Thursday, November 15, 2012

The Donald vs. The Thought Police

By, Chris Rossini
Email | Twitter

Coming to the defense of Donald Trump was not something that I planned on doing today, but the support of liberty calls; so here it goes.

Forbes reports that Trump:
"...may have gone too far this time, though. So say well over 500,000 signatories of a petition urging Macy’s to sever ties with the mogul following his behavior during the election season, which included inflammatory tweets and a bizarre video questioning the President’s college and passport records.

The petition claims Trump 'perpetuated the racially charged birther conspiracy, repeatedly arguing that President Obama has been lying and was not born in the United States.' It goes on to accuse Trump of sexism, hypocrisy on outsourcing of jobs to China and promoting climate change denial."
No matter how you slice it, 500,000 people is a lot of people, and an indication that Americans are sorely lacking in the understanding of free speech.

Do I agree with Trump's political/economic views? 

No...he's a jingo warmonger...a Sino-phobe protectionist...and a Ron-Paul hater

But the man is entitled to his opinions, and to state them to whoever chooses to listen. Trump did not trespass on anyone's property to state his views. He did so on Twitter and YouTube, which act as a lifejacket against tyranny's march forward. Trump's using tools that have the power to bring down governments.

No one is forced to read Donald's tweets, or to watch his YouTube videos...Each person has the freedom to "Unfollow" or "Unsubscribe".

Is Trump using agression against anyone by asking for a birth certificate? No.

How about arguing that the President has been lying? No.

Is he an aggressor by being so-called sexist, a hypocrite, or denying climate change? No.

500,000 people signed their names to a petition that condemns this, and that's pretty darn scary. If the freedom to have your own opinions were to die in America, it's time to pack your bags.

The punishment that these ignoramuses seek is also reprehensible. They want to punish the productive side of Trump; the satisfaction of his customers. They want to punish voluntary trade!

Many people obviously like Trump's golf courses, hotels, TV shows, neck ties (and whatever else he sells). They peacefully trade with his companies, creating win-wins all around. Yet this is what the thought police want to attack!

Donald...think what you want, form your own opinions, and say what you want. I don't agree with a lot of it, but I'll always defend your right to say it.

I clarify my argument here.


  1. Keep in mind that about half of Twitter is paid-for ghost accounts that follow the highest bidder.

  2. Chris Rossini, you are an ignorant moron.

    Those 500,000 people are exercising THEIR free speech as well! They didn't storm onto Macy's property and demand that it severs ties with Trump. They didn't call upon the government's guns to force Macy's to sever ties with Trump.

    No, they signed a damned petition. Petitions are a part of a healthy free speech society! Or is it the case that in your own warped view of free speech, voluntary petitions are evil?

    How stupid do you have to be to on the one hand say Trump is entitled to his opinions, but on the other say that the 500,000 other people are not entitled to their opinions?

    Wenzel, why on Earth are you posting this drivel? Free speech does not mean that everyone has to be happy with or condone or even intellectually defend the comments made by everyone else. Free speech means that one can use their own property to say anything they want, and the last time I checked, voluntary petitions do not contain property rights violations.

  3. I am confused. Aren't the people who signed their petition also exercising their right to free speech? It's not a petition to the government, right? It's a petition to Macy's.

  4. So, this is all you have to say about Trump and Obama? This is just a safe, opportunistic, politically correct pandering to the PC thought police, masquerading as 'defense', and avoiding to mention any inconvenient fact for Obama. Trump did not "question presidents school record", he offered a lot of money to a charity of president's choice, if he opens his transcripts and his passport record? Is there something wrong or objectionable about that? Aren't you interested to see Obama's documents that he sealed by an executive order the first day of his presidency and refuses to open all the time afterwards? And aren't you at least slightly puzzled why Obama would fail to 'spread around" a little bit of Trump's wealth to the needy, with such a simple act as opening of his school and passport record? Further, it is not Trump who "questions" the president's so called 'birth certificate', but the Maricopa County Sheriff in Arizona, whose investigation found that the PDF shown by Obama as his 'birth certificate' is a forgery. Strange how the libertarian free thinkers and 'question authority' types tend religiously to believe that government would never lie, when it comes to Obama's personal records. No 'question authority' here, we believe the president.

  5. It is also disingenuous to describe the birther movement as racially motivated, or to imply that questioning the b.s. that is climate change is somehow a bad thing.

    You need not think care about the race of the president or even think he was born overseas, to understand the document posted on the white house website is artificial and to demand an answer as to why that lie was told.

    Additionally "climate change" formerly "global warming" is a complete load of crap. Every single prediction made by these wackos has turned out wrong. Also if you have noticed over the last year or so the tone of the discussion has changed. It is no longer talking about the "problem" of global warming/climate change, and attempting to convince people of this problem. The tone of the "discussion" has turned into an all out onslaught of nasty insults and insinuations, questioning the intelligence and integrity of anyone that would dare question their religion.

    This is not a sign of a science, it is a sign of a religion, and a desperate one that is close to losing at that.

  6. no one is forcing Macy's to do anything. just 500000 people eexpressing their opinions.

  7. It's also free speech to voice your disapproval for Trump and run a campaign trying to get Macy's to sever business ties. No force there. Just good free association and market pressure.

    Granted, these Macy Twitter dorks need to focus on bigger targets than Trump.

  8. A petition to not do business with an odious member of the community is completely free market. No one is trying to use aggressive force to end his relationship with Macy's, they are only adding their voices to an expression of a peaceful desire that his opinion not be magnified and given credence by another private organization. Macy's can still do what it wants, but just because he's a good salesman doesn't mean the rest of us should have to idly put up with his odious drivel.

  9. This analysis shows little understanding of the free market. A petition to one private organization to sever ties with a private individual a community finds odious is entirely in line with the NAP. Free marketers have no problem with exclusion from society, so long as it doesn't involve the application of force.

  10. Chris, it looks like the consensus is that you struck out on this one :-)

    However, I would bet that the petitioners would love to use force, if they could, to shut Trump up. After all, we already know that the PC idiots who get bent out of shape over the idiotically phrased "racially charged" conspiracy theories and "climate change denial" (oh no!) love to use the State as their weapon.

  11. >>The punishment that these ignoramuses seek is also reprehensible. They want to punish the productive side of Trump; the satisfaction of his customers. They want to punish voluntary t

    I am one of the ignoramuses who signed that petition. I think the dude is a repulsive, classless moron and he has every right to be so. I also think a lot of things he says he is a show to get publicity and make money off it. I feel I have every right to think whatever I think of him and ask Macy's and others not to be associated with him. But if Macy's does not lsiten, I will still go to Macy's.

  12. "Donald...think what you want, form your own opinions, and say what you want. I don't agree with a lot of it, but I'll always defend your right to say it."

    Funny that you (maybe intentionally?) refer to Voltaire here who said:

    "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

    Funny becuase I just used that quote on Bob Murphy's blog about 3 or 4 days ago...

  13. It's funny how many people seem to sympathize with the petitioners here.
    Sure, they have the right to their petition, and they're not forcing anyone. But neither is Trump, and NEITHER is Rossini. Rossini is merely another one here expressing his OPINION.

    But lets take a look at the point behind the opinions. The petition is not giving counter-arguments to Trump's arguments or proving him to be wrong. It is requesting a third party to sever voluntary business ties with someone simply because he expressed an opinion they did not like, with the underlying threat that they will lose customers if they don't. The petitioner's "opinion" is therefor not really an opinion as such, so much as it is a free speech chilling veiled threat.

    Yet, when Rossini gives his opinion in favor of the free speech of someone he disagrees with (Trump) against those who try to chill free speech (after all, they're not trying to prove Trump wrong; they just want to try to shut him up), most people on this pro-liberty site seem more interested in siding with OBVIOUSLY statist, liberal, free speech-chilling petitioners against the man trying to defend the right to express an OPINION vs. trying to chill opinions they don't like.

    Rossini is completely right. He is asking the petitioners to be made to shut up like the petitioners are trying to have Trump shut up. He is merely telling those expressing opinions not to cave in to pressure.
    Sounds like a bunch of people here have more love for speech-chilling pressure tactics than they actual free speech.