Jump to content

Why Libertarians Should Vote Obama


Hotcorner

Recommended Posts

Thought this was an interesting piece, since I think there's quite a few posters out there with libertarian "leanings" shall we say, regardless of party affiliation.

 

Marginal Revolution

 

It's more of a "what have you done for me lately GOP" argument, than supporting anything on the Democratic side. It's a pretty short post.

 

 

Just some food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

strict reading of the Constitution and believe that state and federal powers need to be observed closely in order to preserve liberty. I am against forceful, federal amendments on social issues aimed at dictating absolute law of the land. I believe the virtue of our governmental system lies within adherence to state sovereignty.

 

Sure, I think that's pretty standard libertarian thinking. I do know the libertarian movement is more than people living in cabins screaming about shutting down the government and smoking pot.

 

And I didn't mean to insinuate that libertarians would agree with Obama if that wasn't clear. The writer was mostly against the war and the loss of civil liberties that came with it, that's all.

 

In fact I wish that the current Republican Party would get back over to the Libertarian side. Those are the Republicans I can admire, and that's the balance I like to see with the Democrats. With the two parties in their current state there's almost no balance, it's a hog wild free-for-all.

 

Again, probably not the best post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything, it's Obama's interventionalist foreign policy that makes me despise him the most.

 

I realize it's not going to convince you, but most of those points came about due to a war in which he was against. And now I think he's just talking tough because he's in a close election and if he gets branded as weak on defense he may as well hang it up. I don't think he'll be anywhere near that hawkish if he gets in the white house. But that's just a gut feeling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a libertarian...for the time being...and I support the expansion of NATO.

Entangling alliances are viewed as a threat to our national sovereignty. Of course no one is going to follow party lines perfectly, but if you hold this viewpoint you aren't nearly as libertarian as you might think you are. You would find yourselves at odds with most members.

 

 

In all honestly, the only person on this forum other than myself who I perceive to possess the slightest libertarian ideals is Godfather. I think the rest of you are more neo-conservatives using the 'libertarian' title as a cover for ridicule of the failed Bush administration. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I've met very few people here (if any) who take a constitutional, limited government stance toward foreign policy.

I have stated before I want us to leave both NATO and the UN. Especially the UN. But NATO as an organization should expand, with or without us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a libertarian...for the time being...and I support the expansion of NATO.

Entangling alliances are viewed as a threat to our national sovereignty. Of course no one is going to follow party lines perfectly, but if you hold this viewpoint you aren't nearly as libertarian as you might think you are. You would find yourselves at odds with most members.

 

 

In all honestly, the only person on this forum other than myself who I perceive to possess the slightest libertarian ideals is Godfather. I think the rest of you are more neo-conservatives using the 'libertarian' title as a cover for ridicule of the failed Bush administration. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I've met very few people here (if any) who take a constitutional, limited government stance toward foreign policy.

I am proud to a be a crazy religious conservative :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to lean in my direction but I always thought you were voting for McCain and identified with his foreign policy. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Truthfully, I have trouble considering anyone who isn't a staunch non-interventionalist to be a libertarian leaning conservative. Another dividing line is typically the fiat monetary policy.

I doubt I vote for McCain, honestly. I am not fond of either of the two major party candidates this year. I am also not fond of Bob Barr. I am leaning towards voting for Frank McEnulty, as I agree with most of his positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to lean in my direction but I always thought you were voting for McCain and identified with his foreign policy. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Truthfully, I have trouble considering anyone who isn't a staunch non-interventionalist to be a libertarian leaning conservative. Another dividing line is typically the fiat monetary policy.

I doubt I vote for McCain, honestly. I am not fond of either of the two major party candidates this year. I am also not fond of Bob Barr. I am leaning towards voting for Frank McEnulty, as I agree with most of his positions.

Who?? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to lean in my direction but I always thought you were voting for McCain and identified with his foreign policy. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Truthfully, I have trouble considering anyone who isn't a staunch non-interventionalist to be a libertarian leaning conservative. Another dividing line is typically the fiat monetary policy.

I doubt I vote for McCain, honestly. I am not fond of either of the two major party candidates this year. I am also not fond of Bob Barr. I am leaning towards voting for Frank McEnulty, as I agree with most of his positions.

Who?? :blink:

http://www.frankforpresident.org/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to lean in my direction but I always thought you were voting for McCain and identified with his foreign policy. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Truthfully, I have trouble considering anyone who isn't a staunch non-interventionalist to be a libertarian leaning conservative. Another dividing line is typically the fiat monetary policy.

 

My idea is non-interventionist policies, but the problem is I vote on the line of most republicans. The idea of being governed by your state and not a government and the idea of "almost isolationism" the idea of making our dollar actually have value again and not printing money etc... Is all important to me. I truly see my views to be on the libertarian side of politics, but I have a voting record of voting republican. The problem is I try to take the party that is closer towards my beliefs and hope that some of my ideas fall in line.

 

Any federal regulations really make my stomach turn, even things I am opposed to like Pro-Choice I rather see it be a state to state thing. Or things like Illegal immigration. I hate these ideas of federal policy. How about if the state has a problem they handle it. What is the point of a governor if they can never do anything. I know RI has a huge illegal immigration problem, but why should we have some federal law when maybe a state like Kentucky has no problem at all.. Talk about a waste of federal money and a slippery slope of killing the dollar value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a libertarian...for the time being...and I support the expansion of NATO.

Entangling alliances are viewed as a threat to our national sovereignty. Of course no one is going to follow party lines perfectly, but if you hold this viewpoint you aren't nearly as libertarian as you might think you are. You would find yourselves at odds with most members.

 

 

In all honestly, the only person on this forum other than myself who I perceive to possess the slightest libertarian ideals is Godfather. I think the rest of you are more neo-conservatives using the 'libertarian' title as a cover for ridicule of the failed Bush administration. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I've met very few people here (if any) who take a constitutional, limited government stance toward foreign policy.

 

Sorry pal, but I've been espousing libertarian ideas on this site since I joined in the winter of 03. I'm not sure what you're take on this is, but Ron Paul's stance to economic globalization is not libertarian in the least. It is not for our government or any government for that matter to hold back the inevitable motions of capitalism, regardless of their effect on our national sovereignty.

In fact, the concept of U.S. national sovereignty is laughable to me. We are not supposed to be a 'nation-state' in the Council of vienna sort of way. We are supposed to be a loose congolmeration of nation states that are united by a common body whose sole purpose is to regulate commerce between the states and provide a small defensive force. Any attempt by a leader to 'keep jobs in the U.S.' by going against economic globalization is contrary to the purpose of the federal government and can only be espoused by someone who likes a large and powerful federal government. We were intended to be much more like the EU in structure than like China or Paraguay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are confused.

 

Myself and Ron Paul both support globalization, which is a different phenomenon from globalism. Globalization refers to legitimate free trade between nations without restrictions while globalism refers to the tendency to jeopardize sovereignty in the unification of nations under falsely labeled free trade that is in actuality a highly managed system that attempts to empower world government entities such as the United Nations.

 

I'm opposed to WTO, NAFTA, SPP, etc.

 

Not confused on Paul's views, I had no idea what yours were. It's just a different take on how free trade will work or not work. Paul, who I did vote for in the primary, believes that NAFTA is an attempt at what you call globalism in the guise of globalization. So, he rejects the idea that such treaties need to be created and that economic globalization will occur inevitably. Of course, as we all know, NAFTA is flawed as an international treaty generally, but it is impossible to reject the idea that governments need to do away with tariffs and restrictions on trade in order for economic globalization to run its course as intended.

 

Also, he voted for the border fence. A true libertarian is not for such restrictive immigration policy, and instead should favor a hands off approach, where immigrants can compete for jobs as long as they don't become public charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are misrepresenting the vote for the border fence. He has said repeatedly that in principle he supports open immigration (I agree) but like you insinuate, we are running an entitlement system where the taxpayer has to face the burden. In other words, immigration is only an issue because our poor fiscal policy has made it one.

 

Furthermore, his main reason for voting to construct a fence is based upon his belief that the federal government is constitutionally obliged to provide for the common defense. I don't find that to be a loose interpretation.

 

The security nature of the border fence is interesting because then there's a problem with balancing the 'common security' with the economic effect that any anti-immigration law may have on the country. The border fence is no more than a perpetuation of the 'let's protect American jobs' rhetoric, which is something that cannot be accomplished without federal government interference and it is also not provided for in the constitution. I like Ron Paul, but he has stances which are not exactly libertarian, and IMO his view on international trade treaties and immigration are among them. I am not confused, and I am not misrepresenting. You have your interpretation of Congressman Paul's voting record and I have mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...