Thursday, October 27, 2016

Pat Buchanan: The System is Rigged Against Trump


  1. ─ Pat Buchanan: The System is Rigged Against Trump ─

    Boy, do these Trumpistas sound like they're glass-half-empty kind of people. The election isn't over, yet they're ready to surrender.

  2. It's funny to hear Trump criticized on his answer in that debate. Wallace asked him that if he loses, would he concede to the outcome? First, the question gives Trump the opportunity to grandstand on defiance, pretending to be a man of principle. Second, why didn't Wallace ask the same of Hillary? "Madam Secretary, if you lose, do you intend to concede power to Donald? It's not even a real issue, just a talking point to help network shows fill dead airtime. They need ratings, damn it!

  3. This may be off topic, but Stefan Molyneux is breaking up with libertarians. I share several of his concerns, including being perpetually annoyed by libertarian fear of the SJWs. SJWs always lie. Keynesians always lie. Demand private neighborhoods and legalized discrimination NOW, I say. Also, I share his concerns about a perpetual Democrat majority of new illegal immigrants.

    But then I think he goes off the rails. First, libertarians will not share in his demands to prohibit child spanking and circumcision. I have very low expectations and would be happy if we could just stop pillage, murder and rape. Baby steps. Requiring unanimous agreement about spanking and circumcision is somewhat like requiring unanimous agreement about olives on pizza.

    Second, libertarians refuse to argue to the public that blacks, Mexicans and Arabs have very low IQs and are thus not able to properly conduct a democracy which requires a higher IQ. I’ve been arguing for 44 years that democracy with lots of public goods in a multi-ethnic/racial/religious society will generally tend towards Rwanda. I seem to remember the high IQ Germans having issues with a high level of public goods plus ethnic and religious differences. How about AnCap to the rescue? Or at least Private Neighborhoods Now! Whether a society has a low or high IQ, it’s not hard to tell whether the population is inclined to abide by the NAP before invading a place to bring about “democratic reforms”.

    Third, he is beside himself because libertarians will not support the great antiwar free market candidate Donald Trump. We do not know what Trump will actually do considering his frightening incuriosity regarding all things political. How do we know that it wouldn’t be better for the government, media and academia to permanently lose all respect and authority of half the population which might likely occur if the Hildebeast is elected?

    1. 1. Regarding Molyneux on feminism and no-fault divorce, I doubt that there will be much no-fault divorce under AnCap. The parties will write and learn to write their own enforceable contracts. Further, I’m loath to tell other people how to live. I think libertarians make a big mistake by not pointing out to SWJs that they could live in a private neighborhood that bans guns, gun lovers, Confederates and homophobes, etc. We make a big mistake by not pointing out to evangelicals at the same time that they could live in a private neighborhood that bans gays, dopers and dope. I’m looking for the most limited level of consensus possible regarding the NAP, but not regarding your lifestyle choice. Baby steps.

      2. Regarding Trump, seeing that he is clueless about the Fed, interest rates as prices and information or about the ABCT, how do we know that a President Trump wouldn’t be blamed (along with all “RIGHT WINGERS”) for the inevitable bad economic times that may be on the horizon? Perhaps a President Hildebeast would result in the bad times being blamed on “progressives”, Keynesians and unsustainable stimulus? And on the obviously horrible media and education establishment?

    2. Re: Bob Roddis,

      ─ Second, libertarians refuse to argue to the public that blacks, Mexicans and Arabs have very low IQs ─

      I'm imagining that you're paraphrasing Molyneux here, Bob, and that you don't subscribe to pseudo-scientific claptrap such as "IQ", n'est-ce pas?

      Because one only has to remember that Eastern European Jews who migrated to the U.S. between the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th were viewed as "low IQ" by officials, mostly because they were not able to speak English. Never mind that immigrants start businesses at a HIGHER rate than America-born citizens, but maybe entrepreneurship doesn't require a high IQ.

    3. I do not see where these I.Q. issues relate to libertarianism. So maybe the “state made them do it” analysis is not a complete analysis of certain anti-social attributes of certain groups or people. The fact remains that most of these minority groups do not enjoy safety in their person or property and are forced to attend horrible government schools which by itself is enough to explain many social “pathologies”. Under a system of private property, you worry about crimes after they are committed, not before based upon genetics. What exactly is the relevance to very thin libertarianism if certain people in certain groups have a low I.Q.? We really will not know how that effects things under AnCap until AnCap is tried. If you think certain people are more trouble than they are worth, do not engage in relationships with them. Other people may find it rewarding to deal with them. You may think you want to live in a Vox Day ethnic nation community. That’s your business. And what more could an alt-righty want in life?

      As I’ve said before, the very fact that someone has agreed to abide by a private property system is itself a great contribution to civilization. You are being polite, non-violent, you are safe and you must be honest in honoring contractual obligations. The only way to make a living is by pleasing other people via free exchange. Under such a system, if you are not committing violence or torts against others, how is your lifestyle that much of a concern to others, especially if you live in a different private neighbor than the complainer who need not ever get within two blocks of you?

      Under the current system, the voting patterns, school attendance patterns and welfare consuming patterns of immigrants are relevant issues. Under AnCap, I do not see how they are major social issues.