And where would we be without a few links?

[skreidle]

From sebatical:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
PATRIOT REGISTRATION
Because non-traitors have nothing to hide.
click here to register today!
Awesome. :D

michaelduff offers a link he titles "James Lileks provides new asshole for Patrick Stewart." Apparently, Mr. Stewart thinks humans have no business traveling in space, and thinks it's the height of arrogance. Way to go, Captain Picard!

From subbes: Ohio's Governor Taft thinks it's "urgent" to adopt one of the country's most far-reaching gay-marriage bans because they're going to be legal in Mass. soon. Good heavens, what comes next? Thinking of gay folks as normal people? Oh no!

Comments

[six2.livejournal.com]

Actually, Patrick Stewart was saying that Bush shouldn't be spending hundreds of billions on going to Mars when we have a deficit and problems at home.

Where do the libertarians stand on government-paid space travel anyway?

Re:

[skreidle.livejournal.com]

Well, that wasn't made clear by that (admittedly biased) opinion piece, just that he seemed to disapprove of space exploration in general until all problems on the home front are fixed--which will never happen. Lileks had some good points, though--there are a lot of "superfluous" programs that persist despite problems elsewhere that could use the money.


Good question--space travel is too expensive for all but the richest private companies to afford..

Re:

[six2.livejournal.com]

I'm all for space travel, but I think you need the economy policy saavy first to get to justifying a mars trip right now.

I'd wondered.

Re:

[skreidle.livejournal.com]

I'd advise asking a libtertarian. :)

Check out futurgirl's latest post on deficit spending.

Re:

[six2.livejournal.com]

I didn't know if it was something that would get consideration on a detailed platform or not; if it doesn't maybe it's not something there's consensus on.

Re:

[skreidle.livejournal.com]

Well, you could at least gather some potentially representative opinions. :)

Re:

[six2.livejournal.com]

That's true.

Re:

[six2.livejournal.com]

I dunno, I think I've gotten into disagreements with her before - a little too much liberal baiting. The labels have gotten old, as has blaming democrats for fiscal irresponsibility. Defense spending anyone?

Re:

[skreidle.livejournal.com]

Yeah, no surprise. She frequently has coherent, well-reasoned arguments, but occasionally stoops lower and ignores the opposition.

Re:

[six2.livejournal.com]

That was the feeling I got. In the American system libertarians share ideas with the traditional left and the right; I don't think we'd be content to have, say, economic freedom without social freedom.

Re:

[skreidle.livejournal.com]

What would "economic freedom" entail?


As I recall, libtertarianism (simplified) is social liberalism and economic conservatism, where the left is traditionally liberal on both scales and the right is the opposite.

Re:

[six2.livejournal.com]

The old World's Smallest Political Quiz tried to rank you on your views about social freedom and economic freedom, and it viewed social freedom as the domain of the left, and economic freedom as the domain of the right.

That's changed, of course, with the Bush Administration and the Neo-conservatives; they're good old fashioned authoritarians.

Re:

[skreidle.livejournal.com]

Aha. "No taxes" would seem to be the extreme of economic freedom, then.

Re:

[six2.livejournal.com]

Which seems oddly incompatible with the republican offensive agenda.

Re:

[skreidle.livejournal.com]

Well, they do seem to like tax cuts--but so does every politician, because it's what the economically-ignorant populace wants to hear.

Re:

[six2.livejournal.com]

It's okay if you can decrease spending, but they did exactly the opposite.

Re:

[skreidle.livejournal.com]

That's because Finding WMDs Is The Most Important Things To Protect The World From Harm, you know.

Re:

[six2.livejournal.com]

lol