get to an attorney and get it done. No
one deserves to clean up your mess if you don't.
T|12.10.07 @ 1:02PM|#
I've been asked to perform a gay marriage in my official capacity as a minister of the ULC. I'm looking forward to it. Not that it makes a damn with respect to the law here in TX, but what the hell. It should be a fun time.
|12.10.07 @ 1:05PM|#
As I just applied for a marriage license in Pennsylvania, I have
discovered that PA has a "self uniting license" option available
for $10 more, formerly known as a Quaker marriage license. Since
this sounded so loophole-ly to my modern ears, I did some research
and it appears this can't be used (at this time!) for same-sex
marriages. If my fiancee wasn't set on having her minister who is a
long time family friend officiate, I would have gunned for the
self-uniter out of the pure individualism inherent in it.
Futher research shows that North Carolina has a colonial era law
saying a "Quaker marriage is not to be interfered with".
My point: "Full Faith and Credit" has for centuries made it
possible stuff an un-officiated marriage down any state's craw.
|12.10.07 @ 1:05PM|#
There's no contradiction in the gay marriage issue (though maybe
a bit of pandering). It's simply not the government's job (state,
federal or local) to certify marriages. The law may have to
recognize marriages, insofar as the law may occasionally need to
know this for probate purposes, but that's the extent of it. There
should be no legal privileges or penalties for being married.
If you want a ceremony, get a priest, pastor or ship captain.
Otherwise shack up long enough for common law to kick in.
p.s. Frankly, I'm disgusted that the religious right demands state
involvement in marriage, since the Bible clearly places marriage
within God's purview.
|12.10.07 @ 1:07PM|#
A number of mainline Protestant churches, including the
Episcopalians, the UUs, the Congregationalists and, IIRC, the
Methodists already perform gay marriages.
The Congregationalists?! Lordy, they were one of the denominations
that were called Puritans!
Rhywun|12.10.07 @ 1:10PM|#
the Bible clearly places marriage within God's
purview
State, God... same difference.
|12.10.07 @ 1:16PM|#
ABC ("Always Broadcasting Communism") accepts advertising dollars from the United States Government, and accepts the governments claims to have authority over broadcast wavelength and content. Ron Paul validates this submission by appearing on ABC. If had had the courage of his convictions he would only make appearances on pirate radio stations.
|12.10.07 @ 1:20PM|#
Arrr!!! And what d'ye propose to do about the licensin' o' wooden leg manufacturers? Arrr!!!
smartass sob|12.10.07 @ 1:20PM|#
If had had the courage of his convictions he would only make
appearances on pirate radio stations.
But if it were only radio, no one would be able to see him.
|12.10.07 @ 1:22PM|#
Joe,
Government regulation of the wooden leg industry will only stifle
innovation, raise prices and prop up inefficient manufacturers.
|12.10.07 @ 1:23PM|#
@robc
I'll add to LarryA's comment with an example. Earlier in the year
my brother spent a few thousand dollars and got married on the
bridge of the starship enterprise in vegas. My signing of his
marriage certificate as witness in front of a clergy dressed as a
fake admiral from the future kicked in a few thousand laws that
govern property rights, inheritance, etc... I can spend 10 times
that amount and not come close to having my partnership treated as
equal to my brothers under the present law.
|12.10.07 @ 1:33PM|#
"Full Faith and Credit" has for centuries made it possible
stuff an un-officiated marriage down any state's craw.
Yeah, but the Government decided to partially gut Full Faith and
Credit. Bonus points if the token liberal can name the law and the
President who signed it.
|12.10.07 @ 1:36PM|#
Illiterate J,
prop up inefficient manufacturers.
I think you have the issue pegged.
Seitz|12.10.07 @ 1:39PM|#
Paul notes that when our country was founded, the role of
the government was to protect the general welfare, enforce the rule
of law in court, maintain property rights and allow for free
markets and free trade - "not to run our lives, and run everything
in the economy."
I wonder if they wrote all of that stuff into that Constitution
that's apparently been lost to history. Ya know, the one that was
"replete with references to God."
|12.10.07 @ 1:39PM|#
Ayn_Randian,
That's "tokin' liberal" to you, and the Public Policy Exception to
the Full Faith and Credit Clause has existed since the 19th
century, when it was used to allow Southern States to violate the
marriage contracts of inter-racial couples married in the
north.
No President signed off on it, because it was created/acknowledged
by the courts.
Wah wah wah waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh....
smartass sob|12.10.07 @ 1:51PM|#
I think you have the issue pegged.
Does the government even have a leg to stand on regarding this
issue?
robc|12.10.07 @ 2:06PM|#
Oh, and I realize I just chucked out a major chunk of 1000 years worth of common law court decisions.
|12.10.07 @ 2:24PM|#
Paul notes that when our country was founded, the role of
the government was to protect the general welfare, enforce the rule
of law in court, maintain property rights and allow for free
markets and free trade - "not to run our lives, and run everything
in the economy."
Back when our country was founded, it was a simpler time, the
constitution is a bit anachronistic in this regard. Things were
safer then; they didn't have a war on drugs that needed to be
fought.
|12.10.07 @ 2:29PM|#
Arrr!!! And what d'ye propose to do about the licensin' o'
wooden leg manufacturers? Arrr!!!
It's in my stump speech, Matey.
|12.10.07 @ 2:29PM|#
Paul believes anyone should be allowed to make a private contract and call it marriage, but that does not mean it must be recognized by other people socially. The problem with state run marriage is that it merges legal and social acceptance when that was not the case for the first 200 years of American history.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 3:16PM|#
Wow. A hopless, dorky loser fields soft-ball questions from a dorky, adoring fan. Isn't politics deep?
|12.10.07 @ 3:34PM|#
Forget going back two spaces. Why is he still here?!? I'll never
trust a word typed by Edward because he lies in every thread he
visits.
Stand by your words, Edward. Come on, be a man of honor. You can do
it - we believe in you!
|12.10.07 @ 3:37PM|#
|12.10.07 @ 3:39PM|#
If the rate of donations is any indication of the support for the moneybomb, I would equate the last week with the receeding water prior to a tidal wave. I think this is going to be very, very big.
robc|12.10.07 @ 3:46PM|#
If we can prove that either Stossel or Paul has had a beer in their life, and are therefore not hopless, can we call Edward a liar forever? Because people dont misspeak or mistype.
smartass sob|12.10.07 @ 4:06PM|#
A hopless loser -- is that someone who drinks bad beer with
hardly any hops?
No, it's someone without even a middle leg to stand on - such as
Edweirdoo :-)
Edward All Over The Relevant I|12.10.07 @ 4:06PM|#
pshaw, your presidential candidate is like a total dork
Reinmoose|12.10.07 @ 4:09PM|#
A hopless loser -- is that someone who drinks bad beer with
hardly any hops?
Bad beer, yes. However, hops do not make a beer good. I, for one,
am a fan of stouts and lagers.
I just wanted to clear that up.
Hops do not necessarily make good beer, no matter what the Samual
Adams commercials tell you.
Gavin|12.10.07 @ 4:10PM|#
Did ya hear the one about John Stossel interviewing Ron Paul,
and then ABC deciding not to show it on the teevee, but exclusively
on the internet machine?
"Despite relatively low poll numbers, Paul has had a big influence
on the presidential campaign. That's in part because he's raised a
ton of money, and in part because of the passionate following he
has on the Web. It's one reason we're posting my interview with
Paul only on the Internet, where the debate about Paul is very
active. In fact, he's the most Googled presidential candidate."
|12.10.07 @ 4:13PM|#
...can we call Edward a liar forever? Because people dont
misspeak or mistype.
His posts are replete (REPLETE I say!) with references to him never
posting here again.
|12.10.07 @ 4:28PM|#
I hope you're proud, prolefeed. You've rendered Brandybuck
speechless.
Stouts and lagers don't have hops?
Ryan|12.10.07 @ 4:32PM|#
Generally all beer has hops, they are just less prominent in the flavor of the maltier styles (though some darker beers may use as much hops as beers generally considered in the "bitter" range)
|12.10.07 @ 4:34PM|#
It would be more accurate to say hops make a good ale. Many ales
(though not all) contain hops, a bit of bitter to better balance
the sweetness of malt. Of course, given the rich history and vast
diversity of "beer," there aren't really any hard and fast rules.
When I think of ales, I think of something with some hop or spice
"bite."
As for interviews, I think Stossel should carve on the other
candidates and have someone else carve on Paul. It's just more fun
to watch that way.
robc|12.10.07 @ 4:35PM|#
joe,
Stouts and lagers don't have hops?
Im confused by that too. Their emphasis isnt the hops, like in an
IPA, but they most definately have (noticable) hops.
Reinmoose|12.10.07 @ 4:36PM|#
Stouts and lagers don't have hops?
You don't stuff "marginally insane" quantities of hops in stouts.
Especially oatmeal stouts....mmmmmmmmmm
But yes, of course they do.
robc|12.10.07 @ 4:39PM|#
Generally, the taste threshold of hops is somewhere in the high
single digits of IBUs (International Bittering Units - no really,
that is the measurement). Almost every beer in the world has at
least double digit IBUs, except Bud and other macro-crap-lagers
which are about 6-8.
The bjcp (Beer Judging Certification Program) has Dry Stouts as
having 30-45 IBUs.
robc|12.10.07 @ 4:41PM|#
You don't stuff "marginally insane" quantities of hops in
stouts.
Russian Imperial Stouts: 50-90+ IBUs.
That qualifies as marginally insane.
Double IPAs: 60-100+
Reinmoose|12.10.07 @ 4:48PM|#
alright, alright! robc. I found the same site you did, and I
revise my statement.
The Russian Imperial Stout is not necessarily what I would consider
a good beer (though I've never tried one), and it would be dumb to
make that judgement based on the number of hops in it. That would
be to say:
Wow, that Russian Imperial Stout must be good because it's got a
lot of hops in it!
robe|12.10.07 @ 4:52PM|#
Reinmoose,
Im not a big fan of RISes (or any stouts for that matter) myself.
But stouts can be relatively hoppy. I homebrew so I have a good
feel for these things and even so, when creating recipes, Im
surprised how many hops I need in some styles that are malt
dominated. Ive got a sticke alt bubbling away right now, over 50
IBUs. You need some bitterness to give the beer balance.
Reinmoose|12.10.07 @ 4:54PM|#
of course master
*bows*
(I should have known that commenters on a libertarian site would be
homebrewers :) )
Nephilium|12.10.07 @ 5:07PM|#
For stouts, the hops are usually balanced by an equally huge
amount of malts. If you truly hated the hops, go for the old
lambics. Quite tasty, if you like tart. But I will never give up my
love for my hops... just had a wonderfully tasty Mean Manalishi
(from Hoppin' Frog) last night... it clocks in at 168+ IBU.
And Reinmoose, if you're looking for an RIS that is more on the
sweet side, look for Bells Expedition Stout (If you live in an area
you can get it).
Nephilium. Hop-head.
|12.10.07 @ 5:21PM|#
Ron Paul is neither hopless nor a loser.
He was a state champion in track in high school (the 200 yard
dash), so I'm sure he could get off the ground playing basketball
back in the day.
He's won 10 elections to federal office, and only lost 3 (one House
race, one Senate, and one Presidential.) Sounds like a winner to
me.
Ali (formerly iih)|12.10.07 @ 5:53PM|#
Join the Party. (If you can, if not spread the word by making this video go viral).
Edward|12.10.07 @ 5:57PM|#
Sounds like a winner to me.
Sure, in Texas. Have you seen how he's doing in the national polls?
6% tops.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 6:02PM|#
Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. Nov. 30-Dec. 3, 2007. N=428
likely Republican primary voters nationwide. MoE ± 5.
.
"If the Republican primary or caucus for president were being held
in your state today and the candidates were [see below], for whom
would you vote: [see below]?" Names rotated. Results include
leaners.
.
11/30 - 12/3/07 10/19-22/07 6/7-10/07 4/5-9/07
% % % %
Rudy Giuliani 23
32
27
29
Mike Huckabee 17
7
3
3
Fred Thompson 14
15
21
15
John McCain 11
13
12
12
Mitt Romney 9
11
10
8
Ron Paul 5
2
n/a
n/a
Duncan Hunter 3
2
1
2
Tom Tancredo -
2
-
2
Other (vol.) 1
-
1
3
Unsure 17
16
14
14
Newt Gingrich n/a
n/a
9
7
Tommy Thompson n/a
n/a
2
3
Sam Brownback n/a
n/a
-
2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul|12.10.07 @ 6:05PM|#
the Methodists already perform gay marriages.
Joe, the images that this statement conjures are not what I suspect
you mean.
|12.10.07 @ 8:12PM|#
A good Russian Imperial Stout is hard to find, but when you do, it's awesome! Almost makes me want to haul out the horse and winch!
LarryA|12.10.07 @ 11:01PM|#
Back when our country was founded, it was a simpler time,
the constitution is a bit anachronistic in this regard. Things were
safer then; they didn't have a war on drugs that needed to be
fought.
Google "whisky rebellion" or for that matter, "boston tea
party"
|12.11.07 @ 3:25AM|#
I'm sure there are many stout loggers who are happy to be hopless. Peg-legged pirates are forced to hop.
Aaron|12.11.07 @ 4:43PM|#
I thought he said "marriages" are up to churches, and some sort of civil union or civil partnership is up to the state. So states could give anyone partnerships who wanted to be in them, and churches could "marry" whoever they wanted. There was no reason to include the term "marriage" in any state legislation.
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