So how long did it take for a movement called “libertarians for Trump” to realize that they are dealing with a politician? What is it about certain libertarians that they simply refuse to accept historical facts about the nature of politicians, and aspiring politicians once they are in power? The phrase “fool me once, shame on you…” does not even apply here, as these libertarians allow themselves to be fooled time and time again. Continue Reading
Look, i think for people that happen to have read articles on my blog it should be clear that i am pretty sympathetic to what Trump is doing on his campaign, and especially sympathetic to the people that support him. Generally, they are angry and desperate people seeing their country go down the toilet, while not seeing that their still existing worship of the state itself is the problem. Most people cannot be reasoned into embracing the stateless society; they will either break free from the indoctrination on their own, of they won’t.
As an anarcho-individualist my enemy is the concept of the state and those who exercise its power to initiate aggression against innocent and non-violent people in whatever way. I am especially hostile in philosophy to statist elites; those who collude to turn even the vestiges of individual liberty that still remain into a heap of crap, while pretending to be there for the people and to respect democracy.
I can therefore appreciate the effect Trump has on the political and media establishment, while completely disregarding, for the moment, the thoughts and desired policies of Trump himself.
But there is a difference between sympathizing with Trump’s supporters, and with the ways in which Trump has the establishment in spasms and fits of hysteria on the one hand, and outright endorsement and votes on the other hand. You can sit back and watch Trump take a sledgehammer to the duopolitical oligarchy, and still understand that Trump is a politician and most certainly not anything close to a libertarian, and therefore not worthy of an endorsement or vote.
Naive “but what else are we gonna do” libertarians like Justin Raimondo and Walter Block cannot seem to help themselves but throw their support behind politicians, as if they’ve never heard of any empirical evidence that as a rule politicians LIE and CHEAT and are by nature unreliable. They look at a politicians’s platforms and at the things they say on the campaign trail and think “well this is something a libertarian should be willing to accept for the time being.”
Sounds reasonable enough, if you actually believe that politicians are paragons of truth. But they are frauds, charlatans and hustlers. How naieve for a libertarian, any libertarian, to still not realize that. I’ve said as much here.
Now a tip of the Trump veil is lifted when it comes to his foreign policy. Does it still seem that he is less interventionist than the rest? Does it still seem that he is less the one taking obvious sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict? At the very least Trump is talking out of both sides of his mouth, leaving people to question out of which side comes the truth.
Well, just take a look at the kind of people he is attacting to be on his team. Enough said? Or still not? Well, just how non-interventionist and “neutral” in the Israel-Palestina conflict are Chris Christie and Rudy Giuliani?
As a libertarian, grab a bag of popcorn and whoop and holler as Trump takes his sledgehammer to the current establishment (and yes, that includes charlatans like Ted Cruz). But make no mistake, Trump himself is no answer. He is not “better.” He is merely the crowbar the libertarians currently cannot be, but the crowbar can and will just as easily be turned against you.
Libertarians for Trump are Dummies for Trump.
David Burns wrote an e-mail to both Walter Block, who justified “Libertarians for Trump” and Robert Wenzel, who rejected this notion.
It would be wise to read Mr. Block’s “logic” first. But Mr. Burns responds like this:
As voting “slaves”, what guarantee do I have the Goodie would follow up with his promise to whip us only once per month? What if our previous experience has been that all slave masters previous had whipped us much more often than promised? What if we had no evidence that either Baddie or Goodie could be trusted to only whip us, and that all experience shows us both will whip, beat, slap, rob, kidnap, cut, and maybe even shoot us?
This counter-argument is not only logical, but entirely empirical. Continue Reading
It wouldn’t be the first time Antiwar.org’s Justin Raimondo expresses naivety. He had previously supported Rand Paul, called all those libertarians who suspected Rand of being phony “purists”, and members of a “sect”, but finally had to distance himself from the younger Paul. Not that this led to any self-reflection on Raimondo’s part because he managed to still vilify “purists” while admitting Rand Paul was not worthy of a libertarian vote. Nevermind that many of those who saw through Rand Paul actually supported Ron Paul’s for the presidency.
Of course, Ron was principled and consistent and Rand proved almost from the start that he wasn’t. This was no problem for Raimondo, at least not until Rand was unprincipled in the ways that Raimondo himself could no longer accept. Does this not make Raimondo himself a “purist” on matters of foreign policy? Of course it does, because every libertarian has his limits and draws the line somewhere, and Raimondo draws his around war and interventionism. To suggest that the line ought to be there and nowhere else is a purist position in itself.
But never mind that. Justin Raimondo’s naivety apparently goes farther. So far, in fact, that he is actually surprised that Bernie Sanders, a leftist, would condone or even support aggressive and disruptive actions by his supporters at a Donald Trump rally.