You are demonstrating an ignorance of the history of libertarian ideology. The first person to espouse libertarian principles was a communist. Libertarian Socialism shortly followed.

The coupling of Libertarian principles with undying faith in the infallibility of laissez-faire markets is a relatively recent phenomena that is largely represented in the U.S. and is tightly associated with Objectivism. Most foreigners immediately think of anarchists or socialists in reference to the word libertarian.

While Michael is out “researching” something so pedestrian as that, he might want to try and explain why most Scientists tend to lean left.

It’s a simple equation: People who are educated, and interested in science are often Liberal, or they tend to lean left. Liberal communities tend to place greater value on these interests than either Libertarians, or Republicans do. It’s the very reason that many Conservatives demonize Academic communities, Scientific research, and the arts.

Also, if you believe in God, then it’s very easy to see the advancements in science as contrary to your belief system, so there’s greater interest in suppressing, or mischaracterizing scientific research.

However, I’m sure that Michael would love to provide us with yet another loosely compiled thesis that we can purchase at our local bookstore for a reasonable fee.

If “nobody has the right answers,” then why the heck would “walking in the middle of the road” be the right answer? By doing so, you would simply be walking a path of total wrongness.

Though I believe I know what you meant, your answer was still poorly phrased.

And you have no problem with the idea that the States deciding for people, what they can put in their bodies? How’s about this: maybe let people decide that for themselves. I know it’s just such an unfathomable concept to statists that people should have the liberty to make choices which affect themselves. The article was spot on in point out how statists so often hate the idea that people should have the freedom to make mistakes and to make bad choices.

I’d love to know if you would also support banning children from eating at fast food places which can have serious health repurcussions. If you do, that pretty much tells me which category I would put you in: that of dangerous individual who needs to be fought tooth and nail, because you believe in taking away liberty.

Yes, I take exception that type of regulation. I think that is very much an example of a “bad” regulation, and not a good one. I consider it an extremely perniscious regulation, as it is regulating the freedom of one to make their own choices about their own health, where there is no competing liberty interests (or there would be no competing liberty interests under libertarianism, as there would be zero socialized medicine forcing the public to pay for the conseqeuences of bad health choices). Why you think it is the states role to decide for others what they can ingest, I just don’t know. The simplest answer is, you are a statist.

Show me the pdf documents which explicitly claim that. And bear in mind I am not interested in any anecdotal interpretation of what you “think” the tobacco companies want.

Bear in mind, I am not interested in your own interpretations of a report…. just show me the actual report where the company has claimed they want to kill their customers.

Offering a product that has side effects is not the same as wanting to kill them. Nor is suppressing that information a valid deduction to substantiate the claim that they want to kill their customers. It is an admission that they are dishonest and do not go out of their way to point out the shortcomings in their companies product. But it proves no claim that they are trying to kill people.

Demand the moral imperative that a company not misrepresent their product. I think you will find few who disagree. But just don’t be dishonest about it and construct a patently false argument like the claim that tobacco companies want to kill people. That’s simply a blatant lie.