Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Reason Enough to Vote…

…for Trump or Cruz?  Yes, for many, because George Soros says not to:

That is why, as 2016 gets underway, we must reaffirm our commitment to the principles of open society and resist the siren song of the likes of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, however hard that may be.

Why?  He says we have nothing to fear but fear itself.  Not exactly, but that is what he says.

Trump and Cruz offer an irrational, fear-based response to Muslim terrorism, according to Soros (he is right, but not for the right reasons).  We must not let this irrationality control how we vote (I suspect Rubio or Clinton are preferred).

He also comments on the “existential threat” of Muslim immigration to Europe (again, he might be right about the threat, but not for the reason he wants you to read into his statement):

Consider the Syrian conflict, which is the root cause of the migration problem that is posing an existential threat to the European Union as we know it.

I don’t necessarily see the Muslim immigrants as a threat to European culture – after all, much of this was destroyed at the outbreak of the Great War.  However, the immigration issue is one more reason for the residents of Europe to loathe the European project – and it is this “existential threat” that concerns the likes of a Soros.
If [the Syrian conflict] was resolved, the world would be in better shape.

Does Soros mention a solution?  Of course, but not the correct one – not the most direct and certain.  He points to a one-world solution:

The United Nations security council has unanimously adopted a resolution against it…

He could not have offered more flavorful red meat to Trump supporters than to try to calm them with the ungodly salvation that is the United Nations.

No, I won’t be voting for Trump or Cruz.  Not Clinton or Rubio either.  The only thing this editorial from Soros demonstrates is that he doesn’t understand the attraction that many Americans have to Trump.


  1. There is never reason enough to vote. Not politically in a democracy. Not if you believe in the non aggression principle. Libertarians need to get with it and shun this approach. Quit playing both sides.
    Remove consent, that is what we should preach about politics. Remove consent and watch Leviathan fall.
    Or in a more blunt way, quit voting, stop encouraging the bastards.
    This is one thing I will always disagree with Dr. Block about. And even my hero, Dr. Paul.
    Stop giving consent with your political vote.

    1. Joshua, my opening sentence was sloppily worded and I have modified it.

      With that said, if Ron Paul was running today and a libertarian advocated voting for him, I would not raise a stink - although I understand and respect your view.

    2. We don't have a democracy to support and vote in we have a corporate facist state that is becoming more apparent by the day .
      If by any chance RP was ever elected he would end up assassinated or else he would become just another hack . I don't think he would do the hack thing .
      If Trump gets in he will end up working for the dark side I'm sure

  2. BM, I wasn't nit-picking your article, I was making a general statement rather than an accusation.
    It seems to me that every 4 years Libertarians get caught up too much into Presidential politics, and we seem to get our sights off the goal. I like paying attention to it for entertainment reasons, and for educational reasons as you did in your article. But I want no president.
    I am completely against politics, and political voting, especially because there is no way to opt out of this system and stay in the U.S. But I was a delegate for Ron Paul in 2012, don't know how I justified that one in my brain. :-)
    Actually I did it to further the message, which seemed the right thing to do at the time.
    But even the great Dr. Paul, would he be completely insusceptible to political power as president? I have wondered that many times, and I am glad that we will never find out.

    1. Ron Paul was unique - I think safe to say a once in a lifetime (of a human or maybe even the so-called Republic) individual. I don't think we (non-voting libertarians) need fear being tempted by the likes of him again...sadly.

      I say sadly because of the benefit of the message, although given the temperament of the population (witness the Trump support), it would have been interesting if Ron was running today.

  3. (AKA) Little Gyorgy Schwartz up to no good, again.
    Big shocker, eh?

  4. For those who wish to continue arguing from "the libertarian perspective", it's worth reading John C. Wright's essay on "Why I am No Longer A Libertarian".

    Found at http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/05/the-wright-perspective-why-i-am-no-longer-a-libertarian/

    1. The author improperly defines libertarianism. The author requires libertarianism to offer answers to all questions in life, an expectation one might hold of God (and even then humans cannot agree on interpretation) but not of a human philosophy.

      The author is a simpleton, offering easily refutable statements. If it works for you, well...enough said.