Libertarians should support Romney

I said, "It's nice not to be debating a leftist for a change." My opponent took that to mean I though he was a leftists. Not at all. Anyone who believes in free markets, as libertarians do, is on the right. What's good is than we are not talking about redistribution of wealth. that alone is a breath of fresh air. Thanks to Con for a vigorous debate.I made four contentions in this debate. I will discuss my opponents latest arguments along with summarizing the rest of the debate.1. Socialism must be dismantled incrementally I defined socialism as government control of economic decisions, and pointed out that neo-socialism accomplish control through tens of thousands of pages of rules, rather than through direct seizure of enterprise. I claimed that we arrived at the present state of socialism a bite at a time, each time claiming to solve a problem. I argued that asking for revolutionary change was not a viable strategy, and that libertarians who have to show, problem-by-problem, that freedom worked better than Big Brother. Consequently, a third Party strategy for libertarians is not the right approach.Con did not contest this point. Con agreed to rule DR 4, which prevents him for making a new argument in his final round. I claim is effectively concedes the debate, because if a third party strategy is conceded to not work, then there is no alternative to supporting Romney.2. This may be a tipping point electionMy argument is that since we have reached the point where more than half of Americans are wholly or partially dependant on Government checks, and since Obama is expanding dependence rapidly, that this may be the last chance to stem the tide against socialism. A flaw in democracy is that once a majority believes they can vote themselves unlimited benefits that someone else will pay for, well, then we are cooked. Obama has enough power in the existing bureaucracy to push ahead with a socialist agenda, and he has recently learned that he can get away with nullifying laws that don't serve his purposes. I argued that in key states like Colorado, a Johnson vote could give the election to Obama.Con did not dispute any of my contentions. In R3 he argued that the election was very close. Yes, of course, that was my point. He also argued, if I understand correctly, that the Johnson vote might not necessarily tip the whole election, even if it tipped Colorado. I agree, it's possible that might happen. That doesn't dispute my argument that since this election could be tipping point for the future of the Republic, the risk is too great for libertarians to take a chance of losing their future. con may not argument about the risks, only the possibilities. 3. Supporting Romney is not apostasy"Apostasy" is something that absolutely cannot be said or believed, usually as a part of a religion. Since libertarianism is not akin to a religion, it is irrational for Libertarians to oppose someone for failure to subscribe completely to a doctrine.I think the bulk of Con's arguments are along the lines of ideological purity. The idea is that death is better than voting some guy who wants voter IDs. Okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration. My argument is that holding to litmus tests on issues of little relative importance is irrational. I pointed to arch-libertarian economist Milton Freedom who felt that the Republican Party was the best avenue for advancing libertarianism. Ron Paul appears to be getting ready to endorse Romney, and his website is arguing against strict ideological purity. In the last round, my opponent argued that Senator Rand Paul was "fried" by ideological purists for supporting Romney. this proves there are ideological purist libertarians opposed to practical libertarians like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Milton Friedman. However, that some such purists exist does not argue that they are being rational. Con gives no reason why libertarians should have a doctrine of apostasy. Some religious adherents believe that certain acts are forbidden because doing them endangers one's soul, no matter what. But there is no parallel reason for libertarians holding belief in apostasy. Moreover, if there were such a reason it wouldn't be relevant to this debate. This debate is about the practical goal of having libertarian ideas prevail. Failing in a state of libertarian purity may have some satisfaction, but failing is not success. 4. It's about the economy, and we're not stupid I argued that President Obama favors government control of the economy through regulation, and I pointed to the advances of government control in energy, health care, banking, and other areas. I claimed, and pointed to Milton Friedman's book as support, that free markets are the fundamental precursor to all other rights and freedoms. I established that Romney is a capitalist and would derail the attempts for government to control the economy. As far as I can see, Con made no counter arguments to these points. Con declared that Romney's record in Massachusetts showed the was a big government guy. I pointed out that Romney had a legislature that was 85% Democrats, and that Romney vetoed some 900 spending bills. to prove equivalence, Con would need to show President Obama's record of vetoing hundreds of spending bills. That didn't happen.My main argument was that social legislation is subordinate to a free economy. I additionally argued that many of the social issues of concern were far less important than con contends. It's an interesting debate as to what extent the rules of war, as opposed to civilian rules, should apply in the war against terrorism, but it's a relative fine point. A guy who cut off heads on television was waterboarded and is now comfortably retired. Waterboarding is not, then, a good reason to risk the future of free markets. It's a legitimate concern, but not primary.I pointed out that con's claims of violations of libertarian doctrine were not even shared by all libertarians. The libertarian argument against requiring voter ID is that it costs the government something to provide free IDs to he few people who don't have them. I cited libertarians unconvinced that's a good tradeoff against multiple voting and unqualified voting. Con did not respond.-------------------------------Con's sources supported his notions that some of Romney's positions were not in accordance with con's idea of libertarian doctrine. In general, I agree that Romney is not a strict Libertarian. However, Con provided virtually nothing authoritative contrary to my contentions. He would, for example, need evidence that a Johnson protest vote would be unlikely to affect the election or that Obama was not a socialist (as defined) or that Romney was a socialist and not a capitalist. I provided solid sources relative to the issues of the debate. It should count a lot that Friedman does not believe in a Libertarian theory of apostasy and that con could not find any prominent libertarian who does.Under our agreed-upon rules, con cannot make new arguements in the las round. I think Con's argument is that libertarianism is akin to a religion, with a substantial dogma that must be subscribed to completely, and that apostasy cannot be tolerated. I disagree. socialism was implemented piece by piece, and the only way to get rid of it is by dismantling it piece by piece. Dismantling will improve the nation, so the method can succeed. Demanding a revolution will not succeed in achieving libertarian goals, and another four years of Obama may well result in a majority so dependent on government that we cannot recover. Libertarians should be practical. the resolution is affirmed.