Monday, August 15, 2016

Wenzel vs. Block on Hillary and Russia

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

From: Robert Wenzel []
Sent: Sun 8/14/2016 11:52 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Hillary and Russia

Hi Walter,

Your thoughts with regard to Hillary and Russia:

Robert Wenzel
Editor & Publisher
San Francisco, CA


Dear Bob:

Interesting. Thanks.

But, you have not given me a single solitary bit of evidence that anyone, besides yourself, sees a dead heat, an exact tie, between Hillary and Donald in terms of war mongering. Remember, your point was that of the two overseers, the ONLY difference between them was that one was right-handed and the other left-handed.

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

Dear Walter,

I have never claimed there was a "tie" between Trump and Clinton. My position is that either would make a horrific president. and that Hillary would have more difficulty launching her insane crusades.

My left-hand/right-hand slave overseers point was simply to point out that your framing of the goodie vs baddie slave overseers point did not consider all possibilities--there are many other problems with your framing but no need to get into them here, when one example shows your framing is incomplete.

And I really don't get this:

 "you have not given me a single solitary bit of evidence that anyone, besides yourself, sees a dead heat"

First, am I now supposed to be looking for truth or only present truth when there are others supporting my view?

But as far as evidence, I have provided you with a link to a story where damn neocons call Hillary  weak on Russia. Further, you want outside support for my view?

I have written:
Michael Brenner, Professor Emeritus of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh, took a careful look at Hillary's foreign policy development in an article, Is Hillary Clinton a Warmonger? and reached the fascinating speculative conclusion that Bill Clinton may be the influence that keeps Hillary from taking the war route.
Finally, I hope you would agree with me that Bill and Hillary are crony criminals. In the link I sent to you, it points out that Bill Clinton received $500,000 from Russia to speak there, Money was also donated to the Clinton Foundation resulting in the State Department, during Hillary's watch, clearing Russians for  control of  one-fifth of the uranium that's produced in the United States.

I'm sure on day one of Crony Criminalism 101 that they teach: don't nuke the country that puts money in your bank account.

I am not sure where you went to tea leaf reading school, but I find it extremely difficult to determine which of these two characters is worse. They will both be terrible.

Why shouldn't we spend our time attacking with an unrelenting barrage the evil non-libertarian positions held by these two on so  many topics, rather than wasting out time in some kind of theoretical magical dance trying to prove that one would be worse than the other, when they are clearly both insane, with no clearly demonstrable evidence that one would be significantly worse than the other in terms of overall rule? 





  1. Has not this "debate" gone on long enough? Neither side is about to concede so all of the print spilled is reasonably pointless. My only comment would be this: We have an empirical track record in foreign policy for HRC versus sometimes careful and sometimes not so careful statements on foreign policy by Trump. In short, we have actions in the form of government policy from HRC and, let's be honest, TALK from Trump. I say actual evil actions trump careless rhetoric almost every time. Conclusion: (slight) advantage Trump.

    1. I disagree. The long exchange with neither side willing to agree on any aspect of the central contention is a bit tedious. Each side puts up his best and the reader decides.

      In a further exchange Block says "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?"

      I find it useful to continue to read this loosely threaded discussion.