Originally Posted by joder

And ?

Bush is not a Libertarian.

Actually, I was stating that in response to the thread title. And that he can't be elected again, unless we re-amend the constitution.

Also, what's so wrong with libertarians?

Originally Posted by jamestl2

Also, what's so wrong with libertarians?

The same thing wrong with pretty much every party, the take good ideas to the extreme, when moderation is what makes things good.

Originally Posted by cbwm

The same thing wrong with pretty much every party, the take good ideas to the extreme, when moderation is what makes things good.

I meant the political philosophy, not the political party.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

I meant the political philosophy, not the political party.

I'm not sure if this is representative of Libertarian philosophy, but Ron Paul is an isolationist, which is idiocy IMO in our newly created global economy. His election will assure the U.S. some spot other than 1st economically speaking.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

A

Also, what's so wrong with libertarians?

On defense they are isolationists.

They think the corporations can police themselves and they despise even good regulations. You know they supported tobacco companies (still do) no matter what the evidence is.

Their push for the total privatization of education.

If you go by their main think tank, the CATO Institute, everything and I mean everything is subservient to their political philosophy. One point is there can't be global warming can't be real or humans can't do anything about it since that would mean you would have to regulate and restrict the free market. All science is supposed to conform to their beliefs, however irrational. They are on the Diane Rheims show on NPR quite often.

IMO, it's an irrational ideology that was a reaction to the cold war.

I know I sound like I'm campaigning for the guy, but if we're going by Paul's positions:

Originally Posted by cbwm

I'm not sure if this is representative of Libertarian philosophy, but Ron Paul is an isolationist, which is idiocy IMO in our newly created global economy.

Originally Posted by joder

On defense they are isolationists.

Paul supports Nonintervention, NOT Isolationism (source)

Originally Posted by joder

They think the corporations can police themselves and they despise even good regulations. You know they supported tobacco companies (still do) no matter what the evidence is.

Paul believes that corporations have the ability to destroy our rights, liberties, etc. and does not support them (source: watch this video).

Originally Posted by joder

Their push for the total privatization of education.

So you think Education is better off in the government's hands?

According to Paul's Campaign, he wants the parents to be in control of their children's education:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/education/

Originally Posted by joder

One point is there can't be global warming can't be real or humans can't do anything about it since that would mean you would have to regulate and restrict the free market. All science is supposed to conform to their beliefs, however irrational. They are on the Diane Rheims show on NPR quite often.

Sorry, kind of lost you on this point.

Originally Posted by joder

IMO, it's an irrational ideology that was a reaction to the cold war.

Libertarianism has been around *much* longer than the cold war.

Check out the real facts James Read the CATO web site for one. Libertarians, as a philosophy CLAIM not to support corporations, but all their ACTIONS do. They DID support big tobacco companies and claimed that cigarettes didn't harm anyone. I wish I would have saved the documents off their web sites because they have since removed them. Their "scientist" on global warming has been discredited by other scientists and takes his money from oil corporations.

It doesn't matter what people or groups claim. Actions speak louder than words.

If you think it is about parents controlling their childs education, what about parents participating in the election of the school board and school board meetings instead of putting companies, and in particular, churches in charge of childrens education? I don't want to force kids to be indoctrinated in order to get an education. Plus god and the unintelligent designer don't belong in the classroom.

I didn't mean I wasn't agreeing with your points there, James, I was saying I didn't understand what you had typed .

And I haven't looked at their website yet.
It's link?

http://cato.org/

Another interesting site. Not Libertarian but Neoconservative and two of the founders were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld

http://www.newamericancentury.org/i

Originally Posted by jamestl2

Paul supports Nonintervention, NOT Isolationism (source)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

Non-intervention foreign policy is the half of Isolationism. Even if you were for letting Hitler massacre the Jews, the Serbs massacre the Bosnians, or the Rwandans massacre each other(and I don't know how you can be for any of those things), non-intervention is bad foreign policy for financial reasons in a global economy.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

So you think Education is better off in the government's hands?

According to Paul's Campaign, he wants the parents to be in control of their children's education:

You see, this is what I mean when I say "Take a good idea to the extreme". I'm a huge believer in free markets, and I think competing private companies can do things better and more efficiently than the government in almost every instance. But then you say something like, "Let's take away all public education and put it in the hand's of the parents". In my opinion, being a good parent is the most important task those of us who are traveling that road can accomplish. Unfortunately, most of us have extremely busy lives and struggle for the most part, meaning we fall short. Some of us are single parents living at the poverty level and working 12 hours a day. Still others of us are crack dealers, criminals, and junkies. Leaving it entirely up to the parents would be catastrophic for many children, and for our nation IMO.

Originally Posted by joder

If you think it is about parents controlling their childs education, what about parents participating in the election of the school board and school board meetings instead of putting companies, and in particular, churches in charge of childrens education?

Originally Posted by cbwm

Unfortunately, most of us have extremely busy lives and struggle for the most part, meaning we fall short. Some of us are single parents living at the poverty level and working 12 hours a day. Still others of us are crack dealers, criminals, and junkies. Leaving it entirely up to the parents would be catastrophic for many children, and for our nation IMO.

From the link I posted earlier:

I support giving educational control back to parents, who know their children better than any politician in D.C. ever will.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools. I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources.

He just wants education restored to the state and local governments, and not to be controlled at the federal level. This doesn't automatically mean that companies and churches get control of kids' educations. Parents just have much more of a say in how their children are taught.

Originally Posted by joder

Libertarians, as a philosophy CLAIM not to support corporations, but all their ACTIONS do. They DID support big tobacco companies and claimed that cigarettes didn't harm anyone. I wish I would have saved the documents off their web sites because they have since removed them. Their "scientist" on global warming has been discredited by other scientists and takes his money from oil corporations.

I know this probably sounds silly, but I couldn't find those statements on their site (poor website design and navigation IMO, but that's another topic). Do you have the internal links to those stories?

(Plus there's no "/i" in the latter link you posted)

Originally Posted by joder

I don't want to force kids to be indoctrinated

Isn't that what it means to get an education

Originally Posted by joder

Plus god and the unintelligent designer don't belong in the classroom.

Neither do evolution and cosmology, IMO

Originally Posted by cbwm

non-intervention is bad foreign policy for financial reasons in a global economy.

Such as?

Originally Posted by jamestl2

He just wants education restored to the state and local governments, and not to be controlled at the federal level .... Parents just have much more of a say in how their children are taught.

He also wants Roe V Wade overturned so the states can make those decisions too. I can't say I'm a fan of that. Though I haven't thought it through completely, at first blush, education seems like a value so core to the competitiveness of our nation as a whole, I can't see why we would go through the trouble to rebuild the system from the ground up at the state and local level. Granted it needs work, but that seems like tearing down the house to remodel a bedroom.

Regarding non-intervention and global economy, Ron Paul argues that if we just stay out of these county's affairs, they won't isolate us. Truth be told, like China, they don't have the choice to isolate us, we consume the lion's share of their products, or provide huge subsidy and aide packages.

Non-Interventionism requires the avoidance of entangling alliances with other nations, while business is all about alliances and power. Another thread on this board talked about the use of military might as a extension of economic policy. Did you know the Abrams M1A1 Tank consumes approximately 3 gallons of diesel for every mile it travels and we have absolutely no plans to make a solar or ethanol version anytime soon? The U.S. has been working on a means to put permanent troops on the ground in Iraq since 1977, and the reasons have as much to do with economy as national security.

Here is a reason for you. We've been exportng jobs in support of Globalization for many years now. Many of us have been touched personally by this as someone in India or Russia is willing to build the same web system for a 10th of the price. The quality of life for the people who got our jobs has improved as they received the American dollars formerly received by a tax paying American. I personally consider this a "loss leader" payment for world stability(Golden Arches theory of Conflict Prevention) and larger overseas markets which will eventually be better financially for everyone. Non-intervention would mean our government would turn a blind eye to sweat shops run in these foreign nations which now have our jobs. The scales would never balance, middle classes would never develop, and the U.S. would never be competitive unless we were willing to do away with our labor laws to do so.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

I know this probably sounds silly, but I couldn't find those statements on their site (poor website design and navigation IMO, but that's another topic). Do you have the internal links to those stories?

Actually they have quite a bit if you type the word tobacco in their search box
http://find.cato.org/search?q=tobacc...G.x=0&btnG.y=0

Watch out though, you might come out thinking smoking tobacco is good for you.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

He just wants education restored to the state and local governments, and not to be controlled at the federal level. This doesn't automatically mean that companies and churches get control of kids' educations. Parents just have much more of a say in how their children are taught.

And he means what? You know it is to privatize schools and who runs the majority of the private schools?

Originally Posted by jamestl2

Isn't that what it means to get an education

Okay, not indoctrinated by religious superstition.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

Neither do evolution and cosmology, IMO

Evolution is a fact and does belong in the classroom. Religion such as creationism and nonintelligent design are solely religion and do not.

EDIT:

Here is a debate at CATO between Michael Shermer and Jonathan Wells who is with the Intelligent Design main think tank the Discovery Institute. Wells, a proponent of Intelligent Design admits that it has no evidence.

http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=3184

Here is a copy of the Wedge Document by one of the founders of Intelligent Design, Phillip Johnson, who is a lawyer
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
Notice their admissions.

Originally Posted by joder

Evolution is a fact and does belong in the classroom. Religion such as creationism and nonintelligent design are solely religion and do not.

Actually they're all theories. No proof exists for any of those items and I suggest that no proof will ever be possible. Even if a new species were to evolve from those currently existing it would be a logical fallacy to assume that all species evolved. It is as possible that a creator, never to be known, created all current species and never disallowed the evolution of new species.

Oh, I guess I should say that if a god were to ever show itself, then there would be proof, but being atheist, I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

Originally Posted by cbwm

He also wants Roe V Wade overturned so the states can make those decisions too. I can't say I'm a fan of that. Though I haven't thought it through completely, at first blush, education seems like a value so core to the competitiveness of our nation as a whole, I can't see why we would go through the trouble to rebuild the system from the ground up at the state and local level. Granted it needs work, but that seems like tearing down the house to remodel a bedroom.

TBH, I don't have strong feelings on the abortion issue either, however all he's trying to do is remove federal influence from state legislature.


I see your points, cbwm, but Ron Paul does NOT believe in an isolationist economic foreign policy. From:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/wa...oreign-policy/

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Originally Posted by joder

And he means what? You know it is to privatize schools and who runs the majority of the private schools?

Actually, no, he wants homeschooling to be the practical alternative. From:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/home-schooling/

My commitment to ensuring home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any Presidential candidate.

Originally Posted by joder

Evolution is a fact and does belong in the classroom. Religion such as creationism and nonintelligent design are solely religion and do not.

I see your point, however, as Jeremy pointed out, Evolution is also just a scientific theory (like gravity) and can't be proven (with fallacies such as the missing link). And intelligent design doesn't always equal religion. (In no way am I saying I believe the theory, but isn't it possible to look at it from a purely scientific POV?)

Evolution is both Fact AND Theory (from a scientific POV):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...heory_and_fact

Originally Posted by joder

Watch out though, you might come out thinking smoking tobacco is good for you.

Wow! I never realized how refreshingly addictive this stuff can be!

Originally Posted by jamestl2

I see your point, however, as Jeremy pointed out, Evolution is also just a scientific theory (like gravity) and can't be proven (with fallacies such as the missing link). And intelligent design doesn't always equal religion. (In no way am I saying I believe the theory, but isn't it possible to look at it from a purely scientific POV?)

Evolution is both Fact AND Theory (from a scientific POV):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...heory_and_fact

Of course Evolution is a fact and a theory. In fact, that is the same for EVERYTHING in science. But the theory of Evolution has the facts supporting it. ID hasn't even come up with a scientific theory and has no facts in its support.

What have you read concerning Intelligent Design? They present no scientific theories. Can you give a scientific theory of Intelligent Design that is falsifiable and verifiable?

BTW, by it's founders own words (in the link already given above) and those of one of it's chief "scientific" proponents, Michael Behe, Intelligent Design IS all about religion and admits that at the Dover trial:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."[

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

Actually they're all theories. No proof exists for any of those items and I suggest that no proof will ever be possible. Even if a new species were to evolve from those currently existing it would be a logical fallacy to assume that all species evolved. It is as possible that a creator, never to be known, created all current species and never disallowed the evolution of new species.

Oh, I guess I should say that if a god were to ever show itself, then there would be proof, but being atheist, I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

All I can say is wow, how is that a scientifc theory? And since it is contradicted by the current evidence, such as fossils, it is already falsified. 99% of all species are extinct. Unless you want to claim some god created the fossils to test you. But that is not a scientific theory either.

Originally Posted by joder

All I can say is wow, how is that a scientifc theory? And since it is contradicted by the current evidence, such as fossils, it is already falsified. 99% of all species are extinct. Unless you want to claim some god created the fossils to test you. But that is not a scientific theory either.

Huh? Fossils don't indicate evolution, but previous existence and via extrapolation patterns of previous existence. I made no claim anyway, but that all of them are theories.

A bit confused...

Fossils clearly indicate evolution. Species have changed through time in a steady evolutionary progression. No fossils have been discovered that can falsify Darwinian evolution.

A scientific theory is not an idea. It is falsifiable and verifiable. ID is not a scientific theory. If you think it is, then please tell me about it since it's own proponents have yet to produce a scientific theory.

Originally Posted by jamestl2

Evolution is both Fact AND Theory (from a scientific POV):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...heory_and_fact

I beg to differ. It is not a fact. Just because people believe it -- even if those people are scientists -- doesn't make it a fact. Just because species have been seen to "evolve" within their own species does not implies that evolution to other species has been observed, though it does suggest the possibility. Facts are independent of observation (except, of course, for those facts based on observation [e.g. "I saw the apple fall" is a fact based on observation while "the apple fell" is a fact independent of whether the act was observed.]) Observation (i.e. perception) allows us to, coupled with logic, deduce facts, but given that our perception may be flawed or incomplete it is incumbent on the deducer of facts to deduce only those things which are clearly indicated by the perceptions and to not extrapolate other "facts" which are not wholly supported by the perceptions.