I can easily defend my vote for Donald Trump from the libertarian point of view, even though I think overall he may indeed do a terrible job as POTUS. How can I defend this view when I appear to present a contradiction?
Allow me to elaborate by quoting Murray Rothbard from his essay War, Peace, and the State:
We [libertarians] have, indeed, been too often prone to "pursue our busy little seminars on whether or not to demunicipalize the garbage collectors..." while ignoring and failing to apply libertarian theory to the most vital problem of our time: war and peace.
When people ask me whom I supported for POTUS, my answer would be no one since I object to the very power structure of what the President is. But my objection does not necessarily preclude me from voting for what has indeed become (and perhaps always was) still the most vital issue of our time: war and peace. And despite all of my misgivings of Mr. Trump, he is potentially the peace candidate. He is a builder, not a destroyer. He will engage in fewer wars, perhaps even none. He wants to build diplomatic bridges with Russia rather than engage in a "limited" nuclear strike for regime change.
To be blunt, I am supporting Mr. Trump because he will murder far fewer people than a President Clinton would have otherwise. More often than not, I believe Trump is terrible but Mrs. Clinton would have been horrible.
I am not holding my breath in expecting Trump to shut down the whole government departments; nor am I expecting him to confront the Federal Reserve and bring back gold and silver as legal tender. I'm not expecting him to promote the winding down of entitlements, to end the war on drugs, to abolish the income tax, and to demunicipalize garbage collectors. But I am hopeful that the giant blood-and-wealth sucking horrible monster known as US foreign policy will be reigned in.
There is no way for me or anyone else to know for sure if a Trump Presidency will be better than a Clinton Presidency. Libertarians are aware of the uncertainties of life and of world events, but we are smart enough to know that the best way to deal with adverse conditions and circumstances is through voluntary interactions rather than coercive actions of the State. I can think of nothing more coercive that the dropping of bombs and the use of other weapons that inflict unspeakable horror and pain to the lives on this earth. There is no greater antithesis of libertarianism than war.
Mirand Sharma MD FAAEM
Dear Dr. Sharma:
I am fully aware that a vote for Donald Trump can be justified IF one believes that a Hillary Clinton presidency would bring more war and even nuclear attack.
But simply stating that Hillary would put us on the path to nuclear exchange with Russia is not very convincing when you state this opinion without out backing it up.
A careful study of recent history suggests your view may not be on sound ground. The past eight years, part of which Hillary was Secretary of State, shows many proxy wars encouraged by the US, limited direct military action by the US---and no direct confrontations with Russia.
Further, as is abundantly clear, Hillary is a criminal and will take payoffs from just about anyone---including Russians. She allowed Russian oligarchs to gain control of 20% of the US uranium supply! Is she suddenly going to engage in activity that will nuke a source of her lucre?
She was also intricately involved in the capitulation of the Obama administration over placing a missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland.
The anti-Clinton news outlet Breitbart charged that:
During Clinton’s tenure, the U.S. obeyed Russian demands and backed down from missile defense systems in Europe. The U.S. also signed the New START treaty, which included one-sided concessions by the U.S.
Do you honestly think these actions sound like a woman that wants to take a three step process to nuclear war:
1. Declare a no-fly zone in Syria.
2. Shoot down a Russian plane in the zone.
3.Let the nuclear missiles fly
Is this your thinking?
How exactly can you justify that thinking when her actions have been the exact opposite when in direct confrontation with Russia?
To be sure, Hillary is a nutjob and will continue to use proxies to poke and prod Russia, but this is a far step from nuclear war.
Meanwhile, with Donald Trump we have a person who has no time for proxy wars. The idea that he is going to be a peace candidate is absurd. He is going to put US combat troops where Obama and Hillary feared to do so.
I quote from his top adviser, Lt. General Micahel Flynn, who was such during his campaign.
From Flynn's book:
"I'm totally convinced that, without a proper sense of urgency, we will eventually be defeated, dominated and very likely destroyed...Do you want to be ruled by men who eagerly drink the blood of their dying enemies?...Trump has total insane nutjobs around him. He hasn't even assumed the presidency but he is acting in a provocative manner towards China. And he just named a person as his nominee for the Ambassadorship of Israel who will send into outrage every Muslim on the planet.
"It is not just a fight for a few hundred square miles of sand in Syria, Iraqi and Libyan deserts. They want it all."
"We have to organize all our national power, from military and economic intelligence and tough-minded diplomacy. It's not cheap and it's probably going to last through several generations."
And he has called for "safe zones" in Syria, which I hope you realize is pretty much the same thing as a no-fly zone. He called for them during his election run and called for them again yesterday.
When you write:
He is a builder, not a destroyer. He will engage in fewer wars, perhaps even none.It is really difficult for me to believe you understand the situation. Trump hates Iran, he hates OPEC and he has Generals all around him that want to take out Iran and send US combat troops into the Syria-Iraq region. And it appears he is going to take a provactive pro-Israel stance in a conflict that is none of our business. In addition, he has nominated a General for the Department of Homeland Security! Do you really want a military general who understands occupation tactics running the DHS?
I have consistently said that there is nothing good about Hillary, that Hillary and Trump are both horrific but that Trump had a greater skill in motivating his base. I hold to this view. He got them out on election night, Hillary didn't get hers out.
I am open to hearing your view on how Hillary would have caused a nuclear war with Russia if she were president and why you can so easily dismiss the warhawks around Trump that are thirsting for war, while you call Trump a "potential peace candidate," but I don't think the case is there.
Trump is good on a few secondary issues but for the most part I see him as a very dangerous leader. He is so good that I have to battle libertarians who want to stand up for him. Not good.