Maybe the Trump Presidency won’t be a disaster, but I still don’t know why

This is in response to The Libertarian Alliance article by Keir Martland:

https://thelibertarianalliance.com/2017/02/05/the-trump-presidency-will-not-be-a-disaster/

This riveting article begins with a basic rebuttal of any claim that Trump is a disaster by saying ‘well, he won’t be as bad as X’. This shows a basic misunderstanding by what people mean by a disaster, none of them are suggesting he is going to bring back slavery, or cause a civil war, what they are saying is, from their point of view steps will be taken in the direction they view as backwards. And by this metric, for many people with sound moral compasses, he may well be.

The article goes on to try to take on any criticism of the ‘Muslim ban’ by the horns. Rightfully pointing out that Trumps policy is more complex and slightly more nuanced than a ban on Muslims, he from this seems to insinuate that all critics are merely assuming it is such. Any serious critic of Trumps executive order has never suggested what he is doing is a flat out ban on Muslims, and suggesting they have suggested such is not helpful. The next line will shock many, “some of my best friends are Muslim”, please, waste your time stating something more relevant. [EDIT: Later on, why is it not relevant that some of your best friends are Jewish, or Democrat, do you not like them as much?]

The next paragraph is all about the parallels between Israel and Islamic countries, suggesting that he believes that firstly, Israelis have it worse than Muslims, and, secondly insinuating that this is a reason for not worrying about the problems Muslims face. Regardless of your opinion on the first point, the suggestion that we cannot simultaneously make the world a better place for multiple groups of people I find to be at the very least naïve, and at the worst positively racist. He then goes on to flip flop between saying, criticism of the state of Israel is not antisemitic, which is a statement many of us wholeheartedly agree with, to saying that any criticism of Israel ultimately stems from Antisemitism. I am, without saying, no anti-Semitic, in fact, any opinion I take on the state of Israel I would hold regardless of which way we switched and swapped the Abrahamic (or any other) religions. Israel is committing human rights abuses and breaking international law, as are many other countries, and all those countries should be criticised on the world stage, to take any other stance is immoral. He finishes by suggesting that because antisemitism (which of course is abhorrent and just as immoral) exists, every action of Israel should go without criticism, I’ll just leave that there.

The next brief sections demonstrates a rather shoddy understanding of world affairs, suggesting that you can bring Palestine to the negotiating table, force Israel to make some concessions, all the while offering no public critique of Israel on the world stage. The concessions I refer to are specifically to stop breaking international law, and more specifically to take on the responsibility of an occupying power, or leave. I feel John Kerry's words about true friends telling friends when they have committed wrong are again appropriate, in both there original intention and more personally.

The debate on abortion is a debate for another time, but briefly:

• Why is a human life more important that a super intelligent chimpanzees life?
• Using your same argument check your argument can’t show a life of a person of one race is worth more than a person of another race.
• From this I hope you’ve concluded what is important is intelligence, not species. Then, in your point of view, is the wrong in abortion about killing a human or killing a potential intelligent being?
• If it is about killing a human, remember from just now that speciesism is wrong.
• If it is about killing a potential human being, what about IVF where numerous viable embryos end up being killed? Or what about just before conception, is an egg next to a group of sperm not also a potential life?

If your anti abortion standpoint holds up to all these, please let me know, I would be extremely interested to hear more.

The comment about Trump being competent enough to critique foreign policy failures is ironic when he has just blamed Obama for a failed spec ops mission that he (and not Obama) authorised and planned, that doesn’t seem like evidence for the ability to make honest admissions of ones failings to me.

The next paragraph I find myself in a general agreement with, I agree that many western democracies at current are seriously flawed. However I disagree that democracy in itself is fundamentally flawed (I attribute the worsening in the quality of western democracy to: the collapse of newspapers, the polarisation of political discourse, and, no less than, Facebook). And to his list of goods that are best produced by the state I would add railways and healthcare, this is because some markets can fundamentally only support one provider (think one railway line from A to B), and that some markets have a lack of consumer understanding, preventing them from making informed choices (think medical care, especially for complex conditions).

The last line is sad, ruins and polarises what is, on the whole, a relatively measured piece of prose. “Democrats: Put up, or shut up!”, suggesting that once a government is power they should be shielded from criticism, and that people are either democrat or not (I, and I’m sure Mr Martland would agree, don’t find my views completely line up with any political party).

But then again, I only study Computer Science,

Oliver Black

(On abortion, notice that I didn’t go into the effects of/on the mother, for the argument in more depth, including such, have a look at: Practical Ethics - Peter Singer).