Afghanistan War: The Take Away

13 years, 2 months, 3 weeks, and 1 day 

The Afghanistan War is finally over at least in the sense that there will no more US combat missions for the time being. The take away from this ordeal is trillions of dollars (US) have been used and 2,356 American soldiers have died.  This is not to mention other nations service members that that died in combat. And it does not include the thousands of service members that commit suicide every year, an average of 22 per month in the US. These numbers do not include the medical costs to injured troops and the care they receive after injury. This does not include the pensions and retirements received by service members either. 

In September of this year (2014) a Bilateral Security Agreement was signed by the US and Afghan Governments allowing the US to continue funding, arming and training the Afghan Security Forces for another 10 years. 

"The deal stipulates long-term U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and access to numerous bases and installations in the country, including facilities located in Bagram, home to the notorious U.S. military prison. The pact does not detail the exact number of U.S. troops to remain, but Obama has previously stated he plans to cut U.S. troops down to 9,800 by the beginning of 2015, then cut that number by half at the end of next year, with further cuts slated for the end of 2016. As of earlier this year, there were approximately 50,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, 34,000 of which were American." Writes Sarah Lazare, staff writer for CommonDreams.org

Also from that article.

According to Peter Lems, Program Officer at the American Friends Service Committee, "That's one of the biggest problems with the War on Terror since September 11: these wars don't end," said Lems. "We have this crazy situation where we have undeclared wars and, perhaps because of the nature of undeclared conflicts, it's easy to look at them as dissipating but never-ending."

The deal also allows the U.S. to pursue "counter-terrorism" missions as long as they "complement" those of the Afghan military and "authorizes United States government aircraft and civil aircraft that are operated by or exclusively for United States forces to enter, exit, overfly, land, take off, conduct aerial refueling, and move within the territory of Afghanistan." Critics warn that the stipulation is likely to allow the U.S. to continue its covert drone wars against the region, including neighboring Pakistan.

Under the agreement, the U.S. is to play a critical role in "advising, training, equipping, supporting, and sustaining" the Afghan military, as well as "developing intelligence sharing capabilities; strengthening Afghanistan’s Air Force capabilities; conducting combined military exercises." Many warn that "training" is in fact cover for holding onto bases and other geopolitical footholds.

According to Lems, this provision sets the conditions for long-term U.S. domination. "To have the U.S. fully fund that apparatus will lead to dependence, but also encourage Afghan officials to use force and violence the way the U.S. has," he said."

So while the US has decided to pull out a large proportion of the troops in the country, this deal allows more to stay and the continuation of the funding and arming of this foreign army. It also allows immunity to US forces still in the country. This is a hotly contested aspect of the US presence in Afghanistan. Since the beginning of Afghan campaigns US service personnel were granted a certain immunity to crimes against Afghan civilians, including murder. With an estimated 21,000 civilians killed since operations began it seems immunity is getting it's use. Sadly.

So the take away on Afghanistan is this.

The US has put it's citizens into deeper debt with it's central bankers. It has made millionaires of designers and builders of machines that maim and kill. It has subjected it's citizens to death in the name of war. And it will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. 

The Best Sandwich for Everyone by Dan Pratt

The Best Sandwich for Everyone

A modest proposal for Election Day

NOVEMBER 03, 2014 by DAN PRATT

Filed Under : Democracy

Do you have a favorite sandwich? If so, then it must be the best sandwich in the world. No other sandwich can satisfy like your sandwich can, right? Everyone should enjoy the best sandwich in the world, and no one should be exempt. By golly, we have to make sure everyone gets that awesome sandwich because otherwise there would be no justice in the world. We had better get the word out.

You should find like-minded people who like the same sandwich that you do. Luckily, there are two major national sandwich parties that each advocate a certain sandwich. There is the Ham and Cheese Party and the Peanut Butter and Jelly Party. Simply find the sandwich party that most closely approximates your favorite sandwich. What's that you say? Neither of those two sandwiches are even close to your favorite sandwich? Nonsense! If your favorite sandwich has meat, you belong to the Ham and Cheese Party. If your favorite sandwich has no meat, you belong to the Peanut Butter and Jelly Party. It's that simple. Don't confuse the situation with nuances. Don't try to tell me you're allergic to any of those things. You will adapt. Don't bother me about allegedly low-quality ingredients. It all tastes the same anyway. Just pick one of the two sandwich parties.

There is another thing you should know. There are alternative sandwich parties that advocate some really ridiculous sandwiches like BLTs, patty melts, or grilled cheese. Do not be tempted by those alternative sandwich parties. Sure, you might find a third party that advocates your exact sandwich, but those sandwiches will never win a majority vote, so don't even try. Oh, and most important of all: Never, EVER, try to tell me that you don't like sandwiches. If you know anyone who claims they don't like sandwiches, tell them what will happen if they don't advocate a national sandwich: no one will get any sandwiches and everyone will die. Some people will try to push the issue by saying that people could potentially choose any sandwich regardless of what everyone else is doing. Or they will say that people should be able to choose whether to have a sandwich at all. If you meet someone like this, attack them personally and publicly ridicule them for suggesting that people are actually capable of being responsible for their own lunches.

Now that you're a member of a major sandwich party, you need to get out there and convince people that your party's sandwich is totally awesome and way better than the other sandwiches. You should be prepared to donate a significant amount of money to your sandwich party at the local, state, and national levels. Put a sandwich sign on your lawn. Start conversations at work so you can make sure your coworkers will support the same sandwich as you. Make sure to avoid conversations with those who are not on board with your sandwich. On social media, make sure to attack the opposing sandwich party. Blame their sandwich for all of society's ills. Explain how your party's sandwich is the best thing that could ever happen to the nation.

When it's voting time, get out there and vote! And make sure everyone in your sandwich party votes as well! This is your time to tell the world that everyone, whether they like it or not, should enjoy your party's preferred sandwich, whether that is ham and cheese or peanut butter and jelly. Of course, no matter which major sandwich party wins the election, everyone will get old tuna sandwiches.

But that means that next time, you should vote even harder!

A version of this article appeared on ComprehensiveLiberty.com.

Taken from The Foundation for Economic Education website. 

ABOUT

DAN PRATT

Dan Pratt is a financial educator with World Financial Group and teaches mathematics at Primavera Online High School. On his blog at www.comprehensiveliberty.com Dan advocates the principles of liberty. He received his Bachelor of Arts in Music and Master of Education in Secondary Education from Arizona State University. Dan lives in Mesa, Arizona with his wife, Elizabeth, and their three sons.

Why America Doesn't have a "Free Market Capitalist" Economic System

I say quite often that America does not have a Free Market Capitalist economic system and sometimes the befuddled looks I get from those that hear this provokes them to question what I mean by it. The answer is simple and can be broken down into two parts, the two definitions of what is being asked.

"What is a Free Market?" and "What is Capitalism?"

The answers to these two questions together with an understanding of the current mode of economic activity gives a clear indication that the statement, "America does not have a Free Market economic system" is true.

So what is a free market economic system?
Free Market principles point to an economic system where business are unfettered by regulation, licensing, special fees and taxation, a system where all manner of salable goods are on the market without prohibition or exclusion. It is a system where the buying habits of those consumers would drive the manufacturers and distributors to produce or stock items that were valued by customers and discontinue or remove goods that have lost favor or marketability and sales numbers. This provides that customers are able to actually drive the economy by their buying habits and wants, without the interference of an outside entity.

This would of course be in contrast to the current system of high regulation, increasing taxation, special licencing, educational requirements and so on the American system is plagued by. Economists who advocate this idea of unfettered markets, also see that allowing prices and wages to form naturally and the availability and manufacture of goods to lie in the interest of those who have the capability to produce and the want to produce in trade for profit is a nearly unfailing concept in the ways of maximum efficiency of producers as well as maximum favorable market conditions for consumers.

With this some may say that the deregulation of businesses will (could/would) lead to businesses being able to skirt environmental concerns, livable wages, price gouging, and so on. In response to this one can argue on the case of environmental concerns that the information that a retailer or manufacturer was damaging the environment, the consumers voice could be heard by lowering or altogether abandoning or boycotting the product, manufacturer and retailers and distributors. When profits and sales decrease a signal is sent that certain practices are not favorable or condoned. This is the aspect of "market self regulation".

On the issue of wages. Wages should be set by employer and employee. If in the scenario an employer is offering too little pay the potential employee can ask for more or refuse. By no means should the wage of any person be determined by anyone other than the laborer and the job provider. In the system we have now wages are set by government decree, in an attempt to make a fair wage government actually provides yet another hurdle for a prospective employee to jump in order to gain employment. If the set wage is too high for the business, they will refuse to hire. Minimum wage laws also hinder the ability of these businesses to adjust wages based on experience of each employee, there is always a floor that they cannot overcome. Again a control on the level of wages offered by businesses is not a Free Market principle. It is a system of control.

Pricing controls work similar to wage controls, being that wages are prices and vice-versa, it stands that any interference in the marketable value being set by someone other than the seller negates the definition of free market practice.

So what is Capitalism?

Capitalism is defined many ways depending on the social structure lense those defining it look through. To make this easier we can go with two differing opinions, one from Wikipedia (which I use because of it's high use of editing from other editors) and then a definition from the website WorldSocialism.org (including this one because it highlights the idea that the word has different meanings depending on who you ask and how they define it).
According to Wikipedia Capitalism is "is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets and wage labor.  In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged."  This is the definition, or close to it, that most non socialists agree upon.

With this definition in mind we can see that there are a large number of businesses and services that are not privately owned, ran, or funded but are so called public services and are controlled by government, whether county, state, or federal, and are funded through taxation instead of consumerism. This leads me, to say that we may define America as a mixed economy, but definitely not a pure Capitalist economy.

According to the website WorldSocialism.org though Capitalism is something to be feared and abhorred based on their claim of worker exploitation. The definition they detail is,"Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world. Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class. The majority of people must sell their ability to work in return for a wage or salary (who we refer to as the working class.)"

They go on to say,"The working class are paid to produce goods and services which are then sold for a profit. The profit is gained by the capitalist class because they can make more money by selling what we have produced than we cost to buy on the labor market. In this sense, the working class are exploited by the capitalist class. The capitalists live off the profits they obtain from exploiting the working class whilst reinvesting some of their profits for the further accumulation of wealth."

And with this in mind we can ask the socialist this question, "isn't the worker also a capitalist, as they value their time and effort less than the wage they are paid? If they did not value the wage more than the time or effort they would not work, as in a socialist society, goods are given freely based upon need and taken based upon production, or better said by their economic muse Karl Marx, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". This proclaims that no matter how productive you are, your effort is only for the benefit for the others who wish not to work or do not perform as you do. What incentive does that leave to work hard, or even harder? What incentive does that leave to work at all? What incentive does that leave to create, to innovate, or to improve upon goods? If there is no benefit for someone to excel at a good or service it will be done at a minimum speed and quality.


With that being said we can look at the American economy as a partial capitalist economy and a partial socialist economy. There are many areas that the State has complete control over production or service. Roads, Schools, Protection Services, Old Age Insurance are a few of the largest and easiest to see. In that the capitalist is still beholden to government entities in order to start or continue in their business. We can also see THAT is in no way a "free market" system.

On the US Torture Report

As Americans are hearing now from their government of the "enhanced interrogations" taking place in CIA held facilities. The US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released its "Torture Report", and with it a flood of charges of inhumane treatments, murder, brutality and absolute detestable behavior from government employees and military service members. Of course there is no shortage of those who try and justify the treatment of detainees. Those that clamor for the reduction of the government, it's footprint into the lives and actions of people and claims of fiscal conservatism, have been using their loudest bullhorns to defend the actions of government officials and the military industrial complex, calling these actions "right for the public interest".

I am not sorry to say that any man who wishes these actions to continue or to propagate some idea of immunity for those involved are of the lowest respectable people of this earth to me. The idea that in order for "the good of the public" this evil must exist and be administered to other humans is completely asinine and reprehensible.

"No good can come from this evil,

 no justice can come from torture 

and no light from this darkness."

Torture is Torture no matter the reason or the results.
Torture is not acceptable when those you vote for say it is and those that follow them allow themselves to commit it. Shame not only for the politicians who contrive this action but all those in uniform or suit in the name of the government that facilitated or propagated torture of any other person. No act that is immoral for an individual to do unto others suddenly or miraculously becomes moral with the sanction of a State or central authority.

As Murray Rothbard states "In contrast to all other thinkers, left, right, or in-between, the libertarian refuses to give the State the moral sanction to commit actions that almost everyone agrees would be immoral, illegal, and criminal if committed by any person or group in society...if we look at the State naked, as it were, we see that it is universally allowed, and even encouraged, to commit all the acts which even non-libertarians concede are reprehensible crimes." (Ch. 2, "Property and Exchange")

Breaking Bad toys Being Pulled by Toys R Us.

A story popped up last week where a Florida mother was concerned about a product she had seen on the shelves of Toys R Us while shopping with her children. The subjectively offensive products were figurines of characters in AMC's hit TV show Breaking Bad. From the Newspaper U-T San Diego's website,"Susan Schrivjer of Fort Myers was not happy when she found the meth-making mastermind Walter White doll alongside the partner-in-crime Jesse Pinkman doll on toy store shelves not far from Barbies and Disney characters."  

Now while this may seem like a pretty easy case for people to hash against Toys R Us, what it shows to me is that a consumer driven market economy is in effect working as it should.
Let me explain, when businesses get word that their customers are upset about a product or service or even a remark made by an employee or CEO they let that company know by differing means, that company, when made aware of these feelings or demands can choose whether or not to cave to pressure or stand by their decision. Toys R Us decided to cave to the demands of the petition signers. This is the markets way of self regulation and also of effective competition breeding. When one store will take down a product or get rid of a service, a competitor can move in to offer them.

I think this whole story has been blown way out of proportion and a real look at the market effectiveness we can see that it can be a good indication that consumer driven markets are working as they should.

Now I'm off to buy some Breaking Bad collectible figurines... Not really... I don't like the show.

The Epidemic of Fear by Captain Paul Watson

The Epidemic of Fear in America
Commentary by Captain Paul Watson

“So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror, which paralyzes needed efforts …” 
- President Franklin D. Roosevelt

There is an epidemic in America, but it is not Ebola.

It is an insidious epidemic that began just after September 11th, 2001 and has grown more serious each and every year after.

It is not a physical affliction but rather a mental condition.

It’s called fear and it is completely unreasonable behavior, fabricated by politicians and the military, and disseminated by the corporate media in an effort to deny us basic rights and freedoms and to distract us from real issues and real threats.

Terrorism and disease are the two usual suspects to be paraded through the media to keep citizens scared and manipulated.

The latest is this thing called Ebola. It has millions of people literally trembling with fear and yet it is in reality completely and utterly insignificant.

All we need to do is look at the numbers.

Between 1976 when the first person (A Belgian nun in the Congo) was diagnosed with Ebola and last year there have been a total of 6,964 cases of Ebola resulting in a total of 3,964 deaths.

This year there have been 8,400 cases (4,656 laboratory confirmed cases) cases with 4,033 deaths. This could increase to 1,000 new cases per week.

Surely that sounds a little ominous.

Yet most frightening for Americans is that exactly one of those deaths was in the United States.

Yet last year alone between 300 and 500 million people were infected with malaria and one million of them died. The most common age of death was 4 years old and every 30 seconds a child dies of malaria. Thats 3,000 children each and every day. Two days of malaria deaths equals 40 years of Ebola deaths.

Even if the Ebola cases grow to 1,000 per week as some predict, that is still far short of 21,000 deaths from malaria each week.

40% of the world’s populations is at risk from malaria now but few seem concerned.
Now let’s take a look at tuberculosis. In 2012, 8.6 million people were infected with tuberculosis and 1.3 million died. 

Over 95% of TB deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries, and it is among the top three causes of death for women aged 15 to 44.

Millions die each year from HIV, cancer, heart disease, respiratory disease, measeles etc.

So why the incredible fear about Ebola?

First because it is being treated by some media like a terrorist threat, an invasion out of Africa into America and Europe. Secondly because it is easily exploited as yet another means for government to strip away rights and freedoms and to justify further military expansion. Thirdly death by Ebola is horrific and swift with a very high casualty rate.

And fourtly and most importantly there is this little nugget of a fact. The vaccine being developed could be soon ordered into use with “emergency” clearance by the FDA in the United States with a compulsory vaccination program. And the patent on this “vaccine” is held by TEKMIRA, the same company that Monsanto has just invested in and Monsanto is the company that is now immune from being sued by any citizen by order of the President of the United States.

TEKMIRA Pharmaceuticals, a company working on an anti-Ebola drug, just received a large investment by Monsanto. From their media release: “Tekmira Pharmaceuticals Corporation is a biopharmaceutical company focused on advancing novel RNAi therapeutics and providing its leading lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery technology to pharmaceutical partners."

The money from Monsanto is reportedly related to the company's development of RNAi technology used in agriculture. The deal is valued at up to $86.2 million, according to the Wall Street Journal. 

TEKMIRA has a $140 million contract with the U.S. military for Ebola treatment drugs:

Media Release from TEKMIRA: TKM-Ebola, an anti-Ebola virus RNAi therapeutic, is being developed under a $140 million contract with the U.S. Department of Defense's Medical Countermeasure Systems BioDefense Therapeutics (MCS-BDTX) Joint Product Management Office.

This certainly caught my attention that Monsanto just now decided to invest in a company leading the effort to develop an Ebola vaccine or cure and they did so in the midst of the media circus now revolving around Ebola.

Monsanto is the industrial blood-hound for profits. They have this ability to sniff out and exploit basic fears based on media hype and hysteria and of course they contribute to the these fears by releasing scare campaigns either directly or indirectly.

The potential for a huge market is rapidly developing and the collusion of the U.S. military has alarm bells going off in my head.

The history of medical research has shown that drug companies, the CDC and the World Health Organization have time and time again hyped the severity of potential pandemics in order to promote sales of promising miracle cures or preventive vaccines.

It is always suspicious when profits surge as hysteria over some new disease is hyped. Vaccine manufacturers made billions off the overly-exaggerated swine flu “epidemic” that did not happen and tens of millions of dollars in stockpiled swine flu vaccines that had to be destroyed by governments that panicked and purchased them with the taxpayers loss, being the pharmaceutical companies gain.

If completed, will a fast-tracked TEKMIRA vaccine work? It may be impossible to tell because with only two cases reported in America the chances of other Americans being infected are extremely low and if they are infected, or worse, if the vaccine itself has a side effect including death, Monsanto and possibly TEKMIRA because of its link to Monsanto may well be immune from responsibility,

Prior to 2014 Ebola it was just another relatively unknown disease killing black people in Africa just like malaria and tuberculosis, which most Americans and Europeans care little about primarily because poor Africans don’t have the money to cough up for drugs despite the fact that anti-malarial drugs sometimes take up half the income of some African residents. The problem is that half their income is still the price of a dinner for two and a movie, to most Americans or Europeans.

However concern about malaria that is rapidly changing as climate change is expanding the range of the Anopheline mosquito at the same time that the Pasmodium parasite, spread by the mosquito, is developing a resistance to the drugs used to combat it.

Every year about 2,000 cases are reported in the United States and the mosquito that transmits malaria can be found in California, Texas, Michigan and around New York City. 

There were an estimated 207 million cases of malaria in 2012 (uncertainty range: 135 – 287 million) and an estimated 627 000 deaths (uncertainty range: 473 000 – 789 000). 90% of all malaria deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa. - WHO, 2013.

Right now African nations and the international community are responding to the Ebola virus just as they respond to terrorism. When a suicide bomber strikes a crowded market and a few dozen people die, panic dictates the response with drastic measures infringing on human and civil rights as governments vow to hunt down the person or persons responsible. Yet malaria kills steadily at a pace of two victims per minute, 120 victims every hour, and it is scarcely noticed. 

Lyme disease, Dengue fever and a revival of measles and whooping cough should be of more concern than Ebola.

Influenza kills a half a million people a year and since the first outbreak of Ebola in 1976, influenza has killed nineteen million people.

The same situation with terrorism. The average American, especially the average Black American has a greater chance of being shot and killed by an American police officer than by a Middle Eastern Terrorist. 

The two easiest ways of sowing and spreading fear are through the threats of terrorism and pestilence. Thus it is relatively easy to manufacture a program of fear through sensationalizing both terrorism and disease, especially terrorism linked to an alien religion and culture, or a disease linked to dark fears out of Africa and images of zombies. 

Real threats like climate change and mass extinction of species are being denied, diseases like malaria and tuberculosis are being ignored just as radiation leaks are being ignored. Just a brief note about Fukushima, remember Fukushima? Well it’s still leaking and tons of radioactive sea-water is being dumped into the ocean each and every day. Not that anyone is actually noticing. 

Ebola is a serious concern in West Africa although it still remains a minor cause of death relative to malaria and tuberculosis. It is not however the great harbinger of doomsday that many in government and media would like us to believe.

Ebola does present us with a warning that there are viruses being hosted by other species that will be jumping to another species if their particular host species are being diminished or driven to extinction. Unfortunately for us, human beings represent a very large alternative host species.

We do know that Ebola is connected with the bush-meat trade. In1997 in Gabon, 37 people died of Ebola. A chimpanzee found dead in the forest was eaten by people hunting for food. All nineteen people who were involved in the butchery of the animal became ill, the others infected were all family members of the poachers.

Ebola has been found in bats, chimps, monkeys and pigs.

I am not dismissing the potential for Ebola and other viral infections from increasing their impact humanity but I seriously doubt that Ebola will surpass or even come close to the death tolls tallied up each year by malaria and tuberculosis or most of the other deadly viral or bacterial diseases.

Unless it can be found that the Ebola virus can be airborne or even worse, spread by mosquitos, the disease can be easily contained. So far the virus has not been found to be spread by any other means than by direct contact with bodily fluids.

Walking through a room of Ebola patients equates to an extremely small chance of contracting the disease whereas walking thorough a room of influenza patients presents a very high probability of contracting the flu. And we must not forget that the influenza pandemic of 1918 killed we

Florida Politics still not hitting adulthood.

Last night’s debate between Incumbent Governor Rick Scott and Former Florida Governor Charlie Crist started a bit late. The issue wasn’t over anything major, Rick Scott was citing a rule in the debate guidelines that states no electronic devices will be present at the speaker’s podium or lectern. Charlie Crist insisted on having a fan under his lectern and refused to give way to the demands of the Scott Campaign.


Besides adult behavior, also missing from this debate were other candidates in the race to become Florida’s next governor. Adrian Wyllie of the Libertarian Party had been denied inclusion into this debate. Citing other rules of the debate forum CNN, who hosted the debate, did not included Wyllie or two other candidates who are running independent of political party affiliation. Supporters for Wyllie were present at the location of the debate as well as on scene as Wyllie gave his own responses to the debate questions in a nearby hotel.

Rothbard on Self-Defense and War - David Gordon - Mises Daily

Recently the classical liberal legal scholar Richard Epstein criticized “hard-core libertarians.” These extremists want to keep out of “foreign entanglements.” If, as the extremists propose, we act only when there is a direct threat to the United States, “it may be too late.” We should strike immediately against the “forces of death and destruction” such as ISIS. We must spread liberty throughout the world in general, and the Middle East in particular.

Murray Rothbard certainly qualifies as a “hard-core libertarian.” Did he turn a blind eye to threats, owing to a commitment to unrealistic principles? By no means: but he differed from contemporary warmongers about the nature of these threats.

To grasp his ideas, it is best to put international relations aside for a moment and begin with an individual’s right to defense. Unlike Robert LeFevre, Rothbard was not a pacifist. To the contrary, he tells us in The Ethics of Liberty,

Absolute pacifists who also assert their belief in property rights ... are caught in an inescapable inner contradiction: for if a man owns property and yet is denied the right to defend it against attack, then it is clear that a very important aspect of that ownership is being denied to him.[1]

We have, then, the right to defend by violence our person and property; but, even if we are threatened, we cannot do anything we like in the name of “defense.” For one thing, there must be “an actual or directly threatened invasion of one’s property.” A mere intimation that someone might in future act in a hostile way against you does not suffice. “It would clearly be grotesque and criminally invasive to shoot a man across the street because his angry look seemed to you to portend an invasion.”[2]

Further, a response to invasion must be proportional. You cannot kill someone just for stepping uninvited onto your property. Rothbard altogether repudiates the view that any rights violator shows himself to be an outlaw who forfeits all rights. “On what basis must we hold that a minuscule invasion of another’s property lays one forfeit to the total loss of one’s own? I propose another fundamental rule regarding crime: the criminal, or invader, loses his own right to the extent that he has deprived another man of his.”[3]

The exercise of the right to self-defense is subject to another restriction; and this, we shall see, is of crucial importance once we turn to foreign relations. You cannot, while defending yourself, violate the rights of innocents. You cannot shoot an innocent bystander because he blocks the way to your otherwise justified response to an aggressor.

Suppose that, in this world, Jones finds that he or his property is being aggressed against by Smith. It is legitimate, as we have seen, for Jones to repel this invasion by the use of defensive violence. But, now we must ask: is it within the right of Jones to commit aggressive violence against innocent third parties in the course of his legitimate defense against Smith? Clearly the answer must be “No.” For the rule prohibiting violence against the persons or property of innocent men is absolute; it holds regardless of the subjective motives for the aggression. It is wrong, and criminal, to violate the property or person of another, even if one is a Robin Hood, or is starving, or is defending oneself against a third man’s attack.[4]

Rothbard subjects nations to the same limits, and the last of these limits is especially important. Modern warfare of necessity involves assaults on the innocent, and this Rothbard refuses to sanction. “All of the consequences of inter-territorial war make it almost inevitable that inter-State war will involve aggression by each side against the innocent civilians — the private individuals — of the other.”[5]

In seeking to restrict the conduct of war, Rothbard looked to traditional just war theory. Rothbard cites in this connection Vitoria, Suarez, Grotius, and their successors in later centuries, who carefully specified the limits a state must follow in warfare.

The classical international lawyers developed two ideas, which they were broadly successful in getting nations to adopt: Above all, don't target civilians. If you must fight, let the rulers and their loyal or hired retainers slug it out, but keep civilians on both sides out of it, as much as possible ... [and] Preserve the rights of neutral states and nations. ... In a theory which tried to limit war, neutrality was considered not only justifiable but a positive virtue[6]

Rothbard followed the great figures in the just war tradition, but he radically extended their view. For him, the state was not merely subject to limits comparable to those restricting an individual trying to defend himself. Far from it: the state is a predatory organization. Its growth and seizure of new powers, inevitable in war, must be combated.

All State wars, therefore, involve increased aggression against the State’s own taxpayers, and almost all State wars (all, in modern warfare) involve the maximum aggression (murder) against the innocent civilians ruled by the enemy State.[7]

Given the manifest dangers of the predatory state, we should oppose the involvement of our own state in any foreign disputes. In the guise of spreading liberty abroad, America’s foreign interventions serve rather to extend tyranny at home.

But what of the claim that a non-interventionist policy ignores potential dangers that could inflict massive damage on our population? It is rather late in the day to make this claim. “Regime change” in Iraq was needed to protect us from “weapons of mass destruction.” These weapons did not exist, but the fiasco has not stopped the propagandists for war. Now we are told that ISIS, a small group that holds territory in Iraq and Syria, poses a threat to America: only “extremists” deny this. The claim follows a familiar pattern. It is a twice-told tale that, one hopes, will not again fool the American public.

Note: The views expressed in Daily Articles on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

Comment on this article. When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Comment Policy.

Image source: iStockphoto.

David Gordon is a Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute. He is author of Resurrecting Marx and An Introduction to Economic Reasoning and editor of numerous books including The Essential Rothbard, available in the Mises Store. Send him mail. See David Gordon's article archives.

You can subscribe to future articles by David Gordon via this RSS feed.

Rothbard on Self-Defense and War - David Gordon - Mises Daily

More "Security" Without The State?

Down with the Police State! No More Police! Things like this get thrown out a lot by social libertarians and anarchists alike, even getting the attention and involvement of a few Republicans and Democrats who see the brutality of the police without noticing the monopoly of force they impose on the regular. There is however an aspect of ridding ourselves of this compulsory reactionary force of police missed by a majority of people; the fact that without the police of today, the ones who are paid for through compulsory and mandatory taxation, without recourse or ability to address grievances, we COULD have more security personnel.

Crazy aspect right? Not really. Many of the advocates of ending the Police State and the obligatory manner in which they are funded and operate are also proponents of private property and the rights of the owners. Under this idea the owners of every property, whether commercial or residential COULD have the possibility to hire their own private security services. Under this model every store you walk into in a mall type setting could have their own security officers, from different service providers. Also, in the residential sense, each home COULD have their own services being provided, not much unlike security systems installed in their homes already, but enlarged or advanced to include property security, investigations in the instance of property violations, and preventative security measures to reduce or preclude any attempt violations of property.

Local story of an prior law enforcement officer starting a private security firm. Click Here.

As the police today are for the most part becoming an aggressive force, one that needs to be checked by the people. Market provided services and funded by voluntary means COULD provided a service of security while ridding the public of compulsory funded, hyper-aggressive and increasingly militarized agents of the government. I stress the word COULD in this because without a doubt, this is only in theory but I feel should be at least recognized and investigated as an alternative. It is also only a COULD because as security is a personal value assessed by individuals, it is up to the owners of each property to make the choice to have security or not.

This Is What Happens When You Call The Cops by Rob Hustle

Stats on Afghanistan since 2001

Since October 7th 2001 the US military has occupied Afghanistan. That is 13 years. 4735 days.

Billions of dollars have been used, wasted. The estimate for the cost of deploying one U.S. soldier in Afghanistan is over US$1 million a year. The total cost from inception to the fiscal year 2011 was expected to be $468 billion.

US service member deaths are 3749 estimated 30000 wounded.

Afghanistan deaths, both military and civilian, have been estimated at 35-50 thousand.

On Wage Slavery

I think "Wage Slavery" is a false term.

Wages are what employees gain from their service and labor to their employer. It is an act of voluntary exchange on the part of both parties. If wages were not gained by this service then slavery would exist, in the presence of wages though it is merely employment by mutual terms.

Slavery, historically, is the position of a person who through compulsion is held against their will and forced (by threat of violence)to work for the gain of the "slaveholder or slave master".

Using the word wages in conjunction with the word slavery does two things. One it lowers the definition of wages to the negative connotation of being forced to work for the benefit of another without ANY reimbursement. Secondly it tends to negate the real horrors of real slavery that has happened and is still happening around the world.  

The term "wage slavery" defined deals with those wages that are so low that a person who is employed relies on them just for basic survival. Of course wages should be used in the pursuit of survival and any wants left to be pursued, if that is the want of the wage earner. One cannot force a person to use their own property in any other way that they do not wish. 

Hereto we must interject on the reverse side of this issue. Mandatory wage and Minimum wage laws handed down from government bureaus and departments. These laws force businesses and businesses owners to provide wages beyond that of market value or personal labor value. These laws almost always lead to higher prices in market goods as the mandatory minimum wages are offset in the businessman's pursuit to maintain certain levels of profit. 

Wage Slavery is a false point being made by those that wish to direct the affairs of businesses that do not affect them in the personal way.

Government according to P.J. Proudhon

To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.

To be governed is be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped,measured, numbered, assessed,licensed, authorized, admonished,prevented, forbidden, reformed,corrected, punished.

It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, be placed under contribution,drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, funded, vilified harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned,shot deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored.

That is government; that is its justice, that is its morality

P.J. Proudhon 1923

Building an Empire

The other day the Fox News Channel's show The Independents ran a segment on "costs of another conflict abroad and the inner workings of the military". Trying to advertise the segment they posted to social media a blurb and photo showing a map. This map had every country represented that the US military had a presence and the very few that had no presence at all. It was a stark reminder that even today empires are being built, they are being expanded.

There are many people who dismiss the idea that what the United States Government and by extension its arm of force, the military, are in essence building and expanding the largest empire in the worlds history. Larger the Attila the Hun's, Larger than Cleopatra and the Egyptian empire, even larger than the Roman and Persian empires. So what does it take for some to see it for what it is. 

Defined by Merriam-Webster it is "(1) :  a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially :  one having an emperor as chief of state 

(2) :  the territory of such a political unit

 :  something resembling a political empire; especially :  an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control

 :  imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion

capitalized [Empire State, nickname for New York] :  a juicy apple with dark red skin that is a cross between a McIntosh apple and a Red Delicious apple."

Under these definitions it should be easy to recognize how some see it as an empire. The US Government makes it a point to be the hand of Aid, humanitarian or militarily, or it makes a point to be a main aggressor in affairs in an attempt to gain favor and control from other governments and its own people.

When under the rule, and in this case the threat of violence or better stated annihilation, the entire world is set as an empire under the United States. The US engages, first in the humanitarian aid and relief efforts for various nations, takes on health related issues abroad, engages in wars, intervention, removing political leaders and general mayhem making around the world, all with the implicit approval of the American Taxpayer, who is the wallet and bank for such ventures.

But why?
Why do other nations put up with embassies, military presence, intervention, despotism and meddling in international affairs? Money is one answer. Foreign monetary payments, meant for aid, is the bribery most governments accept for these actions. Fear is the another answer. The US has an aura of violence, of brutality, of annihilation. The world witnesses this day in and day out, yet most don't even bat an eye. The world watched as the US dropped the only atomic bombs to ever be used in warfare on largely civilian population in Japan in World War 2, and then gave them the ability to determine who could and couldn't have such weapons.

It doesn't take much to realize that the US is an empire, though I assume most would rather not believe it or accept it as so. We live in a dangerous time, in a dangerous place and with dangerous people. 

Facebook Statuses from last week

If you don't follow me on FaceBook you aren't seeing all the other content I put up. Stories shared from some of the greatest Activist, Instructors, think Tanks and Institutions as well as the original content from myself and friends. I very on topics and I wanted to throw these two status updates from last week up here for you all to see.

The first is on the Government's ability to punish individuals with death for crimes which "they" were not harmed and does not take into account the personal wishes of the actual victim(s).

"The State should have no authority to execute punishment for a crime that they themselves were not victim to. While the State does authorize itself to do so the many state supporters (tax payers) are first forced to house, feed and maintain and secondly are forced again to afford the actual act of killing the person, also again without being victimized by this person themselves. It is a great folly that in our present society we not only condone the state to take the lives of people but that many rejoice in that knowledge and feel comfortable in its continued funding by coercion." 9/23/14

The other was actually a response to a post by a friend asking about "Fair or Living Wages"
Since neither of those terms of objective and clearly definitive between all people the issue is not able to be decided by arbitrary numbers being mandated by government decrees.

"There is no such thing as a "fair" wage. Since all value is subjective and fairness and wages are calculated by value it stands that no matter what the case, that "fair" value is mandated not by the subjective thought but from objective mandate. Secondly, with the use of mandated minimum wage laws it is a coerced action to require a person to give a portion of their own wealth or profit to the other not based on performance but on an outside measure of "need" or "want" therefore negating any possibility of "fairness"." 9/23/14

if you would like to follow me on Facebook I have both a Personal account and an account just for the blog. I would ask though that if you decide to friend request me on the personal account, leave me a message saying that you saw this post and wanted to connect. It will make it easier to weed through the crazy amount of requests I do get.  You can also connect on Twitter by clicking here.

Thanks

Oklahoma attack. 9/26/2014

Regarding the "attack" today in Oklahoma.

Until photo evidence is produced I cannot reasonably believe this man had enough time to behead someone, and attack another. I can believe slitting the throat, cutting a large portion of neck area or even multiple stabs to the neck.

Regarding the claim this man tried to "convert" others. This could be an exaggerated claim. He may have spoken to others of his conversion and how or why they may convert, or it could just be an unsubstantiated claim made out of sensationalism and recklessness.

In any case the events of the day are horrible and should be denounced by all that reject any such acts.

Taxpayers held liable for Cop misconduct and assault.

The image of a California Highway Patrol Officer assaulting a woman circulated the internet and news stations for weeks and now it seems there is a settlement in the case. The woman, Marlene Pinnock, has been handed a settlement of 1.5 million dollars and the officer, Daniel Andrew, has agreed to resign.

The July 1^st incident was caught on a cell phone camera by a passing motorist and quickly became a semi-viral video.

So what does this mean for the taxpayers in the area? Since the majority of police legal fees and police operations as a whole are paid for by the taxation collected at the state level, it is the tax payer who is ultimately responsible for paying this settlement.

So while it is good this woman has been restituted for her anguish, injury, and humiliation, it is the fault of taxation by compulsion and by the brutality of this officer the citizens have been robbed of wealth for the actions of a state law enforcement representative.

Why Can't They Be Independent?

The recent call, referendum and ultimate failure of Independence by the Scottish people has left an important question for the Pro-Independence proponents.

Why Can't We Be Independent From Their Dependence?

In other words, why does an entire country's population remain attached as only a portion of them want to do so? The simple answer is... Democracy!

Thats right Democracy, the idea of governance by the will of the majority, becomes the tyranny that the individuals that were and are still opposed to remaining attached to the UK must now live under.

As the calls for the status quo to remain intact were in essence a call for simple social security programs and safety concerns from the older generations and what we call call the Neo-Liberal individuals of the Scottish people, while the others chose independence and a call for building a new Scotland in their own image.

Plato says it best with, " Tyranny naturally arises out of Democracy"

Here is the tricky, double ender part though...

No matter who won this measure, some portion of the Scottish people were to live under the will of the other. Again, Democratic tyranny cannot be escaped by either choice being victorious. It is the nature of governance by majority that holds individualism and liberty in contempt. It holds the very basic freedom of (and from) association from being realized on an individual level.

While I leave your impression of Democracy in shambles I do offer an alternative. Individual freedom. That freedom to live as you wish and to respect the wishes of all those others around you. Simply stated, do as you will, but do not will another to do as you.

Another proposition.

Since we have a population of people living under the will of the majority, one calling for an independent nation, and the other in opposition, why can they not both live in their own ways? I can think of no greater tyranny to another man than to subjugate him to live as he does not intend. If those that wish to remain a part of the UK are ok with their taxation and legislation then they may live by them and afford them and have every supposed benefit deriving from them. And in turn, if those men wish to not put in nor take out any social, monetary or security measure benefit, and if those men wish to not live under legislation of the UK rule, then they, being free beings have every right to refuse payment or service to another, especially in compulsion.

Now this proposition I know will not sit well with those on the American Left or Right of the political divide, and maybe so with many Minarchist Libertarians, but it is irrefutable that if a man is forced to live under the decision of another man, he, and every other person can never call him free.

US launches airstrikes against ISIS targets in Syria.

From The Guardian. The United States has started airstrikes against ISIS targets in Syria. This should end well....

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2014/sep/23/us-launches-air-strikes-against-isis-targets-in-syria

A Scottish Libertarian Deconstructs the Vote - David Farrer - Mises Daily

A Scottish Libertarian Deconstructs the Vote - David Farrer - Mises Daily

Ending the Federal Reserve may be easier than it sounds.

Ending the Federal Reserve is less about Government policy and more about you and your personal economy. I was asked the other day how I saw the ending of the Federal Reserve being able to be accomplished. I answered that through government action you may see it in the next 100 years or so (don't hold your breath though), but to handle the idea sooner I think it is less about attacking them or trying to destroy them as much as it is to make them irrelevant.

Getting rid of their power is as easy as making their product and/or service as completely irrelevant as possible.
The rise in cryptography and the cryptocurrencies wave of enthusiasts and entrepreneurs is a great starting place for this idea. Since cryptocurrencies work around the federal dollar and international currency as well it decentralizes their monopoly of currency. Once enough people are convinced or shown the amazing technological benefits to cryptocurrencies over the Fiat dollar bill we can start to widen the gap of mandated currency and free market currency. Crypto is not the only way this can be done but is used as a single example of what can be done to end Centralized Banking cartels.

Money is a tool and it is in no way a government invention. Money or currency has existed for thousands of years and has taken countless shapes and forms. Sea shells, cows and chickens, arrowheads, blankets, property, even other human beings have been used as a means of trade and currency between peoples, though I do not condone the use of humans for this it shows the wide array of means to people's commercial ends.

So the real question that needs to be answered is this. How do YOU plan of destabilizing and decentralizing their mandated paper and coin currency? There are ways and means to obtain this goal, one just needs to commit to them in a rational and educated way.