9 thoughts on “The Libertarian Case For Mitt Romney”

  1. Then why doesn’t he make it? Talk about a lousy sales job. It just reinforces the notion that if you want to set the nation on a different path from its current disaster then a different candidate is needed. Someone like Gary Johnson or perhaps Virgil Goode.

    I’m just struggling with which campaign bumper to put on my car:
    “Cthulhu for President in 2012: Don’t Settle For The Lesser Evil”
    “Too Good to Vote for Evil”

  2. If you live in a state where either Romney or Obama is a solid, dead-certain lock, then you can vote for the Libertarian without consequence. If you live in a swing state, you should rationally consider whether it’s better to have the probability of getting some of what you want with Romney or the certainty of getting nothing that you want with Obama. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Furthermore, no one is perfect.

  3. For me the case is a rearguard action. I can’t help feeling that America is doomed to State-socialism sooner or later. (Thanks Jim, Chris Gerrib, and all you other State-fellators! Mission-soon-to-be-accomplished! ) Get enough people dependent on the State for their livelihood, and the electorate will always vote for more and more legalized looting on their behalf. As that quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin puts it, “When the people realize they can vote temselves money out of the treasury, that will herald the end of the republic.” Not to mention the planned-chaos cycle of State intervention causing economic dislocation and shortages, leading to more State intervention, leading to more economic dislocation and shortages, etc.

    I’ve recently entered codgerhood, and the most I can hope for is that a Romney win will stall off the process long enough so that the Hive is prevented or at least delayed from dragging us further down the Road to Serfdom for at least a good part of my “golden years.”

  4. At some point, libertarians have to make a break–whether it’s within the GOP (the Democrats really are too fundamentally statist to include an organized anti-state wing) or the LP or elsewhere. Continuing to back the standard Republican candidate hasn’t helped very much.

    If Romney were more clearly a limited government candidate, voting for him would be an easier choice. But he’s about as limited government as Bush was, which is not very.

    I do think Romney is at least marginally better across the board than Obama, who is godawful, and will be relieved when he wins (I think he will fairly comfortably–the economy is just too bad for an Obama reelection), but I still think his path is only a slower one off the cliff. As a result, I’m voting for Johnson.

    Incidentally, Congress may prove to be the more important election. If the GOP can take control of both houses, they can likely force Obama, if he wins, to make some changes. Or, if they can’t do that, they could at least neutralize his presidency in large part.

  5. Romney isn’t a Libertarian, in some ways he’s not all that Conservative, but he’s a H3LL of a lot closer than the Marxists in the WH and Senate will ever be.

    Splitting the vote this time might be the end of the country as we know it. I fear the next fundamental change might come with lead and lynchings as people fight for their existence.

  6. I would like to suggest a possible problem with libertarian candidates. Which is simply that AFAIK there are no such candidates available; all the ones I’ve heard about are fiscally libertarian but morally authoritarian. And a majority of Americans (and an even larger majority of Brits) are not going to vote for Nehemiah Scudder. Ever.

    1. Another Fletcher Christian “Don’t ask me for back-up–it’s true because I say it’s so” post. One in a series.

Comments are closed.