Dear Bob:
I wasn’t clear in my questioning of you on this. What I really wanted from you was a COMPARISON of Rand with the other 10 candidates on all the relevant issues. You gave a comparison alright, but not the one I’m interested in. You in effect compared him with your own views, or with mine, or with any pure libertarian, such as Murray Rothbard (I agree with every jot and tittle of your analysis of Rand’s performance – given that the comparison is with pure libertarianism).
So, let me be more clear. I would like you, if you would, if you have enough time and interest to do so, to compare Rand not on the basis of pure libertarianism, but with the other 10 candidates. Which of them was the MOST libertarian on these issues. If you did this, I’m sure you would agree with me and Michael that Rand was the most libertarian out of these eleven.
When Michael said that Rand “did quite well last evening for a Republican” this, I take it, is what he was getting at too. Which of the 11 Republicans was the most libertarian? In order to answer that question, it is insufficient to say as you did, quite correctly, that Rand deviated from libertarianism on various issues. The question is, did Rand deviate from libertarianism MORE OR LESS than the others? Clearly, Michael and I both think Rand was closer to libertarianism than any of the other 10. How stand you on THAT issue?
Best regards,
Walter
Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
wblock@loyno.edu
My response:
Dear Walter,
I continue to be confused by your request. I believe I have pointed out that Rand does not hold any positions that could be considered libertarian (outside of net neutrality). I did this especially in my post, An Examination of How Rand Paul Did in the Debate.
The only way I can evaluate Rand in objective fashion is from an objective foundation. I used the non-aggression principle and found that he failed on all issues (except net neutrality). My guess is that all the other candidates would fail on all the issues as well.
Since they all fail, across the board, what else is there to compare objectively? What is this "to compare Rand not on the basis of pure libertarianism, but with the other 10 candidates."?
It is a keystone of Austrian economics that we can not measure valuation rankings across people. Thus, once we go beyond the measure of failure of an objective fact, there is no way we can measure who is best for society. Rand is terrible on taxes, given his call for a value added tax. Since taxes are a big deal for me. this is a big issue for me. For someone else who has relatives in Ukraine, the fact that Donald Trump thinks he can negotiate with Russian President Putin may mean for that person that Trump is a plus over Rand who said we should give "no free pass to Russia or China," Especially since some think that a Trump Administration would restrain the Empire overseas.
Should my view and the person with Ukrainian relatives not be counted, when all candidates have failed NAP, if we think other candidates are better than Rand?
Rand is not non-interventionist but appears a bit less totalitarian when it comes to marijuana smoking, but for me, given that I don't smoke weed, it is way down the totem poll as far as an issue. For a weed smoker, this issue could rank much higher, perhaps the top issue. But for a weed smoker who wants total weed freedom, he may see no plus in Rand's NAP weed violations--or he may see Rand's "drug courts" as a worse option.
I repeat, once the objective non-aggression principle test is made, there is not much to say about these NAP violators, from an objective ranking perspective. It is all subjective/
To be sure, if one of them held a particularly horrific position (say kill all Jews) or a particular heroic position (say cut taxes by 90%) perhaps we could state, hesitatingly, that this person would be worst/best for society (and know we couldn't technically justify that this is 100% correct), but when we have them all bunched together on their views, and all failing the objective NAP test. I do not feel bold or comfortable enough to do some kind of cross candidate comparisons.
So I turn these questions back to you, Walter:
Does everyone in society just get one util to place on a candidate in your ranking system when we consider who the best NAP violator is? Do we dismiss the person who thinks Marco Rubio is handsome and will vote for him, based on that? Remember, you have eliminated libertarianism as the ruling factor, so what is this ranking based on?
Put simply, just what type of formula should I be using to rank these NAP violating candidates once it is clear they are all NAP violators?
Have you figured out a new way to measure valuations across individuals?
Best,
Bob
-RW
Wenzel owes no answer. This burden is 100% on Block. It is Block who suggests that Rand be supported. Why? As I recall, the main reason is foreign policy / military interventionism – the same reason Block suggested supporting Obama in the past.
ReplyDeleteThe question is simple: what has Rand said and done that convinces Block that Rand will be less militaristic than the others? One might believe this because he was raised on Ron’s knee; however, I have heard nothing from Rand that is convincing. Nothing.
I, too, believe that his father’s influence is not meaningless. But this is only a belief (hope, pipe-dream); if his name was Rand Johnson, it is certain we would look at Rand as just one in a (cess)pool of many similar war-mongers.
So, what has Rand said that is convincing of this less-warmongerish stand? As Wenzel has pointed out (I paraphrase), Rand is against every past war but no future wars. Rand has never stated (and held firm to) a philosophical grounding in non-interventionism. Based on his statements, we are to trust his judgement. The only reason to trust his judgement is because we hope something from Ron has rubbed off.
Which comes back to the only possible answer for Block: genes. If not for genes, we (libertarians) would spend as much time on Rand as we do on Rubio and Cruz, i.e. zero.
I'd also like to point out that with Block's focus on foreign policy as a major decision point, it can be reasonably debated that Trump might possibly be more dovish than Rand(though for different reasons).
DeleteIt's hard to know...but even in the last debate you had Trump saying basically stay out of Syria and let them kill each other off, then "move in" if necessary(and what would make it "necessary"?).
Compare that with Rand's ever changing position on Syria:
"Asked if he regretted supporting air strikes in Syria, Paul responded, “no, I don’t. I support airstrikes in that i think there are vital american interests that can be and should be defended.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/19/rand-paul-doubles-down-on-anti-isis-strikes.html
So who's more dovish on Syria?
Trump also was against the Iraq war(like Rand). Even further, you have Lew Rockwell's post with his mysterious adviser saying Trump has in effect already won and that the elites don't want war for now.
Trump has said many things that could also suggest he's a war monger, "I'm the most militaristic" or blabbering about how "bad" the Iran deal is....but Rand hasn't exactly championed the Iran deal either, saying that threats of sanctions and things should remain in place as "leverage" and has advocated drone striking burglars on American soil IIRC. I don't see either of them as "peace loving" people.
So if Block could justify voting for Obama primarily on the basis of his belief of how much war he'll wage compared to others, it's legitimate to discuss who truly would be less inclined to start new ones when discussing with Block, Trump or Rand.(in the GOP primary)
I can't help after reading all this and thinking about the impact of participating in a process where you are voting for the person that you think is the least evil, justifying it via the "means to an ends"(I seem to remember someone writing something about that) line of thinking, is just a giant waste of time.
Voting itself is a NAP violation IMO,Block disagrees- but even if you're trying to limit the damage being done to you, you could always be wrong in guessing who will violate the NAP the least and doesn't that then make you responsible?
The time for the whole exercise could be better spent doing other things and not participating in my subjective opinion. Especially given Rand is polling at 1%. But if Block wants to use his time to do it, so be it....you are right, it's his burden solely to prove, no one else's. (if he wants to argue the point legitimately)
Not voting might also result in other positive unseen benefits outside of maintaining the NAP by principle.
Stated positions are no indication of actual positions. For example, W. Bush stated repeatedly in his debates and speeches that the U.S. should get out of the "nation building" business. He then embarked on a yuge (new Trumpian word) "nation building" project in Iraq (after his nation destroying project in the same country).
DeleteUnless a candidate had a record of clarity and consistency in their advocacy of libertarian principles and policies (see: Ron Paul), there is absolutely no reason to support them.
With squishy, unprincipled politicos, what you see is never what you get. Caveat emptor.
Trump sounds like a Buchananite isolationist, although not an articulate one. That's a plus over Rand. Still, I don't believe a word that comes out of Trump's mouth, while Rand comes across as honestly restrained on the war question, even though he's contradictory and equivocal at times. If that's a result of his genes, no matter - whatever it is, he gets a slight edge over Trump on war for me, and war's the most important issue.
DeleteI listen to Block often for answers; he seems to be looking to Robert Wenzel.
ReplyDeleteI feel this is quickly becoming a run-from-admonishment issue.
Why doesn't Block take the first steps in the lengthy project he proposes? Can he compare any Rand's stances to the other 10?
That sounds dreadful and encompassing. And overly technical.
What if instead of asking which candidate is the most libertarian, we ask -- what is the opportunity cost of spending time in political processes, instead of spending time educating people in liberty. Which is more effective?
ReplyDeleteWhat if Rand gets elected and then the shadow government creates false flag events and destabilizes the economy and then the masses believe that libertarian policies led to economic problems and a non-interventionist president led to america being attacked? And then everyone hates libertarianism as a result?
I like your comment.
Delete(and I wish there was a way to "thumbs up" comments on these sites so I didn't have to post this)
My concern would not be a false flag event. Instead, I would just be concerned about any libertarian candidate being in office when the next bust phase happens. It would set back the cause of liberty dramatically.
DeleteThanks Nick. Do you think that Robert is correct in saying that we should support Hillary in order to weaken people's trust in government?
Delete"Do you think that Robert is correct in saying that we should support Hillary in order to weaken people's trust in government?"
DeleteI'm not sure he's said exactly that(but I can't recall exactly, we did have a brief exchange over it once here in a comment section). I can't see Robert supporting Hillary, but I can see him hoping she might get in office over others if he thought it might bring about more hate for government- at least that's what I gleaned from our conversation on the topic.(support is different from hoping for the best outcome in a overall crappy situation)
Personally, I just don't want to participate in the system. Subjectively, I don't see any point in trying to work within a corrupt system that is based on a false premise- it took me a long time to get to that point, but I'm there now- lol
I'm also not comfortable even guessing which President elected would violate the NAP the least anymore, and I don't want to the responsibility that comes with possibly guessing wrong, aside from me being sure I can spend my time in more productive ways that are more beneficial to myself(and probably humanity).
Hopefully this has answered your question.
Yes, thanks, I agree with you.
Delete