I suspect urbanrealtor wasn’t endorsing economic management, merely acknowledging that most policy-makers, people who run for government posts, really want that power. It takes a rare breed to want to be in government so he can say, “I don’t want any power.”

So Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin. I hadn’t heard of him, so I looked him up. Hmm, constitutionalist… and Baptist preacher. What a combo!

Can someone answer this for me? It has puzzled me for years. Most athiests denounce faith in a supernatural being, stand for civil liberties, equal rights and protection under the law for gay people, minorities and women; but are usually socialists, endorsing faith in a state-run economy and willing to abdicate monetary freedoms. Most libertarians denounce faith in an all powerful government, stand for economic freedoms for all; but are usually religious zealots, endorsing faith in a human heirarchy that claims to speak for the will of a fictitious being and willing to abdicate their sense of right from wrong to the whims of this heirarchy. How come you almost never hear of a prominent constitution-defending athiest? Shouldn’t libertarians like the first amendment as much as the rest of the constitution? Shouldn’t the type of analytical reasoning that convinces athiests that a god is implausible also convince them that a competent, non-corrupt economic overlord is also implausible? Does anyone know why this disconnect is so common?