::Would both you gentlemen help me prepare a chart or table showing where conservatives, liberals and libertarians agree and disagree on the major U.S. issues? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::: On school prayer - libertarians oppose censorship - believe government should NOT have any say in content or curriculum, parents decision - conservative viewpoint - By Steve Kubby - libertarian candidate for Governer of california - [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26415 | Here] ""No real Libertarian could endorse school prayer: forcing a Christian prayer down the throat of every schoolchild legally required to appear in school." [http://libertarianobama.blogspot.com/2008/03/two-more-points-against-barr.html | here] is slightly different , This does not endorse censorship, but will not support forced prayer, which is in keeping with concept of Personal choice. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 11:37, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::: No, that's misleading. Read your cite carefully: libertarians do not oppose censorship of school prayer. Hoping to pick up conservative support, libertarians seek the implausible end to public schools, which is very different. Libertarians are the most strident supporters of the phony separation of church and state.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:39, 17 November 2008 (EST)
== theory of evolution ==
: You're right, you are being blocked for that (for just a day). First, don't swear here. Second, don't engage in ad hominem attacks here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:34, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::That word is used in that way something like 58 times on conservapedia, Also since your likely response was the topic bringing up your behavior was appropriate and there for it does not constitute an Ad hominem attack, had I been discussing the validity of a theory and used your behavior against your side of the argument that would be an ad hominem. --[[User: On school Brendanw|Brendanw]] 14:48, 18 November 2008 (EST) == Counter examples ==Would counter examples help to change people's opinions here, or would I just be whistling in the dark? I have them for prayer - libertarians oppose and evolution, but stopped looking when I realized that they might not be welcome. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 22:28, 17 November 2008 (EST) : I don't see how a counterexample to censorship helps lessen the wrongdoing of censorship. How about a counterexample to crime? The criminal obeyed the law today! That doesn't work.- believe government -[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 17 November 2008 (EST) :: I was hoping that providing examples would help convince you that this argument is fallacious. The following examples from prominent libertarians say that each school should NOT have any its own mandate about state control of prayer in school: [http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_maint.php?Category=2&id=171] [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26415] [http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Education.htm] :: I think what this might boil down to is that the ACLU is not and never was a libertarian organization. While these may be issues that the ACLU pushes, the ACLU ignores such things as the second amendment, the increases in government size due to their lawsuits, and the limitation on speech that their lawsuits end up causing. ::All of the libertarians I know agree with the Norquist idea of shrinking the federal government down to the point where it can be drown in a bathtub. They want to create a world in which a parent can choose to send their child to a school that starts the day with a prayer. Or doesn't for that matter. They support the right of parents to homeschool their children and teach them what they feel children should learn. I'm not sure how else to state that. If you can find libertarian organizations that actually support restrictions on the prayers that students say , please tell me. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 23:37, 17 November 2008 (EST) == Tim Wise On Racism & The Libertarian Deceit == In my thirty-four years on this Earth, there are at least a few things I’ve learned. First, that it makes almost no sense whatsoever for a child to argue with his or her parents about bedtime. Secondly, that it makes almost as little sense to argue with a cop about a speeding ticket. ''And finally, that it makes even less sense to argue with a libertarian about anything.'' This hearty band of market-worshipers so prominent on the Internet proffers a worldview that is not only ahistoric (after all, there has never been a free market, nor could there be one given the tendency of the powerful to seek and receive protection for their power), but is also irrelevant to the world in content which we live. To believe that pure, unrestrained capitalism is a good idea requires first that one can actually imagine such a thing existing at all. But since such a scenario would require an end to subsidizing industries, an end to inflated management and executive salaries that are unrelated to performance, an end to limited liability protections and a likely return to strict torts for corporate misconduct, and an end to foreign military interventions to prop up private interests, we can safely say that such a utopian future is not in the cards. Simply put: capitalists can’t afford capitalism. That said, it is still necessary to understand why this particular libertarian logic is flawed on any number of issues. This is true not because it is particularly helpful in winning arguments with its adherents, but rather to fully understand the realities of power and privilege and the ways in which the current economic system perpetuates massive inequalities. It is also helpful as a preemptive antidote for those who may be vulnerable to the simplistic, almost-sounds-like-it-makes-sense worldview of free market fanatics. Examining the libertarian position on racism and racial discrimination is particularly fascinating, and makes clear the degree to which those who cleave to this ideology are living in a world completely divorced from reality. According to libertarians, racial discrimination in the workforce cannot occur to any real extent in a market economy, because it is fundamentally irrational and would cost employers money. Even though the current U.S. economy is not a pure free market, most libertarians likewise claim that racism in the labor market is rare today, and for this same reason: namely, that to discriminate against a more qualified worker of color just because of his or curriculumher race would result in that employer losing money, parents relative to their non-racist competitors who would presumably snatch up the passed over employees and reap the benefits of doing so. To the extent that there are large racial differences in income, wealth, or occupational status, libertarians assume this must be the result of people of color being objectively less qualified. Passing a person of color over for a certain job or promotion is therefore not evidence of racism, but merely a rational calculation of merit. Yet this argument assumes that racial discrimination only manifests in direct acts of overt bias (i.e., the racist employer who refuses to hire blacks). But much of the inequality in the labor market stems from factors other than overt bias. For example, 85-90% of all jobs are never advertised, according to the National Center for Career Strategies, but rather are filled through informal networks of associates, friends, family and assorted connections. As such, there is no free and open competition for most positions; employers aren’t even in a position to size up all the possible people they could hire, and then make an overtly biased decision on the basis of race. Rather, most hires are made without a broad, open competition, and since blacks and other people of color are disproportionately excluded from the best informal networks for jobs (the result of past and ongoing unequal opportunity in housing and education), many qualified people of color will never have a shot to be hired (or directly rejected for that matter), since the employers in question won’t even know about them. Similarly, since the employer can’t know about the possible employees who didn’t apply (because they were out of the word- conservative viewpoint of- By Steve Kubby mouth network), they can’t possibly realize, after the fact, that perhaps they lost out by not doing more to diversify their hiring. They wouldn’t be able to see that there were equally or more qualified people of color they might have hired, because they would have no awareness of such persons in the potential pool. Nor would their competitors be much better in this regard, since they too are likely to hire within networks and other informal mechanisms. In other words, the market in most cases is an insular one that fails to provide adequate information to employers that they would need to make true merit decisions, or to recognize the mistakes that come from maintaining discriminatory networks for jobs and opportunities. Read more here: [http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featwise_196.shtml] ==The principle of tolerance== I think schoolchildren should be taught to maintain a respectful silence during public prayer. If their teacher prays at the beginning of class, the student might even bow his head. Or say Amen at the end. A visiting pastor, rabbi or imam (that's a Muslim religious leader) could be invited to pray. Only those students whose parents have provided a letter to the school, saying that they '''refuse''' to have their children exposed to public prayer, should be permitted to opt out. I doubt if the majority of classrooms would each have such a student. But accommodation could be made. "Okay, I'm going to say a prayer now. Billy and Mary, you may stand in the hallway for a minute." But why stop there? If parents object to the way human reproduction is taught, with graphic depictions of sexual actions presented (for example), shouldn't they also be able to opt out? Or are we to enforce "[[tolerance]]" of things liberals like while enforcing [[censorship]] of things liberals hate? - libertarian candidate -[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:39, 18 November 2008 (EST) :This is coming from someone who supports school prayer, so don't take it the wrong way. However I can see a strong flaw in your argument. Religious beliefs are personal, there is no objective way to prove their accuracy and each student is entitled to their own opinion. Once teacher initiated public prayer is allowed, it gives individual religious beliefs an authority that is above what is allowable in a multicultural society (even if you invited members of other religious orders in, you will never be able to accommodate for Governer all students). Sending students out of california class is entirely impractical, not only does it disrupt the flow of the lesson but it also isolates students and leaves them open to alienation and ridicule. :Descriptions of sex acts are entirely different matter. There is little doubt that using the powers of sexuality (a nice euphemism I learned in primary school :) can lead to pregnancy, and that there are ways to utilise these powers beyond basic intercourse. It is not a question of personal belief, rather of teaching what is undoubtedly true. As such, censoring sex education based on graphic content is entirely different to censoring school prayer, and comparing the two is a fallacy. That said, coming from a public school in Australia where sex ed is probably some of the most graphic in the world (send me an email if you want a description) it is relatively tame and I believe most parents wishing to shelter their children have either not experienced it themselves or have impractically high standards (they'd also have to censor the news and virtually all television shows). :Just jumping back to the school prayer issue, my two cents is that the Australian model has worked wonders. In it, students in public school are not subjected to communal prayer (appropriate, given the wide variety of beliefs), however have access to compulsory scripture classes where prayer is conducted, and can join various student groups which support prayer. Not only does this ensure that students can pray in the manner that suits them (or not pray entirely) rather than being subjected to a generalised prayer which may or may not suit their beliefs, but it also fosters spiritual growth within the groups, as students are able to identify and discuss their faith with their peers. It also circumnavigates the concept of authority discussed above. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 09:06, 18 November 2008 (EST)::Norman, you just defined how American schools work, as well. 1) any parent is allowed the chance to "opt out' of sex ed classes. This is a Court defined right based on your constitutional right to practice your religion and raise your children in the manner you see fit. 2) Most schools have christian groups either before school or after school. These are open courses. The only legal requirement is that if a school allows one group to meet, it must allow all groups to meet. In some extreme cases, school districs afraid of PFLAG have decided they will have no after school groups, including Christian groups. 3) some highschools (i don't know if it's most or not) offer elective courses which include religious courses. But again, in teh US, the issue is discrimination. A Christian group cannot keep out a pagan or a gay student as long as he or she is not disruptive to the goals of the group.- -[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:40, 18 November 2008 (EST):::Then what's everyone complaining about "censorship" of school prayer for? It seems to me that American students have sufficient rights to school prayer. That is unless you want to force a generalized prayer on students from all faiths (or lack thereof) with the justification that students who do not want to participate can alienate themselves from their peers and leave themselves open to ridicule. It's the same as a teacher trying to organize a class protest against the government, absolutely unacceptable given the multiple viewpoints within a neutral group. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 19:14, 18 November 2008 (EST) ::::But teachers '''have''' done that. [http://www.worldnetdailysocialistalternative.comorg/news/articlearticle13.aspphp?ARTICLE_IDid=26415 696] --[[User:Ed Poor| HereEd Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:56, 25 November 2008 (EST) == I've never heard of this, but... == I've never heard of libertarians doing or supporting this. You might be confusing libertarianism with Objectivism - Ayn Rand supported forcing her atheist and anti-charity values on society, and many of her successors have taken neoconservative causes such as supporting the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. However, some paleolibertarians (like the anarcho-capitalist Hans Hermann-Hoppe) call for implementation of religious/conservative values via a Jim-Crow-style private-property discrimination, where non-conservative people would be forced into secrecy. Hoppe frequently applies this to gays. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 21:44, 15 February 2010 (EST)