Political Voting: Is It Compatible With Libertarianism?

Letter 1

From: G
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2019 8:40 AM
To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Question

Good morning Walter,

I hesitate to bring this up again, and I do so not out of antagonism,

but due to a real curiosity.

Do you have any limits as to who or what you will support, or is it

always based upon the lesser of evils? If it is the latter, how can

that not be a compromise of your core beliefs?

Please allow me to preface my statements by saying that Trump is

horrendous, but then so are most all politicians, but since he is in

the highest position of political power, then he is the most dangerous

of them all currently.

Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders are socialists. Gabbard, regardless

of the love affair compromising “Libertarians” have for her, is not

anti-war. She plays the role with war in her back pocket. She wants

Guantanamo open and wants the prisoners to remain there indefinitely.

This indicates that she is fine with torture. In addition, she does

believe in the fake war on terror, and has stated so publicly on

several occasions. This is a contradiction considering the false

belief that she is against war in general. Attempting to have it both

ways is not legitimate. And this is while she is a candidate, and will

most likely say anything to get a nomination. Lying is a prerequisite

for 99% of candidates. Maybe even more.

The problem is that all these people are frauds, and an ex-military

and military loving and supporting candidate who claims the fake war

on terror is proper so long as it really goes after terrorists, is

also lying. The real terrorists live and breath politics in the U.S.,

and U.S. aggression, including mass murder, is not fighting terrorism,

it is terrorism. It only increases the slaughter of innocents, and

perpetuates more terror. This of course is by design, and those who

control the politicians will also control this trimmer Gabbard should

she be allowed to gain power.

My best … G

Letter 2

On Oct 2, 2019, at 8:39 AM, Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu wrote:

Dear G:

I agree with your assessment of the politicians you mention.

I ask myself, suppose someone had complete power over me and offered

me the following choice: he would cut off the tip of my pinky, or

shoot me to death. I’d choose the former, as the lesser of two evils.

You wouldn’t make this choice if you were in this predicament?

A robber holds a gun on me. I’m powerless. He offers me the choice: he

can rob me of $20, or take my entire wallet, which has much more money

in it than that, plus my drivers license, credit cards, etc. I’d

choose the former as the lesser of two evils. You wouldn’t make this

choice if you were in this predicament?

Best regards,


Letter 3

From: G
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2019 10:03 AM
To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Re: Question


The problem is that your analogy is not valid here. If a particular politician had the stated intent and means to adopt and prosecute slavery and torture without restriction against large numbers of Americans, myself in particular, then there would be a reason to elect another that did not have that intent.

But your analogy in this case is far fetched and not appropriate for this conversation. In addition, you base your example on the fact that your captor is honest, and would not lie to you. Since a robber is not honest by definition, why would he not take your finger and your money, and possibly still kill you?

What is evident to me, but maybe not to you, is that the attacker, robber, and politician are all the same, except the politician is less likely to keep his word than the crooks.

My need to compromise is restricted to peaceful coexistence and courtesy, it does not apply to my core beliefs and philosophy except at the margin.

My best … G

Letter 4

Dear G:

I suppose we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Best regards,



2:18 am on October 18, 2019