I'm sorry, correct me if I'm wrong here: Does it really f*%$ing matter? First off, the POTUS shouldn't have any say in what scientific theories/ paradigms are acceptable or not. On a day-to-day level, it's like arguing about the orbit of Mars. The debate over evolution doesn't affect a damned thing, other than fields like evolutionary biology, right? Once again, correct me if I am wrong. I personally don't give a flying fuck if a cosmic frog shat us all out whole.
He's for limited government unless proviided for by the constitution.
He's for extended individual liberty's provided for by the constitution.
Although I am shocked that such a rational mind like his cannot accept evolution, he still is my number one pick for the 2012 elections. Do you think a rational mind that accepted evolution could ever be elected for President any time soon? I don't. I'll take the best I can get for now.P
Come on, Ron. I was hoping that, given your extensive background in science (biology), you would know the difference between a scientific theory and the colloquial term used by non-scientists. You seem to be under the (false) impression that scientific theories (you know, those such as the theory of gravitation, germ theory of disease, atomic theory, cell theory, etc.) are nothing more than mere speculation. Let me ask you, as a doctor, do you think that cells and germs are *only* theories?
I love his answers on climate change and evolution, it's quite obvious from his "lack of answering" that he stands by both. If you really don't believe it, you'll just say so, and it will be accepted in American politics, if you avoid the answers, it means that the answer will negatively affect your political support -- which it would.
@rofl0bot Because in a free market system, people vote with their wallets. Consumers can choose to stop buying products/services from the "evil" corporations if they want. Also, private property rights would increase in importance, if a corporation spills toxic sludge in your yard, your would be fully protected under the law.
@skylvid i wasn't clear(and my response, rereading it, sounded trolly). adaptation in that respect is micro-evolution. the adaptation doesn't change the species of the organism that's antibiotic resistant. macro-evolution on the other hand (and i'm rusty too) has not been shown on a lab level. this is where the species changes to a point where it is no longer the same species category it originally was. (however, i do believe in evolution, but i don't believe in absolutes)
@TurKdiRty First of all, the dichotomy between "macro" and "micro" evolution is an invention by people who don't understand what speciation is. If two populations cannot reproduce, they are said to be difference species.
Evolution is not merely adaptation, but evolution to produce new species. That means that any evolution at all is "macro" evolution. And speciation HAS been observed in the laboratory and in the wild.
@TheNazzerDawk in part this is true. on the flip side there are species that can breed with other different named species. it becomes a matter of who named the species.. and did they test to see if they can breed or test for genes, morphology etc? just saying that calling a species different to another does not just become determined by being able to breed or not..speciation is true because it takes time to not be able to cross but when close it is possible. relatedness over time tends to be key
@TurKdiRty the reason we do not see species forming new species in the lab that can no longer hybridise with the first is simply because as we know, this level of differentiation takes a heck of a long time. we can even point to how long it generally takes to have this occur by using known examples, via genetic mapping and also using the distances between populations/continents which we can guess how long ago they diverged. eventually we got timelines for the genes having been altered enough.
@skylvid one thing is for certain now. the ability for adaptation is built within the DNA of all things by now because they have undergone it and still hold that ability. if things could not change and therfore had an ability to adapt, they would be dead by now.
it is a sure thing. those that survive are chosen, yet even the ones that did not come up with that change, can have that or other changes come out later on in future generations and probably even more so under "pressures".
This is so easy, you wouldn't believe it. Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians, and independents are going to vote in the primaries and caucuses. You don't even have to be Republican in most States. Bluerepublican dt org has all the info and links. go there now. So few Republicans go to the caucus or primary, it would take only ten or fifteen extra Ron Paul votes at the voting sites to send Ron Paul delegates to the State Conventions. Bluerepublican dt org explains it very well.
@keelorenz i think we need to realize that first and formost he has been given religious teachings and also his brain is full of stuff other than what we call him naive on. i can let those slide because of the good he has in him. i was surprised to hear him say he can believe in a creator and evolution at the same time. this is true. even if the creator was the earth.. so that sits fine with me, atleast he isnt saying dinosaur bones have been planted by scientists.
Can you imagine any other politician sitting down and talking like this? No talking points? Not scripted? Just a plain discussion of all sorts of issues?
I love Ron Paul's honesty. He's clearly well-educated and not just a talking head.
Ron Paul for President? Electing someone because they are honest, intelligent, principled and independent? What an incredible idea!
wow at the second question. freaking redditor atheists don't know when to can it. seriously. if anyone needs wide internet support it's this guy, and the whole foundation of his promise is liberty and equality. the fact that that is even a question is akin to someone characterizing/voting for someone only because they're a christian or mormon or whatnot. look at your other options. this guy is for a free individual society that promotes freedom of expression in all aspects. can it just once.
@jonafreeman THANK YOU. I'm an atheist myself, but these days it seems like most 'atheists' are just 'dogmatic darwinists' with a chip on their shoulder. I personally don't give a rat's ass about evolution-- I mean, I find it fairly interesting from a layman's perspective, but unless the squirrels in my yard are planning on evolving into man-eating carnivores in the next few minutes, I'm not that fussed about it.
Ron, you're still my favourite GOP candidate, but it's incredibly insulting as a biologist to hear you say that evolution is "just a theory." No concrete proof? You haven't even the slightest idea how science works. Leave it to the professionals, please.
@riddleman65 I think that's exactly what he'd like to do. He most likely felt that since he agreed to answer these questions, then he was obliged to address it. I feel it should be left to the scientific community to debate. For most people, even atheists like myself, it has zero bearing on day-to-day life. It's like getting into an argument about the precise composition of moon rocks.
Evolution is not a non-issue. Believing in metaphysical over science is a sign of ignorance which can end up being the law of the land when people like Paul can trivialize their backward beliefs with, "It's not important, nothing to see here ..." when we all know his bronze-age faith in magic underlies his thinking and legislating.
@sliderossian Funny thing about Ron though, is that he won't force his beliefs unto everyone. But look, listening to his talks and whatnot-you know Ron here is NOT an ignorant man. I myself don't agree with him 100%, but I know he's one of the last genuine and honest politicians he have left. So there's that.
@sliderossian Evolution, like most political issues, is a proxy for a larger argument. Those who would replace your natural rights with Government allowed rights, like was the case for all of human history prior to the founding of America, must kill God. Even if an American does not believe in God, he should still be for natural rights. Else the government controls rights. Evolution is a tool to use to kill God and thus God-given rights. That is why evolution is political.
people need to understand, being a libertarian automatically nullifies any belief system's influence to the nation, should the person every become that nation's president, because he respected, is respecting, and will always respect YOUR RIGHT to choose whatever is best for yourself. (unless you violate others but that's different)
what is important here is honesty in his words, integrity of his action, and loyalty to the constitution. and I DARE you to say Ron Paul don't have all of these.
@defiythelie Who cares? I'm an atheist, I accept evolution-- in the same way that I accept the Earth orbiting the sun rather than vice versa, in that neither really has any effect on my daily life. I personally don't care if this entire universe was vomited up by a cosmic turtle, it has zero bearing on anything to do with anything, unless you are a biologist or cosmologist.
@AncientChildVII Who cares? Universities. Some students that come from private and public high schools that teach creationism over evolution will not be except into collage because of it. It may seem like a small trivial thing but it is things like this that set us way behind the rest of the world when it comes to education.
@bjkjf76 I will. Like he said: In a libertarian society the presidents view on science is irrelevant. He has no power over science, only consumers in the free market do.
@bjkjf76 That's the same thing as Christians refusing to vote for anyone who doesn't share their exact views on the Bible. Look at evangelicals right now bashing Romney for his Mormon beliefs. It has absolutely nothing to do with running a country either way. An argument over evolution has as much to do with the mess we are in as a debate over someone's favorite anime character.
Wow, this man who has a very busy life took time out to answer questions on a internet forum asked by a bunch of nerds ages like 16-35.. This is why Ron Paul is succeeding. He's giving a voice, and showing that he cares about those who other politicians would just rather throw in the trash. That's extremely honorable of him.
Rather or not you agree with his views he's a great man who cares for his country and sticks to his beliefs. He doesn't just sell out to whatever us popular at the time.
sure enough. "evolution is just a theory" is a debunked myth. theory means a hypotheses that has being proven enough. but please guys. even if he don't accept the scientific usage of the word "theory" don't waste RP's time forcing him to read all the academic papers,
it's unrelated to politics and economics. and we have a little time left.
when he's set the system straight it's not going to be a theocracy.
cause he will, he is, and has always being for more then 30 years
@ericon52168 even if he don't accept the scientific usage of the word "theory"
The way in which science uses the word theory is in its original definition. The way science uses that word is the exact way it was invented to be used.
@defiythelie ofcourse it makes no sense for him to have a strong stance here. evolution is not his platform, and he should be ignoring things irrelevant, which he is, doing a pretty good job i might add
if people is going to bother him with things he shouldn't care at all, and i know you know evolution is irrelevant for him, and he gave a vague answer, it's called being polite
@rofl0bot You make the faulty assumption that profit is the only motive. Libertarians also claim that people deep down are good, and will do the right thing in the end.
@alixoschmann You're right. People are not just motivated by profit. They are also motivated by prejudice, hate, and religion.
Libertarians have a pretty rosy view of the world if they think that "people deep down are good". Especially considering how much hate you can bring upon yourself from a large portion of the population by admitting something as seeming trivial as which set of genitals you prefer.
I really am amazed. What other political candidate would bother answering an internet boards questions? Circlejerk have got it right, If I was in the US he would have my vote.
@rofl0bot For instance, I saw a documentary about a village that had its lake drained by Coca-Cola and Pepsi without compensation or consent from the villagers themselves. This was made possible because the local state had declared ownership of the forest. All the companies needed to do was bribe the state administration that was in power at the time, and if the villagers tried to stop these invaders, they'd be risking criminal charges.
@rofl0bot It wouldn't. That's precisely Paul's point. What are you getting at here, exactly?
Federal/state laws weren't the reason people avoided polluting land in the first place, you know. There is an economic incentive to keep your own property clean, as well as stopping people that try to use your land as a dump. Do you allow your neighbor's dog to take a dump in your back yard?
When the state owns land, it belongs to the company most willing to bribe the state for special treatment.
We do have exact details and evidence of evolution. Evolution is stronger then any one fact, it's an amazing theory that explains a large - ever growing body- of facts. There is no evidence of a supernatural creator. People try to say that the "gaps" in evolution and the "unknown origin" of life is evidence of a creator. It is not, absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.
He might be referring to the 'allowing of pollution lawsuits' vs the 'distribution of pollution licenses'.
You guys have to realize, even if his views on creation/evolution are a quite unsophisticated, they have NOTHING to do with his views on how a country should be run (unlike most politicians).
@StatisticalPower High-speed internet is becoming as much a necessity as, say, phone service for example. I don't doubt that another company could come along and compete in single-provider markets, but they don't because the cost of entry is too high. By playing nice, I mean the providers don't have any reason not to overcharge consumers or play favorites with data delivery if it means profit. What are people going to do? Choose not to have internet access? Thus, by the balls.
@ovinophile What you're missing is that market distortion caused by government regulation and corporate welfare is what enables this consumer abuse in the first place. As you said, it's not a free market.
@StatisticalPower Actually, I would be committing a nirvana fallacy if I were hawking my fantastical "free market" solution by comparing it to the current flawed environment we have now. You really ought to read more than the first sentence of Wiki pages.
@StatisticalPower As I said, they're both systems, so they're equally exploitable. I don't like to repeat myself - so I'll just add that Paul's utopian free market is only a hazy dream, so you can poke holes in it with the power of your imagination. Unless, of course, you can give an example of a developed country that thrived under a free market.
@StatisticalPower Point being, there is a thin line between the policing he seems to envision and the regulation we have now. The difference being that regulations are a precautionary measure. Neither system is more or less susceptible to fraud or other exploitation, except the libertarian ideal doesn't have the borders in place - so corporations will only have the obstacle of litigation, in which they can easily tip the scales in their favor, so to speak.
@StatisticalPower When you say "Having a Government regulate what the truth is to people is a very bad road to go down" you are, of course right.
Only I was advocating the stance that the governments should defend and uphold *scientific* truth (or what is considered to come acceptably close - you get the point). Whatever that may be. NOT to determine a certain theory as being true. That is something a government and indeed a judicial system have no business getting into.
8:50 That sounds awfully like SOCIALIST REGULATION, Dr. Paul. I thought the free market was supposed to take care of our 50 million uninsured citizens.
No, Dr. Paul, evolution is NOT a matter of personal belief. You either accept the FACTS and EVIDENCE or you don't. If you think different conclusions can be made from the existing evidence, good luck to you; you've got hundreds of years of proof to debunk. If you want to say the evidence is not enough to convince you, fine - but don't go on to assume that gives credence to Creationism, because there is exactly ZERO evidence to support that cockamamie "science".
Unfortunately, Dr. Paul is contradicting himself in the same sentence here. The free market can fix pollution, he says, though he acknowledges the lack of regulation in the Industrial Revolution creating the pollution crisis in the first place. He says early corporations had "license to pollute" as if that should be taken literally. Tell me, Dr. Paul - if no one truly has the right to pollute his neighbor's water, whose job is it to ensure they don't?
@StatisticalPower Really strange blind spot idd. I for one do NOT take his larger point when it comes to schools. Schools should *only* teach Truth or what comes as close as humanly possible to THE TRUTH.
This, I believe, should be regulated.
By "Truth" I mean the mathematical and logical meaning of it.
Upon closer analysis Evolution by Natural Selection will prove to be as close to *the truth* as humanly possible, whereas Creationism/Intelligent Design is downright grotesque.
@tachios85 Why does Intelligent Design get compared to Creationism?
Creationism means you, on some level, believe the Genesis story of creation is scientific. ID, as I understand it, means you believe the processes of evolution were guided by a Creator. **Every religious person who is not a creationist believes in Intelligent Design by default.**
@Madfoot713 Yes it is and here's why. ID proponents are trying to change the school systems into teaching that theory. There are different levels of beleive in ID, the kind that is being pushed into schools is trying to discredit fundamental aspects of evolution, with any legitimate scientific proof. Those that believe ID in the other way (that god guided evolution), well thats fine, but there is no way you could ever proove that scientificaly.Check out theness.com/neurologicablog/ and search ID
@dc7407 I already got taught Intelligent Design in public school. You know how it worked?
The teacher waited until the end of class and said, "Some people believe evolution was set forth by a creator. This is called Intelligent Design." That's all. Not really a big deal.
@Madfoot713 Still, ID is outside of the scientific consensus. Was this the only time a fringe idea was brought into your science class? Did they mention astrology in your physics class? Or alchemy in your chemistry class? (Other than as a historical perspective, to show how science enlightened people _out_ of such thinking.)
Personally, I think even mentioning ID at the end of a science class is detrimental to science education. (I don't live in America, so we don't really have this problem.)
Not that I EVER would have voted for Ron Paul, but he just lost any interest he held over me (I like his ideas on ending the police state). How fucking difficult is it for these politicians to go down to their nearest university and talk to a fucking scientist?!? "Nobody has concrete proof?" Bullshit! Just b/c you are a politician doesn't give you a free pass to be ignorant.
"Why would a company that has a economic advantage to pollute and take the easy way out, spend a ton of money to be cleaner to the environment. This idea totally blows my mind." Property rights, they are accountable to their neighbors and the property they impact.
Everywhere I've ever lived you have one, maybe two choices for high-speed internet providers. And it's not going to change any time soon. That's not a free market. That's a market that has consumers by the balls and no incentive to play nice.
@ovinophile Do you realize why you only have, at most, 2 choices? It's not because of the free-market, it's because the ISP companies make so-called "campaign contributions" to local officials to keep competitors out of the local ISP market. Comcast is the biggest offended of this nation-wide and it's the sole reason their costs are high and their product sucks - lack of competition.
This is completely embarrassing for Ron Paul. The evolution and climate change answers DO matter because it shows how deluded the guy is. Not to mention his ridiculous net neutrality position. . .
@ComprehendingChaos Those issues are not political. It is certain groups of people today who are MAKING those issues political. His specific answer was that those issues should be de-politicized and left to free-market, private-property forces. How is granting people more freedom to make their own decisions about those issues "utter nonsense"?
Ron has completely misunderstood Net Neutrality. It's not about the government regulating the internets, it's about NO ONE regulating internet traffic. Being against Net Neutrality just means internet traffic will be regulated by your ISP. Being FOR Net Neutrality means you want neither the government nor your ISP to regulate the internet traffic.
Ron Paul has some interesting ideas, but he really ought to stay away from a topic he doesn't fully understand.
@SteelyDan324 It is the right of the property owner to regulate his property. The ISP owns the tubes, thus they have the right ti regulate them. The government cannot get involved without regulating, thus violating property rights.
@TheWhiteRabbit1990 I don't think I understand your objection to his comment. Ron Paul stated that evolution is a very logical theory, which it is. There are very few scientific LAWS. Most all scientific knowledge is still considered to be in the realm of theory.
@carolm62 My god........I'll keep this civil. In science, a law is a statement that something IS happening, a theory is the explanation of HOW it happens. For instance, Tectonic Theory is a theory that explains how earthquakes happen. It doesn't mean that scientist aren't positive that earthquakes Do happen. The Theory of Relativity, Acoustic Theory, etc. You have the Law of Gravity, which states that objects are attracted to each other, but then you have the theory of gravity which aims (cont).
@TheWhiteRabbit1990 Why do you feel such strain to keep this civil...? I have said nothing inflammatory. Ron Paul has said nothing inflammatory. According to what you just said about theories, evolution is still technically in the realm of theory, since it is an explanation of how. I'm not sure why you are assuming I reject evolution. I support it fully. Some people need to know that religious people like Paul don't necessarily reject evolution either.
@carolm62 I feel strained because it's the internet and it's normal to be unnecessarily aggressive here. What do you mean it's in the realm of theory? I just tried explaining that it is a theory and will never ever ever ever be anything else because theories don't become laws or anything else for that matter. Your first comment was saying their are very few laws and science is still considered in the realm of theory. Implying this awkward dicotomy. Theories work on top of laws. You do not(Cont)
(cont) try to explain how something happens without first establishing that something is happening to begin with. The Theory of natural selection explains How, but Evolution itself is a Law stating the Is. Ron Pauls awesome, but making a statement like "evolutions just a theory" or their "isn't a lot of evidence" makes the scientific community shutter because making those statements is inherent to a fundamental misunderstanding of science. I just don't want him losing votes because of it.
@TheWhiteRabbit1990 Perhaps we misunderstand each other. As a supporter of evolution I did not perceive Ron Paul's comment to mean that he was minimizing the evidence for evolution -- only acknowledging that there are still lots of missing pieces that may take decades to uncover and put in their proper places. I would hate to see Ron Paul lose votes over this either -- especially since the very gist of his reply was that the subject of evolution is completely irrelevant to the debate.
(cont) to explain Why objects attract each other. You may have different competing theories on a given law. Darwin for instance tried explaining why animals Do diversity and create new species with his theory of Natural selection, while other of his time had other ideas (now obsol). Theories do not become laws. A theory isn't just an idea of how people think it happened, that's a hypothesis. A Theory is only created after testing, the scientific method, peer reviews, retesting etc. ne questions?
This man is talking out of his ass. I agree we should focus on Pollution and not on global warming, because ultimately pollution is the problem anyway. however his stupid idea that privatizing everything is the answer? What a fool. My family has had several neighbors who polluted and had smoky fires with drunken parties past Midnight. A regulation or police force or a law/fine would help. I'm not going to risk my family's life walking into a drunken party and telling them to shut up
Man even more disappointing, I kept listening and he thinks there is good science to both sides of the global warming debate...yet there's no science to the side claiming it doesn't exist. the only thing that side uses is PR material put together by coal and oil companies. I really like Ron Paul when it comes to monetary policy and I think he knows it well, but he has to learn more about these other areas because that's just bad.
@pryorka82 There is also NO science to support creationism, and NO science to support that the earth is 6000 years old like creationists believe. Ron Paul is a foolish politician like the rest of them. He has some sound principles and good ideas, but he is full of shit on many things. Again, nothing new to see here - he's just like the other politicians.
I'm disappointed that Ron Paul doesn't understand net neutrality and I wish someone would explain the situation in full for him. You can't stand for freedom and then allow google to censor the internet. He is seeing it as a regulation which can cause problems. But you don't have free access and freedom as he says if you allow google to block internet sites.
You're the fool. You need to listen better. Global warming? don't you mean "Climate Change." Or Green House effect. How many names does it need? Which ones truthful? Or is Global Cooling the truth? Many scientists who believe in global warming said global cooling would kill us in the 70's, so who is the fool?
about net neutrality, he is not saying he doesn't support it, he is saying he doesn't support the government getting involved in protecting it. He sees the term "net neutrality" as "government protecting the internet"
While i am not really in support of Ron Paul i do like what he said about how in a liberal society it wouldn't matter what his personal believes are cause his personal believes are not gonna make him restrict the believes of people who think differently than him and that he is against restrictions in general.
Isn't that the best? Or would you really rather have some atheist dictator who dictates you what to think and believe and do and putting social Darwinism into practice?
We're not talking about "personal believes" here. We're talking about science, as in experimentally verified facts about the world around us. We're also not asking anyone to restrict people's rights to believe whatever nonsense they might wish. We're saying that the leader of the most powerful industrialized nation in the world had better understand how his actions will affect the ecological systems that sustain us. That is all.
Many struggle to answer with credibility key questions about God and the Bible. But God is most definitely real. If you doubt it, read 'the attempted murder of God' - A critical book at a critical time, it reveals the secrets of science that comprehensively demolish the theory of Evolution and provides scientific proof for God - a scientific certainty kept hidden from the world that in this critical time in history can now be revealed.
I think his views on evolution and global warming are absolutely relevant. They demonstrate that Dr. Paul does not know how to tell the difference between what is true and what is false. He does not know how to separate his ideology from his evaluation of claims. Evolution is probably the most firmly established fact in science, yet he denies that this is the case. Anthropogenic climate change has been established beyond reasonable doubt, yet he doubts it. I don't trust such irrationality.
A solid understanding of science and the Scientific Method is incredibly valuable in all walks of life, especially heading into the 21st Century. Issues like stem cell research, global warming, cloning, nanotechnology, space exploration, and the extinction of species are all going to be huge world changing issues that our governments will have to deal with.
Paul claims that 2 of central ideas to these problems are irrelevant and on shaky ground. I'm glad he lost.
@soulbiscuit - indeed, I was dissapointed with his views on evolution but then he is a politician not a scientist. He is also correct is stating that the questions are politically loaded now and are nowhere near as important as other issues politicians should get involved with. Tax, healthcare, foreign policy etc. He has advocated a return to church/state seperation and limited government- that's more than most of his kind do.
@Hereticalable That does seem to be a reasonable position on the surface, but it simply isn't. If Paul were elected President, he would have unmatched influence on every area of policy, including those that have an indelible effect on the world around us. Knowledge of the likely effects of potential policy actions absolutely requires a knowledge of science. There is no escaping it.
@soulbiscuit global warming science appears to me to have been heavily distorted by politics. Evolution on the other hand, seems pretty damn empirically established to me.
@atrickpay11 How do you feel climate science has been distorted by politics? The numbers don't lie. There is far, far more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there has ever been in the last 800,000 years, and the number began to skyrocket right at the industrial revolution. Carbon dioxide is known to have a greenhouse effect. Models based on this information show the kind of warming that we now see. It's a slam dunk. Global warming is real.
@soulbiscuit I've seen numerous scientists say that that historically a rise in C02 doesn't produce a rise in temperatures. They actually say it's the exact opposite--that a rise in temperatures produces a rise in CO2!
@atrickpay11 That's a good point; it's not always easy to tell which is the cause and which is the effect. I'll note, though, that this is not what I asked for: an example of how climate science is distorted by politics.
There are cases where more warming leads to more CO2. For example, warming leads to the melting of permafrost, which releases carbon stored in the frozen soil, which accelerates warming, which melts more permafrost. The greenhouse effect of CO2, however, is not in dispute.
@atrickpay11 I would agree -- and Ron Paul is correct when he says it is completely irrelevent what people accept ot don't accept to be true about this issue. It has no bearing on any issue whatsoever.
@soulbiscuit All he is saying is, "Give peace a chance." Only politicization of science requires Yes/No absolutes. What is important, as Paul says right in this video, is the freedom to debate, not shutting out challenges to orthodox thinking. Through history, governments have violently imposed their theories on the minority. New evidence arises after generations of suppression of radical thinkers. He also says right in this video that evolution is logical, he is not an ideologue.
The questioner is wrong. Scientists would never say that evolution is better classified as a law than a theory. A law is not a theory that "graduated" into lawhood. A law is simply a mathematical relationship shown to hold in all known cases. A theory is a framework of ideas shown through experiment to explain observation.
He's way off on global warming. Even if he wasn't, that the free market could prevent pollution is laughable.
He does have some pretty big holes in his understanding of evolution and what a theory is and what the geological record says. However, his outlook on the big issues makes his ignorance irrelevant - in a free market system what politicians believe is not important. He is proven right by being wrong. The power of his core ideas is demonstrated. You can't expect politicians to be perfect or know everything. A robust system can behave correctly despite an imperfection in some of its parts.
I certainly don't expect my politicians to know everything. I do expect them to be able to tell the difference between fact and fantasy. On evolution and global warming at least, and on the free market it seems, he's in a fantasy land.
Fact and fantasy are ill-defined. Mostly, power decides what people believe. Let them stay out of our lives, and we won't need them to be very intelligent or share our views. His ideas on the free market seem sound to me, he's basically saying the market will fix things better than government. Not hard to do since govt usually sucks at what it tries to do.
I've always supported RP, but he's off with the evolution business. The issue IS political because it has implications with regard to the education of our youth. We must promote logic and reason. We need the sciences. It's not about whether or not someone goes into evolutionary biology, but it is important that our children acquire the ability to utilize a scientific mode of reasoning, and if we start rejecting theories based on religious bias, rather than evidence, then we're effed straight up.
I believe Paul's point is that the school board should decide what gets taught at their school. Ideally those people will know whats up and can decide what should be taught or not.
Not only but different schools will make different decisions and you will be able to choose a school where your world-view is taught. That is freedom instead of top-down regulation
And you are off understanding politics, he completely explained it when he said "libertarian society", that means education is decentralized, and science is not in the hand of beraucrats. So the issue is not political.
@SturmKorps the people that put up Stop signs should be decentralized so that each road has a different kind of stop sign on it, and we have several competing stop sign vendors some selling stop signs with neon markers on them, some selling stop signs with orange fluorescent tape. Then we get a diversity of stop signs and a multicultural/multiracial libertarian stop sign system. This anarachy helps us become better humans with a diversified portfolio. It also works for investments.
bla bla bla you don't have a point just satirical bullshit nobody cares about, also I was laughing until you mentioned "multiracial", wtf does this have to do?
@SturmKorps multi-racial stop signs, some with orange color, some with neon pink.. privatize the stop signs! Privatize everything, privatize the water pipes so that each water pipe going under the ground is owned by different companies
@SeeProfileForDetails Many places in Europe have experimented with the abolishment of traffic signs altogether. Guess what...? Traffic flows smoother and faster, with less accidents.
@carolm62 So how do you control a 4-way stop? traffic circles? they flow, but they are dangerous and still need signs.. like "keep left" or whatever to give people guidelines. I am very doubtful about getting rid of signs like yield and stop, how is that helpful in any way, unless you put in a traffic circle, which, cause many accidents apparently
@SeeProfileForDetails What apparently happens is that people behave politely towards one another, go figure. He goes then you go then he goes then you go. Some places jusrt decided all the signs were like aggressive pollution and that people didn't really need to be told all the time what to do. And as hard as this is for a statist such as yourself to believe, people managed just fine. For one thing they slowed down at intersections rather than speeded up.
@carolm62 why not remove all the lines on the road? Why not just remove all school zones so people can go 100km/hour by schools when they want at lunch time? Why not remove the number signs on your house since having a number on your house indicating what house number you are is just pollution? Why not remove the walmart sign from the store because people will know it is walmart just looking at the building. You are a seriously mentally challenged libertarian... I have seen those like you b4.
@SeeProfileForDetails I'm not sure why you feel compelled to be such an idiot. A house number is not a regulation. Nor is a WalMart sign. "Prevailing wisdom" leads many people to assume they'll die without certain things like traffic lights, but studies show that is not the case. I live in Naples, Italy where there is complete anarchy on the roads -- not that there are no signs, they are just all disobeyed -- yet it works. People quickly learn how the unwritten system works.
@carolm62 In some countries the traffic lights are flashing yellow at night time when there is less traffic and this works well. Try this in New York City.... good luck.
@SeeProfileForDetails You don't seem able to comprehend the difference some signs being useful and all signs being necessary. People are more aware of and engaged with each other in places that don't have signs and lights flashing everywhere. They are aware of their surroundings instead of being autopilot zombies. They don't actually "need" to be constantly told what to do.
@carolm62 in a rural area where everyone knows everyone, you do not need signs. IN the city when you have newcomers and tourists and all sorts of complexity in a city, you need some sort of organization. Once again you are following an old libertarian dogma back when things weren't as advanced. Like seriously you think that it's not going to help walmart if they put a walmart sign on the highway with an arrow for tourists coming in to town? how stupid can you be? Private signs okay? Why?
@SeeProfileForDetails the cities that have removed the traffic signals don't operate without traffic laws. People still follow the driving rules. At an unmarked intersection you yield to the person on the right. This doesn't NEED to be posted in everyone's face 24/7. I can remember that myself, thanks. Lines, on the road? I'm not opposed to them but what would happen if they weren't there, really? Can't figure out where the middle is? Nobody pays attention to the lines in Naples....
@carolm62 if you are driving around a new area and you don't know the place, you could be going 80 miles per hour and roar right through an intersection thinking it's an unpopular road, when in fact it's not and boom you get t-boned. Don't you tell me your stupid libertarian lies that putting up some kind of warning that there is an intersection coming up wouldn't help.. come on, stop being stupid.
@SeeProfileForDetails Are you seriously arguing with the fact that some places have done this...? I suggest that if you ever visit there that you don't drive 80 miles an hour through an intersection then. Although liberty does include the freedom to be stupid, it does not include freedom from natural consequences of your stupidity -- nor the legal ones. You are not free to harm other people.
@carolm62 Haven't you ever driven to a place and been unfamiliar that there is a school there? it could be hidden and you may not know there is a park where kids are playing and a road near by. Yes there was an accident where I used to live, in a rural area, so after someone got killed they put up a flashing red light and everyone checks carefully when they see it. Are you seriously thinking that taking down Walmart Signs will help business because it doesn't warn people about walmart? STUPID
@SeeProfileForDetails Are you completely daft...? I never said anything about forcing business owners to take down PRIVATE PROPERTY signs! That was just your warped mind at work. Why would a liberatarian demand that private property owners remove their signs? I only told you about some places in Europe that removed TRAFFIC signs -- because these places actually EXIST, duh! You can say they shouldn't do that all you want but that won't make them disappear.
@carolm62 Signs are useful idiot. Truck drivers would probably like to know there is a corner coming up while driving on a straight road tired in a big semi truck, wouldn't you? On private roads in a libertarian society, each private road might have a different kind of stop sign, hopefully it would be standardized. The idea that Private walmart can put up signs but the public roads should have them removed is libertarian Dogma. LiberTard.
@SeeProfileForDetails Good grief! I have never said I was opposed to traffic signs. I said they were not as necessary as you suppose -- and that YES there are cities in Europe that have eliminated them. Then people want to argue with me about whether this is the case. Google this phrase1 European cities eliminate traffic signs. It's not that hard! It won't let me post a link or I would.
@carolm62 I realize they have eliminated signs in places. I never said you were wrong. I also realize that some places have removed Traffic Lights and replaced them with Traffic Circles which flow smoothly. Unfortunately it is not the holy grail. The traffic circles have lots of accidents, and signs are still useful. You had a libertarian dogma that removing signs is good, and I fought you about this... now you are admitting that some signs are still useful. WTF? We don't even disagree.
@SeeProfileForDetails It all began with the observation that on days that traffic lights failed traffic actually flowed smoother and faster. People just took turns. So they studied it and sure enough that was the case.
@carolm62 Many stores in Europe have experiment with abolishing of price tags altogether. Guess what? products are cheaper and people get their products faster, with less theft.
@carolm62 Many stores in Europe have experimented with abolishing all Cashier Open signs and Fire Exit signs. Guess what? fires are not a problem and people can just guess where the exit is, and the people don't bother going to the cashier that is open all the time, they just guess which one is open since their is no sign. This sort of libertarian Dogma is the type that I really hate, it is a dangerous ideology.
@SeeProfileForDetails Actually, if you had ever read the book "The Speed of Trust" you might not be quite so incredulous about your own example. The more distrust people have for one another, the longer things take. Think air port secuirty after 9-11.
I could never vote for a politician who believes it's not important whether or not mythology is taught as science in our schools. Science looks at observable evidence, bases a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and only then forms a conclusion. Creationism forms a conclusion then attempts to make the evidence fit the conclusion. Why is this important in politics? Because we don't want our politicians creating conclusions BEFORE evidence for the conclusions! Otherwise we get BUSH!
Well, libertarians believe that if we had his view of a society with no government barriers to entry from new companies, the consumer would obviously purchase from the company that didnt regulate the net.
That is completely false because Comcast is already guilty of restricting access to P2P. They still have all the customers. Therefore, this "free-market solution" is bullshit. Life does not work that way.
His argument regarding net neutrality is sound. I would gladly take a man in politics who has the courage to admit that he does not completely understand a subject over an individual who will gloss over and give you the best politically correct answer he/she can muster.
I'm sorry, correct me if I'm wrong here: Does it really f*%$ing matter? First off, the POTUS shouldn't have any say in what scientific theories/ paradigms are acceptable or not. On a day-to-day level, it's like arguing about the orbit of Mars. The debate over evolution doesn't affect a damned thing, other than fields like evolutionary biology, right? Once again, correct me if I am wrong. I personally don't give a flying fuck if a cosmic frog shat us all out whole.
AncientChildVII 1 week ago
SO BRAVE
Reptiliia 1 week ago
he's a libertarian therefore he isn't going to force christianity on the US, that's the opposite of Libertarianism
MrROTD 1 week ago
He's for limited government unless proviided for by the constitution.
He's for extended individual liberty's provided for by the constitution.
Although I am shocked that such a rational mind like his cannot accept evolution, he still is my number one pick for the 2012 elections. Do you think a rational mind that accepted evolution could ever be elected for President any time soon? I don't. I'll take the best I can get for now.P
ruffridah06 1 week ago
Comment removed
CheeseGuardian11 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Come on, Ron. I was hoping that, given your extensive background in science (biology), you would know the difference between a scientific theory and the colloquial term used by non-scientists. You seem to be under the (false) impression that scientific theories (you know, those such as the theory of gravitation, germ theory of disease, atomic theory, cell theory, etc.) are nothing more than mere speculation. Let me ask you, as a doctor, do you think that cells and germs are *only* theories?
TheLampard80 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheLampard80 2 weeks ago
I love his answers on climate change and evolution, it's quite obvious from his "lack of answering" that he stands by both. If you really don't believe it, you'll just say so, and it will be accepted in American politics, if you avoid the answers, it means that the answer will negatively affect your political support -- which it would.
iasedu 3 weeks ago
@rofl0bot Because in a free market system, people vote with their wallets. Consumers can choose to stop buying products/services from the "evil" corporations if they want. Also, private property rights would increase in importance, if a corporation spills toxic sludge in your yard, your would be fully protected under the law.
rfager 1 month ago
Aw, wish he had acknowledged antibiotic resistance in the evolution question. Darn.
skylvid 1 month ago
@skylvid why!? that's adaptation not evolution :S
TurKdiRty 1 month ago
@TurKdiRty adaptations are evolved by natural selection. Maybe my biology is out of date.
skylvid 3 weeks ago
@skylvid i wasn't clear(and my response, rereading it, sounded trolly). adaptation in that respect is micro-evolution. the adaptation doesn't change the species of the organism that's antibiotic resistant. macro-evolution on the other hand (and i'm rusty too) has not been shown on a lab level. this is where the species changes to a point where it is no longer the same species category it originally was. (however, i do believe in evolution, but i don't believe in absolutes)
TurKdiRty 2 weeks ago
@TurKdiRty First of all, the dichotomy between "macro" and "micro" evolution is an invention by people who don't understand what speciation is. If two populations cannot reproduce, they are said to be difference species.
Evolution is not merely adaptation, but evolution to produce new species. That means that any evolution at all is "macro" evolution. And speciation HAS been observed in the laboratory and in the wild.
TheNazzerDawk 2 weeks ago
@TheNazzerDawk in part this is true. on the flip side there are species that can breed with other different named species. it becomes a matter of who named the species.. and did they test to see if they can breed or test for genes, morphology etc? just saying that calling a species different to another does not just become determined by being able to breed or not..speciation is true because it takes time to not be able to cross but when close it is possible. relatedness over time tends to be key
ranskye1 1 week ago
@TheNazzerDawk er, okay!?
TurKdiRty 1 week ago
@TurKdiRty the reason we do not see species forming new species in the lab that can no longer hybridise with the first is simply because as we know, this level of differentiation takes a heck of a long time. we can even point to how long it generally takes to have this occur by using known examples, via genetic mapping and also using the distances between populations/continents which we can guess how long ago they diverged. eventually we got timelines for the genes having been altered enough.
ranskye1 1 week ago
@ranskye1 and i don't disagree with anything you're saying.
TurKdiRty 1 week ago
@skylvid one thing is for certain now. the ability for adaptation is built within the DNA of all things by now because they have undergone it and still hold that ability. if things could not change and therfore had an ability to adapt, they would be dead by now.
it is a sure thing. those that survive are chosen, yet even the ones that did not come up with that change, can have that or other changes come out later on in future generations and probably even more so under "pressures".
ranskye1 1 week ago
Before this video: "Well, if he gets money out of politics maybe he would make a good President"
After this video: "NOPE"
iamthe1337est 1 month ago
I had the impression that Mr. Paul was sane, but I can see my error.
PeteD1884 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is so easy, you wouldn't believe it. Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians, and independents are going to vote in the primaries and caucuses. You don't even have to be Republican in most States. Bluerepublican dt org has all the info and links. go there now. So few Republicans go to the caucus or primary, it would take only ten or fifteen extra Ron Paul votes at the voting sites to send Ron Paul delegates to the State Conventions. Bluerepublican dt org explains it very well.
robodril1 1 month ago in playlist reddit Interviews Congressman Ron Paul
I like that he recognizes evolution as a logical theory, even though he is religious. He is seriously a rare breed of politician.
abusivemomba 1 month ago
He's a good man of principle and integrity. He is also terrifyingly naive.
keelorenz 1 month ago
@keelorenz i think we need to realize that first and formost he has been given religious teachings and also his brain is full of stuff other than what we call him naive on. i can let those slide because of the good he has in him. i was surprised to hear him say he can believe in a creator and evolution at the same time. this is true. even if the creator was the earth.. so that sits fine with me, atleast he isnt saying dinosaur bones have been planted by scientists.
ranskye1 1 week ago
Can you imagine any other politician sitting down and talking like this? No talking points? Not scripted? Just a plain discussion of all sorts of issues?
I love Ron Paul's honesty. He's clearly well-educated and not just a talking head.
Ron Paul for President? Electing someone because they are honest, intelligent, principled and independent? What an incredible idea!
kurtaDHS73 1 month ago
wow at the second question. freaking redditor atheists don't know when to can it. seriously. if anyone needs wide internet support it's this guy, and the whole foundation of his promise is liberty and equality. the fact that that is even a question is akin to someone characterizing/voting for someone only because they're a christian or mormon or whatnot. look at your other options. this guy is for a free individual society that promotes freedom of expression in all aspects. can it just once.
jonafreeman 2 months ago
@jonafreeman THANK YOU. I'm an atheist myself, but these days it seems like most 'atheists' are just 'dogmatic darwinists' with a chip on their shoulder. I personally don't give a rat's ass about evolution-- I mean, I find it fairly interesting from a layman's perspective, but unless the squirrels in my yard are planning on evolving into man-eating carnivores in the next few minutes, I'm not that fussed about it.
AncientChildVII 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron, you're still my favourite GOP candidate, but it's incredibly insulting as a biologist to hear you say that evolution is "just a theory." No concrete proof? You haven't even the slightest idea how science works. Leave it to the professionals, please.
riddleman65 2 months ago
@riddleman65 I think that's exactly what he'd like to do. He most likely felt that since he agreed to answer these questions, then he was obliged to address it. I feel it should be left to the scientific community to debate. For most people, even atheists like myself, it has zero bearing on day-to-day life. It's like getting into an argument about the precise composition of moon rocks.
AncientChildVII 1 week ago
Comment removed
riddleman65 2 months ago
Evolution is not a non-issue. Believing in metaphysical over science is a sign of ignorance which can end up being the law of the land when people like Paul can trivialize their backward beliefs with, "It's not important, nothing to see here ..." when we all know his bronze-age faith in magic underlies his thinking and legislating.
sliderossian 2 months ago
@sliderossian Funny thing about Ron though, is that he won't force his beliefs unto everyone. But look, listening to his talks and whatnot-you know Ron here is NOT an ignorant man. I myself don't agree with him 100%, but I know he's one of the last genuine and honest politicians he have left. So there's that.
KevKillz 2 months ago
@sliderossian Evolution, like most political issues, is a proxy for a larger argument. Those who would replace your natural rights with Government allowed rights, like was the case for all of human history prior to the founding of America, must kill God. Even if an American does not believe in God, he should still be for natural rights. Else the government controls rights. Evolution is a tool to use to kill God and thus God-given rights. That is why evolution is political.
robodril1 1 month ago in playlist reddit Interviews Congressman Ron Paul
people need to understand, being a libertarian automatically nullifies any belief system's influence to the nation, should the person every become that nation's president, because he respected, is respecting, and will always respect YOUR RIGHT to choose whatever is best for yourself. (unless you violate others but that's different)
what is important here is honesty in his words, integrity of his action, and loyalty to the constitution. and I DARE you to say Ron Paul don't have all of these.
ericon52168 2 months ago 3
There Ron goes again trying to have it both ways. Evolution is a fact.
defiythelie 2 months ago
@defiythelie Who cares? I'm an atheist, I accept evolution-- in the same way that I accept the Earth orbiting the sun rather than vice versa, in that neither really has any effect on my daily life. I personally don't care if this entire universe was vomited up by a cosmic turtle, it has zero bearing on anything to do with anything, unless you are a biologist or cosmologist.
AncientChildVII 1 week ago
@AncientChildVII Who cares? Universities. Some students that come from private and public high schools that teach creationism over evolution will not be except into collage because of it. It may seem like a small trivial thing but it is things like this that set us way behind the rest of the world when it comes to education.
defiythelie 6 days ago
I love Paul politically, but when it comes to science he's illiterate.
waksibra 2 months ago
Anyone who's scientifically educated will not vote for Ron Paul after watching this video.
bjkjf76 2 months ago in playlist reddit Interviews Congressman Ron Paul
@bjkjf76 I will. Like he said: In a libertarian society the presidents view on science is irrelevant. He has no power over science, only consumers in the free market do.
waksibra 2 months ago
@bjkjf76 That's the same thing as Christians refusing to vote for anyone who doesn't share their exact views on the Bible. Look at evangelicals right now bashing Romney for his Mormon beliefs. It has absolutely nothing to do with running a country either way. An argument over evolution has as much to do with the mess we are in as a debate over someone's favorite anime character.
I'm an atheist and I support this message.
RP2012
AncientChildVII 1 week ago
Wow, this man who has a very busy life took time out to answer questions on a internet forum asked by a bunch of nerds ages like 16-35.. This is why Ron Paul is succeeding. He's giving a voice, and showing that he cares about those who other politicians would just rather throw in the trash. That's extremely honorable of him.
Rather or not you agree with his views he's a great man who cares for his country and sticks to his beliefs. He doesn't just sell out to whatever us popular at the time.
Shagggyllama 3 months ago in playlist reddit Interviews Congressman Ron Paul
@rofl0bot marketing.
mlockup 3 months ago
sure enough. "evolution is just a theory" is a debunked myth. theory means a hypotheses that has being proven enough. but please guys. even if he don't accept the scientific usage of the word "theory" don't waste RP's time forcing him to read all the academic papers,
it's unrelated to politics and economics. and we have a little time left.
when he's set the system straight it's not going to be a theocracy.
cause he will, he is, and has always being for more then 30 years
FOR LIBERTY
ericon52168 4 months ago 5
@ericon52168 even if he don't accept the scientific usage of the word "theory"
The way in which science uses the word theory is in its original definition. The way science uses that word is the exact way it was invented to be used.
defiythelie 2 months ago
@defiythelie ofcourse it makes no sense for him to have a strong stance here. evolution is not his platform, and he should be ignoring things irrelevant, which he is, doing a pretty good job i might add
if people is going to bother him with things he shouldn't care at all, and i know you know evolution is irrelevant for him, and he gave a vague answer, it's called being polite
ericon52168 2 months ago
Thanks for talking with us Dr Paul, you have my vote.
666789443 4 months ago 2
the necessity for the presidents opinion on evolution is to determine was is to be taught in school.
deathbycriter 4 months ago
@rofl0bot You make the faulty assumption that profit is the only motive. Libertarians also claim that people deep down are good, and will do the right thing in the end.
alixoschmann 4 months ago
@alixoschmann You're right. People are not just motivated by profit. They are also motivated by prejudice, hate, and religion.
Libertarians have a pretty rosy view of the world if they think that "people deep down are good". Especially considering how much hate you can bring upon yourself from a large portion of the population by admitting something as seeming trivial as which set of genitals you prefer.
rofl0bot 4 months ago
I really am amazed. What other political candidate would bother answering an internet boards questions? Circlejerk have got it right, If I was in the US he would have my vote.
mongoliancarrot 4 months ago
This.
-Ron Paul
--Michael Scott
Hazzarddu 4 months ago
@rofl0bot For instance, I saw a documentary about a village that had its lake drained by Coca-Cola and Pepsi without compensation or consent from the villagers themselves. This was made possible because the local state had declared ownership of the forest. All the companies needed to do was bribe the state administration that was in power at the time, and if the villagers tried to stop these invaders, they'd be risking criminal charges.
Such is "public" property.
7ty714 5 months ago
@rofl0bot It wouldn't. That's precisely Paul's point. What are you getting at here, exactly?
Federal/state laws weren't the reason people avoided polluting land in the first place, you know. There is an economic incentive to keep your own property clean, as well as stopping people that try to use your land as a dump. Do you allow your neighbor's dog to take a dump in your back yard?
When the state owns land, it belongs to the company most willing to bribe the state for special treatment.
7ty714 5 months ago
@rofl0bot Land is expensive... Coalitions... Deals...
turtleking9999 5 months ago
We do have exact details and evidence of evolution. Evolution is stronger then any one fact, it's an amazing theory that explains a large - ever growing body- of facts. There is no evidence of a supernatural creator. People try to say that the "gaps" in evolution and the "unknown origin" of life is evidence of a creator. It is not, absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.
dc7407 5 months ago
Is that reddit doll wearing a slave collar?
Madfoot713 5 months ago
@rofl0bot
He might be referring to the 'allowing of pollution lawsuits' vs the 'distribution of pollution licenses'.
You guys have to realize, even if his views on creation/evolution are a quite unsophisticated, they have NOTHING to do with his views on how a country should be run (unlike most politicians).
RottenSquash 5 months ago
Comment removed
RottenSquash 5 months ago
Oh my, the man is a complete retard.
JRBendixen 5 months ago
@StatisticalPower High-speed internet is becoming as much a necessity as, say, phone service for example. I don't doubt that another company could come along and compete in single-provider markets, but they don't because the cost of entry is too high. By playing nice, I mean the providers don't have any reason not to overcharge consumers or play favorites with data delivery if it means profit. What are people going to do? Choose not to have internet access? Thus, by the balls.
ovinophile 5 months ago
@ovinophile What you're missing is that market distortion caused by government regulation and corporate welfare is what enables this consumer abuse in the first place. As you said, it's not a free market.
7ty714 5 months ago
Ron Paul is a fucking faggot and I can't believe he's berating random people asking him a question.
PaternusHentai 5 months ago
@StatisticalPower Actually, I would be committing a nirvana fallacy if I were hawking my fantastical "free market" solution by comparing it to the current flawed environment we have now. You really ought to read more than the first sentence of Wiki pages.
MyNameIsBucket 5 months ago
@StatisticalPower As I said, they're both systems, so they're equally exploitable. I don't like to repeat myself - so I'll just add that Paul's utopian free market is only a hazy dream, so you can poke holes in it with the power of your imagination. Unless, of course, you can give an example of a developed country that thrived under a free market.
MyNameIsBucket 5 months ago
@StatisticalPower Is it a system? Then it can be exploited.
MyNameIsBucket 5 months ago
@StatisticalPower Point being, there is a thin line between the policing he seems to envision and the regulation we have now. The difference being that regulations are a precautionary measure. Neither system is more or less susceptible to fraud or other exploitation, except the libertarian ideal doesn't have the borders in place - so corporations will only have the obstacle of litigation, in which they can easily tip the scales in their favor, so to speak.
MyNameIsBucket 5 months ago
@StatisticalPower When you say "Having a Government regulate what the truth is to people is a very bad road to go down" you are, of course right.
Only I was advocating the stance that the governments should defend and uphold *scientific* truth (or what is considered to come acceptably close - you get the point). Whatever that may be. NOT to determine a certain theory as being true. That is something a government and indeed a judicial system have no business getting into.
tachios85 5 months ago
8:50 That sounds awfully like SOCIALIST REGULATION, Dr. Paul. I thought the free market was supposed to take care of our 50 million uninsured citizens.
MyNameIsBucket 5 months ago
No, Dr. Paul, evolution is NOT a matter of personal belief. You either accept the FACTS and EVIDENCE or you don't. If you think different conclusions can be made from the existing evidence, good luck to you; you've got hundreds of years of proof to debunk. If you want to say the evidence is not enough to convince you, fine - but don't go on to assume that gives credence to Creationism, because there is exactly ZERO evidence to support that cockamamie "science".
MyNameIsBucket 5 months ago
Unfortunately, Dr. Paul is contradicting himself in the same sentence here. The free market can fix pollution, he says, though he acknowledges the lack of regulation in the Industrial Revolution creating the pollution crisis in the first place. He says early corporations had "license to pollute" as if that should be taken literally. Tell me, Dr. Paul - if no one truly has the right to pollute his neighbor's water, whose job is it to ensure they don't?
MyNameIsBucket 5 months ago
@StatisticalPower Really strange blind spot idd. I for one do NOT take his larger point when it comes to schools. Schools should *only* teach Truth or what comes as close as humanly possible to THE TRUTH.
This, I believe, should be regulated.
By "Truth" I mean the mathematical and logical meaning of it.
Upon closer analysis Evolution by Natural Selection will prove to be as close to *the truth* as humanly possible, whereas Creationism/Intelligent Design is downright grotesque.
My 2 cents.
tachios85 5 months ago
@tachios85 Why does Intelligent Design get compared to Creationism?
Creationism means you, on some level, believe the Genesis story of creation is scientific. ID, as I understand it, means you believe the processes of evolution were guided by a Creator. **Every religious person who is not a creationist believes in Intelligent Design by default.**
Is ID really a big deal?
Madfoot713 5 months ago
@Madfoot713 Yes it is and here's why. ID proponents are trying to change the school systems into teaching that theory. There are different levels of beleive in ID, the kind that is being pushed into schools is trying to discredit fundamental aspects of evolution, with any legitimate scientific proof. Those that believe ID in the other way (that god guided evolution), well thats fine, but there is no way you could ever proove that scientificaly.Check out theness.com/neurologicablog/ and search ID
dc7407 5 months ago
@dc7407 I already got taught Intelligent Design in public school. You know how it worked?
The teacher waited until the end of class and said, "Some people believe evolution was set forth by a creator. This is called Intelligent Design." That's all. Not really a big deal.
Madfoot713 5 months ago
@Madfoot713 Still, ID is outside of the scientific consensus. Was this the only time a fringe idea was brought into your science class? Did they mention astrology in your physics class? Or alchemy in your chemistry class? (Other than as a historical perspective, to show how science enlightened people _out_ of such thinking.)
Personally, I think even mentioning ID at the end of a science class is detrimental to science education. (I don't live in America, so we don't really have this problem.)
0debug 5 months ago
Not that I EVER would have voted for Ron Paul, but he just lost any interest he held over me (I like his ideas on ending the police state). How fucking difficult is it for these politicians to go down to their nearest university and talk to a fucking scientist?!? "Nobody has concrete proof?" Bullshit! Just b/c you are a politician doesn't give you a free pass to be ignorant.
Orbix19 5 months ago
Comment removed
Spider100001 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Why would a company that has a economic advantage to pollute and take the easy way out, spend a ton of money to be cleaner to the environment. This idea totally blows my mind." Property rights, they are accountable to their neighbors and the property they impact.
anxvariety 7 months ago
Everywhere I've ever lived you have one, maybe two choices for high-speed internet providers. And it's not going to change any time soon. That's not a free market. That's a market that has consumers by the balls and no incentive to play nice.
ovinophile 7 months ago 25
@ovinophile It can change through capitalism...
turtleking9999 5 months ago
@ovinophile I hope you realize this is because of regulation in the first place.
Nielsio 4 months ago
@ovinophile Do you realize why you only have, at most, 2 choices? It's not because of the free-market, it's because the ISP companies make so-called "campaign contributions" to local officials to keep competitors out of the local ISP market. Comcast is the biggest offended of this nation-wide and it's the sole reason their costs are high and their product sucks - lack of competition.
T0NNiX 2 months ago
He just said that Evolution was the universe coming out of a pop from nowhere.
Yeah, This man will rape any incline of education left in this country if president.
DaDoctaBoom 8 months ago
Choked.
Tenac1ous 8 months ago
This is completely embarrassing for Ron Paul. The evolution and climate change answers DO matter because it shows how deluded the guy is. Not to mention his ridiculous net neutrality position. . .
rustyrobot 8 months ago
@rustyrobot you dont like that hes for non government managed internet? youre comment is embarrassing to yourself really.
tekkenjam 7 months ago
Comment removed
AminCad 8 months ago
I had to stop watching after 3 minutes. That utter nonsense about climate change and evolution was too much to bear.
ComprehendingChaos 9 months ago
@ComprehendingChaos Those issues are not political. It is certain groups of people today who are MAKING those issues political. His specific answer was that those issues should be de-politicized and left to free-market, private-property forces. How is granting people more freedom to make their own decisions about those issues "utter nonsense"?
SANPH 7 months ago
Ron has completely misunderstood Net Neutrality. It's not about the government regulating the internets, it's about NO ONE regulating internet traffic. Being against Net Neutrality just means internet traffic will be regulated by your ISP. Being FOR Net Neutrality means you want neither the government nor your ISP to regulate the internet traffic.
Ron Paul has some interesting ideas, but he really ought to stay away from a topic he doesn't fully understand.
SteelyDan324 9 months ago
@SteelyDan324 It is the right of the property owner to regulate his property. The ISP owns the tubes, thus they have the right ti regulate them. The government cannot get involved without regulating, thus violating property rights.
shamgar001 8 months ago
@SteelyDan324
And you seem to have misunderstood Paul :/
TheJaimeFoster 7 months ago
I hate it when he talks about evolution. Smartest politician I know, and he still has my vote, but shit...........leave science to the scientist.
TheWhiteRabbit1990 1 year ago
@TheWhiteRabbit1990 I don't think I understand your objection to his comment. Ron Paul stated that evolution is a very logical theory, which it is. There are very few scientific LAWS. Most all scientific knowledge is still considered to be in the realm of theory.
carolm62 9 months ago
@carolm62 My god........I'll keep this civil. In science, a law is a statement that something IS happening, a theory is the explanation of HOW it happens. For instance, Tectonic Theory is a theory that explains how earthquakes happen. It doesn't mean that scientist aren't positive that earthquakes Do happen. The Theory of Relativity, Acoustic Theory, etc. You have the Law of Gravity, which states that objects are attracted to each other, but then you have the theory of gravity which aims (cont).
TheWhiteRabbit1990 9 months ago
@TheWhiteRabbit1990 Why do you feel such strain to keep this civil...? I have said nothing inflammatory. Ron Paul has said nothing inflammatory. According to what you just said about theories, evolution is still technically in the realm of theory, since it is an explanation of how. I'm not sure why you are assuming I reject evolution. I support it fully. Some people need to know that religious people like Paul don't necessarily reject evolution either.
carolm62 9 months ago
@carolm62 I feel strained because it's the internet and it's normal to be unnecessarily aggressive here. What do you mean it's in the realm of theory? I just tried explaining that it is a theory and will never ever ever ever be anything else because theories don't become laws or anything else for that matter. Your first comment was saying their are very few laws and science is still considered in the realm of theory. Implying this awkward dicotomy. Theories work on top of laws. You do not(Cont)
TheWhiteRabbit1990 9 months ago
(cont) try to explain how something happens without first establishing that something is happening to begin with. The Theory of natural selection explains How, but Evolution itself is a Law stating the Is. Ron Pauls awesome, but making a statement like "evolutions just a theory" or their "isn't a lot of evidence" makes the scientific community shutter because making those statements is inherent to a fundamental misunderstanding of science. I just don't want him losing votes because of it.
TheWhiteRabbit1990 9 months ago
@TheWhiteRabbit1990 Perhaps we misunderstand each other. As a supporter of evolution I did not perceive Ron Paul's comment to mean that he was minimizing the evidence for evolution -- only acknowledging that there are still lots of missing pieces that may take decades to uncover and put in their proper places. I would hate to see Ron Paul lose votes over this either -- especially since the very gist of his reply was that the subject of evolution is completely irrelevant to the debate.
carolm62 9 months ago
(cont) to explain Why objects attract each other. You may have different competing theories on a given law. Darwin for instance tried explaining why animals Do diversity and create new species with his theory of Natural selection, while other of his time had other ideas (now obsol). Theories do not become laws. A theory isn't just an idea of how people think it happened, that's a hypothesis. A Theory is only created after testing, the scientific method, peer reviews, retesting etc. ne questions?
TheWhiteRabbit1990 9 months ago
very instightful why does no one listen to this him
Chriseycarlyeah324 1 year ago
This man is talking out of his ass. I agree we should focus on Pollution and not on global warming, because ultimately pollution is the problem anyway. however his stupid idea that privatizing everything is the answer? What a fool. My family has had several neighbors who polluted and had smoky fires with drunken parties past Midnight. A regulation or police force or a law/fine would help. I'm not going to risk my family's life walking into a drunken party and telling them to shut up
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
Man even more disappointing, I kept listening and he thinks there is good science to both sides of the global warming debate...yet there's no science to the side claiming it doesn't exist. the only thing that side uses is PR material put together by coal and oil companies. I really like Ron Paul when it comes to monetary policy and I think he knows it well, but he has to learn more about these other areas because that's just bad.
pryorka82 1 year ago
@pryorka82 There is also NO science to support creationism, and NO science to support that the earth is 6000 years old like creationists believe. Ron Paul is a foolish politician like the rest of them. He has some sound principles and good ideas, but he is full of shit on many things. Again, nothing new to see here - he's just like the other politicians.
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
I'm disappointed that Ron Paul doesn't understand net neutrality and I wish someone would explain the situation in full for him. You can't stand for freedom and then allow google to censor the internet. He is seeing it as a regulation which can cause problems. But you don't have free access and freedom as he says if you allow google to block internet sites.
pryorka82 1 year ago
I realised at 2.38 that Ron Paul is a fool. 'Good science on both sides of the debate.' Nonsense. I can't believe I wasted 2 minutes on this fool!
wolfpackof100 1 year ago
@wolfpackof100
You're the fool. You need to listen better. Global warming? don't you mean "Climate Change." Or Green House effect. How many names does it need? Which ones truthful? Or is Global Cooling the truth? Many scientists who believe in global warming said global cooling would kill us in the 70's, so who is the fool?
zxcv73 1 year ago
@wolfpackof100
10,000 scientists signed to debunk global warming after Al Gore's "The Incovinient Truth".
SturmKorps 1 year ago
@wolfpackof100 exactly. He's a nut case. He does have some good ideas but like any politician, he breaks down to an utter fool as usual.
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
You don't have to worry yourself to death about global warming. Global warming will kill you soon enough.
lupischuckle 1 year ago
about net neutrality, he is not saying he doesn't support it, he is saying he doesn't support the government getting involved in protecting it. He sees the term "net neutrality" as "government protecting the internet"
ilikedrumming 1 year ago
Comment removed
ilikedrumming 1 year ago
While i am not really in support of Ron Paul i do like what he said about how in a liberal society it wouldn't matter what his personal believes are cause his personal believes are not gonna make him restrict the believes of people who think differently than him and that he is against restrictions in general.
Isn't that the best? Or would you really rather have some atheist dictator who dictates you what to think and believe and do and putting social Darwinism into practice?
Supenmanu 1 year ago
@Supenmanu Wow, straw man much?
We're not talking about "personal believes" here. We're talking about science, as in experimentally verified facts about the world around us. We're also not asking anyone to restrict people's rights to believe whatever nonsense they might wish. We're saying that the leader of the most powerful industrialized nation in the world had better understand how his actions will affect the ecological systems that sustain us. That is all.
soulbiscuit 1 year ago
The bible provides a "superior" view? Saying the bible has "good science", hahahaha.
judasiscariot3 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Many struggle to answer with credibility key questions about God and the Bible. But God is most definitely real. If you doubt it, read 'the attempted murder of God' - A critical book at a critical time, it reveals the secrets of science that comprehensively demolish the theory of Evolution and provides scientific proof for God - a scientific certainty kept hidden from the world that in this critical time in history can now be revealed.
byScrooby 2 years ago
I think his views on evolution and global warming are absolutely relevant. They demonstrate that Dr. Paul does not know how to tell the difference between what is true and what is false. He does not know how to separate his ideology from his evaluation of claims. Evolution is probably the most firmly established fact in science, yet he denies that this is the case. Anthropogenic climate change has been established beyond reasonable doubt, yet he doubts it. I don't trust such irrationality.
soulbiscuit 2 years ago
A solid understanding of science and the Scientific Method is incredibly valuable in all walks of life, especially heading into the 21st Century. Issues like stem cell research, global warming, cloning, nanotechnology, space exploration, and the extinction of species are all going to be huge world changing issues that our governments will have to deal with.
Paul claims that 2 of central ideas to these problems are irrelevant and on shaky ground. I'm glad he lost.
whiterat83 2 years ago
@soulbiscuit - indeed, I was dissapointed with his views on evolution but then he is a politician not a scientist. He is also correct is stating that the questions are politically loaded now and are nowhere near as important as other issues politicians should get involved with. Tax, healthcare, foreign policy etc. He has advocated a return to church/state seperation and limited government- that's more than most of his kind do.
Hereticalable 1 year ago
@Hereticalable That does seem to be a reasonable position on the surface, but it simply isn't. If Paul were elected President, he would have unmatched influence on every area of policy, including those that have an indelible effect on the world around us. Knowledge of the likely effects of potential policy actions absolutely requires a knowledge of science. There is no escaping it.
soulbiscuit 1 year ago
@soulbiscuit global warming science appears to me to have been heavily distorted by politics. Evolution on the other hand, seems pretty damn empirically established to me.
atrickpay11 1 year ago
@atrickpay11 How do you feel climate science has been distorted by politics? The numbers don't lie. There is far, far more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there has ever been in the last 800,000 years, and the number began to skyrocket right at the industrial revolution. Carbon dioxide is known to have a greenhouse effect. Models based on this information show the kind of warming that we now see. It's a slam dunk. Global warming is real.
Right with you on evolution, of course.
soulbiscuit 1 year ago
@soulbiscuit I've seen numerous scientists say that that historically a rise in C02 doesn't produce a rise in temperatures. They actually say it's the exact opposite--that a rise in temperatures produces a rise in CO2!
atrickpay11 1 year ago
@atrickpay11 That's a good point; it's not always easy to tell which is the cause and which is the effect. I'll note, though, that this is not what I asked for: an example of how climate science is distorted by politics.
There are cases where more warming leads to more CO2. For example, warming leads to the melting of permafrost, which releases carbon stored in the frozen soil, which accelerates warming, which melts more permafrost. The greenhouse effect of CO2, however, is not in dispute.
soulbiscuit 1 year ago
@atrickpay11 I would agree -- and Ron Paul is correct when he says it is completely irrelevent what people accept ot don't accept to be true about this issue. It has no bearing on any issue whatsoever.
carolm62 9 months ago
@soulbiscuit All he is saying is, "Give peace a chance." Only politicization of science requires Yes/No absolutes. What is important, as Paul says right in this video, is the freedom to debate, not shutting out challenges to orthodox thinking. Through history, governments have violently imposed their theories on the minority. New evidence arises after generations of suppression of radical thinkers. He also says right in this video that evolution is logical, he is not an ideologue.
leafwatch 1 year ago
The questioner is wrong. Scientists would never say that evolution is better classified as a law than a theory. A law is not a theory that "graduated" into lawhood. A law is simply a mathematical relationship shown to hold in all known cases. A theory is a framework of ideas shown through experiment to explain observation.
He's way off on global warming. Even if he wasn't, that the free market could prevent pollution is laughable.
soulbiscuit 2 years ago
Wow, Ron Paul, a doctor, doesn't even know what a SCIENTIFIC THEORY is or how it is different than the layman term "theory."
That's just pathetic.
O8SERVER 2 years ago
He does have some pretty big holes in his understanding of evolution and what a theory is and what the geological record says. However, his outlook on the big issues makes his ignorance irrelevant - in a free market system what politicians believe is not important. He is proven right by being wrong. The power of his core ideas is demonstrated. You can't expect politicians to be perfect or know everything. A robust system can behave correctly despite an imperfection in some of its parts.
kurzwasple 2 years ago
I certainly don't expect my politicians to know everything. I do expect them to be able to tell the difference between fact and fantasy. On evolution and global warming at least, and on the free market it seems, he's in a fantasy land.
soulbiscuit 2 years ago
Fact and fantasy are ill-defined. Mostly, power decides what people believe. Let them stay out of our lives, and we won't need them to be very intelligent or share our views. His ideas on the free market seem sound to me, he's basically saying the market will fix things better than government. Not hard to do since govt usually sucks at what it tries to do.
kurzwasple 2 years ago
I've always supported RP, but he's off with the evolution business. The issue IS political because it has implications with regard to the education of our youth. We must promote logic and reason. We need the sciences. It's not about whether or not someone goes into evolutionary biology, but it is important that our children acquire the ability to utilize a scientific mode of reasoning, and if we start rejecting theories based on religious bias, rather than evidence, then we're effed straight up.
giggletronics 2 years ago
I believe Paul's point is that the school board should decide what gets taught at their school. Ideally those people will know whats up and can decide what should be taught or not.
fakertonmcfakeface 2 years ago
Not only but different schools will make different decisions and you will be able to choose a school where your world-view is taught. That is freedom instead of top-down regulation
kurzwasple 2 years ago
@giggletronics too true, I couldn't have put it better myself.
mpower20 2 years ago
@giggletronics
And you are off understanding politics, he completely explained it when he said "libertarian society", that means education is decentralized, and science is not in the hand of beraucrats. So the issue is not political.
SturmKorps 1 year ago
@SturmKorps the people that put up Stop signs should be decentralized so that each road has a different kind of stop sign on it, and we have several competing stop sign vendors some selling stop signs with neon markers on them, some selling stop signs with orange fluorescent tape. Then we get a diversity of stop signs and a multicultural/multiracial libertarian stop sign system. This anarachy helps us become better humans with a diversified portfolio. It also works for investments.
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails
bla bla bla you don't have a point just satirical bullshit nobody cares about, also I was laughing until you mentioned "multiracial", wtf does this have to do?
SturmKorps 1 year ago
@SturmKorps multi-racial stop signs, some with orange color, some with neon pink.. privatize the stop signs! Privatize everything, privatize the water pipes so that each water pipe going under the ground is owned by different companies
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails
You are full of shit, the job of goverment is infrastructure, you fool stop sayin that shit
SturmKorps 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails Many places in Europe have experimented with the abolishment of traffic signs altogether. Guess what...? Traffic flows smoother and faster, with less accidents.
carolm62 9 months ago
@carolm62 So how do you control a 4-way stop? traffic circles? they flow, but they are dangerous and still need signs.. like "keep left" or whatever to give people guidelines. I am very doubtful about getting rid of signs like yield and stop, how is that helpful in any way, unless you put in a traffic circle, which, cause many accidents apparently
SeeProfileForDetails 9 months ago
@SeeProfileForDetails What apparently happens is that people behave politely towards one another, go figure. He goes then you go then he goes then you go. Some places jusrt decided all the signs were like aggressive pollution and that people didn't really need to be told all the time what to do. And as hard as this is for a statist such as yourself to believe, people managed just fine. For one thing they slowed down at intersections rather than speeded up.
carolm62 9 months ago
@carolm62 why not remove all the lines on the road? Why not just remove all school zones so people can go 100km/hour by schools when they want at lunch time? Why not remove the number signs on your house since having a number on your house indicating what house number you are is just pollution? Why not remove the walmart sign from the store because people will know it is walmart just looking at the building. You are a seriously mentally challenged libertarian... I have seen those like you b4.
SeeProfileForDetails 9 months ago
@SeeProfileForDetails I'm not sure why you feel compelled to be such an idiot. A house number is not a regulation. Nor is a WalMart sign. "Prevailing wisdom" leads many people to assume they'll die without certain things like traffic lights, but studies show that is not the case. I live in Naples, Italy where there is complete anarchy on the roads -- not that there are no signs, they are just all disobeyed -- yet it works. People quickly learn how the unwritten system works.
carolm62 9 months ago
@carolm62 In some countries the traffic lights are flashing yellow at night time when there is less traffic and this works well. Try this in New York City.... good luck.
SeeProfileForDetails 9 months ago
@SeeProfileForDetails You don't seem able to comprehend the difference some signs being useful and all signs being necessary. People are more aware of and engaged with each other in places that don't have signs and lights flashing everywhere. They are aware of their surroundings instead of being autopilot zombies. They don't actually "need" to be constantly told what to do.
carolm62 9 months ago
@carolm62 in a rural area where everyone knows everyone, you do not need signs. IN the city when you have newcomers and tourists and all sorts of complexity in a city, you need some sort of organization. Once again you are following an old libertarian dogma back when things weren't as advanced. Like seriously you think that it's not going to help walmart if they put a walmart sign on the highway with an arrow for tourists coming in to town? how stupid can you be? Private signs okay? Why?
SeeProfileForDetails 9 months ago
@SeeProfileForDetails the cities that have removed the traffic signals don't operate without traffic laws. People still follow the driving rules. At an unmarked intersection you yield to the person on the right. This doesn't NEED to be posted in everyone's face 24/7. I can remember that myself, thanks. Lines, on the road? I'm not opposed to them but what would happen if they weren't there, really? Can't figure out where the middle is? Nobody pays attention to the lines in Naples....
carolm62 9 months ago
@carolm62 if you are driving around a new area and you don't know the place, you could be going 80 miles per hour and roar right through an intersection thinking it's an unpopular road, when in fact it's not and boom you get t-boned. Don't you tell me your stupid libertarian lies that putting up some kind of warning that there is an intersection coming up wouldn't help.. come on, stop being stupid.
SeeProfileForDetails 9 months ago
@SeeProfileForDetails Are you seriously arguing with the fact that some places have done this...? I suggest that if you ever visit there that you don't drive 80 miles an hour through an intersection then. Although liberty does include the freedom to be stupid, it does not include freedom from natural consequences of your stupidity -- nor the legal ones. You are not free to harm other people.
carolm62 9 months ago
@carolm62 Haven't you ever driven to a place and been unfamiliar that there is a school there? it could be hidden and you may not know there is a park where kids are playing and a road near by. Yes there was an accident where I used to live, in a rural area, so after someone got killed they put up a flashing red light and everyone checks carefully when they see it. Are you seriously thinking that taking down Walmart Signs will help business because it doesn't warn people about walmart? STUPID
SeeProfileForDetails 9 months ago
@SeeProfileForDetails Are you completely daft...? I never said anything about forcing business owners to take down PRIVATE PROPERTY signs! That was just your warped mind at work. Why would a liberatarian demand that private property owners remove their signs? I only told you about some places in Europe that removed TRAFFIC signs -- because these places actually EXIST, duh! You can say they shouldn't do that all you want but that won't make them disappear.
carolm62 9 months ago
@carolm62 Signs are useful idiot. Truck drivers would probably like to know there is a corner coming up while driving on a straight road tired in a big semi truck, wouldn't you? On private roads in a libertarian society, each private road might have a different kind of stop sign, hopefully it would be standardized. The idea that Private walmart can put up signs but the public roads should have them removed is libertarian Dogma. LiberTard.
SeeProfileForDetails 9 months ago
@SeeProfileForDetails Good grief! I have never said I was opposed to traffic signs. I said they were not as necessary as you suppose -- and that YES there are cities in Europe that have eliminated them. Then people want to argue with me about whether this is the case. Google this phrase1 European cities eliminate traffic signs. It's not that hard! It won't let me post a link or I would.
carolm62 9 months ago
@carolm62 I realize they have eliminated signs in places. I never said you were wrong. I also realize that some places have removed Traffic Lights and replaced them with Traffic Circles which flow smoothly. Unfortunately it is not the holy grail. The traffic circles have lots of accidents, and signs are still useful. You had a libertarian dogma that removing signs is good, and I fought you about this... now you are admitting that some signs are still useful. WTF? We don't even disagree.
SeeProfileForDetails 9 months ago
@SeeProfileForDetails It all began with the observation that on days that traffic lights failed traffic actually flowed smoother and faster. People just took turns. So they studied it and sure enough that was the case.
carolm62 9 months ago
@carolm62 Many stores in Europe have experiment with abolishing of price tags altogether. Guess what? products are cheaper and people get their products faster, with less theft.
SeeProfileForDetails 9 months ago
@carolm62 Many stores in Europe have experimented with abolishing all Cashier Open signs and Fire Exit signs. Guess what? fires are not a problem and people can just guess where the exit is, and the people don't bother going to the cashier that is open all the time, they just guess which one is open since their is no sign. This sort of libertarian Dogma is the type that I really hate, it is a dangerous ideology.
SeeProfileForDetails 9 months ago
@SeeProfileForDetails Actually, if you had ever read the book "The Speed of Trust" you might not be quite so incredulous about your own example. The more distrust people have for one another, the longer things take. Think air port secuirty after 9-11.
carolm62 9 months ago
@carolm62 Think air port security before 9/11. Lots of trust. Oops, buildings fell down.
SeeProfileForDetails 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This man is fucked up stupid!
nemodot 2 years ago
I could never vote for a politician who believes it's not important whether or not mythology is taught as science in our schools. Science looks at observable evidence, bases a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and only then forms a conclusion. Creationism forms a conclusion then attempts to make the evidence fit the conclusion. Why is this important in politics? Because we don't want our politicians creating conclusions BEFORE evidence for the conclusions! Otherwise we get BUSH!
gotrootdude 2 years ago
I thought Ron Paul had some good ideas in the 2008 campaign. but now after watching this, I am embarassed to say I thought so!
Why no net neutrality? "well, I don't understand what it means but it's not a free-market solution."
sheesh
InuvikPhil 2 years ago
Well, libertarians believe that if we had his view of a society with no government barriers to entry from new companies, the consumer would obviously purchase from the company that didnt regulate the net.
That is completely false because Comcast is already guilty of restricting access to P2P. They still have all the customers. Therefore, this "free-market solution" is bullshit. Life does not work that way.
MrThecolorfulsung 2 years ago
His argument regarding net neutrality is sound. I would gladly take a man in politics who has the courage to admit that he does not completely understand a subject over an individual who will gloss over and give you the best politically correct answer he/she can muster.
veoeluz 2 years ago