Walter Block Announces Formation of “Libertarians for Trump”

File:Walter Block (7877545614).jpg

Walter Block
Image: Gage Skidmore

Yesterday, libertarian theorist Walter Block announced the formation of Libertarians for Trump (LFT), a group supporting the election of businessman Donald Trump, the 2016 Republican Party presidential front-runner.

Block, an economics professor at Loyola University, writes at LewRockwell.com that he and retired cardiac surgeon Dr. Donald W. Miller Jr. created LFT to mobilize the “massive support for Donald Trump within the libertarian community.”

Although Block admits that Trump is not perfect on the issues and that whoever the Libertarian Party nominates will likely have views more aligned with his own, he considers Trump the closest to libertarianism among the candidates with a chance of winning the election.  He argues:

The Donald is the most congruent with our perspective. This is true, mainly because of foreign policy. And, of the three, foreign policy, economic policy and person liberties, the former is the most important. As Murray Rothbard and Bob Higgs have demonstrated over and over again, US foreign policy determines what occurs in economics and in the field of personal liberties. Foreign policy is the dog that wags the other two tails.

We readily concede Mr. Donald Trump is no Ron Paul on foreign policy or anything else for that matter. However, compared to his Republican alternatives, the Donald stands head and shoulders above them. He has said, time and time again, things like “Look at what we did in Iraq. It’s a mess. Look at what we did in Libya. It’s a mess there too. And we’re going to repeat our mistakes in Syria? Not on my watch.” Would Cruz or Rubio ever say anything like that? To ask this question is to answer it. And, very importantly, who is the one candidate who went out of his way so as to not antagonize Russia and Premier Putin? It is the Donald, that is who. Do we really want to fight World War III with Russia? With Mr. Trump at the helm, we minimize the chances of this catastrophe occurring. (See Donald Miller’s brilliant article on this issue).  Yes, future President Trump wants a strong military, but with only a few exceptions, fewer than the other Republican candidates, only to defend our country.

Block wants supporters of the group to contact him with their name, e-mail, and profession or city of residence.   He says he will publish a list of the first 100 participants.

141 thoughts on “Walter Block Announces Formation of “Libertarians for Trump”

  1. Thomas L. Knapp

    Yeah, I’m assuming that this is either a joke, or else Block seeing if he can get a list of “libertarian” Trump supporters to out as non-libertarian idiots.

  2. langa

    Actually, Block has a history of making these sorts of endorsements of the lesser of two evils, and he seems to be at least semi-serious about them, although they are often based on strange reasoning. For example, in 2008, he initially supported Obama, but then switched his support to McCain, once McCain named Palin as his VP candidate. He apparently heard some vaguely libertarian statements that Palin had made, and on the basis of those, concluded that she was far more libertarian than anything in her record would indicate.

  3. Thane Eichenauer

    Or he is looking to increase sales of his book Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty as well as driving people to Dr. Miller’s article “Trump: Our Only Hope for Escaping World War III”.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/03/donald-w-miller-jr-md/hope-escaping-nuclear-war/

    Orrrrrrr… he has been turned by the modern day version of Asimov’s Mule (e.g. Donald Trump).

    https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Mule_(Foundation)
    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/141090636816/donald-trump-con-man

  4. Shivany Lane

    If you are a Libertarian who wants Donald Trump to win, switch parties. It is that simple.

    Trump’s foreign policy? Which one? The one where he carpet bombs ISIS, thus committing a war crime,
    Or maybe the one where he thinks we should kill the entire family of any known terrorist, thus committing yet another war crime.
    al.
    I agree, it is too early for an April 1st joke. One of the reasons I do not like April Fools Day.

    If you want to support Trump, you are in the wron party and also confused, I would reccomend a psych ev

  5. Thomas L. Knapp

    Well, the difference between Walter Block and Christopher Cantwell is that Block is an eccentric libertarian while Cantwell pretended to be a libertarian for awhile until he realized there wasn’t a lot of money in it and then decided to try being a racist authoritarian instead. Maybe there’s more money for him there.

  6. Andy

    “Shivany Lane
    March 16, 2016 at 20:55
    If you are a Libertarian who wants Donald Trump to win, switch parties. It is that simple.

    Trump’s foreign policy? Which one? The one where he carpet bombs ISIS, thus committing a war crime,
    Or maybe the one where he thinks we should kill the entire family of any known terrorist, thus committing yet another war crime.”

    I am NOT on the Donald Trump bandwagon, and you are correct that he has made some remark like this, but on the flip side, he has also made remarks that were against foreign military interventionism, and he did in fact speak out against the war in Iraq years ago.

    “If you want to support Trump, you are in the wron party and also confused, I would reccomend a psych ev”

    The libertarians who I have heard say that they are supporting Donald Trump, at least from what I have heard from them so far, are not supporting him because they think he’s some great libertarian hero that has come to save us, but rather because they believe that he is less toxic than the other major party candidates who are in the race right now.

  7. Shane

    Shivany, most libertarians are not members of the Libertarian Party. The LP serves one function of the libertarian movement (and generally sucks at it).

    So to say people should leave the party if they support Trump . . . well, most were likely not part of it to begin with.

  8. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Libertarians for Trump” makes even less sense than “Libertarians for Sanders.” And both of those make less sense than “Libertarians for Johnson,” which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

  9. Andy

    This is from the Cantwell article about why he is supporting Trump:

    “Sadly, democracy has not been abolished as of yet, and such a goal is terribly unlikely to be accomplished prior to the November 2106 election. Chances are, a president will be elected next year. Chances are, that president will initiate force. Chances are, that force will have catastrophic consequences.

    So one is left to choose between four basic options.

    1) Support a candidate who will do things which are unlibertarian, but is less harmful than the other candidates.

    2) Support a candidate who will do things which are so unlibertarian that society will be irreparably harmed and the government will collapse that we might rule the wasteland.

    3) Support a libertarian candidate who has absolutely no chance of winning

    4) Renounce elections as unprincipled, wield zero influence, and remain in a powerless echochamber of libertarian autism.

    I choose option number one, and I frankly think you’re a useless moron if you choose any of the other three. The notion that libertarians ought to remain completely uninfluential and powerless is a theory being floated by people who have no desire to see us succeed in anything.”

    I am torn between options 3 and 4 on Cantwell’s list of options for the election this year.

  10. Andy

    “Shane
    March 16, 2016 at 21:03
    Shivany, most libertarians are not members of the Libertarian Party. The LP serves one function of the libertarian movement (and generally sucks at it).

    So to say people should leave the party if they support Trump . . . well, most were likely not part of it to begin with.”

    This is true. There a lot more libertarians outside of the libertarian party than there are in the Libertarian Party. Some of these people already vote for whom they perceive to be the “lesser of two evils” while others don’t bother voting at all.

  11. Thomas L. Knapp

    Rev. Clifton,

    I was the “national VP nominee” of the Boston Tea Party, but our bylaws provided for “favorite son or daughter” candidates in states where there were eligible and willing party members. I was on the ballot in Tennessee, John Wayne Smith in Florida, Dan Sallis, Jr. in Colorado. In states where we were registered write-in ticket, running mates included Barry Hess, Thomas J. Marino and, in several states, Marilyn Chambers (who was Charles’s girlfriend as well).

  12. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    March 16, 2016 at 21:07
    ‘Libertarians for Trump’ makes even less sense than ‘Libertarians for Sanders.’ And both of those make less sense than ‘Libertarians for Johnson,’ which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”

    I have not seen a “Libertarians for Sanders” group, but Libertarians Steve Kubby and IPR’s very own Warren Redlich have endorsed Bernie Sanders.

  13. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    March 16, 2016 at 21:12
    Rev. Clifton,

    I’m glad someone does. It’s always been my ambition to be a minor historical footnote ?”

    I actually have a Boston Tea Party Charles Jay / Thomas Knapp button. I wonder if this is a collectors item.

  14. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    I’ve seen several articles about “a libertarian case for Bernie Sanders.” I don’t know if there’s a formal group.

    Sanders says a few things that some libertarians might support, if they believe him (marijuana decriminalization, maybe a less interventionist foreign policy; he used to be not too bad on guns but caved in as soon as Clinton pressured him to get with the victim disarmament program; etc.).

    Likewise, Trump says a few things that some libertarians might support, if they believe him, although I see little reason to since he usually says the exact opposite within 30 seconds or so, or it turns out that back when he made mixed statements as well.

    I can’t see myself voting for either of them, even if the LP screws up and nominates Johnson, Petersen or the 7th Cavalry uniform guy.

  15. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    March 16, 2016 at 21:16
    Andy,

    I’ve seen several articles about ‘a libertarian case for Bernie Sanders.’ I don’t know if there’s a formal group.

    Sanders says a few things that some libertarians might support, if they believe him (marijuana decriminalization, maybe a less interventionist foreign policy; he used to be not too bad on guns but caved in as soon as Clinton pressured him to get with the victim disarmament program; etc.).”

    Yeah, Sanders is good or OK on a few issues, but he is still a net negative, and I would not vote for him.

    “Likewise, Trump says a few things that some libertarians might support, if they believe him, although I see little reason to since he usually says the exact opposite within 30 seconds or so, or it turns out that back when he made mixed statements as well.”

    This is one of the reasons why I have not jumped on board the Donald Trump bandwagon.

    Trump appears that he may be a true maverick who is opposed by the political establishment, which is probably a good thing, at least for the most part, but on the flip side, he’s got zero background of being any kind of libertarian or constitutionalist, so even if though the political establishment appears to oppose him, this does not automatically make him a great guy.

  16. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    It may be! I have a small “BTP ’08” button — I had a bunch made at CafePress and sold at cost back in 2008 (bought a bunch myself and gave all but one or two away).

    The BTP was an interesting experiment. Of course, I got more than twice as many votes as a Libertarian for Congress as the BTP ticket got nationwide for its presidential slate, but it’s not like we were expecting to set the nation on fire or anything.

  17. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    March 16, 2016 at 21:23
    Andy,

    It may be! I have a small “BTP ’08” button — I had a bunch made at CafePress and sold at cost back in 2008 (bought a bunch myself and gave all but one or two away).

    The BTP was an interesting experiment”

    Whatever happened to Charles Jay? He seemed like he could have been a good candidate for the Libertarian Party.

  18. Thomas L. Knapp

    Charles is still around — I heard from him a couple of weeks ago. Not sure what all he’s up to, but I haven’t heard any rumblings of intent to seek office again. If he does, I would certainly support him.

  19. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    March 16, 2016 at 21:26
    Charles is still around — I heard from him a couple of weeks ago. Not sure what all he’s up to, but I haven’t heard any rumblings of intent to seek office again. If he does, I would certainly support him.”

    Is he a member of the Libertarian Party? Has he ever been a member of the Libertarian Party?

    I seem to recall hearing that he had run for President in 2004 as the candidate for the Personal Choice Party, which was a small “l” libertarian party which I believe was only on the ballot in Utah.

  20. Andy

    “so even if though the political establishment”

    Should read, “so even if the political establishment…”

  21. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    My recollection is that Charles was a member of the LP at one point and even a national convention delegate IIRC, although I don’t remember which years. I don’t know if he is still a member, or if so whether it’s a “sustaining member,” or just a pledge signer, or what.

  22. langa

    You seem to be misremembering. In 2008, Walter Block endorsed Charles Jay for president and me for vice president.

    http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block106.html

    The next to last paragraph seems to me to be a pretty clear endorsement of McCain-Palin. In the same paragraph, he does mention the BTP, but seems to dismiss it as unworthy of consideration.

  23. Thomas L. Knapp

    langa,

    Hmm. Never noticed that one. I was going by his earlier endorsement (the original page returns a 404 now) where he wrote:

    “So, who do I favor over all? The candidates of the Boston Tea Party. They at least are as pure as can be reasonably expected of a true libertarian party. It is my hope that Barr and Root receive fewer votes than previous LP candidates, so that the Boston Tea party, those elements of the Constitution party who favor liberty, and the libertarians in the Libertarian Party can, at the next convention, retake our grand old LP party from those who have highjacked it to their own evil ends.”

  24. Thomas L. Knapp

    The actual contours of Block’s 2008 thoughts are interesting and, in my opinion, applicable:

    I apply very different criteria to Barr-Root than to McCain-Palin. I ask of the former, a very simple question: are they promoting liberty on net balance? (The question I ask of McCain-Palin, in contrast is, are they more compatible with liberty than Obama-Biden?) And, sadly, I answer in the negative. On U.S. imperialism, on the drug war, on other issues important to Ron Paul, do Barr-Root sound a clear clarion call? They do not. It does not harm our beloved philosophy one iota that Palin is not a libertarian. It is devastating to our cause that Barr and Root are not.

    I expect THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY’S candidates to actually be libertarians. If they aren’t, why bother?

    On the other hand, when the LP can’t be bothered to run a libertarian, I have no problem with voting for a non-libertarian, the best one I can find, on another party’s ticket, if I choose to vote at all. They don’t even have to be “as libertarian” as the Libertarian Party candidate, because they aren’t CLAIMING to be libertarians and they aren’t tarnishing the word with their candidacies.

  25. Anastasia Beaverhausen

    “I expect THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY’S candidates to actually be libertarians”

    Why do you expect that, when the majority of the time the LP nominated Presidential candidates who were less than thoroughgoing Libertarians? The only one in my lifetime I could vote for without holding my nose was Michael Badnarik.

  26. langa

    I have a pretty simple litmus test that applies to any candidate, regardless of party. If that candidate were to be elected, and accomplish everything on their agenda, at the end of their term, would their actions, on balance, have made the world a more or less libertarian place? if it’s the former, then I will at least consider voting for them (although I still may vote for someone else, if that other person also passes my litmus test).

    However, if it’s the latter, and they would make the world less libertarian, I won’t even consider voting for them, no matter how bad the other options happen to be. If none of the candidates pass my litmus test, I simply don’t vote. That, by the way, is why I disagree with Block about Trump. In the article, Block says, while addressing Trump’s many non-libertarian positions, that we shouldn’t make “the perfect the enemy of the good.” I agree, except I don’t think Trump is “the good.” He is, at best, “the less bad” (if that), which is a far different matter.

    Ironically, the motto of the Mises Institute is, “Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.” (Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.) You would think that would rule out the whole “lesser of evils” mentality.

  27. Dave

    I can see an argument for it, not out of genuine support but because a Trump nomination has a very high chance of severely hurting the Republican “brand.” And either way I think the LP gains something. They gain less if there’s an actual Republican establishment third party ticket, but I imagine they’d still pick up a few votes they’d not if Republicans who dislike Trump know the election is already lost to Hillary with a split in their party.

    The better scenario would be no significant third party organizes against Trump. I think you’d see a lot of voters end up voting largely LP. Not the 25% or so of Republicans who say they would now, but more would defect than would in a typical year. The question becomes how many of these voters Libertarians could retain going forward, and find a way to avoid having them just be a protest vote.

    I can’t see any real reason for a Libertarian to support Trump. If I stretch, maybe a socially liberal libertarian who is only in the LP because they feel the GOP is too religious, and who hopes a Trump nomination would reduce the importance social issues have in the GOP. Or someone amused by the freaking out amongst the neoconservatives to Trump ( which I’ll grant is amusing.)

  28. Pingback: Walter Block Announces Formation of “Libertarians for Trump” | American Third Party Report

  29. Thomas L. Knapp

    Anastasia,

    I wasn’t using “expect” in the sense of “predict.” I was using “expect” in the sense of “require, if it wants my support in its endeavors.” I see no point in supporting the Libertarian Party except to the extent that its platform and candidates are libertarian, because fulfilling the party’s purposes requires it to be libertarian.

    Other parties and candidates, on the other hand, have other purposes and might serve different uses from my perspective. So if the LP can’t be bothered to give me a libertarian to vote for, I might pick a “lesser evil” candidate who serves one or more of those uses even if he or she is not particularly libertarian overall — perhaps a candidate who has come out against the war of the week, or openly supports marijuana decriminalization, or (pre-2015) opposed marriage apartheid or whatever. Or I might just not bother to vote for that office.

  30. itdoesntmatter

    LRC dudes and their ilk previously have been “Libertarians for Palin,” “Libertarians for Buchanan,” “Libertarians for Street Justice/ExtraJudicial Punishment/Big Government/Christian Reconsctructionism/Whatever” over the years, this should hardly be surprising.

  31. Robert Capozzi

    I’ll be interested to see how CAH reacts to this. I get the sense that WB is her political guru.

    It’s strikes me as tortured that WB, who fancies himself a strict logician, would say:

    – FP is most important because MNR said so
    – DJT sometimes says some things on FP that I agree with
    -Therefore, I endorse DJT.

    Here’s my take:

    – FP is definitely important, but whether it’s most important, I cannot say. Undoing the State through politics seems more like an opportunistic endeavor. One takes what one can get.
    – I too have noticed that DJT sometimes sounds less interventionist than most Rs. Overall, though, the dude appears to be one sick mo’ fo’, more frightening than McCain, George Wallace, or Anthony Weiner.
    – DJT is completely unsupportable for this reason, coupled with his nationalism and race- and ethnic-baiting.
    – Heavily inclined to vote L (if a non-extremist is nominated), and root for HC over DJT, if those are the choices.

  32. Robert Capozzi

    The universe where I’ve seen her cite Block’s thinking and influence, at least IIRC from comments here on IPR.

  33. Thomas L. Knapp

    My recollection (and Google seems to bear it out) is that the only time she’s publicly cited Block was once, in passing, when discussing various libertarian positions on abortion as part of a paper calling for deletion of the LP’s platform plank on the subject.

  34. Robert Capozzi

    tk, I wonder if Google searches capture IPR comments. Stipulating that my memory is imperfect and that this is an extremely minor point of fact, but I distinctly recall CAH citing Block one time, which I filed away, as I find Block’s way of thinking particularly dysfunctional in the L orbit. Another time in another comment thread, we were discussing MNR and CAH made a point of referring to WB as an influence over MNR. I recall retorting that WB was at one time MNR’s protege, which I think is a fair characterization.

    It’s one thing for NAPster Ls to disagree about abortion as CAH and WB do, but supporting Trump is — frankly — mind boggling to me. I realize that my NAPster circuits are at this point pretty dormant, but DJT is — in totality — the most frightening R or D presidential candidate in my lifetime.

    Or is this all an early April Fool’s joke?!

  35. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    I don’t know. I’ve always had my disagreements with Block, but lately — the last 5-10 years — he seems to have really gone a bit senile. Awhile back he wrote an article defending gentrification, and cited the Brazilian government’s confiscation of several poor neighborhoods which were handed over to developers to build luxury hotels on for the World Cup as “the free market at work.”

    But I still suspect that what he’s up to here is asking “Libertarians” who support Trump to out themselves so he can mock them.

  36. Thomas L. Knapp

    Well, it also points to a lot of what has gone wrong at Mises/LRC. Ten years ago a lightweight like “Bionic Mosquito” wouldn’t have had a shot at getting published there, let alone being called out as “a theoretician of the highest order in our anarcho-capitalist movement.” That’s kind of along the lines of Ernest Hemingway pointing to VC Andrews as his literary heir apparent.

  37. natural born citizen

    What is a CAH?

    What is an MNR?

    Does anyone bother to speak English anymore?

  38. Andy Craig

    CAH = Caryn Ann Harlos, one of our contributors here who’s active in the CO party

    MNR= Murrary N. Rothbard, who died 20 years ago, yet whose personal foibles and relationships with his friends are somehow of everyday pressing importance in the libertarian movement to this day. Wait five minutes and you’ll hear somebody talking about who was or wasn’t friends/students/protege/etc. with him or who did or didn’t get excommunicated by him. So far as it matters, he’s a guy who wrote a few good books and played a prominent role in the early party and movement, and also made some stupid mistakes.

  39. Pingback: Walter Block Announces Formation of “Libertarians for Trump” « Attack the System

  40. natural born citizen

    Thank you. I still have no idea who that Carolyn person is.

    I am quite familiar with Rothbard. However, I’m not convinced he originated the idea that war is bad. St. Thomas of Aquinas had similar thoughts. The idea that killing is bad goes back all the way to Yahweh. This should be a fairly popular position among the non-psychopath community. I have a hard time believing that any non-psychopath could be rooting for noted warmonger Hillary Clinton.

  41. Robert Capozzi

    nbc: I have a hard time believing that any non-psychopath could be rooting for noted warmonger Hillary Clinton.

    me: I hear you. HRC is bad news. DJT, however, is riskier, given how erratic, flip, and megalomaniacal I find him to be. Rooting is my way of saying less bad. I rooted for Romney, Obama, was neutral in 04, and Bush. None were even close to vote worthy.

    DJT may sometimes sound less interventionist, but I just don’t buy it. HRC — for all her MANY failings — seems the steadier hand to me.

  42. natural born citizen

    I just don’t buy it. If you want a “steady hand” starting multiple wars and killing untold millions, sure.

  43. Robert Capozzi

    nbc, it’s not what I “want.” Put another way, I see HRC as pretty much more of the same. I see DJT as a possible instigator of the Apocalypse. More of the same sucks. The Apocalypse really, really sucks.

  44. Anders

    Obviously Mr Block is not paying attention. Mr Trump’s way of “not making the same mistakes in Syria” is to wage a total, scorched earth war on Syria and Da’esh (which, if you’re going to war is the proper way), not to scale back our foreign policy. Somehow I think he’s either a schill for Trump or he’s trying to out “libertarians” who aren’t so libertarian. I’m not sure which. Either way, this is a stupid idea.

  45. Gene Berkman

    Walter Block was a long-time close associate of Murray Rothbard. The strategy of the Rothbard grouplet from the mid 1960s has focused on finding an authoritarian personality or authoritarian movement to back in the hope of bringing down the American imperialist state – in the 1960s it was the New Left, specifically SDS and the Peace & Freedom Party. Rothbard declared the New Left dead shortly before the founding of The Libertarian Party, and Rothbard and his allies became involved in The Libertarian Party until after the Ron Paul campaign failed to make a breakthrough into mainstream politics.

    After what Rothbard perceived as the failure of the Paul campaign, Rothbard and allies, including Walter Block, pivoted to an alliance with the “paleo-Right” around Pat Buchanan. Rothbard thought that Pat Buchanan, a loyal supporter of Nixon and the Vietnam War, had become some kind of peacenik because he opposed Bush’s Iraq War (the first Bush & the first Iraq War). Rothbard’s alliance with the paleo-Right was accompanied by vicious attacks on the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian Movement as whole.

    The group around Lew Rockwell and lewrockwell.com continue the Rothbardian strategy of trying to find an authoritarian movement that they can support in the name of liberty. If you look at LRC you will find a lot of support for Donald Trump. They think that a billionaire crony capitalist who made his fortune with the help of government subsidies, eminent domain, and abuse of bankruptcy laws is some kind of anti-establishment candidate.

    As with Pat Buchanan, part of their reasoning is that the neocon warmongers hate Trump, despite Trump’s own foreign policy blustering, and that is good enough for Lew Rockwell and apparently Walter Block. Really, there is no reason for a real libertarian to take these people seriously anymore – or ever.

  46. George Whitfield

    Block seems to like gaming the system as it is interesting and clever. I prefer sticking with the real Libertarians and building our party..

  47. Craig Vrana

    Most of the comments on here sound like they are from elitist snobs that care more about how they appear to their peers than what is really happening to this country. The Libertarian candidate for President has no chance of becoming President and you all know it. This year we have a chance to get a real outsider elected instead of the status quo, establishment candidate. You don’t seem to realize that if Trump is elected and if he can turn Washington on its head, then there becomes more of a chance later for a true Libertarian to get elected because the establishment will be in shambles allowing other ideas the chance to be heard and promoted. Do you think Hillary will do anything to wreck those in power who are fighting so hard to keep Trump out of the White House? Trump seems to be very vindictive and I don’t think he will rest until he has destroyed their control over government. That would leave a door wide open for the Libertarian Party.

  48. Robert Capozzi

    cv: You don’t seem to realize that if Trump is elected and if he can turn Washington on its head, then there becomes more of a chance later for a true Libertarian to get elected because the establishment will be in shambles allowing other ideas the chance to be heard and promoted.

    me: Interesting strategic thinking. My fear is DJT becomes an authoritarian menace in a Hitlerian/Mussolinian direction. He might make America uninhabitable, choking off whatever liberty we still have.

  49. RayCathode

    I think Block said, “Thomas Jefferson wasn’t running, so failing that, I figured Mussolini would do.

  50. Gene Berkman

    Donald Trump is not an outsider! He has used government to build his own fortune for many years, contributed to many politicians in both major parties, and still supports eminent domain because he benefitted from it.

    Libertarians care enough about the country that we don’t want to give power to a power mad fake insurgent who promotes violence as part of his campaign. He has not outlined any kind of alternative platform aside from his insane views on immigrants and his blustering foreign policy. And his views on trade are repugnant to libertarians and to anyone who knows how the modern world works.

  51. Pingback: Walter Block Announces Formation of “Libertarians for Trump” | Independent Political Report | Flurry of Thoughts

  52. Brian W. Ryman

    I think that this statement was issued a couple of weeks too soon; This has the feel of an April 1st release. Or perhaps Block is still trying to defend the indefensible.

  53. Thomas L. Knapp

    I’ve always found it strange that whenever a “populist outsider” candidate comes along, it always turns out to be a rich, white, male tax-parasite billionaire who’s been a member of the establishment his whole life … and who wants to tell us how those poor brown non-English-speakers are the power elite who are oppressing us.

  54. Thane Eichenauer

    Robert Capozzi,
    For an opposite view, Trump: Our Only Hope for Escaping World War III by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD (as referenced in the above article by Walter E. Block.

    “A real estate-focused businessman and TV reality show star, he has no stake in the neoconservative effort to subdue Russia and have Washington dominate the world.”

    Not to mention another article in the New York Times and referenced in the above Block article.

    Heilbrunn, Jacob. 2016. “The Neocons vs. Donald Trump.” March 10; The New York Times.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/opinion/sunday/the-neocons-vs-donald-trump.html

  55. Thomas L. Knapp

    Well, to the extent that Dondero’s been talking at all, he’s been pretty pro-Trump. But he hasn’t been personally posting a lot at his blog (Libertarian Republican) lately. Usually when that’s the case, it means he’s out doing one of two things:

    – Petitioning for ballot access for a candidate or party (usually the LP, but IIRC he petitioned for Joe Lieberman when Lieberman lost a US Senate primary one year and started his own party to get on the ballot and get re-elected); or

    – Working for a Republican candidate.

    Which raises the distinct possibility that he’s been too busy WORKING for Trump to spend time posting about Trump.

  56. langa

    When you think about it, the (limited) enthusiasm for Trump at LRC is not that surprising. For one thing, as Rothbard did, they tend to embrace the idea that, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Rockwell once admitted as much (in a column that I can’t seem to find), saying that under Democratic administrations, LRC often reads like a right-wing site, and during Republican administrations, it often seems more like a left-wing site, while it is really neither. Since Trump is disliked so much by the GOP establishment, and especially by the hardcore neocons, he is squarely in that “enemy of my enemy” category. Also, many of the people at LRC agree with his anti-immigration position (although that would not include Block, who, if I’m not mistaken, is an advocate of open borders). These factors are similar to the ones that led them to support Trump’s ideological precursor, Pat Buchanan, way back in the ’90s.

  57. Alexander S. Peak

    Block’s article does a fine enough job defending why it is okay for libertarians to vote, but since his intention isn’t to convince libertarians to vote but rather to convince libertarians to vote for Trump, I have to say his article seems a failure.

    In defending why it is okay for libertarians to vote, Block uses the same argument Rothbard used in his essay “Konkin on Libertarian Strategy,” and I find it sufficiently convincing. The scenario is simple: If we were chattel slaves being given the opportunity to vote amongst two masters, one of whom was clearly less cruel than the other, it would make sense to vote for the less cruel master. Such a vote would not be an act of aggression but of defence; it would in no way sanction slavery. I find this argument sound, and thus am willing to vote for candidates even when they are not purely libertarian.

    But let’s say there are three people, rather than two, running for slavemaster. Nothing in this scenario suggests any reason to vote for the second-least cruel candidate. Indeed, as Rothbard himself wrote, “But if it is morally licit and non-aggressive for slaves to vote for a choice of masters, in the same way it is licit for us to vote for what we believe the lesser of two or more evils, and still more bene?cial to vote for an avowedly libertarian candidates.” I have to agree with this sentence: in most situations, voting for an avowedly libertarian candidate is more beneficial.

    The plantation election analogy is not an argument for why libertarians should support Trump. In fact, the only argument actually offered is that Trump has a “reasonable chance of actually becoming President of the United States.” This argument is obviously very weak, and ignores the practical reality that no one libertarian voter is going to sway the election one way or the other between Clinton and Trump—and especially not in non-swing states. Whether you think Trump is more libertarian than Clinton or that Clinton is more libertarian than Trump, your vote does absolutely nothing when you waste it on one of those two establishment party candidates. As it stands, the only way to use your vote in a meaningful way is to vote Libertarian, to try to raise the LP percentage higher and higher every election cycle. Voting Libertarian is the only way to not waste your vote.

    After that, Block does not present even a single argument in defence of voting for one of the two establishment party candidates over the Libertarian Party candidate. Instead, he focuses the entirety of his argument on why it would make more sense to support one of the establishment party candidates (i.e., Trump) over the other establishment party candidates.

    In defence of this stance, he presents two arguments. First, he says that Trump is friendly with Putin and is thus unlikely to start a war with Russia. True, but I suspect most of the other establishment party candidates would likewise wish to avoid war with Russia. (Am I wrong? Maybe. I must admit I haven’t done any research on whether the other establishment party candidates are rooting for war with the bear. I’m only assuming since war with Russia would be so colossally stupid, but then again, politicians aren’t known for coming up with intelligent policy.)

    Second, he quotes Trump as saying, “Look at what we did in Iraq. It’s a mess. Look at what we did in Libya. It’s a mess there too. And we’re going to repeat our mistakes in Syria? Not on my watch.” Okay, this is a good quote—assuming it means we oughtn’t to’ve intervened in Iraq and Libya, and that we oughtn’t intervene in Syria. If that’s what the quote means, then it’s a good quote. But, if the quote means, “We didn’t use enough force in Iraq or Libya and now they’re messes; on my watch, we will use a lot more force when we invade Syria,” then they are not good quotes. And since he supports carpet bombing and the murder of entire families for the “crime” of being merely related to terrorists, I see good reason to worry.

    But, all of this is beside the point. Even if we can establish with certainty that Trump is less unlibertarian than any of the other establishment party candidates, that’s not a reason to support Trump over of whomever the Libertarian Party nominates; it’s only a reason to support Trump over the other establishment party candidates. Block thus fails to persuade me that voting for either establishment party nominee this year will be anything other than a complete waste of one’s vote.

  58. Alexander S. Peak

    Mark Axinn,

    You write, “I think he should rename the group Blockheads for Trump.”

    You probably have a point. After all, he would have a bigger group that way.

    Cheers,
    Alex Peak

  59. Alexander S. Peak

    Robert Capozzi,

    You write, “HRC is bad news. DJT, however, is riskier, given how erratic, flip, and megalomaniacal I find him to be.”

    I am inclined to agree. Either way, the next president will be the worst president of my lifetime, but at least we can predict how bad Clinton will be if elected. She’s cold, calculated, insincere, and moderately fascist, and yet she scares me less than the unpredictable meglomaniac she’ll be up against. Trump may be friendly with Putin, as Block points out, but between Clinton and Trump, only the latter, I think, has the shear immature bravado requisite to potentially actually initiate war with Russia. And that’s, really, what scares me about him.

    Yours truly,
    Alex Peak

  60. Jill Pyeatt

    Thomas, I believe our old friend Bruce Cohen purchased the Libertarian Republican and is running it now. I think Dondero retained some control. I never check the site–but I read that info somewhere recently.

  61. Thomas L. Knapp

    Jill,

    My recollection is that the deal with Bruce fell apart for some reason, but I could be wrong.

    My guess would be that even if he did sell the site to Bruce, Eric would either still be blogging frequently there or doing his own thing somewhere else unless he’s busy with real political work. My understanding is that he’s an excellent petition worker, canvasser, etc., so his skills are presumably in lucrative demand right now.

  62. Alexander S. Peak

    Craig Vrana,

    You write, “The Libertarian candidate for President has no chance of becoming President and you all know it.”

    More accurately, the Libertarian nominee for President will have approximately a one-percent chance of becoming president.

    But, even if you were right, even if the Libertarian nominee had “no” chance, what difference does that make? Even if I agreed wholeheartedly with you that Trump is better than Clinton, I would still be wasting my vote by voting for Trump because my one vote will not do a lick to sway the election between the two establishment party nominees. (I calculate the likelihood that any given American’s single vote could sway the election at about 0.00000000772%.)

    Moreover, it does not make me an “elitist snob” to acknowledge that my one vote won’t change a thing. (This is especially true for those of us who do not live in “swing” states.) Quite the contrary, it makes me a pragmatist to acknowledge this reality.

    When one votes for either of the two establishment party nominees, one achieves absolutely nothing. On the other hand, when one votes for a Libertarian nominee, one sends a clear message to the establishment that we are not satisfied with the political status quo. I’ll go ahead and vote for one of the two establishment party nominees when one of the two establishment parties sees fit to nominate someone who actually aims to cut the size, scope, and cost of government; until then, I’m sorry, but I genuinely see no reason to waste my vote on them.

    Respectfully yours,
    Alex Peak

  63. Thomas L. Knapp

    “More accurately, the Libertarian nominee for President will have approximately a one-percent chance of becoming president.”

    Nope. Just because the LP’s presidential candidate is capable of getting 0.5% to 1.5% of the popular vote in this or that election, that doesn’t make its chances of winning the next election 0.5% to 1.5%.

    What are our chances? I don’t know. I don’t even know how to figure them. If I start seeing a trend — this year we get 2.5%, and in 2020 we get 4.1% and in 2024 we get 11.3% — I might conclude that we’re doing something right and that we will eventually reach plurality numbers. But right now, what we really have is 11 presidential elections with the following outcomes:

    – In 1972 and 1976, the party wasn’t really organized for lots of ballot access, lots of publicity, etc. yet.

    – In 1980 and 2012 we saw spikes into the range of 1% or so but it’s not obvious those spikes had similar causes (among other things, 1980 was characterized by a big dump of Koch money, a nationally aired infomercial, etc.; 2012 by having a “big name guy who just dropped out of the GOP race”).

    – In 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 we saw results in the 0.3% to 0.5% range.

    Even if electoral politics was a nicely controlled lab environment — and it isn’t — we just wouldn’t really have enough data yet to extrapolate some kind of sure-fire winning formula.

  64. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    March 17, 2016 at 22:17

    – Petitioning for ballot access for a candidate or party (usually the LP, but IIRC he petitioned for Joe Lieberman when Lieberman lost a US Senate primary one year and started his own party to get on the ballot and get re-elected); or”

    Tom, it sounds like you may have missed this, or forgotten about it, but Eric Dondero quit the petition business in the spring of 2013. I have heard this from multiple people who know him, and I have not seen or heard about him popping up on any petition drives anywhere in the country since then. So unless he has “come out of retirement” from being a petition circulator, he is probably not working on a petition drive.

    The last thing Dondero did in the petition business was in 2013 he went to Maricopa County, Arizona to work as a petition blocker for Sheriff Joe Arpaio. There was a petition drive going on to recall Sheriff Joe Arpaio from office, and Dondero got paid to block the signature gathers, that is to show up where they were collecting signatures, and jump in front of them and yell at people to not sign the petition, and to try to generate complaints so petition circulators would get kicked out of locations. I heard that he also gathered some petition signatures for a few Republican candidates while he was there (even Republicans and Democrats have to collect petition signatures to get on the ballot in Arizona, with the exception of their presidential candidates, who are exempted from having to collect signatures for ballot access).

    Dondero also worked on a lot of ballot initiative petitions, so it is possible he could have “come out of retirement” for initiative petition work, but like I said, he told several people that I know that he was finished with the petition business back in 2013.

  65. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    Now that you mention it, I think I DID hear that he was quitting the petitioning business back then.

    Of course, he’s known for changing his mind. NOBODY goes from “if the Republicans nominate candidate X, fuck’em, I’ll vote Libertarian to “LIBERTARIANS FOR CANDIDATE X!” as fast as Eric. If you’re anywhere near him, wear a seatbelt if you don’t want to be thrown from the vehicle due to sudden 180 degree turns.

    And petitioning wasn’t the only political work he did. As you mention, he did “petition blocking” for El Caudillo de Maricopa (more evidence that it doesn’t matter how anti-libertarian you are, he’ll work for you). I could be wrong, but I think he did some canvassing in SoCal in 2014. Maybe for the GOP opponent to Loretta Sanchez?

  66. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “And petitioning wasn’t the only political work he did. As you mention, he did ‘petition blocking'”

    Petition blocking is a subset of petition circulating, an unethical and destructive subset in my opinion. Why?

    1) Blockers create commotions at public venues, and this gives public venue managers and the police an excuse to kick petition circulators out of public venues, sometimes permanently (as in they sometimes use incidents caused by blockers to prevent anyone from gathering signatures at a public venue even after the incident with the petition blocker is long passed).

    2) A lot of the public is already skittish when it comes to signing petitions, and petition blockers scare members of the public into not signing petitions, and since a lot of the public does not differentiate between petitions, this can have an affect on all petitions, not just the one that the petition blocker is attempting to block.

    3) Anyone who has done petition signature gathering knows that it can be difficult, especially if they have done it a lot for pay (as in if they don’t get any signatures, they don’t get paid), so it strikes me as an asshole thing to do to go out and block somebody from gathering signatures on a petition.

    Blocking a pro-liberty petition is a really disgraceful, dirty thing to do (and I consider the petition to recall Sheriff Joe Arpaio to have been a pro-liberty petition, since Arpaio is a net negative to liberty), but having said this, what about blocking anti-liberty petitions? Is it OK to engage in blocking campaigns against anti-liberty petitions?

    I would say no. I do not think that it is a good tactic to work as a “petition blocker” against anti-liberty petitions. Why?

    1) Because you could cause a venue manager and/or the police to kick petition circulators out of a venue, and you made need that venue for future petition drives.

    2) Because you may some members of the public out of signing all petitions in general, and you may need these people to sign your petitions in the future.

    3) The petition circulator whom you block may one day be in a position to do the same thing to you.

    So petition circulators who work as petition blockers are engaging in unethical and shortsighted behavior, in my opinion.

    It really ticked me off when one of the people who worked on that blocking campaign with Dondero got called to work on two Libertarian Party petition drives right after working as a blocker against the Arpaio recall with Dondero.

    “for El Caudillo de Maricopa (more evidence that it doesn’t matter how anti-libertarian you are, he’ll work for you).”

    Yes, and it is also more evidence that the Libertarian Party is a dysfunctional organization for hiring Dondero on multiple occasions to represent the Libertarian Party to thousands and thousands of people as a petition circulator.

    The Libertarian Party regularly hires people who are happy to go out and work for tyrannical causes just so long as they are getting paid, but in the case of Dondero, the party was paying a guy who went on record as say that he wanted to, “destroy the Libertarian Party.” So this was actually worse that the typical non-libertarian mercenary, who is just out to make money, this is somebody who said that they want to destroy the Libertarian Party (and who regularly misrepresented it), and what does the Libertarian Party do, it gives the guy a job!

    This guy wants to destroy us? Hey, let’s put him on the payroll, and let’s send him out in public to represent us to thousands of people!

    Yes, that was YOUR Libertarian Party in action.

    “I could be wrong, but I think he did some canvassing in SoCal in 2014. Maybe for the GOP opponent to Loretta Sanchez?”

    I did not hear about this, and it would surprise me if it was true, because like I said, I heard from multiple sources that was finished with this type of work by that point and was doing other work in Texas (I won’t get into that now).

  67. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    I agree with you on petition blocking. Not just for the reasons you give, but for another one:

    It’s a dick thing to do. It’s heckler’s veto bullshit.

    It sounds like you’ve kept closer track of Dondero’s political work than I have. I’ve only caught bits and pieces in passing. I know that at ONE point he was in SoCal working for the GOP and specifically mentioned working against Sanchez, but that may not have been 2014 — she’s been in office for a long time, since beating “B1 Bob” Dornan, and she faces re-election every two years. I’m pretty sure it was not a LONG time ago, but it could easily have been more than two years ago.

  68. steve m

    Well I recall living in Alaska late 1980’s and walking out of a grocery store to have a petition shoved in my face to change the Alaska State Constitution to make Marijuana Illegal again which lead to a heated debate between me and several others about their willingness to waltz over the rights of others….

    Nothing makes me prouder then to be called a jerk by a Fascist. A christian one at that. So I gave him a detailed description of what jerk means and asked did he mean to imply that… he turned beat red and left.

    I wasn’t paid to block petitions but I wont roll over for them either.

  69. Andy

    “2) Because you may some members of the public ”

    Should read, “Because you may scare some members of the public…”

  70. Rev. James Clifton

    “…Marilyn Chambers (who was Charles’s girlfriend as well).”

    Didn’t know that. How did someone from Elkhart, IN pull that off? See that she passed away at age 56 in 2009. That’s too bad, such a young age. Don’t know if Jay still lives in Elkhart or not. I live about 20 minutes from there.

  71. Thomas L. Knapp

    Charles has lived in Florida for as long as I’ve known him. But since he is (or at least was) a boxing promoter, I expect he got around, especially to e.g. Vegas and such.

  72. Marc Montoni

    Tom Knapp wrote:

    “Libertarians for Trump” makes even less sense than “Libertarians for Sanders.” And both of those make less sense than “Libertarians for Johnson,” which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

    I LOL’d. Perfect.

  73. Pingback: Justin Amash says Donald Trump “could be very dangerous as a president” – Rare

  74. Alexander S. Peak

    Mr. Knapp,

    I remain comfortable saying that we only have a 99% approximate likelihood of losing in 2016, rather than the 100% likelihood suggested by Mr. Vrana. Sure, there’s no way to truly calculate the percentage scientifically, but so what?

    I went ahead and made some calculations using your trend suggestion.

    In order to get from our 2004 result (0.32484198%) to our 2008 result (0.398827023%), we multiply our 2004 result by 1.22775702512.

    In order to get from our 2008 result (0.398827023%) to our 2012 result (0.988470346%), we multiply our 2008 result by 2.47844375881.

    In order to get from the 2004-2008 multiplier (1.22775702512) to the the 2008-2012 multiplier (2.47844375881), we multiply it by 2.01867609641. If the trend continues, we would then multiply the 2008-2012 multiplier (2.47844375881) also by 2.01867609641 in order to get the 2012-2016 multiplier. This comes out as 5.0031751722.

    Assuming again that trends continue, we would have to multiply our 2012 result (0.988470346%) by 5.0031751722. Assuming trends continue, this would give us 4.94549029356% in 2016.

    But will trends continue? Who knows? As you correctly point out, the world of politics is not a “nicely controlled lab environment.” Did Johnson’s name recognition help him? Perhaps, although Barr’s didn’t seem to. But, then again, the question might be irrelevant if we end up nominating Johnson again, which doesn’t seem unlikely, so perhaps the trend will continue.

    On the other hand, the one other time we nominated the same candidate twice in a row, his percentage fell, so perhaps the same will occur again, and perhaps we should measure that trend instead. All of this suffers from having extremely small sample size, of course, but since we multiply our 1996 result (0.504539818%) by 0.72287187846 in order to arrive at our 2000 result (0.364717646%), we may wish to also multiply our 2012 result (0.988470346%) by 0.72287187846. If we do, we arrive at 0.71453741581 for 2016.

    Perhaps we should expect both trends to play an effect, and thus take the average between the two trends. This would give us a 2.83001385468% of winning.

    But, again, who knows? Any way we slice it, our chances of winning aren’t zero, as Mr. Vrana claimed. Sure, we won’t likely win, but I still estimate our chances of winning to be much higher than the chance that any single voter is going to sway the election between the two establishment party nominees. Fair?

    Cheers,
    Alex Peak

  75. Thomas L. Knapp

    Alex,

    Well, it’s fair for you to estimate by any method you choose, and I don’t see that your method is any worse than others. It’s just that I don’t see reason to believe that any of them are really going to turn out to be accurately predictive.

  76. Alexander S. Peak

    Mr. Knapp,

    I’m not suggesting there is a way to make an accurately predictive model of the actual election results. When discussing trends (which I discussed because you brought them up), I always qualified my comments by saying, “if trends continue.” But that was always secondary to my point, and only did I explore those numbers for the fun of it.

    My point in suggesting that I approximate the LP’s chances of taking the White House in 2016 at about one percent does nothing to predict election results. The results could go in either one of two ways: either the LP will take 100% of the White House in 2016, or it will take 0% of the White House in 2016. I was simply suggesting that I approximate the LP’s chances of taking 100% of the white house at a likelihood of one percent, not that we can scientifically predict that the LP will take 0% of the White House merely because one percent is fewer than ninety-nine percent.

    (Coincidentally, I do predict that the LP will take 0% of the White House, but there’s nothing scientific about this prediction. There would have to be a 0% chance of the LP taking 100% of the White House in order for this prediction to be scientifically accurate, and there is definitely not a 0% chance of the LP taking 100% of the White House.)

    There is no scientifically accurate way to gauge precisely what the LP’s chances are of taking 100% of the White House verses taking 0% of the White House (these being the only two possibilities in this true dichotomy). But, just because there’s no way to scientifically gauge the chances, ’tis no reason to suggest roundabout approximations. While your trends suggestion is fun to look at, I doubt it would give us an accurate gauge as to the LP’s chances, either. So I just went with the simplest (albeit completely unscientific) route and figured that since ninety-nine out of every hundred voters did not vote Libertarian last time around, I figured there is a ninety-nine-out-of-a-hundred chance that not enough voters will redirect their votes to the LP this time around in order for the LP to achieve plurality. Scientific? Predictive? Not one bit. Round-a-bout and good-enough? For the purposes of arguing that the LP’s chances of taking the whole White House are greater than zero, in contrast to Mr. Vrana’s claim, yes it is.

    Best,
    Alex Peak

  77. Carol Moore

    Block is obviously an IDIOT! A LOSER who can’t get a write up in the NY TIMES that doesn’t make it look like he endorses SLAVERY. And then he whines they MISREPRESENTED HIM. So of course the BIG FOOL now let’s MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of people know he’s a complete JACKASS by Endorsing the WORLD’S BIGGEST JACKASS OF ALL TIME, Donald Trump… ad hominem… ad hominem… ad hominem… ad hominem… ad hominem… etc etc etc

  78. George Whitfield

    I note that Ron Paul recently said that he would not support Donald Trump for President. Paul said that Trump is the opposite of a libertarian.

  79. Mark Seidenberg

    At the request of the Trump Campaign, I as the State Chairman of A.I.P. placed Donald J. Trump, Sr. on the list of POTUS candidates. The California Secretary of State with no published reason rejected Trump from listing. On the other hand, I also submitted the name of candidate of the Prohibition Party for POTUS also on the ballot, which is an open ballot in California along with the L. P. The SOS accepted the entire list of POTUS submitted by the L.P. Trump supporters can do a write-in on the California June 7. 2016 ballot on the A.I.P., which they can not do on the L.P. or the Democrat ballots. That gives 4.2 plus million voters that are not registered Republican, a access to vote for Donald J. Trump on June 7, 2016. The Prohibition Party has not been ballot qualified in California since 1962, yet the Secretary of State of California let the A.I.P. give access to the Prohibition Party. A.I.P. will not except restriction by the California Secretary of State who is a Democrat on not running Donald J. Trump, Sr., for POTUS, so
    the 4.2 million California elector that are NPP will throw away their vote between the Socialist Sanders
    and the Socialist Clinton.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California

  80. Mark Seidenberg

    The CA SOS also rejected an active L. P. party member that the California L. P. rejected from its list for
    POTUS. A. I. P. gave a ballot space to George Peabody of Hawai’i. Who is the former State Chairman of the
    Hawai’i Libertarian Party in his race for POTUS, because the California L. P. rejected George Peabody from
    its submitted list to the CA SOS.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California

  81. Pingback: Walter Block Announces Formation of “Libertarians for Trump” | Saturn's Repository

  82. Pingback: Why Libertarians Should Support Sanders (for Now) – Frederick Webb Jr

  83. William Saturn Post author

    This story has been shared over 10,000 times on Facebook. I can’t see the analytics but I assume it’s brought some people to the site.

  84. Pingback: Classical Values » Libertarians For Trump

  85. Thane Eichenauer

    William Saturn> Dr. Block has just informed me that there are now over 400 members of the Libertarians for Trump group.

    From the article: “We will release the list of names of LFT members once we reach 100 participants.”

    I would love to hear that someone did a 10 minute interview with Block or Miller as to their pleasure at furthering the idea that there are many Libertarians that support Donald Trump. His written words continue to confound many.

    http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/markskousen/2016/03/18/libertarians-for-trump-n2135582

  86. Pingback: Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » Chaos Patch (#107)

  87. Todd Andrew Barnett

    Tom,

    “Libertarians for Austin Petersen” hardly makes any sense, given he rejects the NAP. And that type of support makes *FAR* less than “Libertarians for Gary Johnson,” “Libertarians for Bernie Sanders, and/or “Libertarians for Trump.”

  88. Thane Eichenauer

    Michael Schueuer makes a case that Libertarians for Sanders is much weaker than the case for Libertarians for Trump.
    I agree. Senator Sanders uses peace once in a while and lays out a slightly less aggressive policy than currently is used. I’m still waiting for him to discuss NATO or US military allies that freeload on US military spending.

    http://non-intervention.com/2029/is-there-an-america-first-enemy-of-interventionism-among-the-presidential-candidates/

  89. Jill Pyeatt

    Hi, Todd.

    We spent much of the day yesterday with Joy Waymire. I think she enjoyed ourself at the convention.

    Yes “Libertarians for Petersen” is absurd”

  90. Pingback: Justin Amash says Donald Trump “could be very dangerous as a president” | patriotbuddy.top

  91. Pingback: Trump and the Libertarians - Breitbart

  92. Arnold Spencer

    Holy cow! Has the whole world gone crazy? If you nominate him I will guarantee I will vote for Hillary Clinton, and until a few weeks ago I would have told you I would carve out and eat my own liver on youtube before I would ever even think about voting for her.

  93. Andy

    Is Arnold Spencer posting under an IP anonymizer?

    This poster sounds like a troll to me.

  94. Andy

    Maybe Mr. Spencer is not one of the trolls, or perhaps the trolls have gotten a little more sophisticated at covering their tracks.

  95. Jay Wildwood

    Lots of people use the terms troofer and conspiracy theory. They are pretty common place.

  96. Andy

    “Jay Wildwood
    May 12, 2016 at 14:17
    Lots of people use the terms troofer and conspiracy theory. They are pretty common place.”

    Yes, and they are either government trolls or their brainwashed followers.

    Funny how people I’ve never heard of keep popping up here. I’ve never heard of Albert Spencer or Jay Wildwood.

  97. Jay Wildwood

    Why is that funny? There is a lot of new interest in third parties right now especially from #NeverTrump folks like me. Haven’t you seen the news stories about how Libertarian Party memberships, donations, and google searches have been up dramatically since August 4th? I don’t know if this site has web stats but if it does I bet you will find the same has happened here.

    Maybe you want to keep your party and your website comment community small so you can be a “big fish in a big pond” but more sane people would welcome new folks on board. The fact that you wouldn’t may be a big part of the reason why you are still so small right now. If I was a little more paranoid I might think you had some nefarious agenda there.

  98. Green W/O/A

    Some decent anarchist videos on the futility of putting faith in this process…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aTdAe6Vo2E
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUHh2oUAyME

    I have to give some sincere props to the puppet-masters running the electoral show in 2016. In Hillary vrs Trump we’ve got 2 REALLY unpopular candidates, guaranteeing a populace that is polarized and frightened.. All the political experts who thought they were good at inside baseball have been proven wrong, making the system seem dynamic and unpredictable to the uninitiated, all while the billionaire-backed candidates reign supreme.

    Like many, I’m unsure who is the greater evil here. Hillary rightly inspires alot of antagonism. Enough antagonism that the likes of Cantwell and Block can’t help but publicly out themselves as outright white supremacists and authoritarians. Hopefully their credibility is permanently damaged by the stupidity of endorsing the most unlibertarian candidate imaginable.

    The face of American Libertarianism is no longer the relatively decent Ron Paul. Once again the money/power worshiping, paleo-conservative and authoritarian dimension of Libertarianism is on display, thanks to the polarization of the public in the wake of a choice between Clinton or Trump.

  99. Andy

    I am all for more people coming here, but we have had a really bad troll problem, so call me cautious.

  100. George Dance

    Todd Andrew Barnett, April 1: ‘“Libertarians for Austin Petersen” hardly makes any sense, given he rejects the NAP. And that type of support makes *FAR* less than “Libertarians for Gary Johnson,” “Libertarians for Bernie Sanders, and/or “Libertarians for Trump.”’ (this thread)

    Todd Andrew Barnett, April 16 – ‘”I now have just jumped on board with the Austin Peterson for President 2016 train, happily describing myself as a “Liberty Ninja.” I’m very excited and ecstatic about working on Austin’s campaign that I am so thrilled with the never-ending possibilities of what could and might happen in the politically-charged scheme of things. This is going to be a thrilling adventure, not just for me but for everyone in the campaign and hopefully in the Libertarian Party as well.”‘
    https://toddandrewbarnett.com/2016/04/16/i-now-support-the-austin-peterson-for-u-s-president-2016-campaign/

    Todd Andrew Barnett, the Rick Perry of the Libertarian Party.

  101. Todd

    So much for refuting the cliche that libertarians are nothing more than pot-smoking Republicans who just happen to love psychopathic narcissists. Libertarians for Trump? It makes perfect sense, considering that, deep down, many libertarians are closet authoritarians. Now they’re finally coming out of the closet, not that some of us didn’t know they were in there all the time. Anyway, thanks for delivering the White House to Hillary Clinton, closet authoritarians, and try not to look shocked when it happens. Better yet, take a selfie when Fox News calls it, and post the image on your vanity blogs. We’ll need something to laugh at for the next four years.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *