John Stossel is Right and Wrong on NSA Spying: Can I Convince Him?

It made my day to get a direct response on Twitter from none other than John Stossel of Fox News:

Background: Stossel has stated his view many times, including in these two Reason articles (here, here). I think this summarizes his argument best:

“So it's invasive, probably illegal and maybe useless. I ought to be very angry. But I'm not. Why? 

I need to keep thinking about this issue, but for now, two reasons: 

1. Terrorists do want to murder us. If the NSA is halfway competent, Big Data should help detect plots.
2. My electronic privacy has already been utterly shredded by Google, Amazon, YouTube and so on. 

They know with whom I talk, what interests me and how much time I spend doing this or that. They creep me out with targeted ads. How did they know I want that?! Oh, right ... I spent an hour searching ... 

Then I go outside in New York City, where 16 cameras record me on my way to work.
Greedy lawyers can subpoena my private records. My employer has a right to read my emails. 

My privacy is already blown. 

I'm angrier about other things Big Government does in the name of keeping me safe: forcing me to wear safety gear, limiting where I may go, stripping me at airports, forcing me to pay $2,300 for more military than we need.”

For a libertarian, Stossel’s take on the NSA spying is mind-boggling at first glance, but he does have a point. There’s a hundred other things to be angry about, and more. Some which have been around a long time, unlike the news of NSA spying. Naturally we are focused on that topic while it’s hot, and for good reason, strategically: now is the time to nip it in the bud, before it becomes entrenched policy like the 100 other things in John Stossel’s list.

Stossel is not wrong to prefer certain freedoms over others. We all have our own preferences. For a famous media figure, privacy is largely "blown", in exchange for the other rewards that come with your work. That’s fine… but what about the rest of us? Not all of us make that choice. And it is our right to do so, as much as any other right.

Stossel argues that private companies have a lot of our data. But surely the difference is glaring. We gave these private companies our information. The NSA, on the other hand, takes it by force.

What about the terrorists? I say, what about the 4th amendment? We are not going to give that up, are we, John?

Stossel is a spokesman for the cause of liberty. We’re disappointed because he doesn't seem interested in defending a right he personally doesn't find important. We don't ask that he change his own preferences, but merely that he defend all of our freedoms. Likewise, there are freedoms I would not find personally important- such as the freedom to smoke marijuana- but I will vigorously oppose the drug war because it is right to do so and because it has negative consequences on me (e.g. higher tax and crime rates). There's also negative consequences from NSA spying: higher taxes, people refraining from exercising their rights because the government is watching their data, etc.

I hope you're on the way to being convinced, Mr. Stossel.  If not, what is wrong with our rebuttal? Now is the perfect time to defend privacy, while momentum is on our side. Please join us!

Ron Paul’s Controversial Tweet on Chris Kyle

Yesterday Ron Paul’s Twitter account stirred up a ton of controversy with this Tweet about Chris Kyle, the American Sniper author who killed 160 Iraqis and was himself tragically killed this past weekend:

Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense
— Ron Paul (@RonPaul) February 4, 2013

I was at first confused by this Tweet. I noticed it lacked the "REP" initials that most of his Tweets include, so that immediately raised questions about who posted it. Further, as was pointed out by others, it doesn't quite sound like something Ron would say in an interview. Despite this, as we shall see, Ron seems to stand by it, so I will assume he approved it initially.

It was also unclear what the Tweet meant. I didn't get it completely until Ryan McMaken opened my eyes:

Remember that time Ron Paul used the Golden Rule to explain his foreign policy? Conservatives booed him for that. So who can be surprised that conservatives, including Rand Paul, have been falling all over themselves to condemn Ron Paul for quoting Jesus -in correct context, by the way - to note that the violence wrought by over a decade of nonstop war in America leads to tragedy on the home front? 

That does make sense. American foreign policy "lives by the sword", and one of the consequences is that it will come back to bite you. Kyle's tragic death was a indirect result of the aggression in Iraq he strongly supported an participated in.

Was Chris Kyle a hero? Are soldiers that fight in aggressive, non-defensive, and unconstitutional wars heroes? No, regardless of which country they come from. They are just government workers causing destruction. (Rand Paul, with his eye on 2016, unsurprisingly disagrees.)

The only criticism of Paul’s Tweet that holds water is that it was poorly worded- not uncommon for short blurbs on Twitter but still, this is not a good excuse. If I was confused by the Tweet, most anyone would be. Paul later followed up with a Facebook post that helped clarify things:

As a veteran, I certainly recognize that this weekend's violence and killing of Chris Kyle were a tragic and sad event. My condolences and prayers go out to Mr. Kyle’s family. Unconstitutional and unnecessary wars have endless unintended consequences. A policy of non-violence, as Christ preached, would have prevented this and similar tragedies. -REP

In conclusion, Ron Paul was right again, even if he stumbles when getting the message across. It’s only the usual suspects that are really outraged, and they have always been outraged with his principled stand against militarism. They will continue to call Ron Paul many names, but ask who is supporting more death and destruction, and who is calling for an end to needless death and destruction. I'll stand with Ron Paul any day of the week rather than with them.