Social science? .... Libertarian, while pointing to the left, is too broad a term to neatly summarize, a bit like anarchism. Hey, damn jerk McCain, trying to redifine the repubican party. Oh and the dumb people might just elect those two smiling lying devils. I am getting where nothing the public does surprizes me anymore. What a pathetic joke my America has become.

Yes, I would correct my stance on political positions if they were shown to be contradictory.  And I would not claim that the big bang or an intelligent designer had anything to do with our currency. I would really like to hear how someone took a currency discussion and got creationism involved in it.

I would like to see some of the questions. A civil Q&A session could let us all learn something.

Libertarians are left wing? This is news to me. I thought that they were left wing on social issues (abortion rights, gay marriage, repealing drug laws) but right wing on economic issues (very low taxes, slash spending to welfare programs, free market). Though I do agree that libertarianism is very broad. I am certain that you could find libertarians who would take exception to every libertarian stance that I have mentioned above. I am actually a little sick of leftist and populists lying and claiming that they are libertarian when they expressly support large government programs, higher taxes, anti-globalization and income redistribution. Though we also have right wingers who love the free market, but hate gay rights and a woman's right to choose. For some reason people seem to think that being either for free markets or for lax social restrictions makes them libertarian. I disagree, those people are progressives or conservatives. If you are both for lax social restrictions and free markets (and for that matter a shrinking of the government in all practical ways) then I consider you to be a libertarian. I don't mean to use a no true scottsman fallacy here. I just think some people need to admit that they are not libertarian, they love big government and are just a big government loving progressive or a big government loving conservative.

Thank you. I deduce that you are a libertarian then.

The answer is quite simple the libertarian/free market  advocates argue for a gold currency because “you can not produce gold therefore no inflation”. Now I point out some possibilities to inflate the gold currency and one of them is nuclear fusion (you can make gold from air using fusion with the write technology).

Now the libertarian ignore my other points like asteroid mining or market scenarios to manipulate the price of gold and accuse me of being a alchemist and using the philosophers stone.

I Explain that nuclear fusion is essential to creating other elements in the big bang theory.

This gets ignored and “U don’t understand science “ is thrown at me.

I explain that they are in fact using creationist tactics because creationists argue agents “ Chemical evolution/fusion ” I give some videos of creationists making this statement and getting owned.

Libertarians still think I’m a alchemist and modern science is alchemy because it contradicts their dogma (you can make a parable between creationism and them here), I ask if their believe in a “intelligent gold designer” because gold is “irreducibly complex” to be created via fusion and to give me the explanation how else gold and the other elements got here if not via fusion after the big bang(there is always the possibility they are creationists for real)

.

And I get no answers about this or any explanation how our universe could form the big bang if fusion and most of nuclear physics is wrong , and I get no answer.

Remember I’m not postulating a  gold mass production , they simply challenge scientific text book knowledge about fusion.

I don’t use the I one or 2 dimensional scales for determining political views , I use a flag system because there are many potential political views not matching a 1D, 2D , 3D or 4D distinction.

I use flags like “supports free market” ,  “for abortion” , “progressive tax supporter”. The many paradoxes arising of use of a simple scale simply disprove the concept of left , right , down , up in politics.  

Yes however the libertarians have their political program and ideas. If something contradicts their ideas (nuclear fusion) they start denying this and this is a source of the “libertarian war on science” you can be a libertarian and a creationist there is no contradiction in this.

Its not a strong point agents libertarianism (it simply shows that the more strong believers in libertarianism will fight facts that contradict their world view ) and not part of my questions I simply added this to explain why I needed a confirmation that if shown wrong my opposite side will stop holding a wrong position and because I got asked how a libertarian discussion ended in them denying the big bang.

I’m opposed to doctrinal thinking in terms of I’m a libertarian or I’m a member of the fishiest party. Political parties have their dogma and if your combination of ideas is no represented you are going to make compromises. Now lets take 3 positions with a binary answer Y/N that gives us 8 possible parties with not repeating programs if we increase the number of choices to 4 we get 16 if to 5 we get 32 if to 6 we get 64 if to 7 we get 128 if to 8  we get 256.

So it is not possible practically to have a excellent party if they need to make a Y/N stand on 7 points and above . So every time something gets compromised in the choice of a political party.  I propose a democratic-technocracy the decision making is given to voters instead to political parties and people simply get a list with 8 Y/N choices on a card for example.

I have not criticized libertarians in my post !

I have criticized doctrinal thinking and thinking in terms of “our party” and “their party”.

Na note the words  “for me” it signalizes subjectivity.

Ok maybe I generalized libertarians however I did this because of my frustration if I did I’m sorry not my intension .

I can start a libertarian VS me discussion however I would preferred that some libertarian starts summarizing his/her believes and then I start giving questions to them , every thing else is so rude.

no problem maybe Yellow Number Five will show up or I will be forced to start the debate with my self using quotes from other libertarians.

Is being creationist contradictory to libertarian philosophy ? I think you are making a sweeping generalization  libertarianism holds multiple flags of opinion on multiple topics however accepting or denying  creationism is not one of them.

Na I create my own political party the “democratic-technocracy party” I have only one goal the abandonment of the party political system and giving direct decision making to people so every diverse viewpoint will be possible to express instead of electing dictator power hungry politicians so that they will “vote for you” however this is off topic.

Ok here I start my debate using a quote from libertarians because I didn’t get the statement of believes from you (I hope you are not angry about this).

Libertarian viewpoint : The state oppresses you/me/us.

Answer : No the states is completely voluntary and uses voluntary taxation and voluntary low making. This premise is wrong because it assumes a blind contradiction there is no state there are states and you are free to move beyond the borders of one state and get into  another that dos not require you to do thing X. Because one state can not enforce its powers beyond its borders its decision making is limited to its borders oppression is not possible you are voluntarily choosing a state like you chose a restaurant you can simply walk away to a different state or to a “libertarian paradise” that a libertarian source is presenting for a utopia

http://mises.org/story/2066

I’m surprised that the author of this article dident moved to this startles paradise since he endorses its politics. However this side is field with people who are maybe not representative of your views and I’m simply debating a libertarian quote.

Please define state , private person , private property , government , government property your stand on thus things so we can start the debate in a civil questioning from me fashion feel free to correct me on my simulated discussion because I can not possibly know if it is your position.  

Voluntary taxation? Which state has voluntary taxation? I want to live in that state. My state has a mandatory taxation system. In fact, every state that I can think of runs a mandatory taxation system. Pay up or go to prison. So I can be raped in prison, or I can pay taxes. Not quite what I would call "voluntary." That and I would not even want a voluntary tax system. I would like as low of a tax as possible, but that doesn't mean that I want no taxes at all. It is when my taxes are squandered (war on drugs, war in Iraq, political pork, etc.) that I get mad.

What do you mean by "your stand on thus things?" I'm not too sure but I'll try to answer that:

Private property: I think that people should have strong property rights. For example: I despise eminent domain abuses. We have a bit of a problem with that in California. I also think that what I do on my property is no one else's f*cking business (unless I am harming others, then it is other people's business). Leave me alone on my property and I will leave you alone on yours.

Government: I want a small government. I would like to have fewer bureaucracies and have less funding for each one. I would like for the DEA and ATF to be shut down. I would also like more government transparency. Secret courts giving out secret search warrants is unacceptable. I am not an anarchist, I think that with no government at all some other governing body would rise in its place. I don't want to find out what kind of group would seize control if there was no government.

Government property: I will differ from some libertarians on this issue, but I don't mind the government having lots of property. Government run forests and nature preserves are a blessing to us all. And there is also some land that literally no one wants (parts of Nevada especially) that is held by the government by default. I am not against that.

Private person: I am not sure what this means. If you mean I want the government to respect the privacy of others than yes. Do what ever you want in private so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others. And I do mean whatever you want: drug use, homosexuality, prostitution, pornography, etc. If you and your informed, consenting and adult friends want to do something in private together that does not infringe on the rights of others, the government should leave you alone.

If my state was oppressing me I would not move away unless I thought that my life was in danger. I would rather fix the state I am in rather than abandon it to its problems. Also I am calling false analogy on the restaurant. The ease at which you can choose a new restaurant is not comparable to the difficulty of leaving your homeland and starting a new life in a different culture.

You're of course predominantly citing a right or Neo Libertarian platform along with a generalized libertarian platform [left or right] in that above paragraph... Cheers to you though for citing all the various types of libertarians that first need to be distinguished from rather than all these generalized opinions about Libertarians as whole seen here [not you Kostel] that really depends on the left or right 'type' of Libertarianism they're talking about...

The Anti-Secularist Evangelical and self-proclaimed Texan [Neo] Libertarian Ron Paul would beg to differ;-] 

Again not according to the self proclaimed Libertarian Ron Paul who for all intensive purposes is not a right wing Neo Libertarian according to his voting record, speeches, platform.  Pre Goldwater 'conservatives' were about as right wing Libertarian as Ron Paul. Generally the American right or Neo Libertarian Party doesn't care if you want to worship an imaginary Sky God or not, but they at least, along with so called 'conservatives' do worship Ayn Rand and her 'virtue of selfishness' and will want the same out of the nation's citizens;-]

And my comments were taken out of context, so I'll not bother to address the response to them.