Monday, August 15, 2016

Walter Block Responds on the Trump vs. Clinton Exchange

As a follow up to my last email in this exchange (Wenzel vs. Block on Hillary and Russia), Dr. Walter Block responds. 

Dear Bob:

You make some very, very good points. It is fun and exhilarating to be in this friendly debate with you. You are a very worthy opponent. In chess, sometimes, a grandmaster is asked, which side would you rather be on, white or black in the midst of a specific game; or, in his own game, would you be willing to change sides? I tell you, if we switched sides in this debate, you'd be slaughtering me. (As it is, in my view, you are very much holding your own, given a very weak position, like a good chess grandmaster). By this I mean to compliment you. If I had to take your position (both are roughly equally evil, there's little or nothing that separates them) and you had to take my side of this debate (Donald is clearly better than Hillary from a libertarian point of view), you'd win the debate hands down; 90-10, say. As it is, I give myself only a 55-45 win at least so far. In some debates, the participants have to be prepared to take either side. Or both sides. You'd kick my butt in that sort of arrangement. Now to the specifics.

I see way more than a dime's difference between Donald and Hillary.

Donald is way better than Hillary on political correctness. It is not even close there. No specifics need be mentioned here.

Donald is way better than Hillary on appointing Supreme Court judges. It is not even close there. Donald has said some nice things about Scalia, Hillary never has.

Donald is way better than Hillary on foreign policy. It is not even close there. Hillary called Putin a "Hitler." Donald has a bromance with him. (You make a good point about not nuking people who pay you big time, I admit). Hillary is a strong fan of Nato; Donald is not. Hillary was a strong supporter of what the US did in Libya and Iraq; not Donald. Hillary cackled about the death of Ghadafi: "We came, we saw, he died." That alone separates the two, no?

HILLARY IS ALREADY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, AT LEAST INDIRECTLY. DONALD? NOT A SINGLE HUMAN LIFE, AT LEAST NOT SO FAR. Why not give the Donald a chance to kill some innocent people? (Lest the New York Times misquote me on this, I'm saying the latter tongue in cheek).

On economics, I'll agree, there's not much difference between them. Or, at least, I'm not sure of who to pick. Both are awful. Ditto on personal liberties. Hillary is horrid on guns (as she goes around with armed bodyguards) and Donald is horrid on free speech, threatening to tighten libel laws. I'm not sure of how to compare two candidates, one who is bad on the first amendment, the other on the second.

Gary Johnson, of course, while not being a libertarian, except in a very big open tent kind of way, is way better than either Donald or Hillary. I support him. Why not you? How do you justify a pox on all your houses stance? Please, if you feel it worthwhile, comment on this article of mine:

Block, Walter E. 2016. “Hillary, Bernie, Donald, Gary: A Libertarian Perspective.” June 4;

Do you agree, for example, with my assessment that Bernie is way better on foreign policy than Hillary?

Best regards,


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

1 comment:

  1. From Dr. Paul's pen: