It has happened again. Trump fanboys have come out in support of Trump authoritarianism.
I put up this post, CNN, New York Times & Others Blocked From White House Media Briefing, and out came the comments supporting a Trump action.
Aren't libertarians supposed to be anti-government? Shouldn't they appreciate when the government is harassed? Don't we want to get reports on what government is doing from every possible angle?
In the post, I wrote:
Opposing views reporting on the government should be welcomed. Shutting down access to news organization, even those clearly biased and anti-Trump. is a very slippery slope.And yet these comments were made at the post (my comments in blue):
Perry Mason wrote:
I disagree here. In a vacuum, I agree that there should be a diversity of opinion and wide access.
But NY Times, AP, etc., these organizations are the enemy of freedom and the people. They preach lies. They act in bad faith. Why grant them access? For decades they have lied and benefited from cozy government relationships. Now the hand that feeds is biting them. I celebrate that.
Well, first I would argue that not everything MSM prints is a lie and it is not an exclusive domain of MSM. I have seen plenty of distortions and lies coming out of the pro-Trump crowd. Are pro-Trump liars somehow ok? Should we cheer when Democrats are in power and shut them down?
Libertarians should be for as much access and reporting on the government as possible. The government needs to be exposed and it is positively bizarre to hold the view that the barring by the governmentof some news organizations to government briefings is somehow pro-freedom. This is nothing but an authoritarian view that government should determine what news should be fed to the people. It is Stalinesque and has nothing to do with liberty.
But, hey, it is good to know you will apply libertarian principles when you are "in a vacuum."
And this post really singles out Trump for something all Presidents have done, just on the other side of the spectrum.
I doubt Infowars and LewRockwell.com got direct access to White House briefings during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations.
This is a the Soviet propaganda technique known as Whataboutism. What difference does it make what other presidents have done? Libertarians should always be against this.
And, for the record, whenever I had a question of the Treasury or the White House during the Bush and Obama years, I always received a prompt reply, generally with the details I asked for.
I was also always notified by the Treasury of conference call briefings, including "pad and pen" briefings, where I could participate. I was appraised of White House calls when they pertained to economics.Here is a sample of a Treasury call I requested to be on after being notified by the Treasury of the call:
From: Robert Wenzel [mailto:email@example.com]Stuffed Pimento wrote:
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 10:42 AM
To: Gudmundson, Erika
Subject: Conference number
Could you please provide me with the conference call number for the
Background Briefing in Advance of U.S.-China Strategic & Economic
Here is the dial-in information for today's briefing at 11:15am.
US dialin: 888-989-XXX
International dialin: 1-630-395-XXXX
Participant pass code is 55170.
Public Affairs | Department of the Treasury
Trump killed crony TPP, gutted Obamacare including removing the truly authoritarian individual mandate, signed executive orders that directs the government to avoid taxpayer bailouts, re-examine all existing regulations, repeal 2 regulations for every 1 created, froze the hiring of federal employees, repealed forced transgender bathroom integration policy, and has triggered the horrible MSM to out itself. In a month.
Trump killed TPP because he is against most trade. He is an economic ignoramus when it comes to trade. I would not recommend using Trump trade actions at a libertarian blog to buttress your argument.
He did, for the present time, kill the mandate but he hasn't told us yet how he is going to replace the funds lost by the mandate repeal so that he can pay for "everyone having coverage available to him"---which is what Trump has promised. The repeal part is fine, but the "replace" part is where the scam lies.
Why will he need to bailout the military-industrial complex when upfront he is going to pour trillions into the military?
Two for one is just to sucker in the dumbest of the Trump fanboys.
He is not freezing the hiring of government trained killers though.
Whoopee, he has killed the transgender bathroom regulation nonsense.Yes, I'll take all kinds of authoritarianism to get this killed. Tie me to a rack, it will all be worth it.
Quoting anonymous sources in news reporting has gotten out of control.
And you are the authority on this? Why can't each of us decide what reports we want to listen to. God, you are an incredible authoritarian. I can see why you are a Trump fanboy.
There is a role for anonymous sources in news, however it should only be used when the source's safety or livelihood is at stake AND the information can be verified by documentation or multiple other sources. AND the target of the source's information should be given an opportunity to respond.
How do you know this isn't done? Clueless and authoritarian.
Otherwise that source should only be used on background AND the reason he is not identified should be given with an explanation to the reader on how the information was independently verified AND any biases held by the anonymous source.
Ditto: Clueless and authoritarian.
That is not what the media have been doing. The media are carrying the water of the Deep State - the authoritarians of the past 50 years.
Yes, and now you support water carrying coverage by pro-Trump news outlets. Evil.
This blog's Trump Derangement Syndrome is spiraling out of control.
Yes, I am deranged. I am making up the fact that Trump wants to send more troops to Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. That his Treasury Secretary wants to expand the IRS. That he wants to implement tariffs.
Yes, Trump is the second coming of Ludwig von Mises.
What pill shoud I take to fix this since I don't see it properly?And finally there is this gem from Matt@Occidentalism.org:
I disagree. Those media outlets are more harmful than terrorist organizations. They have colonized the kinds of the public, and lead them to hold ideas that impinge on the liberty of others.
So the solution is to allow the government (funders of terrorists) to decide who gets to cover the government?-RW