"Libertarians for Trump"

[hankrichter12]

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.

So, on my own property do I have the monopoly on violence???? Does that make me the state - on my property? So if me and other private property owners agree to band together under certain rules for mutual protection or for commerce etc, are we all now the state if we use force to make sure those rules are adhered to? How does this work exactly?

[nikcers]

So, on my own property do I have the monopoly on violence????

Are you talking like standing your ground?

[LibertyEagle]

A belief in national sovereignty and borders is socialism.

lolol. So, Ron Paul is a socialist in your mind, eh?



Does this mean you're in the globalist camp, K466?

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

The nation, which includes all of the above.

[LibertyEagle]

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.

And they did. Which is why we have a country to begin with. If you don't like the fact that you are a part of it, take it up with your ancestors. If you want to change what we have now, get involved.

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.

lolol. What we have now is not free trade and these horrid trade deals, along with absurdly high corporate taxes, have led to the mass exodus of both industry and jobs; the "giant sucking sound" that Perot described that NAFTA would cause.

and unacceptable on moral grounds.

There is nothing moral about tariffs being put on U.S. goods entering another country, while theirs enter the U.S. with none.

[LibertyEagle]

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

And the fact that your blather did not answer his question, speaks volumes about yours.

[LibertyEagle]

//

[cajuncocoa]

And the fact that your blather did not answer his question, speaks volumes about yours.

He didn't ask me that question and I wasn't speaking to you.

Here's some more "blather" for you: it's mind blowing that anyone would need to have "the State" defined for them on RPF. I would have guessed most people come here knowing what that means because they want "the State" out of their lives.

[otherone]

if me and other private property owners agree to band together under certain rules for mutual protection or for commerce etc, are we all now the state if we use force to make sure those rules are adhered to?

Agreeing to band together is not creating a state. Forcing your descendants to honor the agreement without their consent is. The state is the agreement; a third-party to those who must obey it's terms. It's a fiction that disappears when its vacujacks stop pumping. It wholly relies on tacit consent, manufactured through public school disinformation and jingoistic ritual.

What you described in your example is anarchy...government by contract.

[LibertyEagle]

He didn't ask me that question and I wasn't speaking to you.

Here's some more "blather" for you: it's mind blowing that anyone would need to have "the State" defined for them on RPF. I would have guessed most people come here knowing what that means because they want "the State" out of their lives.

Not everyone here is an anarchist.

[LibertyEagle]

Agreeing to band together is not creating a state. Forcing your descendants to honor the agreement without their consent is.

Take it up with your ancestors. And no one is forcing you; you are free to move.

The state is the agreement; a third-party to those who must obey it's terms. It's a fiction that disappears when its vacujacks stop pumping. It wholly relies on tacit consent, manufactured through public school disinformation and jingoistic ritual.

What you described in your example is anarchy...government by contract.

Then get off thine ass and change it.

[otherone]

Then get off thine ass and change it.

keep pumping that vacujack.

[cajuncocoa]

Not everyone here is an anarchist.

I don't think one has to be a full-blown anarchist to want the State to butt out of their lives. Conservatives are always yapping about smaller government (although it's obvious they don't mean it.)

[hankrichter12]

Agreeing to band together is not creating a state. Forcing your descendants to honor the agreement without their consent is. The state is the agreement; a third-party to those who must obey it's terms. It's a fiction that disappears when its vacujacks stop pumping. It wholly relies on tacit consent, manufactured through public school disinformation and jingoistic ritual.

What you described in your example is anarchy...government by contract.

Huh? OK, so you're my kid, the other kids and adults like the community and it's ways, but you don't, you're the odd man out, I grant you, not your fault your mom and I got married and produced you, and now here you are, in this society that we all like, but you don't - so, what is the answer?

Does the rest of the society have to change to accommodate you? Or....

Do you have to learn to live with those rules? Or....

Do you strike out on your own and find a society more to your liking? Or....

Do you form your own society based on your ideas?

Which seems most reasonable?

[K466]

lolol. So, Ron Paul is a socialist in your mind, eh?

Ron Paul is overwhelmingly libertarian. But yeah, he favors socialism in a few cases as any minarchist does. Do you have a problem with my definition socialism=government?

Does this mean you're in the globalist camp, K466?

The individualist camp, LibertyEagle. There's much more to the decentralization vs. centralization continuum than just national vs. global sovereignty. Needless to say Ron takes the correct position between the two options presented in the debate.

The nation, which includes all of the above.

Great... you love your government. That's the problem. I hate it. It is evil.

The government that spies on you, taxes the hell out of you, regulates the life out of you, kills people accross the globe and at home, etc. And you love it.

lolol. What we have now is not free trade and these horrid trade deals, along with absurdly high corporate taxes, have led to the mass exodus of both industry and jobs; the "giant sucking sound" that Perot described that NAFTA would cause.

Of course. We have crony trade now, but at least there is freer trade than we have had at some points in history. As Ron Paul says, a real free trade agreement would be short... as short as the first amendment.

There is nothing moral about tariffs being put on U.S. goods entering another country, while theirs enter the U.S. with none.

Agreed it's not moral for the other country to have tariffs. But are you suggesting something else... it's moral for the US to have "retaliatory" tariffs? From your comments I cannot tell if you even understand and support the free trade position Ron Paul correctly advocates.

Not everyone here is an anarchist.

Irrelevant. I could go talk about the state at the Daily Kos and I think they would understand that to mean the government.

[K466]

So, on my own property do I have the monopoly on violence???? Does that make me the state - on my property? So if me and other private property owners agree to band together under certain rules for mutual protection or for commerce etc, are we all now the state if we use force to make sure those rules are adhered to? How does this work exactly?

You're over complicating this. I was speaking in plain Ron Paulian language. The state = the government. Let's start over shall we?

Protectionism is understood to be an act of the government. It is a violation of the fundamental libertarian right to trade. That's why a libertarian can't favor protectionism 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.

As to your concern that a private voluntary group might want to isolate itself and be as self sufficient as possible, that's their right, but it is not protectionism.

[ArrestPoliticians]

You're over complicating this. I was speaking in plain Ron Paulian language. The state = the government. Let's start over shall we?

Protectionism is understood to be an act of the government. It is a violation of the fundamental libertarian right to trade. That's why a libertarian can't favor protectionism 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.

As to your concern that a private voluntary group might want to isolate itself and be as self sufficient as possible, that's their right, but it is not protectionism.

Libertarians can and do disagree on many issues, including abortion and the existence of government in any form(also "unnacceptable on moral grounds" and "unneccesary on utilitarian grounds" to some). Free trade is not a sticking point.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Ron Paul is overwhelmingly libertarian. But yeah, he favors socialism in a few cases as any minarchist does. Do you have a problem with my definition socialism=government?

I don't --

[Ronin Truth]

Libertarians for Trump, Revisited

By Walter E. Block

March 29, 2016


I had this idea that we libertarians should support Donald Trump for the nomination of the Republican Party for president, not because he was a libertarian, nor, even, because his views were very congruent with our philosophy. My thought, though, was that out of all the Republican candidates, he was the most libertarian on foreign policy. He was the least likely to get us into World War III. And, thanks to the tutelage I had received over the years from the likes of Murray Rothbard, Ralph Raico and Bob Higgs, I knew that imperialism, foreign aggression, were more of a threat to liberty than were violations of economic or personal liberty rights.

[[I pause for a “commercial” message: here is our Twitter handle: @DTLibertarians]] Now, back to our regular programming:

I was brought to these thoughts by this excellent article:

Miller, Donald W, Jr. 2016. “Trump: Our Only Hope for Escaping World War III.” March 9

Because of this very important essay, I wrote one of my own in this vein:

Block, Walter E. 2016. “Libertarians for Trump.” March 15;

Whereupon I asked my then acquaintance, and now friend, Dr. Donald Miller if he would join with me in starting up a group to be called Libertarians for Trump (LFT). He quickly and enthusiastically agreed to do so.

There are several highlights of the beginnings of this organization:

First, in the words of my friend and mentor Ralph Raico (who writes to refute the notion that only the uneducated can support Mr. Trump, and who soon afterward joined me and Dr. Miller as the third founding member of LFT): “My friend Walter Block, who has a Columbia doctorate and is a college professor, has started a support group, Libertarians for Donald Trump. I’m a Chicago Ph.D. and retired college prof, and I’ve joined Walter’s cabal of the intellectually deficient. We are happy to join with legions of our fellow Americans who aren’t university educated but–isn’t it obvious?–are still capable of displaying common sense.

Personally, my main reason for endorsing Trump and praying for his victory is his opponent. The Queen of Chaos would be the most dangerous person ever to fill the office of president. Quite aside from the colossal corruption of the Clinton crime family, I believe she would push Putin to a nuclear confrontation.”

And here is the second; Roger Stone on LFT:

Third, we have gathered a whole host of other blogs, essays, statements, from all sorts of people in support of Mr. Trump on our web page. But, don’t go there just yet. This is still a work in progress.

Initially, I had hoped that 100 people would sign up; then, I thought, I’d send their names to the Trump campaign, and be done with this effort of mine. But this initiative grew like topsy. It is now far greater than I ever imagined it would be. By my estimate, almost 400 people have already signed up for LFT and another dozen or so are trickling in every day. I’m too busy to count them since I’m still coping with dozens of sign up letters coming in pretty regularly.

However, in future, if you want to sign up for LFT, please no longer use my own e-mail address; instead, access this one: thelibertariansfortrump@gmail.com

In order to get to this point, I went through, oh, perhaps 500 e-mail messages sent to me. This was quite an experience. The majority of opinion from the libertarian community was overwhelmingly positive. Many people articulated the view that they, too, had supported Trump, for reasons similar to mine, but were uncomfortable expressing this perspective, since they thought they would be drummed out of our precious libertarian movement.

Trump, after all, is not an advocate of the freedom philosophy. They were delighted an organization was being started along these lines.

However, there were some objections.

One set claimed that voting was per se a violation of the libertarian principle of non-aggression. I tried to answer this objection in my initial publication in this vein regarding the overseer Goody and Baddy example.
Evidently, it did not convince everyone.

Another set objected on the ground that Trump is not a pure libertarian. True, he is not as close to the freedom philosophy as is Senator Rand Paul, let alone his dad, Congressman Ron Paul. Here comes a joke:

An economist was asked: “How is your wife.” Came the answer: “Compared to what?” Precisely. We are in a comparative “game” here. It is not sufficient to point out the many and serious deviations from pure libertarianism espoused by the Donald. They exist, to be sure. The issue is, is he worse on any of these than any of his Republican competitors, Cruz or Kasich (or maybe Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney, in case any of them sneak back into contention)? When put in this manner, it is clear that Mr. Donald Trump is head and shoulders above them, at least on foreign policy. Get out of NATO? Bless you, Mr. Trump. No neo-con can come within a million miles of saying anything like that. Is Trump a protectionist? Unfortunately yes, but so are all the others. Does the Donald refuse to “take anything off the table, including nukes?” Yes, unhappily, but, again, the same applies to the others. You can go down the list of Donald Trump’s deviations from libertarianism, and you will find all of his competitors for the Republican nomination, also, in the same camp.

A third set was more challenging to me. The point made was, “What about Bernie Sanders? You say anti-imperialism, anti-war perspectives are all important. Ok, I agree. But why don’t you feel the Bern? Senator Sanders is pretty good on these issues too.” When I first heard of this objection, I confess, I was taken aback. But, on more measured reflection, let me say the following. I VASTLY prefer Bernie to Hillary; certainly on these grounds (I deny the claim that I am biased in his favor since we were friends for four years in high school; we were on the Madison High School track team together and overlapped for one year at Brooklyn College). Hillary is a war-monger par excellence, and Bernie is not. For me, the ideal run-off in November 2016 would be Bernie versus Donald. I judge them roughly equal in avoiding World War III, but would give the nod to my man Donald J. Trump since Bernie’s views on economics are nothing less than appalling; far worse than Donald’s. However, I confess, I find “Libertarians for Bernie” intriguing. Were Donald not in the race, I would choose Bernie over any of the other Republican contenders. This would sort of being like groups such as “Tenants against rent control” or “Unionists against the minimum wage law” or “Corporate capitalist businessmen against bailouts.” It would certainly garner attention. I have no real problem in supporting Bernie against any neo-con warmonger, of any of the main two parties. Hey, I supported Barack Obama against John McCain in 2008; I feared the latter would drop a nuclear bomb on someone. Similarly, I was in favor of our Nobel Peace Prize President in 2012, vis a vis Mitt Romney, who was trying to pick a fight with China, of all places.

What about the Presidential race in the fall, when there will be a Libertarian Party candidate in contention?

My colleagues and I at LFT have decided that the sole purpose of this organization is to help Mr. Donald Trump attain the Republican Party’s nomination for president. When and if that occurs, we plan to disband LFT. We confine ourselves toward working toward the day when Mr. Trump receives the nomination of the Republican Party for president — and nothing else.

One final issue. Several people who joined LFT offered to help us with all sorts of things: running the website, blogging, twitter, general publicity and other such efforts of LFT. No, I misspoke. Dozens of our members have done so.

I ask that if you are interested in helping us with a myriad of such tasks, you get in touch with Martin Moulton, who is, in effect, our chief operating officer who is based in Washington, DC. Send emails to:

thelibertariansfortrump@gmail.com — with “VOLUNTEER” and “your last name” in the subject line. We have decided not to raise any money for our efforts even though several of our members have offered to help with such an initiative.

The Best of Walter E. Block


Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable, The Case for Discrimination, Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective, Building Blocks for Liberty, Differing Worldviews in Higher Education, and The Privatization of Roads and Highways. His latest book is Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/03/...tarians-trump/

[LibertyEagle]

I don't think one has to be a full-blown anarchist to want the State to butt out of their lives.

No, they don't have to be. It would be nice though if you and others would remember that.

[cajuncocoa]

No, they don't have to be. It would be nice though if you and others would remember that.

I'm not a full-blown anarchist. It would be nice if you would remember that.

[LibertyEagle]

Ron Paul is overwhelmingly libertarian.

And he is overwhelmingly conservative too. Even called himself the most conservative member of Congress.

But yeah, he favors socialism in a few cases as any minarchist does.

I don't ascribe to a label that a bunch of anarchists came up with.

Do you have a problem with my definition socialism=government?

Yes. Yes, I do. I do not believe a constitutional government would be considered socialist.

The individualist camp, LibertyEagle. There's much more to the decentralization vs. centralization continuum than just national vs. global sovereignty. Needless to say Ron takes the correct position between the two options presented in the debate.

I hate to break it to you, but Ron is very much for national sovereignty.

Great... you love your government. That's the problem. I hate it. It is evil.

The government that spies on you, taxes the hell out of you, regulates the life out of you, kills people accross the globe and at home, etc. And you love it.

Nope. Wrong again. But, then again, I differentiate between a constitutional government that our Founders gave us to the pack of traitorous pieces of crap that are in D.C. operating in OUR government.

Of course. We have crony trade now, but at least there is freer trade than we have had at some points in history. As Ron Paul says, a real free trade agreement would be short... as short as the first amendment.

Exactly, what we have now is not free trade. It is BAD trade. Either get rid of all the trade agreements, which I would prefer, or the trade deals need to be renegotiated. The latter is what Trump says he wants to do.

Agreed it's not moral for the other country to have tariffs. But are you suggesting something else... it's moral for the US to have "retaliatory" tariffs? From your comments I cannot tell if you even understand and support the free trade position Ron Paul correctly advocates.

One more time... THE TRADE AGREEMENTS IN PLACE NOW ARE NOT FREE TRADE.
Trump's ideas of tariffs would only come into being if the country being traded with allowed the trade balance to get badly out of alignment. So, it would be their choice. Right now, U.S. citizens have tariffs imposed on them when trying to get their goods into say, China, but the same is not true in reverse. Nothing remotely free or fair about that arrangement.

Irrelevant. I could go talk about the state at the Daily Kos and I think they would understand that to mean the government.

Feel free. They may be more to your liking.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not a full-blown anarchist. It would be nice if you would remember that.

I have no idea how "blown" you are and have no interest in finding out.

[cajuncocoa]

I have no idea how "blown" you are and have no interest in finding out.

Such a dirty mind you have.

[undergroundrr]

What about the Presidential race in the fall, when there will be a Libertarian Party candidate in contention?

My colleagues and I at LFT have decided that the sole purpose of this organization is to help Mr. Donald Trump attain the Republican Party’s nomination for president. When and if that occurs, we plan to disband LFT. We confine ourselves toward working toward the day when Mr. Trump receives the nomination of the Republican Party for president — and nothing else.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/03/...tarians-trump/

But if they support the LP after trump's nomination, virtually all LP votes will be spoiler votes against trump. So they're not that serious about not wanting Clinton after all.

What if trump runs third party? Where will they throw their 400 votes then?

[Warlord]

so 400 people have signed up to Block's Libertarians for Trump. we're doomed

[cajuncocoa]

so 400 people have signed up to Block's Libertarians for Trump. we're doomed

I don't understand it. What's going on??

[undergroundrr]

400 is an incredibly small portion of their readership. The dissenters don't have a voice on LRC so it seems like a grand success for the Lew Trumpwells, but it isn't.

[Bossobass]

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.

A skell breaks into your house and proceeds to strangle your wife. No legislation to allow you to protect her. Bummer.

A defense against an invasion of a sovereign nation by criminals is warranted from any philosophical standpoint.

Free trade doesn't come with a jar of vaseline.

[cajuncocoa]

I decided to write to Walter Block. Here's the email I sent:

Dear Dr. Block,

I invite you to take a look at this thread posted on Ron/Rand Paul Forums.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Trump-(POTUS)

I acknowledge that many of our libertarian brethren are supporting Donald Trump, but others of us are left shaking our heads as to WHY. If you look through that Campaign Evaluation Thread, you will see that so many things Donald Trump says and supports are the exact opposite of what someone running a liberty campaign should be saying. (As a result of this information, Donald Trump was labeled an unfavorable candidate for the support of Ron Paul forums.)

Many of us are puzzled by the support Donald Trump is receiving from so many libertarian pundits — Lew Rockwell, Alex Jones, Justin Raimondo, Wayne Allen Root, and now you’ve created a “Libertarians for Trump” group. Are you completely ignoring the things Ron Paul is saying about Donald Trump? Do you disregard his promise to put 30,000 troops on the ground in Syria? To kill Edward Snowden? To ban guns for people on the no-fly list? To boycott Apple unless they cave to FBI demands to unlock protected iPhones? (And there’s so much more.)

Please explain why all of these anti-liberty positions are being ignored by so many "libertarians".


Sincerely,
cajuncocoa @ Ron Paul Forums

(This email is not intended to represent management of Ron Paul forums, or anyone other than myself.)

[Ronin Truth]

I decided to write to Walter Block. Here's the email I sent:

Dear Dr. Block,

I invite you to take a look at this thread posted on Ron/Rand Paul Forums.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Trump-(POTUS)

I acknowledge that many of our libertarian brethren are supporting Donald Trump, but others of us are left shaking our heads as to WHY. If you look through that Campaign Evaluation Thread, you will see that so many things Donald Trump says and supports are the exact opposite of what someone running a liberty campaign should be saying. (As a result of this information, Donald Trump was labeled an unfavorable candidate for the support of Ron Paul forums.)

Many of us are puzzled by the support Donald Trump is receiving from so many libertarian pundits — Lew Rockwell, Alex Jones, Justin Raimondo, Wayne Allen Root, and now you’ve created a “Libertarians for Trump” group. Are you completely ignoring the things Ron Paul is saying about Donald Trump? Do you disregard his promise to put 30,000 troops on the ground in Syria? To kill Edward Snowden? To ban guns for people on the no-fly list? To boycott Apple unless they cave to FBI demands to unlock protected iPhones? (And there’s so much more.)

Please explain why all of these anti-liberty positions are being ignored by so many "libertarians".


Sincerely,
cajuncocoa @ Ron Paul Forums

(This email is not intended to represent management of Ron Paul forums, or anyone other than myself.)

I guess I really haven't been paying much attention. About how many Trump supporting RPF 'libertarians'(so called) do you figure, that are posting here?