Mitt Romney is the only sane choice for Libertarians
It’s simple. Libertarians believe in less government; lower taxes; cutting rules, regulations and mandates to get government out of the way of small business; reining in out-of-control government agencies like the EPA; auditing the Fed; and balancing the budget. Sound familiar? …
Barack Obama is a thousand miles in the wrong direction — a direction that leads to the bankruptcy of our children and grandchildren and the destruction of the American Dream. A vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for Obama and his disastrous road that leads to the end of America (as we know it). …
This election is NOT about Libertarian versus non-Libertarian. This election is about capitalism versus Big Brother socialism. Mitt Romney is far from perfect, but at least he believes in capitalism. At least he won’t denigrate and discourage business owners. Be thankful for little things.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Heck, just look at the self described true Libertarians here. Fits your description to a T.
cozmo on November 6, 2012 at 10:31 AM
I’ve already listed some above and my “evidence” is that they’ve been taken away. There’s no disputing that. Even the NYT and NPR have called out Obama on being worse than Bush on the loss of civil liberties. But of course they started to be lost under Bush with the Patriot Act. The question is will Romney restore any of them or will he continue to chip away at them? Since he’s said nothing about restoring them, I’m assuming the latter.
Benaiah on November 6, 2012 at 10:32 AM
Maybe if you had bothered to understand libertarianism, you wouldn’t be grossly mischaracterizing it.
Dante on November 6, 2012 at 10:33 AM
These people are mindless drones. They haven’t put any thought into this election beyond who Fox News told them to vote for.
Benaiah on November 6, 2012 at 10:33 AM
Oh honey, I understand perfectly well. That is why I am no longer a Libertarian party member.
I am a pragmatic libertarian.
cozmo on November 6, 2012 at 10:34 AM
So true
MoreLiberty on November 6, 2012 at 10:35 AM
You’re delusional and, may I add, a bit OCD in your thinking.
Get over yourself and wake up.
Mimzey on November 6, 2012 at 10:35 AM
Thats dumb.
We do not life in a system of anarchy.
There is a system of governance.
If you believe in states rights, and an individual state votes for a policy, that is the business of that state and its citizens.
Don’t you agree?
Mimzey on November 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM
Sweetie, you are neither. You have no idea about liberty when you vote for a man that supports the individual mandate, bailouts, NDAA, Patriot Act 1&2, more debt, deficit spending, endless foreign aid, violations of our 4th Amendment rights via the TSA and the list goes on. I’m sorry to be the one to break it to you but you’re just another lemming falling for the same old song and dance. I’m sorry…I’m sure a nice lady.
MoreLiberty on November 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM
If you’re serious and not just performing for the troops in a GOTV effort, you’re the one that is delusional. Lets not pretend that Romneys instincts are toward freedom and limited government. He showed how he will govern in Mass — unprincipled, okay with government interventions in the markets, big on raising “fees” and asking for federal dollars to cover deficits.
Now if you’re argument is, “hey, this is the best we can realistically do against Obama with the current situation, all else being equal” then yeah. I’m holding my nose and voting for Romney because I think theres about a 10% chance he will be dragged kicking and screaming to a pro-liberty small government position, while I think there’s a 0% chance Obama will.
Timin203 on November 6, 2012 at 10:40 AM
Ah yes, coming from the same batcrap crazy true believers that are ranting about your party’s previous VP nominee.
That tells everybody more about you batcrap crazy Libertatians than it does about me.
cozmo on November 6, 2012 at 10:41 AM
Well, the primary focus is on federal intrusion, but no, states shouldn’t let the 51% dictate to the other 49% how much they have to pay to support lifes losers in their pursuit of not working.
Fortunately, we have the option to move to another, freer state, not so much to move to another country.
Timin203 on November 6, 2012 at 10:42 AM
I missed them.
Matter of fact, today is the first time I’ve seen your name.
So run a few of these Romney supported stripping of civil liberties pass me so I get a whiff of what you’re trying to pass off as fresh air.
Mimzey on November 6, 2012 at 10:42 AM
To an extent. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy. A state simply can’t vote away rights of the individual simply because a simply majority says so please see the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. Additionally, a small and limited government doesn’t mean that there is anarchy.
MoreLiberty on November 6, 2012 at 10:43 AM
You realize that no one is arguing Romneycare as a Constitutional or states rights issue, don’t you? No, the argument is that it is a centralized, fascist, authoritarian, anti-individual, anti-liberty policy.
You are the one who needs to wake up.
Dante on November 6, 2012 at 10:43 AM
Which would really be something, given that taxes increased under Reagan, regulations increased under Reagan, spending increased under Reagan, the debt/deficit increased under Reagan, and government grew under Reagan.
Dante on November 6, 2012 at 10:44 AM
He supports Obamas undeclared drone war around the world. He hasn’t taken too many other positions in regards to civil liberties that I know of, but I’m sure, just like with Obamacare, we’ll have to vote for it to find out what will happen.
Timin203 on November 6, 2012 at 10:45 AM
That changes the subject.
The response was not in reference to the right of the federal government to dictate the choices of the country, it was pointing out the difference between that and citizens of a state to determine their policies.
So your point doesn’t address my position.
Mimzey on November 6, 2012 at 10:46 AM
Wow…great intellectual retort, not surprising though. I have no “party” as I’m an independent that has voted for republicans as well as libertarians and independants. A great example is I’m voting for Ted Crus here in Texas. I know those that are deficient in certain mental capacities will break down and resort to name calling so i forgive you.
MoreLiberty on November 6, 2012 at 10:47 AM
Yupyup. Economy grew under Reagan though… But yeah, if he turns out to be a George W Bush republican, this will be my last election voting R. I’m on the edge with that crowd, elected officials and supports. And so are a LOT of republicans I know. The policy differences between the two parties are fairly small.
Tell me the philosphical difference between no child left behind, race to the top, medicare part d, obamacare, war in iraq, war in libya / yemen / pakistan (yes, I know iraq was sort of declared as a war, but the philosophy behind these wars / assassinations is the same)
Timin203 on November 6, 2012 at 10:47 AM
Sorry, I must h ave misunderstood… what’s your position then?
Timin203 on November 6, 2012 at 10:48 AM
First, I never said I wasn’t voting for Romney. I am voting for him. Second, I never said there was no difference between the two. But what’s pathetic is claiming the Republicans represent small government. They clearly support big government. The difference is the dems support massive government. And while I like George Bush and Mitt Romney, as people, better than the likes of the Clintons, Biden, Kerry, Gore and obozo, they do support big government. I was sickened by the increase in spending and involvement in No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug plan and Bush’s support for amnesty. And while the Patriot Act was understandable in the wake of 9/11, it was a increase in federal power.
And furthermore, the original post that you referred to is dumb was merely pointing out that if a voter, who is not predisposed to voting for the GOP, goes in and votes for a third party that is NOT a vote for obama. The vote total for both Romney and obozo is the exact same as before he voted. That’s irrefutable. To call it dumb was plain ignorance on your part.
Flange on November 6, 2012 at 10:48 AM
Maybe next time you will have the wherewithal to vote for Ted Cruz.
Less pot, more education.
cozmo on November 6, 2012 at 10:49 AM
So nothing..that affects a person living in America.
That concedes the point.
Your position of “I’m sure it must mean_____” is the position a person uses when no actual evidence can be provided to support the position.
It’s like…”Did you see how that light in the night sky moved?…it must be a flying saucer..there can be no other explanation”.
Mimzey on November 6, 2012 at 10:51 AM
Great..glad to hear you’re voting for Romney.
Thanks for the clarification.
There is a bit of grey area in the idea that not voting..or voting for a third party, does not help support the opposition.
Even though someone on the liberal/left would have a sense of disappointment in Obama not being sufficiently “Dictatorish”..they will still vote for him because they are smart enough to know that “united we stand..divided (or apathetic) we fall”.
Their self righteousness is at least an action that makes sure their overall direction of movement is not stalled.
Mimzey on November 6, 2012 at 10:58 AM
…and even cried in Iowa, the baby.
Schadenfreude on November 6, 2012 at 10:58 AM
Well I’ve been around here since around the time the site started up. Just saying.
Anyway the rights and freedoms I’m referring to are things like indefinite detention of US citizens, drone strikes on US citizens overseas, warrantless wiretaps, the police state attitude/polices of the TSA, etc.
Benaiah on November 6, 2012 at 11:01 AM
My position was that the people who are trying to paint Romney as being no different that Obama based on a Massachusetts healthcare law, passed by the people of Massachusetts, is a specious line of reasoning.
Mimzey on November 6, 2012 at 11:04 AM
That was sort of my point. If you vote third party then BOTH candidates lost an opportunity, but not a vote. It only “hurts” a candidate when someone who is normally reliable voter for that party switches to a third party. That was a vote the candidate could have had.
Flange on November 6, 2012 at 11:07 AM
You know nothing about me or what I understand.
I started becoming politically aware when I was 13, during the Vietnam war. I got caught up in collectivism and was an avid student of Marx, Lenin, and Mao. With growing maturity it didn’t take long to begin to see what destructive crap it is.
I was introduced to Ayn Rand at 17 and I have been a libertarian ever since. I’m now 57.
I have always had a strong interest in philosophy and political economy and I’ve probably studied every “ism” there is, and still do.
Right now I’m reading Reflections on the Revolution in France by Burke again. It’s quite topical to the choice we’re making today.
I understand libertarianism and Libertarianism very well, both from the ivory tower and with mud on my boots.
I’ve encountered very few Libertarians who do.
single stack on November 6, 2012 at 11:09 AM
Which citizens are these?
It’s possible you may be conflating the situations of war with in country civil law.
As far as attitudes of “police state” activities and the TSA, I don’t remember seeing or hearing any of Romney’s positions on these. Can you direct me to anything he has written or said about these?
Thanks.
Mimzey on November 6, 2012 at 11:09 AM
No one is solely basing it on the Massachusetts healthcare law (nor is anyone arguing it on states rights grounds), so that’s a falsehood. The healthcare law, however, is the most obvious and most glaring example.
Dante on November 6, 2012 at 11:10 AM
I don’t have to. All I needed was the post I responded to.
Dante on November 6, 2012 at 11:11 AM
I understand what you mean, and it probably is accurate from a theoretical/mathamatical basis, but people who are aware of the difference between theory and reality can use it to their advantage, and by doing so tip the final number to their general liking.
Mimzey on November 6, 2012 at 11:13 AM
Example of what? People making their own decisions based on the “We the people” of the state in which the law comes into effect?
If not the legal processes that are in place being used to determine policy…what?
Mimzey on November 6, 2012 at 11:17 AM
Of course you don’t. You have the inner glow of the true Libertarian and you are as knowledgeable on this subject as you are with birtherism.
cozmo on November 6, 2012 at 11:17 AM
To my knowledge no US citizens are currently being held indefinitely and I hope it never happens but the possibility now exists because of the actions of Bush and Obama. US citizens should get access to our courts. Period.
Your second point is that Romney hasn’t discussed these issues. My response to that is “exactly”. That’s because he’s not going to change them and will likely find ways to keep chipping away at our rights.
Benaiah on November 6, 2012 at 11:19 AM
Lol..oh sweetie you’re having a rough day aren’t you. If you go back and read what I said I actually said I was voting for Ted Cruz. Try to keep up ok
MoreLiberty on November 6, 2012 at 11:37 AM
What is the source of this knowledge..can you share it?
To your second point….he also has not discussed what his position on organic food vs regular farmer product. Therefore by your logic he must be against organic food…or, if wanting to make the opposite case, he is against regular food sources.
It seems like a weak line of reasoning.
Mimzey on November 6, 2012 at 11:37 AM
Put the bong down occasionally and maybe you could spell…and comprehend.
cozmo on November 6, 2012 at 11:39 AM
I don’t smoke pot, nor do I do any other drugs but if your attacks have dwindled down to spell check errors….well I know I’ve won the argument. Thanks for playing
MoreLiberty on November 6, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Well gosh darn I guess you did. In your drug addled mind that has nothing to do with the original topic.
cozmo on November 6, 2012 at 11:48 AM
My source of which knowledge? I assume you mean the indefinite detention of US citizens? The fact that you have no idea what I’m talking about pretty much proves my point about Republican voters being drones that only vote the way Fox News tells them to vote.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/with-reservations-obama-signs-act-to-allow-detention-of-citizens/
There’s your link. Surprise me and read it.
Benaiah on November 6, 2012 at 11:48 AM
Ya because spell check sure as heck did.
MoreLiberty on November 6, 2012 at 11:54 AM
That made as much sense as the other ranting you have done.
Way to take the cowards way out in the senate race though.
cozmo on November 6, 2012 at 11:55 AM
After I posted, I reread your post and found that you were claiming not to know of any citizens indefinitely detained.
Sorry for the confusion, but it seems a reasonable assumption.
Why in the world would someone mention citizens indefinitely detained, in a post itemizing a persons negative positions….but then claim they don’t exist?
You make a case against Obama, but not Romney.
Threw me off a bit.
Mimzey on November 6, 2012 at 12:00 PM
Because it’s been made legal to do so by Obama. If Romney was any sort of champion of civil liberties he would have beaten Obama to death with it during his campaign. He hasn’t even mentioned it. Why? Because it was overwhelmingly passed by Republicans in congress.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml
Democrats were split right down the middle on it but I still consider it to be a bi-partisan bill. Proving once again that the times when US citizens are truly getting bent over is when Republicans and Democrats in congress agree on something.
Benaiah on November 6, 2012 at 12:19 PM
Just a point of information, but it’s not been made legal to do so by Obama. Obama and government may have given themselves the power to do so, but it is not legal, just as Obamacare is not legal.
Dante on November 6, 2012 at 1:09 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2