Libertarian Case for Obama…defeated

So reasononline, a self-proclaimed “libertarian” magazine, published an article giving the case for why libertarians have reasons to support Obama. Anyone that understands libertarianism would know that voting for Obama violates every libertarian principle possible. So here are the points that were made:

“1. Sen. Obama has met at least one war he doesn’t love. His early pronouncements against the criminal enterprise in Iraq are enough reason, in themselves, to vote his way on November 4. Anyone paying the least attention must conclude that Lt. McCain’s “cause greater than self” always involves the Army, the Navy, and the United States Marines (not necessarily in that order).”

Of course Obama doesn’t support the war on Iraq, it’s not politically beneficial. However, Obama does support the war in Afghanistan, attacking Iran if they become “nuclear”, he made threatening statements towards Pakistan, is in favor of intervening in Sudan, and has no desire to withdraw troops fro the other 130 countries besides Iraq where we have troops. Don’t try and make him seem like a pacifist when it comes to foreign relations.

“2. The election of an African-American will end liberal racism as we know it. If an overwhelmingly white nation chooses a black leader, the Jesse Jacksons and other Mau Mauers for identity-based group preferences will be put out of business, as I explained here.”

Libertarians are individualists. “Race” is not a word spoken by libertarians. Anything that lumps individuals together into groups is not a libertarian ideal. Voting for someone based on their skin color to end racial discrimination is not something widely supported by the libertarian community.

“3. One word: Osmosis. You couldn’t live in Hyde Park or teach at the University of Chicago with the intellectual curiosity of a Barack Obama without gaining at least some understanding of libertarian economics. That can’t be said for most of the reactionary left-liberal wing of the Democratic Party dominating Capitol Hill. But I believe Obama is educable on free markets and I’m convinced that Democrats are ripe for a return in the next decade to the liberalism of our party’s founder, Thomas Jefferson (I made this case two years ago in my libertarian Democrat manifesto.)”

Sure Obama knows what Chicago School economics are. But he doesn’t believe in it or understand it. Obama strongly favors price floors, price ceilings, minimum wage laws, maximum regulations, high taxes, massive expansion of the federal government, the omnipotence of the federal reserve, inflation, welfare, and overall enormous redistribution of wealth. The only part of Chicago School economics that Obama understands is the part where the ends justify the means.

“4. Obama is the best hope for keeping government out of your bedroom and away from your body. As would any Democratic standard-bearer, the senator from Illinois represents the pro-choice, pro-gay rights side of the cultural divide. And he has at least made interesting soundings about reducing America’s status as the world’s number one jailer, much of which is tied to drug offenses and other crimes without victims. No libertarian can feel comfortable with a Republican candidate who doesn’t echo the personal choices demanded by his supposed hero, Barry Goldwater.”

Sure Obama is better than McCain on civil liberties, but that’s only in comparison to a strict statist. He would do nothing to keep the government out of our wallets, and with that wealth would force the federal government’s values on us by paying for programs he desires with our money. Taxation is the ultimate form of totalitarianism. Oh, did I mention he voted for the PATRIOT Act?

“5. The hidden hand did well this month punishing stupidity. But libertarians committed to free markets, not corporate oligarchs, must pause to consider the need for field-leveling regulation. More precisely, we should ask whether there was sufficient enforcement of reasonable restraints already in place. We need Republicans to stand against excessive tinkering in markets, of course. But my modest retirement fund may be safer with Democratic regulators in charge than rogue elephants. “

If you want to level the playing field, that’s God’s department, not the federal government. Everyone is born into situations that are “unfair”, but that happens by chance, not at the fault of anyone(except sometimes the federal government). So punishing other’s because chance has been hard on someone else is unjust. By leveling the playing field, you are simply trying to make others equal materialistically, and at the same time are treated people unequally. No libertarian supports regulations in the market because regulations rely on state coercion to enforce them. State coercion is not something that libertarians take a liking to. Voluntary transfer is the only way to ensure both liberty, justice, and result in mutual benefit for all. Leveling the playing field destroys voluntary transfers when you think of it from a teleological standpoint. We consider leveling the playing field ensuring that no one acts forcefully against you. Remember, there is a difference between treating people equally and trying to make them equal….

“6. R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Yes, we need to restore America’s reputation around the world. Anybody who’s traveled beyond the Atlantic and Pacific in the past eight years knows America needs a makeover. Whatever you think of Barack Obama—unless, like the mindless U!S!A! crowd, you don’t care what the world thinks—he will restore much of the goodwill we have lost when he raises his hand on January 20, 2009. That’s significant for libertarians who believe in the importance of the nation most committed to free markets and free minds—ours—leading by example. More-of-the-McSame in foreign policy is something we can’t afford.”

You want to restore our reputation? Then stop trying to police the world and having a president that declares preemptive wars on nations for your own cause. If you want us to have respect, we have to be humble in our foreign policy, not arrogant. Removing our troops from 130 countries is a good start. You could follow that up by ceasing to give billions of foreign aid to nations that use it to further oppress their citizens. How does it earn respect to threaten pakistan?

“7. Finally, Barack Obama is smart enough to follow the aspirations of the Gen Y, Millenials, and Echo Boomers next up on the American political stage. They want choices in both their bank accounts and their bedrooms. I don’t have much empirical evidence for that, though the college students I teach suggest that such libertarian leanings are on the rise. After all, a generation growing up with an explosion of mega-data-informed choices literally at its keyboard fingertips will resemble the self-sufficient, liberty-loving founders of the Agrarian Age more than they’ll resemble the social welfare liberals of the Industrial Era who gave us one-size-fits-all central authority mandates.”

I don’t even know what they are talking about here. If people want choices at all, they would know better than voting for Obama. The last thing a ‘liberty-lover’ would do is vote for this tool. Liberty is having the choice to not be effected by any policy implemented. The choice to opt out of government programs of all types is what ‘liberty lovers’ should want. The ability to be free of any type of coercion is what libertarians SHOULD want.

I have lost all respect for Reason. They are perverting libertarianism in order to become more mainstream. They clearly do not understand the basic fundamentals or the economics of libertarianism.

link to “The Libertarian Case for Obama”: http://www.reason.com/news/show/128902.html

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Libertarian Case for Obama…defeated”

  1. Reason number three is just absurd. There is nothing to suggest that Obama is any kind of free marketeer. Simply attending the university of Chicago means nothing if one doesn’t accept the economic teachings. Not that I think the Chicago School is all that good.

    There is some truth to number six, I think. Though I don’t think an Obama presidency would help our reputation with most of the world, I do think it would wipe out a lot of the anti-American sentiment in western Europe, particularly the United Kingdom. Though I certainly don’t think that’s reason enough to vote Obama.

  2. Reason Magazine is generally a piece of shit, PC pseudo-libertarianism by beltway faggots.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: