+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 91

Thread: Why are some Libertarians rejecting Trump?

  1. #1
    Don Francis Frost
    Member

    Default Why are some Libertarians rejecting Trump?

    He's anti-interventionist. Strong on national defense and securing the border. He's for free markets. And lowere taxes. These are all policies in line with traditional Libertarianism. So what gives?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    3
    Posts
    8,282
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default

    bump
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  4. #3

  5. #4
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    31,267
    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Francis Frost View Post
    He's anti-interventionist.
    No he's not. He is an economic interventionist and a military interventionist.

    Strong on national defense
    No he's not. Interventionism increases the threats to national defense.

    and securing the border.
    A police state at the border is not a libertarian position.

    He's for free markets.
    No he's not. He is a protectionist.

    and lowere taxes.
    "Lower taxes" is not a libertarian position...especially with the fraudulent monetary system that Trump endorses.

    These are all policies in line with traditional Libertarianism. So what gives?
    None of those are libertarian positions. Trump is the worst thing for freedom that can be conceived of right now. Hillary would be better.

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    No he's not. He is an economic interventionist and a military interventionist.



    No he's not. Interventionism increases the threats to national defense.



    A police state at the border is not a libertarian position.



    No he's not. He is a protectionist.



    "Lower taxes" is not a libertarian position...especially with the fraudulent monetary system that Trump endorses.



    None of those are libertarian positions. Trump is the worst thing for freedom that can be conceived of right now. Hillary would be better.
    Stefan Molyneux, Alex Jones and Milo support him. Your argument is invalid.

  7. #6
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    31,267
    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    Stefan Molyneux, Alex Jones and Milo support him. Your argument is invalid.
    Hopefully that was sarcasm!

    I promise you that after 4 years, Molyneux will reject the alt right garbage he's succumbed to.

    Alex Jones...well, Alex Jones will probably still be Alex Jones. He is not a libertarian.

    I don't know who the other person is that you mentioned.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    I don't know who the other person is that you mentioned.
    Milo, is some sort of conservative gay guy that all the trump cucks admire because they all secretly want trump to bang their girlfriends then finish all over their cuck faces.

  9. #8
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    31,267
    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    Milo, is some sort of conservative gay guy that all the trump cucks admire because they all secretly want trump to bang their girlfriends then finish all over their cuck faces.
    Oh.

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Oh.
    Don't listen to him. He's just a low energy loser who's jealous of the alpha male and his gay queen.

  11. #10

    Default

    Why you troll. Checkin to see if still sharp??

  12. #11

    Default

    Why ? Because he's just an entertainer.
    And he's stupid. Normally nobody would pay attention to that...
    This cycle however, everybody seems to have lowered themselves to his level.

    Tremendous, great.

    But it's pretty obvious why this is happening... If there was a serious atmosphere with a media that was the least bit honest. Rand would have won the nomination and Trump had never made it past his announcement speech.
    "I am a bird"

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Francis Frost View Post
    He's anti-interventionist. Strong on national defense and securing the border. He's for free markets. And lowere taxes. These are all policies in line with traditional Libertarianism. So what gives?
    The folks you're talking about probably wouldn't have seen enough difference between Eric Cantor and Dave Brat to be worth the effort, either. They have an all-or-none attitude that normally only manifests itself in children under the age of 3.

    With some, they aren't libertarians to begin with. They like to smoke pot, or they like gay marriage, or they like to hire illegal aliens, or some other specific policy where pop-libertarianism gives them what they want, and that's the full-stop end to their consideration of political philosophy.

    Turns out that the open borders issue is an easy litmus test to tell a true libertarian from a false one.

    Genuine libertarians are fiercely nationalist and have zero problem with a national government doing its basic duty of defending the borders of the nation - the absolute #1 thing on the list of what a sovereign is supposed to do.

    Be aware that many other, rightfully-discredited philosophies (such as the various flavors of anarchism) claim to be libertarian, but are actually as opposed to liberty as Communism. The common failing here is the inability to distinguish true liberty from the natural right of violence. Probably none of them have the attention span to read Hobbes, or the intellectual capacity to understand it.

    So when you hear something here as being allegedly pro-liberty, or libertarian, don't take it at face value. Be very, very, very skeptical.
    Oligarchy delenda est

    “If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” - Samuel Adams

  14. #13

    Default

    Or, they just see him as yet another flavor of the same age-old erosion of liberty that we have suffered for 200+ years.

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luctor-et-emergo View Post
    Why ? Because he's just an entertainer.
    Not JUST an entertainer. We don't have to like Donald, but we should be fair to the man or we become that which we proclaim to despise.

    I am even fair to Obama and Hillary. Thank God there's not much in it to make me queasy, so in a sense I luck out.

    And he's stupid. Normally nobody would pay attention to that...
    I am surprised at you - calling him stupid. To underestimate a potential foe in this manner could also be said to be stupid. I will assume this is frustration speaking, which is well understandable. Being "lead" by such people at the threat of their men with guns is endlessly aggravating.

    Nornally? Define "normal". I'd say that drooling stupidity coupled with raving, barking insanity have become very much the norm in this era. In fact, it appears to define the very age in which we live.


    But it's pretty obvious why this is happening... If there was a serious atmosphere with a media that was the least bit honest. Rand would have won the nomination and Trump had never made it past his announcement speech.
    You're having a bad day, yes? Now stop, take a breath, and look around.

    Europe is committing suicide en masse. Russia and China are prepping for nuclear war. America is prepping to burn to the waterline, yet cares more about "talent" competitions. Muslims are running about sawing the heads off of other human beings.

    These are not freakish outlier events. They are now the rule. THESE are the new normal.

    Where, exactly, do we think this is all going to lead? Does anyone here think that such a general atmosphere will bring us to happy fun time?
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Or, they just see him as yet another flavor of the same age-old erosion of liberty that we have suffered for 200+ years.
    Which would make them small-minded, childish idiots who lack knowledge, reason, perspective and a sense of proportion.

    Which also now makes them my enemies. Because they're not just full of $#@!, they're dangerously full of $#@! at a critical moment in human history - and by affirmatively deciding NOT to be part of the solution to the epidemic of corruption that has destroyed liberty as surely as any dictator ever has, they can now be known for what they really are.

    Cowards. Traitors. Children.

    This quote used to be my sig line, perhaps it's been too long since.

    “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
    ― Samuel Adams
    Get on board or be viewed forever more as a cowardly wretch who ran and hid when the battle for liberty was joined.
    Oligarchy delenda est

    “If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” - Samuel Adams

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Originally Posted by Don Francis FrostHe's anti-interventionist.



    No he's not. He is an economic interventionist and a military interventionist.
    The worldview that your responses seem to imply is a mite simplistic. I mean no insult in saying this, but it appears you suffer some myopia on these matters.

    Free lands flourish only under certain circumstances. Those circumstances are largely absent today. A properly free land would be as a finger poking the eye of the rest of the world, especially the so-called "globalists". Those latter would, in fact, be obliged to endeavor to destroy America for the dangerous example it would set countering their specifications of a workers' paradise where everyone is equally impoverished, oppressed, and miserable. It simply could not be tolerated, and therefore it would become paramount to see to it that America as such was destroyed. Anyone doubting this needs to look back into our history with greater care and get a good snootful of the human political habit.

    Consider the many targets to which the covetous nations of the world would set their sights.

    Money: Being properly free, there would be proper money. While it COULD be electronic in form, I am skeptical as to the chances of that becoming the case. I would far more likely believe in traditional monies such as gold and silver. Assuming physical money, globalists and our other avaricious neighbors would embark on campaigns to relieve us of our backing stores. This is a given because this is what people DO. The predictability is so perfect on this point that it rivals that of a cesium fountain clock.

    So we would then be faced with a choice: be stripped to the bare walls of our stores of value or take measures to defend them. The latter, which IMO would be necessary to avoid economic destruction, would be a step AWAY from proper liberty.

    Borders: A properly free land operating in a properly free world would have no need for border enforcement. But existing in the context of a hostile world where said covetous neighbors would be scheming and endeavoring to take what you have, including the physical territories, the choice arises: erect and defend borders or be consumed by the mob. Another step AWAY from proper freedom.

    Defense: A properly free land has no standing armies, but their naughty neighbors do. The stark reality is that a large, well trained, well commanded army is more powerful than loosely- or uncoupled part-time weekend warrior units. Now, it can be well argued that Adm. Yamamoto's concern about a rifle behind every blade of grass was valid, but that does not remove the threat. History is littered with examples of madmen doing madthings. There would be no reason to believe for a New York minute that America's $#@!ty neighbors, perhaps at the goad of "globalists" would not be making military attempts upon the vast riches of the only properly free land on the planet. I would be willing to gaRONtee it. Again, it is what we as a species do. Once again we come to a nexus: develop the means of repelling the barbarians or risk losing it all. Assuming there are nifty and effective technological solutions hiding out there, somewhere, waiting to be discovered, we would still likely have to raise a standing army for at least some limited period of time until we actually discovered and proved those alternative remedies. And let us not forget that the longer an army stands, the less likely that it will step down, come the time. Large institutions have this bad habit of taking on lives of their own and, as with any other living thing, tend to want to keep going for as long as possible. Given history and our known proclivities, all manner of mischief will tend to arise as a result. Yet another step away from proper liberty.

    Economics: A free land in America would be free to trade with other nations. But where America's labor rates, for example, would be set by the free markets, those of nations such as China would remain artificially suppressed. Where the American manufacturer would be paying (for example) $10/hour to make shoes, the typical Chinese manufactory is paying $0.50. Free markets are competitive markets, yet American manufacturers would be unable to compete at the wholesale/retail level because they could not compete with China in terms of manufacturing costs due to the artificially low slave-labor markets.

    And once again America is faced with a choice: take measures to protect itself from the rigged markets of other nations or be killed by them. Free market trade works ONLY where all the trading partners operate in equally-free contexts. That would imply restrictions on trade with non-free partners such as China. It COULD be validly argued that even with a slaver state like China, free America should let trade happen, come what may. I would suggest that this would be a disaster, for once China destroyed its competition (America) and held a monopoly-like position, they would then begin to raise their prices and limit production as is the micro-economic optimum for all monopolies.

    Furthermore, America being a free nation with REAL money, would not be able to simply lower its wages in the face of Chinese slave labor competition. To do so would distort the economy at home in ways too numerous and arcane to go into here. And going back to the money issue, the resultant trade imbalances would lead to settlements where the "gold" would be expatriated to Chinese soil where, in all likelihood, it would remain in perpetuity.

    Therefore, economically speaking, the harsh realities of the lower denominator would press upon the normative ideals of properly free people, thereby driving them to have to make some hard choices.

    Without a critical mass of freedom in terms of a proportion of the global populations or of "nations", proper freedom simply cannot be made real. That is the hazard and the tragedy of spreading tyranny - of Empire. Once you pass a threshold, those not wishing to be consumed must follow suit. Why? Because in the short term at the very least, tyranny is more powerful than freedom. Hearken back to the Chinese example to see how this is so bitterly true: when the "free trade" hack job was foisted upon Americans, there was only one way for things to go. Take any market segment - say shoes once again. Remember when top-drawer Addidas and Nikes were many hundreds of dollars? I remember it clearly as in 1980 I worked as a ski mechanic at Princeton Ski and Skate in Manhattan. We sold high end athletic shoes and they were all $180 and up... back when that was REAL money (so to speak). Those shoes were ALL made in the USA and Europe and the prices reflected the labor costs, as much as anything else such as branding.

    Once the first shoe manufacturer of market repute moved to China, the future was cast for all others. If Uknown Athletic Shoes Inc. made the move, not really a big deal in immediate terms - perhaps never. But the moment Nike moved there, all the other big players HAD TO. Why? Because Nike has brand credibility, and thereby market power. The moment their labor costs go from $15/hr average to $0.60, their competition would be poised for the kill. When Addidas is still charging $300 per pair, Nike comes in at $225 and eats Addidas' lunch. If Addidas fails to match Nike's costs, etc. to compete at retail, they go out of business. Therefore, they close shop in America and go to China, as do all the rest, and the price wars ensue, resulting in top-drawer athletic shoes for $60, which was previously impossible.

    The lowest denominator, once adopted my one player, must be adopted by all who wish to survive. This applies both in economics, national defense, and so forth. It is a very ugly truth, but true nonetheless. It will remain true so long as humans on average have no love of liberty and remain avaricious and lazy such that they think they will get over on someone else's nickel.

    We as a species are stuck in a death spiral. We could get out at any time, but that would require eating some bitter. We do not want to do that, and so here we remain, tunneling ourselves ever deeper into the ground. This will NOT end well for us, I am 99.9% certain.

    Therefore, without far greater specificity, your objections to Trump miss any valid mark. And once again to repeat myself unto everyone's nausea: this does not make me a Trump fan. It does, however, show that I am cognizant of the extremely distasteful realities of our current circumstances, realizing that our ideals are nowhere to be achieved in our lifetimes. The best we are LIKELY to accomplish are incremental moves toward liberty. I realize that $#@! could happen to change things, but until it does, we stand where we stand.

    While I do not believe it to be the case, one should still recognize that Trump may well be the best we can do at this moment in time. It's a really $#@!ty thought, but nobody else has been offered up. Rand never had the least chance due to the corruption of just about everything, the people of America being the most significant element of it.


    Strong on national defense
    No he's not. Interventionism increases the threats to national defense.
    Agreed.




    and securing the border.


    A police state at the border is not a libertarian position.
    Establishment and defense of borders does NOT perforce imply a police state. That it likely leads to one, given current mental landscapes, is a different issue.



    He's for free markets.


    No he's not. He is a protectionist.
    Given certain circumstances, some brands of protectionism make sound strategic sense pursuant not to optimum freedom, but to economic survival as per my argument, above. We are today operating at the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy. We are in a state of growing entropy and probably cannot soundly indulge our ideals in the ways we would want. At best, I see them as goals toward which to work in a deliberate but piecemeal fashion. A flash-cut to full liberty would be a disaster.


    and lowere [sic] taxes.


    "Lower taxes" is not a libertarian position...especially with the fraudulent monetary system that Trump endorses.
    Now this is just silly. Just imagine the response, were Trump to start talking about non-money (FRN), the corrupt Fed, and so on. He'd be in a rubber room on a heavy thorazine load. You are expecting too much of a candidate. Not because what you want it wrong, but because Americans are so far removed from what is right that they would have the conniption of all conniptions if you seriously attempted to make them free in, say, an eight-year period. Just imagine the denizens of "the projects" when told their EBT cards were going away and that they would soon have to get jobs. The cities of America would burn to street-level in about five minutes. THAT is the reality of the corner into which we have painted ourselves. This is some seriously $#@!ed-up $#@! - dangerous as all hell, and very unlikely to see any substantive improvements any time soon.



    None of those are libertarian positions. Trump is the worst thing for freedom that can be conceived of right now. Hillary would be better.
    That is decidedly unknown at this time.

    Trump is an unknown quantity as a politician. He might prove a disaster. We KNOW Hillary will be. I say take the sliver of hope, no matter how impossibly thin. This is my inner pragmatarian speaking. I don't like it, but this is the hand we have been dealt. Act is if it is not the case at your own peril.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    Which would make them small-minded, childish idiots who lack knowledge, reason, perspective and a sense of proportion.

    Which also now makes them my enemies. Because they're not just full of $#@!, they're dangerously full of $#@! at a critical moment in human history - and by affirmatively deciding NOT to be part of the solution to the epidemic of corruption that has destroyed liberty as surely as any dictator ever has, they can now be known for what they really are.

    Cowards. Traitors. Children.

    This quote used to be my sig line, perhaps it's been too long since.



    Get on board or be viewed forever more as a cowardly wretch who ran and hid when the battle for liberty was joined.
    So, let me try to cut past your tourettes and figure out exactly what you are charging me with and why.


    I am an enemy of liberty and a traitor to the United States, as well as an oligarchy's puppet, because I am unwilling to cast a vote, for an oligarchic tyrant who holds nothing but contempt for the US Constitution?


    Is that about what you are trying to say?

  19. #18

    Default

    the OP is gone, why was this bumped?

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Francis Frost View Post
    Why are some Libertarians rejecting Trump?
    If you understand libertarianism, How is this even a question?
    Last edited by scm; 11-02-2016 at 07:13 AM.

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scm View Post
    I feel you understand libertarianism, How is this even a question?
    Exactly! They should all be supporting Trump because he's going to smash the establishment! MAGA

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    Exactly! They should all be supporting Trump because he's going to smash the establishment! MAGA
    ROTFLMAO

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    Stefan Molyneux, Alex Jones and Milo support him. Your argument is invalid.
    Your argument became invalid at Alex Jones

  24. #23

    Default

    Because the lesser of two evils is still evil and he is not a libertarian.

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    Stefan Molyneux, Alex Jones and Milo support him. Your argument is invalid.
    Also Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods.
    “I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Oh.
    Milo tours college campuses and trolls the SJWs and tries to educate everybody on the huge flaws of modern leftism, and all the lies they put out.. it's awesome.. he is flaming gay, and brags about banging black and brown guys all the time, so he can't be called out as racist or misogynist or anti-LGBT, so he can get the message out better. Anybody else who tries to say what he says is just called a racist/misogynist and so their views are automatically dismissed.

    The alt-right likes him for that reason.
    Last edited by dannno; 11-04-2016 at 12:03 AM.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  27. #26

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    ...
    That is decidedly unknown at this time.

    Trump is an unknown quantity as a politician. He might prove a disaster. We KNOW Hillary will be.
    Please. No we don't know that. It's highly likely if Trump wins, both houses of Congress will be Republican controlled. That's unchecked power for an extremely vindictive thin skinned authoritarian white nationalist. If Hillary wins, the House will be Republican controlled, and if the Senate isn't Republican controlled, they can still filibuster. And as the figures below show, Republican Presidencies aren't more likely to result in better economic growth than Democrat ones.


    GDP's of past Presidents:

    Kennedy/Johnson 5.3%
    Clinton - 3.8% -- Republican controlled Congress 6 of his 8 years in office.
    Reagan- 3.4%
    Carter - 3.4%
    Nixon/Ford - 2.7%
    Eisenhower - 2.4%
    Obama - 2.0%
    GHW Bush - 2.0%
    Truman - 1.9%
    GW Bush - 1.6%



    I say take the sliver of hope, no matter how impossibly thin. This is my inner pragmatarian speaking. I don't like it, but this is the hand we have been dealt. Act is if it is not the case at your own peril.
    Last edited by robert68; 11-04-2016 at 01:52 PM.

  29. #28

    Default

    Because Donald Trump is just as much of an authoritarian as Hilary Clinton, he was never a non interventionist on anything. His solution to ISIS is to "bomb the $#@! out of them". He stated he wants to "build up the military" but this would be a good thing why exactly? America spends more than the other top 10 military powers put together and has more bases around the world than any other nation. The closest Trump has said to changing this is to charge nations where we have bases, granted it is a step up from the current policy and does make sense but it is not non interventionism. Non interventionism would be getting rid of those bases entirely and having countries like Germany and Japan be solely responsible for their own security and to not have entangling alliances. One positive thing I will say about Trump is that his proposed idea of actually talking to Russia instead of saber rattling them would actually help if it was implemented.

    Though I agree that the border should be secured his solution of building a wall and getting Mexico to pay for it is incredibly unrealistic. The wall part is one thing, but how does he propose to get Mexico to pay for it? Donald Trump is not free market, he is a protectionist. He is correct that trade deals like NAFTA and the proposed TPP are complete and total ripoffs that are screwing the poor and middle class. But his proposed solution of raising tariffs to bring back American jobs would likely result in trade wars which will both harm American workers as well as further harm US relations with the rest of the world. Donald Trump talks a decent game on taxes, I will give him that but I will believe it once I see some action (assuming he wins the election).
    Last edited by Jerry C; 11-05-2016 at 10:10 AM.

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Francis Frost View Post
    He's anti-interventionist.
    No he isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Francis Frost View Post
    Strong on national defense and securing the border.
    Not exactly libertarian positions there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Francis Frost View Post
    He's for free markets.
    He's the most anti-free market candidate the GOP has ever nominated in its entire history.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Francis Frost View Post
    And lowere taxes.
    He's for higher spending. That equates to higher taxes. The only question is which form those taxes will take.

  31. #30

    Default

    The second post in this thread is telling.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Trump versus Johnson, and libertarians who are voting...
    By ProIndividual in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-11-2016, 11:32 AM
  2. Block v Wenzel debate if libertarians should support Trump
    By heavenlyboy34 in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04-09-2016, 05:02 PM
  3. Roger Stone discusses Libertarians for Trump (video)
    By Smitty in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-19-2016, 02:57 PM
  4. Replies: 86
    Last Post: 07-31-2015, 04:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •