I think the focus for most libertarians is on the liberty of individuals, not on the liberty of the community (the government). So restricting the liberty of the community, to the extent the community wants to infringe on individual freedom, probably does not bother libertarians much. Libertarians generally recognize, however, that democratic governments are normally more likely to recognize and celebrate individual rights, and consequently are usually vigorous advocates for constitutional democracy.

I do not begrudge or fear any group - whether a company selling a product or a campaign selling a candidate - making targeted offers to any prospect, including me. All the offers can do is notify me of the opportunity and encourage me to respond by buying the product or working for, contributing to, or voting for the candidate. My real concern is the certainty that now, for the first time, data pertaining to other voters and me are available to and used by groups supporting not only candidates running for office but also office-holders with real power and discretionary authority over me. Recognizing that politicians are like the rest of us (well, actually worse), I am very concerned they will succumb to the temptation to abuse that power in pursuit of their own interests. Formerly, when elections ended, most of the political apparatus wound down. Now, however, as Henninger makes clear in his column, Obama's Persuasion Army will continue to operate, and his administration will have myriad opportunities and incentives to use all those data and techniques to identify supporters and adversaries and reward or punish them appropriately. It is very worrisome.

Romney 291, Obama 247

Romney wins popular vote, 52% - 47%

As a pretty doctrinaire libertarian, I can appreciate the attraction of voting for Johnson. I agree with him on almost all important issues, but I am going to vote for Romney. I live in Florida, and I recognize both the slim margin of victory likely in my state and the importance of our electoral votes. I share, however, Dr. Rahe's opinion of Romney - he is a mangerial progressive, not a small-government conservative - so I will vote for him because I fear the catastrphe that would be a second Obama administration. I am afraid that Romney will not seek to reduce the federal government significantly; he simply does not really believe that most current federal programs are not the responsibility of Washington. Additionally, his record and history do not reveal that he recognizes that most current government activities can be handled better, more efficiently, and more humanely by private individuals. So while I will vote for Romney, and I support him vigorously, I am not very optimistic that he will pursue any libertarian policies besides repealing Obamacare.

Can a governemnt-funded stimulus program ever work (does the vaunted but elusive multiplier exist)? If so, what circumstances must exist?

Pursuit of the loan guarantee should disqualify Sen. Portman. No one who supports such government "investments" is seriously conservative. As Troy notes, industrial policy that permits the government to spend taxpayer money is inherently corrupt and fundamentally immoral. The government should not be allowed to take money by force from anyone to "invest" in commercial enterprises.

I clearly qualify as an old, white guy, and I don't know a song Jay Z has sung, written, or produced. If he has made the type of thuggish rap music that uses the n-word, demeans women with the names Mishnick used, and glorifies or justifies lawless violence, then I appreciate and admire Michnick for his original column and his defense of it. If Jay Z has not made or promoted the worst of hip hop culture, then Mishnick should be shamed for unfairly and egregiously defaming him.

Dear Elizabeth,My favorite passage is from King Lear:Oh, reason not the need!Our basest beggars are in the poorest thing superfluous.Allow not nature more than nature needs,Man's life is cheap as beast's.Thanks,Freddy Clayton

I am your friend's southern evangelical, and seemingly even worse for Gov. Romney, I am a pretty doctrinaire libertarian. I disagree with the governor on several issues, and I am sadly confident he is, as Dr. Rahe has opined on Ricochet, a managerial progressive. Irrespective of those reservations, however, I will vote for Gov. Romney enthusiastically simply because our current alternative is nearly immeasurably worse. I have numerous friends who are Southern evangelicals, and I know of none who will decline to vote for Gov. Romney because of his faith. I think much bigger problems are his tepid conservatism and the distrust his inconsistency has generated.

I agree fundamentally with Snow Bird and CandE - I support Romney because I disagree with him less on major issues than I do the other candidates, and I trust him (slightly) more to keep his express promises. If Congress musters the courage and commitment to pass a bill repealing Obamacare, I think Pres. Romney will sign it. I detest the individual mandate, and expansive government in general, but I am afraid no candidate who shares my underlying philosophy, besides Ron Paul, is running. Rep. Paul's views on national security, especially Iran, prevent my voting for him. So, like most conservative/libertarians I know, I am choosing the best candidate among those available, not one who seems to reflect and share all my policy preferences. I have begun to doubt that a true small-government, Constitution-observant candidate will be a viable option for the Presidency in my lifetime (I'm 56 now). Sigh.

Charlotte mentions an interesting issue that often gets me into trouble with friends. How do we distinguish rationally between those performance-enhancing activities all thoughtful folks proscribe (anabolic steroid use) and other activities that improve an athlete's performance but are more acceptable (Tommy John surgery)? I personally am ambivalent - sometimes I say, "Let them all in," and sometimes, "We can't reward bad behavior, and we should distinguish between lasik surgery and steroids, so keep the known cheaters out." I'm a logical mess.

In downtown Orlando (I live there), we have numerous organizations that feed hundreds of hungry folks daily (Orlando Union Rescue Mission, Coalition for the Homeless, Christian Service Center), and they operate generously, effectively, and without intereference from the city. The problem with the Food not Bombs folks is their insistence that they conduct their programs in ways that prevent the use of public downtown parks by everyone but the homeless and that interefere with the operation of downtown businesses. No one tries to prevent charities from feeding the hungry; the ordinances are simply repsonses to situations where the homeless took over parks or other spaces, making it impossible for families to enjoy them or for patrons to visit local shops, restaurants, or bars. The city has tried merely to identify areas where groups can practice charity without preventing others from going about their lives and business. The regulations are a good-faith attempt to balance the competing interests while helping the poor.

While I don't support Paul in the primary, I'd vote for him if he miraculously wins the nomination. I think some of his wacko foreign-policy views would change once he has access to all the information the President gets. He is nearly infinitely preferable to Pres. Obama, and while I support the Patriot Act and other anti-terroist actions, I know we can reduce our defense spending without endangering the country. Most of Paul's domestic initiatives would be hugely beneficial.

 Dr. Sowell - Why was the overwhelming response to the recession from mainstrream economists - both conservative and liberal - promotion of massive stimulus and other interventionist actions?  I thought, prior to 2008, that free-market and Chicago-school economics (monetarist and Austrian) has become ascendant.  What happened?