Libertarians for Trump....
Jaco Strauss
Libertarians for Trump
March 15, 2016
Dr. Donald Miller (donald...@gmail.com) and I (wbl...@loyno.edu) are starting up a new group to be called Libertarians for Trump.
LFT has its work cut out for it in mobilizing massive support for Donald Trump within the libertarian community. For there are some libertarians who oppose supporting any politician for political office, even a 99% pure one such as Dr. Ron Paul. However, I dedicated this book to refuting arguments of that sort: Block, Walter E. 2012. Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty. New York: Ishi Press. (By the way, the forward to that book – not written by me — contains, in my opinion, the single best short essay ever written about Dr. Paul).
Let me just say that there is nothing, nothing at all, incompatible between libertarianism and voting, or supporting political candidates. Both Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard can be considered political junkies, and you won’t find too many better libertarians than those two.
Suppose we were all slaves, and the master said we could have a democratic election; we could vote for overseer Baddie, who would whip us unmercifully once per day, or overseer Goodie, who would do exactly the same thing, but only once per month. We all voted for the latter. Is this incompatible with libertarianism? Would this make us worse libertarians? Anyone who thinks so does not really understand this philosophy. For a remedial course, read this book: Rothbard, Murray N. 1998 [1982]. The Ethics of Liberty, New York: New York University Press.
There are several issues upon which libertarians do not and cannot support Donald Trump. For example, protectionism. But, typically, regarding the issues where Mr. Trump deviates from libertarianism, so do the other candidates.
And, also, we readily admit that the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party (unless they nominate someone like, ugh, Bob Barr) will very likely have views much closer to ours than those of Mr. Trump.
But, the perfect is the enemy of the good. It is our goal to throw our weight behind the candidate who has a reasonable chance of actually becoming President of the United States whose views are CLOSEST to libertarianism.
When put in this way, it is clear that 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 Algeria. 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, mentioned below). 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
Here are some positive things written about Mr. Donald Trump:
Buchanan, Patrick J. 2016. “Will the Oligarchs Kill Trump?” March 8;
Heilbrunn, Jacob. 2016. “The Neocons vs. Donald Trump.” March 10;The New York Times.
Mercer, Ilana. 2016. “Trump and Trade.” March 10
Miller, Donald W, Jr. 2016. “Trump: Our Only Hope for Escaping World War III.” March 9
Please consider joining our new group, LFT. There are no dues or fees. All you need to do is give me your name, email address (which we will not use) and affiliation (professional and/or just mention the city and state you live in). We will release the list of names of LFT members once we reach 100 participants. I ask that you do this not because in this way we may have some effect on a Trump Administration although there is an outside chance we might (he is now beset upon from so many sides, and so unfairly, that he might well appreciate the relatively small support we can give him). I ask you to do this, rather, because it is the right thing to do; he is, of all the major candidates for the office of President of the United States, the one most closely, albeit very far from perfectly, aligned with our beloved libertarian philosophy. If you know of other essays written in support of Mr. Trump, either by a libertarian, or, emphasizing the fact that his views are more aligned with our own than those of other major candidates, send them to us so that we can add them to our bibliography of such literature.
Stephen vJ
As far as I understand, the Deep South and Appalachia vote largely Republican, except when the Democratic candidate is from the South. So Trump should take those. The Far West is mainly Libertarian... don't get excited about the large area covered though - it is very sparsely populated. If below works, that part will go to Trump too and I think it is possible since Sanders and Hillary are obviously the opposite of Libertarian.
Sent from an electronic device.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Jaco Strauss
Kaapstad
Frances Kendall
Sent from Frances iPhone
From what I read, there are several nations in Northern America, which vote and act in fairly predictable ways. See image below... the leading book on the topic is called something like "the 9 rival nations of north america" and I can highly recommend it.
Stephen vJ
Jaco Strauss
Kaapstad
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
Graeme Levin
I hope you enjoy these 2 videos (5 minutes each).
From Pat Cundell
https://www.youtube.com/embed/iHLcrfhwPtc?&rel=0
From Wayne Allen Root
--
Graeme Levin
I hope you enjoy these 2 videos (5 minutes each).
From Pat Cundell
https://www.youtube.com/embed/iHLcrfhwPtc?&rel=0
From Wayne Allen Root
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm6GYKAAi8U
From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jaco Strauss
Sent: 16 March 2016 07:09
To: Libertarian SA <li...@googlegroups.com>
Erik Peers
MSG doesn't come out of the USA.
Stephen vJ
Sent from an electronic device.
Jaco Strauss
Kaapstad
Frances Kendall
Here is a summary by Ben Shapiro of Trump's positions:
"With all that said, it’s worthwhile exploring Trump’s worldview. To do that, we must separate two elements of that worldview: his current positions, and his historic positions. The first goes to supposed conservatism, and the second goes to credibility – even if he says he’s conservative today, should you believe him?
We’ll go through the issues here (thanks to Conservative Review for a handy guide to Trump’s positions as well). We report, you decide:
Immigration. After a career of flip-flopping on immigration (he ripped Mitt Romney in 2012 for being too harsh on illegal immigration and in 2013 said he hired illegals at his golf courses), Trump has famously taken the most right-wing position on illegal immigration in this race. Trump wants a wall, shutting down remittances garnered from illegal wages, and foreign aid cuts. He wants strong deportation policies and an end to birthright citizenship. Because many Republicans feel that the immigration issue is the prerequisite for any continuation of a small government republic, Trump has made hay on this issue.
Meanwhile, Trump flipped on Muslim refugees. Originally he said the U.S. would have to take in Syrian refugees; then he said he would take in no Muslim immigrants at all. That position has proved surprisingly durable with the conservative electorate.
Foreign Policy. Trump’s been all over the place here. He’s said we should leave the Islamic State to Russia and expressed sympathy for Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, but also said that we should “bomb the s***” out of ISIS. He has both said that he would topple Bashar Assad and that he would not arm the Syrian rebels. In the end, he said he had a great idea for defeating ISIS, but wouldn’t tell anyone what it was. He’s said that he wouldn’t immediately get rid of the Iran deal, but he stumped against the deal. He’s talked about how he admires China, but then explained he wants to put a 45 percent tariff on Chinese goods. Trump wants to expand the military, but how he would use that expanded military is far from clear.
Abortion. Trump says he’s pro-life.
1999: Trump says he is “very pro-choice” and said he wouldn’t ban partial birth abortion.
January 2015: Trump says he is “pro-life, with the caveats. You have to have the caveats.” What would those caveats be? He explains: “life of the mother, incest, and rape.” Asked repeatedly whether abortion outside of his “caveats” would be murder, he says, “it depends when.”...
October 2015: Trump says he would appoint his sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, to the Supreme Court – even though she has ruled in favor of partial birth abortion. As to overturning Roe v. Wade, Trump says, “you need a lot of Supreme Court justices, but we’re gonna be looking at that also very, very carefully,..
Same-Sex Marriage. Trump says he’s anti-same sex marriage but that it’s the “law of the land.” In August, he said, “Some people have hopes of passing amendments, but it’s not going to happen. Congress can’t pass simple things, let alone that. So anybody that’s making that an issue is doing it for political reasons. The Supreme Court ruled on it.” In December 2014, he reportedly told gay activist George Takei that he’d gone to a same-sex wedding and found it “beautiful.” Trump did say that he didn’t think Kentucky court clerk Kim Davis should have been jailed.
Religious Freedom. Trump pledges to uphold religious freedom but has not commented on the Indiana Religious Freedom and Restoration Act or any other similar act protecting religious practice in the face of leftist non-discrimination laws designed to quash religious observance.
Entitlements. Unlike virtually all the other Republican candidates, Trump has said he wouldn’t touch entitlements. He says that any Republican attempts to touch these programs will end in electoral defeat. His website currently carries an article from The Daily Signal titled, “Why Trump Won’t Touch Your Entitlements.” He said then, “I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid. Every other Republican is going to cut, and even if they wouldn’t, they don’t know what to do because they don’t know where the money is. I do.” He bashed
’s plans for entitlements for being “too far out front with the issue.” Trump has, however, said that certain parts of Social Security could be moved to private accounts – although he then says that he will save Social Security without cuts by discovering magical barrels of money: “I know where to get the money from. Nobody else does.”Campaign Finance Reform. Trump is for it, and he routinely attacks super PACs. Just last week, he said, “I think you need it.” He added, “Somebody gives them money, not anything wrong, just psychologically when they go to that person, they’re going to do it. They owe them. And by the way, they may therefore vote negatively toward the country. That’s not going to happen with me.” Campaign finance reform places outsized influence in the hands of the government and unions and quashes free speech.
Government Involvement In The Economy.Trump accuses Ted Cruz of being a Wall Street insider because his wife works for Goldman Sachs. Trump himself supported Obama’s 2009 stimulus, TARP, and the 2008 auto bailout. He said in 2009, “I think [Obama’s] doing very well. You do need stimulus and you do have to keep the banks alive.” He’s admitted over and over to paying elected officials to grease the skids on his deals – although, in fairness, he says that’s just how you have to work to get business done. In 2009, he said that the government should cap executive pay. Trump supported the Supreme Court’s egregious Kelo v. New London (2005) decision, in which the court absurdly declared that the government could seize private property and turn it over to another private party so long as the second party paid additional taxes on it. Trump explained, “I happen to agree with [the decision] 100%.”
Education. Trump opposes Common Core but has flip-flopped on whether he’d do away with the Department of Education; he told the South Carolina Tea Party last year that he wouldn’t dump them completely. “Certainly you could cut [that] way down,” Trump said, but added that he’d keep it alive for “coordination,” as Conservative Review points out.
Healthcare. Trump says he’d dump Obamacare but then praises the nationalized health care system of Canada and Great Britain. In 1999 and 2000 he endorsed nationalized health care openly; in 2015, he praised Scotland’s plan while appearing with David Letterman. He has proposed dumping restrictions on health care portability but continues to pump up nationalized health care systems. In September he told Hannity:
As far as single-payer and all — there’s so many different things you could have. Honestly, Sean, to do, to have great health insurance. The one thing I do tell people, we’re going to have something great. We’re going to repeal and replace Obamacare, which is a total disaster.
Tax Plan. Trump’s tax plan is certainly conservative. He proposes lowering the top tax bracket to 25 percent, drops the capital gains tax to 20 percent, dumps the death tax, and drops the corporate rate to 15 percent. The Tax Foundation states:
Our analysis finds that the plan would reduce federal revenues by $11.98 trillion over the next decade. However, it also would improve incentives to work and invest, which could increase gross domestic product (GDP) by 11 percent over the long term. This increase in GDP would translate into 6.5 percent higher wages and 5.3 million new full-time equivalent jobs. After accounting for increased incomes due to these factors, the plan would only reduce tax revenues by $10.14 trillion.
That’s different from his past positions on taxes, which include fighting the flat tax and proposing a wealth taxthat would force owners to liquidate their property to pay taxes every year.
Trade. Trump is for international tariffs, including an extraordinarily heavy tariff on Chinese goods, in the mistaken belief that this somehow helps the American economy. Tariffs certainly benefit protected sectors, but they hurt American consumers and destroy American purchasing power. Trump also wants to leave mandatory union dues alone – or at least he hasn’t commented differently on the issue for several years.
Guns. Trump has become progressively more pro-Second Amendment over time. His website states: “The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.”
So, there you have it: Trump’s mixed record on conservatism, even at present, belies the notion that he sees eye-to-eye with the Tea Party. Actually, Trump is far more populist than conservative — which means he has appeal to blue-collar Democrats, but also that he may not reliably stand by conservative principles in office. In fact, given his repeated position switching, the safe bet is that anything he says today will changed based on convenience. That should not encourage any conservative thinking of Trump in the primaries."
Sent from Frances iPhoneFrances Kendall
Sent from my iPad
Jaco Strauss
Kaapstad
Stephen vJ
Sent from an electronic device.
Julian le Roux
Julian le Roux
Frances Kendall
Sent from Frances iPhone
Julian le Roux
" but both would work within the constraints of the American democratic system "
Julian le Roux
Frances Kendall
--
Frances Kendall
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
Leon Louw (gmail)
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
Jaco Strauss
Frances Kendall
Sent from Frances iPhone
Frances Kendall
Sent from Frances iPhone
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
Erik Peers
I predicted way back that Trump will be the presidential candidate. I still believe he will.
My reasoning is that like any good salesman he is giving the people what they want.
Whether that is what we want is a longer discussion. Whether this is good for the world needs a crystal ball.
I would feel comfortable with Hillary as I don't believe much would change.
With Trump a lot would change. For better or worse is unpredictable.
Erik Peers
Stephen here I agree with you.
Political correctness is a philosophy based on the premise that it is possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Garth Zietsman
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
Julian le Roux
A) My rejection of Cruz is based on principle, as I explained. Plus, I've learned that gut reaction to personality is very important to take into consideration, because in my experience personality usually predicts how a person will behave ... and gut reactions carry great value.
In contrast, there's is a good chance that Trump doesn't actually take himself that seriously. As for war, he is clearly the candidate who is least likely to escalate conflict with Russia.
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
Jaco Strauss
Frances Kendall
Julian le Roux
Stephen vJ
Sent from an electronic device.
Stephen vJ
Sent from an electronic device.
AHN
I do not want him to be president. I think his protectionist tariffs would be disastrous for Americans, but at least they are reversible. I do however LOVE that he was willing to kick the hornets nest and upset the apple cart and create badly needed conversation. I do not give a SHT that he offends some people. He is not as bad a two faced lying politician as the others. What you see is what you get. He is not beholden to any unions or donors, so he has the leeway to change his mind.
If he becomes president he will prosecute Hillary- no other politician will.
All politicians are egomaniacs.
I personally do not have ANY horse in this race and do not believe libertarianism can be advanced through the ballot box BUT:
Cruz was upheld by the (non libertarian) media as the best example of libertarianism, mainly through his policies of less taxes and small government. Many ideas with which I have sympathy
But when he added the words "carpet bombing" to his vocabulary, he lost me. No matter how fiscally conservative he claims to be, another war will bankrupt this country through loss of money and manpower.
Donald Trump has claimed that he would pull back troops from the middle east, that we are backing nefarious characters and that ISIS is really a Saudi and middle east problem not our own - which I agree with. He claims he would not have waged the Hillary wars (Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, ISIS in Iraq and Africa etc) and was against invading Iraq (who knows if he means it, but if he does, he is better than Hillary and Cruz on that point)
He wants to have 4 tax brackets with the highest being 25% (0%, 10%, 20% and 25%) He wants corporate tax to be capped at 15% one of the lowest in the world. If he is telling the truth that will bring back HUGE amounts of jobs and investment to America, reduce poverty and save lives without the need for printing stimulus money and with less bureaucratic intervention and agencies and bribes and crony capitalism.
He claims he will make most government projects pay for themselves or balance their budgets - which means cut out waste and no promises of "freebies for votes".
He promises his healthcare system will be free market with reduced restrictions on insurance companies and across state line bidding made possible- I hope he means it.
Hillary: Hillarycare/Obamacare is one and the same thing. They want socialized medicine for everybody and they set up the current semi socialized system to fail on purpose so they can nationalize ALL of medicine and make it a one payer system. This will bankrupt the country and will cost lives.- not a benign path.
Unless a Republican comes in power and overturns it NOW it will be imbedded forever and be irreversible forever (till the revolution or the country goes bankrupt?)
Hillary is directly and indirectly (with the help of other Democrats and Republicans) responsible for the Arab spring, for destabilization of all of north Africa and the middle east, the loss of millions of lives and the displacement of millions more. - already before she even comes in power.
This has already permanently wounded the world and is a continuing downward spiral that will probably bring down Europe as we knew it. It is not benign leadership that can be controlled by congress. It is horrifyingly dangerous and permanent.
Hillary is HUGELY in bed with Crony corporations (as well as foreign countries opposed to free markets) and will take us permanently down the road of Fascism- not reversible for generations to come- not a benign consequence
Shadow Marxist groups like Planned parenthood, Black lives matter, Feminism, Whacko environmentalism, Acorn, Global warming and hundreds others will become legitimized and funded by tax dollars at the government teat and future politicians will be too scared to stop it for fear of being called racists or anti poor or anti women. - not a benign result
Hillary's egomania extends to the illusion that she and Bill and their close friends are above the law and nobody has the right to question that. If she becomes president the legal system in the USA will permanently be damaged
Yes Trump will enrich himself as president. show me a politician who would not!
I will not be voting in this election.
Albert Nelmapius
Julian le Roux
--
Garth Zietsman
Stephen vJ
Sent from an electronic device.
Frances Kendall
Sent from Frances iPhone
Jaco Strauss
Kaapstad
Colin Phillips
Garth Zietsman
Jaco Strauss
Also immigration from Mexico (both legal and illegal) has dried up and has in fact been negative for a few years so the point of a wall escapes me
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
Jaco Strauss
Frances Kendall
On 17 Mar 2016, at 5:03 PM, Jaco Strauss <jacos...@gmail.com> wrote:
The problem with a two-party system is that you, well, have to stand for one of the two tickets.That is why a libertarian like Ron Paul stood for the GOP and a communist like Bernie for the Democrats. Both go much further than they would have otherwise
2016-03-17 15:32 GMT+01:00 Stephen van Jaarsveldt <sjaar...@gmail.com>:
Ah, red and blue AND black and a funky 90's hairstyle... I can vote for this dude.S.
On 17 March 2016 at 10:59, Colin Phillips <noid...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-party-welcomes-refugees-from-the-republican-and-democratic-partiesSeems like the libertarian party is cashing on on people feeling that neither the republicans nor the democrats have much to offer.Let's see how well that works.
<image.png>
--Jaco Strauss
Kaapstad
Jaco Strauss
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
Jaco Strauss
Jaco Strauss
Frances Kendall
Sent from Frances iPhone
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
Stephen van Jaarsveldt
Jaco Strauss
Jaco Strauss
Gary Kasparov doesn't seem to think so;
Pleased to see our viral Facebook discussion about Sanders and socialism go from a little polemic (https://www.facebook.com/GKKasparov/posts/10154026469573307) to an article (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/10/garry-kasparov-hey-bernie-don-t-lecture-me-about-socialism-i-lived-through-it.html) to a real discussion in the news in this Washington Post article. Interesting that the Sanders campaign has declined to discuss my articles, but not surprising. Not because they are wrong and I am right, but because discussing the soul of America and the long-term impact of government intervention is a lot harder than promising free stuff you can't pay for.
From what I see from many of Bernie's defenders in the comments here, they want to have it both ways. Whatever is bad either isn't socialism at all or wasn't socialist enough! This tradition does go back to the USSR, where our constant hardship was blamed on not being pure enough in following the teachings of Lenin, for example. Corrupt officials, inefficient bureaucracies, external enemies and internal saboteurs—there are always plenty of scapegoats for why socialist regimes impoverish and imprison their citizens. Socialism is such an attractive theory that it's far too easy to ignore that it always fails in practice.
I'm glad the Washington Post author wasn't fooled by the attention-grabbing headline of my Daily Beast article and understood I wasn't making up straw men arguments or comparing Sanders' proposals directly with totalitarian Communism. The point is that the road to hell has often been paved with good socialist intentions. (Not in the case of the USSR, by the way. It was always about power.) When you believe that just a little more government intervention can help, then just a little more, a little more, you end up with a completely distorted system of incentives and control. Sanders' lovely phrase "a government that works for everyone" soon becomes, in practice, "or else."
Graeme Levin
It seems to me that comments about Donald Trump are often based primarily on the biased and highly selective media coverage.
Take for example Leon calling him an "Extreme Protectionist".
Trumps has consistently said he believes in free trade and not protectionism. But this can only work if both parties play fairly by the rules.
He maintains that China is dumping goods in America. It manipulates currency exchange rates, imposes tariffs, allows widespread use of low wage sweat-shops and in a number of ways subsidises exports.
He points out that the present administration consists of a bunch of incompetents who think that the correct way to deal with China is to continue to accept a great deal for consumers at the expense of a very bad deal for American manufacturers and loss of jobs for workers.
He has said he'll not sit back and accept a one-way bad deal. He'll retaliate.
I'm not for one minute saying China should not behave as it pleases. But it must then expect consequences as proposed by Trump, the only candidate to be honest about what's happening and to be tough enough to deal with it.
Here is his position:
======================================================================
Reforming The U.S.-China Trade Relationship To Make America Great Again
How We Got Here: Washington Politicians Let China Off The Hook
In January 2000, President Bill Clinton boldly promised China’s inclusion in the World Trade Organization (WTO) “is a good deal for America. Our products will gain better access to China’s market, and every sector from agriculture, to telecommunications, to automobiles. But China gains no new market access to the United States.” None of what President Clinton promised came true. Since China joined the WTO, Americans have witnessed the closure of more than 50,000 factories and the loss of tens of millions of jobs. It was not a good deal for America then and it’s a bad deal now. It is a typical example of how politicians in Washington have failed our country.
The most important component of our China policy is leadership and strength at the negotiating table. We have been too afraid to protect and advance American interests and to challenge China to live up to its obligations. We need smart negotiators who will serve the interests of American workers – not Wall Street insiders that want to move U.S. manufacturing and investment offshore.
The Goal Of The Trump Plan: Fighting For American Businesses And Workers
America has always been a trading nation. Under the Trump administration trade will flourish. However, for free trade to bring prosperity to America, it must also be fair trade. Our goal is not protectionism but accountability. America fully opened its markets to China but China has not reciprocated. Its Great Wall of Protectionism uses unlawful tariff and non-tariff barriers to keep American companies out of China and to tilt the playing field in their favor.
If you give American workers a level playing field, they will win. At its heart, this plan is a negotiating strategy to bring fairness to our trade with China. The results will be huge for American businesses and workers. Jobs and factories will stop moving offshore and instead stay here at home. The economy will boom. The steps outlined in this plan will make that a reality.
When Donald J. Trump is president, China will be on notice that America is back in the global leadership business and that their days of currency manipulation and cheating are over. We will cut a better deal with China that helps American businesses and workers compete.
The Trump Plan Will Achieve The Following Goals:
- Bring China to the bargaining table by immediately declaring it a currency manipulator.
- Protect American ingenuity and investment by forcing China to uphold intellectual property laws and stop their unfair and unlawful practice of forcing U.S. companies to share proprietary technology with Chinese competitors as a condition of entry to China’s market.
- Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards. No more sweatshops or pollution havens stealing jobs from American workers.
- Strengthen our negotiating position by lowering our corporate tax rate to keep American companies and jobs here at home, attacking our debt and deficit so China cannot use financial blackmail against us, and bolstering the U.S. military presence in the East and South China Seas to discourage Chinese adventurism.
Details of Donald J. Trump’s US China Trade Plan:
Declare China A Currency Manipulator
We need a president who will not succumb to the financial blackmail of a Communist dictatorship. President Obama’s Treasury Department has repeatedly refused to brand China a currency manipulator – a move that would force China to stop these unfair practices or face tough countervailing duties that level the playing field.
Economists estimate the Chinese yuan is undervalued by anywhere from 15% to 40%. This grossly undervalued yuan gives Chinese exporters a huge advantage while imposing the equivalent of a heavy tariff on U.S. exports to China. Such currency manipulation, in concert with China’s other unfair practices, has resulted in chronic U.S. trade deficits, a severe weakening of the U.S. manufacturing base and the loss of tens of millions of American jobs.
In a system of truly free trade and floating exchange rates like a Trump administration would support, America's massive trade deficit with China would not persist. On day one of the Trump administration the U.S. Treasury Department will designate China as a currency manipulator. This will begin a process that imposes appropriate countervailing duties on artificially cheap Chinese products, defends U.S. manufacturers and workers, and revitalizes job growth in America. We must stand up to China’s blackmail and reject corporate America’s manipulation of our politicians. The U.S. Treasury’s designation of China as a currency manipulator will force China to the negotiating table and open the door to a fair – and far better – trading relationship.
End China’s Intellectual Property Violations
China’s ongoing theft of intellectual property may be the greatest transfer of wealth in history. This theft costs the U.S. over $300 billion and millions of jobs each year. China’s government ignores this rampant cybercrime and, in other cases, actively encourages or even sponsors it –without any real consequences. China’s cyber lawlessness threatens our prosperity, privacy and national security. We will enforce stronger protections against Chinese hackers and counterfeit goods and our responses to Chinese theft will be swift, robust, and unequivocal.
The Chinese government also forces American companies like Boeing, GE, and Intel to transfer proprietary technologies to Chinese competitors as a condition of entry into the Chinese market. Such de facto intellectual property theft represents a brazen violation of WTO and international rules. China’s forced technology transfer policy is absolutely ridiculous. Going forward, we will adopt a zero tolerance policy on intellectual property theft and forced technology transfer. If China wants to trade with America, they must agree to stop stealing and to play by the rules.
Eliminate China’s Illegal Export Subsidies And Other Unfair Advantages
Chinese manufacturers and other exporters receive numerous illegal export subsidies from the Chinese government. These include - in direct contradiction to WTO rules - free or nearly free rent, utilities, raw materials, and many other services. China’s state-run banks routinely extend loans these enterprises at below market rates or without the expectation they will be repaid. China even offers them illegal tax breaks or rebates as well as cash bonuses to stimulate exports.
China’s illegal export subsidies intentionally distorts international trade and damages other countries’ exports by giving Chinese companies an unfair advantage. From textile and steel mills in the Carolinas to the Gulf Coast’s shrimp and fish industries to the Midwest manufacturing belt and California’s agribusiness, China’s disregard for WTO rules hurt every corner of America.
The U.S. Trade Representative recently filed yet another complaint with the WTO accusing China of cheating on our trade agreements by subsidizing its exports. The Trump administration will not wait for an international body to tell us what we already know. To gain negotiating leverage, we will pursue the WTO case and aggressively highlight and expose these subsidies.
China’s woeful lack of reasonable environmental and labor standards represent yet another form of unacceptable export subsidy. How can American manufacturers, who must meet very high standards, possibly compete with Chinese companies that care nothing about their workers or the environment? We will challenge China to join the 21 st Century when it comes to such standards.
The Trump Plan Will Strengthen Our Negotiating Position
As the world’s most important economy and consumer of goods, America must always negotiate trade agreements from strength. Branding China as a currency manipulator and exposing their unfair trade practices is not enough. In order to further strengthen our negotiating leverage, the Trump plan will:
- Lower the corporate tax rate to 15% to unleash American ingenuity here at home and make us more globally competitive. This tax cut puts our rate 10 percentage points below China and 20 points below our current burdensome rate that pushes companies and jobs offshore.
- Attack our debt and deficit by vigorously eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in the Federal government, ending redundant government programs, and growing the economy to increase tax revenues. Closing the deficit and reducing our debt will mean China cannot blackmail us with our own Treasury bonds.
- Strengthen the U.S. military and deploying it appropriately in the East and South China Seas. These actions will discourage Chinese adventurism that imperils American interests in Asia and shows our strength as we begin renegotiating our trading relationship with China. A strong military presence will be a clear signal to China and other nations in Asia and around the world that America is back in the global leadership business.
From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Leon Louw (gmail)
Sent: 16 March 2016 14:35
To: Libsa (googlegroups) <li...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Libsa] Libertarians for Trump....
My reaction to Trump is both psychology and policy.
Psychology: I experience him obnoxious, delusional, megalomaniacal.
Policy: Extreme protectionist, war-mongering, dirigiste.
On 16 March 2016 at 16:24, Frances Kendall <fken...@mac.com> wrote:
OK, so it's principle or policy, it's your gut reaction to personality.
Sent from Frances iPhone
On 16 Mar 2016, at 4:16 PM, Julian le Roux <leroux...@gmail.com> wrote:As for Ted Cruz, I might have considered preferring him before, but then he went and blamed Trump's "tone" for the violence of Leftist protesters who used mass violence to shut down free speech and free association in a private venue. If that was his reaction to those events, then all other claims of consistency and principle are meaningless to me.
Ignoring the content of his words in this video, just look at his manner. So smarmy and sanctimonious. Better a buffoon than a slimeball.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Julian le Roux <leroux...@gmail.com> wrote:
@Graeme Levin, thanks for the videos...Condell & Root just put the visibly obvious into words, thus making the absurdity even clearer.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Julian le Roux <leroux...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:
She doesn't look Inuit to me.
S.
Sent from an electronic device.
On 16 Mar 2016, at 10:39, Jaco Strauss <jacos...@gmail.com> wrote:
Technically Alaska is part of the US (Except of course if your point was that "Mars is not" :-)
2016-03-16 9:23 GMT+01:00 Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com>:
Neither does Sarah Palin, technically.
S.
Sent from an electronic device.
On 16 Mar 2016, at 09:52, Erik Peers <erik...@gmail.com> wrote:
MSG doesn't come out of the USA.
On 16 Mar 2016 09:06, "Stephen vJ" <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:
Not at all. We know you passionately dislike Trump and I think so do we... the difference is that we like Hillary even less. She is the most dangerous thing to come out of the US since central banking, Sarah Palin and MSG.
S.
On 15 Mar 2016, at 21:36, Frances Kendall <fken...@mac.com> wrote:
I presume this is a joke?
Sent from Frances iPhone
On 15 Mar 2016, at 9:14 PM, Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:
From what I read, there are several nations in Northern America, which vote and act in fairly predictable ways. See image below... the leading book on the topic is called something like "the 9 rival nations of north america" and I can highly recommend it.
<image1.JPG>
As far as I understand, the Deep South and Appalachia vote largely Republican, except when the Democratic candidate is from the South. So Trump should take those. The Far West is mainly Libertarian... don't get excited about the large area covered though - it is very sparsely populated. If below works, that part will go to Trump too and I think it is possible since Sanders and Hillary are obviously the opposite of Libertarian.
Trump has a snowballs chance in hell to win the Left Coast and unlikely to do much in densely populated & dominant Yankeedom. Tidewater sides with Yankeedom more often than not, so he's likely to lose there too. El Norte will side with Hillary for sure, which may cost Trump the election. However, the others mentioned above would make it an even match. Which would make the Midlands and New Netherland swing votes... and I think his chances there are a bit above 50:50.
So, if you can work out which way Midlands and New Netherland are leaning, then a decent indicator of the outcome should be possible. Targeting Libertarians in those places won't be the clincher for him though. If you just want to know if Libertarians are siding with him against Sanders / Hillary, then look at how the Far West is voting.
S.
Sent from an electronic device.
On 15 Mar 2016, at 20:37, Jaco Strauss <jacos...@gmail.com> wrote:
Libertarians for Trump
March 15, 2016
Dr. Donald Miller (donald...@gmail.com) and I (wbl...@loyno.edu) are starting up a new group to be called Libertarians for Trump.
LFT has its work cut out for it in mobilizing massive support for Donald Trump within the libertarian community. For there are some libertarians who oppose supporting any politician for political office, even a 99% pure one such as Dr. Ron Paul. However, I dedicated this book to refuting arguments of that sort: Block, Walter E. 2012. Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty. New York: Ishi Press. (By the way, the forward to that book – not written by me — contains, in my opinion, the single best short essay ever written about Dr. Paul).
Let me just say that there is nothing, nothing at all, incompatible between libertarianism and voting, or supporting political candidates. Both Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard can be considered political junkies, and you won’t find too many better libertarians than those two.
Suppose we were all slaves, and the master said we could have a democratic election; we could vote for overseer Baddie, who would whip us unmercifully once per day, or overseer Goodie, who would do exactly the same thing, but only once per month. We all voted for the latter. Is this incompatible with libertarianism? Would this make us worse libertarians? Anyone who thinks so does not really understand this philosophy. For a remedial course, read this book: Rothbard, Murray N. 1998 [1982]. The Ethics of Liberty, New York: New York University Press.
There are several issues upon which libertarians do not and cannot support Donald Trump. For example, protectionism. But, typically, regarding the issues where Mr. Trump deviates from libertarianism, so do the other candidates.
And, also, we readily admit that the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party (unless they nominate someone like, ugh, Bob Barr) will very likely have views much closer to ours than those of Mr. Trump.
But, the perfect is the enemy of the good. It is our goal to throw our weight behind the candidate who has a reasonable chance of actually becoming President of the United States whose views are CLOSEST to libertarianism.
When put in this way, it is clear that 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 Algeria. 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, mentioned below). 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
Here are some positive things written about Mr. Donald Trump:
Buchanan, Patrick J. 2016. “Will the Oligarchs Kill Trump?” March 8;
Heilbrunn, Jacob. 2016. “The Neocons vs. Donald Trump.” March 10;The New York Times.
Mercer, Ilana. 2016. “Trump and Trade.” March 10
Miller, Donald W, Jr. 2016. “Trump: Our Only Hope for Escaping World War III.” March 9
Please consider joining our new group, LFT. There are no dues or fees. All you need to do is give me your name, email address (which we will not use) and affiliation (professional and/or just mention the city and state you live in). We will release the list of names of LFT members once we reach 100 participants. I ask that you do this not because in this way we may have some effect on a Trump Administration although there is an outside chance we might (he is now beset upon from so many sides, and so unfairly, that he might well appreciate the relatively small support we can give him). I ask you to do this, rather, because it is the right thing to do; he is, of all the major candidates for the office of President of the United States, the one most closely, albeit very far from perfectly, aligned with our beloved libertarian philosophy. If you know of other essays written in support of Mr. Trump, either by a libertarian, or, emphasizing the fact that his views are more aligned with our own than those of other major candidates, send them to us so that we can add them to our bibliography of such literature.
--
--
Jaco Strauss
Kaapstad
--
Leon Louw
work: +27-11-884-0270
mobile: +27-84-618-0348
If you want to know who has power over you, ask who you cannot criticize.
Graeme Levin
Clearly there are strong feelings on this Forum involving Donald Trump. I feel the media contributes to stigmatising and vilifying him by selective and biased reporting.
For example the media coverage of his being endorsed by people such as Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Rudy Guilliano, Sarah Palin and others has been muted.
All these have pointed to Trump's superior intellect, vast knowledge and experience, ability to listen and debate, strength, multiple successes and grasp of international affairs. All downplayed or ignored.
It is unprecedented that there is such a concerted massively-funded effort to derail a campaign from Democrats, Republicans and the media. And now organised thugs bearing Bernie Sanders banners disrupt his meetings.
It suits all these to ignore his abilities and focus on real and fabricated weaknesses.
I'm reminded of similar Media treatment of George W Bush.
At the Libertarian Conference in 2006 I said to a group of super-intelligent delegates that Bush was one of the best-read presidents. The media had done their job well to position him as an illiterate, ignorant buffoon. My statement was correct but was greeted with derision.
I expect the same response to the comments on Trump.
From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jaco Strauss
Sent: 17 March 2016 08:24
To: Libertarian SA <li...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Libsa] Libertarians for Trump....
From what I gathered in passing, the problem with Planned Parenthood is that they perform partial birth abortions and sell the baby's body parts for profit. This is the first I hear that that are "Marxist" although many social Marxists would no doubt be found there.
John Pretorius
The left has perfected the art of painting devils on the wall, overlaying them with caricatures of their flavour of the week, and then inviting their captive media to throw stones and whip themselves into a frenzy while they quietly loot the coffers. Their preferred outcome is that the centre and right then also whip themselves into a frenzy trying to defend positions they never had to start with. Trump, much as I dislike him, seems to have developed some immunity from getting sucked into these vortices.
Perhaps we can learn something from him to defend against the ANC’s current “all whites are racist” meme.
John R Pretorius
Leon Louw (gmail)
I’m shocked by Trump.
I’m much more shocked by pro-Trump libertarians (in this Google Group).
More precisely, by people who say they're libertarians.
I’m gobsmacked by the thought that people I’d have expected to support Ron Paul, or make minor compromises to support Rand Paul, saying anything positive about Trump.
Apart from having an obnoxious, delusional, demagogic,
authoritarian, despotic, bigoted, narcissistic and egocentric personality, and being unable to speak English
properly, Trump has obnoxious views and values.
He is, for instance, a compulsive liar. It’s easy to know when he’s lying; he opens his mouth.
Amongst the words I haven’t heard coming from Trump's offensive mouth are “liberty”, “rule of law”, “human rights”, “classical liberalism”, “natural justice”, “economic freedom, “free markets”, “property rights” or “free trade” – ie terms that matter, or should matter, to people calling themselves libertarian.
Oh, I know, someone will Google it, and find that he used such terms somewhere sometime under duress. They would be commonplace if he has a libertarin sinew in him.
There are a few ways to settle disagreements about whether Trump’s other synapse is vaguely pro-liberty.
1. One is to compile a balance sheet of what little he’s said of relevance to liberty.
2. Another is to scan what analysts have to say about it.
3. A third, my preference, is to form an impression (based on what we read, hear and see).
I deal with Trump as I do with such ghastly characters as Julius Malema, Jacob Zuma and Vladimir Putin. If a contributor to this Group says Malema is more libertarian than Maimane, or Obama is more libertarian than Ron Paul, I’ll waste no time debating the issue, or working out how a “libertarian” can be so delusional.
A even greater shock for me than LibSA people being pro-Trump, is Walter Block promoting "libertarians for Trump". I haven't followed it up, but assume he's either joking or has dementia. Block has always been one of the most consistent uncompromising libertarians for decades. I'm not following it up because it would spoil my day to find that he's sane and not joking.
The instructive thing about this discourse for me is that it separates people, not on whether they're libertarian, but whether they are closet right-wing conservative authoritarians. It separates libertarians from conservatives, open-minded people from bigots, classical liberals from right-wingers, and lovers of liberty from lovers of power.
As far as I can tell, the only thing anyone could like about Trump is the prospect of his copious megalomania being used and abused through government power to promote whatever gets anti-libertarian juices flowing: racism, narcissism, Islamophobia, misogynism, protectionism, populism, Big Brother etc.
Regarding 2 above, some links follow.
David Boaz on Trump:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trumps-real-problem
Cato on who supports Trump:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/heres-lowdown-who-supports-donald-trump
Trump vs liberty:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-a-tures/trump-the-socialist-and-t_b_8787354.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-mullen/trumps-protectionist-fall_b_8056400.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-big-socialist-idea_us_56cfa6cae4b0871f60eae43b
https://pjmedia.com/blog/donald-trump-crony-capitalist/
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2016/01/donald-trumps-nationalism-free-market-capitalism/
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/donald-trump-is-no-capitalist-1302540677772
http://spectator.org/articles/63738/trump-no-friend-free-market-health-care
http://www.westernjournalism.com/socialist-donald-trump-calls-bernie-sanders-a-socialist/
Trump = Putin:
(It’s no coincidence that Trump and Putin love each other, and that Russian government propaganda is pro-Trump.)
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/vladimir-putin-just-made-a-massive-donald-trump-announcement/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/13/opinion/why-putin-loves-trump.html?_r=0
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/donald-trump-putin-narcissism
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-adelman/putin-trump-the-notsoodd-_b_8879150.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-a-tures/trump-the-socialist-and-t_b_8787354.html
=======================
The guys at Vox suggest that Trump will be very much inclined to use state powers to extract personal pay back. That makes him dangerous.He is also very pro protectionism and anti-immigrant (well anti non-white in general.) The latter is probably why you like him Julian but both make him non-libertarian.The betting market currently puts chances of a Democrat win at 71%. The market is also saying the Democrats will retake the Senate.On 16 March 2016 at 17:16, Erik Peers <erik...@gmail.com> wrote:Stephen here I agree with you.
Political correctness is a philosophy based on the premise that it is possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.On 16 Mar 2016 17:12, "Stephen van Jaarsveldt" <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:It seems the choice is one between an overt dictator vs. a covert manipulator. Personally, I would rather know where the spider in the room is - knowing there is a poisonous spider and not seeing what it is up to scares me more than the thing showing me its fangs. Trump is a danger out in the open while Hillary is a danger on the sly. But I guess it is down to personal preference... like someone with lactose intolerance having to decide if they prefer strawberry ice-cream over chocolate ice-cream.S.On 16 March 2016 at 15:38, Frances Kendall <fken...@mac.com> wrote:If I lived in the US I would hold my nose & vote for Cruz or Clinton - both would be hard for different reasons, but both would work within the constraints of the American democratic system and probably be no worse than Bill Clinton or Bush 43. Trump is a narcissistic demagogue, Congress would provide a check as with all presidents, but I consider him seriously dangerous person to wield the nearly unlimited power of Commander in Chief.
Sent from Frances iPhone
--Jaco Strauss
Kaapstad
--
Leon Louw (gmail)
March 10, 2016
Donald Trump’s stump thump against Mexico is that it runs a $58 billion annual trade surplus with the United States. Trump somehow thinks this leaves America the poorer.
He claims that it is out of that money, presumably sitting in some giant vault in Tijuana, that Mexico will pay for the border fence he wants to build to keep immigrants from entering the United States illegally. Trump’s pronouncements only demonstrate how he keeps facts and reason from entering his thoughts and, how he would keep Americans from making their own free choices in a free market.
International free trade is win-win
Trump’s very language reveals a glaring error concerning trade. Mexico and America do not trade. Mexicans and Americans do. Mexicans have $58 billion more in cash (pieces of paper with George Washington’s picture on them or the equivalent credits on bank ledgers) and Americans have $58 billion more in goods (electrical equipment, Trump-themed apparel).
And Trump doesn’t bother to ask, what are those Mexicans supposed to do with those pieces of paper? If they don’t spend them in America, they’ve got nothing but useless paper. So the Mexican trade surplus also means that Mexicans are investing an equivalent amount in America, helping the U.S. economy grow.
Further, the fundamental nature of trade between individuals is a win-win situation. Someone who buys an orange Donald hat for $20 to show his support for the former host of “The Apprentice” values the hat more than the twenty. And the manufacturer in Mexico who has a warehouse full of said head gear prefers the $20.
“The essence of capitalism's foreign policy is free trade . . ." ~ Ayn Rand
If The Donald slaps a 30% tariff on all goods coming from Mexico, maybe his starry-eyed supporters would shell out $26, the higher cost of the hat. But a poor mother with five kids seeing the price of a pair of shoes jump from $20 to $26 might be hard-pressed to afford the extra $30 she’d need to cover the feet of all her five little ones. But Trump doesn’t care. He wants to get rid of that pesky trade imbalance and what better way than to discourage that mom from buying Mexican-made shoes for her family! On the other hand, maybe he will notice when Mexican investors pull out of his latest golf resort or skyscraper projects, because his policies have destroyed their profits.
Trump’s grocery store trade deficit
If Trump is so against trade deficits, he should have a serious problem in his own household. Trump no doubt runs a huge trade deficit with his grocery store. He gives them piles of money when he buys food—no doubt top-priced cuisine—but the store never buys anything from him. Maybe he should boycott it. Maybe we should all boycott our local grocery stores lest we be victims of a trade deficit. Maybe if elected president, Trump will slap a 30 percent “grocery tariff” on everything that those stores try to sell to we poor, exploited schleps until those stores start purchasing stuff from us.
Trumps versus liberty
Trump poses as a friend of the people, but he wants to use government to prohibit the Americans from purchasing goods from whomever they wish—including Mexicans. The Donald presumes to know better what individual Americans should buy with their own money and at what price than they do. He’s determined to drive up the prices for Americans buying from Mexicans to teach those Mexicans a lesson. So what if American consumers and businesspeople are collateral damage.
Trump’s policies would only add more instability to an already unstable world. Ayn Rand explained that “The essence of capitalism's foreign policy is free trade—i.e., the abolition of trade barriers . . . the opening of the world's trade routes to free international exchange and competition among the private citizens of all countries dealing directly with one another. During the nineteenth century, it was free trade that liberated the world, undercutting and wrecking the remnants of feudalism and the statist tyranny of absolute monarchies.”
When governments take away the liberty of individuals to pursue their self-interest by trading freely with other individuals—a win-win situation—they set the stage for conflicts and even wars between countries. Trump’s proposed trade war is really a war on the American people.
From: The Atlas Society [mailto:t...@theatlassociety.org]
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 7:31 PM
To: Terry Markman
Subject: Atlas Society Newsletter | March 18
Ayn Rand cockblocked me / Trump and trade / Socialism in America
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen vJ
Sent from an electronic device.
Stephen vJ
Sent from an electronic device.
Jaco Strauss
Leon, I think you miss a few points
Firstly Ron Paul is not running.
Secondly Rand Paul dropped out
Thirdly etc, it is not about being "pro Trump", but what is the best Libertarian outcome from the current field.
For me personally, however, the biggest lure of Trump is the fact that he really riles everybody I hate (present company excluded)
The SJWs, socialists, feminists, Black Lives Matter Fascists, etc all hate him with a passion - so he has to be doing something right.
You say you know he lies for he opened fish mouth? Sure, show me a politician who doesn't. Hillary?, Cruz? Bernie? Please!
Nicholas Woode-Smith
Writer and Social Media Manager
Martin van Staden
Leon Louw (Gmail)
-------- Original message --------
From: Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com>
Date: 20/03/2016 23:04 (GMT+02:00)
To: li...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Libsa] Libertarians for Trump....
Gavin Weiman
Sent from my iPhone
--
Stephen vJ
Frances Kendall
Nicholas makes the point well, Hilary is predictable, under Obama the US is still the country you, Stephen, would like to live in, still highly successful & free on most counts. That won't change under Hilary (or Cruz), biggest problem with Trump is his total unpredictability and dangerous ignorance.
Sent from my iPad
Frances Kendall
Sent from my iPad
Colin Phillips
Leon Louw (gmail)
Did you post a media censored version of Trumps China policy? Maybe that might explain why it's anti-liberty.
Anyhow, media censorship does not morph despots into libertarians, assuming ipsissima verba sources aren't media hoaxes.
Stephen vJ
1. Trump
Sent from an electronic device.
Leon Louw (gmail)
He will change not just the USA, but the world. How? Well, by being Trump. What will be do when he doesn't get his way, as is close to an absolute certainty? That's a more terrifying prospect than Bernie Saunders.
As you say, libertarians ought to be anti-Trump and anti-Hillary. That's obvious.
Stephen vJ
Stephen vJ
Sent from an electronic device.
Leon Louw (gmail)
Stephen vJ
Sent from an electronic device.
Garth Zietsman
Stephen vJ
Sent from an electronic device.
Stephen vJ
Jaco Strauss
Leon, you seem to assume that all chocolate is dark...
Julian le Roux
Jaco Strauss
Was the claim not that the children of Engels died of neglect and not Marx's?
Garth Zietsman
albert
It is like a bunch of vegetarian Buddhist monks, arguing over whether horse meat or dog meat would be the least dangerous alternative to starvation. Or people allergic to bee stings arguing over whether they would be better off dying from an African bee sting or a European bee sting. Or engineers in 1950 arguing over whether the rotary telephone should stay black or if they should cautiously introduce white phones, or if they should experiment with counterclockwise rotors. They have not the faintest idea what the market will produce in the next 50 years and the arguments are futile.
If you will allow me to generalize:
Working within the current democratic system, a conservative president, with a conservative congress (and I include Cruze and Gary Johnson in here), may be able to uphold the facade of liberty a little longer - would that necessarily be better?Not sure!
and a liberal/socialist president with a socialist congress might collapse the system into bankruptcy sooner. Would that be a bad thing?
Trump will be hated by the republican AND democrats congressman, so he will get very little accomplished. Even if he is the popular choice, the establishment will handicap him - which would be a good thing AND it will enrage the masses into looking for alternatives to the "system" The guy in the street will slowly but surely start emasculating politicians.
Marx was right- as long as there are powerful governments - socialism will advance. Is faster or slower a better route? I don't know. It matters for the short term but not for the long term. The goal is to let the state lose legitimacy!!!
Increasingly the last several presidents have been trying to become "stronger" presidents (left and right) and relied on executive orders to get their way. Already the left and the right "markets" are rebelling against that - hence anti establishment candidates like Sanders and Trump.
The public is woefully uneducated and uninformed but I see this rebellion as a HUGE libertarian moment.
As libertarians, we should rather discuss what do we do to educate and influence the markets regardless of politician sabre rattling. How can the unwashed masses learn that neither philosophy will eventually get them their wishes.
Already the pendulum is swinging away from wars and interventionism. The markets are teaching commerce to circumvent tariffs and taxes. The dollar will eventually collapse and with it the welfare system.
Just like "The War on Poverty" which is progressing in spite of, not because of the state, I strongly believe that in the long run, the libertarian solution will become more and more prevalent.
Albert Nelmapius
Stephen vJ
Sent from an electronic device.
Stephen vJ
Sent from an electronic device.
Garth Zietsman
Leon Louw (Gmail)
albert
A moment has no feelings or no philosophies. A moment is just a moment.
The people do not have to understand the philosophy or be educated about the concept or belong to a defined group for the moment to be pro liberty. They do not even need to consciously know at the time that they participated in a pro liberty moment.
The French citizens that rebelled against the king were often bloodthirsty uneducated serfs who wanted nothing but food and revenge- yet the moment became known as a pro liberty event. (even though that is debatable) The 'liberte' slogan was added later in the game.
A bunch of drunk American settlers got mad at paying taxes and threw a load of tea into the harbor. None of them belonged to a libertarian party or explained to the masses their "liberating" actions - they had no idea it would lead to war against the crown and many of them may never have read a book on politics and were most likely upset about lack of progress in their standard of living and a perceived cultural threat. Yet the moment was decidedly pro liberty in the long run.
The British colonies liberated their slaves not out of an epiphany of religion or guilt, or some philosophical awareness of liberty, but most likely out of some practical reason like high cost of enforcing slave laws or lesser use of manual labor with the development of mechanization and improved farming etc. They certainly did not welcome everybody into a liberated political process. MANY ex- slaves were vastly worse off in the short run but the moment was profoundly pro liberty in the long run.
On the surface it might not seem like removing the apartheid government and replacing it with an immature group of inexperienced rulers was benefiting the country as a whole but it will forever be known as a liberty moment- even if since then liberty has vastly diminished in the short run. The people through the expression of their individual wills, will have to change the rules, not the ANC or the DA, to allow the liberty moment to reach its potential.
etc. etc.
Granted the vast majority of American voters are greatly uneducated about politics and do not understand the importance of liberty. They do not have to be able to justify their actions as libertarian for that to be the result. Anything that diminishes the power of the new ruling class, will give the masses an opportunity to create multiple alternative solutions, is a pro liberty moment in my opinion.
Albert Nelmapius
Leon Louw (gmail)
http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Paul-Johnson/dp/1470887568
Leon Louw (gmail)
@Jaco
Growing cocoa beans elsewhere is, of course, bio-piracy.
Furthermore, "white chocolate" is a Eurocentric travesty. There is no such thing. It's like saying there's white brown, or big small, or slow fast.