Libertarians for Obama

[billvon 3,111]

Why Libertarians Should Vote for Obama

Alex Tabarrok
September 9, 2008

First, war. War is the antithesis of the libertarian philosophy of consent, voluntarism and trade. With every war in American history Leviathan has grown larger and our liberties have withered. War is the health of the state. And now, fulfilling the dreams of Big Brother, we are in a perpetual war.

A country cannot long combine unlimited government abroad and limited government at home. The Republican party has become the party of war and thus the party of unlimited government.

With war has come fear, magnified many times over by the governing party. Fear is pulling Americans into the arms of the state. If only we were better at resisting. Alas, we Americans say that we love liberty but we are fair-weather lovers. Liberty will flourish only with peace.

Have libertarians gained on other margins in the past eight years? Not at all. Under the Republicans we have been sailing due South-West on the Nolan Chart – fewer civil liberties and more government, including the largest new government program in a generation, the Medicare prescription drug plan, and the biggest nationalization since the Great Depression. Tax cuts, the summum bonum of Republican economic policy, are a sham. The only way to cut taxes is to cut spending and that has not happened.

The libertarian voice has not been listened to in Republican politics for a long time. The Republicans take the libertarian wing of the party for granted and with phony rhetoric and empty phrases have bought our support on the cheap. Thus - since voice has failed - it is time for exit. Remember that if a political party can count on you then you cannot count on it.

Exit is the right strategy because if there is any hope for reform it is by casting the Republicans out of power and into the wilderness where they may relearn virtue. Libertarians understand better than anyone that power corrupts. The Republican party illustrates. Lack of power is no guarantee of virtue but Republicans are a far better - more libertarian - party out-of-power than they are in power. When in the wilderness, Republicans turn naturally to a critique of power and they ratchet up libertarian rhetoric about free trade, free enterprise, abuse of government power and even the defense of civil liberties. We can hope that new leaders will arise in this libertarian milieu.

Alex Tabarrok
James M. Buchanan Center for Political Economy
Department of Economics
George Mason University

[Darius11 12]

I was basically fully sure I wanted Ron Paul, then was undecided between Obama/McCaine. After McCaine made his VP choice I was sure that’s what I did not want. There is a 20% chance that the VP will become president even more considering McCains health and age.
I can not see the United States of America led by a person who has all the signs of religious fundamentalist.
There are many more reasons to not vote for her but that one is enough for me.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[TheAnvil 0]

What a fucktard. Vote for someone who supports socialization of medicine and more entitlement programs vice Congress' chief critic of earmark spending? In hopes of restoring budget sanity?

Sweet Jesus! Fidiot!

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[livendive 8]

Quote

What a fucktard. Vote for someone who supports socialization of medicine and more entitlement programs vice Congress' chief critic of earmark spending? In hopes of restoring budget sanity?

Sweet Jesus! Fidiot!

Both parties are for big government, which puts them at odds with the Libertarian platform with regard to spending. On the social side of things, the Democrats generally tend to respect personal liberty more than the Republicans, so it makes sense for more (L)s to gravitate to the (D)s than the (R)s.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,111]

> Vote for someone who supports socialization of medicine and more
>entitlement programs vice Congress' chief critic of earmark spending?

Unfortunately, the other option is a team with the best earmarker in the business, and a party that has in fact (not in theory) expanded government spending more than any other administration, ever.

At some point you have to go with the chance of something better instead of sticking with the proven disaster.

[downwardspiral 0]

I was thinking the same thing.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Lefty 0]

Quote

> Vote for someone who supports socialization of medicine and more
>entitlement programs vice Congress' chief critic of earmark spending?

Unfortunately, the other option is a team with the best earmarker in the business, and a party that has in fact (not in theory) expanded government spending more than any other administration, ever.

At some point you have to go with the chance of something better instead of sticking with the proven disaster.

Or...vote for the Libertarian candidate?

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[Butters 0]

Quote

Or...vote for the Libertarian candidate?

Ding, ding, ding ... we have a winner!

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[billvon 3,111]

>Or...vote for the Libertarian candidate?

Or you could do that. Heck, vote for Ron Paul; you can still write him in.

[TheAnvil 0]

Proven disaster? Odd. John McCain has been a long time advocate for spending restraint. I don't agree at all and wonder how you get that, actually. With regard to earmarks, perhaps you should read up a bit on John McCain's running mate:

Bridge to Nowhere - Alaska Democrats credit Governor Palin for axe-ing it
Earmarks, eh?
Oh, those earmarks

And on Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama as well WRT earmark spending...though I'll grant you Sen. Obama's is a bit skewed due to his very, very, very limited time in the Senate. But that makes Sen. McCain's record oh so much more impressive given his vast experience in comparison to his opponent. As luck would have it, Senator Biden's rather smashing rating may also be found here.

Citizens Against Government Waste ratings on Sen. McCain and Obama Really wondering how anyone could look at the delta between Messrs. McCain and Obama and think the latter would be the most fiscally responsible.

Happy reading...

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[lawrocket 3]

This is the reason why I am still considering a vote for Obama. War is an important part of my philosophy, and my disagreement with this war goes back nearly six years.

The problem is that "war" is not the only issue. A more substantial part of my philosophy is economic, as well. Obama himself has not been as overtly socialist with his policy proposals as was his main primary opponent, but the Democratic Party Platform provides some evidence of how they intend to increase the size of government.

For example, in the Platform, "Health care should be a shared responsibility between employers, workers, insurers, providers and government." I tend to think health care should be a shared responsibility between a doctor and a patient. If the patient wishes to minimize risk by getting insurance - GREAT. If the doctor chooses to accept the insurance. GREAT. But it seems to me employers should have nothing to do with it (I have ZERO business knowing the health conditions of my employees - PERIOD). The government certainly should not be involved in warrantless searches of my personal medical information.

Think about it - when the government is paying for your health care, the government gets to know what it is paying for. Why is it that people are far more concerned about warrantless wire taps than they are about warrantless searches of medical records?

And since this is a nearly perfect blend of big government and stripping of privacy rights, I ask which is worse - that or the War?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,111]

>Proven disaster? Odd. John McCain has been a long time advocate for spending restraint.

Yes, he has said that he is for that, as Obama has. His actual voting record shows that he voted with the administration 95% of the time in 2007. While he is surely not the only politician who says one thing and votes a different way, he is also not the champion you seem to think he is.

I agree that Palin was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it.

> Really wondering how anyone could look at the delta between Messrs.
>McCain and Obama and think the latter would be the most fiscally responsible.

=======================================
Obama vs. McCain: Taxing and Spending

by Jane Sasseen
SPECIAL REPORT

They've parried over gas taxes (BusinessWeek.com, 4/15/08) and fixes for the housing crisis. Now, as the general election campaign kicks off, Senators Barack Obama and John McCain have begun to hammer away at each other's tax and spending programs.

. . .

So where does the reality lie? According to a new analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint venture between the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, two Washington think tanks, this round goes to Obama. The TPC took a look at the various tax proposals put forth by the two candidates and estimated that Obama's plan would lead to a boost in aftertax income for all but the highest earners, while taking a smaller bite out of government tax revenues than would McCain's plans.

. . .

Under McCain's proposals, by contrast—including an extension of the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers, a corporate tax cut, and a larger reduction in estate taxes than Obama would support—far more of the benefits would go to the top. If his plans went into effect in 2009, married couples in the bottom fifth of the population would see aftertax income go up just 0.2%, while those in the next quintile would see a 0.7% hike. But those in the top quintile would see a bump up in aftertax income of 2.7%.

. . .

The two candidates' tax plans would change overall government tax revenues in vastly different ways. . . The Tax Policy Center looked at the impact of all the changes in tax law that each of the candidates has proposed. If McCain's proposed tax changes were put into effect, the Treasury would lose $3.7 trillion in revenue for the 10-year period between 2009 and 2018, compared with what it would take in under current law. If all of Barack Obama's tax plans were put into effect, the loss to the Treasury would be $2.7 trillion in revenues.
=======================================

Putting us even farther into debt is not fiscally responsible.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

>Or...vote for the Libertarian candidate?

Or you could do that. Heck, vote for Ron Paul; you can still write him in.

I was thinking that. Only problem is, who's that going to take votes away from? As if it matters anyway.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

This is the reason why I am still considering a vote for Obama. War is an important part of my philosophy, and my disagreement with this war goes back nearly six years.

The problem is that "war" is not the only issue. A more substantial part of my philosophy is economic, as well. Obama himself has not been as overtly socialist with his policy proposals as was his main primary opponent, but the Democratic Party Platform provides some evidence of how they intend to increase the size of government.

For example, in the Platform, "Health care should be a shared responsibility between employers, workers, insurers, providers and government." I tend to think health care should be a shared responsibility between a doctor and a patient. If the patient wishes to minimize risk by getting insurance - GREAT. If the doctor chooses to accept the insurance. GREAT. But it seems to me employers should have nothing to do with it (I have ZERO business knowing the health conditions of my employees - PERIOD). The government certainly should not be involved in warrantless searches of my personal medical information.

Think about it - when the government is paying for your health care, the government gets to know what it is paying for. Why is it that people are far more concerned about warrantless wire taps than they are about warrantless searches of medical records?

And since this is a nearly perfect blend of big government and stripping of privacy rights, I ask which is worse - that or the War?

So. Do you pay your employees enough to afford QUALITY healthcare? My insurance is a grand a month and it ain't all that.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Proven disaster? Odd. John McCain has been a long time advocate for spending restraint. I don't agree at all and wonder how you get that, "http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/2007_Senate_Ratings_Final.pdf?docID=3242"]Citizens Against Government Waste ratings on Sen. McCain and Obama Really wondering how anyone could look at the delta between Messrs. McCain and Obama and think the latter would be the most fiscally responsible.

Happy reading...

I posted this in another thread last week. You might find it informative.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Proven disaster? Odd. John McCain has been a long time advocate for spending restraint. I don't agree at all and wonder how you get that, actually. With regard to earmarks, perhaps you should read up a bit on John McCain's running mate:

Bridge to Nowhere - Alaska Democrats credit Governor Palin for axe-ing it
Earmarks, eh?
Oh, those earmarks

...

Anchorage Daily News (October 2006) "Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?"

Palin: "Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now -- while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[marks2065 0]

Acording to this, niether Obama nor Mccain will reduce the deficit or insure all the people. sounds like the onlything we have left is foriegn policy and that sends McCain to the front of the race.

[marks2065 0]

sounds like Palin is interested in improving Alaskas infrastructure and bettering the state. Sounds like a concerned govoner. then later she realized that the Gravina bridge was not so good after all and cancelled the bridge project. then spent the money on better projects that the state needed. and there is a problem where?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

sounds like Palin is interested in improving Alaskas infrastructure and bettering the state. Sounds like a concerned govoner. then later she realized that the Gravina bridge was not so good after all and cancelled the bridge project. then spent the money on better projects that the state needed. and there is a problem where?

So you're saying she's a bit slow. Took her quite a while to realize that a bridge to nowhere was a bridge to NOWHERE.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Do you pay your employees enough to afford QUALITY healthcare?

Do I pay them enough? I dunno. I actually offer the health care as a benefit and provide matching for them. I have received zero complaints.

Also, how do you define "quality?" If by "quality" you mean, "Do you provide the same for them that you do for yourself, which you are happy with" then I would have to concur. One of the employees is married, with a husband who works for the State of California, and we still keep hers in case some issue develops.

Is their healthcare my "responsibility?" No. If I didn't want to offer health insurance to them I wouldn't have done it. But if I want the best and brightest, I reckon I ought to do some things that make it worth their while to work for me, like higher pay, flex scheduling, health care benefits, retirement packages and matching, etc.

I've received no complaints. (Our law clerk was a contract employee last winter - part time worker, and thus did not meet our eligibility requirements. He took up ill with pneumonia. We bonused him $3k to help him out. He was apparently offereded another job at a big firm a couple of months ago, yet displayed some loyalty to us, for some reason. Perhaps it is because we seek to make this a good place for the best and brightest)

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,111]

>Acording to this, niether Obama nor Mccain will reduce the deficit or insure
>all the people.

True. But Obama, at least, will grow the deficit more slowly.

>sounds like the onlything we have left is foriegn policy and that
>sends McCain to the front of the race.

Hmm. In such a contest, I'd say the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs would win over a guy who can't remember the difference between Sunni and Shi'a, and forgets whether Iran supports Al Qaeda.

[billvon 3,111]

>sounds like Palin is interested in improving Alaskas infrastructure
>and bettering the state. Sounds like a concerned govoner.

Absolutely - and she used earmarks to do it. Nothing wrong with that, provided you don't claim you're against them.

>hen later she realized that the Gravina bridge was not so good after
>all and cancelled the bridge project.

Again, that's fine. Had she said that, then there would not be such a big stink right now. But she lied about it, and thus one wonders what else she's lying about.

[marks2065 0]

i don't see a lie. she looked at the project and its effects and then said no. shouldn't this election be looking at what has happened? how the candidates have actually worked? I like the fact that Palin decided to change her mind on the subject because it shows she wants what is best for Alaska and when she is in the whitehouse she will do the same for the country. not to mention that it wasn't her that got the earmaks it was Stevens

[billvon 3,111]

>she looked at the project and its effects and then said no.

In fact, she was one of the strongest proponents for it until it had been killed in Congress. Only then did she flip-flop on it and oppose it.

>shouldn't this election be looking at what has happened?

Absolutely. And what happened is that she said:

"I wouldn’t [cancel the project]. I’m not going to stand in the way of progress that our congressional delegation — in the position of strength that they have right now — they’re making those efforts for the state of Alaska to build up our infrastructure. I would not get in the way of progress."

And what's happening right now? They lost the money for the bridge. But, through some good earmarking, they did not lose the money for the road TO the bridge - so they are continuing to build that. If they stopped, they'd have to give back the money to the federal government, and that's, well, cutting waste.

So we had a bridge to nowhere that Palin championed, then later abandoned when the money got cut off by Congress. Now we have a road to nowhere that you are paying for and that Palin championed.

[Gawain 0]

A college professor making a case for a democrat candidate? Say it ain't so!!

Libertarian and Liberal Democrat...yeah, that isn't much of a mix.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!