Libertarian support for Donald Trump?

[jrodefeld]

I've been generally opposed to the notion that libertarians ought to be supporting Donald Trump.  However, I concede that he is less dangerous than Hillary Clinton particularly because he wants to de-escalate tensions with Russia.  He doesn't want to overthrow the government in Syria and considering that attempting to impose a no fly zone in Syria could lead to war with Russia, this is a profound difference.  If electing Hillary Clinton ultimately leads to Nuclear War and electing Donald Trump doesn't, then the choice is clear.

 

 

However, this qualified preference for Trump over Hillary seems a far cry from the type of endorsement that Stefan is offering.  Because of his differences on foreign policy, Trump may be "less bad" than Hillary, but would a Trump presidency be good for liberty?

 

 

I think there is a sharp distinction between the type of "endorsement" that Walter Block offered for Donald Trump and the sort of enthusiastic support that Stefan Molyneux and Alex Jones have offered.  Block's stated preference for Trump over Hillary is based upon the judgment that Donald is less likely to lead us into World War 3.  Like Block's support for Obama over McCain or Obama over Romney, the candidate who is less of a hawk militarily (even if it is just a little bit) is generally to be preferred over the more militaristic candidate from a libertarian perspective.

 

I understand this perspective and I share it.  Living in California, I don't have to wrestle with this dilemma too much.  I am free to either vote third party or not vote at all.  If I did live in an important battleground state and had reason to think my vote for either Donald or Hillary would make a difference, I would have to carefully consider voting for the lesser of two evils.  Hillary is foolish or evil enough to bungle us into a nuclear war with Russia.  This unique danger would likely compel me to cast an anti-Hillary vote for Donald Trump based on my desire to survive and little else.

 

I don't watch every video Stefan produces so I apologize if I am missing some nuance in his endorsement of Donald over Hillary.  In my opinion, being "anti-establishment" or "the enemy of my enemy" is not sufficient to warrant a libertarian endorsement.  I've enjoyed watching the havoc and terror that Trump has unleashed upon the media, the Republican Party leadership and the establishment in general and I hope that some good comes from the populist revolt that he has inspired.  Yet Trump is not a very principled person and doesn't seem to be a reader or learner in any respect.  His ignorance of economics and foreign policy means that he'll be heavily reliant upon advisers to shape his policies as president.

 

Will his stated preference for diplomacy with Russia stand once he gets into office and has to oversee actual military policy?  Will he start to "make deals" (as is his wont) with the establishment once they realize they are stuck with him?  Were he a man of character with a track record of consistency and adherence to principles like Ron Paul, I wouldn't have reason to worry.  But Trump?  He's the guy who's been spouting the neo-con canard about the supposed need to say the words "Islamic terrorism".  He thinks the terrorism problem stems from the fact that Mohammed over in Syria has been reading his Quran and, on page 223, it says his the Islamic duty is to strap on a bomb and blow up some freedom-loving Americans so he can get 72 virgins in paradise.  Absolute stupidity.  It couldn't have anything to do with our constant occupation, bombing, sanctions, drone strikes and interference in their internal affairs, right?

 

Molyneux is the guy who has excoriated libertarians with, in my view, unimpeachable credentials such as Walter Block for accepting positions in government universities yet he is urging libertarians to vote for Donald Trump, whose violations of libertarian principles are far too numerous to list?!  Doesn't make much sense to me.

 

Unlike most of his statements, Donald Trump's position on Russia has been pretty consistent.  This is why I maintain that Trump, by a small margin, is the lesser of the two evils as compared to Hillary Clinton.  But I don't expect for a second that he is a friend of liberty, broadly speaking.  Nor do I necessarily consider the alt-Right to be friends of liberty.

 

I watched Stefan's recent video "Why I Was Wrong About Libertarians" and he spent the first thirty-five minutes or so criticizing libertarians for failing to adhere to their stated principles and the next ten minutes criticizing them for not supporting Donald Trump.  Again he got a few digs in at Walter Block and other libertarian professors who accept positions at State Universities.  I don't think this violates libertarian principles in the least, but I leave that discussion for later.

 

As I've said, I can see the rationale for casting a reluctant vote for Trump in a swing-State as an anti-Hillary vote but why should the rest of us be supporting the Donald en masse?

 

People who fail to demonstrate that they have integrity and principles are easily co-opted and corrupted when they enter government.  Trump's big advantage is that he hasn't been in government his entire life.  I submit that his personal character and demonstrated lack of principles don't give us a lot of assurance that he won't make peace with the military-industrial-complex and preside over government policies that are as anti-libertarian (or close to it) as Hillary or any other cookie-cutter politician.

 

Am I wrong?

[jrodefeld]

No one has any comments on my OP?

 

Try as I might, I cannot understand libertarian support for Trump.  I can understand coming to the conclusion that he may be slightly less bad than Hillary, but that is a low bar if there ever was one.  And, frankly, I'm inclined to think that this election really is a crap-shoot.  Even with the assumption that Trump will be less militaristic and willing to negotiate and work with Putin, I'm less and less confident that he will truly be less of a hawk as president.  Just look at his foreign policy advisers.  His lack of knowledge means he would be heavily reliant upon advisers to steer his policy and he has not been seeking the council of non-interventionist libertarians on foreign policy matters.

 

I've always seen Stefan as a fairly principled anarchist libertarian, but his apparent full-throated endorsement of Donald Trump belies these principles.  Stefan makes most of his money from donations, which is admirable in one sense.  On the other hand, the emerging alt-right is clearly a far larger group of people than are libertarians.  It would make sense from a financial point of view to make broader appeals to that demographic in order to attract more viewers and receive more donations.  It would be a betrayal of principle however.

 

Do you think that Stefan's support for Trump is consistent with libertarian principles?  

[dsayers]

Am I wrong?

I don't think so. Trump would probably be a better ruler than Hillary, but rulers should not be tolerated. Seems accurate to me.

[aviet]

Since you didn't make any mention of it, Stefan's main argument, and mine, and others' is demographics. And this is not an argument I just adopted, I came to this conclusion while living in Serbia, with no internet, watching 'refugees' 'flee' through up to about 12 safe countries before they sought refugee.

See:

Specifically consider:



If all the illegals are given citizenship and if the borders are thrown open, as Hillary has suggested and is the plan of globalism, the number of people who will support government that is increasingly further away from anything economically libertarian will be so high as to make movement towards more limited government over - period.

You can't really import conservatives, libertarians, or anarchists in any considerable number. America is one of the few countries where such people are found in considerable numbers. Here in Europe, many of our 'conservative' politicians are more big government than many of your Democrats. The creation of conservatives, libertarians, or anarchists will typically require considerable input in terms of physical and intellectual resources. On the other hand, you can import un- or low-educated poor people from most of the world and use them as the democratic mandate to fuel your power-base. Thus, once you go through this giant ethno-big-government shift, you will have no chance to breed or import your way out of it. It will be permanent. It will be a spiral down towards Venezuela. The model you find in most countries is a bunch of crooks who would rather have a giant slice of a rigged game than have to survive in some sort of free market. These systems are propped up by a dummed down mass of dependents who continually vote for a few promises of scraps in exchange for handing vast controls over to crooks.

Consider Brexit, in Britain. This was supported by a margin of 1.X million people with a 7X% turnout. Exit polling showed that bar Sikhs (who have a strong leaning to Britishness) that immigrant groups voted in favour of staying in the EU at a rate of 66%. Areas, such as London, which is 55%+ foreign voted to stay in the EU quite overwhelmingly. If another ten years had passed before we got a referendum on the EU, the increased foreign population would make it likely that there would have been a narrow vote to stay in the EU.

If you take immigrants and people of foreign ancestry out of the Brexit vote, the vote to leave would have been more like 56-7%. And if you are not familiar, the EU is a practically un-removable, un-elected, un-accountable, corporate-Socialist dictatorship, which has taken control Europe's economy and uses the fear of the economic uncertainty of leaving to keep nations in it and keep its widely unpopular policies in place. This is what you are going to get if you allow masses of poor dependents into the US who have no alligence to its people who will pay their welfare or knowledge of its constitutional origins.

You are at the same cross-roads now in America. You can either vote for the hope of continued somewhat limited government OR you can vote for guaranteed open borders, mass immigration of welfare dependents, globalism, Marx... There is no prospect of libertatianism in this election and there won't be ever again with Hillary.

You mentioned you see little point in voting for Trump in California. That was not the case before mass immigration into California. If Hillary is elected in three days, it won't be long until every libertarian and conservative in every state is saying the same thing, as the general sentiment of the country will shift so far towards Marx that the Republican party will have the choice of either becoming the Democrat party or becoming eternally unelectable.

I'd also recommend Stefan's video on the fall of the Roman Empire. The main factor in this was deliberately encouraged immigration of culturally incompatible people to prop up the overstretched power structure of a decadent and corrupt elite. Sound familiar?

My last point is: consider you had an anarcho-capitalist jurisdiction in which 100% of the population agreed with its principles. If you allowed anyone to move to this jurisdiction, you would likely get a build up of people who don't agree with it until they eventually overthrow it and replace it with a coercive system based around the gripes of the people who cannot thrive in a free market. As the world is now, such a position is a fancy luxury - that you might be able to have a genuinely free society that is at risk of regressing into coercion. Right now you are in the situation of having a somewhat free society - freer than most current and past in comparison - that is at risk of regressing into a Venezuela-style failed state.

[jrodefeld]

Since you didn't make any mention of it, Stefan's main argument, and mine, and others' is demographics. And this is not an argument I just adopted, I came to this conclusion while living in Serbia, with no internet, watching 'refugees' 'flee' through up to about 12 safe countries before they sought refugee.

 

See:

 

 

Specifically consider:

 

 

If all the illegals are given citizenship and if the borders are thrown open, as Hillary has suggested and is the plan of globalism, the number of people who will support government that is increasingly further away from anything economically libertarian will be so high as to make movement towards more limited government over - period.

 

You can't really import conservatives, libertarians, or anarchists in any considerable number. America is one of the few countries where such people are found in considerable numbers. Here in Europe, many of our 'conservative' politicians are more big government than many of your Democrats. The creation of conservatives, libertarians, or anarchists will typically require considerable input in terms of physical and intellectual resources. On the other hand, you can import un- or low-educated poor people from most of the world and use them as the democratic mandate to fuel your power-base. Thus, once you go through this giant ethno-big-government shift, you will have no chance to breed or import your way out of it. It will be permanent. It will be a spiral down towards Venezuela. The model you find in most countries is a bunch of crooks who would rather have a giant slice of a rigged game than have to survive in some sort of free market. These systems are propped up by a dummed down mass of dependents who continually vote for a few promises of scraps in exchange for handing vast controls over to crooks.

 

Consider Brexit, in Britain. This was supported by a margin of 1.X million people with a 7X% turnout. Exit polling showed that bar Sikhs (who have a strong leaning to Britishness) that immigrant groups voted in favour of staying in the EU at a rate of 66%. Areas, such as London, which is 55%+ foreign voted to stay in the EU quite overwhelmingly. If another ten years had passed before we got a referendum on the EU, the increased foreign population would make it likely that there would have been a narrow vote to stay in the EU.

 

If you take immigrants and people of foreign ancestry out of the Brexit vote, the vote to leave would have been more like 56-7%. And if you are not familiar, the EU is a practically un-removable, un-elected, un-accountable, corporate-Socialist dictatorship, which has taken control Europe's economy and uses the fear of the economic uncertainty of leaving to keep nations in it and keep its widely unpopular policies in place. This is what you are going to get if you allow masses of poor dependents into the US who have no alligence to its people who will pay their welfare or knowledge of its constitutional origins.

 

You are at the same cross-roads now in America. You can either vote for the hope of continued somewhat limited government OR you can vote for guaranteed open borders, mass immigration of welfare dependents, globalism, Marx... There is no prospect of libertatianism in this election and there won't be ever again with Hillary.

 

You mentioned you see little point in voting for Trump in California. That was not the case before mass immigration into California. If Hillary is elected in three days, it won't be long until every libertarian and conservative in every state is saying the same thing, as the general sentiment of the country will shift so far towards Marx that the Republican party will have the choice of either becoming the Democrat party or becoming eternally unelectable.

 

I'd also recommend Stefan's video on the fall of the Roman Empire. The main factor in this was deliberately encouraged immigration of culturally incompatible people to prop up the overstretched power structure of a decadent and corrupt elite. Sound familiar?

 

My last point is: consider you had an anarcho-capitalist jurisdiction in which 100% of the population agreed with its principles. If you allowed anyone to move to this jurisdiction, you would likely get a build up of people who don't agree with it until they eventually overthrow it and replace it with a coercive system based around the gripes of the people who cannot thrive in a free market. As the world is now, such a position is a fancy luxury - that you might be able to have a genuinely free society that is at risk of regressing into coercion. Right now you are in the situation of having a somewhat free society - freer than most current and past in comparison - that is at risk of regressing into a Venezuela-style failed state.

 

Now we know that Trump won.

 

I didn't vote for Donald Trump, but I admit to taking great pleasure in seeing the pollsters, the media, the political establishment and the entertainment world being thoroughly repudiated and exposed.  That aspect of election night was fun.  It bodes well for our future that the political and media gate-keepers can't decide elections anymore.  

 

Now that the American people have given the middle finger to the political establishment and once everyone comes down from that cathartic high, I suggest we gear up to oppose nearly everything Trump does as president because I'm confident nearly all of it will be terrible.

 

I wonder how people like Stefan and Alex Jones feel now that Trump has actually been elected?  Unlike most libertarians who opposed Trump or offered extremely qualified statements that Trump was "less bad" than Hillary, both these gentlemen really stuck their neck out in support of Donald Trump and encouraged their listeners to vote for him.  

 

I don't listen to all of Stefan's videos, but my impression was that his endorsement hinged on considerably more than simply demographics.  I got the impression that Stefan believes that Donald will promote at least a moderately pro-liberty platform on a number of different issues.

 

With regards to demographics, I think this is an extremely flawed argument.  If I understand you correctly, the argument is that non-whites according to surveys believe in larger government than do white voters and foreign born people believe in even larger government.  Therefore, in the interest of liberty in the long-run, we should strive to restrict immigration and keep our nation largely white.  Have I got this right?

 

By that logic, libertarians should be supporting the most anti-immigrant candidate in every election cycle.  Should libertarians have supported Tom Tancredo regardless of all his other atrocious views simply because he wanted to limit immigration dramatically?

 

I actually favor generally free immigration, but I understand completely the Milton Friedman argument that, so long as we have a Welfare State, we cannot simultaneously have open borders.  I think it's a compelling argument even if I don't agree.  However, I have to push back against both the notion that the future of liberty is predicated on restricting immigration and that whites have generally been in support of limited government.

 

As we know from the presidential election, polling information can be extremely flawed and misleading.  Personally, I don't care one whit what a person claims to believe in.  I care when they vote for a politician who takes my liberty or property against my will.

 

"Small government" has been a slogan for the Republican Party for decades.  The (largely white) conservative base may claim they believe in limited government and the Constitution, but they repeatedly vote for politicians that do precisely the opposite.  So their words mean nothing to me.

 

Furthermore, throughout the 20th century we have seen a largely unimpeded expansion of State power even though for most of that century the demographics were far more white and less diverse than they are now.  A majority white population voted for Woodrow Wilson and supported World War 1.  A majority white population voted for Franklin Roosevelt (four times!) and supported the Social Security Act and Keynesian central planning.  A majority white population voted for Lyndon Johnson and supported his "War on Poverty".  Whites largely supported the War on Drugs and the mass incarceration of non-violent criminals.  Whites overwhelmingly voted for George W. Bush and supported the Iraq War, the Patriot Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, among other expansions of State power.

 

And the White working class who voted for Donald Trump in this election voted for him because they believe in protectionism instead of free trade, and they are so sick of the political class that they'd vote for anyone threatening to challenge that corrupt system.  I don't think anyone thinks that a vote for Trump is a vote for smaller government.  It may be an anti-globalist vote, but don't forget that a lot of economic ignorance is wrapped up in that.  Trump wants to slap a 35-50% import tariff on goods imported by companies that outsource their factories.  This is about as anti-libertarian as it comes, yet this is primarily the message that the working-class whites in Michigan, Pennsylvania and the other states that won the election for him were responding to.

 

Is Stefan suggesting that keeping THESE white voters as a slim majority of the electorate will be good for liberty?!  The argument doesn't make any sense.

 

Where were these people when Ron Paul was running in 2012?  The cold reality is that there are probably 2-4 million libertarians in this country.  I think Ron Paul got about 2 million votes in 2012, if I remember correctly.  I'm sure that number has grown somewhat and many libertarians don't vote out of principle.

 

I simply don't think there is any indication that a Trump presidency will be good for liberty or that the Trump voters even care about liberty.  The demographics argument doesn't make much sense to me, but feel free to educate me on what I'm missing.

[labmath2]

Now we know that Trump won.

 

I didn't vote for Donald Trump, but I admit to taking great pleasure in seeing the pollsters, the media, the political establishment and the entertainment world being thoroughly repudiated and exposed. That aspect of election night was fun. It bodes well for our future that the political and media gate-keepers can't decide elections anymore.

 

Now that the American people have given the middle finger to the political establishment and once everyone comes down from that cathartic high, I suggest we gear up to oppose nearly everything Trump does as president because I'm confident nearly all of it will be terrible.

 

I wonder how people like Stefan and Alex Jones feel now that Trump has actually been elected? Unlike most libertarians who opposed Trump or offered extremely qualified statements that Trump was "less bad" than Hillary, both these gentlemen really stuck their neck out in support of Donald Trump and encouraged their listeners to vote for him.

 

I don't listen to all of Stefan's videos, but my impression was that his endorsement hinged on considerably more than simply demographics. I got the impression that Stefan believes that Donald will promote at least a moderately pro-liberty platform on a number of different issues.

 

With regards to demographics, I think this is an extremely flawed argument. If I understand you correctly, the argument is that non-whites according to surveys believe in larger government than do white voters and foreign born people believe in even larger government. Therefore, in the interest of liberty in the long-run, we should strive to restrict immigration and keep our nation largely white. Have I got this right?

 

By that logic, libertarians should be supporting the most anti-immigrant candidate in every election cycle. Should libertarians have supported Tom Tancredo regardless of all his other atrocious views simply because he wanted to limit immigration dramatically?

 

I actually favor generally free immigration, but I understand completely the Milton Friedman argument that, so long as we have a Welfare State, we cannot simultaneously have open borders. I think it's a compelling argument even if I don't agree. However, I have to push back against both the notion that the future of liberty is predicated on restricting immigration and that whites have generally been in support of limited government.

 

As we know from the presidential election, polling information can be extremely flawed and misleading. Personally, I don't care one whit what a person claims to believe in. I care when they vote for a politician who takes my liberty or property against my will.

 

"Small government" has been a slogan for the Republican Party for decades. The (largely white) conservative base may claim they believe in limited government and the Constitution, but they repeatedly vote for politicians that do precisely the opposite. So their words mean nothing to me.

 

Furthermore, throughout the 20th century we have seen a largely unimpeded expansion of State power even though for most of that century the demographics were far more white and less diverse than they are now. A majority white population voted for Woodrow Wilson and supported World War 1. A majority white population voted for Franklin Roosevelt (four times!) and supported the Social Security Act and Keynesian central planning. A majority white population voted for Lyndon Johnson and supported his "War on Poverty". Whites largely supported the War on Drugs and the mass incarceration of non-violent criminals. Whites overwhelmingly voted for George W. Bush and supported the Iraq War, the Patriot Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, among other expansions of State power.

 

And the White working class who voted for Donald Trump in this election voted for him because they believe in protectionism instead of free trade, and they are so sick of the political class that they'd vote for anyone threatening to challenge that corrupt system. I don't think anyone thinks that a vote for Trump is a vote for smaller government. It may be an anti-globalist vote, but don't forget that a lot of economic ignorance is wrapped up in that. Trump wants to slap a 35-50% import tariff on goods imported by companies that outsource their factories. This is about as anti-libertarian as it comes, yet this is primarily the message that the working-class whites in Michigan, Pennsylvania and the other states that won the election for him were responding to.

 

Is Stefan suggesting that keeping THESE white voters as a slim majority of the electorate will be good for liberty?! The argument doesn't make any sense.

 

Where were these people when Ron Paul was running in 2012? The cold reality is that there are probably 2-4 million libertarians in this country. I think Ron Paul got about 2 million votes in 2012, if I remember correctly. I'm sure that number has grown somewhat and many libertarians don't vote out of principle.

 

I simply don't think there is any indication that a Trump presidency will be good for liberty or that the Trump voters even care about liberty. The demographics argument doesn't make much sense to me, but feel free to educate me on what I'm missing.

Preach on brother. Not to mention the demographics winter as come and gone. The only reason Democrats don't always win is because only about a third of the country votes. Voter turnout for thus election was less than for 2008 and 2012.