Ann Coulter appeared on the John Stossel show, and the video is getting a lot of attention. There was a vigorous back and forth on a variety of issues.
The students in the audience were libertarian, sharing many of the social values of modern liberals without the statist oppressiveness.
This is the sort of exchange of ideas and challenges to positions which students at Fordham University should have had an opportunity to make last fall.
That opportunity was taken away after pressure from liberal activists seeking to shut down opposing viewpoints, weak-kneed College Republicans, and an administration playing to the crowd.
Via Mediaite:
Maybe I’ll watch the whole show, if I can find it.
Alternative headline: “Libertarians, can’t live with them, can’t live without them.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Alternative headline: “Libertarians, can’t live with them, can’t live without them.”
Smile when you say that… 😛
1. I usually agree with social conservatives’ opinions—until they want to use the federal government to impose those opinions.
2. Which suggests a response to Coulter’s digs about “sucking up to your liberal friends”. How about your statist friends, Ann? If you became a progressive overnight, your view of the proper role of government wouldn’t change fundamentally. You’re interested in restricting government power only where you don’t have an axe to grind.
3. I haven’t taken Coulter seriously for years, so her digs and asides did not surprise me. If the Fordham administration wanted to be really Machiavellian, they would have showcased Coulter as a leading conservative.
4. Afaic Coulter is a performance artist who does more harm than good.
The flaw in Coulter’s argument is that it look liberal progressives to get to the state where “I pay for your healthcare.”
If we had stayed to our libertarian (I.e. classical liberal) views, and kept a strong judeo-christian moral ethic, then we could probably live with the modern libertarian view. Unfortunately, we live in a morally decayed, and culturally flawed (Though there are still many good things about our culture, Jackass the Movie, and Jersey Shore are not,) society.
Given the current circumstances though, I tend to lean on the side Coulter’s arguments in regard to drug policy, but I also understand that de-criminalization of the drug culture would go far in addressing the gun running, and smuggling, and overall violence in our border areas.
There is no easy fix, and we have to work with the cards we’re dealt. I just wish politicians would actually try to solve these problems, rather than creating crises that won’t go to waste in prolonging the problems.
I think her main point is important, and as a libertarian, one that we must all answer before we discuss any other issues. That point is about exactly how much you want government to do in society. As a libertarian, my gut reaction was, “Hey, no libertarian wants government involved in marriage, healthcare, education, etc.”. Then I realized her point, which was a lot of us say this, but yet it is never realized. Then I have to acknowledge that just like there are conservatives who will pull the lever for big government, there are also libertarians who will pull the lever for big government. Reasons are varied, but it is often an emtotional reaction to some side issue. As much as Republicans get caught up in side issues, libertarians do as well. It is one of the reasons why the libertarian party has not garnered more than 1% of the vote in presidential elections. The libertarian party itself is made up of factions that often war within itself for dominance – and a house divided against itself won’t win. Truthfully, we all really need to look at her point outside of an intellectual discussion and really ask ourselves, how much government we want. Ann was right about the fact that reality right now is a welfare state (personal and corporate) and that if we are true libertarians we will build the foundation first and then expand it. The foundation must be the destruction of the welfare state and the paring down of government. We can’t even begin to address issues of gay marriage, pot, and war until this is complete.
I love Ann Coulter, even when I don’t agree with her, which is almost never. I also admire the fact that she has the courage of her convictions and will defend them anywhere. No, having said that, if I could, I’d stuff a few cheeseburgers in her, because I think she might be too skinny.
Ann. If you read this, PLEASE gains some weight, dear.
It’s a shame Ann Coulter didn’t highlight the difference between state laws and federal laws at all, at least not in this clip. As she finally alluded to at the end, marriage and divorce are primarily state issues. Drug laws should be state issues. And there is a very long history of state laws that proscribe immoral or dangerous acts. Such laws were accepted under the sovereign powers of the states until very recently. Previously, individual laws were debated, but not the states’ abilities to enact such laws. That is why I feel these social complaints of the libertarians are slightly misinformed and slightly disingenuous.
Coulter’s point that young libertarians are obsessed with the wrong things is true. The libertarian movement should be able to realize that regulations, growth of government, and debt (all at the federal, state and local levels) are the greatest threats to our country and our liberty right now.
The libertarian guy was on first … was bashing Republicans for not accepting Hispanics just like they didn’t accept blacks when blacks wanted civil rights (but now we want their votes, just like Hispanics, gag). Of course he was wrong .. that was the Democrats that fought against civil rights for blacks, they were the KKK … I expected Coulter to “slap him around” on that when she got on, but it was too late, and she didn’t get much time.
Ann was right on her point about drugs … not so much on whether they were legal, but that it effects her because of all the welfare. Her point was clear … why fight for the liberty to do drugs, when our system takes away liberty from those forced to pay for expensive rehab and to care for those that don’t handle drugs very well? Fix the nanny state first, then OD all you want.
Gay marriage same thing … family values make a strong libertarian society, which is what is being systematically broken down since The Naked Communist exposed the plan 45 years ago. Gay marriage now means more tax money for golden pensions to be shared with a gay “spouse”. That is not libertarian, though they claim they want government out of marriage … but it will not be out, so deal with reality.
Ann made good points … these kids aren’t going for realistic accomplishments. And yeah, in college … being pro pot and pro gay marriage is kinda timid, showing fear of confronting real leftists. wtg Ann …
““We’re living in a country that is 70-percent socialist, the government takes 60 percent of your money. They are taking care of your health care, of your pensions. They’re telling you who you can hire, what the regulations will be. And you want to suck up to your little liberal friends and say, ‘Oh, but we want to legalize pot.’ You know, if you’re a little more manly you would tell them what your position on employment discrimination is. How about that? But it’s always ‘We want to legalize pot.’”
You might be interested to know that in true fashion, what he government gives it [can] take away. There is little left of the pension system in the private sector – most have switched to 401k systems, save about 3% or so of companies.
As for public pensions, it’s in a shambles at fed and state level, and .gov has often dipped into the public pension pot to keep itself running. That’s why every time the debt debate comes up, by the time they pass an emergency measure, a princely sum is deducted off the top to pay back the pensions they stopped funding and that were being used to keep things going.
Was Fordham really being ‘foolish?’ I think the word ‘foolish’ is long gone to describe the actions of leftists.
Fordham’s banning Coulter was corruption and continued indoctrination. It is also imperative to remember that on campus violence against speakers like Coulter is encouraged — expressly and impliedly.
We outside of the government/union/education complex in the opposition party are the ones who are ‘foolish’ for having sat by and watched the destruction of our educational system, and continually sitting by, watching as it swirls down the drain, taking the nation with it, muttering to ourselves, ‘Gosh, what would Boehenr do?”
The problem with marriage being relegated to a state issue begs the question of reciprocity.
All states are required to honor other state marriage documents. The federal law is designed to protect marriage and maintain legal protections across all 50 states.
Personally, I think the government needs to leave the marriage business to the church/mosque/synagogue, and get out of the way altogether. Remove marriage filings for tax returns, and ensure that inheritance through legal wills and hospital and institutional visitation rights through powers of attorney are honored.
While they are at it, churches need to free themselves from the non-profit status baloney. Why should an organization consisting in taxpaying members itself have to choose between being taxed and being gagged?
As it stands, the left gets both non-profit AND defacto gag lifting, but the right has its feet held to the fire over any hint of political opinion.
Congratulations, you just legalized polygamy (without doing much for the very rare lesbian, and even homosexual, marriage)!
But wait, what about the atheists who want to marry in the City Hall?
I suppose, in a society where the gov doesn’t provide the “safety net”, marriage can be relegated to non-gov institution. Government is interested in marriage in as much as it produces the future taxpayers.
Edge, two problems with your post. #1) I assume you are saying that by getting government out of Marriage, leaves the door open to any “Church” (I.e. church of Obama, for example) to define what marriage is or isn’t. Perhaps you may be correct in this day and age, but for several thousand years, Marriage was understood to be between 1 man and 1 woman. And yes, 1 man had in the past married several women. A simple law saying you can’t marry more than once while the partner is still alive would fix that.
This isn’t to say the government is interfering in what marriage benefits are, or how it is defined, just limiting the number of times it can be practiced in one lifetime. The point I was trying to make is that government needs to get out of the bedroom, and deal with public safety issues, not private relationships.
The 2nd problem is with athiest marriages which you imply couldn’t be accomplished without government. I already told you that the benefits of marriage are what are at stake at present, inheritace, and other visitation rights. These can be handled legally without resort to marriage. If athiests want to marry, they can go to a church. If they are too offended to be married in a church, they can make private vows to each other, and set up the appropriate legal documents such as powers of attorney and wills.
“If athiests want to marry, they can go to a church. If they are too offended to be married in a church, they can make private vows to each other, and set up the appropriate legal documents such as powers of attorney and wills.”
I actually know a whole bunch of atheists who would like to be married in a City Hall or who went from Israel to Cyprus to have a civil ceremony there.
Private ceremony with accompanied legal documents is what lesbians can have today.
If you laws needed to fix marriage, the government is not out of business of marriage.
Your last point of “Government has an interest in marriage in as much as it produces the future taxpayers” has a flaw as well. If this were the government’s interest in marriage, then polygamy wouldn’t be an issue would it?
Polygamy is very much an issue because it affects the fabric of the society.
I can’t watch Coulter anymore. She lost all credibility in 2012, first with Christie then with Romney.
Also haven’t bothered reading Peggy Noonan since she came out for Obama.
Sad, but true. I’m keep wondering what she and the likes of Noonan can do to redeem themselves. What I have come up with, I don’t believe they would be willing to put the work into doing. So, they remain somewhat marginalized.
Then there’s S.E. Cupp, who sold out too early to at leaset first become a Coulter or Noonan. Now she’s just a useful RINO idiot bookend at MSNBC to MSNBC RINO Houseboy-Joe Scarborough.
It takes character to remain consistent. Coulter and Noonan have some cache in the ‘courage’ department, and at least have a shot at redeeming themselves.
But that idiot, Cupp? Talk about a wannabe who never was. She not only sold out, and boy — did she sell herself cheap.
An interesting interview, I was surprised to find myself agreeing with Coulter on so many of the points she made. The questions asked by the audience were especially revealing of the difference between young, naive, I’m going to change the world college students and those who have plodded though the trenches for a decade or four.
I especially enjoyed the first girl, who comes out with her “but what if we lived in a hypothetical world…” line of reasoning. I so badly wanted to jump in with “oh, like college?”
I have no problem with Libertarians, as I share many of Dr Paul’s beliefs on personal freedoms. The problem arises when they tend to side with the left on many issues, which seems counter to the ideas of radically reduced government.
I would rather hear Mark Levin answer the questions of the dreamy eyed libertarians. Ann Coulter doesn’t even know that her boyfriend Chris Christie, agrees with 95% of Andrew Coumo’s politics, which makes Christie a fiscal conservative only.
I really like the exchange of two points of view. We certainly need much more of this. I would like to see more debates.
Without discussions like this I don’t see people changing their minds.
It would be great if our Nation Anthem contained the words: “Hail Freedonia, chill …” But, we need to get government down to a much smaller size and while doing that, provide some reasonable, or perhaps absolute, way to get people off of “entitlements,” which are killing this country.
Until, the much smaller government becomes our reality, exchanges like Coulter’s and Stossel’s are fascinating yet without true value in any sense of that word; the students who spoke up on Stossel’s show did not have a real sense of the world they do live in.
Ann is great and she’s right. Libertarians seem more interested in the small things than the big things.
Let’s get the Feds out of our lives, then we can worry about some of the little things.
I wish Libertarians would go find some other place that they can run according to their positions instead of trying to destroy ours. Not everyone wants society to be a free for all.
Are those students supposed to be politically aware? Are they typical of college students these days? I’m truly horrified at how moronic and self-absorbed they are. (And yes, Fatgirl, it does matter to us what you put in your body, since we’re likely to be paying for your stomach stapling and self-esteem classes down the road.)
As a former long-time Libertarian Party member (and candidate) I’m torn between them and the Republican Party.
I, too, have become disenchanted with Ann Coulter in the last several years as well as the Republican Party which I joined in 2004 (both seem much less conservative than I originally thought they were).
As for Libertarians, few people are aware that some hard-core purists splintered off into the “Boston Tea Party” in 2006 and even ran a candidate for president in 2012 — http://marezilla.com/2012/09/got-the-ballot-access-blues/ –so they are not without dissent among themselves, just like Republicans.
I left that Party finally because I couldn’t shake the terrible feeling I had when their presidential candidate (Harry Browne) blamed America for 9/11…and I also agreed with Larry Elder about their isolationist foreign policy positions.
I don’t have much use for Coulter these days, which is unfortunate, but she made a good point:
Libertarians (big “L”) need to focus on the issues of welfare/entitlement government instead of pussy footing around with drug legalization (which in part I agree with) and libertinism (most of which I believe should be handled at any level other than federal). Libertarians (big “L”) make a lot of noise about getting government out of people’s lives, but then they run off and gripe about pot and tinfoil hat issues.
I do consider myself generally libertarian (little “l”), which is why I tend to use the phrase “libertarian/conservative” to identify our mutual movement. But I cannot abide establishment Libertarians (read the Objectivist Collective) who spend the majority of their time trying to be the smartest people in the room while achieving nothing.