Libertarians should not align with the Alt-Right or support Trump

[jrodefeld 1]

The candidacy and resulting election of Donald Trump has caused evident chaos and confusion among many in the libertarian movement.  I've always maintained that support for Donald Trump from libertarians is a mistake and explicitly aligning ourselves with the emerging Alt-Right represents both a strategic and ideological betrayal of our supposed principles.

 

I voted third party as I always do yet I could appreciate some libertarians offering an extremely qualified preference for Donald over Hillary.  I am thinking of people like Walter Block and the late, great Ralph Raico.  The pre-election rhetoric coming from the Clinton campaign against Russia was extremely frightening.  Substantial elements of the Deep State (in particular the CIA) and many Neo-Cons threw their support behind Clinton because they were desperate to continue arming the Al-Nusra front and other terrorist groups in Syria in order to overthrow Assad.  Clinton and her handlers supported imposing a No-Fly Zone in Syria which would have required the shooting down of Russia airplanes.  She could have bungled us into a Nuclear War and that is no exaggeration.

 

The best reason to prefer Trump to Clinton in my mind was the former's supposed desire to improve relations with Russia and tamp down the new cold war hysteria.

 

This was the main argument offered by Walter Block and can respect that though I think he was far too generous in his praise.

 

What I cannot respect, especially after the first month of Trump's presidency, is the more explicit and in many cases enthusiastic endorsement coming from people like Alex Jones, Chris Cantwell and, yes, Stefan Molyneux.

 

Consider this video posted right after the election results came in:

 

 

 

I find it extremely hard to understand how a supposed anarchist could be so euphoric over the democratic victory of a character like Trump without abandoning any lingering fealty to libertarian and anarchist principles.

 

I subscribe to a similar position as the one elucidated by Robert Higgs recently on Facebook:

 

 

No one is qualified to be president of the USA. The occupant of this office holds such incomprehensibly great power -- the power to wreak havoc on the entire human race -- that no one ought to be entrusted with it. But, sad to say, someone always does occupy the office. If I had to make a list of persons from the one I would most prefer to the one I would least prefer as president, Donald Trump would certainly stand at or very near the bottom of my list.

 

I find it nearly incomprehensible that so many people, even some who identify themselves as libertarians or (gasp!) anarchists, seem to have a positive opinion of this vile creature. And I regard it as an almost silly reason for liking him that he infuriates the progressives so greatly. He obviously conceives of the presidency as a position of elected dictatorship. He is as foolish and bloodthirsty in foreign relations as any establishment figure picked at random. He is an utter ignoramus in regard to economics. And his personal attributes are nothing short of a psychological train wreck. I hope my fellow freedom lovers will come to their senses soon. There are much more important matters at stake than simply discomfiting the leftists.

 

https://www.facebook.com/robert.higgs.568/posts/10154923867869400?pnref=story.unseen-section

 

To preempt the inevitable, my citation above is not a fallacious "appeal to authority".  I've got plenty of arguments of my own so I've no need for such appeals.  I'm only using this quote to demonstrate what ought to be the plum-line, and correct, libertarian and anarchist position.  

 

My concern is that some libertarians, including Stefan, appear to have thrown in their lot with the Alt-Right.  Yet the Alt-Right represents it's own unique brand of authoritarianism.  Or perhaps Stefan, since he is reliant on donations and YouTube views, has a monetary incentive for making appeals to Trump supporters since there are certainly more of them than there are of us.

 

The worst crime the State commits is to wage aggressive war.  Trump's cabinet picks show that despite his alleged desire to improve relations with Russia, he clearly wants to wage war against "terrorists" using every unethical tool that Bush and Obama provided for him.  Nearly indiscriminate drone strikes have been continuing constantly.  A recent attack in Yemen included the murder of Anwar Al-Awlaki's 8 year old daughter and more than a dozen additional civilians.  I'm sure this wasn't intentional, but this murder is extra concerning in the wake of Trump's campaign promise to "go after the families" of alleged terrorists.

 

https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/2017/02/her-name-was-nora/

 

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-old-american-in-yemen-trump-just-killed-his-8-year-old-sister/

He seems to want to provide so-called "safe" zones in Syria for refugees which could have a practical effect similar to the imposition of a no-fly zone.  And with the ouster of Michael Flynn, the CIA may yet goad Trump into escalating tensions with Russia despite his campaign rhetoric!

 

http://tomwoods.com/meanwhile-the-real-trump-disaster-goes-unnoticed/

 

To top that off Donald has spoken belligerently against Iran and may rip up the Nuclear Deal which would again pave the way for a war against that nation.  This is something that Hillary would have been unlikely to do.  Obama's single best accomplishment as president was the Iran Nucleal Deal in my view.  The threat of launching a preemptive war against Iran was ever-present and this ostensibly took this option off the table.  Trump may well undo all that.  The effect of such a move would mean that, even if he himself does not launch a war against that country during his tenure, he will bear a good deal of responsibility should his successor wage aggressive war against that nation.

 

He doesn't understand the motivations for suicide terrorism in the least.  He, like Bush, thinks they "hate us for our freedom".  He has no knowledge of the research of Robert Pape who conclusively demonstrated through empirical study what should be obvious to any thinking person, that Muslim terrorists hate us for our foreign policy and our military and CIA's meddling in their affairs.

 

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/horton.php?articleid=6720

 

His penchant for writing Executive Orders like they are autographs show he has no appreciation for our Constitutional separation of powers.  His actions reveal him to be an authoritarian through and through.  

 

His advocacy for Protectionist Tariffs and could start a Trade War against China in addition to the military wars he intends to continue and start.  He seems intent to make belligerent demands of private businesses who are threatened to comply with government edicts concerning where they may build and maintain their factories lest they face retribution and harassment

 

So what aspects of his presidency could possibly appeal to a libertarian that could even remotely excuse the above?  His desire to build a Border Wall and control immigration?  The border wall project will undoubtedly violate the private property rights of thousands who will have their land seized through Eminent Domain.  Aggressive Border Patrol agents and local law enforcement will doubtless be given carte blanche to harass employers and peaceful immigrants.  

 

The Border Wall project is likely to end up as one of the most infamous boondoggle infrastructure projects ever undertaken by our Federal Government.

 

https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/2017/01/isolationism-without-peace/

 

There are a few (very few!) silver linings.  His Supreme Court selection was likely better than anyone Hillary would have chosen.  

 

Doubtless there is nuance to Stefan's argument in support of the Donald that I have missed.  I know many, if not most, members of this forum are supporters to one degree or another of this president.  I don't often have substantive debates with libertarians, so I'd like to see what ya'll think.

 

My hope, echoing Higgs, is that libertarians soon snap out of it.  I'd rather we put forward plum-line libertarian anarchism.  

[_LiveFree_ 244]

You're right. So please leave. And don't return.

[Matthew Ed Moran 283]

No one is qualified to be president of the USA. The occupant of this office holds such incomprehensibly great power -- the power to wreak havoc on the entire human race -- that no one ought to be entrusted with it. But, sad to say, someone always does occupy the office. If I had to make a list of persons from the one I would most prefer to the one I would least prefer as president, Donald Trump would certainly stand at or very near the bottom of my list.

 

I find it nearly incomprehensible that so many people, even some who identify themselves as libertarians or (gasp!) anarchists, seem to have a positive opinion of this vile creature. And I regard it as an almost silly reason for liking him that he infuriates the progressives so greatly. He obviously conceives of the presidency as a position of elected dictatorship. He is as foolish and bloodthirsty in foreign relations as any establishment figure picked at random. He is an utter ignoramus in regard to economics. And his personal attributes are nothing short of a psychological train wreck. I hope my fellow freedom lovers will come to their senses soon. There are much more important matters at stake than simply discomfiting the leftists.

 

 

You can't really take this seriously... or can you?

 

 

As far as blowing up Muslims is concerned - if you know some other alternative than targeting people who want to do harm to Americans other than through the state, you can do it and make a difference. You can influence public opinion in an infinite number of ways.

 

But if you're talking about solutions within the state paradigm rather than private efforts, your choices are limited. The case has always been Trump vs Clinton, not Trump vs Anarchist defense company. You can say don't talk about statist solutions at all, but you'd have to prove why defeating Hillary Clinton wasn't an important and noble goal.

 

If you are saying America has some special obligation not to do unnecessary harm when everyone in the non-western world has shown a greater ​intention of doing harm given the opportunity, then that's hypocritical. Americans may overlook the 'deep state,' but Muslims cheer women being stoned in public. Who really has the greater intention of doing harm here?

 

The idea that Muslims targeting innocent Americans because of actions of American government is justified, but Americans' support for targeting Muslims is the worst thing conceivable, is completely hypocritical in the worst way imaginable. There really is a difference between wanting terrorists who are actively plotting to do immense evil brought to justice, and wanting to blow up innocent people going about their peaceful daily routine.

 

If it is the priority of Muslims to do justice, then they have plenty of opportunity in their home countries which do deals with the west. That's something they conceivably have control over. The only problem is Muslim IQs are unfortunately low.

 

As far as I understand, what has been most harmful for both the Muslim and Western World has been the intervention of the 'deep state' in arming radical groups and generally making deals with devils for profit at the expense of public security. Flynn and Trump are against this and are under immense pressure from the media and spies in intelligence not to change the status quo.

 

I am not nearly knowledgeable enough on foreign policy to judge the future decisions Trump will make, but from the way the media and establishment are acting, i.e. the evil people responsible for this horror in the middle east and Europe, it seems at least hard to argue that Trump is completely overlooking their corruption. I don't know what kind of blind, emotionally detached world one has to live in to think Trump is just another pro-war candidate. Clearly he speaks for the American people who have been the victims of terrorism when he says he wants the rule of law enforced, but if he were on board with the black-hearted evil that is going on in the depths of the 'deep state,' there would not be as much tension as there is right now between him and the intelligence community and the media. You only need to follow good journalists like Mike Cernovich on Twitter to understand this.

 

People who don't get this don't care to get it.

[jrodefeld 1]

You're right. So please leave. And don't return.

 

I don't understand this comment.  I'm not trying to be a troll nor do I intend to just post topics critical of Stefan and his followers.  Rather I just think this division within libertarianism needs to be resolved if we are to move forward and achieve our goals of a Stateless society.  Freedomain Radio, Stefan and his followers seem to represent one of the larger contingents of pro-Trump libertarians within the movement.  I don't really understand it so I'm trying to have a conversation about the topic.  

 

I'm hoping this is permitted?  If anywhere, I'd expect open and vigorous debate to be welcomed in the FDR forums.

[twinklingwinter 16]

I voted third party

 

Wait... So, supporting Trump is one of the worst things someone could do as a libertarian, but voting for Johnson—a clueless lunatic who is only libertarian on paper—is fine? Can you clear that up for me?

[jrodefeld 1]

You can't really take this seriously... or can you?

 

 

As far as blowing up Muslims is concerned - if you know some other alternative than targeting people who want to do harm to Americans other than through the state, you can do it and make a difference. You can influence public opinion in an infinite number of ways.

 

But if you're talking about solutions within the state paradigm rather than private efforts, your choices are limited. The case has always been Trump vs Clinton, not Trump vs Anarchist defense company. You can say don't talk about statist solutions at all, but you'd have to prove why defeating Hillary Clinton wasn't an important and noble goal.

 

If you are saying America has some special obligation not to do unnecessary harm when everyone in the non-western world has shown a greater ​intention of doing harm given the opportunity, then that's hypocritical. Americans may overlook the 'deep state,' but Muslims cheer women being stoned in public. Who really has the greater intention of doing harm here?

 

The idea that Muslims targeting innocent Americans because of actions of American government is justified, but Americans' support for targeting Muslims is the worst thing conceivable, is completely hypocritical in the worst way imaginable. There really is a difference between wanting terrorists who are actively plotting to do immense evil brought to justice, and wanting to blow up innocent people going about their peaceful daily routine.

 

If it is the priority of Muslims to do justice, then they have plenty of opportunity in their home countries which do deals with the west. That's something they conceivably have control over. The only problem is Muslim IQs are unfortunately low.

 

As far as I understand, what has been most harmful for both the Muslim and Western World has been the intervention of the 'deep state' in arming radical groups and generally making deals with devils for profit at the expense of public security. Flynn and Trump are against this and are under immense pressure from the media and spies in intelligence not to change the status quo.

 

I am not nearly knowledgeable enough on foreign policy to judge the future decisions Trump will make, but from the way the media and establishment are acting, i.e. the evil people responsible for this horror in the middle east and Europe, it seems at least hard to argue that Trump is completely overlooking their corruption. I don't know what kind of blind, emotionally detached world one has to live in to think Trump is just another pro-war candidate. Clearly he speaks for the American people who have been the victims of terrorism when he says he wants the rule of law enforced, but if he were on board with the black-hearted evil that is going on in the depths of the 'deep state,' there would not be as much tension as there is right now between him and the intelligence community and the media. You only need to follow good journalists like Mike Cernovich on Twitter to understand this.

 

People who don't get this don't care to get it.

 

I think what Robert Higgs is saying is that it is tempting to think that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" when this is not necessarily the case.  I think you'd agree that Trump is non-ideological.  He doesn't really have any fixed and consistent principles.  Nor is he well read on economics or foreign affairs.  His talents lie in self-promotion, in media and in advertising.  I do think he is a master-persuader as Scott Adams says.  He masterfully played the media and got around the gatekeepers and did something unprecedented in beating the Establishment.

 

The establishments of both parties, the media and the Intelligence community were going apoplectic about Trump.  This made for entertaining television but I maintain that Trump's win does not represent a win for Liberty.  For this to be the case I'd expect Trump to espouse pro-liberty positions which (apart from a few small exceptions) he does not.  Furthermore, the fact that he has no fixed ideology and constantly contradicts himself means that we should take his good statements with a great deal of suspicion.

 

I'm a big fan of libertarian radio host (and co-creator of The Libertarian Institute) Scott Horton.  He has a rule he likes to call "Horton's Law".  Basically it states that you can forget about any politician keeping the good promises they make when they are elected but you can bet on them following through on every one of their bad promises from a libertarian perspective.

 

This is only a silly aphorism but I think it is quite insightful.  The only way this would not be the case is if you were voting for a man of tremendous principle and ideological commitment like Ron Paul.  

 

 

I never said that Muslim terrorists were justified in killing innocent people.  What I am saying is that the anger and resentment that motivates many of them to commit these attacks, and that increases recruitment and radicalization is understandable and entirely reasonable.  The terrorist problem that the United States is dealing with is a product nearly entirely of US military intervention into the Middle East.

 

They hate us for our foreign policy.  ISIS and Al Qaeda recruitment propaganda is littered with images and videos of dead children due to cluster bombs or economic sanctions which caused starvation conditions (Iraq in the 1990s).  If you look at nearly every single terrorist attack against Americans you will find that the perpetrator(s) of those attacks have made lout and vociferous statements to the effect of "we are doing this because your government is waging unprovoked war against the Muslim world".

 

This is classic Blowback.  Robert Higgs, who I'm not sure you are familiar with, is one of the greatest living libertarian scholars.  He was a student of Rothbard's and probably his greatest (or most well known) published work was "Crisis and Leviathan:  Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government".  In it he speaks about a "Ratchet Effect".  Government creates crisis conditions where it can expand it's size and power over society.  After the crisis passes, the government recedes a little but never to the size it was before the crisis.  The biggest crisis that States use to expand their power is, of course, war.  That is why our government always needs to have a perpetual enemy to scare the people with.  

 

The entire War on Terror was a farce and a scam from the very beginning.  There is no more important issue for libertarians to get right than the issue of war and peace.  Okay, Trump says he doesn't support Nation Building, but he supports the continuing bombing of Muslim nations and many of the same anti-Terror policies that Bush and Obama put into place.  

 

He stated an explicit endorsement for torture for fuck's sake!  He refrained from using the palliative euphemism "enhanced interrogation" either.  He has maintained that this entire war is an ideological war against the religion of Islam.  Islam "hates us" so we must go and kill every last terrorist not realizing that we are creating two new terrorists for every one we kill.

 

I'd suggest that if your entire family was killed by a Chinese done bomb you'd want revenge against those who perpetrated such attacks.

 

 

You don't seem to be familiar with the work of Robert Pape who I mentioned previously.  His work in studying the motivations for suicide terrorism has been exhaustive.  He compiled a list of every suicide terrorist attack in the world since 1980.  He summed up this exhaustive empirical study in his book "Dying to Win:  The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism".

 

https://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/0812973380

 

Ron Paul has cited Pape many times and understanding his work is essential if we want to reduce the number of terrorist attacks.  They hate us for our military occupation and foreign policy.

 

The largest single group who committed the most terrorist attacks over the last 37 years were NOT Muslims.  It was the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, a Secular Marxist group.  This is not a religious war.  

 

 

Portraying it as a war against Islam as Trump and his cabinet have done will only boost recruitment and increase terrorist attacks against us.

 

 

Even with all our foolish military intervention into the Middle East, what is the true terrorist threat for ordinary American civilians?  If you discount attacks on military bases (which themselves.

 

As David Stockman has said:

 

 

 

In fact, since September 11, 2001 there have been more than 400 people killed by lightning in America, according to the national weather service.

 

And while we are at it, here are some more facts. During the 14 years between the horrific but flukish events of 9/11 and last week’s massacre in San Bernardino, there had been just six civilians killed on American soil by jihadist oriented terrorists. Two were killed at the El Al counter at LAX airport in 2002 and four at the Boston Marathon attacks in 2013.

 

There were also five deaths from the unsolved anthrax attacks of 2001 that were not likely the work of terrorists, as well as the murderous 2009 rampage at Ft Hood and the killings at the Chattanooga military centers last summer. But most Americans have never set foot on a military base nor do they have any risk of exposure to the special propensity for violence that may be kindled at such facilities.

 

Yes, we clearly had a lone wolf(s) event last week or what some oafish CNN war storm-chaser described as “do it yourself terrorism.”

 

But the best thing that 318 million Americans can do about that danger is to tune out every single word that politicians have to say about it.

 

That’s because for 99.99% of Americans the risk of being killed or injured by a jihadist lone wolf is lower than being struck by lightning; and most surely it is far less than their exposure to the periodic eruption of mass killings by homegrown psychopaths and demented malcontents that occur with disturbing regularity.

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/DavidStockman/fear-monger-politiciams-terrorism/2015/12/08/id/705019/

 

 

If we were to cease our military interventions into the Muslim world the already minuscule threat of terrorism would almost surely vanish nearly entirely.  

 

Donald Trump and his cabinet of Generals seems to think that it is absolutely imperative that our government pour a massive amount of money and resources into combating a nearly fictitious threat that is almost entirely the creation of the US government.

 

 

The last thing I'll say is that I don't think it's true that the entire Deep State is opposed to Trump.  The CIA, who overwhelmingly supported Hillary and want to escalate tensions with Russia, oppose Trump.  And I hope Trump stands up to them and maintains his promise to improve relations with Putin.  But other elements of the Deep State are supportive of him.

Elements of the FBI support Donald Trump.  As has been speculated, the likely reason Comey re-opened the investigation of Clinton's emails a couple weeks before the election had to do with internal pressure from inside the FBI.  People knew how corrupt she was.  

 

Furthermore, elements of the Military clearly support Trump.  Trump has surrounded himself with military men who are clearly pro-war.  The dynamics at play here boil down to an internal Deep State battle.  It's the Military versus the Intelligence community.  Both are bad in different respects.  The Intelligence community want to overthrow Assad in Syria and provoke a new Cold War with Russia.

 

The Military (at least those supporting Trump) want to work with Russia and Assad to kill ISIS and build and maintain "Safe Zones".  They also want to tear up the Iran Nuclear Deal and start a war with that country!

 

Both factions are terrible in different ways.  I fail to see why libertarians should align ourselves with the Military pro-war faction of this Deep State squabble.  I thought we were the pro-peace, anti-Empire non interventionists?  This isn't our fight.

[Will Torbald 120]

Libertarian ideologue finds Trump supporters and gets pumped with red pills, but rejects reality and doesn't feel well and changes - COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. Many such cases!

[shirgall 1236]

They should support Trump, because nothing makes people on the losing side want to limit government more than watching someone use the power they thought they gave their own guy.

[jrodefeld 1]

They should support Trump, because nothing makes people on the losing side want to limit government more than watching someone use the power they thought they gave their own guy.

 

Good point.  I like to tell liberals that the way they feel about Trump is the same way I feel about every president.  I'll say "remember all that Executive authority you allowed Obama to seize without any objection?  Can you now understand why us libertarians have wanted to limit State power?  A guy you consider to be unhinged and dangerous is now able to act as a would-be dictator because of a precedent you are responsible for."  

 

I hope they learn this lesson, but I don't have high hopes.  I never claimed there aren't silver linings and opportunities made available by Trump's win, but he is not even close to a libertarian so I think it is a significant mistake to explicitly support him as Stefan Molyneux and Alex Jones have done.

[shirgall 1236]

I hope they learn this lesson, but I don't have high hopes.  I never claimed there aren't silver linings and opportunities made available by Trump's win, but he is not even close to a libertarian so I think it is a significant mistake to explicitly support him as Stefan Molyneux and Alex Jones have done.

 

I have to take issue with this. The way that Stefan "supported him" was to champion stopping the massive government welfare program that is taking in large numbers of "refugees" and illegally entering migrants of doubtful intelligence or willingness to pay taxes who don't understand the language or culture, and don't have meaningful job skills. If libertarians don't understand and support this they need to examine the question a bit more deeply.

[DaVinci 68]

I have to take issue with this. The way that Stefan "supported him" was to champion stopping the massive government welfare program that is taking in large numbers of "refugees" and illegally entering migrants of doubtful intelligence or willingness to pay taxes who don't understand the language or culture, and don't have meaningful job skills. If libertarians don't understand and support this they need to examine the question a bit more deeply.

Didn't he do that from Canada?

 

I guess the question is, can you understand the issue of migrants, unskilled workers, and non-tax payers and still think Trump wasn't the answer? When I ask myself that question my own immediate response is, "Well he's better than Hillary", but that answer sounds like something I would have said 15 years ago. "Well, Bush is better than Gore" or something like that. A response I would have made when I was still caught in the web of politics. 

 

I also think Trump is largely a response to 8 years of Obama, who was a response to 8 years of Bush. Stef describes Trump as "unprecedented", and guess what, so are all the protests. I think there is a danger that Trump is fueling the rise of a much more extreme left-wing candidate that will be a response to Trump. They won't be wheeling out Bernie Sanders in four years. They aren't going to pick a moderate. They are going to pick someone so hard to the left that they are breaking through the wall, and all the angry lefties are going to mobilize to vote. I think the short sightedness of voting Trump could come back to haunt us. 

[shirgall 1236]

Didn't he do that from Canada?

 

I guess the question is, can you understand the issue of migrants, unskilled workers, and non-tax payers and still think Trump wasn't the answer? When I ask myself that question my own immediate response is, "Well he's better than Hillary", but that answer sounds like something I would have said 15 years ago. "Well, Bush is better than Gore" or something like that. A response I would have made when I was still caught in the web of politics. 

 

I also think Trump is largely a response to 8 years of Obama, who was a response to 8 years of Bush. Stef describes Trump as "unprecedented", and guess what, so are all the protests. I think there is a danger that Trump is fueling the rise of a much more extreme left-wing candidate that will be a response to Trump. They won't be wheeling out Bernie Sanders in four years. They aren't going to pick a moderate. They are going to pick someone so hard to the left that they are breaking through the wall, and all the angry lefties are going to mobilize to vote. I think the short sightedness of voting Trump could come back to haunt us. 

 

"The" answer among a short list of viable candidates, sure. I did my stint pushing libertarian candidates, and then Ron Paul. I know what "viable" means.

 

There's nothing short-sighted about voting for Trump if the result is that people seek harder to limit the power of the government.

[DaVinci 68]

"The" answer among a short list of viable candidates, sure. I did my stint pushing libertarian candidates, and then Ron Paul. I know what "viable" means.

 

There's nothing short-sighted about voting for Trump if the result is that people seek harder to limit the power of the government.

 

Do you really think all these people who don't like Trump wake-up, eat their corn flakes, and then go "Oh, you know Trump has made me realize government power should be limited"? 

[shirgall 1236]

Do you really think all these people who don't like Trump wake-up, eat their corn flakes, and then go "Oh, you know Trump has made me realize government power should be limited"? 

 

Every day I see liberals on my Facebook feed gnashing their teeth over what Trump is doing or could be doing and I remind them that their complacency about power consolidation is the threat that has been realized. Sometimes you have to break through the cognitive dissonance, but it's a lot easier making the point with Trump in office than with Hillary.

Let me to add to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes statement "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife" that in the presence of a real threat to freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and freedom from taxation and debt in the form of unfettered refugee migration and collectivist migrants demands action and not inaction... and inaction includes voting for non-viable candidates or not voting at all.

[DaVinci 68]

Every day I see liberals on my Facebook feed gnashing their teeth over what Trump is doing or could be doing and I remind them that their complacency about power consolidation is the threat that has been realized. Sometimes you have to break through the cognitive dissonance, but it's a lot easier making the point with Trump in office than with Hillary.

Let me to add to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes statement "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife" that in the presence of a real threat to freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and freedom from taxation and debt in the form of unfettered refugee migration and collectivist migrants demands action and not inaction... and inaction includes voting for non-viable candidates or not voting at all.

 

I'm sure there are liberals gnashing their teeth. I see it too. What I don't see is this paradigm shift of people who are now seeking to limit government power. If anything I see liberals retreating further into liberalism because of Trump, or best case scenario staying the same. Now maybe that's just my experience of it. I'm not sure what your experience of it is beyond what you've said here. You say you are talking to liberals and making points, but do they listen? If so, what caught their ear? 

 

I'm confused by what you are trying to say with your second paragraph. If you want government power to be limited, then why vote? Aren't we right back to the conundrum of trying to infiltrate the mafia and change it from within? Can you show me that this is now a viable path? What's changed in the past few years? 

[jrodefeld 1]

Wait... So, supporting Trump is one of the worst things someone could do as a libertarian, but voting for Johnson—a clueless lunatic who is only libertarian on paper—is fine? Can you clear that up for me?

 

I didn't vote for Johnson, but I want to clarify my position.  I don't think it was unreasonable, especially if you lived in a swing state, to have concluded that Trump represents a lesser threat than Hillary.  Again, the Russia issue is the most compelling reason to have supported Trump over Hillary.

 

I didn't openly support any candidate in this cycle.  I didn't lobby for my friends to vote for any particular candidate nor did I promote anybody online.  The only reason I left my house to vote in my home state of California was to vote for various ballot initiatives.  I voted for marijuana legalization, against the death penalty, and against all taxes and regulations.

 

Again, I am drawing a sharp distinction between saying that one person is "less bad" as I believe is Walter Block's position, and the full-throated endorsement offered by certain prominent libertarians.

[shirgall 1236]

I'm confused by what you are trying to say with your second paragraph. If you want government power to be limited, then why vote? Aren't we right back to the conundrum of trying to infiltrate the mafia and change it from within? Can you show me that this is now a viable path? What's changed in the past few years? 

 

Can you change anything more by not voting? I'd like to think that the groundwork I did with Ron Paul and my own runs for office had some effect on some people. That has to be more of an effect than not doing anything at all.

[DaVinci 68]

Can you change anything more by not voting? I'd like to think that the groundwork I did with Ron Paul and my own runs for office had some effect on some people. That has to be more of an effect than not doing anything at all.

 

You're probably right, but I'm sure your goal wasn't to push people further left. The question is how do you know if you did that or not? I also talked to people about Ron Paul back in 2008, and most people just shrugged or laughed about him. Even conservatives we're "meh" about him even though he was almost exactly what they said they wanted. The fact is the left leaned Obama because they hated Bush. Hence "Change" and "Hope". In other words the right created it's own demon. Now we have a reaction to Obama in the form of Trump, and I highly doubt that the left isn't going to go in for some super-leftwing radical next time. The 2020 election for the left is going to be "who isn't Trump" but it is primarily going to be "We need someone who can undo/fix all this Trump garbage". If Bush to Obama was bad, what do you think Trump to Whoever is going to be? Maybe I'll be surprised and they will pick someone more moderate like Sanders, but I wouldn't be shocked to see someone who leans way way way more to the left. 

 

Maybe moderate political action results in good, but I'm not convinced that these extreme swings back and forth are good in the long run. 

[shirgall 1236]

You're probably right, but I'm sure your goal wasn't to push people further left. The question is how do you know if you did that or not? I also talked to people about Ron Paul back in 2008, and most people just shrugged or laughed about him. Even conservatives we're "meh" about him even though he was almost exactly what they said they wanted. The fact is the left leaned Obama because they hated Bush. Hence "Change" and "Hope". In other words the right created it's own demon. Now we have a reaction to Obama in the form of Trump, and I highly doubt that the left isn't going to go in for some super-leftwing radical next time. The 2020 election for the left is going to be "who isn't Trump" but it is primarily going to be "We need someone who can undo/fix all this Trump garbage". If Bush to Obama was bad, what do you think Trump to Whoever is going to be? Maybe I'll be surprised and they will pick someone more moderate like Sanders, but I wouldn't be shocked to see someone who leans way way way more to the left. 

 

Maybe moderate political action results in good, but I'm not convinced that these extreme swings back and forth are good in the long run. 

 

I knew a lot of people that thought Ron Paul had a decent run and that they'd never let the RNC get away with treating a candidate like the way they did again... I have to wonder if that had some effect on Trump's run. I don't think Ron's run pushed anyone to the left.

[tuttoaposto 1]

I am so proud of my President. For the first time in my life, a president immediately started making good on his campaign promises.

As for anarchists, if I were an anarchist, the first thing I would want is to keep the ideology of Islam out of any area in which i want to live. Islam is sneaky, pretending to be a religion. But wherever Islam becomes the ideology of a significant percent of the population, the power of the state explodes.

[Matthew Ed Moran 283]

I think what Robert Higgs is saying is that it is tempting to think that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" when this is not necessarily the case.  I think you'd agree that Trump is non-ideological.  He doesn't really have any fixed and consistent principles.  Nor is he well read on economics or foreign affairs.  His talents lie in self-promotion, in media and in advertising.  I do think he is a master-persuader as Scott Adams says.  He masterfully played the media and got around the gatekeepers and did something unprecedented in beating the Establishment.

 

You can say he means something else, but everyone has the quote right in front of him. You posted a paragraph of insults that didn't contain any evidence, and expected this to be convincing. All this says is that you and Robert lack integrity in some respect.

 

I don't know if you're so disconnected from the public opinion or you just don't care about being convincing, but calling someone non-ideological is not actually an insult; after years of Republicans saying they have ideological adherence to free markets and conservatism - it's now a compliment to be non-ideological, almost regardless of party affiliation. If a president is pragmatic and has the general populations interests in common, that's definitely better than being ideological and never getting anything positive done.

 

You can say he's inconsistent and that he breaks his principles, but without context and evidence, you're just doing more insulting. What's worse is that you supported a candidate who couldn't even name illegal immigrants as criminals. So the idea that you value or can judge consistency accurately is not supported by the evidence, to put it mildly.

 

I will say this - clearly he's not a moral relativist. And he enacted a major campaign promise within the first several days. And it was a massively pro liberty position. Can you name another president in history who did this?

 

You know what he read and what he hasn't read in his 70 years on earth? C'mon dude this is not only false, it's terribly unpersuasive. Sorry to stereotype you, but that this is the crap libertarians pass for argumentation nowadays only confirms how inconsistent libertarians are with their principles of humility, truth, consistency, and empiricism.

 

As far as your statement about Muslims - you said their actions are understandable and reasonable. This only is evidence that you have a very low opinion about the capacity of Muslims to think and act rationally. Maybe you're right - 80 IQ, high trauma environment, massive propaganda - doesn't exactly seem like a breeding ground for these characteristics to put it very mildly.

 

But my challenge is that you're excusing some very destructive behavior if you're saying killing innocent people thousands of miles away is a reasonable way to react to injustice. Of course I would never want to carry out further injustice because injustice was done to me if I had any consistency. That is a society destroying perspective. It's sad to see libertarians voicing the same perspective that violent SJWs are. As Stefan said of those who want to do further evil because evil was done to them - we don't yet know how monstrous these people are.

 

So do you give blacks who have had their families torn apart from the war on drugs the same excuse? Are they reasonable and understandable if they want to riot, loot, and otherwise destroy the foundations of society in response to the evil that was done to them? Are do you just apply this to selectively to Muslims?

 

Your argument is moral relativism. It applies to everyone equally because everyone has been the victims of injustice. 

 

If Trump carries out worse pro-war actions than have been taken in the past 8 years, then I will condemn him strongly. You can't just say "pro war" as if that means anything. You need to put things in context. So if he ends up not bombing hundreds of times, not starting wars, not empowering evil groups to the same extent Obama did - and what we can presume Hillary would have done - then by any reasonable measure, he is a success. And that's apart from any other rolling back of the state he might do. But let's wait until more evidence is in to judge him.

[DaVinci 68]

You can say he means something else, but everyone has the quote right in front of him. You posted a paragraph of insults that didn't contain any evidence, and expected this to be convincing. All this says is that you and Robert lack integrity in some respect.

 

What qualifies something as an insult? If I say "Person X is an idiot" is that an insult? What about "Person X is very cynical."? Is that an insult? Aren't both of these words (idiot, cynical) conclusions about behavior? Are these words meaningless as descriptors of behavior without evidence to back them up? Where do I get that evidence? Also, when you say that someone is "posting a paragraph of insults" how do you know that? Isn't what an insult is subjective and dependent on the person who is being targeted with words to be insulted? Isn't it up to the target to decide whether they are insulted or not? As such, how can we say that he posted a paragraph of insults? 

[jrodefeld 1]

I am so proud of my President. For the first time in my life, a president immediately started making good on his campaign promises.

As for anarchists, if I were an anarchist, the first thing I would want is to keep the ideology of Islam out of any area in which i want to live. Islam is sneaky, pretending to be a religion. But wherever Islam becomes the ideology of a significant percent of the population, the power of the state explodes.

 

You're free to keep any Muslim person (or anyone else for that matter) out of any property that you personally own.  What you don't have the right to do is keep me from inviting a Muslim person onto my property, or hiring a Muslim employee or sponsoring a Syrian refugee for that matter.

 

Promoting nationalist anti-immigration policies tramples on the right to free association.  I agree that there should be no government program to resettle refugees from Syria or anywhere else.  But the government should also not forbid a private organization from sponsoring such refugees.  

 

I think your conception of Islam is incorrect and based on ignorance.  There are 1.5 Billion Muslims in the world and most of them don't hold to the regressive beliefs of those in Saudi Arabia and a handful of third world Middle Eastern nations.  I book I can't recommend highly enough is "Who Speaks For Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think":

 

https://www.amazon.com/Who-Speaks-Islam-Billion-Muslims/dp/1595620176

 

I wholeheartedly agree that accepting in millions of Syrian refugees quickly would cause many problems with assimilation.  We are seeing this in Germany.  Yet exhaustive studies of what Muslims really think like those outlined in the book I mentioned above show that Muslims who move to Western societies assimilate fairly well and adopt many of our cultural values.

 

The radicalization of certain segments of the Muslim world has much to do with our foreign policy.  We cannot separate entirely the regressive regimes in countries like Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia from the geopolitical dynamics of the region.  Our government has been intervening into those countries for decades.  Our policies have repeatedly emboldened and advantaged the most radical and regressive elements of those societies.

 

I don't think it's reasonable to act as if countries in the middle east have been developing independent of outside interference and conclude that their problems stem from the religion of Islam exclusively.

 

The travel ban (or temporary restriction) was a stupid idea because it creates the illusion that the War on Terror is a religious war between the Christian West and the Islamic world.  As I've said many times, this "war" (if we can even call it that) is entirely a product of blowback for our government's foreign policy.

[jrodefeld 1]

You can say he means something else, but everyone has the quote right in front of him. You posted a paragraph of insults that didn't contain any evidence, and expected this to be convincing. All this says is that you and Robert lack integrity in some respect.

 

I don't know if you're so disconnected from the public opinion or you just don't care about being convincing, but calling someone non-ideological is not actually an insult; after years of Republicans saying they have ideological adherence to free markets and conservatism - it's now a compliment to be non-ideological, almost regardless of party affiliation. If a president is pragmatic and has the general populations interests in common, that's definitely better than being ideological and never getting anything positive done.

 

You can say he's inconsistent and that he breaks his principles, but without context and evidence, you're just doing more insulting. What's worse is that you supported a candidate who couldn't even name illegal immigrants as criminals. So the idea that you value or can judge consistency accurately is not supported by the evidence, to put it mildly.

 

I will say this - clearly he's not a moral relativist. And he enacted a major campaign promise within the first several days. And it was a massively pro liberty position. Can you name another president in history who did this?

 

You know what he read and what he hasn't read in his 70 years on earth? C'mon dude this is not only false, it's terribly unpersuasive. Sorry to stereotype you, but that this is the crap libertarians pass for argumentation nowadays only confirms how inconsistent libertarians are with their principles of humility, truth, consistency, and empiricism.

 

As far as your statement about Muslims - you said their actions are understandable and reasonable. This only is evidence that you have a very low opinion about the capacity of Muslims to think and act rationally. Maybe you're right - 80 IQ, high trauma environment, massive propaganda - doesn't exactly seem like a breeding ground for these characteristics to put it very mildly.

 

But my challenge is that you're excusing some very destructive behavior if you're saying killing innocent people thousands of miles away is a reasonable way to react to injustice. Of course I would never want to carry out further injustice because injustice was done to me if I had any consistency. That is a society destroying perspective. It's sad to see libertarians voicing the same perspective that violent SJWs are. As Stefan said of those who want to do further evil because evil was done to them - we don't yet know how monstrous these people are.

 

So do you give blacks who have had their families torn apart from the war on drugs the same excuse? Are they reasonable and understandable if they want to riot, loot, and otherwise destroy the foundations of society in response to the evil that was done to them? Are do you just apply this to selectively to Muslims?

 

Your argument is moral relativism. It applies to everyone equally because everyone has been the victims of injustice. 

 

If Trump carries out worse pro-war actions than have been taken in the past 8 years, then I will condemn him strongly. You can't just say "pro war" as if that means anything. You need to put things in context. So if he ends up not bombing hundreds of times, not starting wars, not empowering evil groups to the same extent Obama did - and what we can presume Hillary would have done - then by any reasonable measure, he is a success. And that's apart from any other rolling back of the state he might do. But let's wait until more evidence is in to judge him.

 

I'm not passing any final judgment on Trump and I hope that he will enact pro-liberty policies.  However, I believe that the libertarian and anarchist communities should be extremely skeptical of him and his administration based on everything we know thus far.  Sure, it's not the worst thing that Trump is non-ideological.  But this makes him extremely susceptible to influence by his handlers.  With the exception of Bannon, his cabinet is made up of insiders who have track records.  And those records are not good.  "Mad Dog" Mattis presided over the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and is certainly no anti-war advocate.  Yet he's got Trump's ear.

 

If Trump did have firm principles, he could have staffed his administration with far better people.  For broad libertarian support, I'd expect a person to subscribe to libertarian principles. 

 

Which major campaign promise are you referring to?  He repealed TPP, which I give him credit for.  But he wants to replace it with high protectionist tariffs.  He's not an advocate of genuine free trade.  In fact he supports agreements like these provided they are negotiated differently and the burdensome regulations are imposed on different people.

 

Or are you referring to his travel ban?  I can't see how this is remotely a libertarian position.

 

I'm happy to give him credit where he is correct.  As I said, I think his Supreme Court nominee was pretty solid from everything I have read.  Certainly about the best we could reasonably expect.  

 

I'm basing my claim that Trump is not a voracious reader on everything I have read about him from people who have known him over the years and on my observations of him and his statements.   He has some good instincts on a few issues but I have yet to see any interview or press conference where he demonstrates any deep knowledge of anything that would be important to the job of President, whether on the subject of economics, foreign policy or whatever.  My interpretation of what I have seen is subjective but I'm clearly not the only one who came to this conclusion.

 

As far as Islamic terrorism is concerned, I explicitly said that I am not defending the targeting of innocent civilians.  My point is that the anger that gives rise to terrorism is understandable.  There is a clear cause-and-effect relationship at work here.  

 

If your entire family was murdered at a wedding party and they had nothing to do with terrorism, would you be angry at those who perpetrated the attack?  Would you want to seek revenge?

 

Terrorism is a tactic that desperate people use to fight back against an overwhelming power.  The goal is to elicit a change in policy from the foreign occupier.  The idea is that if the terrorists can sufficiently terrorize the civilian populations of the nation that is occupying their lands, the people will put pressure on their politicians to withdraw the troops and cease the policies that are eliciting the terrorist attacks against them.

 

If you understand human psychology, you can understand how foreign occupation can push moderate people to become more and more radicalized over time.

 

If Trump doesn't understand any of this, then he can be expected to exacerbate the terrorism problem.

 

What I'm saying has nothing to do with what social justice warriors are saying.  I believe in the non-aggression principle.  But I have to wonder why you are so concerned about terrorist attacks which kill civilians, yet don't seem nearly so bothered that Trump has continued Obama's drone bombing campaigns in Yemen and wants to further escalate the bombings of ISIS?  Because, as has been demonstrated time after time, we are killing far more innocent civilians than actual terrorists.  And even the "terrorists" are really just suspects since they haven't been convicted of anything.

 

I understand completely that the fact that you have been terrorized by foreigners doesn't give you the right to respond in ANY way, but I can hazard a guess as to how a terrorist sympathizing Muslim would respond.  "You condemn us for targeting your civilians, yet you have no problem whatsoever in cavalierly murdering our innocent civilians by the thousands."

 

This type of argument makes the Right go apoplectic since we are supposedly the "indispensable nation" that can do no wrong.  But there is somewhat of a moral equivalence here.  They shouldn't kill our innocents but we shouldn't be killing theirs either.

 

If you keep kicking a hornets nest you shouldn't protest when you get stung.

 

 

What I'm arguing for is the exact opposite of moral relativism.  I want to apply the exact same moral standard to every person.  Nobody has the right to initiate aggression against anybody else.

 

I didn't vote for Gary Johnson, even though you keep assuming I did.  I don't even begrudge someone who voted for Trump as a lesser-evils calculation.  What I object to is libertarians who support Trump.  And there is a difference.  

 

I could see a libertarian saying to themselves:  "Okay we narrowly avoided Nuclear War by defeating Hillary.  Now I'd better gear up to oppose Trump because he is going to be terrible on almost everything."

[Matthew Ed Moran 283]

going to drop out of conversation after looking at your post history. I'm embarrassed

[Dylan Lawrence Moore 205]

Coming in late on this.

 

Trump was literally the last bulwark against Western civilization's downward spiral into death. Hillary Clinton would have sealed the deal to doom.

 

The West is the closest thing to libertarianism and anarchism that humanity has ever seen. Specifically, it created these two concepts.

 

If the West goes, then any hope for a free society is over. The west used freedom to generate so much wealth that we created weapons powerful enough to kill every human being on the planet. The west (barely) created the social organization required to not do that. Thermonukes with no West is... bad.

 

Libertarianism, a.k.a. the retarded cousin of Anarchism, is about principles, not specific actions. Another way to say this, is that it's more important to think about long term goals than short term ones. The power of the state is bad, and voting is immoral. To bitch and moan about voting for someone who doesn't espouse enough libertarian principles, while ignoring the fact that his entire policy revolves around protecting the society which created those principles, is short-sighted and dumb.

[jrodefeld 1]

Coming in late on this.

 

Trump was literally the last bulwark against Western civilization's downward spiral into death. Hillary Clinton would have sealed the deal to doom.

 

The West is the closest thing to libertarianism and anarchism that humanity has ever seen. Specifically, it created these two concepts.

 

If the West goes, then any hope for a free society is over. The west used freedom to generate so much wealth that we created weapons powerful enough to kill every human being on the planet. The west (barely) created the social organization required to not do that. Thermonukes with no West is... bad.

 

Libertarianism, a.k.a. the retarded cousin of Anarchism, is about principles, not specific actions. Another way to say this, is that it's more important to think about long term goals than short term ones. The power of the state is bad, and voting is immoral. To bitch and moan about voting for someone who doesn't espouse enough libertarian principles, while ignoring the fact that his entire policy revolves around protecting the society which created those principles, is short-sighted and dumb.

 

I don't understand this perspective at all.  I can't imagine anything more grandiose than assuming that voting for Donald Trump, of all people, amounts to "saving Western civilization".  How are you defining "Western civilization"?  That seems to me to be a rather crude and abstract collectivist phrase.  I'm guessing that you are euphemistically referring to immigration and changing demographics.

 

Despite campaign rhetoric, Barack Obama deported more illegal immigrants than all other presidents in US history combined.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-deported-record-number-immigrants-trump-claim-article-1.2774180

 

It's not at all clear that we'd have more illegal immigration under a Democrat than we'd have under a Republican.  And I'd argue with the entire premise that having the State restrict immigration is a libertarian position to begin with.

 

Every single election is the "most important election in our lifetime".  Had Hillary been elected, she'd be so mired in scandal from day one that there's a good chance she'd face investigation from obstructionist Republicans from the outset.  It might be a replay of Bill in the 1990s and, if you remember, Bill Clinton turned out to one of the least bad modern presidents because of this.  Least bad is relative because he was still horrendous in an absolute sense.  But the debt grew less under his administration than under Reagan, George W. Bush or Obama.

 

Divided government is usually better from a libertarian perspective.  Trump won and he's got majorities in the House and Senate.  Yes the CIA is giving him some trouble but if he gets past this initial hurdle, he has a lot of power to enact a number of anti-liberty policies with no real threat from an impotent Democratic opposition.

 

Hillary would have been a disaster on so many levels, but I don't think it is at all clear that Trump was a much better choice.  

[DaVinci 68]

Coming in late on this.

 

Trump was literally the last bulwark against Western civilization's downward spiral into death. Hillary Clinton would have sealed the deal to doom.

 

The West is the closest thing to libertarianism and anarchism that humanity has ever seen. Specifically, it created these two concepts.

 

If the West goes, then any hope for a free society is over. The west used freedom to generate so much wealth that we created weapons powerful enough to kill every human being on the planet. The west (barely) created the social organization required to not do that. Thermonukes with no West is... bad.

 

Libertarianism, a.k.a. the retarded cousin of Anarchism, is about principles, not specific actions. Another way to say this, is that it's more important to think about long term goals than short term ones. The power of the state is bad, and voting is immoral. To bitch and moan about voting for someone who doesn't espouse enough libertarian principles, while ignoring the fact that his entire policy revolves around protecting the society which created those principles, is short-sighted and dumb.

 

Long term the lefties are going to come roaring back with an even more extremist lefty in response to Trump. What's the point of Trump winning if we still lose in the long run? Well, we beat the forces of Mordor guys... hey what ever happened to that Ring? ...Oh crap. 

 

In other words, I hear lots of people who are happy Trump won but no one has really pulled out the spy glass to check out the horizon.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore 205]

I don't understand this perspective at all.  I can't imagine anything more grandiose than assuming that voting for Donald Trump, of all people, amounts to "saving Western civilization".  How are you defining "Western civilization"?  That seems to me to be a rather crude and abstract collectivist phrase.  I'm guessing that you are euphemistically referring to immigration and changing demographics.

 

I use Carroll Quigley's definition of civilization from his book Evolution of Civilizations. I've written several posts about it on the boards you can read them here and here. I also went over Quigley's writing from his Tragedy & Hope on traits of Islamic Civilization and how it relates to Latin America here.

 

Your lack of imagination isn't an argument.

 

 

In other words, I hear lots of people who are happy Trump won but no one has really pulled out the spy glass to check out the horizon.

 

Except FDR, Infowars, Milo Yiannopoulos, Mark Dice, Vox Day, and every other alternative media head who constantly reaffirms that Trump merely bought us more time and we have a lot more work to do.

[DaVinci 68]

 

 

 

Except FDR, Infowars, Milo Yiannopoulos, Mark Dice, Vox Day, and every other alternative media head who constantly reaffirms that Trump merely bought us more time and we have a lot more work to do.

 

And that work is what?  

[Matthew Ed Moran 283]

And that work is what?  

 

For some people, it is to combat the anti white male propaganda and disarm the media in its attempts to indoctrinate children towards being paradoxes of completely certain nihilistic relativists who can easily be used to destroy respect for the rule of law, western tradition of limited government, conservative approaches to social change, and in group preference among whites - and institute a tornado of social disruption to displace them with communist totalitarianism - by appealing to their all-enlightened vain and impulse driven desires for sex, responsibility free hatred, and sadistic humor (I'm looking at you, SNL).

 

If I could make that sentence longer I would.

 

For other people, it is to minimize all attempts to do this and insert passive aggressive cynicism against all who try and do, by bogging them down with insincere questions and an attitude of intellectual entitlement whenever they are unconvinced of something.

[DaVinci 68]

For some people, it is to combat the anti white male propaganda and disarm the media in its attempts to indoctrinate children towards being paradoxes of completely certain nihilistic relativists who can easily be used to destroy respect for the rule of law, western tradition of limited government, conservative approaches to social change, and in group preference among whites - and institute a tornado of social disruption to displace them with communist totalitarianism - by appealing to their all-enlightened vain and impulse driven desires for sex, responsibility free hatred, and sadistic humor (I'm looking at you, SNL).

 

If I could make that sentence longer I would.

 

For other people, it is to minimize all attempts to do this and insert passive aggressive cynicism against all who try and do, by bogging them down with insincere questions and an attitude of intellectual entitlement whenever they are unconvinced of something.

 

Are you describing an ideological battle? If so, how is it working out, and how do you know that? Aren't protests and push backs against what you are describing going up and not down?

[jrodefeld 1]

 

going to drop out of conversation after looking at your post history. I'm embarrassed

 

 

You're free to drop out if you'd like, but citing my post history as the reason seems a bit disingenuous.  It's not as if I'm a leftist troll posting complete garbage.  I'm a Rothbardian Anarchist, so we should be fellow travelers who have congenial disagreements.  I'll just say that I tend to post more often when I have a sharp disagreement with someone.

 

It is my opinion that Stefan's FDR followers in addition to several other quasi-libertarian groups seem to have taken a Rightward turn over the past election cycle and I just feel this is a strategic and intellectual mistake.

 

Take this recent video by Stefan as an example:

 

 

 

Titled "Did President Trump Just Save Western Civilization?", this video precisely illustrates my point.  I'm trying to understand how a self-described anarchist could morph into a Trump partisan without abandoning most of his avowed principles.  I don't listen to all of Stefan's videos so I can't claim that Stefan doesn't ever criticize Trump, but from the not-so-small number I have waded through recently his praise of the Donald has been ludicrously excessive.

 

I won't deign to criticize Trump's "competence", as per the video above, but I'll certainly criticize him on the grounds that he is not libertarian.  

 

As for the high-minded goal of "saving Western Civilization", here's what I think is behind this and why I think it is misguided.  Ever since Stefan started delving into the subject of so-called "Race Realism", I became concerned with where this might lead him.  Unless there is another definition that I have missed, "saving Western Civilization" is a high-brow euphemism for "restricting immigration", at least to the Third World.  Is this an incorrect assumption?

 

The argument, as best as I can ascertain, is that the shared culture of the "West", which is largely reflected in it's racial composition, is vitally important to any future prospects for liberty.  Therefore, the primary goal of the libertarian is to support all efforts to restrict immigration so that we can save our "culture" lest we cross a "tipping point" where there is no longer any potential for human liberty, at least in this part of the world.

 

I don't dispute the validity of human biodiversity, nor that there are differences between groups of people.  However, there is a very thin line between objective science that doesn't shy away from acknowledging human differences including with regard to average I.Q., and giving license to baseless bigotry and extremely atrocious policies.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that political correctness has hurt objective, empirical scientific study into human differences.  The conundrum though is what conclusions we are to reach if we take it as proven fact that different groups have different average I.Q. levels.

 

Noam Chomsky has made some interesting comments on the Murray/Herrnstein IQ research:

 

 

[Moreover], the question of the relation, if any, between race and intelligence has very little scientific importance (as it has no social importance, except under the assumptions of a racist society) … As to social importance, a correlation between race and mean I.Q. (were this shown to exist) entails no social consequences except in a racist society in which each individual is assigned to a racial category and dealt with not as an individual in his own right, but as a representative of this category … In a non-racist society, the category of race would be of no greater significance [than height]. The mean I.Q. of individuals of a certain racial background is irrelevant to the situation of a particular individual, who is what he is. Recognizing this perfectly obvious fact, we are left with little, if any, plausible justification for an interest in the relation between mean I.Q. and race, apart from the ‘justification’ provided by the existence of racial discrimination.

 

http://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-6/chomsky-on-iq-and-inequality

 

 

I don't take Chomsky as the definitive voice on this subject, but the quotation above seems reasonable.  I am cautious to note that I haven't studied the matter with any depth, and I'm happy to stipulate (as I believe Chomsky does above) that the research is sound for the sake of argument.  

 

I'm not an Egalitarian and I oppose the Egalitarian obsession of the Left.  Anyone who believes in liberty and understands objective reality knows that human beings are not equal to each other.  Yet I think libertarians should be focused on individuals rather than groups.  What practical value does it serve for me to know that average black IQs in America are lower than whites (assuming this is valid)?  Should I, A Priori, treat people of certain races differently because I assume them to have different levels of intelligence?  This seems to feed into a destructive collectivist mindset.  Rather, I should treat every person as an individual.  It doesn't take long to judge a person's intelligence through basic communication.

 

 

I write all of the above because I cannot think of any other reason for a person like Stefan to have supported Donald Trump.  

 

I think this is a worthy discussion to have among libertarians and sympathetic pro-liberty conservatives and even alt-righters.  Pity if you bow out and don't bother to engage further.

 

I would like someone to clarify my assumption that "saving Western Civilization" means "restricting immigration" in practice.  And how does the advocacy of such a policy not restrict my right to sponsor an immigrant from, say, Iran?  Suppose I'm an employer who is looking to open up a Middle Eastern restaurant and I'd like to employ a cook who's currently an Iranian citizen?

 

Wouldn't Trump's Executive Order trample on my liberty?  Isn't the right to free association one of the bedrock rights of libertarian theory?

[Matthew Ed Moran 283]

Titled "Did President Trump Just Save Western Civilization?", this video precisely illustrates my point.  I'm trying to understand how a self-described anarchist could morph into a Trump partisan without abandoning most of his avowed principles.  I don't listen to all of Stefan's videos so I can't claim that Stefan doesn't ever criticize Trump, but from the not-so-small number I have waded through recently his praise of the Donald has been ludicrously excessive.

 

I won't deign to criticize Trump's "competence", as per the video above, but I'll certainly criticize him on the grounds that he is not libertarian.  

 

As for the high-minded goal of "saving Western Civilization", here's what I think is behind this and why I think it is misguided.  Ever since Stefan started delving into the subject of so-called "Race Realism", I became concerned with where this might lead him.  Unless there is another definition that I have missed, "saving Western Civilization" is a high-brow euphemism for "restricting immigration", at least to the Third World.  Is this an incorrect assumption?

 

​[it's not an assumption. You're making stuff up. Stefan has never said anything like this.]

 

 

 

The argument, as best as I can ascertain, is that the shared culture of the "West", which is largely reflected in it's racial composition, is vitally important to any future prospects for liberty.  Therefore, the primary goal of the libertarian is to support all efforts to restrict immigration so that we can save our "culture" lest we cross a "tipping point" where there is no longer any potential for human liberty, at least in this part of the world.

 

I don't dispute the validity of human biodiversity, nor that there are differences between groups of people.  However, there is a very thin line between objective science that doesn't shy away from acknowledging human differences including with regard to average I.Q., and giving license to baseless bigotry and extremely atrocious policies.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that political correctness has hurt objective, empirical scientific study into human differences.  The conundrum though is what conclusions we are to reach if we take it as proven fact that different groups have different average I.Q. levels.

 

 

Not an argument - bunch of emotional words.

 

"It's not as if I'm a leftist troll posting complete garbage.​"

 

Garbage is a bit harsh - emotionally manipulative non arguments.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore 205]

Titled "Did President Trump Just Save Western Civilization?", this video precisely illustrates my point.  I'm trying to understand how a self-described anarchist could morph into a Trump partisan without abandoning most of his avowed principles.  

 

Reflect that on the philosophy of anarchism, and that it rests on principles. Principles are like the cardinal directions or the north star, we use them to guide our actions.

 

The actions themselves that we must take to move in those directions are something different entirely.

 

The West is the closest thing the world has ever seen to anarchy. If you aren't doing your damnedest to protect the West right now, you're working against your own principles.