Joe Biden selection concerns libertarians

One less vote for Obama is always a good thing, but I'm not certain that this disenchantment will register an equal and opposite vote for McCain - unless of course these Libertarians agree with Daniel Griswold (back in May) that:

During his eight years in the House, from 1995 to 2003, Barr voted on 24 major bills and amendments affecting the freedom of Americans to trade and invest in the global economy. He voted in favor of lower trade barriers only four times, voting in favor of higher trade barriers 20 times.

I don't know how Barr's position on trade played out since May, perhaps Jon can provide an update. 

While I heartily agree with the Cato bloggers on the merits of free trade, I find recent positions of Gene Healy and Jim Harper on national security and defense either uninformed or disingenuous.  Is the idea of a Libertarian with military experience an oxymoron?  Perhaps.  Harper writes:

Exalting terrorism - as John McCain does with his “gates of hell” talk - is precisely the wrong thing for a national leader to do. The country will be made more secure by deflating the world image of Osama bin Laden and making his movement less attractive. Our leaders must withdraw rhetorical power from terrorists by controlling their tongues.

Healy writes:

“The president has argued that confronting Iraq would not detract from the unfinished war against terrorism. I believe he is right. We should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time,” he said. “

Walk, chew gum, and play the harmonica, perhaps–having learned little from the Iraq experience, Biden in April 2007 called for American boots on the ground in Darfur...

Call me a neo-Libertarian, but I agree with McCain that Islamic Terrorism is the transcendant issue of our time.  Both Muslim religious persecution of Christians and Arab racist persecution of Black Africans are the great contributors to the genocide in Darfur, against which the world has done exactly nothing.  For those who love liberty and freedom, seeing the fruit of freedom borne from the surge in Iraq has been a tremendous inspiration of the good we can do when we defeat an evil enemy. 

I think it's incumbent upon the bloggers at Cato to ask themselves the same question Rick Warren asked at the Saddleback Forum:  does evil exist, and if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we confront it or do we defeat it?  I find it extremely disingenuous that those who claim to stand for freedom and liberty do not see any reason why we should put ourselves in harm's way to defend it.  Perhaps they, like Obama, are still in denial about the success of the Surge in Iraq.  That would explain the original common bond between Libertarians and Obama that free market economics may now put asunder. 

Someone who loves freedom supporting Obama makes about as much sense as "Libertarians for Stalin". The marxist pals, the 'lets raise taxes for fairness' not revenue, the attacks on free speech, the cult of personality, the "he won't let you alone",

I find it extremely disingenuous that those who claim to stand for freedom and liberty do not see any reason why we should put ourselves in harm's way to defend it.

Dittos