The Real Aggressor
A sign of our time is the split-personality of the conservatives, wrote Rothbard in 1954. Many to the right of center are off on a schizophrenic pursuit of both liberty and collectivism.
In domestic affairs this regrettable condition is gradually being recognized for what it is. But the time is nigh for conservative foreign policy, as well, to be psychoanalyzed in hope of a cure!
Conservatives call for free trade and free enterprise, yet also clamor for absolute embargoes on trade with Communist nations. Have they forgotten that both parties to free exchange benefit from trade? For our government or any others to prohibit trade is a vicious example of socialistic policy; it injures the Communist countries to be sure; it also injures us. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (17)
Murry's advise on trading with the so-called enemy is proved by our trade with China. Only one politician is carrying on his libertarian tradition: Ron Paul. He is our only hope for a second American Revolution!
Published: December 28, 2007 1:59 PM
How could there be "free trade" with the Soviet Union or other Marxist ruled countries in 1954?
There were no private companies to trade with in these countries, indeed free trade in these countries was forbidden (punishable by death).
Or was the late Murry Rothbard suggesting trade with the Marxist government of the Soviet Union? This would largely be about selling high tech goods in return for commodities (such as oil or gold). One can make a case that this is good and a case that it is bad - but trade with a government is never just simple "free trade".
As for the People's Republic of China the situation is somewhat different - given the many private companies there.
Duncan Hunter style "protection" from Chinese imports is no real solution for the problems of manufacturing industry in the West - what needs to be done is to reduce government spending and taxes, and to get rid of regulations, for example "anti trust" regualtions.
However, the words "so called enemy" are disturbing.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was not a "so called enemy" it was an enemy. Even if someone knew nothing about its activities the very name should give it away - not just the word "Socialist" but the fact that the word "Russia" is NOT in the name. This is no accident, the U.S.S.R. was set up by V.I. "Lenin" in the hope that it would one day be a world regime. Spreading Marxism to every part of the world - by whatever means.
As for the People's Republic of China, it has indeed abandoned full socialism (in practice, if not in theory), it has gone beyond "Lenin"'s temporary retreat in the face of reality (the N.E.P.).
However, it remains a hostile power. The government lauches cyber attacks and other hostile operations quite often. And the military build up is impressive.
The ideology still plays at least lip service to Marxism (with its dreams of world domination), but adds Chinese nationalism to the mix.
The P.R.C. is in some ways, although not others, similar to Nazi Germany in the 1930's.
There are many large private companies, but in the end there is no basic rule of law - and the regime has a hostile agenda.
There are important differences - for example antisemitism is not a factor in the case of the P.R.C.
Also China is simply a much bigger country than Germany (even Germany in the 1930's).
Perhaps most importantly government spending and taxes are much higher in Britain and the United States than they were in the 1930's.
Even if there had been total free trade with Nazi Germany it is unlikely that manufacturing industry in Britain and the United States would have been greatly damaged (it might have been helped in some ways).
However, with modern levels of government spending and taxation, manufacturing industry in most of the West can not really cope with the influx of Chinese goods.
"So what, we get goods more cheaply".
How nice, but as free traders since Sir Dudley North have understood there can be a few problems if nothing can compete - and David Ricardo's law of comparitive advantage does not totally cover it.
However, again, the response should not be "protectionism". It should be to radically reduce government spending (i.e. to radically roll back the "entitlement programs") and taxation (an end to such things as Capital Gains tax and the death tax, and a much lower Corporation tax would be a good start) - and to radically deregulate.
Published: December 28, 2007 3:33 PM
The Korean war a "civil war" and "there is considerable evidence that it was begun by the south".
There is much of this type of Soviet stuff in the writings of the late Murry Rothbard. But why anyone should choose to republish it I do not know, unless the purpose is to warn people against supposing that Uncle Sam is always wrong - and to warn them against believing, as Murry Rothbard seemes to have, anything that is said by the enemies of the West.
Unlike these enemies, Murry Rothbard always meant well, and to honestly believe lies (because they fit in with one's view of Uncle Sam) is a very different thing from telling lies.
So may Murry Rothbard rest in peace.
If there is a heaven he is there - as he meant no harm.
Published: December 28, 2007 3:44 PM
Paul Marks,
Uncle Sam is almost always wrong. This collectivist entity shows its most barbarous side when dealing with foreign peoples. Whether in subjugating the Philippines or supporting the suppression of natives in Guatemala, death and destruction accompany Uncle Sam’s interventions. This is a truth regardless of motive.
Someone should do an empirical study on the correlation between the “Uncle” nickname and the level of criminality of the regime: “Uncle Sam” (USA), “Uncle Ho” (Ho Chi Minh), “Uncle Billy” (William T. Sherman), “Uncle Sam” (Ulysses S. Grant), “Uncle Abe” (Lincoln), and Roosevelt’s favorite, “Uncle Joe” (Stalin) serve as examples.
Of course, there will have to be a compare/contrast with father type monikers, i.e. “Big Daddy” Idi Amin. By the way, the term “Founding Fathers” seems not to appear until after they had passed, according to James E. Clapp, author of Random House Webster's Dictionary of the Law. (This question is for Prof. Woods.) At any rate, having the nickname while alive must be stipulated.
Any bets that the more affectionate the title, the more devil in the details?
Published: December 28, 2007 6:49 PM
I remember when we traded with the USSR and China during the cold war. Neither country had anything to offer that Americans would buy, but both were desperate for food, so "trade" with them amounted to the US giving them massive amounts of wheat and corn in exchange for IOU's everyone knew they would never pay. We propped up communism in both countries for decades by feeding their people.
Rothbard is an interesting character. His histories of economics are amazing, but his flirtation with the left ruined his histories of war and politics. Most professional historians are Marxists and Rothbard accepts their twisted histories as fact.
Published: December 28, 2007 11:15 PM
Paul Marks: "However, with modern levels of government spending and taxation, manufacturing industry in most of the West can not really cope with the influx of Chinese goods."
I agree with most of your remarks in your post, but I have to take exception to this one. A couple of years ago I researched US manufacturing for an article I wrote using data available on the internet, mostly from the BEA. At the time, the US manufacturing sector alone was almost the size of the entire economy of China, and it was growing. Recently, we have learned that the Chinese economy is about 40% smaller than previously thought because the Chinese weren't giving us the proper pricing data for calculating real, as opposed to nominal, growth. So today it's clear that our manufacturing sector (about 12% of the economy) is far large than the entire Chinese economy. Also, the US has the largest manufacturing sector in the world. And it continues to grow at a healthy rate. China doesn't threaten US manufacturing because we manufacturer very few consumer goods. The US manufactures producers goods. The real threat to US manufacturing is high taxes and regulations.
Published: December 28, 2007 11:24 PM
And the mischaracterization of Rothbard as a commie by conservatives for not allowing anti-communism to drive him to the point of advocate the warfare state continues to this day. Shame Shame Shame.
Published: December 29, 2007 4:54 AM
The statement "What democracy has done is simply to increase the number of State groups" deserves comment, but so far there has been none. Does this mean that since 1954 others reading Rothbard's words agreed that the US and other states that conduct elections are democracies?
In fact all states conduct elections such that candidates can "win" even if most voters do not vote for them! More significantly, debate of this illegal use of "ballots to defeat the franchise" is suppressed by the free media.
Until we admit that states can ONLY conduct antidemocratic elections with complicity of those who control the public agenda, we remain victims of what Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky described in 'Manufacturing Consent', see: http://www.prwatch.org/node/6068
Published: December 29, 2007 9:27 PM
Fundamentalist,
"Also, the US has the largest manufacturing sector in the world. And it continues to grow at a healthy rate."
Does this include American manufacturers who have plants OUTSIDE the U.S.? Does it include foreign manufacturers who have plants WITHIN the U.S.?
Also, at times it appears that you take a conservative position. Are you a libertarian who is conservative? I'm not asking so that I can criticize you...only so I can better understand where you're coming from.
Published: December 31, 2007 12:59 AM
He knows much about economics though he should not blend economics with psy. as he has done with the term schizophrenia and using the "Split Personality" metaphor. Personalities such as split do not exist in the human mind. There are multi. personalities though none split.
In the 19th century the term schizophrenia was coined by a german psy. and since those times, much of what was thought to be true about the illness has since been proven to be completely wrong. It is an illness afflicting 1% of the human population according to world wide research.
for further reading and new knowledge see:
http://www.bcss.org
Published: December 31, 2007 5:21 AM
The www.bcss.org site I posted appears to be none functional at the present time so am posting another which is within the same domain:
http://www.mentalhealth.com/book/p40-sc02.html
Published: December 31, 2007 5:39 AM
IMHO: "Does this include American manufacturers who have plants OUTSIDE the U.S.? Does it include foreign manufacturers who have plants WITHIN the U.S.?"
I don't know. I didn't check the data that closely. It's the BEA GDP data which I thought included just domestic producers, but probably includes foreign owned firms, like Toyota, etc.
IMHO: "Also, at times it appears that you take a conservative position. Are you a libertarian who is conservative?"
I haven't really thought about it. I think I'm an old conservative, like the ones Hayek describes in "Fatal Conceit." But I also think I'm libertarian though not anarchist.
Published: December 31, 2007 6:56 AM
Fundamentalist,
"I haven't really thought about it. I think I'm an old conservative, like the ones Hayek describes in "Fatal Conceit." But I also think I'm libertarian though not anarchist."
Thank you for your honest response to my question. Admittedly, my reading list is now about a mile long, but I will add "Fatal Conceit" to the list.
As for anarchism...I'm not sure that it can work, as the term "anarchist" carries with it a great responsibility, and I don't know that most people are up to the challenge...the ability to live one's life as one sees fit, while at the same time not imposing their will upon another.
There are people who claim to be anarchists...mostly because it sounds very cool...but in addition to doing as they wish, want people to bend to their will. The reality is that they're not anarchists at all. So, I am very skeptical and quite cautious around anyone who claims to be an anarchist.
A very Happy New Year's to you and yours.
Published: January 1, 2008 2:31 AM
IMHO, Happy New Year to you, too!
Published: January 1, 2008 9:35 AM
Every time someone comes up with government spending, you see the money allocated to benefit few enterprises in the name of public wealth.
War is one of the kind.
War is a business of its own. But is very difficult to establish the direct connections between the warfare expenditures and the profits. If we investigate the balance sheet of some of the wars, even the smallest interventions, we could easily find out the short term profits, and the long terms options resulting from it.
In a matter of fact, there is no big difference between managing war, or managing crime. Crime is war in a county environment. Apparently there is crime where the opportunities are off limits for certain neighborhoods. The reason is simple: there are rules.
For many reasons, all very fluid in space and time, the rules are made to avoid the free exchange of trade and services. With the exclusion, the subversion of the rules are imperative for the ones who believe in imposing their own business by force.
With an army, you may even be able to improve law enforcement to give brutal force some substance. This is always the main question for an army: which is the right law? And the easy answer, martial law.
In the future the aims of the war shall be more precise. Just like in Old Greece. We need corn, we need cattle, we need water.
With more control over the economical targets of war, maybe we’ll learn how to avoid crime in our towns. Who is making money controlling the drugs? Are they paying taxes? Are the taxes paying for the hospitals? Is this good business or bad business for the community? Look at the balance sheet.
Who is making money stealing cars? Or even, who is making money from stolen cars? Look again at the balance sheet.
The moment we change our minds and start thinking about shooting and killing ( that’s the point, is it not?) as a regulation to more economic opportunities, all this right and left rhetoric will be history.
With so many people in the planet, it won’t be worth to control any minor vice. Profits will open access to the entrepreneurs with vision to large populations looking for any product or service.
Good government spending shall be taxing them the right way, in order not to asphyxiate business between poor people. Controlling the balance sheet on line, that’s where the public money should go.
Published: January 2, 2008 10:33 AM
If I understand Rothbard, there is no meaningful distinction between a nation-state that cognizes, however imperfectly, the doctrine of individual liberty and a totalitarian regime that butchers its citizens by the millions (and does so in perfect keeping with its foundational creed). His remarks implicitly confer upon the latter a sovereignty that others are bound to respect. Any given nation-state, it would seem, enjoys as much (or as little) territorial integrity as the next, simply by virtue of its existence. States are not merely illegitimate, but equally so. Gradations do not exist, especially where American foreign policy is, or ought to be, concerned. Do I understand correctly?
Hypothetically, where would an armed, native, minarchist revolution fit into this picture? Insofar as such a movement would constitute a state in the wings, would it be guilty of “meddling” in the affairs of the regime it aimed to topple? Or suppose the U.S. took a hand in arming the rebels. Would such aid delegitimize the minarchist revolt in Rothbard’s view (assuming he had granted legitimacy to begin with)? Or would the revolution merit Rothbard’s support, even as the U.S. policy did not?
Frankly, I can’t square this present Rothbard post with what he wrote elsewhere, especially Conceived in Liberty. Why is Shay’s Rebellion one thing and the Prague Spring another? I’m sure there’s some bright-line distinction that’s escaped me here.
Published: January 2, 2008 7:06 PM
Fellow Traveler, I haven't read much of Rothbard, but from what I have understood of him he was in favour of steps towards liberty, just so long as anarchism was the ultimate goal.
Published: January 2, 2008 7:13 PM