Monday, November 2, 2015

Rand, Trump, and Block

Walter Block has graciously replied to my earlier post regarding libertarian support (in some corners) for Rand Paul in the upcoming presidential contest and the curveball now thrown by Donald Trump (curveball for those libertarians who actually feel the desire to advocate for any one over another).

I acknowledge that Mr. Trump has been really good on foreign policy of late….But, Rand, too, has been doing pretty well on this score!

Block offers a few points in support of his claim.  Admittedly, I do not follow every word of either Rand or Trump – I based my previous post on the observations of Raimondo, whose calling is precisely to weigh such words.

In any case, there is real movement from Block:

So, which shall it be? Rand or Trump? I am really not sure. I still lean toward Rand. I used to “stand with Rand.” Now, because of the improvement in Trump’s recent views, I only lean in Rand’s direction.

I think it is sufficient that Block has moved this far, and given that he has feels compelled to advocate for someone in this race it seems to me that his considerations are reasonable.  Absent a consistent underlying philosophy for either Trump or Rand, we are left to trust judgement; I trust the judgement of neither.  (Rand’s judgement in how to run his campaign should be sufficient reason to disqualify him from any consideration in any case).

We both agree that foreign policy is the paramount issue for a libertarian to consider.  Assuming Rand is able to stay in the race much longer, there will be plenty of time to consider the two. 


  1. IMO the only point of politics is a platform to spread the message. Using that as a metric Rand is a complete failure. He sounds a very uncertain trumpet, which leaves nobody sure why he's there or why they should follow him. Maybe he's a great guy who had a very bad idea.

    If you have a different reason for supporting politics and/or politicians, my assessment may be at odds with yours.

  2. I think that Ron Pauls campaign for president gave some Libertarians the false hope (in my opinion) that there is hope for a political solution with the US State.
    I love Dr. Paul.
    But he is by no means a measure of the political means.
    Politics is force. Politics is violence. Politics, especially the politics of the US State, is evil.
    There is no hope for Liberty using political means. There is no hope for Liberty using political (positive) law. Please name one positive law, (political) that had a net increase in individual liberty?
    "Political power corrupts morals and judgement, because it is itself corrupt." (Richard Maybury at the Casey Research Summit)
    I see a little of both sides, some seem to be more politically involved because of Dr. Paul, while others, are now more than ever completely against politics, which is the side I vocally advocate for.
    Political power is evil.
    Rather, if we really do seek change, I think the wisdom of Etienne De La Boetie and his call to remove consent is the most effective, and moral, cause of action, or inaction as it might be.