Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Friday, October 26, 2012
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
The Rise of the West
This Article was originally posted on the Mises Institute's Site on March 23, 2011. I do not own this or any other material posted by the Mises Institute.
Throughout almost the entire span of human history, material privation and chronic insecurity were the norm. Not even those at the peaks of social status and political power could enjoy the creature comforts and consumer delights that "poor" people take for granted in the West today. At times, certain populations fared somewhat better — in ancient Greece and Rome, perhaps, and in China during the Sung Dynasty (960–1279) — but those cases were exceptional.
As late as the 14th century, the Chinese probably enjoyed the highest level of living of any large population. Recall the amazement with which Europeans greeted Marco Polo's account of China in the latter part of the 13th century, even though, as Polo declared on his deathbed, he had not described the half of what he had seen.[1]
As the Middle Ages waned the Europeans began to make quicker economic progress, while the Chinese lapsed into economic stagnation. Even more remarkable, the economic energy of Europe began to shift away from the great commercial centers of northern Italy and toward the periphery of civilization in northwestern Europe. The barbarians, it seemed, had somehow stumbled onto the secret of economic progress. Henceforth, despite many setbacks, the western Europeans — and later their colonial cousins in North America as well — steadily pulled ahead of the human pack. By the 18th century they had far surpassed the Chinese, not to speak of the world's more backward peoples, and until the late 20th century the gap continued to widen.
How did the West succeed in generating sustained economic progress? Historians and social scientists have offered various hypotheses, and so far no single explanation has gained general acceptance. Nevertheless, certain elements of an answer have received wide agreement. The growing individualism of Western culture, rooted in Christian doctrine, seems to have contributed significantly.[2] In addition, the political fragmentation of the European peoples in the high Middle Ages and the early modern period — a political pluralism with hundreds of separate jurisdictions — fostered the institutional and technological experimentation by which entrepreneurs could discover how to make labor and capital more productive.
Fundamental to that sustained dynamism was the gradually improving status of private-property rights. So long as people cannot count on a reasonable prospect of reaping the fruits of their efforts and investments, they have little or no incentive to work hard or to accumulate physical, human, and intellectual capital. And without such accumulation, no ongoing economic progress is possible. More reliable private-property rights did not just drop from heaven, however. For the most part, the merchants acquired the protection of such rights by paying off the robber barons and aspiring kings who constituted the fragmented ruling stratum of western Europe.
In the extreme, the merchants established political independence in city states where they could exercise complete control over the legal institutions that undergirded their economic activities. "The fact that European civilization has passed through a city-state phase is," according to Sir John Hicks, "the principal key to the divergence between the history of Europe and the history of Asia."[3] In the latter medieval era, Venice, Genoa, Pisa, and Florence led the way. Later, Bruges, Antwerp, Amsterdam, and London took the lead. A town's own militia stood ready to defend it against threats to its politico-economic autonomy.
To facilitate their business, the merchants developed their own legal system. Intended to provide quick, cheap, and fair resolution of commercial disputes, this lex mercatoria established institutions and precedents that have survived to the present, and it now finds expression in a vast system of alternative (nonstate) dispute resolution in arbitration proceedings.[4] In some countries, the merchants and manufacturers ultimately used their political influence to embed their customary legal institutions in state-enforced law. Because of Europe's political fragmentation, governments that made life too difficult for the traders tended to lose merchants and their business — and hence a tax base — to competing jurisdictions, and the prospect of such losses motivated rulers to curb their predation and to allow businessmen room to maneuver.[5]
In contrast to the merchants of Europe (and later the United States), who could play one government against another in a quest for secure private-property rights, the businessmen of China suffered an inescapable clampdown by their all-embracing imperial government. "By 1500 the Government had made it a capital offense to build a boat with more than two masts, and in 1525 the Government ordered the destruction of all oceangoing ships." Thus, China, whose foreign commerce had been vast and far-reaching for centuries, "set a course for itself that would lead to poverty, defeat and decline."[6] Among many other adverse actions, the Mandarin-dominated government "stopped the development of clocks and water-driven industrial machinery throughout China."[7]
In the Islamic world, too, an imperial government quashed economic progress by failing to protect private-property rights and by imposing arbitrary rules and taxes.[8]
In the 20th century, the Soviet empire likewise embraced the policy of imposing one big bad idea — central economic planning — that completely suppressed the economic freedom necessary for sustained economic progress. Unfortunately, the Chinese communists, eastern Europeans, and many of the postcolonial governments of the Third World followed the USSR down that road to economic ruin.
Nowadays, at long last, it seems that almost everyone has come to understand the nexus of economic freedom and economic growth and to appreciate the vital importance of private-property rights. Yet, everywhere, governments continue to grant privilege seekers countless choke holds on the economy. As history confirms, private-property rights require constant defense, lest the precondition of all economic progress be undermined and destroyed.
Notes
[1] John Hubbard, "Marco Polo's Asia."
[2] Deepak Lal, Unintended Consequences: The Impact of Factor Endowments, Culture, and Politics on Long-Run Economic Performance (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1998), pp. 75–97; Michael Novak, "How Christianity Created Capitalism," Wall Street Journal, December 23, 1999.
[3] John Hicks, A Theory of Economic History (London: Oxford University Press, 1969), p. 38.
[4] See, for example, International Chamber of Commerce, "International Court of Arbitration: International Dispute Resolution Services."
[5] Nathan Rosenberg and L. E. Birdzell, Jr., How the West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation of the Industrial World (New York: Basic Books, 1986), pp. 114–15, 121–23, 136–39.
[6] Nicholas D. Kristof, "1492: The Prequel," New York Times Magazine, June 6, 1999, p. 85.
[7] Jared Diamond, "The Ideal Form of Organization," Wall Street Journal, December 12, 2000.
[8] Lal, pp. 49–67.
By Robert Higgs
As late as the 14th century, the Chinese probably enjoyed the highest level of living of any large population. Recall the amazement with which Europeans greeted Marco Polo's account of China in the latter part of the 13th century, even though, as Polo declared on his deathbed, he had not described the half of what he had seen.[1]
As the Middle Ages waned the Europeans began to make quicker economic progress, while the Chinese lapsed into economic stagnation. Even more remarkable, the economic energy of Europe began to shift away from the great commercial centers of northern Italy and toward the periphery of civilization in northwestern Europe. The barbarians, it seemed, had somehow stumbled onto the secret of economic progress. Henceforth, despite many setbacks, the western Europeans — and later their colonial cousins in North America as well — steadily pulled ahead of the human pack. By the 18th century they had far surpassed the Chinese, not to speak of the world's more backward peoples, and until the late 20th century the gap continued to widen.
How did the West succeed in generating sustained economic progress? Historians and social scientists have offered various hypotheses, and so far no single explanation has gained general acceptance. Nevertheless, certain elements of an answer have received wide agreement. The growing individualism of Western culture, rooted in Christian doctrine, seems to have contributed significantly.[2] In addition, the political fragmentation of the European peoples in the high Middle Ages and the early modern period — a political pluralism with hundreds of separate jurisdictions — fostered the institutional and technological experimentation by which entrepreneurs could discover how to make labor and capital more productive.
Fundamental to that sustained dynamism was the gradually improving status of private-property rights. So long as people cannot count on a reasonable prospect of reaping the fruits of their efforts and investments, they have little or no incentive to work hard or to accumulate physical, human, and intellectual capital. And without such accumulation, no ongoing economic progress is possible. More reliable private-property rights did not just drop from heaven, however. For the most part, the merchants acquired the protection of such rights by paying off the robber barons and aspiring kings who constituted the fragmented ruling stratum of western Europe.
In the extreme, the merchants established political independence in city states where they could exercise complete control over the legal institutions that undergirded their economic activities. "The fact that European civilization has passed through a city-state phase is," according to Sir John Hicks, "the principal key to the divergence between the history of Europe and the history of Asia."[3] In the latter medieval era, Venice, Genoa, Pisa, and Florence led the way. Later, Bruges, Antwerp, Amsterdam, and London took the lead. A town's own militia stood ready to defend it against threats to its politico-economic autonomy.
To facilitate their business, the merchants developed their own legal system. Intended to provide quick, cheap, and fair resolution of commercial disputes, this lex mercatoria established institutions and precedents that have survived to the present, and it now finds expression in a vast system of alternative (nonstate) dispute resolution in arbitration proceedings.[4] In some countries, the merchants and manufacturers ultimately used their political influence to embed their customary legal institutions in state-enforced law. Because of Europe's political fragmentation, governments that made life too difficult for the traders tended to lose merchants and their business — and hence a tax base — to competing jurisdictions, and the prospect of such losses motivated rulers to curb their predation and to allow businessmen room to maneuver.[5]
In contrast to the merchants of Europe (and later the United States), who could play one government against another in a quest for secure private-property rights, the businessmen of China suffered an inescapable clampdown by their all-embracing imperial government. "By 1500 the Government had made it a capital offense to build a boat with more than two masts, and in 1525 the Government ordered the destruction of all oceangoing ships." Thus, China, whose foreign commerce had been vast and far-reaching for centuries, "set a course for itself that would lead to poverty, defeat and decline."[6] Among many other adverse actions, the Mandarin-dominated government "stopped the development of clocks and water-driven industrial machinery throughout China."[7]
In the Islamic world, too, an imperial government quashed economic progress by failing to protect private-property rights and by imposing arbitrary rules and taxes.[8]
In the 20th century, the Soviet empire likewise embraced the policy of imposing one big bad idea — central economic planning — that completely suppressed the economic freedom necessary for sustained economic progress. Unfortunately, the Chinese communists, eastern Europeans, and many of the postcolonial governments of the Third World followed the USSR down that road to economic ruin.
Nowadays, at long last, it seems that almost everyone has come to understand the nexus of economic freedom and economic growth and to appreciate the vital importance of private-property rights. Yet, everywhere, governments continue to grant privilege seekers countless choke holds on the economy. As history confirms, private-property rights require constant defense, lest the precondition of all economic progress be undermined and destroyed.
Notes
[1] John Hubbard, "Marco Polo's Asia."
[2] Deepak Lal, Unintended Consequences: The Impact of Factor Endowments, Culture, and Politics on Long-Run Economic Performance (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1998), pp. 75–97; Michael Novak, "How Christianity Created Capitalism," Wall Street Journal, December 23, 1999.
[3] John Hicks, A Theory of Economic History (London: Oxford University Press, 1969), p. 38.
[4] See, for example, International Chamber of Commerce, "International Court of Arbitration: International Dispute Resolution Services."
[5] Nathan Rosenberg and L. E. Birdzell, Jr., How the West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation of the Industrial World (New York: Basic Books, 1986), pp. 114–15, 121–23, 136–39.
[6] Nicholas D. Kristof, "1492: The Prequel," New York Times Magazine, June 6, 1999, p. 85.
[7] Jared Diamond, "The Ideal Form of Organization," Wall Street Journal, December 12, 2000.
[8] Lal, pp. 49–67.
Keep an eye out for this Summit
Later this week, the Ludwig von Mises Institute is holding a Supporters Summit in Georgia while celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Ludwig von Mises Institute's efforts at promoting liberty and economic freedom. The title of the Summit is as follows: "The Truth About War: A Revisionist Perspective"
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Was President Ike Really Opposed to the Warfare State?
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the former commander of all Allied forces during the Second World War, is perhaps remembered mostly for his following words of wisdom:
In the councils
of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence,
whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
As President Ike saw it, the Cold War spawned the first ever large-scale peacetime military establishment in American history. But was he a true opponent of this development in the history of our republic? The truth is that while the previous statement contains truth, it did not reflect his actions and policy making during his administration. In reality, Ike's administration helped to further entrench the military industrial complex and the warfare state in American psyche and life.
Prior to Eisenhower's administration, the administration of Harry Truman and brought the United States into an unnecessary war in Korea in an attempt to prevent the American friendly government of the south from being taken over by the Communist north. The Truman administration also began the process of creating a permanent peacetime military establishment by increasing military spending drastically and getting the United States involved in NATO and the Marshall Plan. President Truman basically saw and aided the genesis of a global political and military empire for America.
It was this development that led to the Soviet Union being branded as the new Hitler of that time, hell-bent on world conquest. President Eisenhower responded to this like most presidents since Truman have responded: with interventionism and militarism abroad and an ugly form of military socialism at home. Eisenhower believed that peace could be achieved by "our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action,
so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction." While it is true that a strong national defense is necessary to defending our country, the military build-up of the Cold War period was not for purposes of national defense and was indeed unnecessary to defending this country. Rather, this military build-up was postured toward maintaining a global American empire.
Eisenhower also argued for the Cold War in his Farewell Address, describing the conflict as commanding "our whole attention, absorb[ing] our very beings. We face a hostile ideology –
global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in
method." No longer was the U.S. limited to providing a national defense to protect the lives and liberty of the American people, but rather the U.S. was to adopt a foreign policy which would "keep the peace; to foster progress in human
achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and
among nations."
As Lew Rockwell has noted, "Because some crusty apparatchiks are imposing every manner of economic control over Russia and a few satellites, US foreign policy must absorb the whole of our beings? So much for limited government."
Rockwell also notes the following: "As a percent of total budget outlays, military spending went from 30 percent in 1950 to 70 percent in 1957. This was the largest peacetime buildup in American history. During a dramatic economic expansion, the president worked to maintain a high military-spending level as a percentage of the rising GDP — establishing the modern precedent that military socialism is integral to the economic life of the country. Spending rose in absolute terms every year he was president, from $358 billion in 1952 to $585 billion in the last budget for which he bore responsibility in 1962, a whopping 63.4 percent increase during the Eisenhower years."
A program of nuclear attack drills in public schools all across the country permeated and influenced an entire generation of Americans to believe irrational fears at face value while an unconstitutional Interstate Highway system was created to facilitate the quicker movement of military troops across the country. But perhaps one of the worst legacies of the Eisenhower administration was his willingness to have the U.S. (through the CIA) participate in overthrow of the Iranian government of Muhammad Mossadeq in 1953, also known as Operation Ajax. This single event would lead to future blowback in the region of the world to this very day.
If anything, Eisenhower helped to foster an un-American program of imperialism, militarism, and socialism on a gullible American people. Eisenhower was not a principled opponent of the warfare state; he was an instrument in the warfare state's growth over our free society.
Friday, October 19, 2012
The Freedom to Sell
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, the federal government and the cabal of elitists who have come under the influence and auspices of it continually refuse to recognize the natural rights of individuals to keep the fruits of their labor and to use the fruits of their labor as they see fit. One such way people have exercised their economic liberty is to buy and resell products. A general assumption in economic life is that when you buy a certain product-a toothbrush, a TV, a MP3 version of a song, etc.-it is yours and that you may do with it as you see fit. An exception to this rule would be if there was a contract between buyer and seller that was voluntarily arrived at which limited the usage of such an item. What comes to mind with regards to products produced online from such outlets as iTunes are the Terms of Agreement. I will be honest here: no one, including myself, ever reads the Terms of Agreement when buying products online (or in my case, installing a game onto my computer, like Battlefield 3, or opening up a new account on some website).
But now our economic liberty is being brought under siege once again with a U.S. Supreme Court Case that very few people know about. This Supreme Court Case known as Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons deals with the principle of first sale in copyright law. This is the idea within copy write law (and thus deals with intellectual property) that allows you to sell things like furniture, CDs, books, electronics, silverware and so on without getting permission from the copy write hold of these products. Since 1908 (when the Supreme Court ruled on this issue), we haven't had to worry about selling our stuff because the copy write only had control over the first sale. We typically do not worry about selling our PSPs or our copies of college textbooks.
But as Jennifer Waters of MarketWatch at the Wall Street Journal (or is it the War Street Journal?), this is being challenged for products being made abroad. If the Supreme Court upholds this decision by the appellate court, then the products you own that were made in China, Japan, Europe or anywhere else would have to give you permission to sell your products. iPods, HD TVs; PCs, furniture, books printed overseas, you name it. As Jonathan Band of Georgetown University Law Center has noted, "It means that it’s harder for consumers to buy used products and harder for them to sell them,". The implications for this are huge. For one, manufacturers would have an incentive to produce all their products overseas, giving them control over every resale. Another implication is that the U.S. government is once again regimenting, planning and controlling another aspect of economic life that has existed for a very long time.
Does the U.S. government really believe that this kind of economic interventionism can be enforced? The economic behavior of American will thus be altered toward the black market economy and the economic liberty to resell an product will be undermined. As Frederick Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises understood, an economic system of interventionism that attempts to regulate and regiment economic activities will slid towards totalitarianism as the State attempts to gain complete control over the lives of its' citizens. If the Supreme Court upholds this decision, then it will be up to the states of America to nullify this disastrous policy and protect the natural rights and economic liberties of the people within their state.
But now our economic liberty is being brought under siege once again with a U.S. Supreme Court Case that very few people know about. This Supreme Court Case known as Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons deals with the principle of first sale in copyright law. This is the idea within copy write law (and thus deals with intellectual property) that allows you to sell things like furniture, CDs, books, electronics, silverware and so on without getting permission from the copy write hold of these products. Since 1908 (when the Supreme Court ruled on this issue), we haven't had to worry about selling our stuff because the copy write only had control over the first sale. We typically do not worry about selling our PSPs or our copies of college textbooks.
But as Jennifer Waters of MarketWatch at the Wall Street Journal (or is it the War Street Journal?), this is being challenged for products being made abroad. If the Supreme Court upholds this decision by the appellate court, then the products you own that were made in China, Japan, Europe or anywhere else would have to give you permission to sell your products. iPods, HD TVs; PCs, furniture, books printed overseas, you name it. As Jonathan Band of Georgetown University Law Center has noted, "It means that it’s harder for consumers to buy used products and harder for them to sell them,". The implications for this are huge. For one, manufacturers would have an incentive to produce all their products overseas, giving them control over every resale. Another implication is that the U.S. government is once again regimenting, planning and controlling another aspect of economic life that has existed for a very long time.
Does the U.S. government really believe that this kind of economic interventionism can be enforced? The economic behavior of American will thus be altered toward the black market economy and the economic liberty to resell an product will be undermined. As Frederick Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises understood, an economic system of interventionism that attempts to regulate and regiment economic activities will slid towards totalitarianism as the State attempts to gain complete control over the lives of its' citizens. If the Supreme Court upholds this decision, then it will be up to the states of America to nullify this disastrous policy and protect the natural rights and economic liberties of the people within their state.
Christianity, Just War, and U.S. Foreign Policy: An Overview
About a year ago, I volunteered to give a small discussion/presentation about Christianity, Just War Theory, and how Christians should look at U.S. foreign policy to my college life group at my church. I was luck enough to find the document on my computer recent.y The following short article is more or less and overview to the topic, which may explain why it seems that I am relying on quite a bit of quotes and why it isn't a very long article. Nonetheless, this is just an introductory primer to the topic and my views about this topic. An much more detailed and reasoned argument for Just War and noninterventionism will come in the future (hopefully).
"From whence come wars
and fightings among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in
your members?"-
James 4:1
"If there’s any group of people that should be opposed to war,
torture, militarism, the
warfare state, state worship,
suppression of civil liberties, an imperial presidency, blind nationalism, government propaganda, and
an aggressive foreign policy, it is Christians." -Laurence M. Vance
War Fever
As it stands right now, the United States is currently
engaged in at least five different wars in the Middle East. These wars include
the War in Afghanistan, the War in Iraq, the bombing of Libya, drone attacks in
Pakistan (carried out via the CIA), and the bombing of Yemen. All of these wars
are unconstitutional, for they were not in response to an attack upon the
United States, nor were they constitutionally declared by Congress.
The war fever in America can still be considered high,
despite the fact that many Americans are beginning to question America's foreign
policy of endless war. But disturbingly enough, many if not most Christian
Americans have been some of the biggest champions of war, militarism, and the
growth of governmental power that comes with war, especially in recent years
with the advent of 9/11 and the War on Terrorism. Randolph Bourne once stated
that "War is the health of the state." It is disturbing that many
Christians have become so enthusiastic with war and the military, and that
they, along with many other Americans, equate war and militarism with freedom.
But what should the Christian attitude be towards war? What is a just war? What
constitutes a just war? Have American wars met the just war criteria? Can U.S.
foreign policy be fixed to accommodate a just war? These are some of the
questions that I hope to answer today.
Christian
Attitudes towards War
Laurence
M. Vance states the following about Christianity's peaceful nature: "If there was anything at all advocated by the early
Christians, it was peace. After all, they had some New Testament admonitions to
go by: “Blessed are the peacemakers,” Matthew 5:9. “Live peaceably with all
men,” Romans 12:18. “Follow peace with all men,” Hebrews 12:14. Aggression,
violence, and bloodshed are contrary to the very nature of Christianity. True,
the Bible on several occasions likens a Christian to a soldier. As soldiers,
Christians are admonished to put on the whole armor of God. The apostle Paul,
who himself said “I have fought a good fight,” told a young minister to “war a
good warfare.” But the Christian soldier in the Bible fights against sin, the
world, the flesh, and the devil. He wears the breastplate of righteousness and
the helmet of salvation. The weapons of the Christian are not carnal. His
shield is the shield of faith, and his sword is the Word of God. The New
Testament admonishes Christians to not avenge themselves, to do good to all
men, and to not render evil for evil. There is nothing in the New Testament
from which to draw the conclusion that killing is somehow sanctified if it is
done in the name of the state."
Justin Martyr, a Christian apologist stated the following
about war and the Christian attitude towards war: "“And we who had been
filled with war and mutual slaughter and every wickedness have each one all the
world over changed the instruments of war, the swords into plows and the spears
into farming instruments, and we cultivate piety, righteousness, love for all men,
faith and the hope which is from the Father Himself through the Crucified One.
We who hated and slew one another, and because of differences in customs would
not share a common hearth with those who are not of our tribe, now after the
appearance of Christ have become sociable, and pray for our enemies, and try to
persuade those who hate us unjustly in order that they, living according to the
good suggestions of Christ, may share our hope of obtaining the same reward
from God, Who is master of all.”
Christians throughout the Roman Empire critical of
military service and the Roman Empire. Christians often found themselves being
targeted by the Roman Empire because they declared that Jesus Christ is the
Lord, which was in direct opposition to the claims of the Roman government.
Church Father Lactantius explained the Roman Empire's mentality as follows:
“Truly the more men they have afflicted, despoiled, and slain, the more noble
and renowned do they think themselves. And captured by the appearance of empty glory,
they give the name of excellence to their crimes. If any man has slain a single
man, he’s regarded as contaminated and wicked. Nor do they think it right that
he should be admitted to this earthly dwelling of the gods. But he who has
slaughtered endless thousands of men, deluged the fields with blood, and
infected rivers with it, is admitted not only to a temple, but even to heaven.”
Lactantius then explained that Christians were “those who
are ignorant of wars,
who preserve concord with all, who are friends even to
their enemies, who love all men as
brothers, and know how to curb anger and soften with
quiet moderation every madness of the
mind.”
While Jesus Christ never addressed the subject of war
directly, he did admonish Christians to "Love your enemies, do good to
those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat
you." -Luke 6:27b-28
Some other passages in the Bible that further address the
Christian attitude toward their enemies are as follows:
"Dearly
beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath" (Romans
12:19)
"As
we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men" (Galatians
6:10)
The Just War Theory
Now comes the Christian Just War Theory, which Laurence
M. Vance notes was an "attempt by Augustine to reconcile Christian
participation in warfare with the morality of New Testament Christianity by,
among other things, distinguishing between soldiers’ outwardly violent actions
while waging war and their inwardly spiritual disposition. In its essence Just
War Theory concerns the use of force: when force should be used, and what kind
of force is acceptable. The timing of force relates to a country’s
justification for the initiation of war or military action. The nature of force
relates to how military activity is conducted once a country commits to use
force. The principle of the Just War is actually many principles, all of which
must be met for a war to be considered just."
It should be noted that the Just War Theory cannot be
found in Scripture. It is merely a reconciliation of war and the principles of
the New Testament.
The Just War Theory can be summed up as follows:
1. War must be self-defensive.-in response to a wrong suffered (like an invasion of territory).
2. There must be a wrong suffered-See point 1
3. All other options short of war must be exhausted (last
resort)-all diplomatic options that are non-war like must be tried.
4. Declaration by the appropriate authority-Congress must declare the war.
5. The objective must be attainable-the objective must be reasonable; waging war on communism or terrorism does not apply here.
6. Peace must be restored-no punative punishments imposed on the defeated; never become the aggressor yourself.
U.S. Foreign Policy
What then is to be done about U.S. foreign policy? Since
World War 1 and World War 2, the American people have come to unfortunately
accept the premise that the United States needs to pursue a foreign policy of
perpetual war and empire.
The Founding Fathers on Foreign Policy and War
George Washington once stated the following about
American foreign policy:
"The great rule
of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our external
relations to have with them as little political connection as possible....
Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none, or a very remote
relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of
which are essentially foreign to our concerns.... "
"Every
true friend of this country must see and feel that the policy of it is not to
embroil ourselves, with any nation whatever; but to avoid their disputes and
their politics; and if they will harass one another, to avail ourselves of the
neutral conduct we have adopted."
Said
James Madison:
"Of
all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded,
because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of
armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes
are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the
few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its
influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all
the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of
the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the
opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of
manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst
of continual warfare. . . . "
Said
Thomas Jefferson:
"Peace,
commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with
none."
"We
wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor with the
general affairs of Europe."
"I
am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and
little or no diplomatic establishment."
The
Founding Fathers endorse a foreign policy of noninterventionism.
Noninterventionism is a foreign policy of armed neutrality, whereby our country
refuses to fight other people's war, and that we shall not intervene in foreign
wars. War would only be entered into when our country was attacked or invaded.
Free trade (not the phony maneged trade of the WTO, NAFTA and CAFTA) and free
travel would be allowed to the greatest extend. Peace and liberty are the
ultimate goals.
Some
questions to ask ourselves
Haven't
America's war been just wars?
Should
the United States maintain a global military presence around the world?
Should
the United States go to war when other nations are being persecuted?
Should
the United States military be the social worker, policeman and essentially the
sacrificial lamb for the world?
Should
Christians join the military?
What
is wrong with a U.S. global empire?
Sources
Internet:
Books
to look at:
Christianity
and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State by Laurence M. Vance
A
Century of War: Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt by John V. Denson
The
Costs of War: America’s Pyrrhic Victories by John V. Denson
A Foreign Policy
of Freedom: Peace, Commerce and Honest Friendship by Ron Paul
The Empire has
no Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed by Ivan Eland
American Empire:
Before the Fall by Bruce Fein
Friday, October 12, 2012
Mark Thornton-Drugs:The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Mises on the Impossible Possition of Socialism
Socialism has only ONE way out of this position. Regardless of the fact that it holds power, it must still keep trying to appear as an oppressed and persecuted sect, impeded by hostile powers from pushing through the essential parts of its program, and so shifting onto others the responsibility for the non-appearance of the prophesied state of happiness. Since it can explain the failure of socialism only by the machinations of foreign capitalism, it necessarily arrives at a new concept of the offensive socialist international. Socialism can be realized only if the whole world becomes socialist; an isolated socialism of one single nation is said to be impossible.
--Ludwig von Mises. Nation, State, and Economy
From the Ludwig von Mises Facebook page.
--Ludwig von Mises. Nation, State, and Economy
From the Ludwig von Mises Facebook page.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
The Truth about Social Security and Medicare
As the national debt continues to skyrocket into oblivion, it should be obvious to any American that the U.S. government has a spending problem. The current offical national debt of the United States stands at $16 trillion. This number alone should frighten Americans and wake them up to the consequences of embarking on a welfare-warfare state project for almost 100 years. But for some reason, this has not sunk in for most Americans, who either want to expand the welfare state (modern liberals) or expand the warfare state (conservatives). But the costs of such social engineering of society are much greater.
As Gary North has noted, the real national debt for the U.S. has increased $11 trillion. How is this so? This increase was primarily due to unfunded liabilities, which are political promises politicians have made over the course of many year yet do not have the money at hand to pay for such promises. As Gary North states, "The expert here is Professor Lawrence Kotlikoff of Boston University. His most recent report says that total unfunded liabilities went from $211 trillion a year ago to $222 trillion this year."
So any calls for slashing federal spending in the billions over the course of several year is a pipe dream. The unfunded liabilities will continue to expand, thus defeating the purpose of any cuts in federal spending. But what programs contribute to this ever expanding problem of unfunded liabilities? The answer is two sacred pillars of the American welfare state: Medicare and Social Security.
But we must ask ourselves, can the U.S. government even begin to pay off both the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare and the whole of the U.S. national debt? I am beginning to think that the answer is no. The U.S. government will default.
As Gary North has noted, the real national debt for the U.S. has increased $11 trillion. How is this so? This increase was primarily due to unfunded liabilities, which are political promises politicians have made over the course of many year yet do not have the money at hand to pay for such promises. As Gary North states, "The expert here is Professor Lawrence Kotlikoff of Boston University. His most recent report says that total unfunded liabilities went from $211 trillion a year ago to $222 trillion this year."
So any calls for slashing federal spending in the billions over the course of several year is a pipe dream. The unfunded liabilities will continue to expand, thus defeating the purpose of any cuts in federal spending. But what programs contribute to this ever expanding problem of unfunded liabilities? The answer is two sacred pillars of the American welfare state: Medicare and Social Security.
Reaping a Whirlwind of Fiscal Disaster
Along with the Military-Industrial Complex, Social Security and Medicare are considered to be "sacred cows" which are politically immune from any cuts. Any talk of abolishing and phasing out these programs is off the table to most Americans. But failure to phase out these blatantly unconsitutional programs will only retard any genuine economic recovery; even the unfunded liabilities of trillions are enough the bring about a total destruction of the American econonmy. In order to even pay off the unfunded liabilities (this is not counting the rest of the federal budget), taxes would have to be raised so high that almost all economic activity would come to a hald with genuine productivity being destroyed. But we must ask ourselves, can the U.S. government even begin to pay off both the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare and the whole of the U.S. national debt? I am beginning to think that the answer is no. The U.S. government will default.
What to do? Default and End These Programs
If American are serious about ending and paying off the national debt of the United States, the first thing that needs to be done is to eliminate Social Security and Medicare. This proposal seems crazy and radical, but it is necessary. Why should Americans, especially current American workers, be forced to pay for the retirement of people who should have been saving for their retirement themselves, or at the very least get help from family, charity or the church? As George Reismen has stated:"Fundamentally, rights to entitlements of any kind, that must be paid for involuntarily by other people, are no more legitimate than the alleged property rights of slave owners in their slaves." George Reismen continues: "From its inception in 1935 to the present day, the Social Security system has served both to undercut people's motivation to provide for old age and retirement by means of saving and also their sheer ability to do so."
The Ponzi scheme of Social Security will eventually end. The welfare statism of both Medicare and Social Security will end when the government finally admits that it is broke. Defaulting sooner rather than latter will prevent greater economic pain later down the road.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Some Politically Incorrect Quotes from George Washington
From the Lew Rockwell Blog:
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
"Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty."
"The Constitution is the guide which I will never abandon."
"The Constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure."
"The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves."
And from The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers:
"Every true friend to this Country must see and feel that the policy of it is not to embroil ourselves, with any nation whatever; but to avoid their disputes and their politics; and if they will harass one another, to avail ourselves of the neutral conduct we have adopted."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)