The Instigator
libertarian
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
DucoNihilum
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points

It is not unreasonable for a Libertarian to support Barack Obama.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,882 times Debate No: 4076
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (12)

 

libertarian

Pro

More specifically, Libertarianism is the freedom to do as you will as long as it does not harm anybody else. This includes fiscal conservativeness while maintaining liberal social views.

Of course, Barack Obama has views that differ from Libertarianism but he is a candidate who is good with Libertarian issues and can win. As Libertarians we often have to choose between voting for a candidate we agree with more or voting for a candidate who can win and has a large amount of acceptable views. Barack Obama is such a candidate.

I am also arguing that is unwise for a Libertarian to vote for a candidate who cannot win even if they have many Libertarian views.

- Obama supports the ending of No Child Left Behind, which will lesser the government and imporove education.
- Obama supports civil rights for all people like Libertarians.
- Obama supports lower taxes for the middle class like Libertarians.
- Obama wants to crack down on mortgage fraud. Libertarians are huge on crime, especially fraud.
- Libertarians are huge on the environment, like Obama.
- Obama wants to reward good teachers. Libertarians support punishing bad schools and rewarding good ones.
- Obama is huge on all faiths equal in government, like Libertarians.
- Obama wants to make the tax stystem more efficient like Libertarians.
- Obama supports wants fiscal discipline.
- Obama supports meeting with other countries.
- Obama supports less government intervention in foreign affairs, which the Libertarian Party is huge on.
- Obama wants to create a border fence.
- Obama supports government integrity with veterans.
- Obama wants to liighten up on censorship as much as possible.

There are some things that Obama lacks on with Libertarians. Those include: gun control, social security and seemingly health care.

- He is completely devoid of Libertarianism on gun control. He supports it but this is an example of nobody agreeing 100% of any candidate.
- He wants to protect social security instead of privatizing it. Shame, shame.
- His health care plan, however, is essentially, magic. It supports all Americans but simultaneously allow competition by allowing Americans to choose from over 200 countries. Libertarians support tax breaks so that competition will be allowed and encouraged but Obama appeases Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians who actualy look into his specific health care plan.

I think Obama has some non Libertarianistic views but he has a lot of Libertarian views and I am confident in supporting him as a Libertarian.

Thank you. Please vote PRO!
DucoNihilum

Con

DucoNihilum forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 1
libertarian

Pro

I skip rounds all the time. Sometimes you have other things to attend to.

I'll repost.

More specifically, Libertarianism is the freedom to do as you will as long as it does not harm anybody else. This includes fiscal conservativeness while maintaining liberal social views.

Of course, Barack Obama has views that differ from Libertarianism but he is a candidate who is good with Libertarian issues and can win. As Libertarians we often have to choose between voting for a candidate we agree with more or voting for a candidate who can win and has a large amount of acceptable views. Barack Obama is such a candidate.

I am also arguing that is unwise for a Libertarian to vote for a candidate who cannot win even if they have many Libertarian views.

- Obama supports the ending of No Child Left Behind, which will lesser the government and imporove education.
- Obama supports civil rights for all people like Libertarians.
- Obama supports lower taxes for the middle class like Libertarians.
- Obama wants to crack down on mortgage fraud. Libertarians are huge on crime, especially fraud.
- Libertarians are huge on the environment, like Obama.
- Obama wants to reward good teachers. Libertarians support punishing bad schools and rewarding good ones.
- Obama is huge on all faiths equal in government, like Libertarians.
- Obama wants to make the tax stystem more efficient like Libertarians.
- Obama supports wants fiscal discipline.
- Obama supports meeting with other countries.
- Obama supports less government intervention in foreign affairs, which the Libertarian Party is huge on.
- Obama wants to create a border fence.
- Obama supports government integrity with veterans.
- Obama wants to liighten up on censorship as much as possible.

There are some things that Obama lacks on with Libertarians. Those include: gun control, social security and seemingly health care.

- He is completely devoid of Libertarianism on gun control. He supports it but this is an example of nobody agreeing 100% of any candidate.
- He wants to protect social security instead of privatizing it. Shame, shame.
- His health care plan, however, is essentially, magic. It supports all Americans but simultaneously allow competition by allowing Americans to choose from over 200 countries. Libertarians support tax breaks so that competition will be allowed and encouraged but Obama appeases Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians who actualy look into his specific health care plan.

I think Obama has some non Libertarianistic views but he has a lot of Libertarian views and I am confident in supporting him as a Libertarian.

Thank you. Please vote PRO!
DucoNihilum

Con

While Obama may support some things that the LP, or Libertarians support he also strives to go exactly against Libertarianism in several respects. He wishes to, to some extent, socialize the health care system. With these socialist policies, he will set America further back rather than going forward in the name of Liberty.

Sorry for the short response, I have 30 minutes left.
Debate Round No. 2
libertarian

Pro

>>> While Obama may support some things that the LP, or Libertarians support he also strives to go exactly against Libertarianism in several respects.

+++ I said it is not unreasonable to support him as a Libertarian. He goes against Libertarianism in very few aspects but nobody can be satisfied with a candidate 100%. That is unreasonable to expect.

>>> He wishes to, to some extent, socialize the health care system.

+++ He does not. Libertarians oppose the government paying for people's health costs. This is because the government fails at most things. And competition is best for any market. Obama's plan pays for health care, not for health services. This has competition and the company itself runs the system, not the failing government.

>>> With these socialist policies, he will set America further back rather than going forward in the name of Liberty.

+++ You did not mention any socialist policies. And that, if true, is irrelevant to debate.
DucoNihilum

Con

It is unreasonable for anybody to support a politician who not only disagrees on more than half (Most economic issues) issues, but holds entirely different philosophies than them. Barak Obama is fundamentally opposed to Libertarianism, and while if you look hard enough on some issues he might agree with the Libertarian Party, he totally disagrees with the entire core of the party, fundamental human rights. He is not for the right to bear arms, something that as all Libertarians understand can not be taken away. He opposes, thus, Life, Liberty, and Property- the very notion of Negative Liberty that Libertarianism is built on. He supports subsidizing health care costs, which last I checked is not at all a Libertarian policy. Competition is not fair competition if the government is involved 'helping' some people along, furthermore, the current system of health insurance is in no way competitive- that's why it costs so much money to run it.

Below are proofs that Obama is in total disagreement with much of the policies of the LP

-he defended the New Deal social welfare policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt, associating Republican proposals to establish private accounts for Social Security with Social Darwinism -- The new deal was a policy of socialism, it was essentially a quiet socialist revolution.

-Obama stated that he opposed education vouchers for use at private schools because he believes they would undermine public schools. -- Vouchers are something Libertarians and economic conservatives would use as a negotiation, a compromise between a socialized school system and a free market one. Obama does not support this, as he wants to keep his government monopoly in check. This is contradictory to the views of Libertarians.

- He has energy policies that are in favor of government subsidization of 'alternative' fules. He also wants to force auto-makers to have 50MPG cars (min) by 2030. (NOTE: he also plans to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050- something that would take a huge hit on our economy, but something that he can't realistically achieve now.)

- Obama supports, to some extent, socialized health care. Socialization of private industries contradicts Libertarianism.

- Obama supports heavy taxation of the rich, something that when done in europe forced hard working Europeans to flea.

- Obama ignorantly supports a plan so that all employees at wal-mart will be able to live as if they were upper middle class citizens, allowing them to pay for their childrens college and their retirement- assuming a permanent job at walmart. Not only is this idealistic, it is absolutely impossible. The only way for him to attempt to realize this would be to raise minimum wage more so than it is already.

- Obama supports a border fence, blocking people from coming into our country is not a Libertarian policy, and those Libertarians who support tough immigration policies only do so because of people like Obama, who would like us to live in a socialist utopia.

- Obama's foreign policy is very similar to that of Bush, however he supports going to war in different parts of the world- such as in Iran or to some extent Darfur.

-Obama supports the ADA, as well as other policies that unfairly force businesses to keep up with strict, impossible regulation just in case somebody with a disability might come into their shop.

- Obama is very anti-gun, supporting the sale of almost all guns. Clearly, violating the constitution and one of the important foundations of Libertarianism is anti-libertarian and anti-liberty. This very issue is enough to not support him for President.

- Obama is in support of the 2006 version of the Patriot Act, which he voted for. He also said that he would support a law banning the burning of flags.

Clearly he does not support the Libertarian cause, but his policies go so far against the causes of Libertarianism, especially as defined by the LP (which you claim to be a member, or at least in support of) that it is impossible to honestly vote for him and call yourself a Libertarian without staring hypocrisy in the face.

Given this radical disagreement, it is not reasonable to support somebody, who although might support some individual views you might support, goes against your entire philosophy, your entire outlook. Obama, rather than moving Libertarian principles forward will move them backward. Supporting Obama as a Libertarian simply shows that you have little respect for Liberty, and that you are willing to trade off liberty for mild agreement and popularity, rather than supporting a candidate who will actually help the Libertarian cause.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
If the activity banned by the law is initiation, enforcing the law is retaliation.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
What would be the purpose of a state that exists but has no power to initiate force when needed to enforce its laws? Or do you consider punishment for breaking laws as retaliation versus initiation?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
And I thought I answered that question for you before, albeit with less detail.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"I see you are claiming that libertarians are for complete abolishion of taxes again. Do you see any difference at all between a libertarian and an anarchist?"

An anarchist is someone who supports the abolition of the state as such. A libertarian is someone who supports the prohibition of initiation of force. An anarcho-capitalist is someone who is under the impression that the state ipso facto initiates force, and thus supports anarchy for libertarian reasons (I am not an anarcho-capitalist, since I consider it possible for an entity (the state) to exist, i.e., achieve capability of unchallenged force, in a given spectrum, without resorting to any force but the retaliatory, which implies, without seeking any involuntary sources of funding).
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
Ragnar,
I see you are claiming that libertarians are for complete abolishion of taxes again. Do you see any difference at all between a libertarian and an anarchist?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
This is a completely unfair debate!
I didn't get to rebut anything he said. He didn't debate until the third round!"

Use the comments. The debate ain't over till the fat lady sings.
Posted by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
In the third round I just recycled some old arguments, just like you did in the first round.
Posted by libertarian 8 years ago
libertarian
This is a completely unfair debate!
I didn't get to rebut anything he said. He didn't debate until the third round!
I gave him the chance to respond to my arguments but he forfeited them. And then on the third round he makes all these new arguments. This was not even a debate. No debating took place.
Posted by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
I agree with Duco. Obama is too fundamentally different for those who adhere to libertarian principles to vote for.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
- Obama wants to make the tax stystem more efficient like Libertarians."
Libertarians who live up to the word do not seek to make the tax system "more efficient." They seek to eliminate it. Making it more efficient causes it to be harder to eliminate.

"
- Obama supports wants fiscal discipline."

And which candidate doesn't claim that? :D

"
- Obama supports meeting with other countries."

Which country? With whom in it? (you can't meet with "a country," you can meet with specific people within it.)

"Libertarians support tax breaks so that competition will be allowed and encouraged "
No, libertarianism supports tax abolition, because taxes are theft. Competition has nothing to do with it.
"
- Obama supports less government intervention in foreign affairs, which the Libertarian Party is huge on."
First, no he doesn't. Second, one can be libertarian and differ on what precisely constitutes valid causes for foreign intervention ( it's often a complex issue). The party can whine about whatever it pleases, but since when has it been anything but "unreasonable" ? :D
Also, I thought you said he supported meeting with other countries. LOL.

"- Obama wants to create a border fence."
What kind of libertarian supports forbidding innocent people from moving across borders? What kind of idiot thinks a fence will stop people from moving across it anyway?

"
- Obama supports government integrity with veterans."
Not very specific, and I highly doubt you'll find any candidate who doesn't claim to :D.

"
- Obama wants to liighten up on censorship as much as possible.
"
As much as possible means eliminating it altogether, which isn't that hard. But then you would have said eliminating it altogether. So I guess he supports some form of censorship. Guess what, free speech is an absolute. Once you establish a limit, it doesn't matter where that limit is, it's not free.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
libertarianDucoNihilumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by MasturDeBator2009 6 years ago
MasturDeBator2009
libertarianDucoNihilumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Arnaud 8 years ago
Arnaud
libertarianDucoNihilumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by FredMann 8 years ago
FredMann
libertarianDucoNihilumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by revleader5 8 years ago
revleader5
libertarianDucoNihilumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
libertarianDucoNihilumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by libertarian 8 years ago
libertarian
libertarianDucoNihilumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
libertarianDucoNihilumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Ahking 8 years ago
Ahking
libertarianDucoNihilumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
libertarianDucoNihilumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03