58 votes

Video Update: The Judge on The Daily Show 10/27

Full episode including extended interview (thanks drheyde):


Via Facebook...

Judge Andrew Napolitano
will be on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart this Thursday 11PM ET on Comedy Central to discuss "It's Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong"


I'm sure it will be a good interview. Hope they talk about Dr. Paul!

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Tough crowd!

Wow, that was hard to watch. The Judge was right on but his audience was so hostile.

Does anyone else think it's bizarre...

Does anyone else think it's bizarre that Stewart makes a living pointing out how corrupt and incompetent government officials are, yet so adamantly believes that these same fools should control almost all aspects of our lives?

That's the blindspot of the

That's the blindspot of the liberal. He cannot see anything but good come from big government.

the judge did fine, Stuart

the judge did fine, Stuart obviously has a difference of opinion though.

That was hard for me to watch.

I watched the whole thing (internet segment included). Jon's misconceptions are the misconceptions of all statists - he was very articulate in expressing them. I don't believe the judge made much headway with Jon in challenging the foundations of his arguments. I would have loved to hear him target "the gun in the room"...

John talks over his guest too

John talks over his guest too much. The point to have the guest on is to hear THEIR views. It was like watching RP in one of the debates.

I love the Judge though!

If you walk blindly through life, you will run into a lot of walls.

ive only seen the televised clip

but it can be an indication of thoughts being provoked when someone like jon disregards these interviewing fundamentals and can't hold back from talking more.. a sign of enthusiasm like that can mean libertarian thinking has garnered some interest. certainly better than when a neo-con gets a sarcastic one-liner as response to every oration. in some rare circumstance, talking less is better, granted your every short sentence is crafted to provoke the other person to think deeper, that is.

What a great interview!

What a great interview! Probably one of the best I've ever seen... seriously!

I finally understand what John Stewart is lacking. He doesn't understand the legislative branch nor does he get/respect the 3 branches of government. You see, he looks at the Judge and Libertarians as Anarchists, he just can't wrap his head around the fact that contract law and property rights settle most problems in society. John, as well as many others, always look past this when talking to Ron Paul or any self-implicated Libertarian.

Dr. Paul should watch this, he could learn a lot with regards to what Liberals just don't get!!!

libertarians need to better articulate

jon stewart was fine, it was the judge and libertarians that need to do a better job of articulating solutions, jon had an open mind and asked great questions that libertarians don't do while relying heavily on theory.

i believe jon understands and respects 3 branches of govt and does not dispresect libertarians and only one who provides libertarians to explain themselves and libertarians time and time again do not use that platform other than to repeat and repeat theories.

liberals and conservatives don't trust corporations, but say they trust gov't more, when in fact they trust corporations more bec federal reserve is a corporation that rules over most impt parts of government. yet, the judge never even brought up the federal reserve to say hey if you don't trust corporations, why do you support the federal reserve bank as that is a corporation masquerading as a government agency. and liberals are right when they say corporations are the trouble, bec the federal reserve is a corp and is the cause of the trouble. yet libertarians, conservatives, and liberals alike continue to gloss over the federal reserve and keep talking about corp vrs govt without focusing on the corp that masquerades as government.

does this make sense to anyone?


To me this interview proves how brilliant Ron Paul is

We often hear that Ron Paul is not so good at articulating his ideas and get his points across.

I beg to differ.

I love the Judge and this interview just shows how hard it is. It is almost impossible to win an argument with a person who has been brainwashed to believe the government does lots of good.

Ron Paul does this better than anybody - by far. You can put him in any group of people and he just manages to say enough but not too much to generate interest without being seen as a kook.

Thank you Dr. Paul. I am proud to be your supporter and you will make the greatest president in the history of the world.


The Judge is hilarious!


Okay, I agree the judge is educated on his talking points and I like what he has to say. He is a very intelligent and good guy. But I must nitpick.

Dear Mr. Napolitano, sir:

1. Go easy on the tanning. We are nearing Oompa Loompa land.
2. Gesticulate a bit less. It detracts from your words.
3. Breathe, relax and speak slowly. People will listen more.
4. Answer your interviewer's questions directly. Stewart asked twice about what we would do without roads, military, etc. and never got a straight answer.

People are interested in constitutional government, but still afraid. It doesn't help that Stewart makes that type of system sound cruel and unusual. We must lure the masses with sweet talk. Most are easily frightened by the concepts of personal responsibility and free market capitalism. Jon Stewart was portraying libertarianism as near anarchy, and the judge did nothing to counter that argument.

agree but see different problems

In the order these issues were covered:
Stewart states that government is a benevolent force I.e. infrastructure and social safety net. - the problem with this assertion and the setting for this interview is the lack of distinction between local governments and federal government. The federal government serves one essential purpose - common defence in order to protect our liberty. The governmental problem we have now is that local governments have been replaced and or superceded by a national/federal government. The business of infrastructure and safety nets cannot be effectively applied as one size fits all. On the national level, this becomes an issue of quantity vs quality. There is no logical reason someone in California should have a say it impact on my infrastructure that I use everyday in Virginia.

Stewart asked what do we do with free market losers, do we live in a soceity or don't we? People who lose are hung out to dry? This also should be addressed at the local level. But certainly my human and inalienable rights should not be violated in order to support another's failure, and surely not with the use of force. Teach and man to fish and an ounce of prevention are good philosophies for failure. But only locally can we effectively deal with failure.

Stewart and Napolitano the have dialogue on the inherent evil of government. Napolitano states that government that governs least governs best. That is a very wise and proven philosophy, but for this philosophy to be effective, it cannot be applied to the masses. Local governments and the people they represent should decide which issues are the most important to them and how to effectively govern minimally.

Free markets, the concept of fire departments and government regulation. This cannot effectively be addressed on a national level either. In my area we have many very effective volunteer fire departments. No government is forcing me to pay a tax for fire extinguishing and rescue services. This may not be appropriate for every area.

The idea of companies operating without regulation is scary to most people. Why? Why are people so afraid of this? I would argue that people are afraid of this because they know that all humans possess a propensity for evil in the form of greed, anger, and ignorance. Why would one entity which we support with funds be any less evil than another entity that we support with funds? The reality is, people need to be vigilant and pay attention, always. A company can ruin your life just as well as a government because both are concentrated forms of power. Regulation is really the concept of keeping concentrated power moral. What is right in regulation for one area, may not be right for another.

The issue of representation, Stewart focuses on inequality for blacks in early days. In this case slavery was agreed by the majority to be acceptable. Majority is often flawed in thinking, and this is where competition of ideas will demonstrate what works versus what people incorrectly assume will work. This is why local governments would compete with each other. What works and doesn't work would be very evident. When there is no competition of ideas, we all fail more than we succeed.

Stewart asks if government is the enemy of liberty. If we remember, concentrated power can be concentrated productivity or concentrated destruction, humans all have the potential for evil. This is why it must be kept in check. Governments cannot be kept in check if they grow larger and more powerful than the people they serve. Governments can be best and most effectively regulated at the local/state level.

The issue here is that libertarians support a system that most people are not ready for. We need to be ready to transition at a pace that people are comfortable with. There is too much of a gap in philosophy, assumptions and ideology at this time. We can only take steps as big as people are willing to take.

Peace and happiness to all.


Yes, I wish the interview had focused more on those issues too

It seems like the Local vs. Federal government distinction often gets lost in these type of interviews.

reedr3v's picture

Those are nitpicks though not without some

merit. A only significant flaw to me was the singling out of some black guy in the audience and insisting on repeatedly calling him "Reggie." Jon showed restraint in not jumping on this rather insensitive faux pas, but some of the commenters below the Daily Show video did not let it go by. You and I understand the Judge is one of the most humane and just individuals around, and truly stands up for victims of injustice. But the racist card will be played endlessly whenever any libertarian is not p.c. adept.

The guy the Judge kept

The guy the Judge kept referencing kept repeatedly saying "f*ck you" to the Judge and that is why the Judge "singled" him out. What was he suppose to do? I thought it was a funny way to address it, honestly. How many of us could have sat there and not acknowledged it in any way other than negative?

Even Jon was in a nice way trying to tell the guy to shut up," settle down, I'll handle this!", ect. I thought both were classy and just tried to make a joke of it and keep the interview moving along. Not sure what the big deal is with it really.

reedr3v's picture

Thank you so much for explaining the context;

though a more effective way would have been to clue the rest of us at the time. I do know it's very hard in the moment to come up with perfect responses. At least we know now and, thanks to your information, can more effectively defend the Judge.

Duplicate of the above post,

Duplicate of the above post, sorry.

Toledano..... that is because libertarianism is near-anarchy

If you are a minarchist or a free market anarchists then you are advocating near or complete anarchy ie no government.

If you are a Constitutionalists who believes in freedom or a minarchist, that is you just want Courts, Police, and Military, that can be still "near-anarchy".... things still can get MUCH FREER.

For example, imagine miraculously American government now is a minarchist one. Then YOU come along and say to 5,000 homes in an area, Pay us $100 per month and we'll give you fire and police protection. You are free to contract those services....and if soon everyone did that then government service of Police would shrink or end. Now that can happen in the marketplace, freely, by people making millions of small choices each day.

There is example of this happening, City service to Private service: In 1975, American people everywhere drank City water. 20 years later, by 1995, about half of the American People drank bottled water, both at homes and in offices across the USA. There is a 1975 picture of Gerald Ford at a long conference table at the White House and it shows dozens of men sitting around the table. On that table is a water pitcher and fill glasses next to each man. Contrast this with this picture today:

Everyone has bottle water.

The point being, the City provided the water, now private companies do.

The same can happen for fire, police, and even military.

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820


Another plus for having insurance for protection service to replace cops is that insurance companies would actually encourage their clients to be armed and able to protect themselves, thus lowering their cost to provide services. They would not have to show up as often. This, as opposed to the attitude of many police officers I have spoken to who really believe ( I was shocked by this) that they should be the only ones armed. So I have come to the conclusion that Protection Insurance would help us to retain our 2nd. ammendment rights.

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

Protection Money

One significant difference between Organized Government and Organized Crime is that when you pay your protection money to The Mob, you actually _get_ protection!

(and the Mob won't bust you for having a doobie or enjoying the company of a professional lady or having a game of poker.)

Freedom is my Worship Word!

You are right and I agree with your comment

If Napolitano's goal was to give the audience an introduction to the basic tenets of Libertarian and Minarchist philosophies then he was successful. He did not mince words or candy coat.

Personally,I think the Judge came straight out of the gate laying too much truth on that audience. It might have polarized liberal viewers against the movement. We only have two months until the primaries, so right now I believe the goal should be to first gain more supporters and then, once we have their ears, educate.

The words "anarchy" and "libertarianism" can be frightening to members of the general public who have been raised on big government. In order to change minds, we need to ease the ideas out softly.

Jon Stewart's line of questioning kept circling around worries such as "but who is going to take care of us? How will we live? What about the losers?" He wanted reassurance, and Napolitano didn't give him any.

Lately, when Ron Paul explains his financial plan, he reiterates that social entitlements would not be slashed right off the bat. I think this is the right strategy for the moment... You can't walk up to a baby, rip the pacifier out of his mouth and not expect him to cry.

Stewart is such a statist

Listening to his childish statist arguments that he wants all taxes because it'll have the government put out fires. And he likes roads. It's almost sickening to listen to and then people cheer it like he brought up some amazing 'gotcha'.

Fire Fighters

Once, when I was about seven-ish (ca. mid-1950's), my Dad let me tag along on a trip "downtown." While I was wandering around, the town fire siren went off. I saw a guy pull over right in front of the fire station and run from his car to the fire station. He was a strange entity, virtually unknown these days, the "Volunteer Firefighter" (which they called "Fireman" back in those days.)

To buy new equipment and stuff, they'd have bake sales and such.

Police, fire, sewage, emergency medical attention, schools - every single one of those is a LOCAL issue! There is no rational reason for some kind of one-size-fits-all imperial edict from on high dictating your personal behavior from Washington, DC.

As far as roads, all you need in Washington, DC is a map room and a conference table.

Freedom is my Worship Word!

reedr3v's picture

Statism is the replacement in this culture

for traditional religion; the majority no longer believe in a just God, but they imagine a just State. Once people prayed for special favors from their god. Now they fervently believe they will be granted by a loving State which benevolently looks out for their welfare as a beneficent god once was believed to do. Few people ever trusted in themselves as the sole author of their own destinies, working cooperatively with other sovereign individuals.

Judge on the front page of HuffPo right now!

Give him some love in the comments section and take the opportunity to educate a few people.

In 2016..... I am working to get Judge elected President.

The Judge has the CHARISMA, the PRINCIPLE, and the gift of tough.

The Judge has the CHARM, has the Arguments, and has the right turn of phrase.

The Judge has the BUZZZZZZ that can cause big excitement in a room.

The JUDGE has PERSONALITY.... and whats not to love?

BTW.... Sorry Gary Johnson, you bored the small crowd last night in Scottsdale Az. What little buzz or hummmm was started when you talked about all your vetos, was immediately killed the minute you started talking for the "fair tax". And yes, you are delusional to stay in the GOP race at this point and NO CALIFORNIA is not going to come out for you and save your campaign! Get real. Get a JOB. That is get one as some TV commentator on FOX. You are doing Liberty no good at this point.

Yawn. And as to why you will not enter the New Mexico race? Its because you made an agreement with the republican (a war hawk-a homophone-Drug Warrior)that you would NOT is well, perhaps honorable you are keeping your promise, but certainly a very very STUPID promise to have made. You are not getting any younger Gary!



Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820


What a great performance by The Judge! Awesome. He showed grace and did not interrupt Stewart who kept interrupting him. Napolitano has a wonderful sense of humor. Stewart wasn't as funny as The Judge and got schooled by him. Excellent. Stewart was like; why does my brain hurt?

Judge Andrew Napolitano For Vice President.

"The world is a dynamic mess of jiggling things, if you look at it right." - Richard Feynman

More mention of constitutional gov't?

I think Jon Stewart was arguing from the POV that the Judge was advocating "no gov't" when he was advocating a Constitutional Federal Gov't. I think the Judge could have been more clear that by "gov't that governs least" he means one that obeys the law of the constitution, and delegates to the States and [primarily) the People what is not there. I feel that was not clear to Jon for a lot of the interview -- so they argued past each other.

I also think the Judge could have used more examples: explain the "losers" are people who make bad decisions -- name some investment banks, or car companies, for example -- but also argue how these things get replaced -- there are toyota, honda, and BMW factories in the US, now. Or compare healthcare to similar industries that have lower prices and are plentiful -- e.g. to some extent ophthamology, plastic surgery or even computers -- instead of Starbucks, since people have a hard time relating "simple" things to "complex" things.

Overall, I think he did well, but he is used to arguing to the choir -- he needs to learn how to speak to complete outsiders by using more analogies related to their experience and their mindset.

I think

the stewarts of the world base their beliefs on compassion for people. They walk down the street and see a poor person, or a person who lost everything in a business venture and they think that it would be compassionate to help those individuals...which isn't a bad thing at all. They care about humantiy, and believe it is the humane thing to do to help out struggling people. What they fail to realize is that people such as the Judge and Ron Paul are just as compassionate....what the stewarts fail to see is that Government intervention (while seemingly compassionate) undermines the very thing they are trying to do...help people. If you look at history there is absolutely no question that the more free a society (aka free market) the less unemployment you have, the more per capita income you have, the happier the population is, the more advancements you see in technology, the faster the economy grows, the cheaper goods are, the more stable money is....it produces the maximum prosperity out of any system tried thus far. The problem is you'll never get rid of poverty completely, bad luck (business losses) etc.....even with a free market....and so sets the stage for compassionate people like Stewart who walk down the streen and see a homeless person and come to the conclusion that government should intervene....but the more it intervenes, statistically speaking the worse off the population becomes and the more homeless it produces. True you may help the one guy that you see at the side of the road without food...but they fail to see the global loss on the economy which the intervention always inevitably has. They look at individuals, while the Pauls and Judges in my opinion look at a statistical compassion. If you could say to stewart you have economy A and economy B. Economy A isn't perfect but has happier people, more jobs, more money, more advancements in technology....which would you pick? Obviously A....what the Ron Pauls have been trying to explain for years is that the free market is Economy A! There's no refuting that fact if you look at history...period.