-16 votes

Smug Walter Block, EPJ outwitted by Rand Paul

Smug Walter Block writes on September 6:

"I assume Rand Paul will not only vote against bombing Syria, but be one of the Senate leaders for a “no” vote. But what about Mitch McConnell? Right now, Rand Paul supports his re-election. But suppose Senator McConnell votes in favor of bombing Syria, or abstains. What, then, will be Rand Paul’s decision as to whether or not to continue his support for McConnell? I hope and trust that Rand will then withdraw his support for that candidacy. Interesting times lie ahead of us."

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/09/what-will-rand-...

Of course, we all know that Rand Paul lobbied Mitch McConnell, and then McConnell announced on the senate floor that he would vote 'no' on the war upon Syria. Interesting, but McConnell was the ONLY legislative leader, democrat or republican, to be a no vote on Syria.

We all expect a prompt apology from smug Walter Block and the EPJ.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

time to bump this thread -

time to bump this thread - history repeats itself.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

Wenzel 2016

:)

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Why do people who believe in Liberty

have to take sides? You would think we would appreciate that people would use their talents to spread liberty in different ways, but no. We are always Rand vs. Block. Rand vs. Ron. All vs. nothing.

There is a difference between being vigilant and trying to put yourself into some side so you can fall into the same trap as the left/right paradigm.

I honestly hope everyone uses their talents to support getting as much liberty for everyone as they possibly can. I am not going to sit here and say X is doing it perfectly or Y is my man. I can recognize when people have similar goals than me, can form coalitions with people who don't, but have good intentions on some issues, and will fight against all of the other Statists tooth and nail.

Tu ne cede malis.

Candidates for Liberty Webpage:
http://candidates4liberty.com/home.html

2016 Liberty Candidate Thread:
http://www.dailypaul.com/329012/2016-liberty-candidate-thread

I've often thought McConnell is like the American Flag

He flies whichever way the wind blows. I think Boehner is about the same. Don't trust them but they are nothing compared to Lindsay Graham, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Eric Cantor, etc.

If Rand Paul has the senate minority leader in his back pocket, that can only be a good thing. Better than the other way round. It's one of the differences between Rand and Ron that I have grown to recognize and appreciate.

I think Rand has the same destination in mind as his Dad, but he is taking a different route.

There's nothing "smug" about

There's nothing "smug" about Walter Block. Mitch McConnell will vote whichever way the wind blows and it's blowing HARD against a conflict in Syria. I sorta get why Rand is on McConnell's side for reelection but it should still make us all a little sick to our stomachs.

I think the brilliant men and women over at the Mises Institute and LRC have been MORE than patient with Rand Paul. They simply abstain from comment out of respect to Ron, even when Rand Paul has been horrifyingly wrong, as we saw in his gung-ho support for "crushing" sanctions on the innocent people of Iran.

it bugs me Rand is supporting

it bugs me Rand is supporting McConnell for reelection in the first place. McConnell is a POS.

how about supplying the headline?

What Will Rand Paul Do If Mitch McConnell Votes for War?

IF

Rand has taken charge

of Washington already. He is stealing the narrative from everybody including Obomba. Rand is a leader and a force to be reckoned with.

Maybe

I'm still wondering what deals were made in the republican convention between Ron, Rand, and the Repubs. Given most of the Kennedy family has mysteriously been vanished, I'm not sure what the deal would be between Rand and the elite slugs who hide in the shadows, and how it will be used for or against the citizens of the USA. I hope Rand gains popularity and his family's ideals are realized in this country, but something tells me there's more to Rand's rise than meets the eye.

Apologize? You don't know who

Apologize? You don't know who Walter Block is, do you?

lololololol

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

Someone asking honest

Someone asking honest questions about a politician playing politics... oh no what a Smug bitch.... come on DailyPaul can we do any better than to attack someone on our own side? Walter is for us... ridiculous

I stopped respecting Walter Block when

he decided that gun control was ok.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Are you joking?

Walter Block obviously doesn't favor gun control, since he opposes the state altogether. You obviously misinterpreted a satirical remark. Seriously, what's your evidence for this completely ridiculous claim?

Walter Block supports gun control

How about the paper he wrote supporting it? That good enough?

Toward a Universal Libertarian Theory of Gun (Weapon) Control
-Walter Block & Mathew Block

Which in it's entirety can be summarized into the idea that people can not safely own weapons when others are around because something bad MIGHT happen. The more dense the population the less weapons you are able to own, and an all out ban in urban centers. (I'm not even going to waste my time explaining to you how absolutely insane that is, as I shouldn't have to on this site.)

It's the exact same argument gun control proponents have used for years. In fact, this argument was used synonymously with agenda 21. Where in, artificial population centers are created making it impossible for people to continue to possess weapons under this hypothesis.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

The denigrating post about Walter Block is wholly untrue.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1892358

I'd encourage readers to read this very theoretical discussion of whether an artiste should be able to have a working nuclear weapon in an art display. Click: "Download This Paper" when you get to the page.

Another delightful portion covers whether an individual should be able to protect himself from asteroid crashes with a backyard nuke mounted on an ICBM; AND whether or not strangers packed in a phone booth still have a right to bear arms.

These are theoretical Reductio ad absurdum discussions and labelled as such.

Unless we are exposed to these types of discussions in our spare time among friends and civil acquaintances, then we will be unprepared to defend libertarianism from our enemies in the presence of the open minded.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

Actually it's not

You can read it for yourself in the link you posted. Which either you haven't and are defaulting to his side or you have and are being disingenuous.

Everything I said is true, either disprove what i said or move along. Simply saying "you're wrong" isn't an argument. Saying "oh it was just an idea" or "it was a completely theoretical discussion" is irrelevant. The entire paper is advocating for a a universal "theory" of course it's theoretical. Gun control is a theory for goodness sakes. His advocating for gun control remains.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

People have read it ...

and your full of it. First, you make some general claim referring to a paper without reference to anything specific contained in the paper and then assert it is someone elses job to disprove what you said? Get real.

Block is innocent of any whimsical accusation until proven guilty beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt, a burden you have not met by merely stating "Which in it's entirety can be summarized into the idea that people can not safely own weapons when others are around because something bad MIGHT happen"

It is plainly obvious you have no idea the point being made or rule proposed. First off, people want to knock libertarianism for one reason or another say hey ... it won't work ... what about a particular life boat scenario ... such as nukes ... how would libertarians deal with nukes?

So, libertarians start theorizing. Beginning with the non-aggression axiom a principle identified is that exercising self defense means an ability to pinpoint a target so a weapon can be used in self defense without innocent collateral damage. This principle is then applied to nukes because they do not have an ability to pinpoint. Block then takes into consideration the universe and points out that if there were only ten people on Mars a nuke could be used to pinpoint because of low population density. A relation between population density and the ability to pinpoint emerges. It is conceivable that in an overcrowded phone booth population density could become so dense a pistol could not be fired without collateral damage to innocent people.

"This new way of looking at the matter leads to new conclusions only at both ends of the population density continuum. At the low end, extensive space, it allows ownership of thermonuclear devices, whcn traditional libertarian theory would not [emphasis mine: because in traditional libertarian theory the only criteria is an ability to pinpoint which does not take into account population density]. At the high end, the ‘crowded telephone booth’ kind of world, it prohibits guns and knives, when traditional libertarian theory would legitimize these weapons. These changes are not the result of an alteration of libertarian theory; this remains the same. The different conclusions stem solely from very different assumptions about the world"

All Block is saying here is that traditionally libertarians have held a weapon is defensive [or ought to be viewed as defensive by libertarian jurisprudence] if it can pinpoint a target so as to not cause collateral innocent damage and all that is being pointed out is there is a relationship between the ability to pinpoint and population density which is something any rule of libertarian jurisprudence ought to take notice of.

It is like abortion ... another controversial life boat scenario ... Block comes along and says hey folks how about a theory of ...

Evict: Yes.
Kill: No.

Right now it might not be possible to evict at conception without killing but it is reasonable to believe technology will eventually solve this problem by making it possible. Does "Evict: Yes," "Kill: No" make Block an abortionist?

In closing, there is no "MIGHT" about it. Either a weapon can be proven to pinpoint a target in a specific population density without collateral damage to the innocent beyond a reasonable doubt or it can't.

Block even acknowledges in closing:

"There is no real solution to this micro-geographical issue, since it is really a continuum problem. How far from B's nose does A's fist have to be before B is properly entitled to launch defensive forceful countermeasures? Again, there perhaps is no better answer than relying on context and the opinion of the 'reasonable man'. This may not be as satisfying philosophically as a more definitive answer, but, as the problem stems from the (continuous) nature of reality, this is the best answer that can be given."

Final thought ...

If libertarians are going to complain about drone strikes because a hellfire missile fired from a drone causes innocent collateral damage in the population density of a residential house ... why would the use of any other weapon be exempt from the same exact complaint?

Wow, gun control on the forefront

and your full of it. First, you make some general claim referring to a paper without reference to anything specific contained in the paper and then assert it is someone elses job to disprove what you said? Get real.

First, Grow up.

I don't have to outline the entire paper for you. The whole of the paper moves toward a universal theory of gun control, it's presupposition is it's problem, as well as its' content. It's aim is to assert a theory for gun control. It's not a specific line, paragraph, page of the paper. It's the entirety of it! The very idea that anyone or any entity has the authority to strip me of rights because something bad "might" happen is ridiculous.

Someone asked for proof that Block supported gun control. I provided it hands down, black and white. I met my burden of proof. Not ONE of you naysayers has met yours. NOT ONE. Show me where he opposes any form of gun control and I will concede the point. Otherwise the rest of this argument is a joke.

It is plainly obvious you have no idea the point being made or rule proposed. First off, people want to knock libertarianism for one reason or another say hey ... it won't work ... what about a particular life boat scenario ... such as nukes ... how would libertarians deal with nukes?

So, libertarians start theorizing

Anyway, I don't know what libertarians you know, but the first thing I think of when i hear the "what about nukes?" argument is it's logically fallacious nature.

What I think of next, isn't gun control or trying to establish limits on people or objects, or ownership of said objects. That's what an authoritarian does, they look for a problem with the individual then try to control them. Objects are not the root problem of this argument, and even if they were you have no right whatsoever to restrict me from purchasing an object that inherently does no harm to you.

My inherent ownership of an object does not make me dangerous. That's the argument every authoritarian regime in history has used to disarm it's populace and summarily slaughter them. It's the argument for banning alcohol, drugs, and books! Possession of a car doesn't make you a murderer and a gun doesn't either.

Paraphrasing...

You can restate the article all you like. It comes down to the presupposition of the article, and his willingness to say

However, in the hyper-crowded world,” not even a pistol, perhaps not even a knife, can possibly be used without impacting innocent people. If so, then it may be banned just as today we properly prohibit ownership of nukes in cities.

This is complete bunk. Banned by whom? Again this infers control. It is also a the EXACT same argument used by almost every gun control advocate in America for a ban on "assault weapons" it's the degree of which people can be "safe", with the goal post shifted within the premise, that's it. If pistols are to dangerous to the collective, so are butter knives and transfats. < sarc>Ban them all!< /sarc>

No, we err on the side of liberty. Liberty to do what we want, own what we will, as long as it doesn't harm others. Simple ownership of an object does no harm to anyone, to say otherwise is crazy. It's the use of the object, for which the individual is inherently responsible.

Block conflates ownership and usage in an attempt to form some kind of coherent paper, and fails miserably. If he wished to to address possession he should have stuck with that argument and fleshed it out. If he wished to address usage, it's already been fleshed out. You are responsible if you harm others...period. Banning the use of firearms is ridiculous. It's like banning alcohol to prevent drunk driving!

If libertarians are going to complain about drone strikes because a hellfire missile fired from a drone causes innocent collateral damage in the population density of a residential house ... why would the use of any other weapon be exempt from the same exact complaint?

Really? You don't see a difference between me shooting an ak47 and the government using drones? I...just don't know what to say to that. It's to silly to even counter.

The complaints about drones are about government, and their use of drones in the name of others, namely Americans. Individuals would be responsible for collateral damage, while governments could care less. Talking about restricting government's use of weapons is a VASTLY different argument from that of the individual.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Disarmingly Intelligent Exchange

Extremely lucid. No need for danders up. I appreciated both sides of the discussion, but, personally, the whole reasonable doubt snippiness too much mimics neocon Hannity-style snark that IMHO is unseemly for libertarian discussion. Reminds me too much of the 'Block is an abortionist' narrow minded labeling for his positing theories for sober consideration and discussion among colleagues engaged in the promotion of liberty principles. Practicing nonaggression even in adversarial debate helps keep libertarians from being lumped in with smug (and accusing) Fox Channel/ talk radio fans.

I agree with you, mostly

If i came across like that i apologize. Being called a liar and ignorant kind of tends to rile me up, especially on a topic i know from back to front, and top to bottom. It was about 2:30 in the morning and I had work in 4 hours, after having previously worked a 12 hour day. I'm surprised what i wrote even makes sense.

That being said, it's not absolutist to say he's for gun control. He says it many times. The type or severity of control is the only thing remotely arguable.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

On The Merits ...

... The field was yours. I hear you regarding the context of your miff. Yet I offered my encouragement because I was impressed by the cogent substance to your analysis as to the insidiousness of Block's premise. We are among friends of good faith and should welcome every provocation to become exercised on principles of liberty. I'd give Block, and his defenders, the benefit of the doubt and suggest that his objective was not really to serve as the apologist for prohibitionist policies, but rather to elucidate.

Challenges to one's poise is every advocates' devil... For me, foiling snark is sort of a pet peeve, ironically enough. So I ask, without really intending to be snippy: isn't the difference between master debating vs being a jerk off simply in the nuances of controlling self indulgence -- taking one's self in hand, so to speak? I urge we libertarians advance to engaging in productive adult relations with others. We ought aim to take our points outside just our own circle ... Well ... you see where I'm going with this. So I prod we abandon O'Reilly tactics and 'grow up' to a standard of argument beyond that popular on grade school playgrounds.

Ultimately my remarks were not intended to be personal to you except to congratulate you on your substantive argument while I exhort each of us to the most 'mature' dialog. ;-)

Ha! Love it.

I could not agree more with you. Thank you for the intelligent discourse and encouragement. When people group together around a common defense it can be a daunting task to stick to your guns and stand your ground, so to speak. :p

This type of discussion should be a hallmark of libertarian discourse.
Thanks again!

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

What vote? There was no vote.

Talk is cheap. Let's see them vote 'no.' This was a chance to vote 'no' on war and stand up to a warmongering president for the first time in history. But Rand would rather delay the vote. Why?

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Smug? You sound like a newt

Smug? You sound like a newt gingrich follower

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution

apologize for what and to whom?

Suppose the sun doesn't come up tomorrow. Will we all be dead by next week?

Suppose the sun does come up tomorrow? Would I then owe an apology for my first supposition?

Apologize to Rand Paul for

Apologize to Rand Paul for insinuating that McConnell would vote for the war. Walter Block actually WANTED McConnell to vote for the war.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

No, he didn't.

It was a hypothetical question. I'm sure Dr. Block was pleasantly surprised that Mitch McWarmonger said he'd vote for peace.

Nonsense, Walter Block does

Nonsense, Walter Block does not want liberty in our society. He likes big government becasue it gives him something to complain about.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

You are a sad, vicious person

You obviously can't know the intentions of Walter Block's heart, so your vicious, reprehensible, and indefensible claim is of zero value to anyone. You are a stick insect next to Walter Block in terms of accomplishments and financial contributions to the cause, so show a little respect.

Block hates Rand Paul. He

Block hates Rand Paul. He also hates James Madison. I heard him on the radio once ripping on James Madison. The fewer people we have like Block in this world, the more liberty the rest of us will enjoy.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.