Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with libertarianism

Too Hot Not To Handle

Ash3000 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:39:33 -0800

A friend, who leans Ron Paul libertarian, was recently trying to convince me that anthropogenic global warming is largely a myth. A central part of his argument was his claiming that there was recently a petition signed by 40,000 independent climate scientists saying that, in his words, "so-called global warming is bullshit." More inside. I'm no climate scientist, but I feel like I have a fairly good layman's grasp on the basics of climate change, and have heard of a few such "petitions" that generally end up being filled with non-scientists, or those on the fringe, or those who are corporate-sponsored - but I'd never heard of this petition.

I asked him to cite what exactly he was referring to, and he said he couldn't remember the sourcing at the moment (it was a loud bar night), but rest assured that the whole idea of a consensus about climate change is part of the push for one-world government.

The one-world-paranoia aside, does anyone know what he might have been referring to? I couldn't find anything googling for the number 40,000, but 30,000 yielded this. Might that be it?

I think he absorbs a fair amount of fringe-right media - can anyone give me the straight dope on the sort of things that are being circulated as "proof against climate change" that this may have been a part of, and what the common refutations are against this specific petition (if you know it), or such petitions generally? Or just a way to use this as an excuse to learn more? I'd like to continue these conversations with him, but I feel like he keeps on citing research that he reads in newsletters and the like.

(Also, while I'm here, he claimed that carbon taxation, especially in its current legislative form in Congress, is a secret tool to constrict all industry, and that Al Gore is just trying to profiteer for his private business. What're the arguments against these specific claims?)

Atlas Scowled Mightily

killdevil — Mon, 11 May 2009 15:06:31 -0800

What single book presents the most forceful argument against both Randian Objectivism and the libertarian political philosophy that presents itself (in some ways, at least) as having followed naturally from Rand's ideas? A friend of mine has just soldiered his way through Atlas Shrugged and would like to read something else as a counterpoint to Rand. Somewhat offhandedly, he mentioned the Communist Manifesto, but I don't think that's particularly apt. Ideas?

The Books & Mortar of Libertarianism

dead_ — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:49:17 -0800

Which books comprise the canon of libertarian philosophy? I'm looking for titles, authors and links. I hope this isn't too broad. Thank you for your help!

What's the deal with the popularity of Moonbat?

Astro Zombie — Wed, 24 May 2006 23:11:52 -0800

Explain to me the popularity of "moonbat." I mean, I know the right wing, particularly those with libertarian leanings, like to use it against anybody even remotely to the left of them, and I know the mean those people are crazy. I know the history of this weird little phrase. I just don't get its popularity. I also don't understadn why it seems to be applied exclusively to the left -- the comparable phrase "wingnut" seems likely to be applied to the radical fringe of the left and the right alike.

So what's the dilly?

Conservatism and the Nineteenth Century

dame — Sat, 08 Oct 2005 12:01:54 -0800

Another "please explain" question for conservatives, libertarians, and perhaps historians regarding welfare, concepts of economic freedom, and the nineteenth century. In this thread discussing single-motherhood and welfare, sonofsamiam writes, "I think that people are best served socially by policies that give them the maximum amount of economic discretion, but I understand that many smart and good people disagree."

I have heard the same voiced by others. My question is didn't we try that in the nineteenth century and wasn't the result of that widespread misery? That is, it seems to me that laissez-faire capitalism as epitomized by the Gilded Age made most people unhappy and served society poorly, which dissatisfaction led to the turn-of-the-century Progressive reforms, the New Deal, and the Great Society. How do you see this progression? What in it or in contemporary society suggests to you that we would be better off if we undid such reforms?

As usual, please keep the thread civil. I am interested in answers more than arguments in this case. If you have a problem with my question, etc., my email is on my user page. I know I have made it clear before that I am a big old socialist, but I ask this question in earnest.