Science is Libertarian

In the wake of the Bush presidency, the already-clear rift between the two dominant perspectives on the right—the small-government libertarians/anarchists and the theocratic fundamentalists—began to grow even wider. Far more than the conservative or liberal philosophy, it is who wins the argument between authoritarians, who value top-down control and conformity, and antiauthoritarians, who value bottom-up freedom and tolerance, that will drive the success or failure of the United States on the major issues of the twenty-first century. This argument has little to do with current party politics, and everything to do with science.

Like it or not, the world is now fully dependent on science. Without it, we could not sustain our population or our environment. Science is driving the entire conversation, and the country needs a political framework that will allow it to adapt to these challenges successfully. This requires making some adjustments in our understanding of the role and purpose of nations and legal and regulatory systems. Thus, the independent lover of science and the future will tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, seeking a live-and-let-live ethos in the name of freedom and natural law using government regulation to optimize freedom and level playing fields; the neoconservative fundamentalist will tend to be fiscally liberal and socially conservative, seeking big-government control of personal behavior in the name of morality and security while opposing regulation that increases freedom or levels playing fields.


It is bottom-up and anti-authoritarian.

Folksonomies: politics science

/science (0.796245)
/science/ecology/pollution (0.420494)
/law, govt and politics/politics (0.333427)

current party politics (0.953921 (negative:-0.484275)), level playing fields (0.904775 (positive:0.338872)), bottom-up freedom (0.780849 (neutral:0.000000)), liberal philosophy (0.767735 (neutral:0.000000)), theocratic fundamentalists—began (0.752045 (negative:-0.674792)), already-clear rift (0.743977 (negative:-0.674792)), dominant perspectives (0.740485 (negative:-0.674792)), neoconservative fundamentalist (0.736789 (negative:-0.485428)), top-down control (0.733566 (neutral:0.000000)), Bush presidency (0.732274 (negative:-0.693958)), twenty-first century (0.731828 (negative:-0.220684)), big-government control (0.719965 (negative:-0.539699)), small-government libertarians/anarchists (0.718912 (negative:-0.674792)), United States (0.708341 (negative:-0.220684)), major issues (0.707833 (negative:-0.220684)), live-and-let-live ethos (0.704531 (positive:0.338872)), government regulation (0.699455 (positive:0.338872)), independent lover (0.698784 (positive:0.423068)), entire conversation (0.688003 (positive:0.287329)), political framework (0.686079 (negative:-0.389457)), natural law (0.685990 (positive:0.338872)), personal behavior (0.682252 (negative:-0.539699)), regulatory systems (0.678958 (positive:0.352216)), science (0.643619 (positive:0.333779)), argument (0.550223 (negative:-0.484275)), conformity (0.475757 (neutral:0.000000)), adjustments (0.468358 (positive:0.352216)), tolerance (0.462247 (neutral:0.000000)), wake (0.460840 (negative:-0.693958)), morality (0.458266 (negative:-0.539699))

Bush:Person (0.827471 (negative:-0.693958)), United States:Country (0.783181 (negative:-0.220684)), antiauthoritarians:Person (0.757252 (neutral:0.000000))

Conservatism (0.981411): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc
Classical liberalism (0.699617): dbpedia | freebase | yago
Republican Party (0.684139): website | dbpedia | freebase | opencyc | yago
Liberalism (0.672874): dbpedia | freebase
Political philosophy (0.635242): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc
United States (0.605553): website | dbpedia | ciaFactbook | freebase | opencyc | yago
Paleoconservatism (0.589452): dbpedia | freebase | yago
Law (0.578838): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc

 Fool Me Twice
Books, Brochures, and Chapters>Book:  Otto , Shawn Lawrence (2011-10-11), Fool Me Twice, Rodale Press, Retrieved on 2013-01-08
  • Source Material []
  • Folksonomies: politics science