Using reason

Because in the last few years the debate on the war has been so filled with political spin, many intelligent people accept the conventional wisdom in the media as if it's fact. Intelligent people should never fall victim to "perception is reality" -- intelligent people should be able to hold onto reason and rational thought in the midst of political spin.

Just about everyone who discusses Iraq now accepts that "there were no weapons of mass destruction". Yet, we really have no idea whether they were moved to Syria, buried in the desert, or what. Just questioning the acceptance of the spin makes you a whack-job, but we really don't know. All the inspection stalling and violations are wiped from memory.

When Obama says conclusively that going into Iraq was a mistake, pundits give him credit for winning that point, yet not enough time has passed to know if it was a mistake or part of a comprehensive strategy that stopped terrorist attacks on the US. So to say Obama had foresight voting against the war is premature and it may turn out he was wrong and voted according to a liberal view which had no foresight at all. Time will tell if Iraq was the location which provided the most leverage against terrorism, or not. Plus, you never hear about all the Democrats who voted for the war, including his running mate, as being wrong -- the perception is pushed that McCain and Bush started the war. Democrat support and sabre-rattling are wiped from memory, except for a brief revival against Hillary.

When Obama accuses McCain of pandering to the rich with tax cuts that relieve the burden on small and large businesses, he is said to have counter-punched because it's automatically accepted that lower taxes for businesses is pandering to the rich, but time and circumstances may reveal that increasing taxes on businesses has harmful effects on employment and prices for goods and services and that by lowering taxes the economy is fueled to improve the living standard of the middle class, and that 401K plans are enriched. And if it is true, as Obama stated, that the rich find looholes to avoid paying taxes, then how is it statistics show the top few percent of money earners paying most of the taxes? John Kennedy is the model for tax cuts, but that must be wiped from memory.

Too many people have accepted the premises of the media and Democrat Party. Too many people have lost the ability to think freely and withhold judgement until all the facts are gathered and assessed.

I'm not saying McCain is right and Obama is wrong, but I am saying that we don't have enough facts to know many of the things we assume have been decided. In order to make the best decision to determine who should run the country,  principles are one way to make a decision in the absence of time and results -- and reason -- but not perception built on shaky premises.

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.

A bamboozled country -- those clever government rascals

First, the left has for years fought for and instituted regulations that have attracted the worst elements of business to a federal feeding trough. Many on the right who were corrupted by power have been complicit, but it's been the left leading the way. The influence of the left has been made worse with Bush's turn in his presidency toward big government solutions. Surely, the experts say, Republicans will be blamed for all failures. Democrats were just attempting to create a better world -- Republicans were making the rich richer.

We are at a point now where the country is forced by the failures of big government to depend on big government to fix the problems, at least that's how it seems. Only a handful of watchful citizens have vocalized the damaging effect of increased government intervention in our economy because it was incremental and spread out over millions of tax payers and most weren't affected in major ways that would sound an alarm. So, the con has worked, hasn't it?

Now that the accumulative weight of intervention is cracking the system and the world's elite are blaming free enterprise, not enough people will have time to think the problems through or get to the truth. The people's reaction recently is an intuitve reaction because the proposed solutions are so radical that people are sensing something is terribly wrong -- but we've given up too much power to react appropriately -- or have we? Class warfare campaigns starting in elementary schools have  turned most people against the rich and government/corporate enmeshment has confused the issue of public/private -- perhaps.

When people hear about Wall Street greed, it's more powerful we are told than the few voices sounding the alarm against big government involvement in the problem -- except that people know there are bad politicians who sell favors to the rich -- but people still have confidence in "good" politicians who say they will fight greed and corruption. This is the conventional wisdom -- experts say it's so. The Democrats, along with support in the media have seemingly won the battle of images, so, according to genius pundits, people still believe the dichotomy of left/right and believe the left is fighting the powerful in favor of the middle class and poor. I've heard really smart people talk about this.

This year will tell if the information age has reached and changed the country as a whole. I believe there are many more people who now understand what is actually happening, it's just not known to what extent. Because of media bias there is no way to know if the country is buying the old con or not. One thing is for sure -- government has seriously damaged the free enterprise system and drastic changes are called for to limit government power -- or so it seems.

Beyond the personalities -- Obama means more statism

Basically, what Obama is proposing is high taxes on the rich, nationalization of healthcare, more money flowing into failed public education, concentration of the war on terrorism on symbolic police action to find Osama bin Laden, more social engineering through energy policy, government control over free market financing and more social programs to fight poverty.

What this means is that companies will cut more jobs due to higher taxes, freeze beneifits to workers or raise prices for goods and services, thereby hurting the middle class to a greater extent than the small tax cuts will help and creating more demand for an increase in entitlement programs.

National healthcare will add to our debt and lower quality in healthcare. it will be the beginning of a brain drain in health care as young people move into less regulated fields of endeavor and older workers retire early or make career changes.

Public education will be strengthened in power but will remain incompetent to meet 21st century demands for better education, and private, innovative alternatives will be weakened. The teacher's union will gain another layer of protection.

Foreign policy will be a confusion of European-style compromises and weakened national defense. I find it difficult to believe that our military will respect Obama after what he has said about Iraq -- and his lack of direct involvement with them.

Energy policy will be burdened with misguided subsidies to politically correct alternative schemes rather than the immediately important problem of oil. Rather than lifting restrictions to drill for oil in places where it's most bountiful, tax dollars will be wasted to prop up connected environmentalist efforts.

Finally, Obama will take advantage of the financial weaknesses to establish governmnet control of the economy, advancing a failing statism that could have catastrophic results. Government power will grow to the point that fast moving, flexible companies will either fold or flee to other countries.

Yet, we may see an Obama presidency with outrageous media support like this  ---  The poll is rigged, but what the hell -- which is astounding. This year's election is revealing a media bias that is blatantly open -- Objectivity is dead.

McCain wins

It's clear, also, that McCain should win in November. Obama is not ready, is too much of a big spender and he is too anti-capitalist. Period.