LLR Pages

Monday, December 12, 2011

My Response to Walter Block's Hit Piece Against Wendy McElroy

For the record, here's my official Facebook status post on my wall serving as a response to Walter Block's hit piece aimed solely at libertarian/anarchist Wendy McElroy. The following is taken from my FB account in its unabridged entirety:

As much as I like Ron Paul tactically and not politically (I'm not an official financial supporter, although I did contact the Paul campaign and offer to volunteer my time and services to help him tactically), I think blogger and writer Walter Block's attack on libertarian/anarchist feminist Wendy McElroy is completely unfounded and uncalled for.

Wendy is right about Paul politically, but she's not the only person to have called Paul out on his anti-libertarian stands on a few issues such as abortion, immigration, religion, and antiwar if not authorized by the Constitution, and constitutional fetishism all on account of his status as a politician. (URL: I have called Ron out even though I have praised him during the debate (except for his "secure the border" rhetoric). I know Thomas L. Knapp has called him out in the past and still does to a certain extent. (URL: I know Stefan Molyneux has been critical of Paul in the past. I know Sheldon Richman criticized Paul over the old racist newsletter controversy that plagued the Paul campaign in 2007 and 2008, and he was completely spot-on regarding Paul allegedly being unaware of the letters (a claim which Richman didn't even buy at all). Even Jim Davidson has good reasons to oppose Paul's candidacy, simply because Paul supported a two-time bailout, prowar candidate named Lamar Smith over a libertarian Republican candidate who was more principled than Smith. Simply put I can't blame him for it.

With that in mind, because Block measures a libertarian's credentials simply by whether he supports his favored political candidate (who happens to be Ron Paul) and not by his ideology, will he attack me? Tom? Stefan? Sheldon? Anyone who dares to have a brain against him and the renewed deification of Paul (which seems to be happening already)?

I am so disappointed in Block that I truly question whether he is a libertarian nowadays or whether he's just a front for the GOP establishment, considering he no longer measures an individual's belief system solely on his ideology but rather whether he supports a candidate like Ron Paul. I totally resent and object to that game entirely.

Now that Block is trying to stir up bullshit in the movement with his claims against Wendy (who hasn't written about Paul in over four years now) and with anyone who doesn't agree with Paul (even if they're not neocons or progressives), he's merely doing more damage to the cause of Liberty and not helping it. That's my objection right there. Who the hell does he think he is just by doing this? Wendy has been an ardent defender of liberty for years and has never wavered since. For Block to stoop to that level the same way neoconservative Republican Eric Dondero has done is shameful, putrid, and disgusting. I'm embarrassed to have any association with him. I'll be more embarrassed to be in the same room with him. It's one thing to attack progressives and neocons who want Ron's head on the issues that he's right on. It's wrong to attack fellow libertarians who criticize and call out Ron on the issues that he's wrong on. Not only does that say more about Block, but it makes him politically and ideologically fair game, IMHO.

Not that I'm a fan of Kevin Carson or just his biggest fan, but he was right about the term "vulgar libertarian." Block fits that mold pretty damn well, and it shames me to say that.

What on earth was he thinking when he wrote that? Is he trying to push anyone out of the movement for not supporting Ron Paul for legitimate reasons? Is he off his rocker or what? Can someone please explain that rationale to me? I merely ask, because I don't get it.

Whether you agree or disagree with critics of Ron Paul is not the point and even neither here nor there. The point is that Block is not only off-base for making this libelous and accusatory charge against her, but he's also wrong to begin with. I will follow this up with this post and any updates to this commentary as well as my previous commentary on the subject.


Marcy Fleming said...

Great piece. Wendy is absolutely right about Paul on abortion, so-called justified wars, his absurd belief in 'god,'immigration and now his increasing pandering to Israel, which reads like it was written by Block, who started these Zionist apologetics in 2008 and had Paul spouting off whoppers that 'the Arabs' get more US tax aid than Israel. Even the Washington Post nailed Ron on that one.
LRC is running what amounts to a Chairman Ron Cult and Block resolutely refuses to engage critics. It doesn't matter how civil or not you are, Block is too intellectually inept to defend his
views on Israel in particular but frankly on any criticism of Paul.
Sure Paul is better than the other GOOPERS but on foreign policy so is the awful Obama.
Block was originally a Rothbard Plumb Line Clone and these guys all used to regularly 69 each other in their in-house publications.
Boycott the Blockhead, say I.

Todd Andrew Barnett said...

It makes me feel embarrassed and ashamed to have any associations with Block for whom I used to have respect. (I lost respect for him a while back when it came to his attacks on other libertarians recently, but this one was the straw [more like a sledgehammer!] that broke the camel's back.)

How unfortunate though. All this needless pissing contest and infighting is unnecessary, but any chance to prevent it from spreading is nil. That car drove away from the parking lot a long time ago.

Buy Extenze said...

I enjoyed every little bit part of it and I will be waiting for the new updates.

monster beats said...

YES! I finally found this web page! I’ve been looking just for this article for so long!!It's good, I agree with you. Your article really helps me a lot.
discount Christian Louboutin|
Red Bottom Shoes|
Red Sole Shoes|
Red Bottoms|
Red Bottoms Shoes
Oakley Sunglasses|
Cheap Oakley Sunglasses|
Cheap Oakley|

IT Support Enfield said...

Art is not life, nor a reproduction of life, but a representation carried out within the specific terms, conversion and limitations of the particular art used. Hence absolute truth, with reference to objective fact, is not to be found in the business. The most realistic art is considerable removed from reality. Art does not give real things or imitations of real things. The thing that art gives is strained first through the artist’s selections and judgments, and then through the specific techniques with he used to present them. If you are to enjoy an art, you must first accept its terms.

IT Support Enfield