| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
JJLehto 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
 Posted: July 28 2010 at 22:41 |
 Slartibartfast wrote:
OK all of you in favor of nuclear power raise your hands if you are willing to take the waste into your own back yards. Raise your hands if you are willing to take away all government subsidies and let the industry stand on its own two feet. Anybody? Anybody? Even better, how many of you would even like a nuclear power plant in your neighborhood? It's pretty easy to support as long as the facilities and the problems are burdens you don't have to bear.
|
Well, the not in my backyard argument does not really fly because its not going in anyones backyard. Though we could start with George W Bush's Its not an immediate thing, some research needs to be done. But there are unlivable places out there. I am sure some safe places can be found, an the waste cant be just disposed of, there has to be certain safety precautions taken. And I'm not sure, but isn't there a process to use some of the waste over?
|
 |
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: July 28 2010 at 22:42 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
OK all of you in favor of nuclear power raise your hands if you are willing to take the waste into your own back yards. Raise your hands if you are willing to take away all government subsidies and let the industry stand on its own two feet. Anybody? Anybody?
|
Why would I be willing to take it in my own backyard. Are you willing you keep all the gas from the oil you burn in your house? The company will be liable for the waste and dispose of it.
And of course I'm willing to take away the subsidies. Easy question  more softballs. |
Ah, but you take away the subsidies and then it's all over. Do you really trust the industry to build safe plants? There will still be no way to take care of the waste. If I burn the oil in my house it can be used as biodiesel.  "The company will be liable for the waste and dispose of it." Most likely in your back yard because regulation is bad.
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: July 28 2010 at 22:44 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
OK all of you in favor of nuclear power raise your hands if you are willing to take the waste into your own back yards. Raise your hands if you are willing to take away all government subsidies and let the industry stand on its own two feet. Anybody? Anybody?
|
Why would I be willing to take it in my own backyard. Are you willing you keep all the gas from the oil you burn in your house? The company will be liable for the waste and dispose of it.
And of course I'm willing to take away the subsidies. Easy question more softballs. |
Ah, but you take away the subsidies and then it's all over. Do you really trust the industry to build safe plants? There will still be no way to take care of the waste. If I burn the oil in my house it can be used as biodiesel.
"The company will be liable for the waste and dispose of it." Most likely in your back yard because regulation is bad.
|
I don't trust the government to do it either. At least with private companies there's legal and social recourse. I would like them to dump it on my private property. Just a small chunk of my settlement could make me happy for a long time.
You act like the amount of waste generated is so great and the potential storage facilities so short.
EDIT: More sleep less politics. Night.
Edited by Equality 7-2521 - July 28 2010 at 22:53
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
2.71828183
Forum Newbie
Joined: July 28 2010
Location: Kansas
Status: Offline
Points: 7
|
Posted: July 28 2010 at 23:02 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I really think you're erring here. If a scientist gives me a wheel barrel and tells me "This makes moving dirt easier." . I may try it. Seeing that it makes moving dirt easier I keep using it. This is not me reaffirming the scientist who calculated the simple Newtonian dynamics, but rather me making a rationalization from experience. People don't drive cars across bridges because they trust in the physics of it; they do it because they've seen thousands of cars pass over bridges without any of them collapsing. |
I'll cede the point, as I think you're right. But I think the rest of my argument stands.
| Honestly though, why would you accept GR, or even better Quantum Mechanics? They make no sense on the surface. |
Because I trust the scientific community (in this case the smaller community of physicists) when they say that those are the best possible explanations for what they have observed. Why should I not? That they make no sense on the surface is irrelevant, since the very people who say that they are true are the people who understand them well below that surface. If a bunch of people who understand something in depth say that X is the best existing explanation for the results of their experiments, on what grounds can I reasonably disagree?
| Truth in authority and established truths is antithetical to science. |
Only if you're the one doing new scientific research. Since the average politician, layman, and anyone else who might deny global warming is not conducting scientific research, it matters absolutely not at all whether what they are doing is "antithetical to science" since science is not the project that they're undertaking. Rather, the undertaking they are doing (in the case of politicians) is theoretically making the decisions in the best interests of their constituents (and, perhaps the world as a whole). Trusting in knowledgeable people when they tell you that there is a significant problem that needs to be dealt with is a very reasonable thing to do in that situation. As I see it, there are three alternatives to trusting in established scientific truth. First is not caring (what you seem to recommend for GR and QM), and which many people generally do. But that's not an option for politicians who, if global warming is true, need to act right now. So there is the second option: rejecting established scientific truth. I believe I have explained well enough why it is unreasonable to do so unless you are actually a scientist doing original research (and a few other rare cases). Then there is the third option: having the politicians do their own research to come up with their position. But politicians are not scientists, and if you aren't willing to trust the conclusions of the scientific community, you'd be out of your mind to trust the conclusions of politicians. As for why the first alternative is not an option for the general populace, as long as global warming is an issue in elections, any voter who uses that as a rationale for voting one way or the other ought is unable to ignore it, can't reasonably reject it, and can't reasonably be expected to do their own research into it (and also can't be expected to draw reasonable conclusions from that research, as they are not specialists).
| Also, please come on. You're talking like someone who took a Phil 101 Intro to Logic Course. You're getting too hung up on the semantical nature of the statement. It's an argument from authority. |
No, I'm not. An argument from authority is a very specific type of logical fallacy and nothing that I have said fits into it. The claim I am making is not even an empirical one, but a normative one. Because qualified experts say X, it is unreasonable to reject X. That is my claim. If you want to argue against it, then argue against it as you have been doing, but don't refer to it as a logical fallacy that it simply is not. That is why I am getting hung up on this. By referring to my argument as an argument from authority, you seem to think that that lets you dismiss it (if not, then why are you bringing it up?). I have not made a single argument in this thread that global warming is true. I am leaving that to the scientists and other people who understand the science behind it better than I do. I have made arguments about whether or not it is reasonable to reject the findings of the scientific community when you lack the specialized knowledge they possess. That is a fundamentally different argument than the one you are accusing me of making. It's not semantics, it's the very heart of my argument. As I wrote on this topic a while back (not here):
The point of referring to a consensus is
to point out that experts who understand the issue better than any of us
ever will have almost all reached this one conclusion, and to not
accept that conclusion implies that you think you know better than them,
which is arrogant and probably not true.
It's not an argument that it's true, it's an argument for why you should
believe it. |
An argument that we should trust authority figures in certain cases is not the same as an argument that something is true because an authority figure says it is.
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
By that same logic you should defer to me on
political beliefs T because I'm more highly educated on the
subject. |
I wasn't aware that political experts had reached a consensus on what
the best political system was... I'm really tired and will only become less and less coherent from here on out, so I am done for the night.
Edited by 2.71828183 - July 28 2010 at 23:04
|
|
now that your picture's in the paper being rhythmically admired
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: July 28 2010 at 23:47 |
On a totally unrelated note, apparently Obama ate a sub place just 4 blocks from my my local Sam Ash. 2008 I would've said "Sam Ash is now even better!" Now "I hope his DC stench didn't taint Sam Ash"  
Edited by JJLehto - July 28 2010 at 23:47
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: July 29 2010 at 05:08 |
2.71828183 wrote:
.If a bunch of people who understand something in depth say that X is the best existing explanation for the results of their experiments, on what grounds can I reasonably disagree? |
On the grounds that your a critically thinking individual and require that statements be justified? If I was a lead researcher in the field and I told you "Evidence suggest that at an early time in the Universe's history Nobelium was more prevalent that Helium.", wouldn't it be reasonable to ask for more evidence given the ludicrous nature of the claim?
e wrote:
Only if you're the one doing new scientific research. Since the average politician, layman, and anyone else who might deny global warming is not conducting scientific research, it matters absolutely not at all whether what they are doing is "antithetical to science" since science is not the project that they're undertaking. Rather, the undertaking they are doing (in the case of politicians) is theoretically making the decisions in the best interests of their constituents (and, perhaps the world as a whole). Trusting in knowledgeable people when they tell you that there is a significant problem that needs to be dealt with is a very reasonable thing to do in that situation. |
I didn't know the definition of antithetical has a variable the subject of the verb its describing.
e wrote:
As I see it, there are three alternatives to trusting in established scientific truth. First is not caring (what you seem to recommend for GR and QM), and which many people generally do. But that's not an option for politicians who, if global warming is true, need to act right now. So there is the second option: rejecting established scientific truth. I believe I have explained well enough why it is unreasonable to do so unless you are actually a scientist doing original research (and a few other rare cases). Then there is the third option: having the politicians do their own research to come up with their position. But politicians are not scientists, and if you aren't willing to trust the conclusions of the scientific community, you'd be out of your mind to trust the conclusions of politicians. |
My position is not caring for GR and QM? Hardly, I've been doing research in Quantum Optics for a few years. GR and QM are two of my major interests. Your trichotomy is clearly false. You don't need to do your own first hand research. You need only examine the literature instead and draw your own conclusions from it instead , as politicians do, going off beliefs outside science.
The more important issue though is that politicians far from having a need to act, have no right to act (be global warming true). Why should politics ever mix with science? Such an ugly beast that has resulted in the deplorable state of most sciences today.
e wrote:
As for why the first alternative is not an option for the general populace, as long as global warming is an issue in elections, any voter who uses that as a rationale for voting one way or the other ought is unable to ignore it, can't reasonably reject it, and can't reasonably be expected to do their own research into it (and also can't be expected to draw reasonable conclusions from that research, as they are not specialists). |
I don't believe in your first option. Not sure were your assumption of that comes from.
e wrote:
No, I'm not. An argument from authority is a very specific type of logical fallacy and nothing that I have said fits into it. The claim I am making is not even an empirical one, but a normative one. Because qualified experts say X, it is unreasonable to reject X. That is my claim. If you want to argue against it, then argue against it as you have been doing, but don't refer to it as a logical fallacy that it simply is not. |
You're still wrong, but ok. My sardonic argument against it: Without do personal research you have no means of verifying if the "expert" is qualified as such. Thus you're accepting on purely grounds of authority that the "expert" qualifies as an expert
e wrote:
That is why I am getting hung up on this. By referring to my argument as an argument from authority, you seem to think that that lets you dismiss it (if not, then why are you bringing it up?). I have not made a single argument in this thread that global warming is true. I am leaving that to the scientists and other people who understand the science behind it better than I do. I have made arguments about whether or not it is reasonable to reject the findings of the scientific community when you lack the specialized knowledge they possess. That is a fundamentally different argument than the one you are accusing me of making. It's not semantics, it's the very heart of my argument.
As I wrote on this topic a while back (not here):
The point of referring to a consensus is
to point out that experts who understand the issue better than any of us
ever will have almost all reached this one conclusion, and to not
accept that conclusion implies that you think you know better than them,
which is arrogant and probably not true.
It's not an argument that it's true, it's an argument for why you should
believe it. |
An argument that we should trust authority figures in certain cases is not the same as an argument that something is true because an authority figure says it is. |
Again, you're just getting hung up on wording. This isn't a statement about the nature of truth, but truth in a societal sense, but it's not an argument I care to pursue.
To just react to your quote: To not accept such an conclusion does not imply any of the sort. The burden of proof lies on them. They must thoroughly convince you of the subject matter before you believe it. It is not arrogant to say I'm not convinced, so I do not accept your new theory. That's not false confidence; that is rationality.
Your argument also assumes 100% pure motives when such an idealized view of scientists hardly stands up to scrutiny.
e wrote:
I wasn't aware that political experts had reached a consensus on what
the best political system was...
|
We have. Now accept it. It would be arrogant to disagree with me or pursue the matter further.
Edited by Equality 7-2521 - July 29 2010 at 05:09
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: July 29 2010 at 05:29 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
e wrote:
I wasn't aware that political experts had reached a consensus on what
the best political system was...
|
We have. Now accept it. It would be arrogant to disagree with me or pursue the matter further.
|
Yes, I can verify that. We have indeed reached a consensus.
|
|
|
|
horsewithteeth11
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 24598
|
Posted: July 29 2010 at 07:05 |
JJLehto wrote:
And the fact it is a "liberal issue" upsets me. I know lots of conservatives that are pretty "green"
We can debate on the man made thing if people want, but when it comes to actually protecting the environment I dont see why anyone would not want to?
|
While I have major issues with the whole "green" movement, I'm honestly surprised that it wasn't conservatives that started such a movement. Especially considering a lot of conservatives I know are big on cutting waste of any kind.
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
Posted: July 29 2010 at 08:12 |
horsewithteeth11 wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
And the fact it is a "liberal issue" upsets me. I know lots of conservatives that are pretty "green"
We can debate on the man made thing if people want, but when it comes to actually protecting the environment I dont see why anyone would not want to?
|
While I have major issues with the whole "green" movement, I'm honestly surprised that it wasn't conservatives that started such a movement. Especially considering a lot of conservatives I know are big on cutting waste of any kind.
|
It's because liberal politics are boogeyman politics. They base a lot of their ideology on fear. And liberals here won't convince me that isn't true because I could easily dig up some posts (and often first posts in a thread) from liberals that don't even try to hide the fact that the impetus for liberal thought is quite often fear-mongering.
A lot of the rhetoric that gets poured into the environmentalist debate is from alarmists, and as my quotes on the other page show, even scientists are guilty of using fear rather than sound theories to motivate.
I even had a college professor (a literature professor of all things) tell us that if we didn't embrace the environmental cause, we didn't love our children. 
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 29 2010 at 08:25 |
Epignosis wrote:
I even had a college professor (a literature professor of all things) tell us that if we didn't embrace the environmental cause, we didn't love our children.
|
Goes to show that a professional qualification doesn't reveal how smart you are, just how good you are at cramming for an exam.
|
|
What?
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: July 29 2010 at 09:17 |
|
"It's because liberal ALL politics are boogeyman politics. "
Obama is a Muslim, Obama is a Nazi, Death Panels... the conservative list of fear-mongering is equally long and grievous.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: July 29 2010 at 09:17 |
|
Liberal + Conservative =/= All politics
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: July 29 2010 at 10:43 |
Epignosis wrote:
horsewithteeth11 wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
And the fact it is a "liberal issue" upsets me. I know lots of conservatives that are pretty "green"
We can debate on the man made thing if people want, but when it comes to actually protecting the environment I dont see why anyone would not want to?
|
While I have major issues with the whole "green" movement, I'm honestly surprised that it wasn't conservatives that started such a movement. Especially considering a lot of conservatives I know are big on cutting waste of any kind.
|
It's because liberal politics are boogeyman politics. They base a lot of their ideology on fear. And liberals here won't convince me that isn't true because I could easily dig up some posts (and often first posts in a thread) from liberals that don't even try to hide the fact that the impetus for liberal thought is quite often fear-mongering.
A lot of the rhetoric that gets poured into the environmentalist debate is from alarmists, and as my quotes on the other page show, even scientists are guilty of using fear rather than sound theories to motivate.
I even had a college professor (a literature professor of all things) tell us that if we didn't embrace the environmental cause, we didn't love our children.
|
Oh yes conservatives are not guilty of fear mongering... (communism is coming, obama muslim, immigrants will destroy the country, give us back our nation, we have to stop them there before they come here, it's them against us, etc etc..)
Yes I forgot, conservatives never use fear. Never.
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: July 29 2010 at 10:48 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Liberal + Conservative =/= All politics
|
Correct, there's communists, socialists, anarchists, libertarians, Sarah Palin, greens, social-democracists, XXI-Century socialists, anarco-communists, nazis, facists, neo-nazis, etc etc...
All of them think they have all the reasons. So they will all paint truth whatever way it better fits their needs... But all ideologies and tendencies have good people. Even libertarians... ....
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: July 29 2010 at 10:49 |
thellama73 wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
e wrote:
I wasn't aware that political experts had reached a consensus on what
the best political system was...
|
We have. Now accept it. It would be arrogant to disagree with me or pursue the matter further.
|
Yes, I can verify that. We have indeed reached a consensus.
|
But you DON'T wear white coats... How can we trust you...
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
Posted: July 29 2010 at 10:56 |
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
horsewithteeth11 wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
And the fact it is a "liberal issue" upsets me. I know lots of conservatives that are pretty "green"
We can debate on the man made thing if people want, but when it comes to actually protecting the environment I dont see why anyone would not want to?
|
While I have major issues with the whole "green" movement, I'm honestly surprised that it wasn't conservatives that started such a movement. Especially considering a lot of conservatives I know are big on cutting waste of any kind.
|
It's because liberal politics are boogeyman politics. They base a lot of their ideology on fear. And liberals here won't convince me that isn't true because I could easily dig up some posts (and often first posts in a thread) from liberals that don't even try to hide the fact that the impetus for liberal thought is quite often fear-mongering.
A lot of the rhetoric that gets poured into the environmentalist debate is from alarmists, and as my quotes on the other page show, even scientists are guilty of using fear rather than sound theories to motivate.
I even had a college professor (a literature professor of all things) tell us that if we didn't embrace the environmental cause, we didn't love our children.
|
Oh yes conservatives are not guilty of fear mongering... (communism is coming, obama muslim, immigrants will destroy the country, give us back our nation, we have to stop them there before they come here, it's them against us, etc etc..)
Yes I forgot, conservatives never use fear. Never.
|
Every party has their extremists, sure. We know that. However, mainstream liberals in the US constantly use fear tactics to advance their views.
I've never heard "immigrants will destroy the country." I have heard that illegal immigrants are breaking the law and shouldn't reap the benefits of the US while disrespecting our laws, however. That's not fear-mongering- it's common sense.
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: July 29 2010 at 10:58 |
The T wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
e wrote:
I wasn't aware that political experts had reached a consensus on what
the best political system was...
|
We have. Now accept it. It would be arrogant to disagree with me or pursue the matter further.
|
Yes, I can verify that. We have indeed reached a consensus.
|
But you DON'T wear white coats... How can we trust you... |
I have a lead coat still from my Lasers lab. It is heavier and thus more badass than a white coat, making my authority approximately 2.47 times as compelling as one dressed merely in a white coat.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
Posted: July 29 2010 at 11:00 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
e wrote:
I wasn't aware that political experts had reached a consensus on what
the best political system was...
|
We have. Now accept it. It would be arrogant to disagree with me or pursue the matter further.
|
Yes, I can verify that. We have indeed reached a consensus.
|
But you DON'T wear white coats... How can we trust you... |
I have a lead coat still from my Lasers lab. It is heavier and thus more badass than a white coat, making my authority approximately 2.47 times as compelling as one dressed merely in a white coat. |
I have a leather jacket. I rebel against authority. 
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: July 29 2010 at 11:00 |
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
horsewithteeth11 wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
And the fact it is a "liberal issue" upsets me. I know lots of conservatives that are pretty "green"
We can debate on the man made thing if people want, but when it comes to actually protecting the environment I dont see why anyone would not want to?
|
While I have major issues with the whole "green" movement, I'm honestly surprised that it wasn't conservatives that started such a movement. Especially considering a lot of conservatives I know are big on cutting waste of any kind.
|
It's because liberal politics are boogeyman politics. They base a lot of their ideology on fear. And liberals here won't convince me that isn't true because I could easily dig up some posts (and often first posts in a thread) from liberals that don't even try to hide the fact that the impetus for liberal thought is quite often fear-mongering.
A lot of the rhetoric that gets poured into the environmentalist debate is from alarmists, and as my quotes on the other page show, even scientists are guilty of using fear rather than sound theories to motivate.
I even had a college professor (a literature professor of all things) tell us that if we didn't embrace the environmental cause, we didn't love our children.
|
Oh yes conservatives are not guilty of fear mongering... (communism is coming, obama muslim, immigrants will destroy the country, give us back our nation, we have to stop them there before they come here, it's them against us, etc etc..)
Yes I forgot, conservatives never use fear. Never.
|
Every party has their extremists, sure. We know that. However, mainstream liberals in the US constantly use fear tactics to advance their views.
I've never heard "immigrants will destroy the country." I have heard that illegal immigrants are breaking the law and shouldn't reap the benefits of the US while disrespecting our laws, however. That's not fear-mongering- it's common sense.
|
Then all the people who run and are the spokespersons for the republican party are extremists, it would seem...
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: July 29 2010 at 11:02 |
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
e wrote:
I wasn't aware that political experts had reached a consensus on what
the best political system was...
|
We have. Now accept it. It would be arrogant to disagree with me or pursue the matter further.
|
Yes, I can verify that. We have indeed reached a consensus.
|
But you DON'T wear white coats... How can we trust you... |
I have a lead coat still from my Lasers lab. It is heavier and thus more badass than a white coat, making my authority approximately 2.47 times as compelling as one dressed merely in a white coat. |
I have a leather jacket. I rebel against authority.
|
I have a pair of red shows... take that display of socialism you libertines!
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
For my Libertarian friends
