CNBC has the backstory as it reports on Walter Block's "
Last month, Walter Block, a libertarian professor of economics and long-time acolyte of Ron Paul, pinched his nose and co-launched a group, Libertarians for Trump.
That would be Donald Trump — the red-tailed hawk of border security, defender of entitlements and opponent of free-trade. Not exactly a disciple of Ayn Rand, the novelist famous for "Atlas Shrugged" who has inspired many libertarians. Block's group, he freely admits, is a strenuous exercise of realpolitik — the ultimate lesser-of-evils decision. While he finds much of Trump's domestic agenda odious, Block very much likes Trump's noninterventionist foreign policy positions.
Still, Block insists his group, which he says had garnered several thousand signatories, is narrowly focused. It advocates only for Trump as the Republican nominee, and it intends to promptly disband after the primary. Then, Block said, even his vote is up for grabs. "If it was Bernie [Sanders] versus Donald, I would vote for the Libertarian [Party candidate] for sure," he told CNBC.com. "If it was Donald versus Hillary [Clinton], I would have a much harder time. I would have trouble deciding."...
[Dr. Ron]Paul's friends have learned better than trying to persuade him to pick the lesser of evils. Block recounts his tireless but fruitless efforts trying to persuade Paul to jump aboard the Trump Train.
"I keep saying, suppose I have a gun to your head, who would you pick? And I still don't get an answer out of him," Block said. "He hates them all, but that's not good enough."-RW
"Dr. Paul,there is a gun sick to your head. Which candidate would you vote for?"
ReplyDeleteHe responds, "Pull the trigger."
I know the feeling
John Stossel asked: "Should a Jewish baker be FORCED to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding?"
ReplyDelete"If we discriminate on the basis of religion," said Gary Johnson, "you're going to find a whole class of people discriminated against. ... So it's harm to others."
John McAfee: "If you're the only baker in town, it may be a problem," [?????] he said, but normally, "no one is forcing you to buy anything."
Presidential candidate Austin Petersen, founder of LibertarianRepublic.com, says individuals should be free to discriminate—for example, refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple if gay marriage violates their beliefs. Petersen was quick to add that he would never buy anything from a shop that refused to serve gays. "I would stand outside these people's store and I would encourage a boycott." [BTW, that sounds like an excellent program to attract millions of religious conservatives to the “private property neighborhood” vision].
Petersen, an opponent of the NAP, said on the Jason Stapleton show that he wanted to send U.S. special ops to Syria.
All three of these guys are HORRIBLE. They shouldn’t be allowed in the nomination process of the LP or allowed at any debates. Shun them.
The LP is a magnet for frauds. Both candidates and their supporters.
Deleteand People wonder why libertarians never get anywhere. Its cos we are always at one anothers throats if we don't quite pass the purity test in some way. the progressives can figure this out.
DeleteThe “purity” test? If you do not believe in the NAP, you are not a libertarian. If you want to sic a SWAT team on a baker (or anyone) who refuses to engage in a contractual relationship, you are not a libertarian. If you want to send special ops to Syria, you are not a libertarian. Just go away.
DeleteSince I became a libertarian in 1973, the problem with the movement has always been a failure to explain how private property neighborhoods would actually function and how they could appeal to all lifestyle choices. Religious types can live in drug free neighborhoods. “Progressive” types can live in gun free neighborhoods. If you take heroin, you might not be able to find anyone to sell you health, life or auto insurance.
Libertarians are apparently too scared of saying the obvious for fear of “progressive” retaliation. I’m not afraid of “progressives”.
Why is there no outreach to social conservatives? The problem has always been the lack of a “purity” test where we present a vision of legalized drugs and guns where nothing else in society has changed and where meth cookers live next door to you and their kids go to school with your kids.
^^ This.
ReplyDeleteProf. Block loves controversy above all else. He can be mildly entertaining and sometimes enlightening in spite of himself. "Libertarians for Trump" is a weak effort to be controversial but does show how ludicrous it is for libertarians to expect solutions from politics.
ReplyDelete"He hates them all, but that's not good enough."
ReplyDeleteAccording to who?
It's more than good enough for me. Down with politics. Down with the presidency. Down with Trump.
Down with the Libertarian political party. You think I want to be ruled by you just because you are a so-called Libertarian? Huh Peterson?
Down with mushy Libertarianism.
It's high time for manly Libertarianism, those who will NOT be ruled.
Boohoo if mainstream doesn't like it. They never will.
No Kings, No Priests.
I've always thought that the LP could and should play a role with outreach while conceding the unlikelihood of winning. Since Federal candidates cannot be denied advertising time on TV and radio, it's been a mystery to me why the LP cannot raise money (or at least try to) specifically for media ads that attack the lies of media (and specific personalities on that station) during the last months of a presidential campaign. Ron Paul's last 2012 campaign might have been done the way that he now does his daily "Liberty Reports", but it was run by "the professionals".
DeleteHow about a one minute ad about Obama and Hillary's wars, Obama installing real Nazis in Ukraine, how much money that costs, how many were slaughtered and how your national and local stations are in a league together to never report it? Why the suppression of truth Mr.Ms.__________________? [personality name] Too busy worrying about bathrooms?