Posted by LogisticEarth on 04/14/09
Last updated 04/21/09

One of the things that has always troubled me about public discussions concerning the place of science in our world, is the failure of many people to differentiate between politics and actual, hard scientific data/conclusions.  I'll be frank here, the more I talk with various people about liberty, politics, and the state of our government today, the more I'm distressed by people, including many in our movement, who fail to decouple those two distinctly different concepts.

For example, a big topic that riles everyone up on here is Climate Change/Global Warming.  I'll be upfront here, and say that I believe that we have the ability to, and are currently in the process of, influencing global climate.  I have the feeling this opinion isn't a popular one here.  Nevertheless, I have a B.A. in Geology, and attempt to stay as informed as possible on the subject.  Over the years, I went from being a skeptic of anthropogenic climate change, to someone who's convinced its real, and may have some negative effects on humanity.  Not Al Gore's "The Sky Is Falling!^TM" doomsday predictions, but some negative effects.  The question then, is what to do about it, and this is precisely where you have to make the distinction between politics and science.

I have a feeling that many people are climate change deniers/supporters because of the political spin that many people piggy-back onto the science.  Many people here at C4L, or libertarians in general, are wary of claims about climate change because they're usually being made by someone who's also saying we need to "fix" the situation with strong governmental controls.  On the other hand, many people latch onto the "cause" climate change because they hate large corporations/promote socialism and see climate change as a justification to take down those who they see as "exploiting the planet/poor/third world/etc."  In BOTH cases, people are making a political decision, and then cherry-picking the science to support that platform.  This trend follows for the debates surrounding evolution, stem cells, heck, even the 9/11 Truthers and moon landing conspiracies.

Science though, in its purest form, should have no political spin whatsoever.  For example, I think many of you accept that regular use of cigarettes dramatically increases one's risk for cancer.  But does that justify obscene taxes on tobacco, smoking bans in private businesses, and other social controls?  No.  Why?  Because you accept the science, but apply your political philosophy on how to deal with the situation.  Smoking is harmful but it's up to everyone to make the personal decision to fix that problem.  The same mindset can be applied to climate change:  With industrialization, it is possible for humans to act as a forcing agent in our climate systems, but how/if we fix the situation needs to be done in a way that does not rely on the State, socialist movements, or other methods that trample on our liberties.

In doing so, we decouple science and politics.  This is one of my strongest motivations behind being a libertarian:  I believe that the human mind has an incredible ability to investigate our universe, and make rational decisions on those investigations.  If we allow our understanding of fact and the physical world to be tainted by ideology, then we are acting on dogma.  As I'm sure everyone here is aware, libertarianism is not based in dogma, it is based in reason.  Science is also based in reason, and because of this, the two should go hand in hand.  In my very honest and heartfelt opinion, a good citizen must embrace science and reject anti-intellectualism, lest we fall into the same trap of so many dogma-based political movements.

We must understand that science simply strives to explain the facts of our existence.  Political ideology deals with what we choose to do with those facts.  Lets keep them seperate.

Posted by LogisticEarth on 02/09/09

...regarding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  It's not long, detailed, or very profound, but I'm doing what I can:

Senator Specter,

I'm writing to voice my hopes that you will reconsider your support for the current stimulus/spending bill being proposed in the Senate, and vote "No" when the time comes.  I'm 23 years old, and an employed young professional.  I have student loans that I am gradually paying off, yet it seems that my government is putting me further and further into debt by the day without my consent.  Please recognize that the "stimulus" bill is just a continuation of the poor, borderline (if not blatantly) unconsitutional, and unequally distributed largesse that got us into this mess.

Passing this bill will work to undo all that my parents, and yours, have done to build this nation as a country of free and independent individuals.  It will sell out my future, my children's future, and likely my grandchildren's future.  For the most part I have respected and supported you in your tenure so far in the Senate.  However, if you vote "Yes" on this bill, I cannot and will not support your further bids for the seat, and will cast my vote for someone who shares my concerns about the future consequences of the current push for more central control and deficit spending in our Federal and State governments.

Best Regards,
Nathan Pritchard.

Posted 02/09/09 Heather D Port Byron, IL

Great letter, Nathan.

Posted 02/09/09 Mike in Virginia Fredericksburg, VA

Very good letter.

Posted 02/10/09 RobPepe , PA

Nice letter. He is still voting YES, bad socialist.

Posted by LogisticEarth on 11/05/08

Well, it seems we went and voted ourselves a one-party government again. And one that favors massive entitlement and spending programs. For everyone celebrating, here's where we stand as a country:

-Our national government is over $10 Trillion in debt.
-Our social security and welfare programs are running out of money, and will be bankrupt within our lifetimes (and before most of us start to get returns).
-Our executive branch has become increasingly powerful to the point of almost breaking our system of checks and balances.

These are the pressing issues that actually threaten our country. Each time we elect someone, on the right or the left, we seem to elect the person who says they'll do the most for us. In the process we give up a little bit more of our power and rights as the people. We vote on emotion, media saturation, and peer pressure. Rarely it seems that rationality fits in there. Now I'm not talking about everyone out there, but think about it, and think about most people's motivations for voting. How many people voted for McCain soley on the abortion issue? How many voted for Obama simply because they disliked Bush? How many people out there actually sat down, took a look at the state of the nation, analyzed each of the candidates voting records, statements, and proposals, and made an educated, rational vote? You might have, but think of the millions that don't. Think about how they sway elections.

And think about the massive spending programs Obama is proposing. The increase in governemnt intervention in our lives. The increase in governmental power. Sure, Obama might use that power respsonibly. But what about every president for the next 50 years? The next 100? What about the next Bush or Nixon?

Time to roll my sleeves up and get to work I guess. This finally pushed me over the edge fully into the Libertarian movement. Funny I thought Obama was supposed to unify the country...