Libertarians and Trump

[Warlord]

I have never been a member of the Libertarian Party. I don’t vote, so I’ve never voted for the Libertarian Party candidate in any presidential election. If I did vote, I would have probably clamped my nose in a vice and voted for Donald Trump before I would have voted for the pathetic 2016 Libertarian Party ticket of Gary Johnson and William Weld.

I don’t believe anything—no matter how good it sounds—that comes out of the mouth of any politician, and especially those who run for president. I don’t even get excited if they say “zero tariffs, zero subsidies, zero non-tariff barriers” because they will say whatever they think people want to hear if they think it will increase their chances of getting elected.

Donald Trump is no exception. I was never part of the “Libertarians for Trump” movement (but neither am I a member of the “never Trumpers”). I took every “good” thing Trump said during his presidential campaign with a truckload of salt. Now that Trump has been in office for over half of his term, I think it should be clear that Trump has been a disaster for liberty and limited government.

Yet, we sometimes hear from libertarians about the positives and accomplishments of President Trump. Whatever they are (and there are some), these are so greatly outweighed by Trump’s negatives and failed policies as to be insignificant.

It is a myth that Trump has cut the number of federal employees. The federal leviathan is as big, as powerful, and as intrusive as ever. Have any federal assets been sold? Have any federal lands been sold? The federal government still owns roughly 640 million acres, about 28 percent of the land in the United States, including 79 percent of Nevada. Have any federal departments, bureaus, agencies, corporations, endowments, commissions, administrations, authorities, or boards been eliminated or significantly reduced? Of course not. Instead of draining the swamp, Trump has increased is level and toxicity.

Although Trump talked about reducing the national debt during his presidential campaign, that debt now exceeds $22 trillion and is expected to reach $23 trillion by the end of 2019. By the end of Trump’s first term, he will have added over $5 trillion to the national debt. That is almost as much as the debt increased during two full terms of George W. Bush. Trump joins Presidents Bush and Obama in having budget deficits of over $1 trillion. The federal budget is fast approaching $5 trillion annually. Trump asks for a higher budget each year, and especially more military spending.

Trump is said to have cut federal regulations. To give credit where credit is due, I believe he has rescinded some of President Obama’s regulations. But what major federal regulations has Trump cut? No one ever lists them. The federal government still regulates every facet of American life from the amount of water that toilets are allowed to flush to the size of holes in Swiss cheese.

Trump’s tax cut “is also undoubtedly the smallest, not the biggest, individual tax cut in history,” according to David Stockman, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (1981–1985) under President Ronald Reagan. And don’t forget that Trump’s individual tax cuts are only temporary. Trump should be praised, however, for getting the corporate tax rate permanently cut. But not, of course, for increasing refundable tax credits, a form of welfare.

Americans still live in a virtual police state. If you have any doubt, then just see the many articles on this by John Whitehead that regularly appear on this website.

The federal war on drugs continues unabated. Has the budget of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) been cut? Have any of its employees been laid off? True, Trump commuted the life sentence of drug trafficker Alice Johnson. But over 2,000 federal prisoners are serving life sentences for nonviolent drug crimes. Did Trump commute Johnson’s sentence because he wants to end the drug war? Of course not. Did Trump commute her sentence because he doesn’t think that anyone should be locked up for a non-violent drug crime? Of course not. It was a political move, like much of what Trump (and any other politician) does. Trump has called for the death penalty for some drug dealers and has praised Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte for his handling of the drug problem in his country.

Trump has been absolutely horrible on foreign policy. U.S. soldiers are still dying in Afghanistan. U.S. troops still occupy hundreds of foreign military bases and are still stationed in over 150 countries. The United States has never been closer to war with Iran. Trump has brought home from North Korea the bodies of some dead U.S. soldiers, but not one living U.S. soldier has been brought home from some country where he has no business being. U.S. foreign policy is still reckless, belligerent, and meddling. See the website of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity any day of the week for all the follies of U.S. foreign policy.
Trump’s trade policies have been an absolute disaster for the economy. Trump is an ignorant protectionist and economic nationalist, through and through. On the true state of Trump’s economy, I prefer the analysis of David Stockman instead of government statistics.

The United States may now be the world’s top oil producer, but it hasn’t resulted in something far more important—U.S. disengagement from the Middle East.

And what are these “good stands” that Trump has taken? Venezuela? Protectionist tariffs? Afghanistan? Military spending? Foreign interventions? Syria? Yemen? The Iran deal?

It is often pointed out that unlike other presidents, Trump is not politically correct. That, of course, is a good thing. However, vulgarity, insults, and rudeness should not be mistaken for political incorrectness.

But, we are told, the deep state, the Democrats, and the news media are relentless in their attacks on Trump therefore we should support him. I despise all three entities, but hasten to point out that most of their criticisms are not my criticisms and most of my criticisms are not their criticisms. I can support Trump against these entities only when he is in the right.

Crumbs indeed are what we are getting from Donald Trump as far as liberty and limited government are concerned. Trump may be “better” than Hillary, Obama, and Bush, but not by enough to cheer him.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/10/...ans-and-trump/

[r3volution 3.0]

I have never been a member of the Libertarian Party. I don’t vote, so I’ve never voted for the Libertarian Party candidate in any presidential election. If I did vote, I would have probably clamped my nose in a vice and voted for Donald Trump before I would have voted for the pathetic 2016 Libertarian Party ticket of Gary Johnson and William Weld.

...

Now that Trump has been in office for over half of his term, I think it should be clear that Trump has been a disaster for liberty and limited government.

It's nice that the OP recognizes that Trump's a disaster, but that realization shouldn't have taken 4+ years; it was obvious from the start.

No sane libertarian should have thought that Trump would be better than Johnson.

[Krugminator2]

It's nice that the OP recognizes that Trump's a disaster, but that realization shouldn't have taken 4+ years; it was obvious from the start.

No sane libertarian should have thought that Trump would be better than Johnson.

That guy is pathetic. He and Rockwell trashed Rand constantly and support Trump?

I was critical of GJ because he has such a poor grasp of philosophy but I voted for him. I would make Gary king for life if I could.

[r3volution 3.0]

That guy is pathetic. He and Rockwell trashed Rand constantly and support Trump?

I was critical of GJ because he has such a poor grasp of philosophy but I voted for him. I would make Gary king for life if I could.

After a suitable period of repairing their libertarian bona fides with articles like this, I fully expect them to shill for Trump again next election.

[CCTelander]

After a suitable period of repairing their libertarian bona fides with articles like this, I fully expect them to shill for Trump again next election.

I hope you're wrong and they really did learn their lesson, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

[Krugminator2]

After a suitable period of repairing their libertarian bona fides with articles like this, I fully expect them to shill for Trump again next election.

Lew isn't a libertarian. He is a nihilist who just wants to destroy things and wants controversy.

I have come to believe he doesn't care even a little bit about what Austrian economics even says. I think at this point he just likes that it is "anti-establishment." If all of sudden more mainstream economists started quoting Mises, then Mises would become a bad guy and get trashed because he wasn't "pure" enough like Rothbard. All the while he would be licking Trump's butt.

[r3volution 3.0]

Lew isn't a libertarian. He is a nihilist who just wants to destroy things and wants controversy.

I have come to believe he doesn't care even a little bit about what Austrian economics even says. I think at this point he just likes that it is "anti-establishment." If all of sudden more mainstream economists started quoting Mises, then Mises would become a bad guy and get trashed because he wasn't "pure" enough like Rothbard. All the while he would be licking Trump's butt.

That sounds about right.

[acptulsa]

I hope you're wrong and they really did learn their lesson, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Don't count on it.

I'm pretty sure Google allows no libertarians on the 'net except Beckstabbers.

[Swordsmyth]

LOL

Trump has been clearly more good than bad.

[eleganz]

Libertarianism and Trump is like oil and water.

Anybody thinking Trump would be like Ron Paul or anything close needs to have their heads examined.

Trump is just like any one of our friends that don't give a sht about libertarian ideology and would use gov. at their earliest convenience. Trump's principles are money and loyalty. I've accepted this a long time ago and since then I've been able to separate the good and bad policies.

I see Trump as a net positive compared to our last few presidents. I'll take the tax cut and de-regulation and build my wealth with it.

If you want to spread libertarianism and actually have people hear you out, build the wealth and the influence will come with it. Until then, its a loser ideology nobody cares about. The libertarian moment at it's peak isn't even close to socialist popularity this year.

Complaining day in and out to the same forum of about 20 active members isn't changing any minds and certainly isn't influencing politicians.

Keep complaining about Rand too, that guy is single-handedly getting everything done with a piece of his lung missing, while all you guys do is WEEP about how he is not doing a good enough job.

[Swordsmyth]

Libertarianism and Trump is like oil and water.

Anybody thinking Trump would be like Ron Paul or anything close needs to have their heads examined.

Trump is just like any one of our friends that don't give a sht about libertarian ideology and would use gov. at their earliest convenience. Trump's principles are money and loyalty. I've accepted this a long time ago and since then I've been able to separate the good and bad policies.

I see Trump as a net positive compared to our last few presidents. I'll take the tax cut and de-regulation and build my wealth with it.

If you want to spread libertarianism and actually have people hear you out, build the wealth and the influence will come with it. Until then, its a loser ideology nobody cares about. The libertarian moment at it's peak isn't even close to socialist popularity this year.

Complaining day in and out to the same forum of about 20 active members isn't changing any minds and certainly isn't influencing politicians.

Keep complaining about Rand too, that guy is single-handedly getting everything done with a piece of his lung missing, while all you guys do is WEEP about how he is not doing a good enough job.

+Rep

[r3volution 3.0]

I'll take the tax cut and de-regulation

Tax cuts without spending cuts mean nothing, and the deregulation was a a joke, a drop in the ocean.

If you want to spread libertarianism and actually have people hear you out, build the wealth and the influence will come with it.

By that logic, we should have been happy with Obama's solar subsidies, since it gave us a chance to profit off that racket.

Complaining day in and out to the same forum of about 20 active members isn't changing any minds and certainly isn't influencing politicians.

That's true, but of course it applies to everyone here, those criticizing Trump and well as those licking his boots.

[oyarde]

If this article was supposed to impress me I can only say it did not .

[eleganz]

Tax cuts without spending cuts mean nothing, and the deregulation was a a joke, a drop in the ocean.

I'll take anybody's tax cuts and additional deductions that they don't want. Anybody? Bueller????

Oh I see.

[r3volution 3.0]

I'll take anybody's tax cuts and additional deductions that they don't want. Anybody? Bueller????

Oh I see.

Not quite

[eleganz]

Not quite

Thanks for making my point.

Tax cut without spending cuts actually do mean something because nobody is willing to hand you that extra cash in their pocket. Certainly not give it back to the Treasury.

Whats your alternative? Withhold tax cuts from all the millions of Americans simply because spending isn't balanced? How uN-lib3rty of you.

[r3volution 3.0]

Thanks for making my point.

Tax cut without spending cuts actually do mean something because nobody is willing to hand you that extra cash in their pocket. Certainly not give it back to the Treasury.

Whats your alternative? Withhold tax cuts from all the millions of Americans simply because spending isn't balanced? How uN-lib3rty of you.

The goal of libertarianism is to reduce the burden of government, not shift it around.

It's nice if you benefited from that shifting-around, but the total burden of government in America is heavier now than when Trump took office.

That's nothing to cheer.

[Swordsmyth]

The goal of libertarianism is to reduce the burden of government, not shift it around.

It's nice if you benefited from that shifting-around, but the total burden of government in America is heavier now than when Trump took office.

That's nothing to cheer.

Trump is doing both and both are needed, that's something to cheer.

[r3volution 3.0]

Trump is doing both and both are needed, that's something to cheer.

That's hundreds of billions of dollars of additional spending.

His own estimate of the economic benefit of his farcical deregulation was less than $1 billion.

There is no question that the burden of government is larger now than when he entered office.

[Anti Globalist]

I never thought for one minute government would shrink if Trump got elected.

[acptulsa]

Good changes vs. bad changes under Trump.



That must be what the shylls are spamming about.

Then there's changes vs. non-changes.



The more the partisans get worked up about silly-assed garbage, the faster the country goes down the tubes.

[eleganz]

The goal of libertarianism is to reduce the burden of government, not shift it around.

It's nice if you benefited from that shifting-around, but the total burden of government in America is heavier now than when Trump took office.

That's nothing to cheer.

I asked you a very clear question on what the alternative is and you just ignored it and talked about shifting the burden around.

Lets cut through all the BS and get to the bottom line.

What you earned is your property whether or not there is a spending deficit.

Through several successive posts, you avoided having to come to that conclusion even though what you're saying alludes to it.

Now I ask you again; Do you support withholding tax cuts from Americans simply because the budget isn't balanced and spending is causing debt?

I wonder what Ron Paul would say.

[r3volution 3.0]

I asked you a very clear question on what the alternative is and you just ignored it and talked about shifting the burden around.

The alternative to shifting around the burden is decreasing it, obviously.

Lets cut through all the BS and get to the bottom line.

What you earned is your property whether or not there is a spending deficit.

Through several successive posts, you avoided having to come to that conclusion even though what you're saying alludes to it.

Now I ask you again; Do you support withholding tax cuts from Americans simply because the budget isn't balanced and spending is causing debt?

I wonder what Ron Paul would say.

If spending remains the same, I'm indifferent.

[eleganz]

The alternative to shifting around the burden is decreasing it, obviously.



If spending remains the same, I'm indifferent.

Bottom line

The ownership over the fruits of your labor has literally nothing to do with how your government spends.

This is why I've continuously supported tax cuts despite the deficit.

[r3volution 3.0]

Bottom line

The ownership over the fruits of your labor has literally nothing to do with how your government spends.

This is why I've continuously supported tax cuts despite the deficit.

You're still missing the point...

Every dollar the state spends is a dollar worth of resources that the state has to take from the population.

It doesn't matter whether the method is taxing, printing, borrowing, or regulating - in all cases the state is taking the fruits of our labor.

[dude58677]

it Donald Trump did anything it is that he upstarted term limits by getting elected as a nonpoliticians. In the short run it doesn’t do much but in the long run it does.

But if we want to restore this country to its limited function then we need to explain to the public about the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. We need to explain to the American people that the anti-federalists enacted the bill of rights to severely limit the three branches of government. The Federalists made the government stronger by enacting the Constitution and the anti-federalists shrunk the government again by enacting the Bill I’d Rights and the Preamble made it clear that it would do this but now politicians, professors, lawyers, media personnel, etc IGNORE this part of the Bill of Rights. The purpose being to prevent misconstruction or abuse of powers that the bill of rights are restrictive clauses.

[eleganz]

You're still missing the point...

Every dollar the state spends is a dollar worth of resources that the state has to take from the population.

It doesn't matter whether the method is taxing, printing, borrowing, or regulating - in all cases the state is taking the fruits of our labor.

Sorry, I'm not missing the point. I get your exact point and like you said you're indifferent because you simply can't be running around RPF saying tax cuts aren't allowed without spending cuts.

Now what part of this don't you understand?

The ownership over the fruits of your labor has literally nothing to do with how your government spends.

No matter how you twist it, no matter how much the government spends, its a literal fact. Unless you don't think your labor belongs to you. Who owns your labor then?


I said before let's cut the BS but you keep dancing around it. This is getting repetitive. Your labor, your fruits. My labor, my fruits.

I asked you or anybody that disagrees to give me their savings or give it to the Treasury. Anybody here willing to do that? Its 100% silence on that one bud.

[r3volution 3.0]

Sorry, I'm not missing the point. I get your exact point and like you said you're indifferent because you simply can't be running around RPF saying tax cuts aren't allowed without spending cuts.

I said I'm indifferent because I'm indifferent.

What, in your view, is the advantage of (for example) stealing $100 billion less via taxes while stealing $100 billion more via inflation?

The burden will be distributed differently, but the total amount of property stolen will be the same.

So...?

Now what part of this don't you understand?

I don't understand why you keep posting it.

I'm not disputing that we own the fruits of our labor.

No matter how you twist it, no matter how much the government spends, its a literal fact. Unless you don't think your labor belongs to you. Who owns your labor then?

Again, that's not in dispute.

I said before let's cut the BS but you keep dancing around it. This is getting repetitive. Your labor, your fruits. My labor, my fruits.

Uh, yea, it sure is..

I asked you or anybody that disagrees to give me their savings or give it to the Treasury. Anybody here willing to do that? Its 100% silence on that one bud.

Of course I don't want to give my money to the treasury.

But what does this have to do with anything...?

[eleganz]

I'm not disputing that we own the fruits of our labor.

Again, that's not in dispute.

Of course I don't want to give my money to the treasury.

Now that its out of the way.

If I am keeping more of my labor, what does that have to do with the government's spending?

You're not even willing to give to the treasury so you will take what you can get, yet you keep tying tax cuts together with spending and how immoral it is.

How hypocritical is that?

[r3volution 3.0]

Now that its out of the way.

If I am keeping more of my labor, what does that have to do with the government's spending?

You're not even willing to give to the treasury so you will take what you can get, yet you keep tying tax cuts together with spending and how immoral it is.

How hypocritical is that?

If spending is unchanged, you're only keeping more of your labor because someone else is keeping less of his.

That's nice for you, not nice for the other guy.

Do you see how a person concerned with liberty in general (as opposed to liberty only for oneself) would be ambivalent about that result?

In case you don't, let's try another illustration.

King Minos selects 14 people every year to be eaten by the Minotaur.

He was planning on selecting Bob, but then changes his mind for some reason and selects Jim instead.

Is that an improvement?

Do you see how that's good for Bob, bad for Jim, and a wash for society as a whole (same number of people get murdered)?