08/28/2010 Freedom Watch w/ Judge Napolitano on Church, State, and Liberty

Here’s a clip from this weekend’s show from Fox News. There doesn’t appear to be a youtube version of the full show posted this week that we can find. If someone locates one please let us know in the comment section and we’ll update the post.

-->

13 Comments

  1. DougD Said,

    August 31, 2010 @ 3:43 am

    I found another segment here:

    "Fox Business’ 'Freedom Watch' Takes On The Sex Trade With Porn Star And Prostitute"
    http://tinyurl.com/25lnmtg

  2. liberty_4_us Said,

    August 31, 2010 @ 12:49 pm

    Why doesn't Fox Business just stream this via the web with the full episodes, and on their iPhone App?! What a missed opportunity! ;-) I suggest we all start writing and emailing Fox Business requesting the same!

  3. MiichaelM Said,

    August 31, 2010 @ 1:19 pm

    Part 1 of 2:
    Most interesting and of greatest importance in this segment was the exchange on the origin of political rights. Sadly not all sides on this issue were present, so we were left with the classical left-right false alternative:

    Father Sirico (and Judge N.) held down the intrinsicist view that truth and value are independent of our relationship to existence—e.g. a product of God's will, leading to the conclusion that the ultimate source of the validity of rights must be that they are a gift of God. Rights then become ultimately dependent not on reason, but on faith.

    Michael Shermer stood for the subjectivist view that truth, value and the nature of things are the product of physical relationships to reality subject to fluctuate, or as he said "evolution" and accessible not by the mind, but by feelings. Rights then become defined not by reason, but by consensus.

    Both of these positions are false, because both rely on a false idea of the nature of existence and the nature of our minds. Truth and value are neither intrinsically out there nor subjectively in here. They are products of our rational mind processing the data of an objective reality independent of it in order to identify its nature and act accordingly in the service of our lives. Thus the only way to derive a concept such as political rights is to identify the objective nature of man in the context of a society.

    With some irony, the existence of this view is consistently recognized by Judge N. every time the origin of rights is mentioned. It is always said that rights come either from God or our "humanity". Similarly, Father Sirico acknowledged the same when he explained that the "ought" (moral/political rights) must be derived from the "is" (the nature of man). Unfortunately, the chair for a representative of the view that is neither intrinsicist nor subjective—the objectivist position—was empty that night. There was no one to explain exactly how one can objectively validate political rights without reference to God, because Ayn Rand is the first and only philosopher to formulate that position, and there was no Yaron Brook or Harry Binswanger or other Objectivist there to provide it.

  4. MiichaelM Said,

    August 31, 2010 @ 1:20 pm

    Part 2 of 2:
    Derivation of individual political rights from the nature of man without referencing religious beliefs (per my understanding of Objectivism):

    Politics is a dependent branch of philosophy, in that the purpose of that science is to extend Ethics that defines a code of values to guide our choices and actions in the context of our individual lives, to the social context of our lives interacting with other men over the long term in an organized society. One cannot, therefore, validate a Politics without reference to a validated Ethics.

    The problem with defining political principles as a "gift from God" is that it is a cop out—it does not explain anything at all. It is an assertion that cannot be demonstrated by reference to facts, and so must be taken on faith. And since faith is but a feeling, it condones definition of the exact nature of rights and how to implement them to personal feelings or the will of any persuasive authoritarian.

    The objective basis for individual rights, to the contrary, relies on the facts of the nature of man in principle—those facts that are now true, were in the past, and always will be, so long as there are rational animals (human beings):
    1) man is a living creature,
    2) life is self-sustained, self-generated actions selected in the face of alternatives,
    3) man is volitional—unlike all other living creatures in which selections are automated responses, man can and must choose among alternate actions,
    4) man's means to choose is his rational, conceptual capacity to identify his own nature and the nature of existence and to apply those identifications (reason) to his actions in the service of his life (to survive and thrive),
    5) the single most fundamental choice man can make that is implicit in all others is between life and death,
    6) an individual's choice to pursue life and not death establishes his life as his goal, and that goal is then necessarily the standard against which all values must be measured—i.e. that which contributes to one's life becomes the good, and that which detracts from it becomes the bad,
    7) reason being man's only tool for living in accordance with his nature, Rationality is a primary virtue,
    8) being volitional, and therefore fallible, each man needs to be the final arbiter of his own choices and so Independence is also a primary virtue,
    9) only an Ethics that requires independence of human beings to pursue their own rationality that can ground as moral a Politics that will guarantee individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness and demonstrate its derivation from the facts of the nature of man without reference to any God or religion.

    I think that Father Sirico would agree with this derivation and merely tack onto the end that this nature of man I have described was created by God. In that context, Judge N. was correct in saying that we are starting from different premises but ending up at the same place—defending individual rights. That puts them close to the Deist founding fathers who were the first men to put those rights down in writing. When they wrote that rights come from God, it did not mean the same thing that most Christians think it means today.

    Just this year there are blogs appearing devoted to finding a common ground between religion and Objectivism, all the way from Christian conservatives to mystics in India. The magnet that is the force powering this move is the inescapable logic of Ayn Rand's radical laisssez-faire capitalist Politics, so effectively demonstrated by her prophetic novel, "Atlas Shrugged." This is of great importance to the struggle for individual rights, because the influence of Objectivism is on the rise as never before.

    This presents a new and potentially powerful possibility to unify the fight to restore individual rights. Everyone should defend the derivation of rights from man's nature, and relegate the choice to believe that nature is or is not a gift from God to be a personal and private decision. The unnecessary insertion of God into the public argument for rights will remain perpetually divisive, weakening the case. Believers can leave God out of this debate without abandoning their Faith. The resulting alliance would be a juggernaut in the public fora.

  5. Defiance Said,

    August 31, 2010 @ 2:07 pm

    I get so frustrated not being able to watch the whole episode of the Judge! I love listening to him, and miss him in the morning with Brian. This is the next best thing, but there are times I can only access one segment. VERY frustrating!

  6. Wildroot Said,

    August 31, 2010 @ 3:35 pm

    Mat God forever bless those who know & understand just how important our United States Constitution truly is! My opinion that the "dumbing down" that was intentionally done in our public schools is a sin for which there is no forgiveness. Look around in your own lives and see who's scared of our Constitution and who isn't? The power hungry greedy politicians don't want you to know or to realise you have rights that even they can't take away from you for those rights came from God alone!

  7. Bob Robertson Said,

    September 1, 2010 @ 9:17 am

    “Mat God forever bless those who know & understand just how important our United States Constitution truly is!”

    I suggest the book “Hamilton’s Curse” by Tom DiLorenzo. Excellent documentation about how the Constitution was written, and betrayed.

    Personally, I’d go back to the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution is worthless, for as Spooner said, it either authorized the abuses we see around us, or was powerless to stop them, since the abuses have been and are happening.

  8. BigV Said,

    September 2, 2010 @ 12:47 am

    Could it be that fox is censoring out parts of the show they don't want people to see?

  9. Butokuden Said,

    September 2, 2010 @ 2:40 pm

    If anyone can find the other segments please post! no censorship!

  10. DougD Said,

    September 4, 2010 @ 11:46 am

    The latest one (09/04/2010) is now up on YouTube:
    http://tinyurl.com/2dx8qod

  11. felicia dorste Said,

    September 25, 2010 @ 10:32 am

    I AM TIRED OF THE REPUBLICANS BEING TRASHED. I AM TIRED OF THE TRASHING OF BUSH TOO. HE DID LOTS OF GOOD, SOME THINGS WERE QUESTIONABLE, BUT WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE ON 9-11? I AM SICK OF BECK TOO. BUSH WAS A VERY RELIGIOUS MAN AND BECK SLAMMED HIM TODAY ON YOUR SHOW. WHAT THE HECK DO YOU GUYS WANT US TO DO. THE DEMOCRATS ARE DESTROYING THE COUNTRY AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE TOO ACCORDING TO YOU AND BECKJ. WELL I FOR ONE WILL VOTE REPUBLICAN JUST TO BE SURE WE CAN DEFEAT WHATEVER WILL COME IN THE NEXT 2 YEARS. FELICIA

  12. Angie engichy Said,

    December 21, 2010 @ 5:30 pm

    IDENTITY THEFT SHOULD AND MUST BE A (1.) LIFE SENTENCE PUNISHMENT.

    IT SHOULD ALSO BE TREATED AS PUNISHMENT FOR SEX OFFENDER TO DO PUBLIC REGISTRY , WERE THIEF, OR THIEVES MUST BE REQUIRE PUBLIC REGISTERY ALONG WITH HIS/HER PERSONAL PROFILING WITH PHOTO IDENTIFICATION, TOO.

    Identity Theft is a form of cruelty and put suffering and victimizing the innocent just like what terrorist had committed to harming innocent lives.

    Thank you.

  13. S. Cooper Said,

    December 28, 2010 @ 4:05 pm

    Who is regulating the regulators? Is this a way for the president to circumvent congress and get whatever he wants? Is this a slippery slope to a president with supreme power?