Friday, December 9, 2016

SUCKERS (Episode 399)

Donald Trump just picked the president of Goldman Sachs for a key position in his administration.

This is the third Trump pick with ties to Goldman Sachs. Others are his top adviser Steve Bannon and Treasury Secretary nominee t Steven Mnuchin.

Best response to the latest pick comes from a neocon:

Boy, did Snowden get it wrong:



  1. I believe Mr. Wenzel gave his endorsement to Jamie Dimon for treasury Sec.

    The question I have then, does Mr. Wenzel believe JPMorgan Chase is distinguishable from GS and if not then isn't this post illogical?

    The other question that is begged: is Mr. Wenzel trying to convince us that the only alternative, Hillary Clinton, who made millions in pay-to-play money from GS and speeches, would be less beholden to GS influence?

    Or what exactly is being implied? Could Mr. Wenzel clarify who or in what direction his angst is aimed at? Because I don't even disagree with what I think Mr. Wenzel is implying, I just disagree that he thinks Rothbardians who voted for Trump - not saying I am one of them - believed a Trump administration would necessarily be better, rather than just less worse.

    In my observation on the sidelines, the Blockian argument is never put forth honestly here, just a straw-man that is used as a cover for name-calling directed at a singled-out group of libertarians it seems.

    I'm not making an endorsement of Trump, or attacking Mr. Wenzel whose blog I enjoy reading, I am simply hoping he could answer these questions as they have been asked repeatedly, and never been answered - at least not directly without a mocking tone, name-calling, and other #NotAnArgument lisps.

    I did enjoy listening to Mr. Wenzel on Roger Stones' podcast, so I know he is not 100% against Trump as he makes out to be. Also, since he seems to think voting is immoral, may I make a request for a future blog post, or if it has already been addressed, a link to a past blog-post, that refutes Walter Blocks Goody vs Bady Slave Master argument?

    Until then, as much as a like Mr. Wenzel, I will have to concede he is not as convincing or motivating as Walter Block and other Rothbardians.


    1. Americans of every political stripe will rarely if ever acknowledge detrimental evidence concerning a politician if they have an overarching faith, and abiding belief in that politician. The idea that anyone would have faith in a politician in this day and age is lunacy, when history is replete with politicians who were liars, backstabbers, double agents, and assassins is beyond me.

      Bottom line, Americans have always loved to be lied to by politicians, it seems to assuage some deeply felt guilt that they desire to be punished for in the dark recesses of their psyches. I have witnessed this first hand for six decades, and I see no evidence of this deeply ingrained practice fading away. To the contrary, the depths of political self-delusion are as deep as they were in 1968, if not deeper.

      I have to admit that Donald Trump is a uniquely effective liar, the likes of which I have never witnessed before.

    2. I agree with you entirely. And it is correct that everyday partisan voters are aptly - although I wouldn't go the name-calling route when making an argument - suckers. But as a non-argument statement of opinion, yes, "suckers," I concede.

      My point, however, is that still does not equate Blockians who voted for Trump as "suckers." Recognizing Slave Master Goody, Goody as in relative to Bady, is till recognizing a Slave Master. So, I just think if you want to call a sucker a sucker you should make explicit Blockians are not included in that group.

      OR if you do include Blockians in that group, you should - at least for them contrast average partisan non-libertarian voter - address them explicitly with argument, not name-calling.

      Yes, if are you a an average non-libertarian voter who thought hope-and-change was coming now from the Right, you are a sucker. If you were a Blockian trying to assess the very difficult task of which slave-driver may be less worse than the other, I don't think thats being a sucker.

      But, I will say this: Trump is a uniquely effective liar, I agree, and if he engages in regime change I will vomit in my mouth.

    3. Also, to add to my point:

      I cant remember which debate on youtube but Walter Block was even willing to engage in the fantastically difficult thought experiment of deciding between slave-driver Hitler or slave-driver Stalin positing that voting for one or the other may, even if only on a mathematical level of differential calculus if you will, be consistent with libertarianism. Surely, in this scenario you couldn't call him a "sucker" for he obviously wouldn't expect a better outcome - perhaps, short of computer level calculating machine, an indistinguishable difference, but certainly no expectation of greatness.

      So, I just don't think Blockians are Trump Fan Boys or suckers.

      Thats all.


    4. While Block himself may not come across as a Trump Fan Boy, some other Trump Libertarians sure come across as Trump fan boys to me.

      I agree completely with Switchblade; it is rather sad to say died-in-the-wool libertarian anarchists fall so easily into voting for Trump. While i myself think (at the moment) Trump is the least of the two evils, especially in context of current problems threatening liberty, this does not at all translate into voting for him, and thus putting my signature under whatever he will end up doing as president.

      One may claim that one votes on the basis of campaign promises and thus claim innocence when those promises are broken, but libertarians have no such weak excuse in light of the endless empirical evidence of politicians being liars, hustlers, con artists and charlatans. There is, in other words, no reason whatsoever to assume Trump will do as he said he would, anymore than we had to assume Barack Obama would indeed be a peace candidate or a transparancy-champion.

      So yes, i do think the word "sucker" is in order, because any argument in favor of VOTING for Trump is based on the assumption that he will be a "goody" slaveowner, and that itself is based on the assumption that he didn't actually just sell his voters a long bill of goods in order to get elected. He may, in other words, actually end up being WORSE than Hillary Clinton in terms of war mongering. There is no empirical reason to trust his word any more than that of others.

      Some "anarchists" keep making the same mistake, and keep making excuses for them, calling others "purists" and the like and mentioning Murray Rothbard's position as if it was anything more than an appeal to authority fallacy.

      No, we're not purists. Most of us would have voted for a Ron Paul. We're just not SUCKERS, in believing in the likes of a Rand Paul or a Donald Trump.

    5. Stefan Molyneux's endless apologia for Trump is a distinctive moment. It really goes to show how the libertarian brand has been set back a great deal. Protectionism is now supreme. Open hostility towards free-trade. Politics is such a waste of time. We will never gain anything that route - seems we will however only LOSE what little gains we had however.