As a follow up to my post asking Prof. Block to name a position other than net neutrality, where Rand Paul holds a libertarian position, he has sent me the following email:
As per an agreement Walter and I have on all debate between us posted here at Target Liberty, I will wait at least 24 hours before responding.Dear Bob:Re this blog of yours: http://www.targetliberty.com/2015/08/an-open-letter-to- walter-block-on-rand.html?utm_ source=feedburner&utm_medium= email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ TargetLiberty+%28Target+ Liberty%29 Please allow me to turn the question around, and put the ball back on your side of the net. Please specify policies on which other GOP candidates are more libertarian than Rand. Do any of them want to audit the fed? Are any of them better than Rand on foreign policy, taxes, minimum wages, drug legalization, government spying, victimless crimes, economic regulation, free trade, environmentalism? If so, please specify which one(s) and on which issues.Also, isn’t Bernie better than the other Democratic candidates on foreign policy, and no worse than any of them on anything else?Best regards,WalterWalter E. Block, Ph.D.Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of EconomicsJoseph A. Butt, S.J. College of BusinessLoyola University New Orleans
-RW
As disappointing as Rand's campaign has been on several key areas, he is actually not bad on a few issues and better than the other GOP candidates. However, in determining whether one should vote for Rand Paul, it's not like choosing between John McCain and Mitt Romney, or the lesser of two evils as the saying goes. I would never consider Rand Paul "evil" as I would with the other candidates. He's just not as libertarian as Ron Paul or as he should be. The underlying question is always how do we get to more liberty, how do we get the government off our backs a little bit more. Outside of violence, it's at the voting booth as much as we can prevent the "election" from being rigged. If Rand Paul weren't running, then I wouldn't be supporting any candidates. Dr. Block clearly feels the duty to choose the least un-libertarian candidate running. I don't, but I'd rather see Rand Paul in there than Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and the rest of the awful statist neocons.
ReplyDeleteLook folks, there is no interpersonal comparison of subjective utility. Walter thinks his subjective evaluation justifies his suppprt of Rand. What he doesn't see are the damages that those empowered in administrative positions by a Rand presidency will impose on us. Can you say Sec. DEF. Michanel I Rothfeld. It will be bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Iran ala John McCain's rendition of the Beach Boys.
ReplyDeleteAnd there's also the professed analysis of Mike Rothfeld, a senior adviser to Rand Paul. He states (see the video for example ON EPJ from 2013) that candidates who run to the left move and govern on the right once elected, which is why, in part, Rothfeld advocated the election of Barack Obama. He said the greater of two evils is actually less evil or words to tgat effect. So.. reverse engineering the analysis and using statist versus liberty instead of left versus right, a "less statist" Rand Paul will govern more statist than he campaigns. And that would be bad (worse) than, say, a Cruz because Rand will be reaching out to the statist votes he didnt get the first time and needs for his next election. And it will also confuse LIV about what it is to be a libertarian and what is freedom versus statism. Thus I conclude electing Rand is the worst option for libertarians.
Can you just hear the backroom whispering between Rand and Mitch?
ReplyDelete"Don't worry, Mr McConnell. No matter how much those those libertarian types argue amongst themselves now, they'll vote for me. They have no where else to turn. Even if it is for the the lesser of 2 evils, they're dying to finally be able to vote for someone with a libertarian tag. Even when I tell them I'm not a libertarian, they don't want to hear it. You can count on me, Mr McConnell.
What's that? You say I can buy you another round. That's fine, Mr McConnell! Thank you, Mr McConnell."
Walter Block: "Please allow me to turn the question around, and put the ball back on your side of the net."
ReplyDeleteIt is easy to fall trap to this ploy: instead of answering the question, attempting a feint by asking a different question - thereby hoping to avoid having to answer the initial question.
Wait, I forgot: Walter did answer the question: genes!
Perry
DeleteThank you for the kind words regarding my blog.
I can't really disagree with you. But my point is...if Rand didn't have the genes, would Walter (or any of us) actually ever paid very much attention to him? Other than his first filibuster (not the second, and I don't recall at the moment the point of the first other than it was more principled), would libertarians have ever given him the time of day?
That is my point - we only paid attention to Rand because he was Ron's son. Otherwise, Steve Forbes sounds more libertarian.
In any case, please say hello to Della Street. Tell her bionic said "hi" (she might remember me as "the bug"). She will remember our...well, I'm not talking if she isn't.
I almost agree with you Perry.
DeleteI think Walter has made it clear why he supports Rand and what supporting him means, and yet people still pretend they misunderstand Block.
I think there is another reason not to actively support Rand and that is the fact that there are costs associated with supporting him that could be used more effectively.
If the debt bubble bursts with "libertarian" Rand Paul in office, the public will blame the result of decades of reckless spending and bad monetary policy on us. The train has to go over the cliff with Dems and Reps driving.
ReplyDelete