Wenzel and Block On Trump's China Tweets

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

From RW:

Hi Walter,

Thoughts?

http://www.targetliberty.com/2016/12/breaking-trump-tweetstorm-against-china.html

Block response:

 Dear Bob:

Thanks for asking me to comment.

You say this: “If Trump makes clear that he just wants to be a good friend to all nations that is fine, but if he doesn't make this absolutely clear to China it is remarkably provocative.”

The problem is, China does not regard Taiwan as a “nation.” Rather, China regards this island as a part of its country. I doubt that the Chinese would be fully mollified, if at all, if Trump told them that “he just wants to be a good friend to all nations,” not if that includes Taiwan. I think the situation is almost akin to a Chinese leader writing to the governors of the southern states, addressing them as Dear Members of the US Confereracy. No US president, Donald, Barack, Hillary, would be happy with that even if the Chinese leader said “that he just wants to be a good friend to all nations” as his reason for, justification of, writing such a letter.

Should Donald have telephoned the Taiwanese leader? Would a president Ron Paul have done so? To answer all such questions, I put on my libertarian Non Aggression Principle glasses. I ask, Was an act a per se example of a violation of the NAP or an aggressive threat? I answer, No it was not in this case, therefore Donald may telephone anyone he wants to. Yes, I agree with you, it is extremely provocative, given Chinese feelings about Taiwan. But, it was not a threat, not a NAP violation.

In contrast, Hillary calling Putin a “Hitler” I regard as a threat. Ditto for her calling for a no fly zone in Syria.

Best regards,

Walter

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

RW response:

Hi Walter,

Thanks for the quick reply.

I am thinking of Trump's moves more in terms of provocation of a serious nuclear power. It seems a main reason for your support of Trump was based (I believe on a faulty) view that there was less chance of Trump getting us in a nuclear war with Russia.

From this perspective of nuclear war, if we are talking realpolitik here, why the hell would we want to go and start off relations with the major nuclear power China like this?

I am not at all asking whether it is a violation of NAP to talk to Taiwan, I am simply  making the point that it is goofy, at best, for Trump to do it in this manner and then send those tweets out on China.

It is no violation of NAP to call a Mafia Godfather a dumb shit if he passes you on the street, but I wouldn't recommend it.

As Jim Croce put it, "You don't spit into the wind."

Perhaps we will learn on Monday of Ron Paul's view on his great internet broadcast, The Liberty Report.

Block response:

Dear Bob:

I agree with you it was unwise to provoke the Chinese in this way. Would a President Hillary be more likely than Donald to get us into WWIII with a nuclear exchange? We’ll never know, since there are no controlled experiments here.

My prudential judgement is that Hillary would have been worse.

Best regards,

Walter

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