Studies Indicate I am Not Insane!

Before you ask, I have not been seeing a personal psychologist!  However, when discussing various topics with others, I oftentimes feel that I must have come from another planet, or something- especially when the topic is an event that is extremely important.  Indeed, the visceral and malicious reaction someone receives when offering up a viewpoint that differs from what one could call "conventional wisdom" or the "official" history of a particular subject can caused one to reflect upon their own psychological state.  Turns out, this is all by design!

EPJ highlighted an interesting article by Dr. Kevin Barrett entitled "New studies: 'Conspiracy theorists sane, Government Dupes crazy, hostile".  In this article, Barret discusses a study released this year "by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK).  Entitled 'What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,' the study compared 'conspiracist' (pro-conspiracy theory) and 'conventionalist' (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites."  He also cites a book recently published entitled Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith.  Of course, the very term "conspiracy theorist" conjures up images of someone who is psychologically unbalanced.  But in the article, Barrett sheds some light on the origins of this label, which is designed to invalidate and marginalize the viewpoints of those who disagree with an "official" rendering of major events:

"Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called 'conspiracy theorists': The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! 'The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.'”

Interestingly, the study conducted by Wood and Douglas shows that those who choose not to believe the unbelievable story of 9/11 as depicted by the government indicate a far more psychologically balanced mindset than their counterparts, and-in actuality embody the mainstream opinion of various controversial topics:

The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.

Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured (sic) the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”

Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 – a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan – was indisputably true. The so-called conspirators, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”

In examination of the unbelievable 9/11 story, James Corbett has put together a 5 minute video which describes that event as the government does.  There is very little commentary in the video; it simply explains the event as depicted by the US government in the 9/11 commission report.  Of course, much like the Warren Commission report of the assassination of JFK, the government story leaves much to be desired with regards to plausibility.  In fact, because of the absurdity of the US government's 9/11 fable, the Corbett video comes off as hilarious!  Thus, it is not surprising that those who question the official 9/11 story are found by the above research to come out in the "sane" category, while the defenders of the government story are found to be more fanatical and hostile.

Although questioning the government story (especially regarding the watershed events of JFK and 9/11) can be frightening to citizens who have been trained that their rulers are benevolent, it is especially important to do so if one would like to have an accurate picture of what type of government assumes authority in their particular geographic area.  If the government simply meant the organization who gives everyone puppies and flowers, it would not matter that much.  However, in the previous century, governments around the world murdered over 200 million of their own citizens!  Skepticism of government is of paramount importance in light of the violent and destructive track record which the State has earned as a form of governance.

There can be no doubt that the State- with the monopoly of force over a defined geographic area, and the likelihood of acting against the interests of the citizenry and for the interests of powerful political forces- poses the gravest danger to the common people who live within it. The fables the State propagates must be viewed not as the gospel truth, but with the utmost suspicion.

The Unpredictability of Freedom

I wanted to share a great article I read from The Ludwig von Mises Institute by Gary Galles:

We Cannot Predict the Many Ways Freedom Will Improve Our Lives 

In the article, Galles discusses a tactic that is often used against proponents of freedom when advocating for an unfettered marketplace. These people would like to hear a detailed analysis from points A to Z- a symptom of their flawed "planner" mentality. Galles points out the absurdity of this approach:

"In the face of such questions, it is nonetheless important to recognize that such questions are rhetorical traps designed to put an unachievable burden of proof on voluntary arrangements, short-circuiting the need to deal with the many valid criticisms of coercive policies.

The trap works because answers to such questions are beyond our competence. But that does not mean statism wins by default. It only means that detailed prediction of what would happen in a future where some government-imposed constraints on freedom are eased is beyond anyone’s knowledge."

Later, Galles offers a few examples of progress which occurred in the market:

"To see this, simply reflect on what freedom has produced in the past. The miracles that freedom has produced, unknown in advance, offer overwhelming testimony for faith in freedom.

For example, compare the Post Office with any other form of communication. Its snail’s pace changes contrast with advances in digital communication possibilities beyond even recent fantasies. In fact, freedom has produced miracles all around us whose nature we fail to understand, because we now take them for granted and forget their genesis (e.g., in a world of digital copying, few remember the lost “joys” of carbon paper and its purple progeny).

We need only revisit the revolutions involved to see that no one ever knew exactly what would happen beforehand. If people had only pursued what could be clearly foreseen, none of those miracles would have happened and we would be immeasurably poorer."(Emphasis added.)

Another example of an unplanned invention is the "sticky note", as described by Wikipedia:

"In 1968, Dr. Spencer Silver, a scientist at 3M in the United States, was attempting to develop a super-strong adhesive, but instead he accidentally created a 'low-tack', reusable, pressure-sensitive adhesive that has been characterized as 'a solution without a problem'. For five years, Silver promoted his invention within 3M, both informally and through seminars, but without much success.

In 1974, a colleague of his, Art Fry, who had attended one of Silver's seminars, came up with the idea of using the adhesive to anchor his bookmark in his hymnbook.  Fry then developed the idea by taking advantage of 3M's officially sanctioned "permitted bootlegging" policy.  3M launched the product in stores in 1977 in four cities under the name 'Press 'n Peel', but its results were disappointing.  A year later, in 1978, 3M issued free samples to residents of Boise, Idaho, and 94 percent of the people who tried them said that they would buy the product.  On April 6, 1980, the product debuted in US stores as 'Post-It Notes'."

While Galles is correct in pointing out how a free market is wonderfully spontaneous, it is important to remember that many libertarian scholars have visualized a truly free market in great detail.  Walter Block discusses the concept of removing the government's monopoly on transportation in his book, The Privatization of Roads and Highways.1  Murray Rothbard discusses the privatization of courts and police, among many other things, in For a New Liberty.

 "Ra ta ta ta!"

When faced with a reasoned presentation of the workability of free choice in various aspects of life, many skeptics of the free market will make an intellectual "final stand", fixating on the caricatured notion of the "greedy capitalist".  This emotional appeal is typically based in jealousy of those who have acquired large sums of wealth, rather than a sincere desire to improve the standard of living.  Indeed, in a system of capitalism, cascades of wealth will be generated by those who invent useful products, and head up the companies which produce them!  This is a result of consumers clamoring to acquire the things that are deemed important to them, and impeccable foresight by some in bringing precisely the right goods and/or services to market in the right place and at the right time.  Anyone with gumption and inventiveness can achieve such grandeur, and those who have it can only hold on to their status by continuing to woo the consumer with relevant products and/or services produced in a productive, and efficient manner.

A centrally planned economic system cannot altruistically purge from the human spirit the inherent motivator often referred to as "greed".  Rather, such an economy can only result in entrenching those who serve the omnipresent state, as political leaders and powerful business interests engage in a continuum of backscratching.  Even worse, the coercive nature of the centrally planned economy means that those producers who are not "in the loop" are forced to the black market- where eager consumers are made to suffer through artificially lower quality products, shortages, and high-risk transactions.  In short, central planning results in an environment in which the unscrupulous thrive- in both the "legal" market and the black market, innovation and price deflation are stymied by coercive monopoly, and consumers and producers who wish to engage in voluntary market transactions can be transformed into criminals.  In contrast, a free market embraces the human condition- and achieves the maximum improvement to the standard of living in societies who embrace it- as "greedy" consumers constantly demand lower prices, innovation, and abundance from "greedy" producers who fall all over themselves to most adequately provide the goods and services the consumers desire!


Notes:

1.  Both of the books in this paragraph are graciously offered for free at Mises.org in PDF form.

Foreign Policy Hypocrisy Pt. 2

In my last post, I discussed a recent comment by Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity about the hypocrisy of US foreign policy.  An explanation from Michael Rozeff on the LRC blog entitled "How Does the U.S. Choose Its Friends and Enemies?" discusses the motivators which drive foreign policy in the US to take such awkward positions:

"There is no need to be puzzled by such seeming inconsistencies as the U.S. sometimes supporting terrorists and other times fighting them; or the U.S. being anti-Nazi and yet supporting at times right-wing governments, dictators and death squads. There is no need to be puzzled by the support of democracy in one country and paying no attention to it in another or even undermining it. There is no need to be puzzled by the U.S. seeming to support the aspirations of one people while ignoring the rights of another people, including American citizens. There is no need to be puzzled by the immense hypocrisies of U.S. officials. The reason for all of this is that ideology is being made to serve the underlying purpose of the empire’s maintenance and expansion.

...

"...In the case of the U.S. empire, this purpose is hidden by the fact that territorial acquisitions are no longer its prime means. The U.S. gave up the Philippines and Cuba. It made no attempt to absorb a defeated Germany or Japan. Instead, it used other means. This purpose is also hidden under an immense amount of ideological fictions about American exceptionalism, the self-determination of peoples, spreading democracy, and so on."

Indeed, these fictions lull the mulcted taxpayer into a state of acquiescence or- even worse- support for intervention in matters that have no bearing or impact on their life.  The media plays a significant role in propagating this mentality by offering heart breaking stories which play on the viewer's inherent desire to "help their fellow man"- and implying or expressly stating that the US government is the only vehicle for action against such atrocities.  Such meddling would be considered absolutely unacceptable if the roles were reversed, with another country intervening in the internal affairs of the US- a point brilliantly made by Ron Paul during his 2012 presidential run.  The revulsion felt when considering a government thousands of miles away dictating the affairs of the US should give patriotic boobus americanus pause before advocating interventions by the US government of the affairs of others.  In a satirical article drawing this logic to its ultimate conclusion, Murray Rothbard's proposition was to "Invade the World":

"We must face the fact that there is not a single country in the world that measures up to the lofty moral and social standards that are the hallmark of the U.S.A.: even Canada is delinquent and deserves a whiff of grape. There is not a single country in the world which, like the U.S., reeks of democracy and 'human rights,' and is free of crime and murder and hate thoughts and undemocratic deeds. Very few other countries are as Politically Correct as the U.S., or have the wit to impose a massively statist program in the name of 'freedom,' 'free trade,' 'multiculturalism,' and 'expanding democracy.'

And so, since no other countries shape up to U.S. standards in a world of Sole Superpower they must be severely chastised by the U.S., I make a Modest Proposal for the only possible consistent and coherent foreign policy: the U.S. must, very soon, Invade the Entire World!"

The globally hegemonic philosophy of US government policy-makers (at the behest of those who seek to gain from foreign policy decisions) makes hypocrisy a matter of course- as this philosophy extends the right to intervene to the US, while the idea of a foreign power controlling the US would be considered an outrage!  As Rozeff points out, it is not surprising to see illogical and counter-intuitive positions following from such a foundation.

US Foreign Policy Hypocrisy

Daniel McAdams wrote a great post on the LRC blog recently, that highlights the hypocrisy of US Foreign policy:

A Tale of Two Cities: Fallujah and Allepo

Iraqi army forces intensified their shelling of Fallujah over the past couple of days in attempt to dislodge control from an al-Qaeda affiliate that last month overran the city and most of the Anbar region in which it lies.

US Secretary of State John Kerry pledged support to Iraq in its efforts to expel al-Qaeda from Fallujah and Anbar, promising the US would do “everything that is possible” to help the Maliki government take on al-Qaeda in Iraq. The US has already sent at least 75 “Hellfire” missiles and promised to send in drones as well.

Meanwhile…

Syrian government forces intensified shelling of Aleppo over the last couple of days in attempt to dislodge control of parts of the area from various al-Qaeda affiliates who overran that city.
US Secretary of State John Kerry condemned Syrian government actions against al-Qaeda affiliates, stating, “There is no way, not possible in the imagination, that the man who has led the brutal response to his own people could regain legitimacy to govern.”

The US government has pledged support to the Syrian rebels in their efforts to expel the Syrian government from power, with US Congress voting recently — in secret — to step up military assistance to the Syrian rebels. Though the assistance is advertised as going to only the “moderate” factions, numerous reports confirm that US military equipment routinely winds up in the hands of the al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria.

Thus John Kerry and the Obama regime enters into the world of the clinically insane: sending weapons to attack the same al-Qaeda in Iraq that it arms in neighboring Syria. It is the foreign policy equivalent of Caligula naming his horse Incitatus a consul.

I am on RPI, Facebook, and Twitter.

The proper foreign policy is, of course, non-intervention.  If the US Government could bring themselves to taking a "hands-off" approach and allow free-trade, levy no protectionist tariffs, and cease its incessant meddling in the affairs of other nations, many less enemies would materialize.  At the very least, those enemies would have much less fertile ground in which they seed their rejection of the US.  Indeed, there was a time when people in other nations looked to the US as an example to emulate.

Unfortunately, the US has shifted its foreign relations from peaceful and mutually beneficial commercial interactions via free trade to militarism and destruction via foreign policy.  This creates a strange sort of system in that those who are supposed to represent the national interest have an incentive to provoke enemies into existence, if only to justify their own existence.  Even worse, powerful interests exist which lobby the government to procure more and more funding to the military to line their own pockets.  The projects the military undertakes are often spread out to many different constituencies, in a political twisting of the division of labor.  This labor division is not oriented in achieving more efficient or economical production.  Rather, it is designed to procure support from formerly disinterested parties to the war machine because it provides for their livelihood.

The foreign policy of interventionism has created a very messy situation which lacks any clear objective, is imperialistic, is pursued hypocritically and spreads animosity which breeds resentment.  This policy is the wellspring of propaganda which says that the enemy is all around you, hiding under every rock.  Indeed, it is the job of these folks to warn you about the monster in your closet- a monster which only the mighty power of the military can contest.  Intervention is antithetical to peace, and is a threat to the people living in the imperialist's domain, but it is a boon to those who seek to profit from human misery.1  If peace is desired, non-intervention must be the cornerstone of foreign policy.


Note:

1.  Take a look at this chart, which compares the US military budget (2012) to that of other nations:

Articles and Lectures on Libertarianism

Robert Wenzel runs an excellent (and addictive) blog called EconomicPolicyJournal.com, which has published a few very good lists of lectures and articles which can help one develop an understanding of libertarian philosophy:

The 30 Day Reading List that will Lead You to Becoming a Knowledgeable Libertarian

30 Lectures that Will Help You to Become a More Knowledgeable Libertarian

30 Lectures that Will Help You to Become a More Knowledgeable Libertarian (Part 2)

Awesome resource!

Timeless Absurdity

Today I am sharing an interesting letter posted on a blog called The Art of Not Being Governed which shows that the "Support the Troops" mentality is nothing new, and highlights the danger posed by such non-thinking:

An Open Letter From a Soldier, To Those Who Criticize The Troops

To whom it may concern:

It has come to my attention that many people have been directing some of their anger about our country’s foreign policy toward the members of the military themselves rather than to our political leaders who dictate what our policy is.

As a solider [editor's note: typo] soldier, this saddens and upsets me. I joined the military not because I agreed with the politicians, but because I felt a duty to serve our beautiful country and noble people. Our way of life is worth protecting, and it requires that men like me make personal sacrifices so that others don’t have to. Freedom needs to be preserved and protected from those who seek to destroy it, and they are legion. The modern world is complex, and what we have here in our country is attractive to despots, terrorists, tyrants, bolshevists, and religious extremists. They will use any means possible to enslave and control us.


I don’t want to spend my life in the military. I never really wanted to join in the first place, but the economy was such that there simply weren’t any other options that came close to providing the benefits, pay, and security for my family. I have children, and I did what I had to do to make sure they had food on the table and a warm place to sleep. I joined the military so they won’t have to. I want a better life for them, and the surest way to provide that is through national service.

If you haven’t served in the military, you won’t be able to understand the evil that exists outside our peaceful borders. I’ve looked into the eyes of our enemies. I’ve seen the atrocities they commit. I’ve heard their anger. The peace and tranquility you experience at home is the result of the willingness of brave soldiers to pursue evil wherever it takes hold.

I do not mean to say that our soldiers are perfect and always honorable. Of course there are mistakes. Of course innocent people die, and it is always a tragedy when they do. But we do our best to minimize those deaths as much as possible. Sometimes those deaths are out of our control. We don’t always know what is behind every door, and we can’t afford to assume the best of every situation.

Some have criticized soldiers for their willingness to imprison our enemies without trial or charges. I have worked at a detainment complex where some of these people are held. I won’t say the name of the facility, but you will no doubt be familiar with it, as it is probably the most famous of this type of detainment center. I know for a fact that some of the people that were held there were innocent of any crime, and I did what I could to lighten their burden. If I wasn’t there, some other soldier could have been there and he may not have been so kind. We had a lot of people come through, and I didn’t always know their fate in the end. That information was above my pay grade. There was nothing I could do about it. I always tried to treat them with respect and dignity. Of course I couldn’t help them escape, because I would have faced disciplinary charges, and they probably would have been found and killed. This would help nobody. From my position I could at least make their lives a little more tolerable.

I’ve never killed anybody; I’ve never even fired my weapon at another person. I won’t follow orders which go against our national principles. I have taken an oath to our country, our flag, and our Führer, and I will not violate that oath.

Now that I’ve laid out my defense of my chosen occupation, let me offer some solutions.

Those who criticize our troops are always welcome to find another country to live in. Nobody is stopping anybody from leaving. Granted, there are certain checks and procedures that need to be followed, but that is only for security; those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. Those who get disappeared by the Gestapo are criminals and represent a danger to our pure nation.

If you don’t wish to leave, I encourage you to write to your politicians. They are the ones who make the decisions; they have the power to change things. Our political freedoms allow us to have access to the legislators, and to vote out those who don’t represent the voice of our unified people. We are only their tools and cannot make changes on our own. It is they who determine the orders; we only follow them.

I may not like the stench of the incinerators, I may not agree with every race law, and I may not believe fully in the final solution, but the only reason you enjoy your freedom is that rough men like me are willing to do violence to protect you. It is our willingness to put aside our personal lives, sacrifice our liberties, and deploy to the harshest places on earth that allows you to be comfortable at home, to enjoy the blessings of living in the greatest nation on earth, and to have a peaceful and prosperous holiday season. Don’t forget, as you prepare the Weihnachtsplätzchen this Christmas, that we, the National Socialist soldiers of der Führer Adolf Hitler are away so that you can walk down the Reichsstraße to the Rhine in peace.

Remember the words of our German National Anthem:

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt,
Wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze
Brüderlich zusammenhält.

Germany, Germany above everything,
Above everything in the world,
When, for protection and defense, it always
takes a brotherly stand together.

Sgt Heinrich Ehrlichmann
Military Post Number 34 539 F
Ukraine

Does this sound familiar?

If you are like me, you were mentally preparing your rebuttal as you read the first half of the letter- only to realize that this soldier wasn't stationed in Guantanamo, he was likely stationed in Auschwitz!  This letter could be satire. Nonetheless, all the "justifications" the author used- "duty", "protecting our way of life", preservation of "freedom", bad guys who seek to do harm, providing for his family in a poor economy, etc.- are constantly reasons used by US troops when discussing why they enlist in the military.

Such rationale is as illogical as it is timeless.  Although the arguments for soldiering can appear to have validity for the casual observer, they fall apart altogether upon even an inkling of perusal.  It is too bad such scrutiny seems to be beyond consideration for the hoards of people volunteering to partake in death and destruction, and those who "support" them.

Thanks for the Thanksgiving Workers

Robert P. Murphy shared some interesting thoughts about folks who work on Thanksgiving on his blog recently:

Working on the Holidays

While enjoying the wonderful meal brought together for our enjoyment last night, someone predictably chimed in that it was awful that Walmart remains open on Thanksgiving.  The implicit (and unanswered) question is: why would Walmart do such a thing?  I guess they just are a bunch of money-grubbing scrooges, who wish to punish their employees due to a lack of reverence for the value of family time!

I think Murphy's take on this is worth considering:

I think this outrage that we hear every year is oddly selective. For example, should all gas stations, highway toll booths, bus stations, and airports be closed on Thanksgiving? If so, that would prevent a lot of people from “spending the holidays with their families.” Even if your sole criterion were to boost the amount of time people spend with their loved ones, you would need at least some critical workers at their posts on Thanksgiving Day (at least the morning and afternoon).

In other words, from a purely utilitarian perspective, holiday workers permit many people to travel to see family who could not otherwise do so.  (Can you imagine strapping a few extra fuel tanks to your vehicle in order to have enough gas to get where you are going, due to all the fuel stations being closed?)  In the case of Walmart, people are shopping on the day of Thanksgiving for one of two reasons:

1.  Thanksgiving is a meaningless holiday to them, and they are doing their regular shopping.  This means closing up shop would punish them for not celebrating the sacrosanct "National Holiday", in a bizarre form of collective retribution.1

2.  They are purchasing items they forgot to buy, or didn't realize they needed until the "heat of the moment".  I guess you will just have to live without the stuffing, or cranberry sauce, or whatever else it is that now is unavailable because everyone is closed!2

It becomes clear how strange this perspective of anti-Walmartism is when considering the reality of the issue.  However, those against Walmart, do not stop there!  No, no...they move even further along this twisted logical path to say it is their duty to boycott the establishment!  Of course, that's fine in the sense of boycott being a voluntary measure to take.  However, it reveals the insanity of the thought process these folks engage in: to resort to self-denial if it comes down to it to prove they are serious about their concern for these "exploited" workers!

Taking pity on those "poor souls" who are "forced"3 to work on holidays is a way to marginalize them, and is incredibly degrading to these people who stand at the ready to provide products to market at a crucial time when we are all trying to look our best for those who's opinion we value the most.  After all, when you forget an ingredient for a dish you are preparing on the holidays, they save you the embarrassment of that dish being voided due to your lack of foresight.  Instead of pitying them, perhaps they should be honored.  At the very least, these workers deserve our thanks!



Notes

1.  The liberal frowning upon Walmart is eerily reminiscent of the conservative Christian logic of forcing one's religious values upon others.  Strange bedfellows or birds of a feather?

2.  We were fortunate that the grocery stores were open where we live, because we needed several forgotten items to complete our holiday feast.

3.  Of course, the employees at these establishments who are open do not "have a gun to their head".  That tactic (the threat of violence) is never employed by capitalists, but is always employed by the state.

Support the Dupes

Today is known in the US as Veteran's Day, but before 1954 was known as Armistice Day, the latter honoring WWI veterans and the former a celebration of veterans of all US wars.1  This change came as a result of WWII veteran Raymond Weeks, who hatched the first "National Veteran's Day" celebration in 1947 and led a successful delegation to US President Eisenhower to make the rhetorical change.  (source wikipedia)

What I am reflecting upon this year is the notion that veterans of US foreign conflicts are to be "celebrated" at all.  What makes this occupation so noble that it is to be honored with three national holidays over the course of the year, and indeed on a daily basis for those who are vehemently supportive of the US military?  Anyone who watches sports regularly is indoctrinated constantly with the "support the troops" mentality, as most of these events include military honor guards and sometimes even giant displays of "patriotism."  Many times one will encounter a sign in a business to this effect, and more than enough vehicles are pasted with bumper stickers which either say "support the troops" or an emblems which proudly display the branch of the military which the driver or someone they know is working for.  Suffice to say, over the course of one's daily life here in the US, it is almost impossible to avoid contact with such propaganda.

However, the question remains: what is it about this occupation which earns it such constant and unquestioned devotion?  Why don't we see more bumper stickers which say "support the grocery clerks" and "thank the garbage men"?  In fact, try to thank someone who is working at a business you are patronizing for their service, and watch as they give you a blank stare with a confused "you're welcome".  Although the services one utilizes in daily life are crucial to a sense of normalcy (having a place to buy food and the removal of garbage) the employees who put forth the effort to make these services available are not revered or honored as heros, much less with giant displays at sporting events such as the photo above.  No one sheds tears for the "sacrifice" many have suffered in the service of providing goods and services demanded in the marketplace.

The elephant in the room here is the notion that without US troops engaged in constant warfare, there would be no sense of normalcy.  Indeed, the most fervent supporters of the US military often times say that without endless warmongering, "we would all be speaking German"!2  Another popular phrase is "freedom isn't free".  Even many who are emphatically anti-war will concede that they support the troops, especially in light of the bad treatment many Vietnam War veterans received upon return from that war.  However, in order to investigate the validity of the these claims (that without perpetual war and interventionism in other nation's affairs, the US would not be a "free" country- therefore, the troops are engaged in a noble cause and are to be revered), one must sort through this imperialistic philosophy logically and without emotional bias.

In peeling this onion, one must consider the presumption that US military actions are designed to repel enemies who seek to take control and "do us harm".  This notion is perhaps as old as time as a plea by rulers to a citizen's sense of security in daily life, thus "protecting the country" is the typical stated justification for those who decide to join the military.3  However, rulers necessarily have a vested interest in maintaining the illusion that its citizens live in the "greatest country in the world" and that any fundamental change in the nature of power would yield undesirable or at least uncertain results.  Thus, it is difficult to imagine how rulers could separate themselves from their own interest to maintain power in a benevolent act of purity such as the appeal for the "security of the nation".

Indeed, when discussing matters of foreign policy, intellectuals and leaders incessantly refer to the abstract concept of "our strategic interests and obligations around the globe".  This terminology is so pervasive in the rhetoric used by war-mongers to justify various actions, and so rare is the appeal to security of the citizenry, that one must ask, who's "interest and obligations" are they referring to?  As those who are mere citizens do not typically oblige themselves to matters in other nations, it is apparent that the power structure of the nation has simply postulated this concept on its citizenry.  Clearly, when referring to these conflicts, the use of the word "our" is more appropriately viewed as not the citizens of the nation, but rather the powerful interest groups who parasitically utilize the citizenry as a source of funding and cannon-fodder to further entrench their control of resources world wide.  The "enemies" who are created to justify such intervention are likely just unfortunate enough to have been born in a geographical area which contains something these interest groups seek to exploit.  It is hard to imagine how such dastardly ends could be achieved absent the means of the coercive power of the state to extract and subsidize them with financial and human capital.

So, rather than providing a secure life for the citizens of the nation, the role of the soldier is, in actuality, to provide a secure profit for companies who seek to exploit resources from an area which is currently out of their control.  The soldier is also working for what Bob Dylan termed the "Masters of War"- those companies which "build the death plains...(and)...build all the bombs."  Committing such atrocities does not "make us safer", rather it increases the likelihood of retaliation by those who are attacked and, thus, is counterproductive in that it makes life in the nation of the warmonger less secure.  Soldiers, however unwittingly, are therefore responsible for not only the destruction they participate in while warring, but are in their actions sowing the seeds for future conflicts to arise.

For this reason, those bestowing "honor" on soldiers are really making a mockery of the word. Far more honor can likely be found in the innocent civilians of warring countries, who have been murdered in the hundreds of millions in the twentieth century, and, indeed throughout history by soldiers and their masters.  Here's to hoping that in the future, there will be less veterans!





*Published in the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in hopes for a peaceful future on this planet.






Notes
1.  It is of note that the concept of "Veteran's Day" is a redundancy, considering that Memorial Day had been practiced for identical purposes since the mid 1800s.  But one can never be too redundant in honoring "those who served."

2.  Lately, some trade the word "German" for "Arabic" as an attempt to stay fashionable with the current "enemy".

3.  However, many of the enlistments after 9/11 were not embarked upon in an attempt to "protect the nation" from an enemy that was perceived to be a threat to actually overthrow the US government.  Indeed, the idea that Muslim terrorists could undertake such an action would have been, even at that time of great chaos and confusion, a silly notion.  Rather, many of these enlistments were undertaken to participate for the ignoble cause of revenge.

Thomas Woods Speaking to NullfyNow NC

Tom Woods gave a great speech to NullifyNow NC recently that is great for those who already have a grasp on the concept of state nullification:

Tom Woods NullifyNow NC

In this speech, Woods focuses on combating the popular notion that the US is simply "one giant blob" (his words) by giving historical examples which show that the opposite is true- that the US was simply a "collection of societies" which agreed to a compact.  This culminated in the founding of a limited federal government by the states, and provides credence to the philosophy that when the federal government steps outside of the powers granted to it, the states have the duty and the right to interpose on behalf of their constituents.

This concept, although conceived and popularized long ago, has obvious contemporary relevancy, and is currently being used in many states to combat federal laws that constituents find reproachable.  Examples can be found in state-level opposition to national health care, gun laws, and marijuana laws- all issues which are either expressly or implicitly outside the purview of the federal government.  Nullifying federal laws is a bold step to take, and states who do so should be applauded for having the courage to stand between the federal government and the constituents they represent. 

Detroit's (Wonderful) Lack of Governance

Lew Rockwell's interview of  Karen De Coster, who has been chronicling the downfall of the city government of Detroit (and subsequent anarchy in the city) via her blog Detroit: From Rust to Riches, was both entertaining and informative.  Traveling the city by bicycle, she has a unique perspective of the nuances of how people live in a situation when the government crumbles and becomes insolvent and, thus, irrelevant.  The blog is always a fascinating read, and Karen is a great photographer, to boot!  My ears perked up when Lew asked about the city's approach to solving its fiscal disaster.  Karen's answer:


Not a whole lot is known yet about the specifics of the bankruptcy...As you can imagine, the biggest battle has been with the entitlements in the city.  The unions and, of course, the pensioners that are promised lifetime pensions, lifetime insurance, lifetime on the doll everything...the biggest battles that you see publicly right now are the unions here battling for the largesse.   @ 7:25

In reality, the city is insolvent.  We have been riding an unsustainable insolvency for a number of years (like a lot of other cities, by the way), and it was about time that the bubble break.  @8:14


She also makes an interesting comparison between Detroit and Chicago's relative crises when Lew points out that Chicago is in even deeper trouble:


I'm not sure a financial comparison can accurately be conveyed...You know, Chicago has a much, much more...an organized government.  They have a very deeply rooted bureaucracy.  Detroit is not quite so deeply rooted...our ineptness here in terms of the government and their ability to get everything done has really enabled this anarchistic environment.

(In) Chicago, things are going to be a lot more difficult.  You don't see people flocking to Chicago to do these sort of things because it's a very rigid bureaucracy.  A lot of politically powerful people have run the city for years.  @ 9:15 (emphasis mine)


A fundamental observation that can be drawn from Detroit's crisis in governance is that the market is an all encompassing phenomenon, which always lingers, waiting for its moment to spring up.  That is to say- human nature compels us to trade with each other to achieve a harmony of desires.  Even if a public institution has monopolized a service, the moment that the monopoly cannot be enforced is the window of opportunity for entrepreneurs to step in and satisfy market demand (if it exists).  In this sense, entrepreneurs are the personification not only of human desire but of human nature itself.

An interesting difference between public and private organizations is the fluidity of the environment in which each of them operates.  Private businesses must respond adequately to the needs of the customer, or risk failure.  If insolvency is inevitable, the business has a financial incentive to fold sooner rather than later.  This is the seed of mergers, acquisitions and partnerships, as people try to find the right formula to better satisfy market demand.  Thus, the marketplace is always changing to meet the desires of the most people possible.

While private enterprises may come and go, public organizations are much more stationary social institutions with no competition.  As in Detroit, governments are unlikely to take corrective action when pursuing an unsustainable course, as input from various factions and interest groups dictate decisions rather than the more accurate guidance of profit and loss.  Because of the inevitable broken promises that result from insolvency, reorganization of public institutions cause much greater social chaos than private businesses.


While public institutions and their traditions may seem unalterably entrenched, history has instead been a constant weathering away of authoritarianism in its various forms.  Contrarily, private entrepreneurship and trade have been only truly inevitable consequence of human nature.  The foundational need to satisfy one's desires ultimately trumps any attempt to intervene by outside forces.

WWIII is a Virtual War

Although many have contemplated the possible triggers to WWIII, it seems that it has been happening both before our very eyes, and out of sight for a long time now.  The various conflicts, actions, and world shaping affairs- the stories from the front lines- have not been in the headlines for the most part as in previous (open) wars.  Rather, they are buried, under reported, or go unmentioned by the typical media outlets who shape the opinions of the masses and, thus, escape the tangible thoughts for the average person.  However, these events continue to play themselves out all over the world- with real consequences.  As technology has improved, so has the ability for the U.S. government to assert its control over the affairs of other nation- increasingly with less reliance on troops being present.  The current crisis, Syria, is but one battlefront in this war...

It should go without saying that I am in opposition to the U.S. government meddling in Syria in any way, much less an outright slaughter via missile strike as is being contemplated right now.  Although the government is insisting that the correct course of action is "punishment" of the Assad regime, it is impossible to gain the moral high ground required to justify such a nanny mentality.  For, even those who believe the claims 1 that the Syrian government is responsible for using chemical weapons to gas more than 1000 people to death cannot deny that the U.S. drone program has murdered at least three times as many people.  Murder is murder- conventional, chemical, nuclear, from your immediate vicinity or from afar and out of sight- and the U.S. government has far too much blood on his hands to be taken seriously as humanitarians here (or for that matter, anywhere).

John Kerry has said, "This is not the time for armchair isolationism. This is not the time to be spectators to slaughter."  Kerry's statement is absurd considering the U.S. government has engaged in covert training and supplying arms to the rebel opposition in Syria for months now- support that has likely resulted in far more deaths than would have otherwise occurred absent outside intervention.  The use of the word "spectators" implies that you aren't already playing, and surely you are not already on a team!

Further, the rebel groups who are on the receiving end of such assistance are not "angels of men" with the only purest of intentions.  The U.S. government can choose a side to be on, but it cannot fundamentally change the people engaging in the conflict.  The rebel groups have committed some incredibly heinous acts themselves, and may well have used chemical weapons.  Indeed, it seems U.S. policy is not to be "spectators to slaughter" but, rather, to encourage it.

The way the Syrian conflict has played out so far is perfectly in line with what John Perkins describes in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.  We cannot be sure, as of yet, what was the true cause for intervention and how the initial stages of action played out (coercion and bribery), but the U.S. government has been engaged for months in actively supporting the overthrow of the Syrian government.  We are now witnessing the final stage of the process- military action.  Notably, this only occurs (according to Perkins) when all other options have been exhausted.  It makes one wonder what Assad really did to upset the powers that be!

Therefore, what seems like a sudden escalation in Syria is, in actuality, a process that has been in play for a long time.  Indeed, what Perkins describes in his book has been confirmed by the CIA recently when the agency released documents that- for the first time- publicly admitted the agencies role in the 1953 overthrow of Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.  Most of the world is in one stage or another of the process, and it would behoove the average American to remember the rash of assassinations that occurred in the U.S. during the 1960s.  Perhaps even the United States is not out of the range of the United States government! 2

The actions of the U.S. government have been so destructive, and so obviously designed to enrich or protect the well-connected 3 that it is amazing that this example could play itself out, time after time, without any meaningful change of course.  However, in most cases, the contemporary "average American" has not been burdened with the effects of war costs to a great degree since WWII because the money is printed and costs are spread out over time.  If the financial burden of war cannot be felt, the only connection possible for the average person is via a submissive media- a truly virtual experience.

Even war itself has become disconnected with contemporary use of drone aircraft, and in the skirmish at hand there are -so far- no calls for U.S. troops to set foot on Syrian soil.  The "strike" is to be carried out by firing rockets from far away with the push of a button.  This approach to the inevitable final stage of the process of force is what Dr. Robert Pape has called "off shore balancing."  His strategy is designed to combat suicide terror by removing the foreign troops from the scene of the crime, preferring to obliterate from afar instead. 4 The anticipated approach to be taken by the U.S. government seems to follow Dr. Pape's advice, and removes the aggressor to a faraway location.

I submit that the threat or application of force to achieve a desired political outcome- regardless of proximity- is the very definition of terrorism, and to engage in such activity can only cause justifiable resentment and blow-back from those on the receiving end of such measures.  Pape has proven this to be true in his research by revealing that suicide terrorists do not attack because of fanatical religious or social philosophy (as propagated often after 9/11).  The fundamental cause, in fact, is resentment for outside attempts to control their society. 5 A great deal of peace would result if the most aggressive control freaks the world has ever known- the U.S. government- were to cease the policy of intervention immediately!

However, because these operations are occurring mostly without the knowledge of the general public (and even when revealed, are carefully massaged to represent an acts of justice and heroism), it is unlikely that a political sea change will occur to stop the interventionists from pursuing the domination they so desire.  Indeed, the 20th century was characterized by the U.S. meddling in foreign affairs practically unabated for 55 years!  If this empire will not be stopped politically, it will eventually come economically, as has been proven by all empires throughout history.  It is only a matter of time...








1.  Remember Iraq?  Dennis Kucinich has raised some very interesting questions regarding Syria in this article.

2.  The proper blame would reside in the various forces in control of the U.S. government...rest assured this does not mean you and I!  See Murry Rothbard:  Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy  (Free PDF from Mises.org)

3.  See #2

4.  I discuss Dr. Pape's approach here.

5.  See Dr. Robert Pape and his presentation, Dying to Win (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4)

Dr. Pape contends that this control is manifested in physical presence.  However, I maintain that even a virtual presence via threats and actions from the U.S to influence policy (terrorism) will not remove the fundamental antagonism to those who live where said control is attempted.  Thus, his strategy cannot lead ultimately to peace.

A Plea for Sanity From Liberty Study

Vladimir Putin recently wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times regarding the threats the U.S. government recently levied against the Syrian government:

A Plea for Caution From Russia

Lew Rockwell blogged a great response to this article.  Here, Rockwell exposes the true nature of "American exceptionalism" in practice- aggression against governments who don't conform to standards that the U.S. government puts into place until they do conform or until they have been removed, and can be replaced with a more compliant set of rulers:

"...his NYT op-ed is better than anything to come out of the White House in some time. And he is right, though he is a nationalist himself, about how the world views American exceptionalism. This is the doctrine that the rules that apply to others, and are brutally enforced by the US on others, do not apply to the US. According to this notion, the US has the right to rule the world, and to attack anyone anywhere in pursuit of that goal, using any weapon, including depleted uranium, white phosphorous, agent orange, napalm, mass starvation, etc. Not to speak of atomic bombs."

As this strategy plays itself out continually, the U.S. government becomes increasingly exposed, both morally and economically, perpetuating the inevitable decline that must follow extravagances such as being at war for an entire century!  As Chris Rossini points out:

The Fed has made it to 100 years, and the Military Empire can be traced back to the Spanish/American War in 1898. Or if we're really nitpicking, when Lincoln's North invaded the South. In any case, both ideas of Empire & Central Banking began roughly at the same time. This is no coincidence, since The Fed finances The Empire. The former is the beating heart of the latter.

But what have been the results of this seemingly endless source of control in the world?  Has the light cast off the "shining city on the hill" brought the nations world out from the darkness of despotism, and yielded a century of peace?  Putin correctly points out that this behavior has, in fact, had the counter-effect of creating instability in the world:

"It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan 'you’re either with us or against us.'

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes."

Furthermore, the logical result of this type of bullying stimulates an arms race, as countries seek to protect themselves against potential aggression.  Putin again:

"The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded." 

Putin's analysis of the aggressive nature of the U.S. government, and of the effects of U.S. foreign policy is clearly correct.  Unfortunately, his solution is to apply diplomacy in these situations and adhere to the United Nations framework, a process that is seemingly intended to be a sounding board for the world's people.  Can this type of organization ensure compliance from countries that may seek to violate its proclamations?  It has been proven time and time again to fail in this most basic function.  The only way to gain compliance from someone who is transgressing these laws is to force them to comply!  Now we are back to square one...

The fundamental issue at hand is- as that familiar old phrase reminds us- power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.  If the "power" were to move to an international sphere, we can be assured that all of the ills that the U.S. empire spawned would only be carried out on a grander scale, and- even worse- policies pursued in this context would have the ultimate rubber stamp of "legitimacy" as a UN approved policy.  Indeed, the coherent super-state (i.e. the UN, at the moment) is the worst possible outcome for mankind.

Power, like grains of sand in a dust storm, should settle in to its natural state- with individuals making voluntary choices.  Removing these giant organizations called "states" from the picture leaves us with many people, all with different motivations, just as we have now.  However, the state is a major tool for dominance; when removed from the scenario, those who are intent upon controlling others are rendered largely impotent to achieve such goals by force.  Most people do not support violence outright, and (absent coercion) do not participate in such ventures.  Naturally, the only way one can attain influence on people without force is to provide utility to them.  A much more peaceful coexistence-as well as a much clearer path to happiness and human progress- would neccissarily occur in such a framework for coexistance.  It is to this end we should strive.

What is Anarchy?

Let's start with what it is not!  Before seriously considering what anarchy is, my idea of the definition of anarchy was a violent, destructive protest demanding revolution:

Far from the truth, the above image is the caricature that surfaces in one's mind when contemplating anarchy: the unkempt, disorderly, and violent rioter causing annoyance and disruption to peaceful people on a perpetual basis and gangs of thieves marauding innocent bystanders. 1

The typical anarchist, as I have found, is not someone interested in violence as an actionable tool in any situation.  In fact, the fundamental premise of anarchism- that no one should have rule over or molest any other person's property- would logically prohibit the aggressive use of violence! 2  Simply put, anarchism is life "without rule."  Although this concept is inherently peaceful and is clearly desirable, a world without authority can seem daunting and overwhelming to imagine.  However, a compelling and beautiful case that can be made for an anarchical society- a life based on voluntary interaction of your choosing in all facets of one's life.

As one travels philosophically outward from the concept that each person and everything they justly own is their own property, a consideration of anarchism logically follows.  In most areas of your life you have the power to choose what good or service to buy based on price and quality.  However, when dealing in areas the government controls, you always sacrifice both.  So, even a minarchist- someone who would prefer to "deal" with the government the least- must ultimately reconcile this fact and consider eliminating even the most traditional government functions.  The protections that flow from what the minarchist would call the "necessary functions of government" will, in fact, be found to benefit from privatization.  This reveals head-spinning implications to contemplate! 3

While practicality is certainly important (even crucial when it comes to the fundamentals in a civilized society)-  morality also demands adherence to these principles.  For if it is wrong for a thief to coerce someone into handing over their money by pointing a gun at them, it is also wrong when someone from the government makes the same threat.  And if it is right for you to be free to choose what restaurant, what coffee shop, what repair station to patronize, it is also right that you should be able to choose from different service providers when it comes to security and justice, disaster protection, and monetary unit.  Clearly, coercive acts are impractical and immoral- not just in certain situations, but in all situations!  A world without coercion can only be construed as a world without rule.

The question is not, then, upon the practicality or morality of an anarchical society- but of how to achieve such an environment so we can all prosper and flourish.  Unwinding the coercive monopoly of government in all of the areas it has asserted its authority is not an impossible task, and the services provided by the government would be provided by someone else.  As an example, Dr. Walter Block has worked out a solution when it comes to roads and highways.


This video from The Anarchast goes into the subject of what anarchy is, and what a world in anarchy would look like:

Part 1

Part 2

-Notes-


1.  Murry Rothbard famously called the government a gang of thieves writ large!

2.  However, not everyone is typical, and those who forget this lesson will surely be sensationalized by the State to further the crucial fallacy at hand- that without the government society will descend into chaos, and that anarchism=violence.

3.  Thus, the joke-  What does it take to get a libertarian to become an anarchist?   About six months

Happy Birthday, Angie!

Today is my wife, Angie's birthday!!! 

Thank you for your patience and understanding, and all of your contributions to my study of Liberty.  I hope you have learned from me as much as I have from you!

With or Without You

For those who believe that without the State, there would be people dying in the streets- I offer the following story...

A co-worker at the local business was riding his bicycle to work the other day, when a car pulled out in front of him.  He had very little time to hit the brakes and slammed right into the side of the car, landing on top of his bike.  Of course, someone called an ambulance, but my co-worker refused the ride (although I cannot be sure of this, I wonder if he was trying to avoid the outrageous price).  Interestingly, anyone can call an ambulance for you, even without your permission- and they don't get the bill!  Suddenly, you find yourself being persuaded that it is a good idea to get in and take a ride "for your safety."  Thankfully, he had the presence of mind to think for himself.  He ended up walking his bike to work...

When he arrived at work, he was in obvious pain.  As word spread about what had happened, the owners eventually found out- and insisted on taking him to go to the hospital.  He found out that he had a deep bruise on his shoulder, but that he was going to be okay.

Now, can you imagine if my co-worker had instead ridden in the ambulance?  Perhaps it seemed like a reasonable thing to do after such a crash, but it would have been very costly for something that is truly not life threatening.  About a week later, he is doing fine, and I am sure he is glad to have avoided the bill he would have received for such nonsense treatment.

The Global Panopticon

The recent public revelation that the U.S. government is officially tracking everyone via cell phone calls, email, internet activity (certainly blog posts), etc. was not a surprise to me, because I heard about it probably at least a year ago or longer from several different sources.  If I am not mistaken, Alex Jones had on a guest a long time ago who discussed how he was setting up the infrastructure at AT&T for these NSA spying programs.  Gerald Celente mentioned this likelihood over a year ago in his newsletter, Trends Journal. 

However, at that time if one were to discuss this idea that the government is tracking everything you do, people would look at you like you were literally wearing a tin-foil hat!  No more!  Now it is right out there in the open...but why? 

The mainstream news outlets (in true Pravda fashion) regularly bury or fail to report stories that are embarrassing to the government- but, for reasons we will get into, this story has become ubiquitous.  In other words, you hear about it over, and over, and over.  Of course, the story is framed in such a way to distract from the crucial issue of government surveillance.  The spying is but a subliminal part of the story, while we are to focus on the other, more benign aspects which make for "compelling" entertainment reporting.  The manipulators of public opinion are clearly up to something devious- a subtle propaganda campaign designed to make it a part of public consciousness that everyone, everywhere in the world is being watched.

The effect is similar to what we see from the TSA at airports.  This agency herds people into lines, and gives them a choice to either let a stranger view their naked body or submit to a full pat-down.  What could be more dehumanizing, and humiliating than this degrading act?  The common person says, "Well, I have nothing to hide, so who cares?"  However, the psychological damage has already been done.

 

Presidio Modelo, Isla De la Juventud, Cuba

The open admission that the U.S. government is gathering all data it can possibly acquire domestically and internationally on ordinary people has created a global panopticon.  It is like a constant body scan or pat-down every time someone communicates- we are all now naked before our masters, and we know it.  This moment, the death of privacy, is an important milestone in the march toward tyranny- now everyone in society is aware of the intentions of the regime- total control.

One positive aspect of this shift in consciousness, is that there can be no more denial of the totalitarian intentions of the U.S. government.  No longer should we have to endure the eye-rolling and dismissive attitudes of those who are interested in talking politics only if one stays safely within the John Boehner/Harry Reid paradigm.*  This is the opportunity to open the lid on that box, and guide many people to a new perspective.



*Thanks Tom Woods

Life is Nasty, Brutish, and Short (When You Serve the State)

Just a thought I had today...

Anyone who has been to the DMV, a courthouse, a TSA checkpoint, or had any contact with any of the various appendages of the government apparatus in it's various forms has probably noticed something about those who are employed there:  Their attitude stinks!  Consider your experience when you patronize a grocery store, a restaurant, etc., and compare the service you receive.  While there are varying degrees of disposition exhibited by workers regardless of their employment in the public or private sector, generally private sector workers are happier.

It is all a matter of who is in control.  The waitstaff at your favorite restaurant greets you with a smile, brings your order promptly, and keeps your glass full because they know your experience will yield benefits both in the short-term (your tip) and in the long-run (your repeat business).  They have a vested interest in your happiness. 

The government employee sees you as a captive* audience, who has no choice in the matter!  There is no incentive-from their standpoint- to serving you.  In fact, you are serving them!  Indeed, should you choose to ignore your "duty" to patronize their institution, you may find yourself at the point of a gun, and in the back of a patrol car.  Is it any wonder why those dull, dreary, and sometimes outright rude employees seem so unhappy?

I say, let's free them from their doldrums by eliminating public sector employment, and allowing individuals to provide law, education, policing, and all of the various important services society desires on a voluntary basis.  The fireman could still be a fireman, a teacher still a teacher, etc., but they would work in a private setting where they would have an incentive to provide excellent service to those who desire their contribution.  Without a doubt, this would benefit both the worker and the customer, and result in a happier and more productive society.


*I mean captive in the literal sense.

Neo-Con Slamma Jamma

This article by Tom DiLorenzo is a hearty rebuff of the idea that if you critizize the state for the blowback that predictably comes with meddling in the buisiness of other nations, you are blaming "America" for the results.

--Source LRC

Human Action/Top Daily Articles

I am starting a book by Ludwig von Mises entitled, Human Action.  So far, I am feeling very fond of my search engine (i.e. dictionary), as this book is full of many words I have not ever heard!  I will post updates as I go along.

I am also trying to figure out how I am organizing the blog.  I think I will make a top 5 list every day, or perhaps once a week...we'll see how much time I have!  For now, here's a top 3 for today:


FBI and Tsarneav: What Did They Know and When Did They Know it?


What’s Bad About a House-to-House Search?

Why Libertarianism is so Dangerous

Enjoy!

Relaunch!

Hello all!

I am finally pulling the trigger on something I have wanted to do for months!  Relaunching Liberty Study!  Woo hoo!  Sorry for the delay, it is not for lack of subject matter- but for lack of time, mostly!  However, I am dedicating myself to getting back in the business of logging my progress through this philosophical journey...

I have tried to cover a wide variety of subjects- such as, war, internet censorship, sound currency, unsound currency, food, scandal, and others- but this is merely a reflection of what others bring to me everyday!  I want to thank LewRockwell.com, TomWoods.com, and Mises.org for all they have done to illuminate various issues in ways that others fall short.

So, look forward for more to come!