Thursday, August 4, 2016

Wenzel vs Block Again on Trump

The following email exchange recently took place between Dr. Walter Block and me.

From Walter Block
Subject: Trump, Peace

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


From Robert Wenzel

Hi Walter,

How do you get from this column that Trump is for peace?

Most of the column is about Eisenhower refusing to intervene in regional foreign affairs. And George Kennan's view on NATO. Neither Eisenhower of Kennan hold positions anywhere near Trump's

The only thing Buchanan says about Trump is this:

"Trump then told The New York Times that a Russian incursion into Estonia need not trigger a U.S. military response."

But here is NYT:

"Trump's mere musing that he would review allies' financial contributions — in this case those owed by Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — before acting under NATO's Article 5 mutual defense clause if they were attacked by Russia could rock the foundations of the security architecture that has underpinned European stability since the end of World War II."

Trump is not advocating peace. He wants to be paid for fighting. And remember, Trump has told us that being the great negotiator he is that he always starts with a tough opening position.

What am I missing?

Robert Wenzel
Editor & Publisher
San Francisco, CA


Dear Bob:

What you're missing is a comparison with Hillary. Who is MORE likely to get us into war with Russia? Donald, who has a bromance with Putin, or Hillary?

Hillary, and the mainstream media is calling Donald a traitor for not wanting a war with Russia. This column makes the point that on that ground, Eisenhower, Bush I, should also be tarred with that brush, and they weren't, aren't.

Best regards,



Hi Walter,

The subject line of your email reads: "Trump, peace"

Are you not arguing this anymore? 

Are we now arguing who is most likely to get us into a nuclear war? 

Have you dismissed the charges made by hardcore neocon Trump critics that Hillary has been soft on Russia:

How do you address the point made by Trump that ISIS must be wiped out in the Middle East and that US ground forces will be required?

This might explain the Scarborough report about Trump asking why the US can't use nukes. Trump was talking about the Middle East, not Russia:

And remember, Trump has said that Obama/Hillary cut a bad deal with Iran. Do you want to open up that can of worms--which could also result in bombings, possibly nuclear?

I want to emphasize that I am not a Hillary supporter. I think Trump and Hillary are both psychopaths, but I don't see where libertarians should be supporting either,

The potential for madness occurring under either one of these characters is great.

Why can't we as libertarians spend our time saying. "Both Trump and Hillary are terrible and the policies they advocate are going to just cause more problems for us."

If they were both bad but one clearly less bad, I could understand supporting one over the other, but I do not see that as the case here.

Very bad is coming regardless of which psychopath gets elected. You would think that libertarians would stand up against this, especially when it is far from clear that Trump will be better in almost any way. Indeed, on war, I believe he could be worse than Hillary, on the domestic front he certainly shows every indication that he would be an authoritarian with zero respect for individual liberty.

These two are power freaks that won't do anything good and that's what we as libertarians should be spending our time pointing out.

What exactly do you see "Trumps for Libertarians" doing other than confusing people about the nature of libertarianism?

Best regards,



Dear Bob:

Peace is the opposite of war, no? I claim Donald is less likely to get us into WWIII with Russia, thus more likely to keep us in a state of peace.  I admit that Donald is no Ron Paul. He is not as good as Gary Johnson on foreign policy. And, he is not fully an isolationist, or a non interventionist, points you make very well. But, I insist he is LESS likely to get the US into a war with Russia. Donald has a bromance with Putin; they like and admire each other. The same cannot be said for Hillary by any stretch of the imagination. Instead, Hillary's camp is bruiting it about that Donald is a Russian agent. She would probably say something similar about Ron Paul. For you it is a dead heat between them as to which one is the greater warmonger? I really thought that several of the articles I sent you would disabuse you of that stance. I see I've failed again. Ah, well, it is always fun getting it on with you.

Best regards,


1 comment: