Here’s the first part of the interview I’m going to be commenting on, I encourage you to click-through to see the next two parts.

During the interview, Stewart asks Napolitano several questions which challenged libertarian ideas, and which do so in a fair, straightforward way. These are the sorts of questions that intelligent friends ask each-other, not the sort of traps that politicians lay during debates. These are the sorts of questions that need to be more prominent in politics, and which deserve the most thought-out replies.

Here are some examples:

• Doesn’t government-provided infrastructure or safety-net increase freedom, rather than remove it?
• “What should we do with the losers that picked by the free market?”
• Since we live in a society where the work of the many made some grow rich, should we not give back some of the riches to the many?
• How is government oppressive, when we live in a government chosen by the people?
• If we agree that some government is necessary, how can government be inherently evil?
• Why do libertarians trust corporations more than governments who are accountable to voters?
• If markets are supposed to be so good, why do we see so many problems in the market (e.g. healthcare)?
• Would the free market have abolished slavery and segregation; would it have established women’s rights?
• If judges and courts are vital for freedom, and judges and courts are part of the government, isn’t government vital for freedom?

Napolitano answered most of these in what I would consider the worst way possible: with an extremist soundbite. My brother suggested that for a minority group, like libertarianism, there’s a tendency to discard moderate statements for controversial ones in the interest of getting attention. Consider the following exchange:

Stewart: “[Market regulations] came out of an interest in helping those who had been victimized by a system that they couldn’t fight back against…”

Napolitano: “I’m going to blow you away. Selfishness is a virtue. In the free market, when you are selfish, you make the most money…”

I think this rage face is appropriate:

Way to promote psychopathy, dude.

This sort of response is the way to lose public support, not gain it. To convince moderates (and promote sane governance), we libertarians need to acknowledge that helping people is desirable, and a system which leaves people homeless, hungry, or sick is sub-optimal. We need to acknowledge that politicians may be coming at a problem with a sincere belief that they’re doing the best thing. We need to acknowledge that markets don’t magically solve everything. We need to acknowledge that we might be wrong.

Only after admitting that roads improve freedom can we make our case that private roads improve freedom more. Only after admitting selfishness is *not* a virtue (Napolitano is celebrating *ambition*, not selfishness, imo) can we talk about making systems which are robust, and can thrive in the face of selfishness. Only when we admit that it’s important to care for the poor can we ever have a hope of convincing a democrat that the inefficiencies and conflicts of involuntary redistribution of wealth outweigh the benefits. Only when we admit that some government is important and good, can we stop driving away those who smell hypocrisy.

In short:

Speaking of quizzes, I took one by The Political Compass which was very well done (in that it was provocative and brought up important issues). Of course, the answers were multiple choice (strongly-agree to strongly-disagree), so it was impossible for me just to answer… I had to explain myself. So here’s my thoughts on the whole thing. And in case you’re wondering, I scored slightly “right” and very “libertarian” (though apparently Obama places slightly right, and Ron Paul is just north of the “authoritarian” axis).

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

But what are trans-national corporations if not a collection of humans with a shared behavior? I’ll say “agree” on the basis that I belive a win-win mentality in business is ultimately superior.

I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.

Obvious.

No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it’s foolish to be proud of it.

I tend to think that nationalism builds barriers, so I’m going to agree with this one, but I do think it’s necessary to define “pride” here. After all, I support racial “pride,” despite not being able to chose heritage. (EDIT: Okay, apparently I didn’t understand how “racial pride” is usually used. I’m talking about an acceptance and enjoyment of personal features, not of a value comparison of such features. Just because I’m “proud” to be tall, doesn’t mean I think it’s “better” than being short.)

Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.

Strongly agree. Humans get a bonus feat at first level, and don’t have the nasty drop in Con that elves… wait. >_>

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

See, this is the sort of blanket-statement which has no right answer. It’s like “Have you stopped beating your wife?” I’ll say “agree” simply because I’d rather have one friend than none, but the very concept of “enemies” seems foriegn to me.

Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.

Ah, wonderful. More blanket questions. The answer that comes to mind is “It’s justified if it’s more ethical than the law”, but there is that pesky “military” tag! This is by far a non-black and white question, as how do you define “military?” I’ll say “disagree” on the basis that I belive in neutral parties and the greater good, so international concensus is likely to be more ethical than unilateral action on the part of one nation.

There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.

Yes, absolutely. There are people worried about it, therefore it is “worrying.” OH wait! You meant to ask if *I* was worried! I’m worried not so much about the fusion of information and entertainment itself (I see art as information, and art is often entertaining) as the polarization of attitudes due to sensationalist media combined with a low diversity of media sources in a non-debatable forum (mostly TV). I think that in the next 10 years that the internet will become much more of a political hot-spot, which means more debate and more diversity, but also more capability to insulate oneself from contrary viewpoints. So I guess I “disagree” with the statement above, because it’s actually consumer behavior that worries me, not the addition of “entertainment” to the news.

People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.

Eeeehhh…. I don’t really feel like I can judge one way or the other. People are divided by both. “Disagree?”

Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.

WAAAAAH! Libertarian bells are going crazy here! How do you “control unemployment”? And is it better to “control inflation”? I’d like there to be no inflation to control! I guess that means “agree?”

Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.

I trust Google to voluntarily protect the environment. I trust Better Place too. So I guess I disagree with the concept that corporations cannot be trusted. I’ll assume, however, that the question is actually “Because a capitalistic system cannot…” Which, again, I somewhat disagree with. Now we get into the sticky part, because I belive that the key is in getting a large amount of people to take action to ensure that polution doesn’t become dangerous to the environment (and us). Now, so far I’ve only really seen this come together effectively with government regulation, and yes, the libertarian inside me is flipping out, but capitalistic systems do tend to focus more on image rather than actual change in policy. So I’ll mark “agree,” because I think that it is important for *people* to “regulate” the actions of industry, whether those *people* are the media and environmentaly concious consumers or governmental lobbies and taxes.

‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need’ is a fundamentally good idea.

In small scales, yes, in large scales, no. A small scale community can easily share resources, but at the point where people are supporting strangers it ceases to be “same-tribe” sharing, which creates animosity. To maintain the idea despite this, you need the addition of a powerful authority… etc. But is it a “fundamentally good idea?” I’ll say “agree” because I think it’s an important part of society, even if it’s not universally applicable.

It’s a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.

Strongly disagree. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Land shouldn’t be a commodity to be bought and sold.

Now there’s a topic which warrants more than a multiple-choice! I really have no strong oppinions on the topic, which indicates to me that I need to do more thinking. I’ll mark “disagree” because even if there are alternatives, I see no specific reason why it “shouldn’t.”

It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.

Uh… didn’t you just imply that money manipulation *is* a contribution to society? After all, having the resources to start a project is vastly easier with a loan. Is it regrettable that there isn’t a common means of fostering bottom-up, voluntary investment by communities? Yes. But that’s not the question.

Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.

Disagree. Protectionism keeps a wealthy market wealthy by limiting trade opportunities with a poorer group of labourers. This in no way is necessary, and is pretty anti-meritocratic.

The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.

That’s a sad question. As noted earlier, a company is really just a collection of people behaving in unison. It seems clear to me that people have social responsibilites that extend beyond the profit they deliver to higher-ups. But we see a company only as the profit-oriented behavior of the people involved, and so tend to exclude the capability of a company to do anything else. If someone rejects a business opportunity for ethical reasons, we see that as the behavior of the individual, rather than the corperation. I’m going to mark “strongly-disagree” because I think that in all spheres in life we should act acording to our ethics, not what is expected by an authority.

The rich are too highly taxed.

I’ve never met a “rich person” who complained about taxes, but I will say that I feel like taxes are too high in general. So I guess I’ll answer “agree.”

Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care.

Replace “medical care” with “video games” and we have “Those with the money should have the “right to” (read: capability to buy) better video games.” I think that’s pretty obvious. And in fact, I think that the ability to pay people to do a better job is a civil right. Strongly agree.

Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.

I think that fraud should be a crime. Agree.

A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.

Another facinating question which I’d like to study more. I’m going to answer “disagree” with trepidation.

The freer the market, the freer the people.

Markets are made of people, so I’d agree.

Abortion, when the woman’s life is not threatened, should always be illegal.

A complex and uncomfortable topic, for sure. The problem, as I see it, is enforcibility. Clearly there is a huge demand for abortions, and like drugs, illegalizing them doesn’t reduce that demand, it just drives it underground, which makes it harder to talk about, and more dangerous for those who choose it. Therefore I will disagree.

All authority should be questioned.

Strongly agree.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Strongly disagree.

Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis.

Agree. Museums are nice, but private collections aren’t terrible and taxes suck.

Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.

Strongly agree. Forcing people into classrooms makes the day worse for teachers, students and “delinquents.” Ultimately, knowledge comes from a desire to learn, and compulsion, if anything, prevents it.

All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.

Strongly disagree. Cross-pollination of diverse veiwpoints maximises knowledge and empathy.

Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.

That’s a bit specific. I think the question may be about punishment in general. Either way I disagree.

It’s natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents.

Yeah, probably. Even in a very trusting and healthy relationship there’s bound to be some things which aren’t shared.

Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence.

Strongly agree. There are so many reasons for this that it’s kind of boring for me to even talk about it.

The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.

Disagree. The prime function of schooling should be to help people improve their skills and knowledge. Jobs come from necessity and there’s not reason to focus on them.

People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce.

Strongly disagree. Regardless of the ethics, enforcing this would be tyranical.

The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline.

Dicipline is a stupid word because it means two different things. (“read inside” the first few pages of Discipline that Works) I think that this question is addressing “accepting dicipline” in the sense of “accepting authoritarian commands and punishments,” which I strongly disagree with.

There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.

Agree. I hate labels.

Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society’s support.

To what degree does society support them? Surely the legal system supports them? Disagree.

When you are troubled, it’s better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.

It’s better to learn, correct, and take pride in growing. If it’s not something you can correct, than yes, I agree.

First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country.

Disagree. More nationalistic nonsense.

What’s good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.

Disagree.

No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding.

I don’t have any problem with public boadcasting as long as it’s voluntary, transparent, and doesn’t require my tax doallars.

Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.

Agree.

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

STRONGLY DISAGREE! A one-party state lacks needed diversity!

Athough the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried.

I think that privacy is becoming an outdated concept, and that little emphasis on the technology will change that. I do think there is reason to be worried about the power of surveillance to further tyranic goals, but I also feel like surveillance can easily be used to expose such horrors. Essentially, we need to focus on ethics and bottom-up power structures, so I disagree with the statement.

The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes.

Disagree. To assume that you know enough to kill someone ethically is to be arrogant.

In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.

Strongly disagree.

Abstract art that doesn’t represent anything shouldn’t be considered art at all.

Strongly disagree. I see art as expression, and even if abstract art doesn’t represent anything physical, it does represent the experiences and intentions of the creator.

In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation.

Strongly disagree.

It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.

Disagree. Even if nothing comes out of it, the very act of trying is worthwhile.

The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist.

That implies that a person is just a single role; that they are nothing more than their business card. To what degree can we say one person is ever more “important” than another? I would call the entire concept of ranking general “importance” a fallacy. Strongly disagree.

Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.

Strongly disagree.

Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries.

This sounds like it’s discussing a specific event, so I may be ignorant here, but I would say that genetics = information and information can be shared without a loss to the original holder. So, I disagree?

Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity.

Did Ghandi ever make peace with the establishment? (Gotta love the word “peace” there)

Astrology accurately explains many things.

I have no evidence of that.

You cannot be moral without being religious.

Strongly DISagree. (EDIT: Miss-read the question originally.)

Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged.

Agree.

Some people are naturally unlucky.

As a determinist, I don’t belive in luck. Some people happen to have tragic lives, but that’s mostly a product of outside factors, rather than the person.

It is important that my child’s school instills religious values.

Strongly disagree. Each person needs to think about their religion for themselves, not have it forced upon them.

Sex outside marriage is usually immoral.

Strongly disagree.

A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship, should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption.

Agree.

Pornography, depicting consenting adults, should be legal for the adult population.

Agree.

What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state.

Strongly agree.

No one can feel naturally homosexual.

Disagree.

These days openness about sex has gone too far.

Disagree.

Have any comments? I love to talk about this stuff, so drop me a line by email, comment or wall post. Oh, and the quiz is here, if you’re inclined to take it.