Ron Paul: "Where do we get this authority to be the policeman of the world?"

Peter Schiff-The Real Fiscal Cliff: How to Spot the Ledge

Just to give you some context just in case you missed it, The Federal Reserve announced that it would embark on another program of Quantitative Easing the day before this Mises supporters seminar, making the tally of QEs to 3 in the course of a few years. See the following link to get a good explanation of what quantitative easing is.

David Stockman: How Crony Capitalism Corrupts the Free Market

The Mises Institute is finally uploading videos from their latest supporters seminar that took place in New York. I am super excited to listen to what these great minds have to say!

And the War Came

By Ralph Raico


The immediate origins of the 1914 war lie in the twisted politics of the Kingdom of Serbia. In June, 1903, Serbian army officers murdered their king and queen in the palace and threw their bodies out a window, at the same time massacring various royal relations, cabinet ministers, and members of the palace guards. It was an act that horrified and disgusted many in the civilized world. The military clique replaced the pro-Austrian Obrenović dynasty with the anti-Austrian Karageorgevices. The new government pursued a pro-Russian, Pan-Slavist policy, and a network of secret societies sprang up, closely linked to the government, whose goal was the "liberation" of the Serb subjects of Austria (and Turkey), and perhaps the other South Slavs as well.

The man who became prime minister, Nicolas Pašiƒá, aimed at the creation of a Greater Serbia, necessarily at the expense of Austria-Hungary. The Austrians felt, correctly, that the cession of their Serb-inhabited lands, and maybe even the lands inhabited by the other South Slavs, would set off the unraveling of the great multinational Empire. For Austria-Hungary, Serbian designs posed a mortal danger.

The Russian ambassador Hartwig worked closely with Pašiƒá and cultivated connections with some of the secret societies. The upshot of the two Balkan Wars which he promoted was that Serbia more than doubled in size and threatened Austria-Hungary not only politically but militarily as well. Sazonov, the Russian Foreign Minister, wrote to Hartwig, "Serbia has only gone through the first stage of her historic road and for the attainment of her goal must still endure a terrible struggle in which her whole existence may be at stake." Sazonov went on, as indicated above, to direct Serbian expansion to the lands of Austria-Hungary, for which Serbia would have to wage "the future inevitable struggle."

The nationalist societies stepped up their activities, not only within Serbia, but also in the Austrian provinces of Bosnia and Hercegovina. The most radical of these groups was Union or Death, popularly known as the Black Hand. It was led by Colonel Dragutin Dimitrieviƒá, called Apis, who also happened to be the head of Royal Serbian Military Intelligence. Apis was a veteran of the slaughter of his own king and queen in 1903, as well as of a number of other political murder plots. "He was quite possibly the foremost European expert in regicide of his time." One of his close contacts was Colonel Artamonov, the Russian military attaché in Belgrade.

The venerable emperor of Austria and king of Hungary, Franz Josef, who had come to the throne in 1848, clearly had not much longer to live. His nephew and heir, Franz Ferdinand, was profoundly concerned by the wrenching ethnic problems of the Empire and sought their solution in some great structural reform, either in the direction of federalism for the various national groups, or else "trialism," the creation of a third, Slavic component of the Empire, alongside the Germans and the Magyars. Since such a concession would mean the ruin of any program for a Greater Serbia, Franz Ferdinand was a natural target for assassination by the Black Hand.

Read the rest here.

Common Objections to Capitalism

Timothy Terrel tackles the most common objections to free-markets in this Mises University lecture:

C:\Users\Nathan\Music\iTunes\iTunes Media\iTunes U\Mises University 2012\1-28 Common Objections to Capitalism.mp3

The Welfare-Regulatory State grows

Last week, the Federal Register has grown to another 1,571 new pages of regulations, the most notable of which come from the EPA. According to The Daily Caller article, these new regulations include "the DEA updating its seizure and forfeiture regulations and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau establishing the Innwood Valley region in California and the Middleburg region in Virginia."

The Federal Register, which is the document that contains all Federal regulations on economic activity, now contains approximately 80,000 pages of economic regulations. How can we claim to be a free country if most of our economic activity is regulated by a highly centralized government in a distant capitol? The Regulatory-Welfare State is notorious for attracting swaths of lobbyists who lobby for benefits for the industries they represent at the expense of the taxpayers. As Lew Rockwell notes, "Just one clause in the Federal Register can mean billions for a favored firm or industry, and disaster for its competitors, which is why lobbyists cluster around the Capitol like flies around a garbage can."

That's why I say for the sake of freedom and prosperity, the Federal Regulatory-Welfare State must be abolished and a policy of lassiez-faire must be pursued. Only the free market economy is capable of providing for the needs of millions if not billions of people. Governmental regulations on economic activity only hinder economic growth and prosperity.

Mises on Marx as a "proletariat"

From the Ludwig Von Mises Institute's Facebook page:

Of course, the Marxians consider a doctrine vicious if its author's background is not proletarian. But who is proletarian? Doctor Marx, the manufacturer and "exploiter" Engels, and Lenin, the scion of the Russian gentry, were certainly not ...

of proletarian background. But Hitler and Mussolini were genuinely proletarians and spent their youth in poverty. The conflict of the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks or that between Stalin and Trotsky cannot be presented as class conflicts. They were conflicts between various sects of fanatics who called one another traitors.

--Ludwig von Mises. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics

Today is Constitution Day....

A day in which we need to remind the Federal government to follow the law they have swore to uphold. Following the Constitution as it was originally understood (with the exception of the clause on slavery) would mean that most the Federal government's activities for the past 100 years or more have been unconstitutional, illegitimate, and therefore should be eliminated. Here is a list of readings and videos to watch that relate to the Constitution:


Books:

Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century by Thomas E. Woods

The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution by Brion McClanahan

View of the Constitution of the United States: With Selected Writings By St. George Tucker

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers by Brion McClanahan

The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms by Stephen P. Halbrook

Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution--and What It Means for Americans Today by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Who Killed the Constitution?: The Federal Government vs. American Liberty from World War I to Barack Obama by Thomas E. Woods and Kevin R.C. Gutzman

Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime: From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism by Geoffry R. Stone

Politically Incorrect Guide To The Constitution by Kevin R.C. Gutzman

The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land by Andrew P. Napolitano

It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom by Andrew P. Napolitano

Freedom Under Seige: The U.S. Constitution After 200 Plus Years by Ron Paul

Articles:

Remarks on the Constitution, U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, September 23, 2004

Legalize the Constitution, on Currency

My Plan for a Freedom President: How I Would Put the Constitution Back in the Oval Office

Obamacare, the Constitution, and the Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause

Moderation in Following the Constitution is no Virtue

Videos:

Ron Paul: True Fidelity to the Constitution

Tom Woods Speaks on Nullification

Ron Paul on true Patriotism

 

Part 1

 

 

 

Part 2

 

 

Part 3

 

 

The Fatal Conceit of Nation-Building and Empire

American conservatives often pride themselves as supporters of "free-market capitalism" (thought this claim by conservatives can be challenged). Conservatives and their much more radical libertarian counter-parts often rail against socialism, and the negative effects socialism and the welfare state has on the economy, liberty and the Constitution. But when it comes to the warfare state, militarism and a foreign policy of interventionism and empire, those same conservatives will support and in some cases cheer for the socialism and tyranny that comes from such a reckless and belligerent foreign policy.

There should (note: "should") be no doubt that the U.S. has a global empire that spans the entire world. The drums of war against Syria and Iran are growing louder by the day. To enter into wars against both Syria and Iran would put the United States at war with at least 6 countries. And just recently, on September 12, 2012, U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens was killed, along with 3 consulate staffers during an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi after a protesting mob in Cairo, Egypt scaled the wall of the U.S. Embassy, ripping down the U.S. flag in response to a video produced in the U.S. that mocks the prophet Muhammad.

Strangely enough, opponents of President Obama still portray him as an anti-colonialist who is "soft" on foreign policy and is scaling back American military presence in the world. The fact that the war in Afghanistan continues and was expanded, a drone war in Pakistan has been expanded, the U.S. is not completely withdrawing from Iraq, and a war was waged in Libya to overthrow Qaddafi's regime should signal some red flags to this claim. The reality is that President Obama's foreign policy is a continuation of the foreign policy of George W. Bush. And in some ways, Obama is worse that Bush when it comes to war. Daniel J. Sanchez is right when he wrote the following for the Circle Bastiat: "Obama’s foreign meddling will sow the seeds of further conflict and global instability, and yet this failure will be blamed on his allegedly “soft” foreign policy, and thereby give peace a bad name."

What we are seeing in Libya right now is another obvious case of blowback. Daniel Sanchez further notes, "The series of events that began just 4 day later showed how such “long-term” effects can occur even in the short term. The current unrest in the Arab world is due largely to Obama’s recent meddling in Libya, Egypt, and elsewhere. It is a violent recoiling of the U.S.-sponsored “Arab Spring”. Yet it is being blamed by many (not just in the leadership of the Neocon right, but also for many swing voters, as evidenced by the fact that Obama’s lead over Romney has subsequently evaporated) as a result of a America’s recent failure to “lead”: in other words, not meddling enough."

All these events expose the fatal conceit of interventionism, nation-building and empire. John Stossel put it this way: "Advocates of America-as-world-policeman rarely grasp that their conception of "defense" endangers us by creating new enemies. Fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who led NATO forces in Afghanistan, once said, 'For every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies.' Bombing Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia with drones creates new terrorists — some of whom may seek revenge. " The belief among the Washington elite is that they have the knowledge and the ability to remake foreign societies in the image of America (its more like the image of the Soviet Union). But as Austrian economist Frederick Hayek understood, the fatal conceit of central-economic planning is that the State somehow can comprehend and know all the knowledge necessary to running an economy. Hayek was proven right when the Soviet Union collapsed: centrally planning an economy is impossible because the central planners do not have and cannot attain all the ever-changing economic facts necessary to making an economy work.

The same can be said in the realm of foreign policy. Operating on the pretense that with limited knowledge and unlimited power they can remake the world according to their own wishes, the U.S. government continues to wage wars of aggression that have nothing to do with national defense which harms the free-market economy, weakens our national defense, assaults civil liberties, and warps the Constitution. But as resistance to American imperialism around the world grows, the plans of the central planners will ultimately fail in the end, and America will suffer for the sins of the American empire.

Conclusion

 

What should the U.S. government do in response to all these problems of foreign policy? Simple: neutrality and noninterventionism. All foreign military bases need to be shut down immediately; all foreign aid to all countries must cease; all U.S. troops need to be withdrawn from the business of empire and reoriented to defending AMERICA; American membership in NATO, the UN and all other military and economic alliances must be terminated; and policy of peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations with no entangling alliances with any country must be followed. Also, the only wars America should ever fight are those of self-defense and constitutionally declared. Of course, a noninterventionist foreign policy will be derided as "isolationist". But as Thomas DiLorenzo has observed, the real isolationists are the proponents of war, interventionism and empire, whether they be leftist internationalists like Obama or neoconservatives like Bush. The instigationists are isolating America from the world with their wars and imperialism. Peace, free enterprise, and free international trade is not isolationism