"Libertarians for Trump"

[enhanced_deficit]

Not too shocking.

And he likes to form new groups.

Founder of Jews for Ron Paul Walter Block, PhD - Why Obama/Romney is a Curse to America and Israel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9BtEFy4kVM

[angelatc]

We will release the list of names of LFT members once we reach 100 participants.

[acptulsa]

Shouldn't that say, 'libertarians against everyone else to an even greater degree?

Even then they can only sell it to fools.

[Rad]

I thought Trump pumping and speculation wasn't allowed?

[acptulsa]

I thought Trump pumping and speculation wasn't allowed?

Right. Only deliberately misleading Trump spam is allowed.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...icle&p=6179603

[Rad]

Right. Only deliberately misleading Trump spam is allowed.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...icle&p=6179603

Huh? I thought only real news was allowed.

[r3volution 3.0]

Not too shocking.

And he likes to form new groups.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9BtEFy4kVM

Walter Block endorsed Trump.

Ergo, he is not anything remotely resembling a libertarian.

Yet, he claims to be a libertarian.

Ergo, he's a lying weasel; $#@! Walter Block.

[nikcers]

Walter Block endorsed Trump.

Ergo, he is not anything remotely resembling a libertarian.

Yet, he claims to be a libertarian.

Ergo, he's a lying weasel; $#@! Walter Block.

Matt Kibbe has a theory that people have different definitions for terms like Socialism and Capitalism. His recent interview he says this, and it makes a lot of sense. It seems like people do this for Libertarian too.

[r3volution 3.0]

Matt Kibbe has a theory that people have different definitions for terms like Socialism and Capitalism. His recent interview he says this, and it makes a lot of sense. It seems like people do this for Libertarian too.

Random internet dude doesn't understand what libertarianism is, okay.

Dude who knew Murray personally, who's spent his entire adult life propagating libertarian doctrine..

...who wrote published books on the subjects (which are very good, FYI), no.

Unacceptable, Walter knows exactly what he's done, and therefore he is responsible.

[nikcers]

Random internet dude doesn't understand what libertarianism is, okay.

Dude who knew Murray personally, who's spent his entire adult life propagating libertarian doctrine..

...who wrote published books on the subjects (which are very good, FYI), no.

Unacceptable, Walter knows exactly what he's done, and therefore he is responsible.

Wow so he has been an authority on libertarianism and he decided to spread disinformation for money? I hope they don't intend to hijack the only political party I identify most with just because they want to mislead dummies into voting for Trump. I've seen the Democratic party and Republican parties become centrists over the last few elections, if that happens to the LP, then I will just have to keep identifying myself as a Ron Paul republican.

[r3volution 3.0]

Wow so he has been an authority on libertarianism and he decided to spread disinformation for money?

I doubt it's money in Block's case (unlike those whores Lew and Woods).

...not money, more like insanity.

...like padded rooms style.

I hope they don't intend to hijack the only political party I identify most with just because they want to mislead dummies into voting for Trump. I've seen the Democratic party and Republican parties become centrists over the last few elections, if that happens to the LP, then I will just have to keep identifying myself as a Ron Paul republican.

The Libertarian Party's still sound (incompetent to the extreme, of course, but still libertarian).

....

All around, Murray or Ludwig would have a $#@!ing heart-attack if they saw how "libertarians" are behaving.

[LibertyEagle]

I dunno. Murray was a huge supporter of Pat Buchanan. But, he was disappointed by the end of it. This was before he came up with anarcho-capitalism.

All around, Murray or Ludwig would have a $#@!ing heart-attack if they saw how "libertarians" are behaving.

Well, Mises certainly would, but probably not about Trump, as much as the anarchist BS. He wasn't for no government whatsoever.

[Krugminator2]

Random internet dude doesn't understand what libertarianism is, okay.

There are a lot of shades of libertarian. Trump obviously falls nowhere near any of them.

Somewhat relevant to Block endorsing Trump for foreign policy, I am watching an interview with Tibor Machan and William F. Buckley from 1982 defining what a libertarian is. In it, Machan says 60-70% of libertarians reject Taft isolation. They said the reason there is an antiwar movement is because the Koch Brothers (whose name Buckley mispronounced) are financially propping it up. Funny how that bit of libertarian history never gets mentioned. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIpcZYT5glg starts a little before 6 min mark.

[r3volution 3.0]

I dunno. Murray was a huge supporter of Pat Buchanan. But, he was disappointed by the end of it. This was before he came up with anarcho-capitalism.

No

Murray came up with anarcho-capitalism in the 50s.

...developed fully by 1970 with "Power and Market."

His turn toward retarded nationalism in the 90s was a devious political strategy, just like his turn to the New Left in the 60s.

Well, Mises certainly would, but probably not about Trump, as much as the anarchist BS. He wasn't for no government whatsoever.

Mises, like all other classical liberals, was for the free movement of goods AND PEOPLE across borders.

He saw first hand what nationalism wrought, and it was slaughter by the tens of millions.

[LibertyEagle]

No

Murray came up with anarcho-capitalism in the 50s.

...developed fully by 1970 with "Power and Market."

His turn toward retarded nationalism in the 90s was a devious political strategy, just like his turn to the New Left in the 60s.

That's sure not what he told me. I think I will rely on what the man actually said. Yup, think so.

Mises, like all other classical liberals, was for the free movement of goods AND PEOPLE across borders.

He saw what nationalism wrought, and it was slaughter by the tens of millions.

lol. Borders and national sovereignty do not equate to national socialism, you goof. Ron Paul is for borders and national sovereignty; or didn't you know?

[r3volution 3.0]

Mises, like all other classical liberals, was for the free movement of goods AND PEOPLE across borders.

He saw first hand what nationalism wrought, and it was slaughter by the tens of millions.

lol.

Your response to the mass slaughter of the first world war is "laugh out loud"?

...I really don't know what to say to you other than go $#@! yourself.

We don't have any common principles.

[LibertyEagle]

Your response to the mass slaughter of the first world war is "laugh out loud"?

I laughed at your dumbass statement and I explained why. You know, the part you deleted from my quote. A belief in national sovereignty and borders is NOT national socialism. Unless you are calling Ron Paul a nazi. Is that what you are doing?

...I really don't know what to say to you other than go $#@! yourself.

We don't have any common principles.

Probably not. I love my country.

[r3volution 3.0]

^^^I pity you

[LibertyEagle]

^^^I pity you

lol.

You didn't answer my question. Are you calling Ron Paul a Nazi?

[nikcers]

There are a lot of shades of libertarian.

I only started getting interested in politics in the last 10 years, but even from 2010-2015 there was a night and day difference in how people perceived libertarianism. Remember a while back when Jeb proclaimed he had libertarian blood, but yet I distinctly remember that was one of the insults that Ron had to defend himself from, they were always insinuating that he was going to run 3rd party to upset the election.

I remember distinctly Ron's defense, he said he was more Republican then the other Republicans. I remember that at the time the libertarians were even jumping in the conversation and said that Ron wasn't pure republican, even though they didn't disavow him fully, I remember them saying they would of endorsed Ron anyways because he was close enough to the LP and he was making libertarianism more popular.

[K466]

Why can't a libertarian support protectionism? If another country is using forced labor or manipulating it's currency or charging tariffs themselves, what do libertarians suggest to remedy that? Further, if a libertarian believes in free association, then surely you would agree that like minded people can get together and form whatever society they like. So if I get thousands, or even millions to agree to be part of a community and we agree that within the community we have as much autonomy as possible, but when dealing with things outside the community, the question of is it a good or bad thing for the community is paramount. Do I have it wrong?

I think you have it wrong? Protectionism is understood to be an act of the state. If you're just talking about a voluntary, private group go right ahead and make whatever agreement that you want.

A libertarian cannot support protectionist legislation for any reason. It doesn't matter if free goods are being dumped on us, protectionism is unnecessary on utilitarian grounds (see Bastiat) and unacceptable on moral grounds.

[K466]

Walter Block endorsed Trump.

Ergo, he is not anything remotely resembling a libertarian.

Yet, he claims to be a libertarian.

Ergo, he's a lying weasel; $#@! Walter Block.

Wrong. He did not offer a blanket, total endorsement of Trump.

"But, the perfect is the enemy of the good. It is our goal to throw our weight behind the candidate who has a reasonable chance of actually becoming President of the United States whose views are CLOSEST to libertarianism."

In other words, if we have a scale of statism (0) vs. libertarianism (100), Block says we should root for the highest scoring candidate with a realistic shot at winning, even if the best scoring candidate has just 2 points and the others have 1 point.

I may not find approach to politics very productive, but it's not contrary to libertarianism, as Block explained:

Let me just say that there is nothing, nothing at all, incompatible between libertarianism and voting, or supporting political candidates. Both Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard can be considered political junkies, and you won’t find too many better libertarians than those two.

Suppose we were all slaves, and the master said we could have a democratic election; we could vote for overseer Baddie, who would whip us unmercifully once per day, or overseer Goodie, who would do exactly the same thing, but only once per month. We all voted for the latter. Is this incompatible with libertarianism? Would this make us worse libertarians? Anyone who thinks so does not really understand this philosophy.

[K466]

I laughed at your dumbass statement and I explained why. You know, the part you deleted from my quote. A belief in national sovereignty and borders is NOT national socialism. Unless you are calling Ron Paul a nazi. Is that what you are doing?

A belief in national sovereignty and borders is socialism.

Probably not. I love my country.

What does this mean? Does that include the government, or just the land, people, and culture?

[hankrichter12]

I think you have it wrong? Protectionism is understood to be an act of the state. If you're just talking about a voluntary, private group go right ahead and make whatever agreement that you want.

A libertarian cannot support protectionist legislation for any reason. It doesn't matter if free goods are being dumped on us, protectionism is unnecessary on utilitarian grounds (see Bastiat) and unacceptable on moral grounds.

What is "the state" define that term for me.

A belief in national sovereignty and borders is socialism.

No it isn't.

Socialism:is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production.

[undergroundrr]

I think you have it wrong? Protectionism is understood to be an act of the state. If you're just talking about a voluntary, private group go right ahead and make whatever agreement that you want.

A libertarian cannot support protectionist legislation for any reason. It doesn't matter if free goods are being dumped on us, protectionism is unnecessary on utilitarian grounds (see Bastiat) and unacceptable on moral grounds.

+rep

[hankrichter12]

I think you have it wrong? Protectionism is understood to be an act of the state. If you're just talking about a voluntary, private group go right ahead and make whatever agreement that you want.

A libertarian cannot support protectionist legislation for any reason. It doesn't matter if free goods are being dumped on us, protectionism is unnecessary on utilitarian grounds (see Bastiat) and unacceptable on moral grounds.

"The State" has just become another one of those meaningless memes at this point. If you go into a club, and that club has rules and bouncers to enforce those rules are they "The State", are they "Socialist"?

Your comment is absurd, you will never, ever have any kind of tribe, country, community, whatever you want to call it that does not have rules and some type of physical force to make sure those rules are obeyed.

[K466]

What is "the state" define that term for me.

"a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government."

No it isn't.

Socialism:is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production.

In other words, the government is socialism. Therefore government "sovereignty" and it's borders are socialism.

[K466]

"The State" has just become another one of those meaningless memes at this point. If you go into a club, and that club has rules and bouncers to enforce those rules are they "The State", are they "Socialist"?

Your comment is absurd, you will never, ever have any kind of tribe, country, community, whatever you want to call it that does not have rules and some type of physical force to make sure those rules are obeyed.

omg is this for real?

What is so hard to understand here... the government, the state, the institution that has a monopoly on violence, vs. private property, clubs, businesses, etc. And of course I've been talking about the former as socialist, not the latter.

[cajuncocoa]

What is "the state" define that term for me.

The fact that you're confused about this (I saw your post describing the State as a "meaningless meme") speaks volumes about your choices.

[surf]

I think you have it wrong? Protectionism is understood to be an act of the state. If you're just talking about a voluntary, private group go right ahead and make whatever agreement that you want.

A libertarian cannot support protectionist legislation for any reason. It doesn't matter if free goods are being dumped on us, protectionism is unnecessary on utilitarian grounds (see Bastiat) and unacceptable on moral grounds.

+rep

libs > trump
libs for trump is wrong