Libertarians and your 'Liberty'

[Stone]

This is popping up in the climate circles and looks to expose some of what Libertarianism is about.

http://deepclimate.org/2012/02/14/heartland-insider-releases-budget-and-strategy-documents/


That would be the Heartland Institute, a self-proclaimed Libertarian think tank

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

In order to try to shield their intent and their backers, they are threatening to sue all those that comment on the leaked documents detailing their secret activities and financial backers:

http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/61492-anti-climate-science-group-threatens-mass-lawsuits?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tgdaily_all_sections+(TG+Daily+-+All+News)

excerpt:

A libertarian thinktank devoted to rubbishing climate change is threatening to sue anybody commenting on certain leaked documents - even where the papers are genuine , it says.

I've often wondered what 'liberty' means in the Libertarian sense. Obviously not so noble in practice.


Well...cats out of the bag now

 

[Stone]

Some more info on the Heartland documents and their involvement in science and climate denial.....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-heartland.html


Here is a link to the documents. Not sure if it's complete......
http://ianmcpherson.com/blog/?p=1744

 

[Alien Allen]

all is fair in love and science

not like the pro climate change crowd is playing nice either.

as always.... follow the money

 

[Stone]

all is fair in love and science

not like the pro climate change crowd is playing nice either.

as always.... follow the money

all is fair in love and science

No....it's not.
love is an emotion, science is a rational explanation of reality.
A scientific lie created for political purposes ( right or left ) is only created to benefit those in political and/or economic power......and that's an issue of corruption.

not like the pro climate change crowd is playing nice either.

'Crowd' ..political.....indeed, but the issue is science and there is no room for liars of any 'flavor' that pose as scientists.


As you might remember from discussions at 'that other site' ....the 'hide the decline' claim came from essentially deniers backed by Heartland,( remember Watts and all the crap science he hosted? ) and eventually proven to be fraudulent..... with Phil Jones and his people at the University of East Anglia eventually proven to have been innocent of scientific malfeasance.
Hardly anyone remembers that outcome.
But the mentally deficient ( and you know who I mean ) are probably still spouting 'hide the decline' .


Heartland appears to be a center for the distribution of lies on a monumental scale involving support from energy companies and promoting political control to achieve the status quo of profiteering.

as always.... follow the money

It is a Libertarian think tank and it's backing the Libertarian Paul.
quid pro quo
Follow the money....indeed........let's just hope it's apparent before electing a Ron Paul. ( I don't think he stands a chance, though )

 

[retro]

Oh no, one "think tank" out there has controversy surrounding it... that means we should all attack every Libertarian and their views. You sound just like some people on the left around here. I'm not entirely certain how you include Ron Paul either... this organization backs Ron Paul... so do an overwhelming number of soldiers... should we throw these soldiers' opinions and beliefs out because of an unrelated organization? That's some really twisted and circular reasoning.

 

[Stone]

Oh no, one "think tank" out there has controversy surrounding it... that means we should all attack every Libertarian and their views. You sound just like some people on the left around here. I'm not entirely certain how you include Ron Paul either... this organization backs Ron Paul... so do an overwhelming number of soldiers... should we throw these soldiers' opinions and beliefs out because of an unrelated organization? That's some really twisted and circular reasoning.

I'm not entirely certain how you include Ron Paul either

He's backed by Heartland...

so do an overwhelming number of soldiers.

Irrelevant.....soldiers aren't involved in the policy decisions of Heartland.
But they will be affected by those policies.

should we throw these soldiers' opinions and beliefs out because of an unrelated organization?

Non sequitur.......your argument is to ignore the connection of Libertarianism to the political and economic corruption that it promotes.

You should be defining the Libertarian concept of liberty.
Right now....it's looking like a false facade.

That's some really twisted and circular reasoning

In your opinion which you haven't given one iota of legitimacy.

Paul is a climate science denier, a Libertarian, and has the support of a Libertarian think tank that has now been shown to have nefarious connections to the oil industry......oh my

 

[dt3]

Stupid librarians.

 

[retro]

He's backed by Heartland...

and tons of other politicians are backed by different organizations that they don't necessarily have any actual connection to.

Irrelevant.....soldiers aren't involved in the policy decisions of Heartland.
But they will be affected by those policies.

Show me where Dr. Paul is involved with the policy decisions of Heartland

Non sequitur.......your argument is to ignore the connection of Libertarianism to the political and economic corruption that it promotes.

Non sequitur? I suggest that you go look up the definition of the phrase. To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." It is a completely relevant question, because you're throwing Dr. Paul out with the proverbial bath water because a specific organization supports him. Therefore it would stand to reason that if you throw out Dr. Paul because of that, you should also associate the soldiers that support Dr. Paul with the same organization.

You should be defining the Libertarian concept of liberty.
Right now....it's looking like a false facade.

Please explain to me how one single organization speaks for an entire movement.

In your opinion which you haven't given one iota of legitimacy.

You haven't been able to effectively tie Dr. Paul to the inner workings of an organization, therefore there is no legitimacy.

Paul is a climate science denier, a Libertarian, and has the support of a Libertarian think tank that has now been shown to have nefarious connections to the oil industry......oh my

Again... prove that Dr. Paul is involved with the inner workings of this organization. Then you'll have a proverbial leg to stand on... but until that point, you're merely throwing out conjecture and presenting it as fact.

I encourage you to go take a look at Opensecrets.org and see exactly where Dr. Paul's funding is coming from. Hell, I'll just post it for you in case you're too lazy to go look for yourself.

Cycle Source of Funds, 2011-2012, Campaign Cmte only

	Individual Contributions - Small Individual Contributions - Large Individual Contributions	$25,515,080 $13,565,637 (52%) $11,949,444 (46%)	(98%)
	PAC Contributions	$0	(0%)
	Candidate self-financing	$0	(0%)
	Other	$606,784	(2%)

I believe that "other" is the funding that has come from organizations. As you can see... Dr. Paul is funded 98% by the people.​

 

[Stone]

Stupid librarians.

Soooooo....what other 'Libertarian' think tanks also line up on the side of anti-science in the field of climatology?


------->Mercatus Center at George Mason University
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercatus_Center

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_Mason_University
Looks like the Koch family involvement again.
They also help fund Heartland.

And look at their involvement with climate denial and politics:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/ca...olluterwatch/koch-industries/mercatus-center/


hmmmm.......liberty for sale?

 

[Tim]

But, but he's a doctor for god's sake

 

[Panacea]

But, but he's a doctor for god's sake

So I hear! I actually got dizzy from all the Dr. Pauls

 

[retro]

So I hear! I actually got dizzy from all the Dr. Pauls

I get tired of saying Paul, or Ron Paul. Plus, it's an honorific, which I still deem to be important.

 

[Stone]

and tons of other politicians are backed by different organizations that they don't necessarily have any actual connection to.



Show me where Dr. Paul is involved with the policy decisions of Heartland



Non sequitur? I suggest that you go look up the definition of the phrase. To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." It is a completely relevant question, because you're throwing Dr. Paul out with the proverbial bath water because a specific organization supports him. Therefore it would stand to reason that if you throw out Dr. Paul because of that, you should also associate the soldiers that support Dr. Paul with the same organization.



Please explain to me how one single organization speaks for an entire movement.



You haven't been able to effectively tie Dr. Paul to the inner workings of an organization, therefore there is no legitimacy.



Again... prove that Dr. Paul is involved with the inner workings of this organization. Then you'll have a proverbial leg to stand on... but until that point, you're merely throwing out conjecture and presenting it as fact.

I encourage you to go take a look at Opensecrets.org and see exactly where Dr. Paul's funding is coming from. Hell, I'll just post it for you in case you're too lazy to go look for yourself.

Cycle Source of Funds, 2011-2012, Campaign Cmte only

	Individual Contributions - Small Individual Contributions - Large Individual Contributions	$25,515,080 $13,565,637 (52%) $11,949,444 (46%)	(98%)
	PAC Contributions	$0	(0%)
	Candidate self-financing	$0	(0%)
	Other	$606,784	(2%)

I believe that "other" is the funding that has come from organizations. As you can see... Dr. Paul is funded 98% by the people.​

Show me where Dr. Paul is involved with the policy decisions of Heartland

I don't have to, I made no such claim......actually, if you had the reading skills and the comprehension to go with it.....the thread isn't about Paul.....it's about Libertarian philosophy....and it's connection with reality.
And the Libertarian think tank in question has been giving support to Paul who has been becoming a more intense climate denier the closer he comes to the Presidency.
Does that make him an architect of anti-science climate policy....or just a tool like GW Bush was for the neocon movement? Either way....it's looking like Libertarianism has some issues with personal liberty, imo.

Non sequitur? I suggest that you go look up the definition of the phrase.

It means your logic doesn't follow.....and it doesn't.
So even that comment of yours was a non sequitur

because you're throwing Dr. Paul out with the proverbial bath water because a specific organization supports him.

You have issues with reading comprehension and seen unusually sensitive.
Here was what seemed to offend you:
"Follow the money....indeed........let's just hope it's apparent before electing a Ron Paul. "
Obviously over your head.

Please explain to me how one single organization speaks for an entire movement.

I suspect there are a lot more that follow the anti-science climate stance.
I just posted a link to Mercatus Center and showed the same financial connection of the Kochs to Hartland and Mercatus.
I remember Cato taking a similar position on climatology.....I'll post on that later.
I image there are many right now researching the Kochs involvement in other think tanks and the results.

You haven't been able to effectively tie Dr. Paul to the inner workings of an organization, therefore there is no legitimacy.

Haven't tried or even made the claim. ( pretty bogus line of rebuttal btw )
You seem to have conveniently forgotten the thread's topic of 'Liberty' and what it means to Libertarians.

Again... prove that Dr. Paul is involved with the inner workings of this organization. Then you'll have a proverbial leg to stand on... but until that point, you're merely throwing out conjecture and presenting it as fact.

Again...issues of reading comprehension.
From my opening post:

I've often wondered what 'liberty' means in the Libertarian sense. Obviously not so noble in practice.

Well....what the fuck say you?
Don't like what I think of Paul.....tough shit.......but if you read the thread again, I haven't presented an argument that links Paul to deciding Heartland policy....I presented two instances of similar public philosophy with one instance being nefarious and the other supported by that nefarious think tank.
And there should be concern about a politician that gets support in that manner and hasn't denounced it.
What's come out about Heartland is not new...it's new evidence supporting past claims against them.....claims of a nature an honest man wouldn't emulate in his present stance on climatology.

I encourage you to go take a look at Opensecrets.org and see exactly where Dr. Paul's funding is coming from.

More interested in Libertarian's thoughts of 'liberty' in light of Heartland......you're only trying to divert the conversation.
Personally, I don't think Paul is electable to the Oval Office....he is a Libertarian after all and with Heartland-gate set to be a potential hot topic, it probably won't take much effort for the public to realize Paul's position on global warming isn't to their benefit.

I believe that "other" is the funding that has come from organizations. As you can see... Dr. Paul is funded 98% by the people

Irrelevant to this thread.
BTW.....~70% of the population wanted to invade Iraq.......didn't make the decision any more rational or correct.

So....can you buy and sell your own 'liberty' or just consider it something to force upon others?

 

[retro]

Now I know how the lefties feel when they attempt to reason with you. :24:

 

[dt3]

So if Libertarians hate liberty, do Democrats and Republicans hate democracy and republics? More importantly, does that mean the Green Party actually hates Green?

 

[retro]

So if Libertarians hate liberty, do Democrats and Republicans hate democracy and republics? More importantly, does that mean the Green Party actually hates Green?

:24:

Well played

 

[Tim]

So if Libertarians hate liberty, do Democrats and Republicans hate democracy and republics? More importantly, does that mean the Green Party actually hates Green?

No, it just means that all the idiots out there who said you can't trust the Democrats or Republicans so they became a Libertarian (because they love liberty) are just as fucked as the rest of the idiots...

 

[Stone]

Now I know how the lefties feel when they attempt to reason with you. :24:

That's called an ad hominem attack.....

Usually out of frustration. And a lack of anything to contribute

 

[retro]

That's called an ad hominem attack.....

Usually out of frustration. And a lack of anything to contribute

You really need to learn the meaning of the things that you say. I'm neither frustrated nor do I lack anything to contribute. Furthermore, an ad hominem attack refers to an attack on your person, I'm merely stating that it's seemingly impossible to try and reason with you.

 

[Stone]

So if Libertarians hate liberty, do Democrats and Republicans hate democracy and republics? More importantly, does that mean the Green Party actually hates Green?

So if Libertarians hate liberty

What is the Libertarian concept of 'liberty'?

I see a lot of chaos involved in the way Libertarians seem to promote it up front.
As a society becomes more complex , what is the rationale to the idea of reducing regulations within that society as vectors of abuse increase?
Essentially....how can the guaranteed liberty of one individual ( in Libertarian terms ) not impinge upon another .....for instance, an example being monopolies.