Monday, August 14, 2017

On Government Provocateurs in Charlottesville and Supporting Trump

My post,  A Plea to My Fellow Libertarians: Please Throw Donald Trump Under the Bus, has drawn a number of comments, some of which I will respond to here. My responses are in blue.

Comment 1

I don't pretend to know who is behind what, but if I was a ruthless leftie (or do I repeat myself?) I'd be out there dressed as a Nazi KKK honky supremacist moron flying a Trump Forever flag.

What difference does this make to the point of my essay that we shouldn't be supporting Trump who is not advancing any libertarian positions? A Trump who is clearly unwilling to call out fascist protesters (government provocateurs or otherwise).


Comment 2

Vanguard America does not speak for all Whites.
They don't call them Hollywood Nazis without reason.

Who said they represent all whites? The point is that there is no advantage to align with them or their slogans. And once again,  Trump is clearly unwilling to call out fascist protesters (government provocateurs or otherwise) in the same fashion he does other groups. See, for example, his anti-MS13 press event.


Comment 3

Firstly, almost everything you are reading about Charlottesville in the media is a lie. The right wingers were there to protest peacefully but were attacked by the Antifa crowd, egged on, apparently and disturbingly (If true) by the Police themselves so they could shut the proceedings down.

So what does this have to do with not supporting right wing fascists? If we take your narrative of events, then the fascists don't want street brawls, they want the government to throw out all non-whites using the force of government. We are supposed to support this, when there isn't an ounce of libertarianism in their positions? 

My essay has nothing to do with support for Antifa both groups need to be condemned. And that is the point of my essay, there is no edge for libertarians to align with these clowns.

Comment 4

Just because you supported Hillary it doesn't make you a Crook, Socialist, Warmonger or Crony Capitalist and the same goes for Trump supporters as far as supporting all of Trump's views.

I didn't support Hillary.I made the point clear by forming, Libertarians Against Clinton, Trump, Johnson and Stein. My only point was that it would be easier to attack Hillary and libertarians would have more people considering libertarian arguments.

That is if Hillary would have been elected President I most surely would have been attacking her as much as I am Trump now. My point is that some libertarians are falling by the wayside of attacking Trump when there is no strategic reason to protect him.

Those moron nazi marchers don't represent Trump! Theoretically some marchers may possibly read your blog. Does that make you responsible for their actions?

No, they may not represent Trump but once again,  Trump is clearly unwilling to call out fascist protesters (government provocateurs or otherwise) in the same fashion he does other groups. See, for example, his anti-MS13 press event.

I am perfectly willing to call out fascists, antifa, Trump, Hillary and you ( a reader).

Your article is very unfair and is outrageous hyperbole! Sorry to say that this article reads like something the "Deep State" would facilitate by paying one of their STOOGE LACKEYS in the MSM to write to discredit Trump.

Yes, you are correct, I get paid big time by the Deep State because it is exceptionally difficult to make Trump, the libertarian, look like a buffoon, who is anti-free trade, pro low Fed interest rates, and infatuated with the military. Sometimes, I am amazed at myself that I can make these claims stick against Trump.




  2. "The point is that there is no advantage to align with them or their slogans."

    If you're white and unapologetic you'll be labeled a nazi regardless.

    1. Re: Paul Hansen,

      ─ If you're white and unapologetic you'll be labeled a [N]azi regardless. ─

      Perhaps but only by the most fringy groups. Nobody needs to apologize for what amounts to a genetic accident.

      It's ironic that while libwaps such as Jeffrey Tucker have been actively condemning white nationalist groups, nativism and other forms of collectivism while receiving nothing but criticism from the paleo-libertarians, we have here validation that Tucker et al HAD A POINT. I still don't believe libertarians should burden themselves with the responsibility of actively condemning every single fringy anti-liberty group out there since we're not required to be missionaries. But that doesn't mean libertarians should just be lumped together with white nationalists or nativists and other groups hostile to individual freedom without putting up a spirited defense, as truth is INDEED on our side.

  3. "...Trump is clearly unwilling to call out fascist protesters (government provocateurs or otherwise) in the same fashion he does other groups. See, for example, his anti-MS13 press event."

    Right? MS-13 is totally congruous to those white nationalists. Or fascists. Or whatever they are. I know those Klan wannabees deal drugs and kidnap for living, rob, kill, and perform machete artwork for laughs. They're practically identical.

    1. Re: jaberie308,

      ─ MS-13 is totally congruous to those white nationalists. ─

      MS-13 is a criminal gang. White supremacists are... white supremacists. You're trying to shoehorn in there some sort of false dichotomy that just doesn't work. The president should push for an anti-criminal gang policy, but why not also call out these hate groups by name?

    2. Because these are loaded questions. Trump was right to say he disavows and condemns all political violence. He gains nothing by associating himself (even by disavowing or condemning) specific violent actors. It's a form of the question, have you stopped beating your wife?

      BTW he can do it with ms13 or islamic terrorists because no one associates Trump with those groups. Same reason Obama didn't condemn BLM.

    3. I don't know why libertarians should want this president, or any other president, to make specific statements about these matters. Viewing the president as a national cultural, ethical, spiritual or other type of leader, or as the provider of great societal solutions or sentiments, is to accept his legitimacy as a ruler (which I don't). It also further encourages the view that the president and/or Congress are entitled to interfere more and more in local matters.

      I am always bemused by the great anticipation in the press and broader society as they anxiously await a president's statement on some event such as a mass shooting. Who the hell cares what any president thinks about these tragedies? He doesn't represent me, and doesn't provide me with any spiritual guidance. I am quite able to feel sympathy and form my own views of these horrific events without his input.

    4. Re: The NAPster,

      ─ I don't know why libertarians should want this president, or any other president, to make specific statements about these matters. ─

      Oh, he can do whatever the heck rocks his boat. That does not mean Robert's plea is not pertinent and wise: Libertarians should disavow him and throw him under the bus.


  4. Problem, as RW pointed out, there are many who have coozied up to Trump, and gone much further, embracing some of the types at this rally.

    Now we have a rash of new apologia for Charlottesville. These people invent excuses for their own bad behavior faster than a red excuses Stalin.

    If there were provocateurs, and of course there's a good chance there were (ever hear of the 90s?), then the Alt Righters there were too stupid or naive to go through with it anyway, knowing the risk that this could happen.

    Now they all whine that they're getting fired because their pictures are on the internet.

    Hey, the KKK was destroyed by the FBI too, but at least they were smart enough to wear masks.

    Welcome to the big leagues boys, looks like the establishment has gotten to you the second time through the lineup.

  5. Trump is the most public figure maybe ever. Use his celebrity to bring the Libertarian philosophy to as many as possible. Of course Trump should be thrown under the bus every time he advocates for that that does not follow the NAP and even when he does not condemn those that do not follow the NAP.

  6. RW, I guess I see the Charlottesville crowd differently than you. You see a bunch of conniving fascists ascendingto power. I see a crowd of powerless, dispossessed people who are being made persona non grata in their own country.

    1. A bunch of immigration restrictionists complaining that they're "beIng made persona non grata..." O sweet irony! Or is that poetic justice? Not sure.

    2. Partly. What is wrong with immigration restriction? Who has a right to immigrate here? And the immigrants in question are mainly low skilled low wage third world immigrants who are helping drop the lower middle classes (black and white) into the underclasses. I assume you'd feel differently if you had a flood of, say, Somali immigrants flooding into your community. Or if an immigrant was willing to do your job at a fraction of what you get?

    3. To re-phrase your question, who has the right to prevent a firm from employing who they want at whatever wage they want, and who has the right to prevent a landlord from renting to any tenant it chooses? Those are some of the rights violations that state immigration restrictions cause.

      And what about citizens who are willing to do your job at fraction of what you get paid; should they be deported? Or technology that makes your job redundant; should that technology be outlawed? There are many ways you can be out-competed as an entrepreneur or as a worker; running to the state asking for it to use force to protect you is unseemly. At a minimum it makes it odd to later then complain that the state's force was used against you when someone else gets to the state first.

    4. If an immigrant is willing to do my job at a fraction of what I get, then that means that the same stuff gets produced at a fraction of the previous cost, and the world is richer for it. All it means is that they would have managed to outcompete me. I would have to take a pretty narrow economic view to describe that as a bad thing.

      And you are correct, there is no "right to immigrate" but there is a "right to freedom from aggression" and physically accosting people for walking across an imaginary government-drawn line violates that right. It's not your property. (And if you try to say that public property IS your property, then that means it's mine, too, and I say they're invited, so there.)