Libertarians should support Romney

Thanks to my opponent for a topical debate. It's nice not to be debating a leftist for a change.Obama and Romney differ on socialism vs. capitalism Are the positions of Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney really identical? Are they almost identical? No, there aren't three people remotely familiar with the candidates and issues who believe they are. President Obama is neo-socialist who believes that every aspect of economic life must be regulated in the extreme so that people will do the government's bidding. Obama has applied that principle to banking, automobile manufacturing, energy, and health care. Romney is unquestionably a capitalist. Romney understands how free markets work, the relationship between risk and reward, and the mechanisms by which jobs are created. Obama operates on the principle that if the government pays one person to dig a hole and another person to fill it, then two jobs have been created. Romney understands that only the private sector creates sustainable commerce.Con's issues are relatively unimportant compared to free marketsCon argues strictly from apostasy. He picks what he considers to be determining issues, finds Romney impure, and that's that. Con's litmus issues are trivial compared to the survival of free markets. Near the top of Con's list are legalization of marijuana and government facilitation of marriage. Even California did not democratically approve decriminalization of marijuana, and nullifying all marriage laws does not move the needle in polls anywhere. A grand total of three terrorists were waterboarded, including a guy who cuts off heads on television. The Patriot Act is a debatable issue involving wartime powers; libertarians will have more of a voice if they support Romney rather than isolate themselves. So how can they fine points of libertarian theory possibly be more important that free markets? How will libertarians be better being shunned by both Parties rather than having a voice Republican politics?Romney supports a law requiring having an ID to vote. Any voter without an ID would be provided one by the State at no cost. Is it a central libertarian principle that non-citizen and non-residents should be able to vote without restriction? Why is it important libertarian principle that people be allowed to vote multiple times in the same election? As far as I can tell, the only libertarian objection is the trivial cost of issuing IDs to the very few people who do not have them. http://www.unitedliberty.org...Romney opposes taxes and spendingCon claims that Romney broke a no-tax pledge as governor of Massachusetts. In fact, Romney refused to make a no-tax pledge when running for governor. http://www.politifact.com... Massachusetts is an extremely liberal state, and Romney knew he would have to bargain with a state legislature 85% controlled by Democrats. Romney did his best to control spending. "I like vetoes; I vetoed hundreds of spending appropriations as governor," he said. Romney issued some 800 vetoes, and the Legislature overrode nearly all of them, sometimes unanimously." http://www.npr.org... Con disqualifies Romney because his vetoes of spending measures where overridden about 800 times. If that's the same as Obama, then there should be an equivalents record of Obama vetoing spending measures and congress overriding. that is not the case.What should Romney have done in Massachusetts? Should he have adopted positions that guaranteed he would not get elected? That preserves libertarian purity at the expense of doing nothing that actually improves the situation.Romney opposes ObamacareRomney is unquestionably opposed to Obamacare and committed to repeal, but Con says that having supported a similar program in Massachusetts makes his position identical to Obama's. No, Romney has changed his position and Republicans will guarantee that the repeal takes place. States are allowed to try things that the Federal government is not, and the experience proved it unworkable. Con's notion is that past sins cannot be forgiven; Con is more doctrinaire than a fundamentalist preacher; preachers accept redemption. On taxation, Obama is a clear advocate of the transfer of wealth who wants to soak the rich. Romney is not a redistributionist. and he favors reducing the maximum corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. Romney has take a no-tax-increase pledge.Romney favors control of the money supplyControl of the money supply is important to libertarians. "Critics contend [Bernanke] is pursuing a reckless money-printing binge that exposes the world’s largest economy to a dangerous inflation risks while his defenders credit him with bold moves to stimulate growth that prevented a repeat of 1929-level depression. Romney is signaling he wants the Fed – and the economy — to take a different direction. And that means giving Bernanke the boot, he says." http://blogs.reuters.com...An Obama spokesman recently characterized the differences between Obama and Romney. "Romney, the official said, stands for stripping regulations and cutting taxes in the hope that the market "will solve all our problems." Obama, the official said, "believes the economy grows not from the top down, but from the middle class up, and he has an economic plan to do that." [ http://www.foxnews.com...] The official clearly though that opposing regulation was untenable, while redistribution was the path to growth. He figured out the difference between Romney and Obama.Con dropped three of my four contentionsCon has all but ignored my arguments. He has only disputed one of my claims that (1) socialism must be dismantled incrementally, (2) this may be a tipping point election, (3) supporting Romney is not apostasy, and (4) it's about the economy. The only thing he has disputed is (3). His argument is that litmus issues like ending government sanction of marriages and requiring vote IDs are so much more important than saving capitalism that the candidates are virtually the same. I pointed out that argument has been rejected by prominent libertarians, notably Milton Freedman and Ron Paul. The position is illogical on several grounds cited: it's better to have a seat at the table, libertarianism has to win issue by issue, and with increasing entitlements the tipping point may be passed in the coming election.While Con pointed to what he considers litmus issues, he does say why they are so important as to be willing to risk consolidating neo-socialist government with another term by Obama. Obama has all the legislation he needs in place. The EPA can control CO2, so every aspect of the energy industry is controlled. He can order you not to exhale if h chooses, because your CO2 pollutes. He has Dodd-Frank in place to control banking, with more rule to be written by the bureaucracy. We can look forward to 140,000 pages of rules governing health care. He can punish individual states by choosing not to enforce federal laws in states who resist. Obamacare will make tens of millions of people dependent upon the government. Con challenged me to say if I would support the lesser of big government candidates. I live in Northern California, where such choices are the norm. Democrats use gimmicks of "non-partisan elections" and a new jungle primary system to make sure you can only vote for Democrats. Yes, I do the best I can.The resolution is affirmed.