Sunday, January 25, 2015

SHOCK Walter Block to Ron Paul: Shut Up

The Washington Post has a front page story, Daddy issues: Are Ron Paul’s hard-core stands a problem for son’s presidential bid?, with this quote from Walter Block:
“If I were Ron, and my son were running for president, and we were in the same situation, I would shut up,” said Walter Block, an economics professor at Loyola University in New Orleans. He rated Ron Paul a 98 on his personal scale of libertarianism and Rand Paul a 70, and said he supported them both.

“Ron is a millstone around Rand’s neck, in the sense that he’s not helping him — or, at least, he’s not helping him be Rand,” Block said. “Because Rand is a compromiser, and Ron and ‘compromise’ don’t belong in the same sentence.”
I think the question should be "Who is advancing liberty?', and that is by far, Ron. In my view Rand is a millstone around the liberty movement. The idea should be to advance the libertarian principles and not muddy libertarian principle up to advance in the political power game.

But Walter is really taking to its logical conclusion what a supporter of Rand has to do, and that is call for those who are the principled advocates of liberty to shut up.


(thanks to all who sent me the WaPo link)


  1. Politics poisons everything it touches.

  2. That is just plain rude. I wonder if Walter will claim to be taken out of context again? If so, then shame on him for continuing to speak to the media that he already knows twists everything he says. If not, then shame on him for besmirching Ron Paul's good name in public.

    1. He was taken out of context. Not necessarily by the media but certainly by Mr Wenzel.
      I think the only reason any libertarian should even consider voting for Rand is because his dad will most likely not shut up and get more media attention if his son wins the election. So I disagree with Block, but the headline Mr Wenzel has chosen for this post is very misleading.
      And I don't think it is rude to say what he would do if he was in Rons position, even though I think Block is making a strategic error.

    2. Oh, your delusional. So you think Block doesn't think Ron should shut up?

    3. No. I think Ron Paul should not shut up and Walter block does think so.
      I don't think I gave you any reason to think otherwise.
      he made a strategic argument that I disagree with, but I don't think it was rude.
      I think however that the headline Mr Wenzel has chosen for this post is misleading ( it is a good attention grabber so I can see why he would do that)
      oh and I have an unrelated question: if we had a face to face discussion would you make an effort to understand my point before calling me delusional?

  3. This is general terrible. Politics does such terrible things to people. Ron Paul is the greatest living spokesman for liberty.

  4. What's ironic about this is (I believe) that Rand's unqualified support from people like Walter Block is based on him being Ron Paul son. If Rand were Ronald Reagan's son I'm sure that nearly all libertarians would oppose him. I have read statements by people who say that they are willing to dismiss non libertarian positions because he has libertarian genes/DNA and because he sat on Ron's knee while growing up.

    So, according to Walter's logic he supports Rand (I believe) because of Rand's biological association with Ron but Ron should "shut up."

    Makes sense to me.

    1. That statement is the complete opposite of reality. If Rand Paul were anyone else's son or if Ron Paul never existed, people would think it was absolutely amazing that someone like Rand Paul could get elected to the Senate. Of course, he got elected b/c of Ron Paul's network and is thus compared in every respect to Ron Paul.

      Rand Paul is easily the most libertarian Senator in the last 150 years in the Senate. Easily. But because he is insufficiently anti-Lincoln or because his budget only cuts 5 departments instead of all government, he is seen as rotten. It is insanity.

    2. You substantiated my point, no one would know who Rand Paul was if it weren't for Ron. Most of the Randroids wouldn't be drinking his Kool-Aid if he weren't Ron Paul son.

      I have heard that talking point that Rand is the most libertarian Senator in the last 150 years. Has anyone done any kind of extensive comparison between Rand and all of the senators who have served over the last 150 years? My guess is that this is just another tired talking point that Randroids use to continue their blind loyalty to Rand. I guess that actually beats thinking for themselves.

  5. I should add, I question Walter's critical thinking skills. Anyone who believes that electing a compromised person to the presidency will bring Liberty needs to have their head examined. For starters, aside from foreign policy, presidents have little power to do anything in their own. Despite all the rhetoric, there does exist a national consensus on Federal spending. Both the Left and Right agree that the Federal government should do more of the same. And on foreign policy Rand has done nothing to fundamentally oppose the GOP's warmongering. Instead of moving the GOP towards noninterventionism, he has moved libertarianism towards warmongering. There will be no libertarianism enacted if Rand were to be elected. I'm fact, libertarianism will get folded into the corrupt GOP.

    By the way, Liberty activist should wake up and understand that egalitarian democracy and Liberty are incompatible. Every 2-4 years a 100 million man free shit army goes out and vote to ensure their government contracts, government jobs, government schools, government health care, and government Social Security are fully funded. Fat chance getting millions of people to go out and vote against getting their goodies from the government. It's ironic that most Liberty activist venerate the Founding Fathers when we would all be freer under a hereditary Christian monarchy that we had under King George than democracy.

  6. What happened to this Walter Block?

    In it, he has many gems, including this one:

    "my interpretation Selley is saying that this firm was not justified in refusing to serve black people; the implication is that the so called Civil Rights Act of 1964 was entirely justified. Of course, one of the basic tenets of libertarianism is the law of free association. No one should be compelled, at the point of a government gun, to associate with anyone else, against his will. Compelling Woolworths to seat blacks is thus incompatible with libertarianism. It was a violation of their private property rights over their establishment."

    Rand holds the exact position as Selley.

    Now granted, Rand Paul does not claim to be a libertarian, or Libertarian...but it's doing damage to the libertarian movement in that Rand, and big people within our own movement(Dr. Block) don't reiterate that Rand IS NOT a libertarian.

    Where's the Dr. Block that ended with this:

    "Mr. Selley, do not be such a pussy. Embrace your inner libertarianism. Let it come out of the closet.

    What is the point of incrementalism Block? Do you think Rand will make life better here in the US even if the cost is "the war" in that everyone thinks he's "70% libertarian" assuming hell froze over and he became President?

    Blech, this is distasteful. The least Block could do is make sure everyone KNOWS that Rand is no libertarian...and his "70%" comment doesn't help.

  7. I'm somewhat perplexed that a "smart" guy like Robert Wenzel continuously compares Rand to Mephistopheles and isn't smart enough to realize that Rand is taking us closer to Liberty in his own way. Wenzel seems to forget that any step towards liberty and away from tyranny is a good step and Rand is taking us closer to liberty.
    Robert Wenzel is dragging liberty by its heels by condemning Rand and not seeing far enough in the future to see he is and will be bringing us closer to liberty.

    1. Can you provide any specific proposals by Rand Paul that will take us a step closer to Liberty?

    2. #1 He repeatedly pushes the idea of ending the war on drugs That, for one, would be major in cutting back the militarization of police.

      #2 He would limit foreign interventionism significantly than any other president in recent history...granted, not as far as ron would go but ron won't win the presidency in 2016.

      #3 He wants to END THE FED.

      That was put together in 30 seconds...the list goes on

      Again, Mr. Wenzel is only hurting the cause of liberty by treating Rand as if he was the worst liberal in existence. WTF. Why doesn't he go after ted cruz, who really is a sheep in wolfs clothing?

    3. Jeff, no he can't.

    4. #1 - When has Rand proposed to repeal all Federal drug laws?

      #2 - That's based on what you wish to believe. Where specifically has Rand proposed to withdraw US troops? Where has Rand proposed any nonintervention in the ME? "Limited intervention" without specific definition will mean as much as conservatives "limited government," which is nothing more than a catch phrase that's meant to garner votes but produce tangible results. And by the way, Rand can't stop running his mouth about how much he supports Israel. A Rand presidency will mean Bibi Netanyahu will run US foreign policy for 4-8 years.

      #3 - What has Rand done to actually end the Fed? The last time I checked, Rand has been unabashedly buttering up to Wall St and banking institution.

    5. I agree Jeff. I don't get this total self-delusion of the Rand supporters. Desperation maybe?

      people....get it through your THICK skulls! Politics is CORRUPT. You will N-E-V-E-R fix this government. It's gone, dead, and buried. Just continue to teach others about liberty and AE until that time. That's when people will be more open.

  8. Ron says that Rand shares 99% of his beliefs. I trust Ron's judgment.

    Ron tried the full monty approach three times. Rand is trying the backdoor approach. Why not?

    1. "Ron says that Rand shares 99% of his beliefs."

      According to Block, Rand only shares 68% or so of Ron's beliefs.


      When was Ron's quote on Rand timeline wise anway? Do you think Ron's changed his mind at all since then?

    2. I'm curious what that 99% is. Does Rand share Ron's position on international trade sanctions, bombing ISIS, intervention, and entangling alliances (including Israel?) And it doesn't matter what Rand believes, if he is ambitious enough he wouldn't be the 1st person to sell out his principles for ambition. It wouldn't surprise me if Alan Greenspan privately thinks central banking is bad but found "playing the game" irresistibly profitable.

      Any who thinks Rand will get into the presidency through the back door and then do a 180 towards libertarianism is a fool.

    3. It was April 26, 2013.

  9. God love Dr. Block, but can someone close to him please suggest he stop talking to the media? Lew Rockwell never talks to the mainstream media for a reason. Good grief. This is the second time in less than a year Walter's comments have been used by the establishment to either discredit Ron or Rand. The last time he said something stupid to the New York Times and Rand got slimmed for a supposed association to slavery.

    I am no fan of Rand Paul, taking Mr. Wenzel's view of him, but Walter isn't doing anyone any favors including himself. Stop talking to the mainstream media Dr. Block, please.

  10. The more I think about it, I think Hoppe had the better strategy by retiring to Turkey and becoming more radical as he got older, if that were possible. That dude's mind is sharper than ever. Block could take notes.

  11. now THIS is the best quote from the article:

    “He is the ‘Star Wars, Episode I,’ ” said Kent Ohler, 38, who records sound for TV and movies. He meant that the younger Paul was like the long-anticipated but largely disappointing sequel to the “Star Wars” movie franchise. “You have to like him to some degree, just because the name’s still stuck [on him]. But at the end of the day, he’s just not freakin’ right.”

  12. So what happened to the Block explanation/apology post? Down the memory hole?