These are the sort of things that make Libertarianism unpalatable to normal, non-delusional people.

The final laugh came from the idea that society would actually evolve to your nutcake philosophy, then the aliens would finally land and invite us to join their green lantern guild.

You guys are funnier than the hippies ever were. Thanks.

I’m listening to the separation of church and state program, and I thought that you guys got off on the wrong foot.

Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association is where he coins the frame “wall of separation.” The context was to address the association’s concern that the in light of ratification of the Constitution that the government would establish a religion. Their fears were that they would become the brunt of continued fines and imprisonment for their non-conformist Baptist convictions.

The whold concept of “separation of church and state” comes from a Supreme Court decision that had the effect of trampling upon the freedom of free exercise of religion of the public. This decision also had the effect, in my opinion, of the establisment of the atheist regime which is the lifting up of man and reason as the ultimate authority as opposed to God and His Word (Christian view). Of course there are other religous authorities that could be established in a person’s life, but in the United States, Christianity is the historical authority that our goverment had, at least in part, it’s foundation.

The whole idea of marriage is not merely a “property transaction.” As history goes, marriage is both a religous and civil standing. There is not only a desire for legitimization of an heir, but also a sanctification of this relationship under the authority of God.

The idea that the LGBT community should want to married is ludicrous. Most of the reasons that I hear a gay person wanting to “marry” are more social and emotional rather than an issue of establishing an heir. The gay community is look for a politcal solution to their social problem.

I wish I had kept up with the upcoming programs, so that I could have gotten in on a worthy conversation. You guys should have found a Christian libertarian (Vox Day) to join you for your program in order to balance the discussion.

What does evolution have to do with biology? I never took biology but had the understanding/expectation that it had to do with physiology or “how things are”, not about origin of species?

What does evolution have to do with libertarian or the LD perspective? Can you point me to what was meant by libertarian academic mandates?

One of the responses on this episode seemed dismissive of micro-evolution. Why? And why was Intelligent Design part of the conversation with biology? I am not defending Intelligent Design but I.D. has more to do with “origin” than Darwinism does and has more chance to explain origin. Darwin’s theories cannot scientifically PROVE origin, so if the extrapolation validates evolution origin to ‘science’, then I.D. is JUST as much science in that aspect, right?

I read a book (I’ll look up the title later if it matters) that talked about different types of evolutional theory, creationism and I.D, plus Bios Logos (which I actually thought was more of a cop out to get Evolution and Creationism to play nice together). Have you broadcast thoughts on that?

That’s just a brain dump to start my curiosity about you guys. Thanks.

I have only been listening to the Dime for a few months so I’m sorry to see it go. Can someone make any recommendations for other good Libertarian podcasts?

Thanks in advance,
Erik Turner

PS – I miss Firefly too.

I’ll be doing a small segment on tonigh’s show if you’re interested. Still, I would point out that I did mention on the show about the founding document of ID simply being search and replaced. I’ll have more details tonight.

The show’s length and format didn’t really allow me to go into depths of why ID is just warmed over creationism. I would point you to the document I mentioned in the show, where “Creation Science” was simply replaced with “Intelligent Design”, complete with search and replace mistakes artifacts.

Just saying “it’s creation”, listening to the guest, then saying, “it’s creation” again doesn’t mark the interviewer as brightest “dime” in the bag.

Listen to yourself. were you even agreed to the foundation before you built upon it? Poor form indeed.

It’s obvious that the interviewer was unclear on the contents of i.d. theory.