Is War Conservative?

I originally wrote this for RevoluTimes on December 6, 2011

Of all the empty talking points presented as philosophical truisms, there is possibly no anecdote I find more obnoxious than the notion that being antiwar is necessarily a stance of the left. By antiwar I do not mean pacifism, but an opposition to the initiation of force and a general and healthy suspicion of the motives of the State and particularly when it engages in its most destructive and aggrandizing function: warfare.

When confronted with the Republican establishment narrative that Texas Congressman Ron Paul is a “leftist”, (I was recently told he’s actually to the left of Obama) because of his lack of zeal for preemptive war, I simply ask, “Were the Founders leftists as well?” Without missing a beat, the Fox News faithful will claim, “That was then, this is now. This isn’t the 18th Century.” It seems nothing gets passed these guys. Except for the fact that the non-interventionist foreign policy of the Founders was not due to some esoteric meme from a bygone era, but the product of historical and economic understanding gathered over the course of generations. Just as so-called conservatives rave daily about the abuses of State intervention domestically, the Framers understood all too well that governments do not miraculously become omniscient and flawless angels when it comes to intervening abroad. Were the leaders of the Republican Party as concerned with free markets and fiscal restraint as they claim, our ballooning overseas expenditures would not be an issue.

Arguably the two most famous of the Founding generation, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were very clear in their warnings to avoid taking part in war unnecessarily.

George Washington would caution in his farewell address:

“…Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all…the nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest…So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.”

Some years later, Jefferson would second Washington’s advice saying:

“…Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”

Were Washington and Jefferson a couple of left-wing peaceniks? Or were they simply recognizing that nothing expands the size and scope of the State more than war? As Jefferson explained, a position of free trade among all nations creates the greatest incentive to avoid hostility. Prior to the spread of open trade and commerce, Europe experienced a long and gruesome history of conquest and wars, as the lack of trade resulted in each nation only able to consume what its own resources would provide; hence the desire for war. Through conquest and military force, not only could the resources of neighboring nations be consumed but conquering governments were presented with a new tax base to exploit as well. As the laissez-faire economist, Frederic Bastiat said, “When goods don’t cross borders, armies will.”

Bastiat and other proponents of laissez-faire avoided war, not out of some quaint idealism that other nations never posed a threat, but out of reverence for individual freedom and an appreciation for the power of the free market to transcend conflicts or disputes with foreign countries as both parties mutually benefit through peaceful, voluntary exchange. In fact, the policies of preventive war presented as a given today, are more akin to the philosophy of socialists and leftists than they are representative of the American right.

Writes Austrian economist Tom DiLorenzo,

“Like today’s neo-conservatives, nineteenth-century socialists branded classical liberals with the name ‘individualist,’ implying that classical liberals are opposed to fraternity, community, and association. But, as Bastiat astutely pointed out, he (like other classical liberals) was only opposed to forced associations, and was an advocate of genuine, voluntary communities and associations. ‘[E]very time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists [mistakenly] conclude that we object to its being done at all.’”

Compare the socialist mindset of coerced community and pseudo philanthropy with the banner of “humanitarian war” the U.S. government parades under on its quest to defeat totalitarianism. To object to the notion that the U.S. military should be involved with every conflict around the world is heresy within the Beltway, and it’s further suggested that if government doesn’t act, (via war) then nothing will be done at all.

The conservative movement in America that began in the late 1940s and early 1950s was born out of this classical, (true) liberalism, based on property rights, capitalism, fiscal responsibility and an unwavering desire to limit government. Contrary to what is considered gospel among the GOP rank and file today, some of the staunchest opponents to empire and searching for monsters to destroy was the Old Right. In a speech at the Heritage Foundation in 1991, founder of the American conservative movement, Russell Kirk opined,

“Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson were enthusiasts for American domination of the world,” Kirk said in his speech. “Now George Bush appears to be emulating those eminent Democrats. When the Republicans, once upon a time, nominated for the presidency a ‘One World’ candidate, Wendell Willkie, they were sadly trounced. In general, Republicans throughout the twentieth century have been advocates of prudence and restraint in the conduct of foreign affairs…”

As Kirk illustrated, it’s no coincidence the so-called greatest presidents of the twentieth century we’re bombarded with in public schools, were all war presidents, and it’s also no coincidence those same presidents were responsible for some of the largest expansions of government at the time. Whether it was LBJ, George W. Bush or Barack Obama, Big Government and endless war go hand in hand. Prior to the shift of some Troskyites to the Republican Party in the 1960’s, a strong anti-imperialist fervor was a distinctive characteristic of the Old Right.

This common trait of prudence exhibited by the early conservative movement is perhaps articulated best by the most ardent defender of capitalism and freedom of the twentieth century, economist Murray Rothbard:

“It is in war that the State really comes into its own: swelling in power, in number, in pride, in absolute dominion over the economy and the society.”

If to be conservative is to value individual freedom, property rights, free trade and fiscal restraint, it must also be to guard against the influence of the State and to approach with caution every endeavor devised by it. If to be conservative is to oppose the billions in domestic spending that cause an unwarranted burden on the taxpayer, how does spending trillions overseas carry a lighter load? If to be conservative is to condemn the printing of money to rebuild roads here, should we not condemn printing money to bomb and rebuild roads abroad?  If we must forsake all of these principles for war, is war ever conservative to begin with?

The Federal Reserve: A Common Enemy

I originally wrote this piece for RevoluTimes on December 3, 2011

The recent discovery that prior to the TARP bailouts of 2008 (which authorized $700 billion in purchased assets), the Federal Reserve secretly doled out $7.7 trillion to foreign banks has caught the attention of pundits across the political spectrum. And it should. The TARP program originally authorized what was thought to be an unprecedented but allegedly necessary purchase of “troubled assets” by the Department of the Treasury in an attempt to save the participating institutions from further losses by improving the liquidity of these assets. Most of the American people haven’t been convinced such measures were truly necessary. In response to the bailouts emerged the Tea Party; a band of conservatives, libertarians, disenchanted liberals and independents who believe the size of government has grown too large and its influence (particularly in the economy), should be greatly limited. Not satisfied with these sentiments and desperate for a reenergized base, many left-liberals have joined ranks with the growing Occupy Wall Street demonstrations (OWS), that feels the power and influence of corporations has corrupted the government and sold the people to elite bankers. While it’s true there are stark differences between the dominant philosophies of these two movements, to a degree they’re saying the same thing in different languages. The latest reports from Bloomberg News suggest the Federal Reserve may be the missing link between the two populist movements.

Reported Bloomberg:

“A fresh narrative of the financial crisis of 2007 to 2009 emerges from 29,000 pages of Fed documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and central bank records of more than 21,000 transactions. While Fed officials say that almost all of the loans were repaid and there have been no losses, details suggest taxpayers paid a price beyond dollars as the secret funding helped preserve a broken status quo and enabled the biggest banks to grow even bigger.”

The report continues to note that not only did the Federal Reserve secretly print this money, but they gave the loans at below market interest rates. How low exactly? 0.01%! As the always hilarious Jon Stewart opined,

“0.01%? I got news for ya, that’s not below market-that’s free!”

The report went on to note that the free loans were then loaned back out by the receiving banks. It’s estimated the banks receiving the secret bailout gained a profit of $13 billion.

According The New American’s Thomas Eddlam,

“The Bloomberg report noted that top Wall Street banks benefited most from the deal. ‘The big six — JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., and Morgan Stanley — took 63 percent of the Fed’s emergency-loan money as measured by peak daily borrowing,” the San Francisco Chronicle observed November 29 of the Bloomberg data.’”

Added Eddlam,

“The evidence also reveals that Federal Reserve intervention in the market helped the ‘too big to fail’ banks get bigger still. ‘Records shows that during the past five years, total assets at the largest six banks increased by almost 40% and executive compensation rose by 20% — more than $146 billion in compensation last year alone,’ USA Today reported November 28.’”

The lack of transparency and unaccountability of the Federal Reserve has created some rather strange bedfellows. Lifelong critic of the Fed and 2012 Republican presidential candidate, Congressman Ron Paul has joined with Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich numerous times in pushing for an audit of the Federal Reserve. Paul is well-known for his advocacy of a market-based currency and allowing for competition of currency. Kucinich has not gone that far but he has created a new bill, (the NEED Act) to drastically limit the power of the Fed.
In his latest “Kucinich Report”, he outlines the necessity of bringing accountability to the Federal Reserve saying,

“Ten million homes are in jeopardy. Fourteen million people out of work. Fifty million without health care. Endless wars. The Fed creates money out of nothing, gives it to banks, banks keep it on deposit, gain interest, pay high bonuses — fat city — while the rest of America falls apart. The Fed creates money out of nothing for the banks. Meanwhile, the rest of us have to be stuck in a debt-based economic system? I don’t think so…now do you understand ‘Occupy Wall Street’?”

There’s no denying genuine progressives such as Congressman Kucinich and much of OWS aren’t going to find complete agreement with libertarians like Congressman Paul and many among the Tea Party; however, such pressing issues can bring together coalitions of individuals across the spectrum to work towards common goals without sacrificing principle. Whether you view the “1%” as those with most of the money or as those with most of the guns, if we abandon the fictional narrative contrived of vitriol and platitudes by the establishment we may find that we have more in common with each other than we do with politicians or talking heads.

The Tea Party's Identity Crisis

I originally published this article at RevoluTimes on December 1, 2011

The political circus being played by the GOP must leave one wondering if the Tea Party has all but abandoned its goals of fiscal restraint and smaller government. Rick Perry, Herman Cain and now Newt Gingrich have all been declared the frontrunner at some point throughout the presidential race despite their support for Big Government programs and government spending. Mitt Romney continues to poll well throughout the country but many conservative activists have refused to warm up to the former Massachusetts governor due to his many inconsistencies on the campaign trail.

This strong trend of searching for the Anti-Romney (similar sentiments were held during his presidential bid in 2008 as well) is rather puzzling considering the embrace given to the aforementioned candidates by much of the Republican Party and Tea Party supporters. The Tea Party and conservative activists across the country pride themselves on being defenders of capitalism, lower taxes and cuts to federal spending; but their propensity to latch onto whomever the Republican Party and conservative media is promoting at the moment makes this claim questionable at best.

The schizophrenia of right wing voters began with Rick Perry. As I’ve documented elsewhere, the Texas governor has a laundry list of tax hikes, corporate welfare and even a government mandate for young girls to purchase and be submitted to an HPV vaccine. As if this wasn’t enough to eradicate any rumors of Perry’s fiscal conservatism, Perry staunchly supported the springboard for the Tea Party movement: TARP. Indeed, not only did Perry support the bailout, he co-authored a letter with then president of the Democratic Governors Association, Joe Manchin saying,

“…There is a time for partisanship and there is a time for getting things done…and now is not the time to assign blame. It is time for D.C. to step up and be responsible and do what’s in the best interest of American taxpayers and our economy…It’s time for leadership. Congress needs to act now.”

Perry’s well-known history of pandering to special interests and unimpressive debate performances led many within the Tea Party to look towards Atlanta businessman Herman Cain. Cain’s candidacy had been an afterthought for several weeks due to his lack of name recognition; but his apparent outsider demeanor made him far more attractive as voters looked for an anti-establishment candidate. Yet again the so-called conservative media and grassroots organizers touted the latest frontrunner as a stalwart defender of free markets and fiscal responsibility. Little did most Republicans know, (and most still don’t know), Cain oncecondemned a national sales tax only to propose his own, vehemently opposes the notion of ending the Fed and restoring sound money and the coup de grâce of course was Cain’s op-ed in strong support of TARP saying,

“…Wake up people! Owning a part of the major banks in America is not a bad thing. We could make a profit while solving a problem. But the mainstream media and thefree market purists want you to believe that this is the end of capitalism as we know it. It is not for several reasons that they have conveniently not explained…” (emphasis added)

It seems Mr. Cain believed the stealing of your wealth was just a wise investment the State was obliged to make for you. But despite his tarnished record and brand of political whimsy, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza held strong until allegations regarding his personal life were made public recently.

At this point the conservative masses were more than happy to offer the musical chair to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. It’s not surprising to see the Georgia native rising in the polls as he’s very well known for his debate skills. It is baffling however that anyone with a straight face could claim Newt Gingrich believes in the free market or fiscal responsibility in any form. Not only did Gingrich support TARP, he staunchly supported the creation of the unconstitutional Department of Education, (and continues to push for its expansion) NAFTA and GATT, various federal subsidies, flip-flopped on Climate Change, received nearly $2 million from Freddie Mac and has repeatedly expressed his support for a federal mandate to purchase health insurance in some manner. And just to illustrate how little concern he has for actually cutting spending, Gingrich referred to the rather modest cuts presented earlier this year by Congressman Paul Ryan as “right wing social engineering”, only to once again change his mind later.

If the Tea Party and its supporters truly wish to be an agent of change and usher in a new age of free markets, sound money and fiscal restraint, they have a very strange way of showing it. As of right now, their choices in a presidential candidate will only result in them becoming a silenced wing of the Republican Party with little influence, and even less credibility. I’d suggest they return to their roots.

Government Is Not A Business

I originally wrote this piece at RevoluTimes on November 29, 2011

Of all the platitudes offered as campaign rhetoric, the most commonly used reasoning for supporting a candidate I hear (especially among Republicans), is the notion that government should be run as a business. This seemingly insightful suggestion is often presented as a means to cure our economic ills.

As Americans struggle to make ends meet, electing a candidate who knows how to “balance a budget” sounds promising. It should be no surprise that presidential candidates such as Herman Cain and Mitt Romney are frequently touted as men with business experience who can bring a private sector approach to government. Though president Obama deserves much of the criticism he receives for prolonging the current recession, those who suggest it’s due to his lack of experience working a “real job” are mistaken.

The issue is not that Obama lacks the knowledge to manage government as a business; the issue is that no one can manage government as a business.

In a Forbes.com article published earlier this year, Frederick Allen provides criticisms from political scientist Seth Masket and blogger Matt Yglesias on this widely held belief:

Writes Masket,

“To say that governments should be run like businesses is to reveal ignorance about what either governments or businesses — or both — are. Businesses exist to turn a profit. They provide goods and services to others only insofar as it is profitable to do so, and they will set prices in a way that ends up prohibiting a significant sector of the population from obtaining those goods and services. And that, of course, is fine, because they’re businesses. Governments, conversely, provide public goods and services — things that we have determined are people’s right to possess. This is inherently an unprofitable enterprise. Apple would not last long if it had to provide every American with an iPad.”

Remarked Yglesias,

“a state is fundamentally an ethical enterprise aimed at promoting human welfare. A business isn’t like that.”

I’ll give them both credit for at least acknowledging there are distinct differences between the State and a privately owned business. As to what those differences are, both gentlemen completely missed the mark.

Both Masket and Yglesias seem to be under the impression that the State not only has the authority but the duty to determine what things individuals have a right to possess and to promote human welfare. As I’ve discussed previously, no one has a “right” to any thing in regards to a good or service.

Where so many miss the boat with this concept is a lack of understanding that governments produce nothing. Whereas private firms invest their own resources into each business venture, the State operates solely by extracting wealth owned and produced by private individuals. Every program and initiative of the State is an act of consumption as nothing is created by government; therefore even if it had the authority to do so, government “providing” anything would be an impossibility, since it relies entirely on the production and resources generated by the voluntary sector of society.

The voluntary nature between individuals and businesses during commerce is seldom understood or appreciated. This is a significant point because it helps to illustrate why the institution of monopolized force known as government is incapable of being ran like a business. The idea that wise businessmen could possibly create a more efficient government that could streamline us into prosperity is a misconception because the nature of government cannot be altered.

Were Wal-Mart or Apple to hold a monopoly on the use of force to fund themselves, they would find themselves bankrupt as well. Any business that had the ability to spend and borrow at will with other people’s money is inevitably going to take advantage of such a circumstance and abdicate any and all responsibility for any debts aqcuired. The irredeemable nature of man cannot be trusted with such power. As Lord Acton once said, “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Yet another reason why proposing to run government as a business is dangerous, is because of the stark difference between who takes the risk in government versus a private firm. Entrepreneurs and CEOs only have the ability to take risks with the resources that have been voluntarily invested in their company, (provided the State does not steal taxpayer money to bailout said company) whereas governments force every citizen to take gambles they would never choose for themselves. Human beings make mistakes on a daily basis, this is unavoidable. Not to say that the private sector is flawless, but aside from the fact it faces competition to incentivize responsibility and improvements, should businesses make fatal flaws in their ventures; millions of Americans are not forced to foot the bill.

The nature of human beings aside, there is a more fundamental economic argument that makes governments functioning as businesses impossible: they lack a price system. As Ludwig von Mises argued, governments, (particularly under socialism) have no price system. The market system of profit and loss accounting is either completely disregarded or in effect eradicated under State control. In the marketplace, individuals and business owners make decisions based on incentives. These incentives direct their actions to account for their profits and losses and mandates that resources are allocated and used in the most efficient manner possible. Governments have no such incentives because of their being an institution of force that faces no competition and also due to the fact that when government uses resources it’s for the “public good”, meaning private property does not exist, rendering a lack of market signals as funds are completely used arbitrarily or attempted to be disbursed to the collective. It should be no surprise programs such as Social Security and Medicare hold unfunded liabilities of over $80 trillion while the U.S. Post Office is $5 billion in the red; and let’s not forget our now $15 trillion debt.

If this is a business, at what point do we give our "employees" their pink slips?

More Freedom Means More Security

I originally wrote this piece for RevoluTimes on November 26, 2011

 “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” -Thomas Jefferson

The latest Republican debate over national security issues raised some very significant questions and was probably the most substantive debate thus far. Key among the concerns raised was the balancing act Americans continue to tolerate between preserving their rights and seeking security. The heated exchange between Congressman Ron Paul and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has gone viral and exhibits a fundamental difference between the two candidates. Many Paul supporters and libertarians rightfully grew indignant at Gingrich’s casual dismissal of the rule law and the Fourth Amendment in particular; but what should be more telling to conservatives and libertarians alike is Gingrich’s lack of support or understanding of the free market and his unwavering faith in government.

When asked if he opposed the Patriot Act, Congressman Paul stated:

“I do. I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic because it undermines our civil liberties […] we can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights.”

Paul would go on to argue that Oklahoma City Bomber, TimothyMcVeigh was indeed a “vicious terrorist” who was tried and convicted of his crimes without the use of any legislation such as the Patriot Act.

To this Gingrich shot back,

“Timothy McVeigh succeeded. That’s the whole point…I don’t want a law that says, ‘after we lose a major American city, we’re sure gonna come and find you…’

…I want a law that says if you try and take out an American city, we’re gonna stop you.’”

Ironically, the former Speaker’s candid statements in support of circumventing the Constitution drew a rousing applause from a Republican crowd that claims to revere the founding document. Though Gingrich’s line of thinking may be of some use as a bumper sticker, it fails to ask some vital questions. Why must we trust government for our security when it was government that failed in the first place to protect us from terrorists? Should we not be free to provide for our own security or to choose someone else to provide the service?

Nothing exemplifies this dilemma more than the Transportation Safety Administration, (TSA). Created in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, like the Patriot Act, it too has urged many to ask if Washington has crossed the line in infringing civil liberties for the sake of national security. The TSA’s enhanced security measures such as pat-downs and full-body scans of passengers have triggered many travelers to seek other forms of transportation or to resist the invasive measures altogether. Some airports are looking to provide safety precautions by other means to quell the growing animosity of their customers towards the TSA.   This is where Congressman Paul’s belief comes in that restoring our liberties, (in this case, economic) will actually make us safer.

Congressman Paul has been a staunch critic of the TSA for many years and has even promised to abolish the agency altogether if elected president. Paul supports the idea of turning airline security back to the private airlines themselves rather than depending on a government bureaucracy. The twelve-term congressman from Texas argues that private businesses are far more equipped and have greater incentives to provide sufficient security measures without violating an individual’s rights. But is such a position realistic? How would passengers know the airlines were safe?

These very questions came into play in a recent discussion between Democratic commentator Alan Colmes and former advisor to then Governor Jeb Bush, Justin Sayfie. When prompted with the question of whether or not he disagreed with Congressman Paul’s opposition to the Patriot Act, Sayfie replied,

“…I have to agree with Speaker Gingrich on this…Timothy McVeigh was able to commit an act of terrorism and the goal of the Patriot Act is to prevent acts of terrorism…I also don’t think Ron Paul got it right when he said you don’t have to sacrifice freedom for security or the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment is a very important right-to bear arms. Yet millions of Americans are going to be traveling on airplanes today and they forfeit their right to carry arms; and I don’t think most Americans believe that the Second Amendment believes–states that you should be able to bring rifles, and handguns and shotguns onto airplanes. That’s one example where Ron Paul’s philosophy is bumper sticker politics and it’s just wrong.”

Aside from the fact Sayfie seems to believe your rights are in reality privileges from the government and that Americans “forfeit their right to carry arms”; what is more striking is his blatant disregard, (and apparent acceptance) that this relinquishing of rights is not a voluntary act, but one compelled by government force. It’s reasonable to assume in any other scenario Sayfie would strongly decry the notion that your right to self-defense must be annulled; but in this case he makes even Alan Colmes come off as a conservative, (this is no small task).

Said Colmes in response to Sayfie,

“…You [Sayfie] should ideally be against the Patriot Act like Ron Paul is because part of the Patriot Act is they can look at your gun records. They can look at your library records…”

The news anchor prodded Colmes further,

“So you’re completely comfortable Alan, with someone getting on a plane with you-say you’re headed home for Thanksgiving-and they’re armed? You’re completely comfortable with that?”

Colmes responed saying,

“I didn’t say that. However, there’s no evidence the Patriot Act is going to prevent that. There’s no evidence that the Patriot Act would have prevented Tim McVeigh [from carrying out the Oklahoma City Bombing].”

What was neglected in this conversation and the recent GOP debate is the government imposed monopoly over security. As the mainstream media and politicians debate over symptoms of larger problems, they fail to comprehend the root cause of their dispute: lack of competition. Imagine private airlines free to manage and provide for their own security. The market would provide new and innovative techniques to ensure their customers’ safety without invading their privacy and develop various types of security measures tailored made to suit your demands. To those who ask what incentive a company has to provide better services than government, I ask what incentive does government have? No government employees were fired after 9/11, can you imagine any corporation not firing those responsible for allowing such a tragedy?

Had the airline companies retained their right to run their airlines as they pleased and pilots were given the opportunity to carry firearms, (which was forbidden at the time by government) it is likely that 9/11 would have never occurred. Though Justin Sayfie claims Americans would prefer a plane without armed passengers, in which scenario would terrorists armed only with box cutters, (or anything for that matter) be more likely to attempt to hijack a plane: when the government forbids firearms from being on board, or when the passengers and the pilots are likely to be packing heat?

Should you not feel comfortable flying under such conditions, (as it appears Mr. Colmes wouldn’t) or still feel TSA style screenings are necessary, the market would respond to this demand by providing alternative services to ensure your safety because they value your business and seek to make a profit. Losing customers to hijackings and plane crashes isn’t exactly good for business. Everyone expects airlines to provide multiple flight plans to accommodate their needs, why not extend that to the most vital part of the airline service?

To overcome the many ills we’re facing today, from national security threats, high unemployment, poverty and violence, we must first turn away from the institution that has not only failed to remedy such problems but has perpetuated them; and look to ourselves, to our families and our communities and build voluntary networks to protect that which we hold dear. A friend of mine once said, “The freer the market, the freer the people,” and a free people are what we should be protecting. If we must compromise our liberty and rights for security, what exactly is it that we’re trying to secure?

Liberty Rising: A Market Story

I originally published this article at RevoluTimes on November 25, 2011

Being the political junkie that I am, I often find myself debating one issue or another with friends, family and colleagues. This seems to be the trademark of the libertarian. When I’m not being completely denounced as “crazy” or “too radical” and am able to get a word in edgewise, I attempt to make the case for a truly free and voluntary society. The first and probably the most common objection to libertarianism I find is a lack of understanding or support for true capitalism. A frequent question I encounter from detractors is, “How do I hold any power under a free market?” To this I simply reply, “You are the free market.”

Capitalism and sound economics in general are often presumed to be exceedingly complex and confounding to the average person. There’s no doubt it requires vast knowledge and specialized skills to master, but ultimately economics is simply the study of human interaction and cooperation. What is often overlooked is that individuals act because of ideas and the degree to which those ideas shape society; the market is ruled by little else. Indeed, the groundswell of traditional conservatives, classical liberals and libertarians that is sweeping the nation today is nothing short of a market force. Just as all debit cards are rectangles because the market dictates this, (not because of some government regulation) and just as sold-out grocery stores during a blizzard are always re-stocked to fulfill consumer needs, societies respond and shape themselves in order to cater to new and innovative ideas.

Much like the founding of the Libertarian Party in 1971, the current surge in protests, political activism and independent media are acting as a market force to offer an alternative to the status quo. In the winter of 1971, as both major political parties were becoming increasingly authoritarian and the Old Right was vanishing, individualists and anti-statists of all stripes created what has become the nation’s third largest political party. This was all due to individuals taking it upon themselves to act on their ideas and fill a void in society that was needed.

The Libertarian Party continues to grow today, and in 2010 boasted 154 Libertarians holding public office. While their ranks have grown over the years, it has proven to be a long and mostly uphill road that has yielded poor results. Thanks to the advent of the internet, the philosophy of liberty has spread throughout the world and the plea for smaller government and more freedom was finally heard.

No one has taken advantage of the World Wide Web for the cause of liberty better than the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Their website Mises.org is a bastion of liberty and an intellectual powerhouse for the cause of free markets and individual freedom. Providing literally hundreds of books and thousands of articles and podcasts all for free, the site not only talks the talk but walks the walk.

The Mises Institute is yet another example of individuals taking action to provide a good or service, (in this case the scholarship of libertarian ideas) that was necessitated by the market. Founded by author Lew Rockwell with the blessing of Margit von Mises, (widow of classical liberal giant Ludwig von Mises) in 1982 and headed by libertarian hero and Austrian economist Murray Rothbard, (until his death in 1995) the institute’s purpose was to rekindle the old flame of laissez faire economics and to continue the teachings of the Austrian school. Having informed millions around the world with the scholarship of freedom and educated over 10,000 students in its summer Mises University program, the LvMI has proven to be indispensable in the struggle against the State.

In the last few years, organizations such as the Mises Institute and others have become very instrumental in education in the wake of government bailouts, unprecedented spending and endless wars. In 2008, a grassroots movement of the Tea Party shook the political establishment as it began to transcend the one dimensional narrative given by the Beltway talking heads. Inspired mostly by the presidential campaign of Texas Congressman Ron Paul, the Tea Party movement drastically impacted the 2010 elections and continues to be a strong force throughout the nation.

While I vehemently disagree with much of the conclusions presented by demonstrations such as Occupy Wall Street, it is indeed an important conversation to have. These protests, (that by now have likely been largely co-opted by the Democratic Party and professional activists) ironically began as just another example of the very market forces at work which so many leftists denounce. Similar to their right wing counterparts in the Tea Party, OWS was largely started by disenchanted left-liberals who no longer feel their representatives can be trusted and who recognize that the system is broken. Sadly, most are very misguided on how this occurred and what to do about it; but fortunately the market of ideas allows for competing philosophies– and we have history, economics and virtue on our side.

With the 2012 presidential elections heating up in a few short weeks, we may very well be nearing the pinnacle of this very long struggle for individual sovereignty as Congressman Ron Paul is rising in the polls despite concerted efforts to ignore him altogether. Despite the best efforts of the State and its cohorts to silence our ideas, the market has provided outlets for us such as Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano, Adam vs. the Man with Adam Kokesh, Stossel, and of course this very website you are reading now, The RevoluTimes. As with all other products of the market that are developed by individuals, if we desire an abundant supply of freedom, we must never cease demanding it.

Foreign Policy Isn't Free

I originally published this piece at RevoluTimes on November 22, 2011

War is a racket… easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious… It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives…. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes….I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers.” -two time Congressional Medal of Honor winner, Major General Smedley Butler

When debating what should be cut from the federal budget, Washington promises that “everything’s on the table”. But is it? From entitlements to earmarks, congressional leaders and the president have spent the last several months pledging to address wasteful spending and restore fiscal sanity. Even if these sentiments were true, (which they’re not) it wouldn’t make any difference. No amount of tinkering around the edges or “reforms” of domestic spending is going to change the fact that our foreign entanglements around the world are not only destroying our liberties but crippling our economy. This cannot however be put completely at the feet of politicians as many Americans have yet to understand that there are limits to what the country can sustain.

The gut reaction to defend all military spending is understandable. If there is any legitimate role of government, it’s national defense. But in a post-9/11 world, the potential threat of terrorism has caused much of America to not question the reckless spending of the Pentagon. In our desperate attempt to feel secure, we’ve neglected our reason and placed faith in politicians. The same politicians and bureaucrats, who’ve proven to be unreliable and irresponsible with your tax dollars at home, haven’t suddenly become accountable and trustworthy when it comes to foreign policy.

Indeed few Americans are aware the Department of Defense is the only federal department expressly exempt from being audited. This alone should be startling to Americans, especially those concerned with an out-of-control government; but even more stunning is the fact that the US spends more on defense than all other nations combined. This is what economist and historian, Tom Woods has called, “The greatest fleecing of the American public in history.”

According to a recent study by the Eisenhower Research Project at Brown University, the U.S. has spent over $3.2-4 trillion on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The study noted these numbers do not include: “Medicare costs for injured veterans after age 65; Expenses for veterans paid for by state and local government budgets; Promised $5.3 billion reconstruction aid for Afghanistan; Additional macroeconomic consequences of war spending including infrastructure and jobs.”

David Callahan writing at The Policy Shop summarized the report saying,

“… the total direct and indirect costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may exceed $6 trillion…. That figure comes from combining congressional appropriations for the wars over the past decade ($1.3 trillion), additional spending by the Pentagon related to the wars ($326 – $652 billion), interest so far on Pentagon war appropriations, all of which was borrowed ($185 billion), immediate medical costs for veterans ($32 billion), war related foreign aid ($74 billion), homeland security spending ($401 billion), projected medical costs for veterans through 2051 ($589 – $934 billion), social costs to military families ($295 – $400 billion), projected Pentagon war spending and foreign aid as troops wind down in the two war zones ($453 billion); and interest payments on all this spending through 2020 ($1 trillion).”

These estimates are also excluding military operations such as Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia andUganda.

While these numbers are unconscionable, a fact even more astounding is the number of U.S. military bases around the world. The problem is, there are so many, no one knows the exact number. Writes Antiwar.com’s Nick Turse:

“…there’s one number no American knows. Not the president. Not the Pentagon. Not the experts. No one… There are more than 1,000 U.S. military bases dotting the globe. To be specific, the most accurate count is 1,077. Unless it’s 1,088. Or, if you count differently, 1,169. Or even 1,180. Actually, the number might even be higher. Nobody knows for sure.”

Having over a thousand bases worldwide not only dwarfs any other nation’s foreign bases, but the magnitude of the bases themselves is overwhelming. As author Tom Engelhardt explains,

“India, a rising power, almost had one (but the Tajiks said no). China, which last year became the world’s second largest economy as well as the planet’s leading energy consumer, and is expanding abroad like mad (largely via trade and the power of the purse), still has none. The Russians have a few (in Central Asia where “the great game” is ongoing), as do those former colonial powers Great Britain and France, as do certain NATO countries in Afghanistan. Sooner or later, Japan may even have one… All of them together… add up to a relatively modest (if unknown) total. The U.S., on the other hand, has enough bases abroad to sink the world. You almost have the feeling that a single American mega-base like Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan could swallow them all up. It’s so large that a special Air Force “team” has to be assigned to it just to deal with the mail arriving every day, 360,000 pounds of it in November 2010 alone. At the same base, the U.S. has just spent $130 million building “a better gas station for aircraft … [a] new refueling system, which features a pair of 1.1-million gallon tanks and two miles of pipes.” Imagine that: two miles of pipes, thousands of miles from home – and that’s just to scratch the surface of Bagram’s enormity.”

It’s safe to say most Americans would be surprised, even shocked by these staggering numbers, but it is unfortunately also likely that many U.S. citizens would find such exorbitant costs necessary. We have been conditioned to trust government with such decisions and forgotten Randolph Bourne’s timeless warning, “War is the health of the State.”

There’s no denying domestic spending must be drastically cut as well, but while lawmakers in Washington have been playing political theatre, the U.S. has had its credit rating downgraded for the first time in history, we just recently reached a debt of $15 trillion and we’ve lost over 6,000 U.S. soldiers; at what point do we admit these are debts that cannot be paid?