Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Trump Threatens Chicago!


Parts of Chicago are a war zone as the result of various government policies:

1. Government education

2. Minimum wage laws

3. LGJ Great Society policies

4. Anti-drug laws

But the solution to turn things around is not more government. It is the shrinkage of government by the elimination of policies such as those listed above.

However, no doubt in the comments below libertarian Trump fanboys, who believe that Trump can never do wrong, will support Trump on this horrific perspective. Such support is a move into the epicenter of ass-backward libertarianism.

 -RW


26 comments:

  1. My impression is that New York City, Washington, DC and Chicago, Illinois have high murder rates due to the imposition of gun laws. Washington DC I am told has legalized marijuana. Am I missing something? Do I have an incorrect impression?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would not feel sorry for Chiraq. Most blacks are not exactly bright enough to understand anything you have said along with the white liberals. I hope Trump cracks some heads here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice to see conservatives aren't even trying to hide their cowardly hypocrisy anymore.

      Delete
  3. Number 5 would be Chicago's awful gun laws that prevent regular people from fighting back against gangs

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not a lack of guns. I have read accounts of mysterious crates of high powered weapons being discovered randomly in neighborhoods in Chicago. Stuff you and I can't even buy without 7 special permits. The folks there could choose to use them in self-defense rather than internecine criminal activity. They probably need to brush up on the NAP & other libertarian theory first, though,

      Delete
    2. What I mean is having guns in regards to having less of a chance of the thugs in blue trying to kill you for simply having them. Granted the police will make up their own narrative and their assorted bootlicks will parrot whatever they say but at least a defense attorney would have a better chance if said gun owner did have the proper documentation.

      Delete
  4. RW, most of your opponents on Trump that I noticed only issued very, very qualified support for Trump over Clinton. I have yet to see one of these libertarian fanboys you are always attacking. I think you are creating a strawman. It isn't necessary for your otherwise high quality blog.

    Yes there is a ton of bad with Trump. Lew and the RPI are already ahead of it. Your post on the OMB was spot on. But my goodness, imagine life with HRC for a second. I truly feel we would already be seeing more blood spilled, and then domestically, more insane culture destruction, attacking of families, speech codes, enforcing PC, etc etc.

    PS I did not vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hillary lost.

      The question now is not what it would be like under Hillary but what is life going to be like under Trump.

      Delete
    2. The alternative to Trump was Hillary. To pretend that the alternative could not on some issues have been even worse is disingeneous, and in line with your obsession with Trump, rather than a levelheaded criticism of him.
      Besides, you were foaming at the mouth about Trump when they were both still in the running.

      Delete
    3. I agree with Perry Mason.

      Delete
  5. Here's apparent ABL Murray Rothbard, who is once again in direct opposition to RW since Trump took office. Rothbard seems to be lockstep with Trump (whom no one expects to be libertarian) on many issues in this essay:

    "Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not "white collar criminals" or "inside traders" but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error."

    http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where exactly does Rothbard say "Call in the Feds"?

      Reading comprehension problem?

      Delete
    2. No, I'm reading between the lines.

      Trump's "Call in the Feds" idea is not really "more government." It's actually a legitimate and appropriate use of government force.

      If government's only legitimate purpose is to defend its citizens against violence to their person, property or liberty - and Chicago/Illinois government is not willing to do its job, then it's time to "Call in the Feds."

      Here's Rothbard again, this time on the Watts Riots:

      "That role is not as obvious as it may seem, since the Los Angeles, state, and federal forces most conspicuously did not perform that function. Sending in police and troops late and depriving them of bullets, cannot do the job."

      Note that Rothbard mentions "federal forces and troops" and laments that government called them in too late and under-armed.

      "There is only one way to fulfill the vital police function, the only way that works: the public announcement--backed by willingness to enforce it--made by the late Mayor Richard Daley in the Chicago riots of the 1960s--ordering the police to shoot to kill any looters, rioters, arsonists, or muggers they might find. That very announcement was enough to induce the rioters to pocket their "rage" and go back to their peaceful pursuits....That’s why, in the short term, all we can do is shoot the looters and incarcerate the rioters."

      Rothbard isn't concerned with whether the police are local or federal. The government's only real job is to defend citizens from violent assault of person, property and liberty. His concern is for government to use it's monopoly on violence to get the damn job done.

      Delete
    3. Give how militarized police have gotten since Rothbard was alive do you honestly think he would endorse this position again? To put trust into a government gang of thugs who will intimidate, violate the rights of the people, murder and then lie about it when caught. I would hazard to guess that Rothbard would revise that position in seeing how police behave in these times compared to back then.

      Delete
  6. I would add a Number Five to RW's list, which perhaps should be Number One: Laws against private discrimination.

    Private Neighborhoods (Now!) with private streets, sidewalks and schools, could simply ban all thugs, drugs and druggies. Violators could simply be evicted based upon long standing contract law principles. A black church could buy up the surrounding neighborhood, put up a gate and establish a school for a "black's only" Christian community. Violate the rules and you're out. Out of school, off the streets, out of the neighborhood. No welfare and no black markets. You must make money the old fashioned way, by engaging in voluntary transactions.

    The heads of our current culture will explode at just proposing this solution. However, the horrible circumstances of present-day Chicago or Detroit seem to not bother them at all.

    What do you call libertarians who never propose "Private Neighborhoods Now!" for fear of the racist racist racist backlash? How about "Chicken**** Libertarians" CSL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone once told me that after a gated community was built somewhere (in Lexington, KY I believe, but don't quote me) the local overlords passed an ordinance requiring the gate to remain open during the day. I have tried to explain the concept of private neighborhoods before without much success.

      Delete
  7. Whether blacks have low intelligence or white separatists are monsters is irrelevant under An-Cap and could be rendered irrelevant with Private Neighborhoods Now!

    The white separatists could live in their own “whites-only” neighborhoods. Why should anyone care? Will those who care miss them? Without the initiation of any force or violence, the whites-only types could find themselves without jobs or any social contact outside their enclave. Or they might demonstrate that “genetic separation” is the greatest thing since the invention of Cheez-Whiz. Hello, Vox Day.

    As Thomas Sowell explained over and over and over again, people are going tend to engage in mutually advantageous exchanges regardless religion or ethnicity. And if they do not, who cares? The greatest problem facing mankind is always violence (and mostly by governments), especially war, not “the failure of capitalism” or marketplace discrimination. Granting the government the authority to second guess EVERY voluntary transaction while hunting for illusory “discrimination” is one of the major plagues of mankind, not the alleged “discrimination” itself. Hello, Gary Johnson.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think I've come to understand this more since the Trump campaign. Within the An Cap movement, there are some who think that there are significant racial differences, Low IQ this or that, White supremacy movement types. It was always curious to me, because that attitude never fit really with most of the people I encountered in the movement.

      Lately I've come to realize, they weren't within the liberty movement or didn't identify as An Caps because they genuinely believed this, it just happened to be the philosophy that would accept their real, primary believe system, that in white supremacy or some other belief, more readily than any other they could find for a long time. You see them now flocking to Trump or flocking to the Alt-Right, as this has gained more social acceptability. On some of the economic views, they're still with us, but there's definitely been significant movement by a lot of these people away from our camp, to places where their real beliefs can shine more brightly.

      The real counter to your statement is that, yes, in Ancapistan, this wouldn't matter. They could do as they pleased on their own property. But these people only believe in the NAP, if they do at all, with an asterick, namely that it only applies to their own race.

      Delete
  8. Obviously, in the long run, I agree with Wenzel's position to do away with the four government policies mentioned above. Not going to lie, I'm a pretty big Trump fan but this move has me slightly worried and asking myself - is there ever a point (in the short run) that federal "assistance" must be implemented if an imminent danger exists to society? And could the murder rate in Chicago be considered an imminent threat? Could Trump's decision, in whatever capacity it may be, be a short term solution to Chicago's problem? I don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Trump is the ultimate salesman, and he knows that the gun violence in Chicago will allow the National Guard to get it's foot in the door as an authoritarian solution to violence nationwide. Chicago is the beta test for the military to take greater control of cities across America.

    Trump's fanboys need to wake up to the reality that the decisions Trump has already executed, or telegraphed in his first 5 days are going to end up making Barack Obama look like a choir boy. The bizarre thing is, I never backed a single thing Barack Obama did during his eight years in office. At the rate Trump is moving on his real agenda, it won't be long before even the Trump fanboys will regret ever believing a single word that Trump said on the campaign trail.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There are plenty of reasons, based on his campaign promises and his coming actions no doubt, to criticize Trump with a level head.

    But Wenzel's argument is tantamount to:
    "Trump must be a libertarian when dealing with Chicago crime. If he isn't, then he should do NOTHING at all to help Chicago citizens."

    Quite frankly a patently absurd criticism of Trump in this particular case. As statists go (and any president would be a statis), for Trump to send in people to quash criminal and violent scum is a whole lot better an option than a Democratic policy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Trump's fanboys need to wake up to the reality that the decisions Trump has already executed, or telegraphed in his first 5 days are going to end up making Barack Obama look like a choir boy. "

    The decisions Trump has executed so far are pretty much EXACTLY as he has promised on the campaign trail. Therefore they could not possible be a surprise for libertarian "fanboys".

    ReplyDelete
  12. The 4 items RW lists apply across the country. Why then does Chicago have an especially high crime rate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Duh, have you been in a Chicago public school?

      Delete