There is no connection between being anti-science and being libertarian.
You need to look at what correlates.
Libertarians linked quite nicely to stonewalling the early and even late claims of scientists wrt to tobacco and cancer. IIRC one of the morons at Cato even finally got in some hot water over the issue with his boss in recent years (diss'ed a scientist after his death, Cato boss was quite upset LOL!)
Now all those position papers look stupid. However, not having learned, they are repeating the same errors wrt to global warming.
I realise full well why they get lead into stupidity: A warm affection for free market principles. I still see no reason why this should blind one to science, but it does.
BTW, I think the same thing was true with CFC's and Libertarians, again, for the same reason. It goes like this: It can't be true because we don't like the economic consequences if it is true and we have to do something about. Duh!
Take this as a challenge: Look at Libertarian views on smoking/cancer, CFCs/ozone, and human causes of global warming over time. See if in any case, the average Libertarian views lead or lagged reality. That is, can Libertarian views ever pick the winner ahead of time, or do they only get dragged kicking and screaming to the final outcome. Why?
Edit: Oops, I left out evolution also. Here the problem is more what Kristol found objectionable. He worried about the morals of the average Joe if evolution were generally accepted. Kind of like worrying about economic consequences for the average joe for CFC's or global warming. |
