Column: What science, libertarianism have in common

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-03-18/ron-paul-libertarians-science/53617108/1

What is it about Ron Paul that so many people find intellectually appealing? Perhaps it is his frankness and candor, a rare trait in politicians. But I think it goes far beyond that. Paul — and libertarian philosophy in general — tackles government policy the same way a researcher tackles an experiment.

Let me explain. When I was in graduate school, my research mentor and I were discussing data we had generated and how they might contradict the scientific narrative we were developing. He wisely instructed me that I'd never get in trouble telling the truth. His point was obvious: Let the data speak for itself. Massaging data to make them fit the story we would like to tell is not honest, nor is it good science.

That is good advice, not just for science but also for politics. Yet few politicians follow it. Distorting data to fit political narratives has become the norm. Indeed, the struggle between Team Red and Team Blue has become little more than a giant cherry-picking contest designed to score political points rather than promoting sound policy rooted in reality.

Heavy dose of reality

Our political system could use a hefty dose of my mentor's admonition. Today, libertarianism is the best vehicle to deliver the medicine. The scientific enterprise rests on simple premises: Scientists should have the freedom to investigate whatever they choose. The universe is ultimately knowable and logical. The business of science should be to promote reality, not ideology. This formula has proved successful.

Similarly, the seductive allure of libertarianism relies on its simple assumptions: People should be as free as possible. Our laws should reflect reality. Government policies should be analyzed using logic, not ideology. There are no grand appeals to shaping the world in America's image, no quixotic promotion of economic equality and no obsession over the moral character of the nation.

In a nutshell, scientists and libertarians deal with the world the way it is, rather than the way they want it to be. Or, as Reason's science writer, Ronald Bailey, eloquently stated, "Both embody the freedom to explore and experiment, enabling people to more systematically seek truths about the physical and social worlds."

Promote freedom above all

For a libertarian, like a scientist, this means promoting freedom and reality above all else. When truth is revealed, issues that conservatives, liberals and progressives normally worry about will begin to take care of themselves. It should not come as a surprise then that this appeal has won libertarianism increasing support from a diverse coalition. College students, traditionally liberal, are among Paul's biggest fans. The 76-year-old Texas congressman himself is a devout Baptist and medical doctor. Agnostic science writer Michael Shermer and former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson are both libertarians. What these disparate individuals have in common is a rejection of traditional ideology in favor of freedom and reality.

Thus, the resurgence in libertarian ideology is not only understandable but also desirable. Its support derives from something neither political party possesses: a youthful, widening and intellectually diverse support base.

To be sure, libertarianism doesn't have all the right answers and Paul isn't going to be the Republican nominee for president. But it is a gust of fresh air in what has become the cellar of our dank and depressing political system. It is striking that the qualities that make for a good scientist are identical to those that make for a good libertarian.

 

http://iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_32efd28a-705a-11e1-9d08-0019bb2963f4.html

Just in case you weren't familiar with the latest piece of legislation that destroys our First Amendment rights, H.R. 347 was approved unanimously by the Senate, the House by 388-3 — only Ron Paul and two other Republicans objected— and signed into law Thursday by President Barack Obama.

 

Ha ha ha. No.

Libertarians have virtually no connection to the world the way it is. That's why they have no power.

Observing the world from a distance is not the same as dealing with it.

barfo

 

I don't know where you get your information, MARIS61. Ron Paul voted against HR 347 along with just 2 other republicans.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2011/h149

H.R. 347: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds ... (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended)

 

Let the data speak for itself, exactly. Except for evolution, which Paul doesn't believe in. Science!

 

Yet the socialized nations saw their financial institutions in ruins.

 

I didn't write the article. The author has a PhD in microbiology and is the editor of RealClearScience (realclearpolitics site).

 

That was not a vote on the bill, that was a vote to agree to the senate / joint committee bill.

I'm guessing he was on the campaign trail and not there to vote, as were numerous other politicians.

 

Actually, no. The vote is a formality.

The vote to actually pass the Bill was the one I posted.

And if republicans would have blocked it, a lot of people would be whining about republicans blocking Obama's agenda. Maybe even you'd be singing a different tune.