Responsibility

“You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” Ayn Rand

That the old phrase “come back to haunt you” played out yesterday in NYC at a Harris campaign rally as Hamas supporters rioted. Kamala Harris has expressed sympathy with the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel protesters who she says are “…showing exactly what the human emotion should be.” Rioting is no more a part of a peaceful protest than war is a humanitarian effort, regardless of what emotions are involved. For a presidential candidate to sympathize with the supporters of terrorism ignores reality, and Harris should take responsibility for the consequences of ignoring that reality.

Trump says that he will impose punitive tariffs on China and other countries to the benefit of Americans; however, tariffs are taxes imposed on imported goods paid by consumers. Further, it would likely result in a trade war as China would retaliate with their own tariffs on American imports; historically, trade wars often lead to violent confrontations. These realities about tariffs are not addressed because to do so would expose their use as irresponsible political propaganda to attract votes from a financially stressed and poorly informed electorate.

Likewise, we have Harris finally talking about issues, in this case, the economy. Ahead of her planned speech tomorrow on her economic agenda, her campaign managers have announced her plan for a federal ban on corporate price gouging on groceries; even Nixon was more honest when he imposed price controls by calling it what it is, which has in all cases throughout history resulted in economic disasters. Rather than address inflation, which is the root cause of high prices, Harris irresponsibly deflects blame to businesses for the high cost of food.

Trump is promising that if elected he will again suck-up to the military/industrial complex with increases in the defense budget; at the same time, he continues to avoid discussions on the debt, likely because his own record as president was hardly a beacon of fiscal responsibility. When you combine Trump’s militaristic tendencies with his trade policies, we have the risk of another Bush era of dangerous interventionism, something that was so irresponsible as it resulted in a painful series of forever wars for the American people, not to mention the embarrassment of military and policy failures.

Harris was assigned the task as the “Border Czar” by Joe Biden soon after his inauguration. While that title was first coined by Obama in 2009 when he appointed Alan Bersin, the media picked up on that for everyone who was put in charge of the border since, so regardless of what the media says now, that’s what they called her. There’s something curious and confusing about that title as the Secretary of Homeland Security already has that responsibility, and the use of the word Czar implies a higher command; what we have here is a way to pass the buck, but where to, and what does this make Joe Biden? The reality is that the border failure and the resulting immigration crisis are consequences Mayorkas, Harris and Biden choose to ignore or deny responsibility for.

Trump made an audacious but absurd appearance at the Libertarian Convention last May; to think that he expected anything but the raucous rejection of his overture was delusional, but then again we’re talking about Trump. He later went on to ridicule the candidate, Charles Oliver, including oblique references to the fact that Oliver is gay. Trump’s campaign managers have advised him to avoid his addiction to demeaning those he disagrees with and focus on policies; while he has made many policy statements, he irresponsibly continues with his addiction.

As a libertarian, I am often advised by friends that I should be more “realistic” and vote for whom I consider to be the lesser of two evils, meaning either a Democrat or a Republican. This advice assumes that voting for the same failed policies over and over again, and expecting a different result is realistic; besides, what you get with the lesser of two evils is still evil. I am very objective about the reality in which we find ourselves, and well know that it’s unlikely that a libertarian will be in the oval office anytime soon. The fact that Javier Milei won the presidency of Argentina in 2023 as a libertarian is encouraging, especially as it was up against a powerful Peronist regime with a strong political organization; unfortunately, it took a devastating 143% inflation rate to mobilize Argentines to end a centuries long history of socialist policies; it only took one year for Milei’s free market policies to reduce that to 4%.

I long ago faced the reality that Americans would have to radically change their political and economic values in order to reverse the self-destructive trend toward socialism; as the most recognized leader of American libertarianism, Murray Rothbard advised libertarians that the only way to do so is to live your life based on your principles. For all those that advise choosing between the lesser of two evils, the reality is that it can only lead to evil, even if you ignore that reality.

“Liberty not only means that the individual has both the opportunity and the burden of choice; it also means that he must bear the consequences of his actions and will receive praise or blame for them. Liberty and responsibility are inseparable.” Friedrich Hayek