There's so much garbage information on libertarian blogs I want to cry. Mostly it's old information rehashed in new forms, critical of everything that has to do with government, until it becomes neurotic (remember Ron Paul calling Obama a "Fascist"? Priceless!). Here is a frequent anti-Obama blogger bloviating about the fall of liberty in democracy, or whatever:

We often talk about American exceptionalism and the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville, and worry about whether we have lost sight of what gave us that exceptional place in human history. This afternoon, I had the pleasure to speak with Hillsdale College’s Professor Paul Rahe, who has written a new book, Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect.

If we are ever to bring this process to a halt, if we are to put a stop to the advance of the administrative state and even roll it back, if we are to recover the liberty that once was ours, if we are to refuse to be subjects and reassert ourselves as citizens, we must first come to understand what it is that has occasioned centralized administration’s inexorable march. To achieve such an understanding, Paul A. Rahe, argues in his new book—Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect—we must re-examine the character of modern, commercial republicanism. We must consider with care Montesquieu’s celebrated account of the English constitution. We must ponder why he thought this “republic disguised as a monarchy” superior to the republics of classical antiquity and the monarchies of his own day; we must ruminate on his account of the political psychology dominant within it; and we must assess his judgment regarding that polity’s fragility. Then, we must consider Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s searing critique of bourgeois society, explore its foundations, and do justice to its force. And, finally, in this light, we must digest the argument advanced in Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, assess the ffectiveness of his response to the warnings issued by Montesquieu and Rousseau, examine his fears regarding the trajectory of France, and reconsider the grounds for his positive assessment of the role played by local self-government, civic associations, an unfettered press, Biblical religion, and marital solidarity in Jacksonian America. Only when we have done this, Rahe argues, only when we have fully grasped the psychological foundations of modern democracy’s seemingly inexorable drift in the direction of soft despotism, will we be in a position to devise policies consistent with a genuine reversal of course.

So essentially the thesis of his book is that expanding central government and mindless bureaucracy threaten civil liberty in our liberal democracy? Do we need a College Professor writing a long-winded book to prove this point? Adding nutcases like Rousseau and Montesquieu just makes this story even less appealing. Plato already covered the process from democracy to tyranny ten times over:

Tyranny springs from democracy much as democracy springs from oligarchy. Both arise from excess; the one from excess of wealth, the other from excess of
freedom.

Democracy always ends up in tyranny, because we balance out the excess of freedom with government force. Sure, like libertarians, I also want less government, a (mostly) free market economy, and less spending. But do I want people who advocate the vague notion of freedom as the highest goal of government (Montesquieu, Obama) or Romantics who believe all forms of government spells EVIL (Rousseau, Ron Paul)?

No, we need agreement on common values and goals. Our civilization needs direction and leadership. Right now we have NWO leadership by a few selected oligarchs and lobby organizations. They seem to be more effective than all of these libertarians combined, which suggests Obama may be Fascist, but not Fascist enough.