Judge Andrew Napolitano is an Excellent Libertarian

[PAF]

From: D
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 2:39 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Napolitano’s no libertarian

I love these Trump years. Something about this guy’s presidency that forces people to show who they really are. You and Ron Paul, among others, remain as you have always been, very consistent Libertarians. Thanks!

Others, like Napolitano? Not so much. His opinions on Trump and obstruction are very telling. More on that in a sec.

First, let’s discuss the Libertarian credentials of someone who fashions himself as “Judge”. If I had been appointed or elected as a Magistrate by an Authoritarian govt. and then later became a Libertarian I don’t think I’d find honor in having my fellow citizens (rather forcibly) encouraged to call me “honorable” or “your honor”. And if Judges are honorable, then whose definition of honor do we mean? The government’s definition? Ha. There is no honor among thieves, as it’s said. Is it the same honor bestowed to John McCain, the bloodthirsty and peevish master of War? I won’t belabor the point; you get my drift. Regardless of any of his policy position or principles, Napolitano will need to ditch the Judge-for-a-criminal-cartel honor before he can seriously be thought of as a Libertarian.

And then there’s his opinion that Trump committed obstruction of justice. That’d be a hard one to defend. If Trump committed no crime, then how could anything he did have prevented justice from being served? Justice WAS served. You can’t obstruct when there’s nothing to obstruct. In our legal world, no charges I’d the very definition of “exoneration”. Pax ! D



From: Walter Block [mailto:wblock@loyno.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 6:53 PM
To: D
Subject: RE: Napolitano’s no libertarian

Dear D:

I agree with you on the obstruction business. But, my friend Andrew is still a libertarian, and a magnificent one. Just because I disagree with an eminent libertarian, doesn’t mean that they cease to be precisely that. Heck, I’ve disagreed with other leading libertarians, Rothbard, Hoppe, Kinsella, Paul, many more. If I followed your reasoning, I’d practically be the only libertarian in the world.

Further, according to the principle you laid out (don’t use statist honorifics), Ron Paul, too, is not a good libertarian, since he often signs off as Congressman Paul. Ditto for his son, Rand Paul, who, after all, is a US Senator.

No, not only is Judge Andrew Napolitano an excellent libertarian, he is one of our leading lights. I would hazard a guess that, next to Congressman Ron Paul, he is now the second most famous libertarian in our movement, well, maybe, tied with Senator Rand Paul.

Best regards,

Walter



https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...t-libertarian/

[r3volution 3.0]

As for Napolitano being a judge, the judiciary is probably the least objectionable part of the state. First, it's actually necessary (from a minarchist perspective). Second, it's actually fairly efficient (compare the costs of the judiciary to total government spending: a magnifying glass might be required). Third, though judges are required to enforce unjust laws (in addition to just ones), that is precisely why you would want someone like Napolitano on the bench: to the extent that judge's have discretion, a libertarian judge can use it to neuter unjust laws (to the greatest extent possible without being removed from office).

As for Napolitano saying things critical of Trump, lol. Whether Trump has violated any federal statutes is totally uninteresting. Most injustices today are perfectly legal (when carried out by government). He has promoted all kinds of extraordinarily unlibertarian things (look at spending!) and deserves no sympathy whatsoever from libertarians. Suppose some guy clearly commited murder, for instance, but for some reason you can't prove it (perhaps the search warrant leading to the incriminating evidence was defective). Then suppose he gets framed for another murder that he didn't commit. Should you view this as an injustice? I think not.