Libertarians should support Romney

Libertarians sometimes like to expound upon the virtues of free markets in heroin and other such exercises in libertarian theory. They may be right, but that's not likely to win this election. Some believe that libertarianism needs to be swallowed in one gulp or not at all. That ignores a present economy crippled by excessive government control and ever-expanding entitlements. I claim that approach of selling libertarian theory is ineffective. Libertarians should plan to win by demonstrating case-by-case that less government is better and that people can in fact do better without the nanny state. To do that, they need to support Romney right now. 1. Socialism must be dismantled incrementally Socialism is government control of the means of production. In past times, socialists preferred direct control of businesses so that bureaucrats could make the decisions according to ideological prescriptions. That method proved to have two problems. The state then had the responsibility for the industry failing, as it always did, and with bureaucrats having little incentive to succeed, the failure was relatively fast. The new method of socialism is to compel compliance with the wishes of the state through regulations. This keeps businesses going longer because there are still nominal owners who have reason for the enterprise to succeed, and as it fails the regulator can always blame the private owners. I don't think socialists plotted this strategy. It just evolved over time as socialists found ways to satisfy their need for power incrementally. Sober people resist revolutionary change. People are comfortable with what they know. In a democracy they will accept small changes, but few people want to take a chance on a theory. Once socialism is in place to "protect" people from the evils of free enterprise, they are reluctant to get rid of the "protection." When socialized medicine is in place, people will believe it too risky to dismantle it. This works on a large scale. North Koreans are sold on the idea that only Dear Leader keeps them safe from the forces of imperialism. The power of the state is maintained by fear that change has too much risk.If the socialist state is to be overcome, it will only be done by taking it apart a piece at a time. Could we survive without a 70,000 page tax code that provides 3500 loopholes designed to incentivise behavior that complies with the wishes of the elite that make such decisions? I think it is only possible to sell that idea by hacking away at it. A 60,000 page tax code is clearly conceivable, and the reasons can be explained successfully.To incrementally dismantle the socialist state, libertarians need to be in government. They need to be elected to office and appointed to high positions in government. Ron Paul is not going to be elected President, but he might be appointed Secretary of the Treasury or to the Council of Economic Advisers. That's only possible if libertarians support Romney. That way they earn a seat at the table.2. This may be a tipping point electionGary Johnson is not going to be elected president this year, but what about 2016 or 2020? If President Obama is re-elected, it will be the result of promising payoffs to a long list of constituent groups. Government workers will be promised high wages and job security. The middle class will get free medical care. Unions will get elite privileges in negotiating. People who don't want to work will get a guarantee that the state will care for them. Every person who ultimately ends up dependent upon the government will then be inclined to defend their particular entitlement as fair and necessary. A record 49 percent of Americans live in a household where someone receives at least one type of government benefit, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. And 63 percent of all federal spending this year will consist of checks written to individuals for which the government receives currently no services, the White House budget office estimates. That’s up from 46 percent in 1975 and 18 percent in 1940. [3. http://www.bloomberg.com...]In addition to those receiving benefits, an additional 8% of the population works directly for the government. Consequently, we have over half the population dependent on the government for either benefits or jobs. With government controlled health care (an estimated 140,000 pages of regulations) kicking in, this may be the last election where there is a reasonable chance of turning the tide. Once the nanny state is entrenched, even financial collapse does not typically reverse it. Europe is collapsing, ad there is no great rush to the libertarian alternative. We cannot be sure if this is the last chance for free enterprise to make a comeback, but it isn't worth taking the risk. In President Obama's first term he learned that he can nullify laws that he doesn't like and that the bureaucracy can expand government without any new legislation. To preserve hope, libertarians should not plan on waiting for future elections.3. Supporting Romney is not apostasySome religions require members to adhere to a set of rigid principles. It's all in or nothing for them. Libertarianism does not demand a religious type of doctrine. Is it possible that Ron Paul is getting ready to endorse Mitt Romney? ... Congressman Paul’s campaign website in recent days has posted several pieces that discuss political endorsements in a somewhat defensive manner. In one, campaign blogger Jack Hunter talks about libertarian founding father Murray Rothbard’s 1992 endorsement of President George H. W. Bush. Rothbard’s libertarian principles did not evaporate because of the “mere act of endorsing,” writes Hunter. [4. http://www.csmonitor.com...] Famed libertarian economist Milton Friedman wrote "I am a libertarian with a small 'l' and a Republican with a capital 'R.' And I am a Republican with a capital 'R' on grounds of expediency, not on principle." [5. http://en.wikipedia.org...] He was an adviser to the candidacy of Barry Goldwater and served as an adviser to president Reagan. 4. It's about the economy, and we're not stupid If Romney is elected, is it likely that while free enterprise gets a boost, there would be greater losses on Libertarian social issues? Romney won the Republican presidential nomination over Ron Paul and a field of social conservatives. The final viable opponent was Rick Santorum, a dedicated social conservative. Even the social conservatives said that social issues ought to be determined at the state level, their beliefs notwithstanding. Romney has stayed focused on the economy, much to the frustration of President Obama's supporters who want to talk about almost anything else. Romney is so focused, the liberal media are getting desperate. [6. http://www.breitbart.com...] Libertarians should have the same focus ths year. In Capitalism and Freedom, "Friedman promotes economic freedom as both a necessary freedom and also as a vital means for political freedom. He argues that, with the means for production under the auspices of the government, it is nearly impossible for real dissent and exchange of ideas to exist. Additionally, economic freedom is important, since any "bi-laterally voluntary and informed" transaction must benefit both parties to the transaction." [7. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Economic freedom precedes all else. In the swing state of colorado, Gary Johnson is now polling 7%, enough to give the state to President Obama. [8. http://news.yahoo.com...] Libertarian support for Romney could be the deciding factor in America's future.