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. 

A response to "Want to Destroy ISIS? Congress Should Implement the Draft and Raise Taxes Immediately."

This is the headline from a recent Huffington Post blog post, authored by H. A. Goodman. In this post he gives a case for implementing the re emergence of a national draft and raising taxes to afford another war. In the face of another boogy-man in the sand box of the Middle East some will actually endorse these ideas and promote their full and swift introduction. Thrusting the US into another war inside Iraq, Syria, and other Middle Eastern and African nations will amount to what could be considered World War 3. And just as those two previous World Wars saw the forced conscription of citizens into the military forces, it seems some would still use this to obtain their wartime ends.

"It's time to get off the couch, America, and collectively sacrifice for national security, both through taxes to fund the next conflict and a draft, like previous generations in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. ISIS wants to bankrupt this country and drag us into another quagmire, so if you believe these maniacs need to be destroyed by bullets fired from American guns, it's time for you too to start firing these bullets and paying for the next war. Once we defeat ISIS, we can then begin to destroy the next terrorist group that pops up (like Al-Qaeda Iraq morphed into ISIS) with money from higher taxes and from the additional troop levels from a national draft."

This idea, to force people to fight in a war they did not start, or to give their lives for another person's sake and even worse the ends of their own government is arguably the worst form of absolute slavery in the US.  Those that choose to volunteer are admirable in their selflessness and sacrifice, but our military isn't a 100% voluntary idea. Since the US military is funded by the US Government and the US government is funded by yearly budgets. Those budgets are approved with the knowledge that every dime will be borrowed from the US central bank The Federal Reserve. What most Americans are unaware of is the added interest that is then owed back to the Federal Reserve for loaning that money. Also unaware to most is the fact that the "debt" that is now owed to the bank is then sold to foreign nations by the central bank.

So how then does this debt get paid back? Since the US Government does not produce anything, they rely on the citizens through taxation. Increased Taxation is the second point of this article. The author states, "To my fellow Tea Party Americans who care about debt and who, like me, want these terrorists gone, I ask you to remember the cost of war. According to Harvard University, "The US has already borrowed some $2 trillion to finance the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars and the associated defense build-up -- a major component of the $9 trillion US debt accrued since 2001." The total cost will reach $6 trillion when healthcare costs from both wars are taken into account and the interest from borrowing could reach trillions."  

He adds, " Taxes and military service is what America owes its veterans, future generations, and any terrorist who gets in the way of freedom and democracy. Open up your pocket books, pick up a gun, and say goodbye to your family, because America needs everyone to chip in and protect liberty."

This gives great alarm to me as well as millions who see the costs of wars as unnecessarily burdensome to our generation as well as those that will follow. Anyone who calls himself a Conservative or recognizes the insanity and exploitation of taxation should be completely against any such increase of the great draining of personal wealth for the idea of war. Now some will say that we do not pick these fights and that we, meaning the US as a whole, should be ready to defend our culture and our country at all personal cost. This is the great collectiveness of Nationalism. To assume that one would and should hold all personal sacrifice for a geographical area they were cosmically dropped upon birth assumes that all such persons should be ready to volunteer their lives and fortunes to defend the areas government in whatever troubles they may find themselves. That is a dangerous place to find oneself, a slave upon birth to the nation one was born. Just a teat to be suckled until no longer needed or producing.



But the author gives us a glimpse of his true intention of the article in the comments section.

"Yes, a great deal of it is indeed satire aimed at showing that if Americans in aggregate had to pay for and fight wars themselves, instead of letting the 2.5 million veterans of the recent Iraq and Afghanistan Wars fight for a nation over 300 million, we'd think twice about war. We'd also think twice about fighting a third Iraq War if we had to pay for it appropriately, through a war tax. My article is meant to ask the question, what if the average American had to pay and fight for the constant wars we engage in, and would Americans be as quick to send our troops everywhere and anywhere in the name of security? Also, we still have a VA crisis so what will happen to that when a third Iraq war starts? These are all issues I've presented in the article.The answers I believe can be found in these comments, both liberals and conservatives have their own view of this article, and I thank you and everyone on here who took the time to read my thoughts. "

 Taken at face value this article is full of the worst ideology and the worst policy that can come to my mind. I believe the author sets about this article in the most facetious way, and it worked, I was dismayed at the prospect that this man would push this idea forward with such a large audience. It does not bestow any confidence in the author that he kept his intention to the comments, but gives great caution that those who read his words and took them at face value would hold any such views. I do realize that there are many, many people who do hold these views and that do propagate these ideals, and that is a very prospect as to what may come in a short while.

Note: As of 9/16/14 the author has placed a editors note preceding the article. It seems more than just I were having trouble picking up on hints of satire.  Here is his note.

Dear Reader,

This article is satire. Its goal is to highlight that Americans would never engage in decade-long wars and put war on a credit card if a draft and taxes correlated to military engagements.

I am against a draft and please read my article prior to this one, or after this one, to see where I stand. My writing is also very much against perpetual war and I've had numerous posts on this subject, as illustrated within my bio page.

Also, I'm all for constructive criticism, but please remember that threats of death take place in fascist and totalitarian regimes against writers, so if you claim to be for freedom and democracy, try to simply argue a point through words like normal people.

In addition, one website claimed that my viewpoint is "we're a nation of selfish sloths"and tried to psychoanalyze my motives. I do not feel this way and if I adhered to conspiracy theories, I'd wager that such analysis was meant to create hatred of satire, or create something that isn't presented within my thoughts or this article. I absolutely do not think we'e a slothful nation, I just think we vote on emotional issues like taxes or a draft, or a beheading video, and not on things like the VA crisis still ongoing, or the repercussions of counterinsurgency wars on our veterans and nation, or other relevant issues to our security. Therefore, to conspiracy theorists who enjoy putting words in other people's mouths, please simply disparage my writing, or lack of knowledge, or the fact that my arguments might be flawed, not your cookie cutter view of vast conspiracies that coincidentally coincide with arguments, issues, or satire you disagree with or fail to accurately interpret. My body of work speaks for itself and I am against perpetual wars and if I engage in future satirical articles, please understand that satire works to illustrate the insanity of war and bloodshed, sometimes better than preaching. Sometimes connecting the dots means simply reading another's thoughts without the agenda of correlating them to a grandiose narrative and evaluating their work in aggregate. Don't worry, there aren't any codes or secret agendas in my satirical articles, simply addressing human fallibility and propensity for never-ending wars through an apparently flawed method.

Finally, anyone using this article to foment controversy or the belief that a draft is imminent, or that a conspiracy is taking place, or that their ideology is validated in this writing must remember the thoughts below are satire, and a satirical take on why our country continually engages in never-ending war.

I might write more satire in the near future and will specify within the article that it is indeed a satirical piece. I apologize to anyone I've offended, this was certainly not my intent.

Have a wonderful day,

Introducing the Mises Curriculum!

The Mises Institute has always promoted scholarship and education in the pursuit of liberty. Ideas have always been at the heart of our mission.

That’s why we decided in 2010 to make world-class instruction in the ideas of liberty only a mouse-click away for people around the world. So we started Mises Academy, the first — and best — Austrian economics online learning platform in the world. Next we added a broader range of liberty-focused courses to the Academy. Since then we’ve delivered dozens of in-depth, high-caliber live courses to thousands of students around the world.

The 50+ courses in the Mises Curriculum at the Mises Institute will guide you through Austrian economics, from the action axiom to advanced monetary theory, and through libertarian political philosophy, from the non-aggression principle to advanced libertarian legal theory. Also included are courses on history, philosophy, and even logic.

Course design and lectures are by the soundest thinkers and the top scholars in the Misesian/Rothbardian tradition: Joseph Salerno, Peter Klein, David Gordon, Robert Murphy, Thomas DiLorenzo, and others. You’ll get the real deal: thoroughly praxeological and completely free-market economics, as well as principled, radical, and uncompromising libertarian theory.

For a mere $99/year, you can get full access to all of these courses, including hours of lectures recorded in both video and audio, hyperlinked syllabi of online readings, professor-written quizzes, certificates of completion, and more. Work through whole courses from start to finish, or fill in gaps in your understanding by zeroing in on particular lectures and lessons from multiple courses.

Ideas Have Consequences

Ludwig von Mises demonstrated that all governments, and the social order itself, depend onideology, which he defined as “the totality of our doctrines concerning individual conduct and social relations,” and which includes both doctrines that concern ends, like political philosophies, and doctrines that concern means, like economic theories. Therefore, it is ultimately ideology that is what gives a state the widespread influence, or “might,” as Mises called it, that it needs to rule.

Thus, contrary to Mao’s famous dictum, political power flows not from the barrel of a gun but from ideas. In fact, Mao’s own rise to power, and that of many like him, was ultimately due in large part to the fact that the idea of a planned society, including its purest form, socialism, had captured the hearts, minds, and imaginations of entire generations, from the mid-nineteenth century onward. Its time had come, however fleetingly, and many regimes that tried to stop the march of socialist ideas with force utterly failed. It was only widespread disenchantment with socialism that halted the march.

Moreover, freedom from political power is also ultimately based on ideas. When the time does come for the ideas of liberty — libertarian political philosophy and sound economics — it won’t be, as The New York Times recently put it, a “libertarian moment.” It will be, as Ron Paul clarified, a “libertarian transition.” And the state, for all its weapons and cages, will be powerless to stop it, because the ideas of liberty are the negation of the ideas upon which the state’s power rests.

It was the ideas of the political philosophers of liberalism and of the laissez-faire economists that were ultimately responsible for the limited flowering of liberty that occurred prior to the rise of the modern managerial state.

And it is the ideas of thinkers like Mises and Murray Rothbard, propagated by institutions like the Mises Institute and individuals like you, which can give moral leaders like Ron Paul the “might” to sway the public to choose liberty. That is the battle of ideas before us.

We have always developed courses with systematic, long-term study in mind, intent on building an archive of courses that constitutes a thorough Austro-libertarian curriculum. And we are now making that treasury of truth-teaching available as one amazing resource: The Mises Curriculum.

If you would like to thoroughly prepare yourself to help us make liberty become the idea whose time has come, I can think of no better way to do it. For more information, and to register, go to Mises.org/Curriculum.

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.

The Mises Institute works to advance the Austrian School of economics and the Misesian tradition, and defends the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing state intervention. See Mises Institute's article archives.

You can subscribe to future articles by Mises Institute via this RSS feed.

You can receive the Mises Dailies in your inbox. Subscribe or unsubscribe.

Local Police Receive Military Surpluses

This is a short post I will be addressing to a local newspaper. 

These procurements are only for Nassau County Florida. If you wish to find out what Surplus Goods your local Police and Sheriffs Offices have petitioned for and received please follow the link and fill in the drop down menu. 

As events unfolded in Ferguson MO the world watched a militarized police presence to quell riots and looting. I started looking as to what hardware our local police forces were acquiring under the 1033 Program in accordance with Department of Defense and its Defense Logistics Agency. "According to the program's informational website, the 1033 Program has transferred $5.1 billion in military hardware from the United States Army to local American law enforcement agencies since 1997."  

This list was compiled and retrieved from The Free Thought Project website.

REFRIGERATION UNIT,MECHANICAL 1 Unknown $0.00 4/9/2014 FL NASSAU

REFRIGERATION UNIT,MECHANICAL 1 Unknown $0.00 4/9/2014 FL NASSAU

REFRIGERATION UNIT,MECHANICAL 1 Unknown $0.00 4/9/2014 FL NASSAU

REFRIGERATION UNIT,MECHANICAL 1 Unknown $0.00 4/9/2014 FL NASSAU

REFRIGERATION UNIT,MECHANICAL 1 Unknown $0.00 4/10/2014 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

RIFLE, 5.56 MILLIMETER 1 Each $499.00 4/14/2008 FL NASSAU

  

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each$138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each $138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each $138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each $138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each $138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each $138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each $138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

RIFLE,7.62 MILLIMETER 1 Each $138.00 12/28/2006 FL NASSAU

TRUCK,UTILITY 1 Each               $39,052.00           04/9/2014 FL NASSAU

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/military-hardware-local-pd-stockpiling-database-show-you/#JBgmeT4tpXOdtjJK.99

The Humanitarian case and Non-Interventionism

Many people tend to have a hard time recognizing the differences between Non-Intervention and Isolationism; rather using the terms interchangeably and erroneously. The classical argument of refraining from intervention into foreign affairs, entanglements and conflicts comes from the belief that national interests should remain in the nation and that no matter the action, internationally, eyes and opinions would be cast towards whatever nation becomes involved in a situation amongst other nations. Many of the founding members of the government of the United States held beliefs in this idea.

Genocide, Holocaust, War, Invasions, Operations, Missions, and Conflicts all involve at the very base people, human beings, that for whatever their own reasons seek to extend the wishes of the governing body they submit to. Governments, and by extension entire countries and the majority of people who make up the society or population of, commit to end conflicts between themselves by the brutality of War. Sometimes they use this when all other means to peace have been exhausted, sometimes as an initiation of violence and others as a defense. These governments recruit, draft and conscript those citizens of value to them, the young, stronger and the productive, to the ranks of their militaries. For this we will only be addressing military intervention; though economic intervention through blockades, embargoes and sanctions should be addressed the same way.

Non-Interventionism seems a pretty simple and straight forward principle. “Do not intervene in affairs of other countries that do not directly affect the US”. But in this very simple statement lies questions.  And serious questions. These questions have been answered repeatedly by many authors, and their acceptance is up to each individual to decide.

Is there a Humanitarian Case FOR intervention?

Of course this question begs the individual to place a subjective value on a human life and pit that against the value of another life. Because the intention and action to do harm to others is a factor to the value of a life for most, it stands that those persons doing harm or threatening to do harm would be subjected to a lesser value than the so called victims of events. Saving a life by taking a life can be seen as justifiable by some and somewhat undebatable to others. The judgment of those who will do harm or violence to others is a constant in the political world, hence a presidential kill list, drone bombings and secretive missions by highly trained military members in government sanctioned assassinations and murders. Even in everyday life, the citizens of every country place value on the lives of every other nation’s people.

Can there be a Humanitarian cause for military intervention. In this question lies an impasse of logic. Can the killing of some be considered “humanitarian” if it is the case to help others to live? If a country’s government were to threaten another with nuclear annihilation, would it not be in the humanitarian sense a point for justifiable intervention?  To ensure the loss of life is kept at a minimum and the worldwide effects of such an act be avoided? One could argue in the defense of the intervener as the wholly humanitarian effort and against the aggressor as the initiator of force. But the end result of to take a life to save a life contradicts the compassionate excuse it seeks to eradicate.  In the purely libertarian sense, one can urge intervention so long as those whose mind is made up against said intervention are not forced or coerced into facilitating the action, whether that be through taxation to afford the intervention, conscription to the cause of the intervention or whatever other means to force a person to act against their own belief of non-intervention.

What is the Humanitarian case AGAINST intervention?

Military intervention comes in many forms. From the small arms trades and sales, troop training, asset maintenance and facilitator of large weapons and munitions, and of course the act of entering into a military conflict with supplies of troops and mechanized weaponry. In the present, all of these actions are ultimately coerced from those who may or may not hold value to them, as stated before, increased taxation and conscription are all part of the norm for these types of affairs.

The Humanitarian case comes into effect at the soldier level and at the economic impact level it has on the citizenry of the intervening nation or state.  Each soldier’s life and those that they may take in combat or those that die from indirect conflict related economic hardships are not necessarily counted as such in current times. But each one of these should be considered when trying to make a humanitarian case either for or against intervention of any kind. As stated before the taking of one life by any means declares the end result of any intervention wholly inhumane and against the stated goal of saving humanity from death or harm.

What are the effects of Intervention?

There is a persistent fallacy associated with those that claim Non-Interventionism is Isolationism. Calling someone an isolationist has become the favored insult to Neo-Conservatives and the Neo-Liberals to cast towards libertarians. While not every Libertarian completely agrees with the idea of Non-Intervention, the same can be said of the idea of Intervention by Conservatives and Liberals.

The term Isolationist is one that for the most part is used erroneously and in a kind of inaccurate, hypocritical way. If the refraining from foreign affairs isolates any nation or state from any others it is in a belief that the non-intervening state or nation has some Responsibility to Protect (R2P) any others. In this theory any nation’s citizens should come to expect to be saved by all other nations or states if their respected nation or state fails to provide adequate protections. In that aim any nation’s citizens can expect to oblige to pay for any such intervention by their government. But this obligation often comes begrudgingly or not at all voluntarily. Should any state or nation, in their attempt to save another, put their own citizens at risk? Or to force them to give up their wealth on a choice not made by them that they may not find the least bit worthy of their contribution?

Sometimes intervention has other effects; creating enemies and leading to an inclusive war or attack by an offended nation or state. It has the effect of reduced production in consumer markets; due to enlistment, conscription or mandatory transfer of market production to production of intervention bound supplies.

However you view intervention it is imperative to comprehend that no matter what type of intervention is being touted, it ultimately is not in the name of humanitarian efforts. It is, as it is now, a monumental shift of wealth and lives into the domain of public welfare, domestic theft of wealth, imperialism and will have further effects that will affect those who have had no choice to submit their own voice against the will and actions of the government they live under. 

How Conservative can you be?

The typical conservative claims to believe in smaller government, reduced spending and reduced taxation, but their actions go against this supposed belief. Recently I have been hearing Republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives railing against these very stances in opposition to political opponents.

In Florida the governor’s race is seemingly between Incumbent Republican Governor Rick Scott and former Governor Charlie Crist, who while governor was in the Republican party but later switched to an Independent and finally settling with his current party affiliation in the Democrat Party. The campaign ads against Charlie Crist are easy fallacies and half-truths; they are simply hit and run ads trying to come across as something meaningful and worthwhile. The first issue the Republican Party and conservatives are harping on is that under the current Governor the State is spending MORE on education than ever before and calling the Charlie Crist era the worst decrease in educational spending.

Yes you read that correctly, they are saying that reduced spending is bad and increased spending is good.

To Charlie Crist’s benefit I can say this, his time is office was during the greatest recession (some calling it a depression) in our lifetime, so far anyways...

So why does this matter? The Republican Party would like you to believe that what transpired under Crist was solely on his hands, reduced spending on education, high unemployment, record numbers of foreclosures in the state and the number of businesses dropping was not an isolated incident only in the State of Florida, but a result of a National Recession, Housing Market Crash and Wall Street Problems. Another thing to remember in this is that everything the Republican Party of Florida is using for cannon fodder in these ads was passed under a Republican led state legislature. Now that those conditions have cleared up, or have been covered over, whichever you believe, the current Governor, Scott can seem a better alternative to Crist. But anyone who looks at the issue from the stance of the conservatives should clearly see the hypocrisy in the campaign against Crist.

Though not endorsing anyone for this race, if you live in Florida please be aware there are other options, and also consider abstaining from voting at all.

This trend of saying you believe in one thing and acting another way isn't confined to the State of Florida. This mentality is nationwide. It seems to be just the nature of politics and the want for power and control. Republicans and Conservatives will champion a policy of reduced spending, except in key areas mainly Military and National Security. These two areas in particular are the holiest of holies in terms of non-negotiable items to be reformed or reduced. The annual spending in these two areas have been increased in the last few years with many Republicans voting in favor of the increases. Adding to these costs is the added departments and bureaus being introduced and bolstered by increased funding. All of this flies in the face of the stated stance of Conservatives and yet they see no problem with it. Florida isn't the only state where this is happening either, it is a widespread issue.

Now the call for the Border Fence comes in. 

In the past few weeks an increase of people coming to the American-Mexican border has increased. This increase has rekindled the debate for immigration reform and adding more funding to building a border security fence, adding border patrol agents, buildings and in the most extreme cases using military troops to repel immigrants by force if necessary. But all of this costs. It costs money and the only way the government sees to gain this money is to increase taxes to the citizens. This again goes against their stance on reducing spending and lowering taxes.

According to the US Immigration office "It is estimated that between 2000 and 2010, U.S. taxpayers spent $90 billion on securing the U.S.-Mexico border. This includes various expenses such as the cost of deploying 1,200 National Guard troops to the border, which is $110 million per year, the average salary of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent, which is $75,000—in 2010, there were 20,000 CBP agents deployed to the U.S.-Mexico border, the cost of an X-ray machine to peer into cargo trains and trucks, each costs $1.75 million—of which the U.S. uses 165. There is also the cost of building fences, employing drug-sniffing dogs, the use of predator drones, and various other incendiaries." 

Foreign Aid 

Foreign Aid costs the American Taxpayers around $23 billion in 2013, or a total of $37 billion if you include assistance to foreign militaries. This is approximately 1% of the total US Budget. Even this being only 1% of total budget  it is still such a large portion of money coming out of the paychecks and purses of every American Citizen. This is another one of those areas where so called conservatives are anything but. The issue facing Foreign aid is the idea of taking money from the people of one country and handing it over to another. 

Intervention costs money

The Neoconservative War Hawks and Pro Interventionists will fail to grasp that their intervention into affairs of other countries and governments will have an economic impact. Any intervention that is proposed costs money to implement. Whether they wish to send humanitarian aid, food, training, military weapons, to impose sanctions or even blockades, this will always costs taxpayers in the end. Just the intervention in Crimea cost the American people $896 Million.

The War on Drugs and the War on Terror are two more examples of a reluctance to curb spending and instead cast themselves headlong into hypocritical action over their beliefs. These two programs have been dismal failures and have cost not only billions of dollars annually but have also cost the lives of countless people.
The War on Drugs has created a situation that the US is facing now in Mexico where the drug cartels are pushing people towards the borders and have taken over as warring monopolies. 

The War on Terror is the Combination of wasteful spending, increasing budgets and the creation of new and expanding departments. Spending billions in an attempt to "Make Peace by War", it is something that never was, and never will be. 

How Conservative can you be when you support these programs and ideas? How conservative can you really call yourself if you tend to spend more money year after year, raise taxes, build a bigger and more intrusive government? These are just a few of the many ways that conservatives have lost their definition and have went full steam in the opposite direction. 

What is the answer to Detroit?

I was watching a show Forgotten Planet and one particular episode caught my attention. It was an episode on Detroit, its heyday and its demise. For a long time Detroit was seen as the industrial mecca in the US, turning out automobiles, steel works, mining operations and one of the country's best school systems. But all of this was to come to an end in the wake of economic policies and disastrous government programs. Detroit now sits in ruin. So what would it take to return this city to the forefront of production and the ability for its citizens to prosper? Is the answer to just get government out of the way?

In an article written in 2013 Patrick Barron makes his case for a "Free Detroit".  His idea is to rid the city of all regulations and all taxation. Barron asks, "What if Detroit became a free city in which government provided for public safety, honest courts, protection of property rights, and little else? Might not unabated free enterprise take hold as it always has in America?" adding next, "All that Detroit really needs is economic freedom and secure property rights. Give Detroit its freedom from all manner of government, including the federal government. Declare Detroit a free city. (You can rest assured, Detroit, that America will come to your rescue if those bloodthirsty Canadians attack!) In other words, no one would pay any federal taxes whatsoever or be subject to any federal regulations whatsoever. Wouldn’t it be nice not to pay federal taxes, not even Social Security and Medicare taxes? Do the same with Michigan taxes. No taxes BUT also no federal or state aid either."

How can they have it both ways? You cannot allow zero taxation and have a funded government, even miniscule government compared to the current model.

The rest of the article reads pretty much how one can envision any free marketer article going. Cooperative experiences between citizens without the need for bureaucratic red tape, restrictions licenses, regulations and of course the end to the state sponsored welfare state.

All of these things are in line with the thinking of most Laissez Faire proponents, and of course with most who are familiar with the great Henry Hazlitt and Ludwig von Mises.

What Detroit has become is, in large part, due to the enormity of its city government, the State Government and helped along by the Federal Government. Programs that were meant to help the poor or working poor were in fact reducing them down to a life of dependency, and of course when the government finally runs out of other people money to give away, catastrophe ensues. The lesson to be learned from its fall is that there is such a thing as too much government.

But what is the answer to get it going again?

As Mr. Barron states it may lie in doing the complete opposite of the cause.

In response to Barron's writings on Detroit Chief Investment Officer of Universa Investments LP Mark Spitznagle writes, "Detroit can correct its past public-sector ineptitude and abuses by unleashing the private sector’s vast potential, rooted in the metropolitan region’s vibrant entrepreneurial and manufacturing culture, skilled workforce, and a robust technology base nurtured by world-class institutions like the University of Michigan. The city’s position on an important border crossing and access to an enormous fresh-water supply from the Great Lakes, not to mention the business community’s unrelenting support, enhance its prospects further."

Echoing the late Murray Rothbard, such a collapse “is the ‘recovery’ process, and far from being an evil scourge, is the necessary and beneficial return, says Spitznagle.

I think Detroit can be the greatest study of if and how free market and Austrian economic principles and policies can work. Whether it succeeds or fails will be the greatest milestone in the sake of accepted economic means to ends.

What Can They Do To Make You Say "No More"?

What would your government have to do to make you fight back? What would they have to do that caused the population to dissent? What act would one agency have to commit for you to stand up and say “NO, I am not taking this anymore!” Not merely voting to change what is being done but to completely abolish those doing it. Question yourself this.

Distrust in the government is nothing new. It is not a new era thing or even something only the younger generations are starting; in fact dissent to control has been taking place since men formed any sort of governance over others. This dissent has seen every age and every reason. It has lived throughout centuries and all over the globe. It fueled The American Revolution and The Civil War. Dissent can be seen as different actions. Maybe it is just the questioning of government, seeking accountability, exposure of immoral acts perpetrated against innocents. It could be the actual physical actions against the state. Either aggressing against the state or not recognizing the State's self-appropriated power. It could be the act of non-compliance, agorism, or removing one’s self from the situations and going “off the grid”.

But the question is What Would Make Someone to Do This? What could be the final straw for YOU that absolutely break any sincere reverence for the state or its offices and officials? For most this isn't even a question they would attempt to answer. For most, the blind allegiance has been ingrained since birth that compliance is fate and resistance is futile. The “Statists” as they are called, see themselves as the masters of the government power and those officials as employees and representatives to their will. This is clearly not the case in American Politics, but let’s let them keep their fantasy. They seek power over others and to form a moral civilization by force, those morals being their own. In their belief of these powers and representation it may be easier for them to answer “Nothing” to this question at first. But could there be something suppressed in them that would cause them to answer? Could there be a line that cannot be crossed? Can there be that unforgivable event that occurs and is the catalyst to a real level of dissent?

Ask yourself these questions.

Is there anything that the TSA could do to me that would make me say “I am not going to let this continue”?

Is there any amount of spying that the NSA can do to me that I will reject their ability and power to do so? 

How much does the IRS have to take before you say it is too much? How much of a slave are you willing to be?

Is there any place that in the world that the military could start a war that would incense me enough to demand them to cease? Is there any amount of people they could target  that would raise a question in your mind about the morality of what they do?

Is there any amount of regulation or mandates that I am uncomfortable enough with that I will resist or simply not comply? 

When is Enough Enough?

This is a question that everyone should try and answer. Everyone should at least attempt to come up with their last straw, their red line in the sand, their own final event.

Why is this so important a question?

The level of intervention into the personal and business lives of all people is of concern to me. It is not a question of how much, but that there is any interjection of government mandates, regulations, restrictions, licensure, theft, murder, coercion and incarceration in the private affairs of citizens. This question gives your self the very definition of what you are willing to put up with, what you will subscribe to, what you will allow to happen, before you finally realize the intrusion into your freedom, the violation of your natural liberty.

So now I leave it to you to answer this for yourself. These answers will be different for everyone.

Is there anything that would make you resist the control of the state?

Is there anything they can do to you that you would fight back?

Is there anything that any department can do to you that you will say “NO”?

Follow me on Twitter @PatriotPapers

Find me on Liberty.me @TheBeardedLibertyGuy

Like the Jefferson Papers Facebook Page

On Taxes

Taxes are not something most people joyfully or gleefully pay. They are not something that most people claim to benefit from. But people defend taxation for various reasons; they are voluntary or compulsory. Taxes are what some describe as the cost of living in a certain area or to enjoy certain services that this money is supposedly collected for. And then some say all taxation is theft.  Apologists will denounce anyone who dares to "cheat" the system and keep some of their own money. They are a guilty pleasure and an unseen control mechanism to a lot of people.

Tax Time is here and not too many smiles will be found, unless you work for the Government that is...

Individuals and companies, from the last day of January to the 15th of April every year, sit down to try and figure out how much of their money has been taken by the Federal Government and if they can expect some of it back or if they will be forced to "give" some more. The Federal Income Tax has been enforced since 1913 and ever since that time people living in this country have been required to pay part of their wages to support government programs and fund Federal Institutions. Trillions of dollars are taken from the paychecks of citizens before they ever see it.

Why are you defending theft?

There is a saying "Taxation is Theft". Some believe this is an error and that the statement is false in all degrees. But is it? Is taxation theft? The legal definition of theft is the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). With that said, one can question if the pay of a man for his labor is his property of that of the government for which he lives under. Questions can arise if the man has voluntarily submitted himself and his wages to the seizure of his property or if under the definition of theft has been the victim of a crime. Since those persons outside of government employment are in the private sector and those persons have not submitted the wages of their labor voluntarily, but by threat of violence or imprisonment the definition of theft can be applied to the act of taxation of income.

"If, then, taxation is compulsory, and is therefore indistinguishable from theft, it follows that the State, which subsists on taxation, is a vast criminal organization far more formidable and successful than any “private” Mafia in history". -Murray Rothbard-

Those that are in Employment of the government, in whatever capacity and at whatever level, (federal, state or local) are the beneficiaries of these extorted monies as their paycheck.

It has been said that these government workers "pay their own wages because they are taxed also". This is a fallacy. As a person is taxed at a percentage of their income, a person cannot pay into their entire paycheck. If they paid the entirety of their own wages it would be known as volunteering or slavery.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., American Jurist and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1902 to 1932 is quoted as saying, "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." This is a popular thought of those who I would say taxation is a guilty pleasure or who feels that their wants should be funded by public means extorted from individuals instead of private and voluntary contributions. The very nature of this statement brings to mind a incredibly different question altogether for me. "Do we have a civilized society?"  That is a question left for another time.

A society based on the theft of wealth cannot be a moral and civil society. The very action of theft is against civility. But in this thought, we can ask ourselves these questions.

Does the act of paying into a general fund benefit the individual outright as much as it would if he would have funded whatever it is by voluntary means?

Can the value of these institutions to the general public be in contest to the value by the individual?

If a man be forced to fund policies and departments that they find immoral, unneeded, or in conflict with their religious or philosophical beliefs.

Murray Rothbard writes in his work "The Ethics of Liberty" that the size of government can be directly affected by the coercive nature of taxation. If the State were to suddenly abolish all taxation and thereby fund their departments and programs through completely voluntary means the size and scope of government would dramatically shrink.

This should be and is touted as the goal of the Neo-Conservatives and Republican Party,but is in complete contrast to their actions and policies. The same can apply to Democrats and Neo-Liberals, as their policies and actions tend to be based more on helping people, excessive taxation steals the money from people they are attempting to help.  It robs businesses of capital and forces higher prices, unemployment and subsequent poverty.

Where does all of this money go?

The mainstream belief is that these monies go to pay for services and programs inside and outside the United States. That would be nice, IF IT WERE TRUE. What is not taught to most Americans is that all the money that is taken in the form of the Federal Income Tax is used to pay off a loan for the previous fiscal year’s budgets. Who is this loan from?  The Federal Reserve loans the US government money at an interest rate. They then sell this debt (or securities) to foreign and domestic banks and individuals. The US Government pays these notes of security to the holders upon payment to the Federal Reserve of its loan. Of course the Federal Reserve does not pay the interest earned to the holders of the securities and instead makes a profit from the transactions. Interesting that a private bank that holds an enforced monopoly on the issuance of money is turning large profits off of the debt of a nation.

You might be wondering why the US debt has skyrocketed in the past and why it is so astronomical now; that is the nature of the Federal Reserve System. Since all money the government, and by mandate of the rest of the country, uses is owed back to the Fed with added interest; and the only way to pay it back is to take out a loan the next year, it is inevitable that this debt is unpayable. For a better explanation, I would recommend the book The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin.

Is it cheating to keep your own money?

There are Tax Apologists out there that will become irate when an individual or company is found out to have offshore or international banking accounts in order to skirt paying taxes. The idea that someone who finds a way to keep his or her own property from seizure is seen as a criminal or seen as the bad guy has never really made sense. It is the same as someone who sets an alarm on their car or home: they are protecting their property and assets. The keeping of their own wages or property is the essential goal of Tax abolitionists which is to free everyone of the burden of theft of wages. It’s baffling to think that anyone is against this, but I think the emotional and illogical thought people have is, " If I have to pay then so does everyone else." i.e. the fair tax. To be certain there is nothing fair about the Fair Tax, it is still funneling money away from commerce and savings and it still only applies to certain groups and individuals.

The Fair Tax advocates will debate all day long that their system is better than what we have now, and I will not disagree, however I will say this: it is far from an ideal way to handle things. The entire idea of collecting money to fund programs and departments that the original "victim" may not have voluntarily given to is still present. The idea that money is still being diverted away from private enterprise and given to a bloated, inefficient and expanding government hasn’t changed. The same idea that Rothbard stated is still there: if the department or program cannot be funded by voluntary means it should not be fit to survive on public funding. Much like private business, if customers do not value the product or service, the company will fail and cease to exist. In the opposite of public departments and government offices, there is no measuring stick or ruler to determine if the service is viable beyond the edicts of bureaucrats and politicians wants.

To name a few things that tax monies are used for that would most likely not be funded by voluntary means.

The NSA and its wiretapping programs- Seen as a violation of privacy by a majority, this office and its "service" most likely would fall.

Animal Shelters that euthanize animals- This is a partial subsidy most often and the shelter may or may not survive with voluntary contributions.

The Militarization of America's Police forces and the brutality that they commit on a daily basis-If these police departments were reliant on the surrounding communities support and contributions there would be less of a chance they would commit the heinous acts that they do. Killing family pets and even people are becoming everyday occurrences in America. Changing the way they are funded could force them to rely on community service and protection services without the God Complexes a lot of them have.

Calling on more taxation.

There is a growing movement in America, an added Tax movement. The Robin Hood Tax or The Wall Street Tax is the next big thing for gluttons for monetary punishment. This new tax would add tax onto Wall Street transactions. If any sane individual thinks that this would not have a detrimental effect on the Stock Market, they are gullible and economically ignorant. Any addition to transactions coming from Wall Street would hamper the degree and volume of daily transactions. This would have a negative impact on the formation and expansion of companies and corporations as they will stifle new markets and products. These new taxes, like all others, will be passed to the end consumers, YOU AND I. When a new tax or regulation is added to a transaction of a corporation, the owners of that company will want to reduce any interference in their ability to turn profits (after all everyone is after a profit). That is the reason most of us have jobs; to profit off of our skills and labor. The owners will pass their cost of compliance to regulation or the collection of new taxes down the line until it hits the product on the shelf where the end user, the consumer, picks up the higher price.

As an Anarcho-Capitalist, I understand that this is hard for some to understand and takes much more than a simple blog post by a relative unknown person for many to grasp the concepts I have laid out here. That is why I encourage further reading into the failure and immorality of taxation.  The works of Ludwig von Mises, Murray N Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and so many more are easily found online. Take the time and educate yourself. Learn and apply, it really is that easy.


Follow me on these other Social Media Sites
Twitter @PatriotPapers
FaceBook https://www.facebook.com/travis.wilson.355744
And Now on Liberty.me at TheBeardedLibertyGuy.
Use this Promo Code to join in on the premier Liberty Social Media Site
http://liberty.me?ref=beardedlibertyguy-9522