Michael Edelstein: Walter, You, me, and Lew thought Trump was the least bad of the front runners. Do you still believe it's so? M
Walter Block: I assume that Rand is now better than Donald on foreign policy.
Michael Edelstein I was asking about the front runners: Clinton, Carson, Rubio, Cruz.
Robert Wenzel I believe they are all terrible, but Clinton will be least effective, given strong opposition from those who oppose her, including Republicans in Congress who will attempt to delay any programs she wants implemented.
So, to the tiny degree it matters, I support her on the grounds she will be least effective.
I think Trump is most unpredictable and dangerous and Cruz is terrible on war and wants a VAT.
There is nothing good here.
Michael Edelstein Bob makes sense to me. Walter, and [MJ] do you agree?
[MJ] I agree that Hillary is preferable because she will almost certainly face a Republican house. Divided government is our best friend.
Walter Block:I support the most libertarian candidate, and eschew such Machiavelian considerations.
Robert Wenzel So of the candidates that appear to have a chance to win, who is most libertarian?
Walter Block: Rand
Michael Edelstein: Walter, Using your criteria, who do you support among the front runners?
Walter Block: Rand Paul
Michael Edelstein:“You cannot be serious.” —John McEnroe
Rand is weighing in at 3%. How does this qualify for the front runner category?
Walter Block oh. I'm indifferent. I don't see much of a difference. well, maybe, Trump, as I hold my nose. Nah, I'm scared of him. he's a loose cannon.
Robert Wenzel: Dear Walter,
It seems you are implying sinister intentions when you state, "[I] eschew such Machiavelian considerations."
But Machiavelian methods are just that. methods, which can be used for good or evil. I grant you that Machiavelian methods are most often used by power players seeking power, but that doesn't mean there are circumstances where such methods can not be used in moving toward liberty (or limiting the advance of coercion)----just as machine guns are generally used for evil by governments, but may in some circumstances be used by libertarians for good.
I simply see no significant difference between any of the candidates. This includes Rand, who only speaks out against past wars and is in favor of the horrific VAT. Thus, my view is that the only option libertarians have, to the degree it will make any difference in the first place, is to support the candidate that will be most hated and most ineffectual in office. That is clearly Hillary---and on top of it, she isn't calling for a VAT!
Walter Block: Dear Bob:
I agree with your analysis of the merits, from a libertarian point of view, of Hillary. Where we disagree is on Rand. You think he is way worse from a libertarian point of view than I do. I don't know how to settle this disagreement. I guess it is a matter of prudential judgment, where solid libertarians, such as you and I, can diverge.