I just watched the most recent episode of Stossel, in which he talks about "Atlas Shrugged", capitalism, and the nanny state.  He always lets disagreers offer their points of view, which I totally support, but what is so freaking annoying is when those people are complete dumbasses.





  "My objection is that Ayn Rand says that government stands in the way of people reaching their human potential, but how are people gonna reach their potential if they don't have quality public education and healthcare and a clean environment that the government provides?"
  Wow.  Where to begin?  First of all, I don't see the government providing quality public education.  I see the government providing piss-poor public education, but in large part, quality public indoctrination.
  Second of all, have you ever heard of private school?  Have you ever heard of home-school?  Both of which are resulting in better quality education than public school.
  Thirdly, what is with this general delusion that the government is the only entity that can provide for people?  A private company, not being regulated to death, with be able to do ANYTHING the government can do, and they will do it more cheaply, more efficiently, and with a higher rate of customer satisfaction.





  "Alright, so, you guys are all trashing, you know, what the government's doing with the taxes and all these programs, but surely the government has to tax and do some things, so what should the government be, be doing?  Should the government totally cease to exist?  What do you think?"
  And this was the most infuriating question of all.  It's called the Constitution of the United States of America, you complete and total DUMBASS!  Police, courts, defense.  Those are the responsibilities of the federal government.
  Not healthcare.  Not regulation of businesses.  Not who can smoke where.
  Just courts, police, and national defense.  Everything else is state and local government.





  I did provide only the two most absurd disagreements.  There were others, but they were not worth my time and effort to transcribe, however, some were in opposition to the idea of people pursuing their own self-interests... which, annoyingly, is also a misunderstanding.  It's rational self-interests, but leave it to a Liberal to not understand rationality, or perhaps is more likely the case, to just ignore the qualifier altogether.
  It doesn't mean to just follow your whims or to ignore the needs and wants of others.  If you are pursuing your rational self-interest, you're not drinking yourself into a stupor every night just because that's what you enjoy.  You're not being a lying, cheating, money-hording jerk.
  What you ARE doing, is what is good for you in the long-run, which INCLUDES what is good for those around you, because it comes back to being good for you (speaking in terms of cause and effect, not motivation).
  But it is understandable that a Liberal would not understand this, since they think only in terms of what FEELS good, as opposed to what IS good.