>

Thursday, November 10, 2016

The Problem With the Donald Trump Victory for LIbertarians

By Robert Wenzel

Heading into the election, I felt that for strategic reasons Hillary Clinton was the best alternative for libertarians. Not because she is good on many issues, she is not, but because she would come with a ready-made opposition that would listen to libertarian arguments against her.

It would have been a great opportunity to reach out to Trump supporters and spread the libertarian message. That opportunity is now gone with the Trump victory. Trump supporters are rabid, they will likely follow him down almost any hell hole.

These people are not going to listen to our arguments for smaller government. Their man is in power.

There will be opposition to Trump but it will be coming from the left, not the Trump right.

The left is all about expanding the state. Thus, it will be very difficult to reach out to these people and present state shrinking anti-Trump ideas. They are a perfect target for the socialists.

Indeed, the protest that occurred in New York City last night, where thousands turned out, was launched by a socialist group, the Socialist Alternative. The socialists are going to experience a boom in followers under Trump.

Thus, neither the left nor the right is going to be open to libertarian ideas at the present time.

I also suspect we may lose some libertarians to Trump. Judging from the comments here and at EPJ, there are many supporters of Trump's immigration views. There are many problems with the current immigration policies in the United States but it is a complex issue. Mass government supported immigration should never happen. Workers who cross the border, work hard and live on private property are a different issue. Trump does not make this distinction, but there are libertarians who will support Trump's confused authoritarian view on immigration.

Crony capitalism is bad but trade wars, tarriffs and other protectionist policies are worse. This, though, is the direction Trump appears to want to move in on trade. Yet, in the comments, I see support for Trump's barbaric trade thinking. No doubt there will be more such support for Trump in the comments to this post, though, Trump is nowhere near a small government advocate. He may move in a small government direction on an issue here or there but he will be mostly about expanding the state. As I say, few from the right are going to be concerned about this, their man is in power.

Bottom line: Advancing the libertarian cause just got much more difficult with the Trump victory.

Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of  EconomicPolicyJournal.com and Target Liberty. He also writes EPJ Daily Alert and is author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics and on LinkedIn.

47 comments:

  1. The way I understand trump's view on tariffs is, he wants to enter a trade deal with tariffs on the table. Not because he intends to make them the goal, but to use them as a bargaining chip in negotiations. Maybe I am way off here but I just don't see tariffs as the goal. I do hope there are none as trade wars end up in shooting wars eventually.

    Still, for all your talk about rallying the troops to oppose hillary the thought of someone trying to start a nuclear war with russia was the deciding factor in my vote. Trump said he would work with russia...that alone earned him my vote. No fly zone over syria = nuclear war.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Not because he intends to make them the goal, but to use them as a bargaining chip in negotiations. Maybe I am way off here but I just don't see tariffs as the goal."

      Dude, that's the same thing. If tariffs are on the table, companies make different decisions based on if they weren't on the table. I don't see any difference there.

      Delete
    2. If a trade deal is signed, doesn't that effectively remove tariffs off the table? Adding a tariff 2 years later after signing a deal breaks the deal.

      Delete
  2. Trump is no Ron Paul, and the voters who spent the last 8 years pretending they believed in small govt will go back to the rabid psychos they were under Bush. The left will go back to pretending they are friends with libertarians, and with the exception of Glenn Greenwald, will all be liars. There is virtually nothing good coming out of this, same as if Hillary were to win. And I'm no fan of the alt-right either. They are just the opposite side of the degeneracy coin from Social Justice Warriors. I hate them all. Those psychos are out in full force with confidence same as the SJWs are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As with any group of people there are outliers! True, this was hold your nose in the voting booth for me! However there is no way I would have voted for that Lying Crook!

      Peace!

      We aren't all rabid nut jobs, you however should paint with a smaller smaller brush and quit listing to the MSM. You are actually helping to inspire the outliers!

      Delete
    2. I wasn't referring to all Trump voters, just the rabid ones gloating on social media. I fully understand people voted for the two candidates for many reasons.

      Delete
  3. Why is libertarian thought inconsistent with borders? In a private property society, aren't there necessarily borders everywhere? The places I've lived I've been exposed to many South American illegal immigrants, they generally don't have a respect for private property, mostly because of the third world societies they were raised in. I thought the target was liberty, not eradicating third world poverty through any migratory means necessary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact is the crime rate of immigrants is less than that of US born.
      http://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/source_charts/rumbaut-table1-jun06.cfm

      Delete
    2. Irrelevant. The crimes brought in by the immigrants are an add-on to our own. Why unnecessarily add more crimes to our home grown?

      Delete
    3. AJO, you are exactly correct. Private property would have to mean borders.

      Jack is making a straw-man argument about crime.

      The problem the US has with immigrants is really two-fold: Public property and entitlements. Remove both those and the immigration problem becomes mute.

      Delete
    4. Re: JaimeInTexas,

      ─ The crimes brought in by the immigrants are an add-on to our own. ─

      Trumpistas (right-wing socialists) sure know how to move the goalposts like their brethren on the socialist left.

      That wasn't the argument. The argument posited has been that immigrants commit crimes at a larger rate than citizens. That has been shown not to be true, because the sources are statistically unreliable. Anti-immigration organizations like the Center for Immigration Studies (and I am not misrepresenting their anti-immigration stance, if you ask) are extremely LIBERAL when it comes to those statistics which would regard any Cheech Marin as an "immigrant" whereas less biased organizations only consider the statistics where a person's legal status was positively confirmed.

      ─ Why unnecessarily add more crimes to our home grown? ─

      And there you go again. JUST LIKE the Socialists on the Left, the Right-wing Socialists also profess their predilection for that intellectual fraud called the Precautionary Principle, whenever expediency dictates.

      Delete
    5. Re: Unknown,

      ─ AJO, you are exactly correct. Private property would have to mean borders.─

      Please stop conflating property rights and political borders. You're merely making a MOCKERY of the concept of property rights because your contention implies the State owns everything (national borders are a political construct of the State's own devise.)

      ─ Jack is making a straw-man argument about crime. ─

      No, he is not. The argument from AJO is clear: "The places I've lived I've been exposed to many South American illegal immigrants, they generally don't have a respect for private property". That implies he believes immigrants are criminals (because a criminal does not respect a person's property rights.) Jack is showing that AJO's perception is based on his prejudice and not demonstrable facts.

      ─ The problem the US has with immigrants is really two-fold: Public property and entitlements. ─

      Why is public property a problem? Public property includes roads, causeways, etc. Why is their use, by anybody, a 'problem'? What's your rationale? Even if those were held in private hands, you would STILL have immigrants using them, except they would pay a toll. And there wouldn't be a government to impose quotas on access, or do you think private businesses would impose quotas on their own customers? Please say it ain't so, Joe.

      And if entitlements are such a problem, then why are you singling out immigrants for? The greatest users of welfare are the ELDERLY. Why aren't you talking about the "elderly problem"? Children are also welfare recipients and they don't even work. Why aren't you talking about the "children problem"? You wouldn't want people to think you're a hypocrite, or do you?

      ─ Remove both those and the immigration problem becomes mute. ─

      You mean the problem becomes moot. You will have to explain WHY, because private roads, bridges and causeways would mean private businesses would want to collect MORE tolls and not LESS which ipso facto means MORE immigrants, not less. So you will have to explain your rationale.

      Bottom line there's no such thing as an "immigrant problem". Immigrants are never the problem. They are ready and willing laborers, unlike babies for whom society has to wait at least 16 years before they can contribute to the economy, and they're mostly much younger than the retirees who mooch off working people.

      Delete
  4. I agree that to many Trump supporters controlling gov't power, not diminishing it, is all that really matters. He's not a libertarian or even a "limited gov't" type at all. You correctly mention world trade and immigration as two of his most flagrant violations of doctrinaire views. Yet, even though I wasn't a supporter, I have to admit that when I woke up Tuesday I felt a sense of relief that he had defeated Hillary. There are two reasons.

    First, Killary was out of her lid crazy trying to provoke WWIII with Russia, which could potentially go nuclear. Trump just seems more rational and his idea of peaceful trade with countries that want the same is a traditional American foreign policy resonates with me. I know you think he's surrounded by warmongers and troops will be on the way to some mideast hellhole ASAP but... the rejection of Killary's insane provocation of a relatively serious power, Russia, was, to put it in the vernacular, yuuuuge.

    Second, with respect to the 2nd Amendment in particular and my day to day life and making a living generally, I don't get the sense that Trump or his advisers stay awake at night thinking of ways to nudge or coerce me into submitting to disarmament or other elements of totalitarian collectivism in the same way I imagine Obama might plot with henchmen like Cass Sunstein and Rahm Emanuel, or Killary would plot with John Podesta. Most importantly, I don't believe Trump would seek to continue to politicize every tragedy or stage false flag/fake tragedies to push a disarmament agenda such as we have seen over the last 7 years.

    Trump may have authoritarian tendencies but they appear to me to lean towards the macro, not the micro, which is an important distinction to me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Re: AJO,

    --- Why is libertarian thought inconsistent with borders? ---

    Because libertarianism deals with objective truth and those borders are figments of the State's imagination, backed up by unionized, tax-fed thugs.

    That's why.

    --- In a private property society, ---

    Please STOP conflating political borders and Property. North Korea has "borders". That confusion of concepts only serve to make a mockery of Property Rights.


    --- The places I've lived I've been exposed to many South American illegal immigrants ---

    Why didn't you start with "Look, I'm a bigot, therefore..." and save everyone here precious and irreplaceable time?

    By the way, this idea that "we must protect our precious bodily culture, Mandrake" is self-contradicting. If you believe the culture (the ideas, the principles) need protection, then that would mean you have NO confidence of your culture's superiority, so what would be the point? And if you believe in the superiority of your ideas, then why would you want to insulate them from others? Be HONEST and accept that what you want is to isolate YOURSELF.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I stopped reading after you called me a bigot, but I'm sitting in traffic, does my car not have borders? The definition of the word border is not solely political. So I'm a bigot if I refer to the continent of origin of my friends and acquaintances? Oh, and don't call my friends criminals again. I never used the word criminal, they aren't sitting in jail. You can have little respect for private property and not be a criminal in this country.

      Delete
    2. Re: AJO,

      ─ I stopped reading after you called me a bigot, ─

      I asked you to tell the truth. I didn't call you anything. Your attempt at defending your position included defaming a whole population of people you don't know, so a disclaimer from you would have been nice.

      ─ does my car not have borders? ─

      Do you want me to clap at your equivocation? Laugh at you? What exactly are you trying to do?

      A nation's borders are entirely political. "Nation" is a concept, a word meant to facilitate the conveying of ideas efficiently, but not a thing. A car is a thing. A person's property is a thing. A nation is NOT.

      ─ Oh, and don't call my friends criminals again. ─

      You're the company you keep.

      Delete
  6. --- Yet, in the comments, I see support for Trump's barbaric trade thinking. ---

    That way of thinking is not new, Robert. I've read comments like that for years. I got banned from the Townhall dot com comments section after getting into heated discussions with many angry "conservatives" who were speaking the exact same language. They were mostly anti-immigrant but were also vehemently anti-trade, making the exact same comments about China that El Trumpo repeated in his speeches. These are socialists of the right, Robert, and juat as ideologically deadlocked as those from the left. You know there's no arguing with socialists. They're cultists.

    ReplyDelete
  7. We don't need no stinking libertarianism now that we have Trumpism!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. --- Mass government supported immigration should never happen. ---

    Exactly, that is "importation" of refugees. That's NOT immigration, which is the voluntary and peaceful action by a human individual of will.

    --- Workers who cross the border, work hard and live on private property are a different issue. Trump does not make this distinction, but there are libertarians who will support Trump's confused authoritarian view on immigration. ---


    Because they were never serious about the implications of our principles, Robert. Freedom is freedom. That implies free to ACT and free to MOVE. It does not imply invading a PERSON'S property. There's no need to add such proviso. But these faux 'libertarians' argue that the political border can or should be regarded the same as a property boundary, which implies ipso facto that the State which puts that line in a map OWNS everythibg within that border. By their words ye shall know them. Those aren't libertarians. They're chauvinists.

    ReplyDelete
  9. RW: "The left is all about expanding the state."
    By and large, that's 99% correct. I find it interesting for the mega lefty elites (such as from Silicon Valley) calling for secession (Calexit), breaking up the much larger leviathan that is the united States. Let's absolutely, 100% back this idea. And for that matter, they would have to also concede areas of that land mass breaking away from the new nation-state that is California. The northern rural areas would certainly want to break away.

    ReplyDelete
  10. All I know is that the alt-right, the conservative (both the neo and the paleo) the liberal and all their respective sub groups have guns pointed at me along with other real lovers of liberty. We'll see the anti-war left all of a sudden wake up, the Oath Keepers go to sleep, further eroding of whatever is left of the 4th Amendment, more police militarization and so-called "anti-war" "libertarians" make excuses for Trump's eventual Middle East warmongering to name a few.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I happen to disagree with Wenzel's analysis.

    I didn't predict a Hillary or a Trump outcome would be better for libertarians, and I had no committed position prior to the election.

    After the outcome, I have had some experiences that lead me to believe that Trump getting elected was the best of the 2 possible outcomes.

    I think it's important to note that Wenzel, like Tom Woods, has admitted that he seems to make better inroads with conservatives than he does with liberals. I came from the left. I was an Obama supporter who turned to Ron Paul during the first term. I have friends on the left, and I find the opposite to be true.

    These are my observations.

    1. Californians are talking about secession.

    This is a wonderful development. If Hillary Clinton had won conservatives would be talking about secession instead of the liberals. The mainstream media would make note of it, the secession advocates would be tarred and feathered as racists, and th Tenth Amendment Center and arguments for limited government, state's rights, and decentralization in general would have been set-back yet again in the general public.

    Now, we have all the "right-thinking people" talking about secession. The idea is being covered by the MSM, and in a good light! There is NO MENTION OF "EOCONFEDERATES"ANYWHERE in the articles on Calexit.... THIS IS AN AMAZING DEVELOPMENT, and quite an opportunity for those advocating decentralization. Our arguments are now, and for at least 4 more years, in the mainstream and can be acceptably debated in polite company.

    2. Many liberals were disaffected by Hillary Clinton, but were not hardcore socialist Bernie supporters. They voted for Gary Johnson, or didn't turn out at all. These are the ones that don't like Hillary or Trump and are reasonable. Not the one's out in the street, who, as always, are the vocal minority. These people are ripe to hear arguments about how the Sate has failed, democracy doesn't represent their interests, and that neither Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, nor Barack Obama should be micromanaging their lives and businesses. What an opportunity to sell libertarianism and limited government to the left-leaning and disaffected moderates that this election has alienated, opened up, and dropped on our door step.

    3. Many if not most Trump supporters, again, not the vocal minority, are reasonable people who wanted an outsider. They want real change they didn't get in 2008. They want to end the corruption. They want to "drain the swamp." We know they won't get that. So this presents a great opportunity to, yes, reach out to them over the next 4 years. As Trump disappoints, Hell, Right out of the Gate as Trump nominates professional politicians and consummate insiders to his cabinet, these people will notice. They truly wanted an outsider. We can help them hold Trump accountable on his good promises, like ending the corruption and lifetime politicians, and as Trump disappoints them, bring them over to principled stances.

    They'll be looking for answers, just as I was after Obama let me down during his first term.

    Now, get out there and promote secession to all your left liberal friends crying in their beers (and have fun doing it)!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Now get out there and promote secession to all your left liberal friends crying in their beers (and have fun doing it)!"

      Amen brother! I concur.

      Delete
    2. "Now get out there and promote secession to all your left liberal friends crying in their beers (and have fun doing it)!"

      Amen brother! I concur.

      Delete
  12. Immigration.... there's an order of operations that must be observed in a move to liberty in the world from where we are now. Open boarders and free migration of people doing so of their own free will is somewhere near the capstone. It has to be or any effort towards liberty will simply be smothered with people who don't believe in it. People seeking to live off a welfare state for instance. Much has to be fixed before this then the problem resolves itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...order of operations..."?? What does this mean? And you suggest that people moving around "of their own free will" is a problem? The problem is too much government and not enough respect for private property, yet you seem to want more of this. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

      Delete
    2. Re: jimmyjoemeeker,

      ─ Open boarders and free migration of people [...][will make any] effort towards liberty [...] be smothered with people who don't believe in it. ─

      That is just pure nonsense. The assertion is self-contradictory. Isn't the free movement of people one manifestation of liberty? So how can that represent the "smothering of efforts towards liberty"?

      ─ People seeking to live off a welfare state for instance. ─|

      Oh, indeed? Like CHILDREN do as well? The ELDERLY? I mean, why are you singling out immigrants when the biggest consumers of welfare are the elderly? Why not put a capstone on their lives? Why not advocate for mercy killing at 65? Kids are also welfare consumers and they are not fit to work to boot. Why don't you advocate for sterilization? You wouldn't want people to think you're a hypocrite, or do you?

      Delete
  13. It's never hard to advance our views (minarchism, not anarchism), because our views are right. I see this as a great opportunity to teach the Left about nationalism vs classical liberalism.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Open borders as soon as all welfare ens. Until then, you are violating the NPT by using violence against me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: JaimeInTexas,

      ─ Open borders as soon as all welfare ens. ─

      That makes NO sense. Why would you propose restricting people's freedom only because welfare exists? Why would you consider that imposing yourself or the State on the agreements between two parties (the person who invites the immigrant and the immigrant) is morally valid? The mere existence of welfare does not confer anyone that right.

      ─ Until then, you are violating the NPT by using violence against me. ─

      It's the N.A.P. which stands for Non-Aggression Principle and NO, the mere existence of Welfare is NOT justification enough to restrict a person's freedom. Because what you're implying is not than an immigrant takes Welfare but that the mere EXISTENCE of welfare implies ipso facto a violation of the NAP by an immigrant whether he or she takes welfare or not. That is NONSENSE.

      Delete
    2. NPT? LOL Sorry about that.

      To go back to the immigration issue. Like it or not, and you and libertarians in general, cannot change the system as it currently exist in any sort of short time. So, no, it is not nonsense. The government "owned" lands is held in common with the CITIZENS and we can decide who can ingress.
      Like I stated, under the current system we have something called CITIZENS. Foreigners have no right to come here.

      Delete
    3. And, you can invite anyone you like but if I say, no, you cannot come into my property, then, to enter my property is a violation.

      Delete
    4. Re: JaimeInTexas,

      Except that the country is not your property.

      Delete
    5. Re: JaimeInTexas,

      ─ Like it or not, and you and libertarians in general, cannot change the system as it currently exist in any sort of short time. ─

      So much for arguing that immigration is like stepping on your lawn... Now you make an appeal to futility.

      ─ under the current system we have something called CITIZENS. ─

      So what? You just made the case that there's no point in arguing anything because "The System Cannot Be Changed(TM)." So why are you arguing labels for?

      Delete
    6. Can we just address the two elephant arguments in the living room?

      First, whether I have a right of veto on public property. If I do, then I can vote to exclude immigrants on whatever grounds I see fit.

      If I don't have an ownership claim, I cannot use those as grounds.

      Second, the government prevents me and my neighbors from adequately excluding our property from immigrants we may want to exclude, and due to current policies will aggrandize the state due to such immigrants. Consequently, as an act of self-defense of property, can I vote for border management that I believe protects my property?

      That is essentially the Hoppean position and the BM position. I'm still on the fence, as I don't believe in purely consequentialist ethics, where I can commit an evil (exclude an invitee of someone) to do a good (property and cultural protection). But I do believe in "double effect", complicating the analysis.

      The other consideration that is a factor is that in a PPS, all borders are managed. Whole communities that control roads and neighborhoods could establish and manage their own "borders" as they see fit. But it isn't enough, in my mind, to say that because that *can* be the case, means that we can ask the monopoly government to do it on a national level.

      I still think you have to fit within one of the above categories.

      Delete
    7. The country is our property. We vote, whether we like or not, for agents that make the rules.

      The appeal to futility is additional. The system can be changed but it will take a long time. Longer if keep adding people who will oppose us that want as much a libertarian society as humanly possible.

      Can we agree on getting rid of welfare, federal and state?

      Delete
    8. Re: Perry Mason,

      ─ That is essentially the Hoppean position and the BM position. ─

      They would be wrong. I pointed this to Bionic Mosquito ─ that his prejudices against immigrants could not extend to his neighbor's property ─ and the retorted with a perfunctory "I didn't say that."

      Delete
    9. Re: JaimeInTexas,
      ─ The country is our property. ─

      It's not.

      ─ We vote, whether we like or not, for agents that make the rules. ─

      "Making rules" does not confer you ownership of other people's lands and property. Rules by themselves do not intrinsically violate a person's property, which is what you're talking about: collective ownership by fiat.

      Delete
    10. Yes, we can make the rules on whether to allow people to enter our property, held in common. Of course, it seems like you may have a problem with whom exactly is part of us. Are you an USA citizen? Are you an immigrant, legal or illegal?

      It is an easy and simple question. Should not be difficult for you to answer. Again, can we agree on getting rid of welfare, federal and state? yes or no.

      Delete
    11. Re: JaimeInTexas,

      ─ Yes, we can make the rules on whether to allow people to enter our property, ─

      It's not "our" property, you communist!

      ─ it seems like you may have a problem with whom exactly is part of us. ─

      I have a problem with lousy collectivists, yes.

      ─ It is an easy and simple question. ─

      Yes, with this answer: It is none of your gawd-damned business.

      Delete
    12. You have a problem accepting reality. Does not matter that I do not like it. Until thete is no publicly owned land and all is private, we get to set rules.

      End welfare and I will open borders until no more public properties.

      You go first. :P

      PS. Yes, it is my business if are an illegal alien. Your heart and loyalty belongs to a different people.

      Delete
  15. I find myself against the current immigration situation as well. Obama and the left have been encouraging illegal immigration and influx of refugees in hopes of legalizing them and turning them into voters to shore up their base and bring about a socialist utopia. To me that is direct attack on me and my future. It is subsidized immigration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's just propaganda. Actually,
      "Obama Has Deported More People Than Any Other President"
      http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661

      Delete
  16. Wenzel is correct. The libertarian movement is going to have a very difficult time influencing anybody. It reminds me of the Reagan and Bush administrations. At the beginning the libertarian movement was gaining exposure for our ideas of NAP. But by the 1990's the movement had nearly disappeared. The might makes right attitude is more prevalent than ever and government is bigger than ever and there is no reason to believe that trend will change. Don't participate in politics, don't enable them more than you must and try to live according to NAP in those areas you do control.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You have been right the whole time, and you continue to be right. It is what it is at this point. Now is the time to encourage the leftists to secede. Right wingers can't secede because the government will stop them and claim they are protecting minorities. Once secession is on the table, real change starts happening.

    Can you imagine Attorney General Giuliani or Christie attempting to enforce drug laws in Colorado or California? When government oversteps in a stupid way like that, the public can be galvanized to support a solution like secession.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "I felt that for strategic reasons Hillary Clinton was the best alternative for libertarians."

    Perhaps in some alternative universe (like San Francisco) that might be true, but not in this one. How could making this criminal mastermind and world class war monger the most powerful person in the world be good for libertarianism? Mark my words, Trump is going to get a lot more push back and resistance from the establishment of both parties than Hilary ever would have. The political, media, corporate and academic elites hate Trump with a purple passion and will fight him tooth and nail. Not so with The Demon Bitch. Surrender monkeys like Ryan and McConnell have no problem working with Oligarchs like the Clintons, it's second nature to them. Paul Ryan spent most of the campaign stabbing Trump in the back and had very little to say about Hilary. Your strategic vision is fatally flawed and shows an appaling ignorance of how beltway politics actually works in this country.

    "Thus, neither the left nor the right is going to be open to libertarian ideas at the present time."

    But of course this is always the case. There is nothing about Trumps impending presidency that changes that. In case you hadn't noticed even the Libertarian Party has thrown libertarianism under the bus by nominating two complete frauds as their standard bearers. Doug Casey is right, libertarianism is a genetic mutation that affects maybe at most 10% of the human race. The rest are just empty headed, gullible drones or exploiters, mostly the former. It's not a very hopeful picture but it does explain things.

    It seems odd that you would be more concerned with what is good for libertarianism in the long run than what is good for the country in the short term. 8 years of that devious, conniving witch could easily see the destruction of what is left of our 2nd Amendment civil liberties as well as a massive expansion of Obamacare by illegal means, leading eventually to a Federal healthcare monopoly. It would also mean the end of the Republican party as a national political force (see California for how well that works out). And the last time I checked Donald Trump wasn't chaffing at the bit to start a stupid, dangerous and totally unnecessary war with a nuclear armed power over an inconsequential basket case like Syria.

    My views on Trump are in line with those of Justin Raimondo, Walter Block and Lew Rockwell. I am fully confident that the Paleo-Conservative (his label, not mine) Murray Rothbard would be supporting Trump were he alive today. I will gladly stand with these giants of libertarianism any day.

    ReplyDelete