Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Rejecting the Premise with Humor and Charm
In the course of a six-hour drive last Thursday, I tuned in the NPR station on my satellite radio in our truck. I found myself laughing out loud periodically during an interview on a show called “Ballot Talks” with David Boaz, the executive Vice President of the Cato Institute. He has written a book, The Libertarian Mind, which was recently updated, hence the current invitation to the NPR show. Please spend the 30 minutes to enjoy this yourself. Here’s what I found amusing.
I sensed the mood when the interviewer stated that most people think of “wealthy white men” and the Koch brothers when one talks about libertarians. However, Boaz responded consistently with humor, charm, and a variation of “I reject that premise…” or “I just do not agree…” It really threw her off her game each time he failed to sound annoyed, apologetic, or defensive.
As the show continued, the interviewer became a little defensive, or astonished that her assertion was completed denied. I’m confident that some of the information that Mr. Boaz presented was unknown to her. Several times, he turned upside-down certain historical “facts” or common perspectives that are treated as truths — especially regarding free trade and child labor laws– yet are simply one point of view about society.
I’m not a libertarian, and sometimes I roll my eyes at their ideas as stated here on Ricochet. But I was mighty entertained listening to a well-spoken representative of their philosophy taking apart the preconceived notions of the NPR interviewer. Take some time to listen… am I wrong about who won this encounter? Did I miss something, or do we need this fellow to get out there and do interviews on every media outlet? Is he already out there, and I’m just late to the party?
Published in Culture, Economics
Great stuff; thanks for posting! David Boaz has been out there for many years. He’s a very experienced speaker and debater.
You bet,John
I wish he would have responded to the ‘income inequality’ question by pointing out that equalizing income is not a proper function of government. It is simply none of the government’s business.
I agree with you, Rightfromthestart. An excellent point.
On the other hand, remember this is NPR. Boaz is not preaching to the choir, nor is he trying to win a debate. He’s presenting the argument for freedom to those who believe they know what freedom is but don’t. I don’t think I’ve ever heard that done so skillfully in 30 minutes as it was done here. If we want Boaz to add something more, it would have to come at the expense of something he actually did say. But I can’t think of anything I would want taken out. I.e. I’m happy leaving the interview exactly as it is.
That’s my roundabout way of saying thanks Cowgirl for this wonderful intrrview. I’m heading now to amazon to take a look at Boaz’s book.
You haven’t got to the party, you just think you have.
Who are the leading writers today on libertarian approaches to environmental issues?
Welcome to the Anarchy, Cow girl!
(to expand on anonymous’s comment – J/k of course).
I’d add Thomas Sowell to the (tragically short) list of libertarian thinkers and writers who present the material with a kind of calm even-handedness that’s very helpful when you encounter the occasional different-but-open personality, and I think Boaz was right to assume that—or interpret his experience with—NPR would be with someone of the left, but relatively fair-minded.
I’m quite surprised they didn’t edit it to make it more favorable to the interviewer. Reminds me of the time John Yoo went on Stewart’s show, and Stewart did his best to heckle the guy, and Yoo just calmly knocked out facts one by one. Stewart was clearly frustrated near the end, and you don’t see those kinds of interviews on the Daily Show anymore. Ideological targets are interviewed ahead of time, and then edited for “comedy” afterwards. See the now-infamous American Indian stunt.
Viscount Matthew Ridley.
His interviewer is a walking cartoon. The notion that government is the source of all goodness and needed to counteract the desire rich white men to restore slavery and child labor is beyond tiresome.
It never seems to occur to liberals that the growth of wealth creates both the appetite and the opportunity for cleaner air and social justice.
It is morbidly fascinating to probe the full pathology of the “you did not build that” mentality to discover that but for the New Deal, EPA and Head Start, slavery would still be an institution, nine year olds would be spending 10 hours a day in coal mines and that the appearance of private wealth-making is an illusion, a misapprehension of what is in fact merely the wishes of benevolent government made manifest.
These days, you can add Stewart Brand and the original founder of Greenpeace, whose name escapes me at the moment but who left the organization as it went full anti-capitalist, anti-human nutbaggery. Stewart Brand—publisher of the Whole Earth Catalog and founder of the very early online community WELL (Whole Earth ‘Lectronic Link, don’tcha know)—always was an intellectually honest man of the left who believed technology could and should be brought to bear on environmental issues. Having actually studied biology and complex systems, he now supports nuclear energy, GMO, and urbanization, as he (in)famously proclaims here:
GG: Here’s the other video you are looking for:
(Patrick More – Founder and Greenpeace drop out)
Well, that obviously describes the vast majority of us here at Ricochet! I consider myself to be a “l”ibertarian not a “L”ibertarian – so what’s troubling about this is that it’s a definition whose usefulness is limited when applied to the specific things which “L”ibertarians are actually for.
It’s about a 50/50 split: On 50% of issues I like what Boaz has to say and I’m foursquare in his corner (taxes, economic liberty, international trade) – but on the other half he can sound like a moonbat, bordering on conspiracy theorist (foreign policy, drug legalization, immigration.)
How is this helpful? Its all heat and no light.
Ad hominem is a reasonable indicator of who’s being irrational.
Indeed.
Thanks for posting this. It made for enjoyable listening (and I’m someone who disagrees with Mr Boaz on several issues). As you point out it’s particularly instructive for anyone wanted to learn how to communicate with different audiences. Three things stood out to me:
1. Boaz is imperturbable, calm and always sounds upbeat and knowledgeable. That’s a great asset. In an interview or speech most people (other than those already in your camp) need to connect with you as a person before they will listen to your substance.
2. He knows his subject in depth, including the history so he can easily deal with questions. Combined with his manner it allows him to control the conversation, remain pleasant but not back off a bit on his views. Too many people in the public eye only know the slogans or catchphrases which work with those who already agree with you but they lose their persuasive value if they can’t respond coherently to the next level question.
3. He takes the question and uses the response to make the points he wants to make rather than feeling constrained by the scope of the question.
Yes, and in that half hour he mentioned “comparative advantage” at least twice, and uttered “Economics is a positive-sum game,” thus ensuring that some people heard those words who had never heard them before.
Zing!
I didn’t think the interviewer was that bad, relatively speaking. However, as with other such conversations with NPR types, I don’t think she has the intellectual framework (maybe brainpower, maybe learning) to be swayed by his arguments. She can’t contradict them, but she won’t absorb them, either. These truths will not become part of her tool box.
Loved it,. What a shame that the term liberal was stolen by progressives. A liberal in the old sense had room for a range of libertarians, as well as those we call social and economic conservatives. It was dastardly theft as progressives simply were and are not liberal but they are conservative in the old sense of defending vested interests. Moreover, dividing up neoclassical liberalism hasn’t been good for it. Our ancestors had brutal powerful arguments over policies without having to go to the mat on philosophical underpinnings before even getting started.
I don’t know whether or not “libertarian” applies, as it’s inclusive of a whole lot of other issues, but one of the absolute best figures in applying free-market thinking to dealing with environmental issues is Terry Anderson, who runs the Property and Environment Research Center in Montana.
I just came back here to give credit where credit is due: the interviewer was not argumentative or tendentious. She gave Dr. Boaz the floor, asked a few questions that you can easily imagine most NPR listeners having, let an e-mailer and a phone caller ask their questions, and that was that. Almost as if it were… an interview, rather than mano a mano combat. This actually used to be the norm in public discourse, as we are sometimes famously reminded from days of yore:
I remember, when I was younger, thinking Donahue was incorrigible, the absolute worst the left had to offer. Now I watch that interview with Milton Friedman wistfully, wishing we could have back his quiet, furrowed brow, as he respectfully gives his guest the floor while strenuously disagreeing with them.
I don’t know…you and I see that as self-evident but a liberal won’t see this as objectively true. They are going to need a much stronger case to be swayed. (though I haven’t met too many that are likely to be swayed on anything).
One of my favorite ways to &%^#% with a liberal is to ask “what is a fair share?” when told that rich people aren’t paying theirs. The liberal will either become confused and stammer or get angry and call me names. Either way…priceless.
Another one is to have them define “rich” for you.
[Edited to add all the missing words that were in my head and I thought I typed but didn’t make it to the page]
Just look up the transcript of the interview he gave to Reason Magazine with Nick Gillespie questioning him – It’s exactly what I said: About half of it I’m really interested in hearing and then the other half is around the bend stuff like “The Military-Industrial Complex” or “Neocons” being in charge of foreign policy and the like. I’d love to hear him answer some questions on who was responsible for 9/11, for instance.
Boaz’s notions of free trade don’t mean just trade – he has some of that curious cultural DNA that makes him believe that borders are artificial constructs which should also allow labor (people) to flow across freely (in addition to calling people who insist upon border security “nativists;” ad hom indeed) as if there is some contraflow in that regard and it isn’t a one-way street with us being expected to pick up the slack on the cultural deficiencies of the people who come here in contravention of our laws.
His notions regarding national security come from the Rodney King wing of life, as in “Why can’t we all just get along?”
I think I’m starting to understand what the real concern is people are talking about with regards to culture, but there’s something inherently illogical about defining most of the world population out of existence.
Reasonable request: If you want to immigrate to America you must obey our laws.
Law #1: You’re never allowed to immigrate to America.
Result: The nerve of these law breaking immigrants!
You do know that the person who coined the term Military-Industrial Complex was a Republican right?
My main point here being: we have recently had a lot of talk about playing the ball and not the man. You clearly didn’t even bother trying here and went directly to the libertarians are crazy bin ad hominem (which is an extremely boring line of argumentation coming from conservatives.) I’m sick to death of “Oh, but you’re a reasonable Libertarian” usually directed at someone who agrees with the Conservative or SoCon on a particular issue its so unbelievably condescending.
We’re here to discuss ideas – try it sometime.
Doing some research recently I found some information that surprised me. There are currently about 1 million legal immigrants to the U.S. every year.
From 2003-12 (the last year for which I found figures) the U.S. had more legal immigrants than in any ten year period of our history – the prior high had been from 1905-14.