Teller donated $2,300 to Ron Paul

[Dr. Fascism]

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=ADYHY&txtName=Teller&txtState=(all%20states)&txtAll=Y&Order=N



TELLER, (NFN) MR
LAS VEGAS,NV 89178

BUGGS AND RUDY DISCOUNT CORPORATION

12/16/2007

$2,300

Paul, Ron


Guess he's no longer a skeptic now, right guys? Because's he's a "political woo"? Perhaps if you see him at another Amazing Meeting you'll sneer at him because he's not a Democrat? Is it time to rebuke him and excommunicate him from the Holy Church of Skepticism?

[CFLarsen]

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=ADYHY&txtName=Teller&txtState=(all%20states)&txtAll=Y&Order=N




Guess he's no longer a skeptic now, right guys? Because's he's a "political woo"? Perhaps if you see him at another Amazing Meeting you'll sneer at him because he's not a Democrat? Is it time to rebuke him and excommunicate him from the Holy Church of Skepticism?

What gave you the idea that it is a secret that he is a Libertarian?

[Skeptic Guy]

Actually, he is quite open about his Libertarianism. I believe that he refered to his position as "nutty" or "crazy", so Penn understands that his position isn't exactly "mainstream".

[Dr. Fascism]

What gave you the idea that it is a secret that he is a Libertarian?

Ah, always trying twist to words and meanings to make you look smart or clever, aren't you...? You know exactly what I was getting it and then only attacked the periphery point. You do that on purpose, don't you?

Of course he is a libertarian. Everyone knows both P&T are. But this subforum, and these forums in general, are particularly hostile to libertarians... and then, Ron Paul, who both he and his supporters get a very special type of vitriol. And apparently Teller donated the maximum amount to him last December. Are you going to extend the vitriol to Teller, too?

[Dr. Fascism]

Actually, he is quite open about his Libertarianism. I believe that he refered to his position as "nutty" or "crazy", so Penn understands that his position isn't exactly "mainstream".

This isn't Penn, this is the other half. And this isn't so much as him being a libertarian, as it is he donated to -Ron Paul- (who is vociferously attacked on these forums, along with any supporters).

[Drudgewire]

Perhaps if you see him at another Amazing Meeting you'll sneer at him because he's not a Democrat?
Silly rabbit, we're all tools of the Bush administration.

Oh wait, that's the CT forum. My bad. :o

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I will never speak to him again. And I doubt he will speak to me. At least not on stage.

[Dr. Fascism]

I will never speak to him again. And I doubt he will speak to me. At least not on stage.

TCS, I bet if he did try to speak to you you would punch him in the face.

Everyone nearby would be shocked, though because he spoke, not because you hit him.

[Skeptic Guy]

This isn't Penn, this is the other half. And this isn't so much as him being a libertarian, as it is he donated to -Ron Paul- (who is vociferously attacked on these forums, along with any supporters).

Doh, you're right. My bad. Yep, I hate Teller now.

[Cleon]

TCS, I bet if he did try to speak to you you would punch him in the face.

Probably not. Not many people here are into the whole "physical assault because you disagree with someone's politics" thing. The whole harassment and intimidation bit seems to be a Ronulan trait.

[HarryKeogh]

They both openly supported Ron Paul. Penn was on Howard Stern in December or January and said that despite those racist newsletters which Penn said Ron Paul definitely did not write he supports Paul for President.

Well, it's usually with issues of politics or religion that people put the skeptical blinders on. Penn's no different.

[Cain]

Was this the guy starting threads awhile back saying he hated Ron Paul's love for liberty, rainbows and children? You know, the really, really, really clumsy troll...?

[VanillaCone]

I think Teller is the perfect model for a Ron Paul supporter. Now if we could just get the rest of them to keep their yaps shut front of the cameras...

[KingMerv00]

TCS, I bet if he did try to speak to you you would punch him in the face.

Everyone nearby would be shocked, though because he spoke, not because you hit him.

Teller speaks but not on stage or while on TV shows. Seems like a friendly guy. Plus he is a Philadelphia native (woot!).

I don't like Ron Paul. But I do like Teller.

My dislike of Ron Paul supporters is limited to those who have the-sky-is-falling-nail-myself-to-the-cross mentality. I haven't seen Teller do that yet so until then I will keep liking him. I hope I have your permission to do so.

[CFLarsen]

Ah, always trying twist to words and meanings to make you look smart or clever, aren't you...? You know exactly what I was getting it and then only attacked the periphery point. You do that on purpose, don't you?

T'is rarely a good idea to start off with airing paranoid conspiracy notions.

Of course he is a libertarian. Everyone knows both P&T are. But this subforum, and these forums in general, are particularly hostile to libertarians... and then, Ron Paul, who both he and his supporters get a very special type of vitriol. And apparently Teller donated the maximum amount to him last December. Are you going to extend the vitriol to Teller, too?

I can't speak for others, but whenever I have debated with Libertarians trying to explain their wacky political beliefs, they sure didn't feel coddled. Take a look at the many threads that shanek opened and participated in.

Teller isn't a member here, I haven't heard him speak of his political views, and it is irrelevant to his work as a skeptic. If he wants to come here and defend his political views, he is most welcome.

Are you by any chance a Libertarian? Do you want to discuss your political views?

[Dr. Fascism]

Was this the guy starting threads awhile back saying he hated Ron Paul's love for liberty, rainbows and children? You know, the really, really, really clumsy troll...?

Read deeper into those topics. I was being sarcastic, and said so.

The sad thing is, despite initially acting like a doofus, I got one or two PMs of people telling me they agreed with me. Ick!

[Drudgewire]

My dislike of Ron Paul supporters is limited to those who have the-sky-is-falling-nail-myself-to-the-cross mentality. I haven't seen Teller do that yet so until then I will keep liking him. I hope I have your permission to do so.
Yeah, Paul's just another politician and if I started disliking people because of who they're voting for I'd hate every single registered voter this election.

If you're voting for Paul and don't act like a loon or a jerk about it, more power to you and thank you for participating in the election process. Unfortunately the Internet seems completely devoid of this sort of RP supporter.

[Dr. Fascism]

T'is rarely a good idea to start off with airing paranoid conspiracy notions.


Just an observation, Claus.


I can't speak for others, but whenever I have debated with Libertarians trying to explain their wacky political beliefs, they sure didn't feel coddled. Take a look at the many threads that shanek opened and participated in.

I know. Ignore my registration date, it doesn't tell you how long I lurked these forums. These forums have a lot of lurkers as well as members; I was one of the lurkers for a long while.


Teller isn't a member here, I haven't heard him speak of his political views, and it is irrelevant to his work as a skeptic. If he wants to come here and defend his political views, he is most welcome.

http://www.pennandteller.com/03/coolstuff/tellerspeaks/telleressayarrivewash.html

Here is a quote from his latest essay:

"I love Washington. Yes, I know it’s the seat of hateful bureaucrats blowing my tax dollars for chewing gum. But it’s got great bookstores and great food, the gorgeous subway system (the Metro) the Smithsonian, the Archives, the Washington Monument, and all that other stuff that I own part of. Since I paid for it at the point of a gun, I might as well enjoy it."

And again, he did donate to that "crazy" Ron Paul.

[Dr. Fascism]

Well, it's usually with issues of politics or religion that people put the skeptical blinders on. Penn's no different.

You are aware that this type of idiotic statement is what I'm complaining about, right?

I mean sure, on global warming etc I'll give you that, but since I'm not talking about stuff like that and since it hasn't been brought up I'll assume you're saying his blinders are on because of his libertarian position. Even if he believed communism was the right way to go it wouldn't make him a non-skeptic or "woo" because he thinks that's the right way to run the world. Skepticism is not a political dogma and doesn't preclude you from ANY political position; too many people here, maybe not think, but act as though you have to be a Democrat, or at least leaning that way, to be a true skeptic.

I suppose the true may be the same of religion, although I'm not going to defend that position because religion deals more directly in matters of "what-is" and not "should-be", so they are not analogous.

[ravdin]

*Yawn*

Who cares? I don't agree with the political views of a lot of people who entertain me. The causes Teller chooses to support with his money don't invalidate his magic act or TV show.

As for how a "true skeptic" would behave, you might want to check out the logical fallacy known as No True Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman).

[Cain]

Read deeper into those topics. I was being sarcastic, and said so.

The sad thing is, despite initially acting like a doofus, I got one or two PMs of people telling me they agreed with me. Ick!

Really? You mean you were being sarcastic when you said you hated Ron Paul (and his followers) for their love of liberty, rainbows and children. Why, I had no idea... When I said you are a clumsy troll I meant as a pro-Paul troll. In other words, you're about as subtle as Don King.

[gtc]

I think that the difference between Penn & Teller and the usual net libertarian and Ronulan that we see around here is that they would be able to mount an argument as to why the allegations against Ron are wrong or why Ron is worth supporting anyway. Failing that they seem like the sort of people who would manage not to give a **** about what other people think about their support for Paul.

I suspect more people would admit to having libertarian leanings if it wasn't for the sort of libertarian you meet on the internet and if only they stuck to insisting that government shouldn't regulate private morality and insisting that all government actions (whether it be expenditure, taxation or regulation or even regulation designed to promote equal rights) be justified.

Sadly most internet libertarians seem to feel the most important right is either the right to be a cranky bastard or the right to be king of their own slice of America (witness the number of pro confederate libertarians).

[CFLarsen]

Just an observation, Claus.

How about this observation?

Guess he's no longer a skeptic now, right guys? Because's he's a "political woo"? Perhaps if you see him at another Amazing Meeting you'll sneer at him because he's not a Democrat? Is it time to rebuke him and excommunicate him from the Holy Church of Skepticism?

(Emphasis mine)

Did you not indicate that his donation to the Libertarian candidate was something new to people, and that it should make people change their stance on Teller?


I know. Ignore my registration date, it doesn't tell you how long I lurked these forums. These forums have a lot of lurkers as well as members; I was one of the lurkers for a long while.

In which case you are perfectly aware of how shanek's Libertarianism was countered.

http://www.pennandteller.com/03/coolstuff/tellerspeaks/telleressayarrivewash.html

Here is a quote from his latest essay:

"I love Washington. Yes, I know it’s the seat of hateful bureaucrats blowing my tax dollars for chewing gum. But it’s got great bookstores and great food, the gorgeous subway system (the Metro) the Smithsonian, the Archives, the Washington Monument, and all that other stuff that I own part of. Since I paid for it at the point of a gun, I might as well enjoy it."

And again, he did donate to that "crazy" Ron Paul.

I take it you are a Libertarian. Do you agree with Ron Paul on everything?

[BPSCG]

Teller speaks but not on stage or while on TV shows. I heard him speak on stage last week.

Well, actually, it was an altar, at a Lutheran church.

Really.

He was giving a lecture about the production of Macbeth he's involved with at the Folger Shakespeare Theater here in DC. Had some very interesting views on the play - considers it first and foremost a horror story, albeit with really great writing. More here (http://www.folger.edu/woSummary.cfm?woid=438) (click on "Teller's Macbeth Diaries" on the right). Mrs. BPSCG and I have tix for the show March 27. :woowoo

And I got his autograph on my copy of Cruel Tricks for Dear Friends.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_44047cdcdf7c6213.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11129)

[Redtail]

Yeah? So? Nancy Cartwright donated $10 mil to the church of Scientology. I didn't throw my Simpson Dvds out.

[HarryKeogh]

You are aware that this type of idiotic statement is what I'm complaining about, right?

I was talking about his assertion that he was absolutely positive that Ron Paul didn't write those newsletters. He had blinders on regarding that not that "Libertarians wear blinders".

But rant away.

[OneShotKi11]

Yeah? So? Nancy Cartwright donated $10 mil to the church of Scientology. I didn't throw my Simpson Dvds out.

NO, not the Simpson's!!!

[timhau]

But this subforum, and these forums in general, are particularly hostile to libertarians... and then, Ron Paul, who both he and his supporters get a very special type of vitriol.

Actually, I think that 'very special type of vitriol' is reserved for people who are bat:rule10 crazy.

[JoeEllison]

I think that the difference between Penn & Teller and the usual net libertarian and Ronulan that we see around here is that they would be able to mount an argument as to why the allegations against Ron are wrong or why Ron is worth supporting anyway. Failing that they seem like the sort of people who would manage not to give a **** about what other people think about their support for Paul....or, as Penn used to do all the time on his radio show, describe his libertarian viewpoints as "stupid" and "crazy" and based in not really knowing all that much. Once he does that, there's not much else you can do to argue with him, is there?

[volatile]

Yeah? So? Nancy Cartwright donated $10 mil to the church of Scientology. I didn't throw my Simpson Dvds out.

Are you sure you meant "donated"? :boxedin:

[KingMerv00]

Dr. F,

Why did you only address the posts you saw as hostile?

A couple of us said that we did not see all Ron Paul supporters as crazy but you insist on painting this forum in broad strokes.

[davefoc]

I voted for Ron Paul.

I realize there are many in this forum that think that Ron Paul is pretty much in wacko land.

I don't know much about Paul, so I've never been quite sure what was going on with all that.

There are a few possibilities that I see:
1. Classic Democrats (which is the largest definable political group in this forum I think) generally, IMHO, ignore the unintended consequences of various regulations of the free market that they tend to like (if wages are too low pass a law and make them higher, if rents are too high pass a law and make them lower, etc.). Often, classic Democrats tend to categorize people that don't agree with their ideas about government interventions in the free market as libertarian nutjobs. So, maybe the Ron Paul bashing is just routine Democratic bashing of people that advocate free market solutions.

2. Ron Paul is pro-life, and people in this forum see that as pretty much of a nutjob view so Ron Paul is per force a nutjob to them.

3. Ron Paul doesn't think the job of the US is to muck about in the middle east and people who have decided that it is a good idea for the US to be the grand peacemaker in the middle east despite generations of screwing up that role (if that ever was a real goal of US middle east policy) think that people that disagree with them are wackos or at least leftist, Clinton loving, American hating nutjobs.

4. Ron Paul really is some kind of wacko and if I knew more about him I wouldn't have voted for him.

[gtc]

I voted for Ron Paul.

I realize there are many in this forum that think that Ron Paul is pretty much in wacko land.

I don't know much about Paul, so I've never been quite sure what was going on with all that.

There are a few possibilities that I see:


5. Ron Paul really is some kind of whacko and if you knew more about him you might still have voted for him as his non-whacko policies were better than the policies of his opponents.

This isn't my point of view as I am not a committed libertarian but I can see how some people feel this way.

[OMGturt1es]

i suspect that penn and teller support ron paul because they think he is the candidate that is most libertarian. in reality, however, ron paul is not a libertarian. ron paul is a conservative, moral authoritive who borrows from the worst of libertarianism and hasn't the spine to campaign with honesty. a breif view of paul's own, sponsored legislation reveals that he is pro-life, anti-gay and ant-church/state seperation.

penn and teller both seem to be strictly against infringements of the establishment clause, and seem to despise government legislated morality. ron paul does not even believe that the establishment clause requires a seperation of church and state. ron paul's own legislation would allow local governments to interprete the establishment clause as they see fit, while barring federal courts from hearing cases regarding infringements of the establishment clause. ron paul's own legislation would bar funding for those organizations that even mention homosexuality as a healthy alternative lifestyle.

it seems very likely to me that penn and teller have simply not spent hours and hours reading about paul's past legislation. paul's own words are often very, very different from paul's legislation.

penn and teller are human. i find them entertaining, and i sometimes agree with them, but that doesn't make them immune to failure. even i fail often, and i kinda have to agree with myself...

[BPSCG]

i suspect that penn and teller support ron paul because they think he is the candidate that is most libertarian. in reality, however, ron paul is not a libertarian. ron paul is a conservative, moral authoritive who borrows from the worst of libertarianism and hasn't the spine to campaign with honesty. a breif view of paul's own, sponsored legislation reveals that he is pro-life, anti-gay and ant-church/state seperation.

penn and teller both seem to be strictly against infringements of the establishment clause, and seem to despise government legislated morality. ron paul does not even believe that the establishment clause requires a seperation of church and state. ron paul's own legislation would allow local governments to interprete the establishment clause as they see fit, while barring federal courts from hearing cases regarding infringements of the establishment clause. ron paul's own legislation would bar funding for those organizations that even mention homosexuality as a healthy alternative lifestyle.

it seems very likely to me that penn and teller have simply not spent hours and hours reading about paul's past legislation. paul's own words are often very, very different from paul's legislation.

penn and teller are human. i find them entertaining, and i sometimes agree with them, but that doesn't make them immune to failure. even i fail often, and i kinda have to agree with myself...Archy was a cockroach, so he had an excuse (http://www.donmarquis.com/archy/).

[KingMerv00]

I voted for Ron Paul.

*snip*

I don't know much about Paul...

Why did you vote for him?

[KoihimeNakamura]

You mean, if a lot of libertarians weren't like htis:

http://www.xkcd.com/386/

[Mister Agenda]

5. Ron Paul really is some kind of whacko and if you knew more about him you might still have voted for him as his non-whacko policies were better than the policies of his opponents.

This isn't my point of view as I am not a committed libertarian but I can see how some people feel this way.

It's like you've known me forever.

[davefoc]

Why did you vote for him?

The current edition of the Republican Party has sold out to special interests (agribusiness, pharmaceutical, military-industrial, etc.), is anti-science, fiscally irresponsible, favors torture, and the continuation of the involvement of the US in a terrible civil war for cynical political reasons. They allowed the president to use the Iraq War as a giant pork trough for his crony corporations. And they supported their president when he attempted to use the US Attorney's office to shield his political friends and punish his political enemies. This was the most blatant abuse of power by a president in my life and the most blatant attempt to undermine the rule of law by a president in my life.

If the US ends up with a president similar to the current one and a Republican Party as deeply entrenched in corruption as the current one is, the US will continue its decay into bankruptcy and chaos.

I thought Ron Paul might offer an alternative to this.

I'm not going to vote for any Republican on the national level this year and probably won't again until the Democrats are firmly entrenched and the country is greatly suffering under the weight of the unintended consequences of the laws they pass to satisfy their various interest groups.

[volatile]

The current edition of the Republican Party has sold out to special interests (agribusiness, pharmaceutical, military-industrial, etc.), is anti-science,

Whoa. Stop right there.

You know Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution, right?


fiscally irresponsible,

RP wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve and re-instute the gold standard. That sounds about as fiscally irresponsible as it might possible to get to me.

[davefoc]

Whoa. Stop right there.

You know Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution, right?


Ron Paul on evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

So Ron Paul is willing to pander to the religious right or he is some kind of true religious believer. And that makes him a less good candidate than which of the other Republican contenders on that?

The tacit deal that the secular moderate Republicans had with the party over the years is that it can give the religious right some of what they want as long as we moderate secular Republicans get something we want like honest competent governance and some reasonable support for the ideas of limited government especially in the economy. The current Republican Party has betrayed that deal. All that remains is hypocritical rhetoric about fiscal responsibility.

As far as the gold standard goes:
I think it's probably a bad idea, but I wouldn't necessarily write somebody off as a wacko because he supported it.

ETA: One thing to consider when deciding to write Paul off as a wacko is whether the country would have been better off with him as president or with Bush. I think it is highly likely that the country would have been much better off with somebody like Paul than Bush. It is interesting to me that lots of candidates that were written off as fringe from both the left and the right would have been better presidents than Bush. It looks to me like hundreds of millions of dollars and vast amounts of human effort were spent to select the 2000 and 2004 president and the net result of the process was probably to pick the worst of all the contenders.

[dudalb]

Teller isn't a member here, I haven't heard him speak of his political views, and it is irrelevant to his work as a skeptic. If he wants to come here and defend his political views, he is most welcome.



I would generally agree but would note that he has used his TV show B-----t
to push his Libertarian views at time. He has a perfect right to do so,but it does sort of damage B.......t 's standing as a Skeptical program.

[Elizabeth I]

Yeah? So? Nancy Cartwright donated $10 mil to the church of Scientology. I didn't throw my Simpson Dvds out.

Neither did I; on the other hand, I was really, really glad I had never bought any.

Archy was a cockroach, so he had an excuse (http://www.donmarquis.com/archy/).

EXCEPT FOR THE TIME THE "SHIFT LOCK" KEY GOT TURNED ON.

[corplinx]

I said many times that I like to root for guys that shake things up. Ron Paul is one of them. Teller is a libertarian and also likes crazy people like Ron Paul who rock the boat.

What myself and some other skeptics really hated was Ron Paul's supporters who were the bane of internet message boards and youtube. We lumped on Paul just because it ticked off all the neo-white-supremacists, conspiracy theorists, xenophobes, NAU tards, and various other garbage that came out to support Ron Paul in droves.

[Skeptic Ginger]

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=ADYHY&txtName=Teller&txtState=(all%20states)&txtAll=Y&Order=N




Guess he's no longer a skeptic now, right guys? Because's he's a "political woo"? Perhaps if you see him at another Amazing Meeting you'll sneer at him because he's not a Democrat? Is it time to rebuke him and excommunicate him from the Holy Church of Skepticism?Skeptics who have openly stated they are or lean toward Libertarian positions:

Michael Shermer
Phil Plait (Bad Astronomer)
Penn & Teller (I'm pretty sure they both are)



I'm sure there must be plenty more.

But Libertarian economic policies are as unworkable as communist and socialist economic policies. The evidence on human nature suggests regulated capitalism works best with a few services best kept within community control.

The political system should of course be separated from the economic system. If you have a bad government, then it doesn't matter what economic philosophy you have, it will be corrupted.

Bush and Cheney have been privatizing everything. But the cronyism has made a mess of it so it's hard to judge which are the problems with privatization and which are the problems from the cronyism.

By the same token, it is a false claim that government cannot run anything efficiently. Yes it can, the fire department in my city is evidence that the government sector can do an excellent job. Just because some government run businesses have been inefficient is no more the fault of the economic philosophy than Bush cronyism proves government contracting with the private sector is wrought with failure due to corruption.

[davefoc]

But Libertarian economic policies are as unworkable as communist and socialist economic policies. The evidence on human nature suggests regulated capitalism works best with a few services best kept within community control.



The roles of government in the regulation of a mostly capitalistic economy are varied and not all of them are as necessary or beneficial as many people believe (IMHO of course).

One absolutely necessary role of government is to protect third party interests. It is disappointing to me that libertarians and other kinds of free market advocates are slow to admit this absolutely essential role for government. When a mining company digs coal out of the ground who is there to represent the interests of the people whose air and water is contaminated, whose environment is degraded and who are put at risk from all sorts of threats from the mining if it is not the government?

Other roles for government regulation are not as necessary and often the regulations have unintended consequences that in net produce more harm then benefit. For instance, the rules put in place to raise the financial return to farmers because it was judged they weren't making enough money have been disastrous. The negative unintended consequences of these rules have been massive and the damage done has been beyond belief and yet the agricultural subsidy programs continue.

There is benefit from almost all regulations, but all regulations produce unintended consequences and one of the problems with a democratically run country is that many voters are often unaware of the unintended consequences of regulations and the required balancing act between benefit and harm is rarely done with any precision. Often the thought process runs along the line of "If rents are too high, lets pass a law and make them lower and if wages are too low lets pass a law and make them higher". The pain inflicted from these kind of flawed notions can be minor (perhaps minimum wage laws do about as much good as they do harm) to disastrous as with the union special interest rules that have played major roles in the ongoing disaster of the American automobile industry and the cities that depended on it.

[Chaos]

Skeptics who have openly stated they are or lean toward Libertarian positions:

Michael Shermer
Phil Plait (Bad Astronomer)
Penn & Teller (I'm pretty sure they both are)

I´m not sure where you get that about the BA from.

And if I remember correctly, Shermer said that he considered himself a "small-L" libertarian (as opposed to a "big-L" Libertarian).

I'm sure there must be plenty more.

But Libertarian economic policies are as unworkable as communist and socialist economic policies. The evidence on human nature suggests regulated capitalism works best with a few services best kept within community control.

The political system should of course be separated from the economic system. If you have a bad government, then it doesn't matter what economic philosophy you have, it will be corrupted.

Bush and Cheney have been privatizing everything. But the cronyism has made a mess of it so it's hard to judge which are the problems with privatization and which are the problems from the cronyism.

By the same token, it is a false claim that government cannot run anything efficiently. Yes it can, the fire department in my city is evidence that the government sector can do an excellent job. Just because some government run businesses have been inefficient is no more the fault of the economic philosophy than Bush cronyism proves government contracting with the private sector is wrought with failure due to corruption.

The problem with Libertarianism is that it states that government is by definition bad... yet Libertarians want nothing more than to BECOME the government. And, once they are there, there is nothing that forces them to do any better that didn´t force their predecessors to do better.

[Richard Masters]

The roles of government in the regulation of a mostly capitalistic economy are varied and not all of them are as necessary or beneficial as many people believe (IMHO of course).

One absolutely necessary role of government is to protect third party interests. It is disappointing to me that libertarians and other kinds of free market advocates are slow to admit this absolutely essential role for government. When a mining company digs coal out of the ground who is there to represent the interests of the people whose air and water is contaminated, whose environment is degraded and who are put at risk from all sorts of threats from the mining if it is not the government?

While I largely agree with your comments, I'd like to point out that Ron Paul does believe that the government's role is to protect third party interests. In particular he believes you can be held responsible for polluting your neighbor's backyard, or the river he drinks water from. I do too, and I find it difficult to believe many libertarians would not.

[davefoc]

While I largely agree with your comments, I'd like to point out that Ron Paul does believe that the government's role is to protect third party interests. In particular he believes you can be held responsible for polluting your neighbor's backyard, or the river he drinks water from. I do too, and I find it difficult to believe many libertarians would not.

I would like to think so also, but if shanek was representative of a typical libertarian, it seemed like they go to great lengths to see how third parties weren't usually subject to damages and if they were there was some free market mechanism to bale them out.

Actually I used to think of myself as a moderate libertarian. Shanek's and my views were so different at times that I began to think that I might be more a moderate than a libertarian.

It's far off the general topic, but I think as societies become more densely populated classic libertarian ideas need to be carefully thought out. My sense of it is that private property rights which can be nearly absolute in a sparsely populated society need to be significantly restricted in a densely populated society.

I own two pieces of real estate. I can't put a house of prostitution on them, I can't drill for oil on them, I can't tear the structures down on them and build a high rise, etc. So in some very real ways my property rights have been significantly restricted, but I think many of the restrictions are pretty reasonable and are justified by taking into account third party consequences. Shanek, JREF's most libertarian libertarian if you don't remember him, went nuts over this kind of thinking.