Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Trump Goes Police State Insane

President Donald Trump spoke this morning at the White House before a group of police chiefs and sheriffs. It will cause more problems for Libertarian Trump Fanboys.

This happened:
and this:
I hope it is clear by this time that Trump has a strong authoritarian streak with a strong adoration for police and the military. I do not see any Trump move toward liberty that he might make tangentially that can justify general support for him by libertarians.

On the domestic and foreign policy front, Trump is bad news.



  1. He has not proposed any gun control regulations. We may get more freedom in this area.

    1. What will happen to the new AK-47 laying on your back seat when you are pulled over at a Trump Civil Asset Forfeiture Black Site on an ordinary all American highway? Do you really believe you can prove that the gun or the $850 dollars cash in your pocket are not the product of drug running? You need to understand that it is not in the authorities interest to believe a single word that you emote in your moment of naked distress as your AK-47 and your cash disappears into the authoritarian ether. They will take what they want, period!

    2. I'm not a fan of civil forfeiture and it has done little to stem the drug flow. There is a small town near me where these guys from Mexico with one or two cars get pulled over all the time over the years, so they drive around the town so as not to be bothered yet these guys drive all across TX to Mexico without the DPS harassing them. So yes, selective enforcement is an issue at times.

  2. Some of the fault for this lies with libertarians of either the Ass Backards, Dumbass or Chickens*** variety.

    Having private covenant communities now (or since 1974 when I first brought it up to deafening silence) would make the drug war moot. If you could ban drugs and druggies from your private community (streets, sidewalks, schools and in the house), the "problem" such as it is would be solved with no black market disruptions.

    It appears to me that libertarians do not want to stand up for this because it means explicitly demanding the right to racial and religious "discrimination". Of course, it also means a safe population free of violence. Why fear the left? If "discrimination" is so bad, that means that minorities are in fact truly incompetent at running their own lives which I do not think is the case. What do minorities really have to fear from a white racist community that cannot initiate violence against them?

    1. Bob, the problem is that private property does not dictate what the law of the land on that property should be. Your and RW's view of PPS is one where the state divests its monopoly on violence to everyone in the land. I don't think that is correct.

      If we consider that private property is an extension of man's right to own himself, then we see that man does not have the right to make the law in his own property.

      For instance, I don't have the right to punch someone in the face that is annoying me in public. Likewise, I still don't have the right to punch someone in the face that is annoying me on my own property - even if I declare it as the law and post the covenant on my door stipulating that face-punching is a risk of entry.

      The law is discovered and then applies everywhere. Private communities can have different customs or local ordinances and different rules, but I don't think they can do anything to enforce these rules outside of evicting the perpetrator.

      For example, in your private community drugs are illegal. However, the law discovered would have no such restrictions. A guy with drugs walking down the sidewalk in your private community could be ejected by security guards, but not detained, arrested, fined, robbed, beaten, etc.

    2. Notice here at RW's blog many libertarians have gone punch drunk on the multi-cult Kool-Aid. God forbid I discriminate because stats show most minorities are a problem and unable to fit in with a civilized society. No, that's just more 'race realism' nonsense to them. Libertarians are just as stupid as the left when it comes to the issue of race, country of origin, culture, and IQ.

    3. Libertarianism has nothing to say about discrimination, multi-culturalism or IQ. These are issues of civil society, not the State.

      The right is just as stupid as the left when it comes to race, immigration, culture and IQ. The right loves the drug-war, which has ripped apart so many black families (the right ironically pretends to hold the family sacred) and created a criminal underworld which invites illegal immigrants and organized violence. The right loves imperial wars, which rip apart brown countries and multiplies the supply of immigrants to the Western world. The right loves Chamber of Commerce Cronyism which says that corporate welfare is good but poor people welfare is bad, creating class divisions and a reactionary left. The right loves Police Unions which in turn leads to lobbying for more laws, more cops, more State actors.

      Hasn't your lot done enough harm to society already? You and your ilk should fall in line behind the libertarians so we can rescue you Progressives from yourselves. God Damn Party of Lincoln Imperial Police State cultists.

      Bush, Bush, Reagan, Nixon, Hoover, Roosevelt, Ford, Eisenhower. Behold the legacy of The Progressive Right Military Industrial Corporatist Police State.

  3. I have been saying for a long time that absolutely nobody (other than us) comprehends or engages either basic libertarian or Austrian concepts or analysis. Our analysis is based substantially upon the idea that government action, which is generally thought to be curative of social problems is, in fact, the cause of most social problems in the modern world. People have so accepted the “progressive” myths that they cannot begin to understand our contrary analysis.

    I first learned of Thaddeus Russell on the Tom Woods show. One of my central concerns is the total failure of almost EVERYONE to understand libertarian and Austrian analysis which I found to be self-evidently true when first exposed to it in 1973 and 1974. Russell has written this month in Reason and has made a profound analysis: “Progressives” [which is almost everyone on both the left and right] think that EVERYONE can be improved by the “progressive” therapeutic state, but resistors to the therapy must be severely punished. Russell writes:

    Those progressives consistently argued that disruptive and marginal populations should be encouraged to assimilate into the formal culture of the country and to adopt the responsibilities of American citizenship, but they also held that individuals who refused to do so should be removed from society. Indeed, it could be said that progressivism was created around those twin projects.

    Not only does this explain the insanity of the left these days, but it explains the vision and actions of Trump and the Republicans. Middle Eastern countries that do not “adopt the responsibilities” we have so generously offered must be punished, just like dope-taking minorities. At the same time, Americans are blameless for the horror that results because our offers to help are truly sacred.
    The only debate appears to be between people with different visions of who must be “helped” and the subject matter of that “help”. The idea that such government “help” implies a total abolition of the protections of private property and provides the government with an unreviewable carte blanche to invade anyone’s sanctuary so long as it says it’s “doing good” simply does not compute with the populace.