letter 1
From: Gary Barnett
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2020 12:34 PM
To: Walter Block <[email protected]
Subject: Rand Paul
Dear Walter,
You have stepped over the line of reason if you believe that Rand Paul is an “EXCELLENT” libertarian, unless the current meaning of libertarian means anyone leaning into the wind on a calm day. For if this were true, then most every other Republican, including Trump, would fall into this same category.
Even Rand Paul does not refer to himself as libertarian, which at least is more honest than any position to the contrary. It seems your “big tent” now has become open-ended almost without restriction.
As an aside, you also claim that Rand Paul is a “lousy libertarian,” but only as compared with Murray Rothbard. Comparison’s with that much reach could bring together polar opposites; very expressive of untenable compromise.
Sincerely and all my best … Gary
Letter 2
On Feb 9, 2020, at 6:25 PM, Walter Block <[email protected] wrote:
Dear Gary:
Ayn Rand didn’t call herself a libertarian, either. But she was an
excellent libertarian. With the possible exception of Ron Paul,
she converted more people to our banner than anyone else.
I don’t care what Rand Paul calls himself. In my big tent book, he’s
not only a libertarian, he’s an excellent one. WAY better than
Donald Trump.
Best regards,
Walter
Letter 3
—–Original Message—–
From: Gary Barnett
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 8:43 AM
To: Walter Block <[email protected]
Subject: Re: Rand Paul
Respectfully Walter, being a Republican, or any of the party
faithful, and doing one or two things that seem in the right
direction, does not a libertarian make. If it did, the term
libertarian would mean nothing.
Sincerely … Gary
Letter 4
On Feb 10, 2020, at 9:08 AM, Walter Block <[email protected] wrote:
Dear Gary:
One or two things? Compared to whom?
Best regards,
Walter
Letter 5
From: Gary Barnett
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 10:49 AM
To: Walter Block <[email protected]
Subject: Re: Rand Paul
Dear Walter,
All I am referring to is that Rand Paul is a Senator, and as I see
it, he has embraced the political system, and the processes that
allow it to continue to survive. Therefore, he votes or does not
vote, yes, no, or abstain, on issue after issue, bill after bill. If
one examines his voting record, it is relatively easy to discern
that he votes with the party trimmers often, but does not some of
the time. Given that he votes for some things that are more
favorable to the so-called libertarian position, big-tent
libertarians choose to embrace him for this partial favor. While it
is true that he may vote in a more “libertarian” manner at times,
certainly better than many, for what reason is this so? Is he doing
this out of a deep desire to be anti-state, anti-war, and pro-market
in the sense of all free markets for everyone? He is not. Or is he
walking the high wire by balancing his positions in order to please
his base? I believe he is gingerly staying in the middle?
I think it would be useful for those that claim to be libertarian to
define the term. If it means as I have been taught in the past that
libertarians are against government, against the state in general,
pro-market at every turn, and anti-war without compromise, then
those like Rand Paul and many others applauded by you, would never
qualify.
If your “big tent” philosophy wins the day, then continuous
compromise is necessary, and acceptance of bad positions is
required, simply due to support of these middle of the road politicians.
I am a peaceful anarchist or voluntarist if any label is necessary,
so It would be difficult for me to accept the current libertarian
position if compromise is the underlying premise of that position,
which seems to be the case. One can applaud a measure that helps the
libertarian cause without claiming that a part-time “libertarian”
supporting politician is an “excellent libertarian.”
My best … Gary
Letter 6.
On Feb 10, 2020, at 11:35 AM, Walter Block <[email protected] wrote:
Dear Gary:
I have no idea as to Rand’s motives. I have not made a study of each
and every one of his votes. I have no doubt that on the libertarian
criterion, he’d be more libertarian, way more, than any other senator.
What’s libertarianism? In my view, it comprises a 5 level hierarchy,
in this
order:
1.Anarcho-capitalism. No government at all. Major spokesmen: Murray
Rothbard, Hans Hoppe 2.Minarchism. Limited govt libertarianism. The
govt has one role: to protect people living in the US. To this end,
only 3 institutions are justified:
armies, police, courts. Major spokesmen: Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick.
3.Constitutionalism. Our constitution is the principle. But, as
interpreted by people like Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano, major
spokesmen. Why worse than the above? This document supports roads and
post offices.
4.Classical liberalism. Major spokesmen: Milton Friedman and
Friedrich Hayek. Very free market, but all sorts of exceptions;
welfare, public goods, etc. Very good on free trade, min wage, rent
control.
5.Thick libertarianism. Major spokesmen: people who write for
Bleeding Heart Libertarians, Reason, Cato, too many leaders of the
Libertarian Party, etc.
They are spread out amongst the top 4, including an caps, but they
add irrelevancies to libertarianism, about which our philosophy has
no views whatsoever. Homosexuality, mixed marriages, opposition to
hierarchy, etc.
I consider all of the above to be libertarians, so, yes, I’m a big
tent person. Rand Paul fits into #3. I’m in #1.
Here is my estimate as to the proportion of people who fall into
these five categories. This adds up to more that 100%, given the
overlap between #5 and these others
1. 2%
2. 20%
3. 20%
4. 58% = 100%
5. 25%
Best regards
Walter
Letter 7
From: Gary Barnett
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 1:29 PM
To: Walter Block <[email protected]
Subject: Re: Rand Paul
Walter,
I do not know where you came up with these numbers, but most all in
this country are collectivists, which only leads to a total decline of
society.
And if your example includes all these criteria, then what is
libertarianism but an all-inclusive and collectivist herd. How can
this ideology be set apart with no clear positions to solidify
thought? In other words, most anybody and everybody could be called
libertarian on any given day. This is my break with your thinking,
because with parameters of this magnitude, there is no defined
position that is based on real freedom due to natural rights only. I
never had any use for consensus.
As to the Constitution, it is not principled in any way as far as I am
concerned, and I have written much about that central planning coup.
And Walter, if you are in number 1, do you not accept that this is
contradictory?
Best … Gary
Letter 8
On Feb 10, 2020, at 1:38 PM, Walter Block <[email protected] wrote:
Dear Gary:
I see nothing wrong with collectivism, provided that it is voluntary.
These are all examples, and, all are fully compatible with liberty:
nunnery, convent, kibbutz, commune, collective, syndicalist,
cooperatives, monastery, abbey, priory, friary, religious community,
family
I think your understanding of libertarianism is far too narrow. It
includes, only, an caps.
Those numbers are guesstimates of mine.
Best regards,
Walter
Letter 9
From: Gary Barnett
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 3:22 PM
To: Walter Block <[email protected]
Subject: Re: Rand Paul
Walter,
I was speaking of societal collectivism, not nunneries, as occurs today in the party system, in the divisive groups, as in the herd, which is the death knell of intellectual thought, and therefore the ruination of societies.
Voluntary participation in groups of individuals is a far cry from equality-seeking collectivist mobs as exist in America.
Sincerely … Gary
Letter 10
Dear Gary:
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. I think collectivism is compatible with libertarianism. I’m not a thick libertarian. Obviously, I oppose ” equality-seeking collectivist mobs as exist in America.” But I would also oppose, again on libertarian grounds, inequality-seeking individualist mobs as do not exist in America.
Some lefties are very individualistic. They pride themselves on being different, even than their “progressive” cohorts. But they are still evil.
Not because of collectivism-individualism, but due to the fact that they violate the NAP.
There are murderers who are individualistic. Maybe they are hermits or semi-hermits. But, since they violate the NAP, they are bad guys, even though not collectivists.
Best regards,
Walter
4:49 pm on May 1, 2020