11 votes

Debate On Capitalism: Ralph Nader vs. John Stossel

I've never before heard Ralph Nader level the sorts of low blows he unleashes at Stossel during the question and answer section:

FYI, Stossel's interview with Nader--the one that ticked him off so much that he called Stossel the "most dishonest reporter" he'd ever encountered--appears in the following ABC news special on government regulation, at the 18:30 at 27:00 marks:

Comment viewing options

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

Thanks for posting this

Very interesting, they both have valid points, but beyond that they both have a "belief" system at work here. Stossel, the free market belief and Nader the government can fix it belief, both are partially right and wrong at the same time. Both sides have what we call an "inherent vice", governments cronyism and the capitalistic desire for special advantages are both fatal flaws in the system. It's like the Asian symbol of the ying and yang, a balance of regulation and market competition is needed, that balance will never happen as long as corrupt money is allowed to buy politicians and regulators.


I'm absolutely no fan of Nader and rarely agree with him on anything, but I think he has a point about Stossel being in the running for "most dishonest." Fortunately, it's easy to spot Stossel's statist propaganda by the fact that he starts using unjustified slogans like "But fracking is *good*!" and empty collectivist BS: "The world needs this or that (whatever he is trying to sell)." We "need" highways and genetic engineering and nuclear power plants and fracking, therefore, they must be subsidized through the violent confiscation of wealth from those who produce it. Yep, that's pretty dishonest.


Surprising they didn't need a live satellite feed for each of the debaters given the inordinate distance between them.

Thanks for sharing. Bookmarked for later viewing.

A State Supremacist....

..is what I like to call Ralph Nader.
He believes anyone with a socioeconomic status lower than the upper reaches of government should be deemed a filthy slave for the Collective.

Nader wasn't bad at all, apart from getting testy after Stossel

Nader wasn't bad at all, apart from getting testy after Stossel quipped that his friend was a lunatic. Then the hair on Nader's neck stood up and he got visibly upset. Stossel felt it.

Beyond that, it was civil and I would say that both guys are right on the money. I don't think Stossel was against Nader's consumer advocacy groups, and likely none of us are, either: the place where Nader challenged Stossel about how consumers are to get word about what products are good and which ones can kill you was a perfect opportunity for Stossel to rebut, "Exactly: consumer advocacy groups can alert consumers on the failures and corporations will be forced to withdraw or recall their faulty products."

Both are against corporate lobbying, corporate coercion, monopolism, syndicatism, and knowing neglect. Its amazing that, the first question asked to Nader was: "How do we get corporate influence out of government" to which Nader responded, "That is the question" and suggested personal knowledge and person choice through the ballot box as the answer! Why does personal choice work there and not in the consumer marketplace?

Well, it doesn't work: voters keep reelecting the slaves of the corporations. So, better luck next time. But good job overall to Mr. Nader and Mr. Stossel. They're on the same road, just different lanes.

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

The anti-capitalist mentality

There are some anti-capitalists who oppose capitalism because they believe that their economic arguments are true. These are few and far between, but these are the ones that you might be able to reason with, the ones who might be persuaded if you can clearly refute their arguments.

However, for the overwhelming majority of anti-capitalists, their hostility to capitalism is not based on arguments, it is purely emotional, and any arguments they might offer are merely rationalizations of their prejudice. These people never abandon their anti-capitalism, even if you refute all their arguments. Since their beliefs are not a product of reason, they cannot be undermined by reason. It's similar with racists, religious zealots, or others whose beliefs are fundamentally irrational.

Then there's another group of anti-capitalists, the most dangerous of the lot, who know that the arguments against capitalism are false, and have no emotional prejudice against capitalism, but promote anti-capitalist ideas nonetheless because they are power-hungry. They know that raising the minimum wage (for example) will only cause unemployment, but they don't care, since it will get them more votes in the next election.

We, proponents of free market capitalism, need to persuade the first group, trick the second, and destroy the third.


"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Be careful with Capitalism

While the ability to create and trade freely is the backbone of a civilized society, money at any cost can destroy a society within a generation.

Southern Agrarian