Are you sure you're not something else?

Spontaneous order through free actions rather than social engineering through rational design is something one embraces or refutes. I can understand someone's belief that spontaneous order doesn't really create order but chaos and injustice, therefore preferring social engineering. I don't agree with the social engineers, but I can understand their mindset.

What I can't understand is the commenters at certain blogs who call themselves libertarians yet support Obama. Obama is a prime example of the social engineer, someone who assumes the ability to control the actions of others according to a rational plan for the economic and social interactions of others.

One of the commenters was claiming McCain is out of touch with his patriotic dog and pony show in 2008, but what seems much more dated is the assumption that social engineers can plan a complex society like what exists in the United States. Backward companies even have a difficult time still trying to centrally control the relatively few people under their control in this new age of decentralization, flexibility and rapid change.

If there is any outdated modus operandi in 2008 it's social engineering from a strong centralized federal goverment.

As control is falling apart and unintended consequences are coming home to roost, Obama is running on a plan for unprecedented central planning and social engineering -- and some libertarians are claiming this is preferable to McCain. They are making a mistake of oversimplifying McCain's desire for a strong national defense with war-mongering. I see Mccain as someone who would suffer longer to send troops in harms way than an inexperienced crusader who doesn't understand the horrors of war.

This is why I don't label myself. I have a liberty loving spirit, but don't feel a need to box myself in with any group, or sub-group, or sub-sub-group. But there are some beliefs that can define "libertarian" and for the life of me I can't square those beliefs with an Obama presidency. I can see where someone can make the long stretch connecting love for liberty with an African-American being elected president, but that is a totally different issue and has nothing to do with "libertarian" beliefs as traditionally defined.

Obama is the antithesis of love for liberty -- he's the cold, hard wall one runs into in a rush to liberty. Not that you would see him as a cold, hard wall as he smiles then patiently and kindly asks you to do this rather than that for the good of others -- but resist the request and the transfomation of benevolence to force becomes a harsh reality. I've seen this all my life from those in power who presume to know what is best for others. I recognize the kindness in Obama as the toleration of ignorance on the way to enlightened "change" -- his change is force -- it's coercion -- it's the opposite of freedom.

Growing up in poverty, I learned years ago to run from authority figures who kindly said they were going to help the poor. And having been reasonably succesful since growing up, I'm distrustful of anyone who doesn't understand that what people earn is not to be taken by others, no matter how virtuous the robbery appears.

Most everyone understands these prinicples at a certain level, most certainly libertarians should, but the confidence game has obfuscated general principles and deified benevolent government players -- beware, behind the smile is naked force.