Comments (49)

• Jesse

  This is incredible stuff. Thanks for putting all of these online for everyone to read.

  Published: July 14, 2009 10:18 AM

• End the Fed

  "Conservatives are calling for lower taxes and less government control, while on the other hand they are calling for a virtual holy war against Russia and China, with all the costliness, death and statism that such a war would necessarily entail."

  What better way to increase government control than through war?

  Besides, it creates gun making jobs and tank making jobs and bomber making jobs and and aircraft carrier making jobs, so it actually boosts the economy.

  Published: July 14, 2009 10:23 AM

• Olve

  Hope you're joking. Anyways, illegal states have no right to exist. If we want to liberate them, we have the right to destroy them (although tax payers' money should not be used for this). If they pose a direct threat to us, like the international Islamic movement, we have not just the right, but the obligation to use whatever means necessary to annihilate the enemy.

  Published: July 14, 2009 10:44 AM

• End the Fed

  "Anyways, illegal states have no right to exist."

  What makes a state "legal"? And "legal" with respect to whose law?

  Published: July 14, 2009 10:47 AM

• Norman

  Way to go LVMI! This is a splendid development, Faith & Freedom was an excellent pub and deserves to be re-recognized.

  I can't wait to read through all the issues completely!

  Published: July 14, 2009 10:59 AM

• Kevin

  About the Korean war... why was it such a bad thing to enter it? Look at Korea today... they have rebuilt their nation and prospered, and now trade extensively with the rest of the world and are a relatively wealthy nation. Was it not worth a war to prevent their slipping under the shadow of North Korea? Look at the vast difference between the two countries today.

  Published: July 14, 2009 11:19 AM

• Norman

  Question for Jeff: Are the issues that are already uploaded everything available, or are more issues on the way?

  Published: July 14, 2009 11:24 AM

• David Spellman

  I wonder where Olive is going to get the money and soldiers to destroy illegal states?

  And who is this "we" that has a right to destroy "them?"

  Published: July 14, 2009 11:28 AM

• End the Fed

  "About the Korean war... why was it such a bad thing to enter it? Look at Korea today... they have rebuilt their nation and prospered, and now trade extensively with the rest of the world and are a relatively wealthy nation. Was it not worth a war to prevent their slipping under the shadow of North Korea? Look at the vast difference between the two countries today."

  Well, the reason North Korea hasn't grown is because they've needed to put everything into their military. If there was minimal threat of war, they could finally start growing by allocating military resources elsewhere.

  Published: July 14, 2009 11:33 AM

• Tom Woods

  "About the Korean war... why was it such a bad thing to enter it?"

  Um, how about 3-4 million dead, for starters?

  Published: July 14, 2009 12:14 PM

• Kevin

  "Well, the reason North Korea hasn't grown is because they've needed to put everything into their military. If there was minimal threat of war, they could finally start growing by allocating military resources elsewhere."

  Start growing by how? More ceremonial worships to Kim Jung Il?

  ""About the Korean war... why was it such a bad thing to enter it?"

  Um, how about 3-4 million dead, for starters?"

  And how many would have died in the war if the western world had done nothing to help? How many would be dead now, either by starvation, forced labor, or torture?

  Published: July 14, 2009 1:13 PM

• John M

  "And how many would have died in the war if the western world had done nothing to help? How many would be dead now, either by starvation, forced labor, or torture?"

  1. What right does the state(US) have to tax its citizens, conscript them, and force them to expend their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to fight a war they dont believe in?

  2. There is no way of knowing how many would be dead. What we would know is that the blood of 3-4 million people wouldn't be on our hands. If 6 million would be dead it would be the fault of those who had killed, not Americans living thousands of miles away.

  3. Totalitarian regimes are unsunstainable in the long run. The more they expand by territory and population the faster they are likely to collapse because it costs more to maintain their hegemony than the territories they acquire by force can produce in return. Had NK acquired SK the regime may have very well collapsed by now and both NK and SK would be free.

  4. If you wished to intervene in the Korean dilemma as an individual you would have every right to. You could have packed your bags, bought a rifle and a ticket to Korea, and fought alongside SK. What you dont have a right to do is force your neighbors to come with you.

  Published: July 14, 2009 1:37 PM

• Renegade Division

  The reason why conservatives support liberty and collectivism at the same time because they believe that if they don't give to that part of collectivism then they will lose all their liberty.

  In a hypothetical scenario of no world threats, conservatives will support small govt and lesser military.

  But the way conservative philosophy is built up, the choice is between to give ALL of the Liberty, or give one small unit of freedom. So most conservatives choose to give one small unit of liberty everytime they are asked, than to risk giving away all their liberties.

  Consider it to be this way, a robber comes and says to you, "Write me a check for $1,000 for shoe polishing services, or I will rob you of all your money"(he is going to polish your shoe but it costs only $2 in market, he just wants a small amount of legal money, or large amount of illegal money).

  Almost all of us will choose to write him a check. You don't mind spending a small amount of money when the threat is that you might lose all of it.

  The fact is that by giving a valid payment to a robber you are inviting more and more robbers to come and follow this strategy. Of course beyond a limit you will become too agitated for losing small amounts of capital, you might revolt against it, so an equilibrium is established, where you are only robbed of enough amount of money you approve of.

  But, because the robbery takes place over a long period of time, you get mentally adjusted for giving large and large amount of money.
  Soon you are paying 30-40% of your income, to a bunch of robbers for services you don't really need, the milkman robber sells you milk at 15 times the market price, the shoe shining robber, the Teacher Robber(the worse of them) teaches your kids the virtue of paying 30-40% of your income to the robbers.
  Soon your kids grow up, and now they have lived in the world, where not paying up the robbers, maybe have consequences they cannot fathom. They develop a Stockholm syndrome with the robbers, soon when the robbers robbing your neighbors try to rob you too, your robbers fight them(of course you pay for the fight), because if you don't fight the neighboring robbers, then they will take away all your money.

  Published: July 14, 2009 1:48 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  If they pose a direct threat to us, like the international Islamic movement, we have not just the right, but the obligation to use whatever means necessary to annihilate the enemy.
  
  Seriously? I think that an implication of libertarianism is that when force is initiated, one has the right to enough force to counter that, but no more. To go beyond the force necessary is to initiate a new round of force, not a valid defense or justified retaliation. The fact that a nation may be a "threat" is not a sufficient justification in itself for annilihation of that nation.

  Published: July 14, 2009 1:52 PM

• LightBringer

  All states are illegal. North Korea and Saudi Arabia have just as much right to exist as the United States: none at all.

  The international Islamic movement, as a voluntary association of individuals who share a faith, is perfectly legitimate. The states that march under their banner to control and coerce citizens of the Muslim world are the enemy, as are all states. Remember, the Islamic power elite use the same conservative arguments to justify their existence as the Christian and secular power elite do in our countries. The coercive state is the enemy: noone else.

  Published: July 14, 2009 2:49 PM

• End the Fed

  "All states are illegal. North Korea and Saudi Arabia have just as much right to exist as the United States: none at all."

  That's right. A state isn't "legal" just because its own law says it is (which is circular); anybody can make a new state and make laws that say that, and that state would have to be just as "legal". A state isn't legal just because it's recognized by other states, because what makes those other states legal?

  Published: July 14, 2009 3:00 PM

• Russ

  LightBringer wrote:

  "The international Islamic movement, as a voluntary association of individuals who share a faith, is perfectly legitimate. The states that march under their banner to control and coerce citizens of the Muslim world are the enemy, as are all states."

  In Islamic culture, there really is no separation between state and religion as we know it, so the above isn't really true. Traditional Muslims look towards the day when the Caliph returns and rules the entire world under Shari'a law. And that world theocracy would most definitely not be libertarian-friendly.

  Published: July 14, 2009 3:31 PM

• Ryan

  Wow.. where do you guys get this stuff?

  Published: July 14, 2009 3:33 PM

• Alexander S. Peak

  To Jeffrey Tucker, I love you. (Platonically, of course.)

  I've been wanting exposeur to this ever since I first heard about it "Spiritual Mobilization" in the pages of Radicals for Capitalism.

  To Kevin,

  If some murderer says to me, "Either I murder these ten men, or you murder one of them and I murder zero," I will inform the murderer that I would rather him murder the ten and me as well than for me to murder even one of them. My conviction--that murder (i.e., the killing of an innocent or semi-innocent person) is naturally criminal--is so strong that I cannot help but to have zero intention of sullying my existence through engaging in it, even if the results would be (in the opinion of some) utilitarian. If you wish to call me a "cold-hearted libertarian" or whatever else because of my absolute and unyeilding rejection of murder, then so be it.

  (With that said, I would have no ethical objection of turning the gun given to me by the murderer on the murderer himself, if I were to think I could successfully achieve this.)

  I have to completely agree with Mr. M when he writes, "If you wished to intervene in the Korean dilemma as an individual you would have every right to. You could have packed your bags, bought a rifle and a ticket to Korea, and fought alongside SK. What you dont have a right to do is force your neighbors to come with you." This is my opinion precisely, so long as the individual does not damage the persons or property of anyone innocent.

  To Olve,

  Mr. Clem is completely correct when he writes, "[W]hen force is initiated, one has the right to enough force to counter that, but no more. To go beyond the force necessary is to initiate a new round of force, not a valid defense or justified retaliation."

  And LightBringer is correct in saying that "All states are illegal."

  Best,
  Alex Peak

  Published: July 14, 2009 4:13 PM

• Stephen Grossman

  Rothbard
  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.

  So the subjectivist Rothbard claims that banning trade with a militant, expansionist, collectivist empire will hurt us.
  Its a good thing that this corrupt intellectual was not President in WW2. Austrian economics must be removed from its subjectivist context and understood anew with Objectivism. It will sink into nihilism otherwise.

  Published: July 14, 2009 5:48 PM

• jcbutte

  I prefer to go back a few years. Leave imperial Japan alone and there is no pacific war, no communist china, no korean war, no vietnam war and no cambodian genocide. Would I trade this for the combined fleet still prowling the south china sea?

  Hell yes.

  Published: July 14, 2009 6:33 PM

• Russ

  Ryan wrote:

  "Wow.. where do you guys get this stuff?"

  Do you have anything of content to add?

  Published: July 14, 2009 6:37 PM

• LightBringer

  Russ: how then do you explain nations such as Dubai, which are majority Muslim and yet have a more laissez-faire economic policy than we do? Hell, how do explain Somalia? The Islamic Courts Union is effectively an anarcho-capitalist organisation, who support a private justice system based on traditional Muslim values. It is the 'enlightened' secular West who have been trying to destroy the world's only anarchist nation by funding the looters who want to take over and bombing Somalian innocents.

  Of course the Caliphate would be terrible for liberty, but if you had looked at Europe a few hundred years ago, would you have not concluded that there was no separation between state and religion in Christian culture?

  And Stephen, maybe you want to think about what you are proposing. You say that the state banning private corporations and individuals trading with whoever they choose is justified? Sounds to me like Rothbard is being the consistent laissez-faire advocate, and you, the subjectivist. Protectionism harms the citizens of all nations. By treating the USSR as a homogeneous blob to be condemned as evil rather than a group of unfortunate innocents oppressed by a monstrous totalitarian regime is simply nationalism. Begone, nihilistic and corrupt intellectual!

  Published: July 14, 2009 6:40 PM

• BioTube

  Mr. Grossman, it was Roosevelt and his ilk that created the Great Depression; they are responsible for Hitler's rise; the blood of every man, woman and child killed in the Holocaust is on their hands.

  Published: July 14, 2009 6:40 PM

• Alexander S. Peak

  Mr. Grossman,

  Dr. Rothbard believed in objective natural law, and considered protectionism to be a violation of this objective natural law. Why is protectionism a violation of objective natural law? Because it amounts to a violation of property rights, which Rothbard correctly argued are human rights and correctly argued are the only rights humans can have. (He also correctly argued that all natural rights are negative rights.)

  When you or any other criminal step in and use aggression to prevent me from trading my piece of silver for another man's cigar, you are not only violating that other man's objective, natural right to his justly-acquired cigar, you are also violating my objective, natural right to my justly-acquired piece of silver. What difference does it make that the other gentleman was unfortunate enough to be stuck in a statist environment where even more property rights are routinely violated? This is no excuse for the systematic violation of objective natural law at the hands of the state.

  Banning trade will and does hurt us, Mr. Grossman. Even beyond the very real, very objective fact that banning trade is a violation of objective law (and that any state that does it is a criminal gang) that hurts us by establishing the precedent that objective law is something our criminal overlords should be free to ignore, it moreover hurts us economically, as well, as any objective understanding of economics will confirm.

  I'm sorry, Mr. Grossman, but I fear that your position of supporting the state's violations of objective law will only sink us further into statism and ethical nihilism. I'm not saying this to be cute; I hope you realise that ethical nihilism is indeed the only product that can arise from a systematic ignoring of objective natural law. Thanks to the state, we live in a morass of lawlessness.

  I highly recommend checking out The Market for Liberty by Linda & Morris Tannehill. I think you will enjoy it. The authors care very deeply about objective, natural law, and are fairly consistant in their approach.

  Best regards (and I hope I haven't offended you by my strong comments),
  Alex Peak

  Published: July 14, 2009 6:45 PM

• BT

  I have said for many years now that the Vietnam (or in the argument here-Korean) War(s) were ignorant causes. Why? Because, as most Republicans will readily harp about, Communism as a system of government/economics never works!!! Isn't that the Republican mantra? If they believe that to be true, then why did they fight those wars? Why not let the Communist countries implode on themselves?

  To "End the Fed"

  "Well, the reason North Korea hasn't grown is because they've needed to put everything into their military. If there was minimal threat of war, they could finally start growing by allocating military resources elsewhere."

  Is this the best you can do for a counter argument? This is a bogus and ridiculous statement. They haven't NEEDED to put everything into their military! Why should they have done that? They are "surrounded" by Russia and China - I am sure one ,if not both, of these countries would have helped their little brother! Furthermore, North Korea could put 100% or 0% of its GDP into its military...in the end, the U.S. could have wiped it off the map regardless. Please, find a better argument!!! And do you seriously think that a centrally planned economy would have prospered if more resources were shifted away from military building? I don't think so!!

  To John M.:

  No, the state doesn't have a right to conscript. No, we wouldn't have the blood of 3 to 4 million on our hands. And yes, totalitarian regimes never last. However, while they do last, you can be assured that there will be more human calamity than if a war is fought to liberate the oppressed. Tens of millions have been killed under Communist and totalitarian regimes. I am pretty sure, though I haven't run the numbers, that all of the wars ever fought don't come to that tally - it could be an interesting project to delve into.

  Finally, it is obvious that most of you elite thinkers posting here do not know much about Islam. Try reading The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam - I think it will help some of you "intellectual optimists."

  Published: July 14, 2009 7:00 PM

• LightBringer

  There are people. They may be Muslim. They may also hold collectivist/statist ideals. There may even be correlation between these two variables. But that does not mean that Muslims are inherently statist. Thus, Islam is not inherently statist. To say otherwise is to irrationally attribute certain characteristics to a diverse group of individuals without evidence or reason.

  Published: July 14, 2009 7:14 PM

• BT

  To Mr. "Biotube":

  You should think about retracting your statement if you are trying to support Mr. Tucker and the other Libertarians posting here. By your logic, the U.S. is justified in going to war over matters that do not necessarily concern it. I mean, if the U.S. didn't overthrow totalitarian regimes, then we would effectively have the blood of all of the helpless citizens of that regime on our hands...would we not?
  

  Published: July 14, 2009 7:16 PM

• John M

  "Communism as a system of government/economics never works!!! Isn't that the Republican mantra? If they believe that to be true, then why did they fight those wars? Why not let the Communist countries implode on themselves?"

  "However, while they do last, you can be assured that there will be more human calamity than if a war is fought to liberate the oppressed. Tens of millions have been killed under Communist and totalitarian regimes. I am pretty sure, though I haven't run the numbers, that all of the wars ever fought don't come to that tally - it could be an interesting project to delve into."

  Contradiction?

  And no, you can't be assured that less calamity will be caused by a war to liberate the oppressed. Violence begets violence and hasn't solve a single human dilemma in 6000 years. Our intervention in WW1 caused WW2. Our intervention in WW2 caused the Cold War. Our intervention in the Cold War caused the War on Terror. Foreign intervention causes more problems than it solves. If people want to be free they will liberate themselves.

  Published: July 14, 2009 7:17 PM

• Mrhuh

  "So the subjectivist Rothbard claims that banning trade with a militant, expansionist, collectivist empire will hurt us.
  Its a good thing that this corrupt intellectual was not President in WW2. Austrian economics must be removed from its subjectivist context and understood anew with Objectivism. It will sink into nihilism otherwise."

  Why does no one ever look at the fact that it was free trade with China beginning under Nixon that led to the market liberaliztion of China in the 90's, which in turn is what led to them becoming an economic powerhouse. Also, the biggest problem of the Cold War was the fact that the U.S. was a huge funneler of foreign aid to the Soviets beginning with Herbert Hoover. Sure it was so that they wouldn't starve, but it of course ended up allowing the Soviet government (governments are always the chief recepients of foreign aid when such aid is from governments themselve) to survive longer than they would have and to also to support other Communist revolutions.

  Published: July 14, 2009 7:48 PM

• BT

  No, Mr. M...it is not a contradiction. I am simply stating that Communism doesn't work in the long run; however, it works long enough to kill lots of people!!! Still confused?

  Violence begets violence? So you are saying that if I (or the U.S.) takes the BOHICA approach to life, we should be fine and nobody will bother or harm us? Yeah right...give me a break!!! Have to love you dreamy-eyed Libertarians! I still wish all of you die-hards would pool your money together, buy an island, incorporate it, and show the rest of us stupid imbeciles how things are suppose to work...you have obviously got it all figured out.

  Published: July 14, 2009 8:01 PM

• BT

  To Mr. M:

  And I guess birds flying south in the fall cause winter?!?!?
  I would hardly say that the U.S. intervention CAUSED the subsequent events you mentioned. I am sure it played a part, but your (ignorant?) statement is an oversimplification of things....nice try!
  Are you a college professor or something? It sounds as though you stay in theory and hypothesis world entirely too much!!!

  Published: July 14, 2009 8:31 PM

• John M

  Its a contradiction in beliefs. First you make an argument in support is nonintervention, than proceed to make an argument against intervention. If you're a utilitarian (which you sound like) you can't believe that the communists should be allowed to "implode on themselves" while at the same time believe allowing them to implode will kill more people than going to war.

  Violence is only acceptable as a means of self defense. Perhaps I should have rephrased it "aggression begets aggression". And there is already a country that has adopted (for the most part) this foreign policy: Switzerland, does anyone ever bother the Swiss? Hitler didn't even bother the Swiss.

  Bastiat once said, "when goods dont cross borders, soldiers will." The best way to keep people from bothering you is to have free trade relations with them. If both countries are benefiting mutually from a trade relation it acts as a great disincentive for war.

  Published: July 14, 2009 8:31 PM

• Joe

  "I still wish all of you die-hards would pool your money together, buy an island, incorporate it, and show the rest of us stupid imbeciles how things are suppose to work...you have obviously got it all figured out."

  I'm in! Anyone else...?

  Published: July 14, 2009 8:35 PM

• BT

  To Mr. M:

  Well, Mr. M...I'm not a utilitarian. Does this solve the contradiction problem for you....according to you it does!!

  I am simply stating that a country can either intervene, go to war and MOST LIKELY reduce the number of deaths, or it can be hands off and watch a large number of deaths. Personally, my policy is "Stay on our side of the ocean(s), and let everyone else fight for their own freedom....in the meantime we can trade all we want to!!"

  A significant reason for the large numbers of casualties in war boils down to ego fights among generals and politicians. If this didn't happen, war would, more than likely, be much less costly than it usually is.

  
  

  Published: July 14, 2009 8:49 PM

• BT

  To Mr. M:

  Ahhh..the Swiss. I figured a bright individual like yourself would use that country as a "Supreme Example" of how things should be done.

  Did you ever stop to think, Mr. M., that Hitler may have avoided Switzerland because it would be too costly to take? You know, the Swiss are REQUIRED to own guns (at least they used to, I guess it is still the same), and all males ages 18 to 42 or so are required to be in the militia!!! Do you not think this had anything to do with Hitler's decision?
  

  Published: July 14, 2009 8:54 PM

• End the Fed

  "They are "surrounded" by Russia and China - I am sure one ,if not both, of these countries would have helped their little brother!"

  Yeah? If they really cared, why haven't they made North Korea more prosperous? China only "cares" because it doesn't want a U.S. army right on the border. It likes having North Korea as a buffer.

  "And do you seriously think that a centrally planned economy would have prospered if more resources were shifted away from military building? I don't think so!!"

  Yes, even a centrally planned economy, because all those weapons factories can be turned into car factories and computer factories to produce things that people actually value. Military spending doesn't produce any wealth.

  Published: July 14, 2009 9:04 PM

• Russ

  LightBringer wrote:

  "Hell, how do explain Somalia? The Islamic Courts Union is effectively an anarcho-capitalist organisation, who support a private justice system based on traditional Muslim values. "

  You obviously either do not understand libertarianism, or you do not understand traditional Islam, or both. Islam recognizes only one legal system; that of Shari'a. This legal system requires that atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, homosexuals, etc., be killed, not to mention that it encourages the stoning of adulteresses, the "honor" killing of young Muslim women who don't wear their headresses or hold hands in public with non-Muslim boyfriends, and forced clitoridectomies. It allows the enslavement of non-Muslims, and historically forbade that others convert to Islam, so that they could remain slaves, since according to Shari'a Muslims cannot be held as slaves by other Muslims. Islam also "graciously" allows non-Muslims who are "people of the Book" (Christians, Jews, and according to some interpretations, Zoroastrians) to live among Muslims and practice their religion of choice if they only agree to pay a "jizya" or head tax, which must be payed yearly in a publicly humiliating ceremony. This is the Islamic idea of "religious tolerance". A Shari'a legal system does not recognize the right of others to choose the "private defense agency" of their choice, or recognize the legitimacy of any non-Muslim court of law.

  Yes, Islam does not require a state, but it is not a libertarian world view by any stretch of the imagination. It's about a totalitarian as they come. That's the problem with some libertarians, especially anarcho-libertarians. You're so focused on the State as the source of all evil, that you think only the State is capable of violating peoples' freedoms.

  Published: July 14, 2009 9:12 PM

• Gil

  "Mr. Grossman, it was Roosevelt and his ilk that created the Great Depression; they are responsible for Hitler's rise; the blood of every man, woman and child killed in the Holocaust is on their hands."

  It's ilk like this that make sure Libertarians stay in corners of society. Saying refusing to trade invites war is mafia/forced trade. "I you don't trade with me I'll come around and beat the crap out of you." Likewise Hitler and the Nazis didn't have a choice? The U.S. forced them to gas everyone they didn't like? Put down the bong Biotube, you sound like a raving lunatic.

  Published: July 14, 2009 9:18 PM

• End the Fed

  Refusing to trade invites war because it makes war more profitable. An extreme case would be something like cutting off a country's food supply: they can either go to war or starve. If they don't go to war, they die. If they go to war, they at least have a chance. They have nothing to lose.

  Published: July 14, 2009 9:34 PM

• Gil

  Gee, There's goes the 'freedom to choose' your business acquaintances. If I had a blue with the grocer I normally frequented and went elsewhere and told people of his ways such that he was losing business, income and was finding it hard to make ends meet then by your logic, ETF, he can find me in the street, beat the crap out of me with his baseball bat because I initiated force against him by lowering his trading opportunities and with the bills piling up he quite frankly felt he had not much to lose (at least he'll get fed in jail).

  Published: July 15, 2009 12:48 AM

• End the Fed

  Nobody's saying that war is acceptable. Just that protectionism makes it more likely to happen.

  Why is it more likely to happen? Let's play a numbers game. Two countries each make 100 utility under free trade. Each country has 0.5 probability of winning a war, but a war costs 10 utility for each side. The winner treats both countries as a single country (no protectionism), so 200 utility is made. So the winner gets 180 utility after considering the cost of the war. So the expected utility for a country waging war is 90, because each has the same chance of winning. But this is less than the 100 utility a country makes without a war, so war is not profitable.

  Now let's say there is some protectionism, and each country makes 95 utility instead, due to the loss of specialization benefits. But this is still more than the expected utility of 90 with war. So war is still not profitable.

  Now add in more protectionism, so each country makes 90 utility. Depending on each country's risk aversion, you can have war or not.

  Add even more protectionism, so each country makes 85 utility. But this is less than the expected 90 utility a country would get for waging the war. So war is slightly profitable.

  Keep adding more protectionism, and you make war more and more likely, because the "bet" has a higher and higher return on "investment".

  Published: July 15, 2009 1:38 AM

• BT

  To Gil:

  "It's ilk like this that make sure Libertarians stay in corners of society. Saying refusing to trade invites war is mafia/forced trade. "I you don't trade with me I'll come around and beat the crap out of you." Likewise Hitler and the Nazis didn't have a choice? The U.S. forced them to gas everyone they didn't like? Put down the bong Biotube, you sound like a raving lunatic."

  Thank you, thank you. I couldn't have said it better!!! Finally, someone with a brain posts here!!

  To Russ:

  You hit it right on with Islam!!! Thanks for the post!!

  I still think that these lunatic, ultra-libertarians need to put their money and efforts where their mouths are!!! Who is preventing all of them from testing their governmental/social experiment? I am sure a country like Indonesia would be willing to part with one of its islands...for a price. But nooooo, extreme libertarians continue to sit in the greatest country the world has ever seen and spout stupidity!! I WANT TO SEE SOMEONE PUT THESE IDEAS INTO PRACTICE. GIVE THE DOUBTING WORLD PROOF!!!!

  I respect the writings of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson....most of you posting here have yet to gain any of my respect! I think most of you oversimplify things and twist true libertarianism. Heck, if left up to you anti-violence/anti-aggression types (nice remix on the wording Mr. M; changing the wording really didn't help your argument) we would still be sitting under British rule!! Violence can (and has) solved problems...just ask the bully on the playground who is finally faced down! I know b/c I have done it!

  To End the Fed:

  You are a moron. I wasn't suggesting that Russia or China would help economically (which is laughable in itself; imagine it..two communist countries trying to help a third communist country prosper!!! Really? What school did you attend?). I was simply stating that North Korea need not pour everything (or anything) into its military because Russia and/or China would come to its aid in the event of an all out war with the United States!!! Thus, North Korea should be able to focus all (or most) of its attention on producing other goods for its citizens. And End the Fed, I would hardly say that a centrally planned economy would prosper; be better off maybe, but not prosper - again, moron. Finally, you contradict yourself. You told me that military spending doesn't produce wealth, but you told Gil that war could be profitable. Isn't there a problem here? Well, Mr. End the Fed, military spending may not create wealth, but when has a Communist country wanted to create wealth and prosperity for its citizens?
  

  Published: July 15, 2009 5:24 PM

• John M

  "Did you ever stop to think, Mr. M., that Hitler may have avoided Switzerland because it would be too costly to take?"

  More costly than Moscow?

  
  "Heck, if left up to you anti-violence/anti-aggression types (nice remix on the wording Mr. M; changing the wording really didn't help your argument) we would still be sitting under British rule!!"

  1. The principle I followed is the principle of non-aggression, the 'remix' was merely a clarification.

  2. Britain violated the natural rights of man, committing aggression againsts its populace. Defending against aggression is, as previously stated, justified. In other words, "resistance to tyranny is service to God." - Thomas Jefferson

  "most of you posting here have yet to gain any of my respect!"

  Darn.

  
  "You are a moron."

  It is generally agreed that when, in the course of intellectual debates, one side begins employing ad hominems to further his case, that side has lost.

  To conclude, you have failed to effectively articulate how your position(foreign intervention) is upheld by a deontological/natural law view or even by a less ethically righteous utilitarian/consequentalist view.

  If foreign intervention violates natural law and doesn't yield any utilitarian benefits of security or prosperity (and in fact has the reverse effect of less security and propserity) then on what grounds do you defend your policy of pre-emptive war and military adventurism?

  Published: July 15, 2009 5:46 PM

• Mike

  So, is this the result of the Austrian school gaining more prominence as the only coherent explanation of the crisis, that more traditional republicans and "conservatives" are landing here looking for a rebuttal to Obama that actually makes sense, instead of just the usual republican nonsense?

  Honest question for all the non-libertarian, pro-interventionists on this thread. How did you find your way here?

  Published: July 15, 2009 6:27 PM

• BT

  To Mr. M:

  It might have been more costly than Moscow, but we will never know because it wasn't tried!! Let me put it to you this way - too costly for too little gain (a simple cost/benefit analysis).

  Well....Hitler, Stalin, etc. violated the natural rights of man too!

  Glad to see you use a Jefferson quote..it made my day!

  I love how everyone brings up the ad hominem crap. Maybe when my blood boils from arguing, I should cool off before posting again. As you can imagine, it is difficult not to become frustrated when an individual doesn't understand what another is trying to say.

  Again, foreign intervention is NOT my personal position. Any pretenses made to it are simply to show that there is another side to the argument. The only reason it is ever alluded to is because most people posting here don't do a credible job of expressing what they really think about violence and its role in society. You all sound like you have a collective yeast infection!! At any rate, it doesn't matter. Now that your messiah is in office, there shouldn't be anymore U.S. aggression and interventionism. Remember? He wants to talk everything out with despots and sing "kumbaya."

  Question for you Mr. M: Do you think that America's entrance into WWII was interventionism? If so, at what point would you think it morally proper to enter into said war? Or, what about 9/11? Is our going over to Afghanistan interventionism? Should we have stayed at home and sipped tea instead? If you people would start providing sound arguments to real life problems instead of hypothetical ones, I would be more inclined to listen!! In other words, tell me how you think a particular (real) scenario should have been handled. Might not agree, but I could at least get a different perspective from my own!!! Even this will have its flaws though because you will have to hypothesize about the results of your alternative action. But please, enlighten this inferior mortal incapable of rational thought.

  To Mike:

  I haven't noticed any interventionists or traditional republicans/conservatives on this thread. What I have noticed is a few people who would like for the ultra libertarians to remove their heads from utopia and recognize that the world is a little more complex than their simple theories about how everything would work perfect if we embrace their ideology. Well, it would work perfectly if you could get everyone in the world to embrace it, but you can't do that!!! The world is too far gone. Maybe if the state had never been allowed to exist...maybe.

  Published: July 15, 2009 7:58 PM

• Economics specialist

  The Illegal states have no right to exist.

  1. What makes a state "legal"? And "legal" with respect to whose law?

  2. What better way to increase government control than through war?

  3.who is this we that has a right to destroy "them?"
  What right does the state(US) have to tax its citizens, conscript them, and force them to expend their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to fight a war they dont believe in?

  5.If you wished to intervene in the Korean dilemma as an individual you would have every right to. You could have packed your bags, bought a rifle and a ticket to Korea, and fought alongside SK. What you dont have a right to do is force your neighbors to come with you.

  Published: July 16, 2009 2:55 AM

• Mike

  OK, I really have no interest getting involved in this thread, but I really am curious. There are some people here who seem to be relatively new (not being very familiar with Rothbard, not having heard strong arguments against WWII and the WoT that are well represented on this site) and I'm not saying they're inferior because they haven't moved to our orthodox truths just yet. So BT, Gil, and Russ, in particular, I'm honestly just curious how long you've been visiting Mises.org and how you found the site.

  Published: July 16, 2009 4:43 AM

• BT

  Well Mike,

  As hard as this might be for you to believe, I have been coming to this sight for about 10 months now. I have enjoyed most of the articles read on here. However, every once in a while I read one that is a little disturbing to me. Now, this could be because I don't actually believe in what is being stated, but I would like to think that it has more to do with the lack of a solid, credible, and REALISTIC argument.

  I heard about the site through a fellow friend of mine as I was searching for some good economic reading (I don't and never have believed in the economic crap shoved down our throats at public institutions). I generally consider myself to be inquisitive, a truth-seeker, etc. However, I am very skeptical too; so, for me to accept an idea I have to have hard evidence and a good argument. Neither of these have been presented on this thread in my opinion. If you "holier than humanity types" want to be understood, you should start by articulating your ideas in a better manner. You, Mike, are the guiltiest of all. I sense that you are perturbed with us sub-humans; however, you refuse to shed your infinite wisdom with us. You didn't even suggest an article for us to read in regard to the WWII argument!!

  I will admit that I have not had a chance to read any of Mises', Hazlitt's, or Rothbard's works. However, I have every intention of doing so as soon as I find some time (which should be real soon). Hopefully, they will be able to articulate some of these harder topics because God knows their successors aren't doing a good job. I would estimate that about 80% of the content on this website I had already deduced in my own meager mind; apparently however, my mind has met its threshold for reasoning and logic. Now it is up to smarter people to point me to the light.

  Sadly, before coming to this site, I thought I had finally found my political philosophy in the libertarian concept; however, I currently call myself a "modified libertarian" because there are one or two issues that continue to perplex and bother me (at least the way they are presented here).

  Hope this answers your question Mike. By the way, Mike - just out of curiosity, what is a guy like you engaged in that would allow you to post a response at 4:43 a.m.? Do you work third shift or are you just an early riser?

  Published: July 16, 2009 6:16 PM