Saturday, December 17, 2016

Response To 'The Problem With a Trump Presidency for Libertarians'

Dr. Mirand Sharma has responded to my post, The Problem With a Trump Presidency for Libertarians:
I can  easily defend my vote for  Donald  Trump from  the libertarian point of view, even though I think  overall he may indeed do a terrible job as POTUS.  How can I defend this view when I appear to present a contradiction?

Allow me to elaborate by quoting Murray Rothbard from his essay War, Peace, and the State:

We [libertarians]  have, indeed, been too often prone to "pursue our busy little seminars on whether or not to demunicipalize  the garbage collectors..." while ignoring and failing to apply libertarian theory to the most vital problem of our time: war and peace.

   When people ask me whom I supported for POTUS, my answer would be no one since I object to the very power structure of what the President is.  But my objection does not  necessarily preclude me from voting for what has indeed become (and perhaps always was) still the most vital issue of our time: war and peace.  And despite all of my misgivings of Mr. Trump, he is potentially the peace candidate. He is a builder, not a destroyer. He will engage in  fewer wars, perhaps even none. He wants to build diplomatic bridges with Russia rather than engage in a "limited" nuclear strike for regime change.

To be blunt, I am supporting Mr. Trump because he will murder far fewer people than a President Clinton would have otherwise.   More often than not, I believe Trump is terrible but Mrs. Clinton would have been horrible.

I am not  holding my breath in expecting Trump to shut down the whole government departments; nor am I expecting him to confront the Federal Reserve and bring back gold and silver as legal tender. I'm not expecting him to promote the winding down of entitlements,  to end the war on drugs,  to abolish the income tax, and to demunicipalize  garbage collectors.   But I am hopeful that the giant blood-and-wealth sucking horrible monster known as US foreign policy will be reigned in.

There is no way for me or anyone else to know for sure if a Trump Presidency will be better than a Clinton Presidency.  Libertarians are aware of the uncertainties of life and of world events, but we are smart enough to know that the best way to deal with adverse conditions and circumstances  is through  voluntary interactions rather than coercive actions of  the State.  I can  think of nothing more coercive that the dropping of bombs   and the use of other weapons that inflict unspeakable horror and pain to the lives on this earth.   There is no  greater antithesis of libertarianism than war.

Mirand Sharma MD FAAEM

RW response:
Dear Dr. Sharma:

I am fully aware that a vote for Donald Trump can be justified IF one believes that a Hillary Clinton presidency would bring more war and even nuclear attack.

But simply stating that Hillary would put us on the path to nuclear exchange with Russia is not very convincing when you state this opinion without out backing it up.

A careful study of recent history suggests your view may not be on sound ground. The past eight years, part of which Hillary was Secretary of State, shows many proxy wars encouraged by the US, limited direct military action by the US---and no direct confrontations with Russia.

Further, as is abundantly clear, Hillary is a criminal and will take payoffs from just about anyone---including Russians. She allowed Russian oligarchs to gain control of 20% of the US uranium supply! Is she suddenly going to engage in activity that will nuke a source of her lucre?

She was also intricately involved in the capitulation of the Obama administration over placing a missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland.

 The anti-Clinton news outlet Breitbart charged that:
 During Clinton’s tenure, the U.S. obeyed Russian demands and backed down from missile defense systems in Europe. The U.S. also signed the New START treaty, which included one-sided concessions by the U.S.

Do you honestly think these actions sound like a woman that wants to take a three step process to nuclear war:

1. Declare a no-fly zone in Syria.

2. Shoot down a Russian plane in the zone.

3.Let the nuclear missiles  fly

Is this your thinking?

How exactly can you justify that thinking when her actions have been the exact opposite when in direct confrontation with Russia?

To be sure, Hillary is a nutjob and will continue to use proxies to poke and prod Russia, but this is a far step from nuclear war.

Meanwhile, with Donald Trump we have a person who has no time for proxy wars. The idea that he is going to be a peace candidate is absurd. He is going to put US combat troops where Obama and Hillary feared to do so.

I quote from his top adviser, Lt. General Micahel Flynn, who was such during his campaign.

From Flynn's book:
"I'm totally convinced that, without a proper sense of urgency, we will eventually be defeated, dominated and very likely destroyed...Do you want to be ruled by men who eagerly drink the blood of their dying enemies?...

"It is not just a fight for a few hundred square miles of sand in Syria, Iraqi and Libyan deserts. They want it all."

And this:

"We have to organize all our national power, from military and economic intelligence and tough-minded diplomacy. It's not cheap and it's probably going to last through several generations."
Trump has total insane nutjobs around him. He hasn't even assumed the presidency but he is acting in a provocative manner towards China. And he just named a person as his nominee for the Ambassadorship of Israel who will send into outrage every Muslim on the planet.
And he has called for "safe zones" in Syria, which I hope you realize is pretty much the same thing as a no-fly zone. He called for them during his election run and called for them again yesterday.
When you write:
 He is a builder, not a destroyer. He will engage in  fewer wars, perhaps even none. 
It is really difficult for me to believe you understand the situation. Trump hates Iran, he hates OPEC and he has Generals all around him that want to take out Iran and send US combat troops into the Syria-Iraq region. And it appears he is going to take a provactive pro-Israel stance in a conflict that is none of our business. In addition, he has nominated a General for the Department of Homeland Security! Do you really want a military general who understands occupation tactics running the DHS?

I have consistently said that there is nothing good about Hillary, that Hillary and Trump are both horrific but that Trump had a greater skill in motivating his base. I hold to this view. He got them out on election night, Hillary didn't get hers out.

I am open to hearing your view on how Hillary would have caused a nuclear war with Russia if she were president and why you can so easily dismiss the warhawks around Trump that are thirsting for war, while you call Trump a "potential peace candidate," but I don't think the case is there.
Trump is good on a few secondary issues but for the most part I see him as a very dangerous leader. He is so good that I have to battle libertarians who want to stand up for him. Not good.


  1. "The past eight years, part of which Hillary was Secretary of State, shows many proxy wars encouraged by the US, limited direct military action by the US---and no direct confrontations with Russia."

    This is not because of BO or HRC's heroic restraint. We were inches away from sending a massive force into syria. They could not convince the public to go for it and there was much pushback so they scrapped the plan. The world was on a direct course of confrontation between 2 nuclear powers. Putin played his hand well with little resources is a large part of why nothing happened. Make no mistake the hawks still want to bring him down and they would have had a green light under HRC.

    Trump is pissing off china and possibly setting us on another dangerous course as you have well noted. But phone calls and twitter insults hardly compares to toppling govts and placing missles and troops on their border. You are nearly as over reactionary as the NYT when it comes to trump. When he finally ACTS in an aggressive manner by all means call him out but his big mouth does not compare to the provocations done to the russians in the past 7-8 years.

    Not to mention I fully believe this web site would have been shut down or otherwise censored under a HRC admin within 6 months.

  2. You know a presidential candidate by who they surround themselves with, and if they win the election who surrounds them once the presidential transition begins. It is paramount that to keep these relationships front and center in an assessment of a president, and let their words add perspective and depth as the picture comes quickly into focus.

    From my vantage point it appears that Americans are incapable of looking beyond a candidates words on the campaign trail. Words that are meant to sway the public into believing in a candidate are worthless when analyzing what a candidate will do when they get into office. Certain phrases uttered during the a campaign are like infectious agents, and make it seemingly impossible for the public to focus on anything else once infected. Phrases like "Get the government off the backs of the people," or "Make America great again" were only meant to paint an illusion, and are at their heart, vacuous.

    I can honestly attest to the fact that I have seen no progress over the past 50 years in the public's ability to think critically when it matters most, if anything I have witnessed a horrific level of regression in that regard. The public can not grasp the simple fact that presidential candidates are merely shills for the CFR, who are changed out when their ability to convincingly sell the product the CFR is pushing goes into terminal decline.

    Robert is correct in his analysis of Donald Trump because he has the knowledge, and experience to not be moved when a candidate bloviates on the campaign trail. Donald Trump is foreshadowing what a disastrous leader he will be, but Trump's fanboys "believe" so deeply that they are in essence blind to the drums of war that are rushing towards us.

  3. This is actually a good post by Wenzel. Very honest and argumentative post. I am really relieved actually.

    Here is a snippet of Brion McClanahan from April. He has a smart guy.

  4. Mr. Wenzel, thank you for posting my response to "The Problem with a Trump Presidency for Libertarians"

    I am reiterating that Trump is the potential peace candidate, not the peace candidate. With a President Trump, the USG will at least have a leader who at expresses friendly intentions with Russia. This is a good beginning. Also, Trump recently stated according to the Washington Examiner, "We will stop looking to topple regimes."
    This is a remarkable statement to make when he has already won the Presidency.

    With respect to Russia and ISIS, has said how he supports Putin "bombing the hell out of ISIS." I disagree with you in that so called "safe zone" are not necessarily no fly zones. There is a difference between the no fly zones and no bomb zones.

    I don't think overthrowing Assad is a priority for Trump, let alone a top priority. His seeming willingness to let Russia deal with the Syrian/ISIS problem is the correct position to take.

    In answer to your question regarding whether or not Hillary Clinton would "nuke" the Russians after receiving millions in "donations" after allowing Russia to obtaining mining rights to North American uranium, my answer is emphatically yes. She is the ultimate backstabber: after sucking wealth from an individual or country, she would have no problem manifesting her sociopathic personality traits in dispensing with a person or a nation. Furthermore, if she became President, she would have plenty more sources than Russia for her lucre.

    And in response to whether or not she would use nuclear weapons, listen to her own words in the video below: (You can skip to the 3 min mark, but the whole video is an interesting expose.)

    The bottom line, Mr. Wenzel, is that I agree with you that President-elect Trump's cabinet picks are terrible but at least there is a chance at less war and more peace. With Hillary as President, there would be only more war.

    Mirand Sharma MD FAAEM