Taxes and War Profiteers

It comes as no surprise to libertarians that when governments use aggression at home to finance their operations they use much of that loot to aggress abroad. To really advocate peace pacifists need to apply their principles consistently. The use of force is either consonant with pacifist principles or it isn't. There is no magic of the collective that excuses the government using force in a way that is immoral for individuals to do so.

Read the rest at: http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/taxes-and-war-profiteers.html

 

Yeah you make the same mistake as Liberals, Progessives and Socialist which is why I have very little respect of Libertarian positions on anything.

Geo-politics is the study of power and how it can be used to manipulate other countries to do as you want. Strange as it may seem many or even most countries don't like free trade policies because they are unable to compete against others so they would steal from others. This happens to day on a small scale, but before the Pax Britannica and Pax Americana enforced free trade stealing at sea happened all the time. Geo-politics isn't the same as domestic politics for one simple reason any nation can initiate force against any other, in domestic politics only the government or state can.

Just so you know I am a Protestant Classical Liberal.

 

I also wish Americans would understand the total (*)(*)(*)(*)e storm that take place if the US retreats the way the British Empire did after WW1. Yeah that is right the British could have stopped WW2 3-4 times in the inter-war period but didn't because the Progressives didn't want to increase defence spending or go to war. Only a few people wanted the British Empire to project itself and its military might one of them being Winston Churchill the Protestant Classical Liberal. Or how about the increase in defence spending in Britain after the 1689 Glorious Revolution where over a million pounds was raised not through forced taxation but a voluntary charter with a 5-8% return on investment, this money was used to buildup the Royal Navy and British Army to protect British trade and win the War of Spanish Succession through the victories of John Churchill another Protestant Classical Liberal.

So I hope you understand what I am saying which is the Royal Navy motto "if you wish for peace, prepare for war" and you don't need forced taxation to do it.

 

The reason we learn nothing from history because all of the same pressures that caused Britain to retreat are now working on the US. It's a lot easier to allow entropy to take it's course and repeat the same mistakes over and over. It's the rare "great man" who can thwart history, and then only temporarily. America's decline is as inevitable as celestial mechanics. In the long run I don't see an alternative to US retreat.

 

No the US isn't the British Empire and your pressures are different. Your governmental system was build for instability of the federal government and the written basis for law in the constitution and bill of rights, this meant you had freedom from the federal government and could move from state to state as you wanted. This means you had great economic activeity and growth wthin a framework of limited laws designed to protect property and persons from the government and other people. As your economic output grew you had interests to protect and your government moved to protect them. However you kept growing and growing so people who wanted power started using the system to take it. Any crisis was used by them for their own gain to take more and more power into one part of the system as you need top down management for geo-political strategy. This is what the progressive era was the progress of the federal government taking more power for itself in the name of democracy or workers rights. So your governmental system has a major problem you can have freedom from government and a great deal of power but not really be able to use it or you can have less freedom and less power but be able to use it. Currently it looks like the latter is happening so you are correct you will have to retreat either back to freedom or to increasing government control.

 

You very nearly spend more on your military than the rest of the world combined. 41% of global military spending. In the last decade alone you operated two offensive wars on an unprecedented scale - so many allies from around the world joined in that it's not all that outlandish to call them World Wars. You have over a thousand military bases worldwide in 63 countries.

[hr][/hr]

The right bought into Roosevelt and Wilson's Progressive era nonsense foreign policy. Aside from Canada and Mexico who have no interest or ability in invading, you're surrounded by a fairly large moat: the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Due to this very strategic defensive position, you have to come up with phantom reasons to invade other countries around the world. Since 1972 3082 Americans have died due to terrorism, an absolutely insignificant number. Consequently, you sent 5281 Americans to their deaths fighting in the Middle East.

It's all one big self-justification to gain power around the world through force, and redistribute wealth via taxation on a massive, never-before-seen-in-history scale.

[hr][/hr]

Go back to a Jeffersonian foreign policy and we'll talk. You don't have much reason to have a standing army at all.

 

Not sure what exactly is meant by all this but I'll give the link a second look later on.

Suffice it to say that when it comes to taxes and war profiteering, it is the right wing that needs to take more careful consideration re how they are linked. It was the Republicans who founded the IRS in 1863 and imposed an income tax in order to finance their war. The result - before the war there were only two millionaires in the USA and 100 after it.

Then the Republicans tried to create a new income tax in the 1890s when they wanted to finance a war with Spain in order to steal Cuba and the Philippines.

Then the Republicans pushed through the Income Tax amendment under Nelson Aldrich in order to finance World War One. Again, the result was a huge increase in the numbers of millions thanks to that war.


Republicans know that without an income tax they could never finance their war machine at government and taxpayer expense while they laugh all the way to the bank. It is Republicans who imposed those taxes, started every foreign war, and profit while America's lifeblood goes into their hands which they rub with rapturous glee at everybody else's expense.

 

Yes and the US needs this massive defence budget because it has dozens of treaty allies and trade interests to protect. Iraq and Afghanistan were small operations with no more than a few divisions with logistical support. Infact the UK was the one that put all it had into these two wars and had to leave one to cope. Also don't forget Libya, the Balkans and the drone attack. All small or medium sized operation which sap resources and make it hard to stop greater threats.

 

I think you are looking to closely. Yes of course the UK and US are very different in their political institutions and the specific pressures put upon say, a unitary constitutional monarchy and a federal republic. But in a broader sense, what is happening to the US is very similar to what happened in Britain. Britain was devastated by World War I. It was a victory, but a very costly one, and before the country could properly recover, there was World War II, in which you faced a foe that was an existential threat. Again, victory, but also again, a costly one, that from this outsider's perspective, appeared to take a heavy psychological toll. To Britain,Empire just wasn't worth it anymore, Labour was in and the country just wanted to lick it's wounds and recover. The country seemed more than happy to toss the keys to world leadership to the US, which was more than happy to take them.

The US on the other hand, came out of World War II invigorated with half of the world's remaining production in our borders. We immediately had a threat that we had to respond to; the Soviet Union.

Since 9/11 we've fought two wars that although expensive, had remarkably tiny casualties, but that minor effort has totally exhausted the country. The current administration poo poos the idea of American leadership on the world stage and wants to outsource everything to international institutions like the UN. And on the opposition side, there is a new tide of isolationism rearing it's head, represented by Senator Rand Paul; who is likely to be a Presidential contender in 2016. We are just as exhausted as Britain was after World War II, although with far less reason. You at least had a country to toss the keys to with virtually identical goals on the idea of what a world order should be like. We're approaching the point where we'll be tossing the keys and not care who catches them.

 

That fairly large moat has meant less and less over the past century. It didn't protect us at Pearl Harbor nor 9/11. Anyway maybe you're not up on the President's current budget proposal, but there is a massive 10 year slide in defense spending. Maybe not as fast and as much as you would like, but it represents a real decline both in actual military power and as a percentage of the budget and GDP.

I would say your pseudo cost benefit analysis of terrorism doesn't make any sense in the real world. We had 2402 people killed at Pearl Harbor, but had almost 417,000 killed during World War II. I assume therefore, your cost benefit analysis of the war would indicate that the US would have come out ahead by ignoring the Japanese and giving them a pass, since losing almost a half a million people because 2400 were killed in a woopsie would not

Be

Logical.

If a non human AI was governing the US at at the time of WW2, that may have been it's decision, but in real terms it's a ridiculous one.

However since you've made further communication dependent on the US reverting to a Jeffersonian foreign policy, I assume I'll not hear from you again to get a response. However I would note that Jefferson launched a war against the Barbary Pirates, even though a simple cost benefit analysis would have shown that "millions for defense, not one penny for tribute" was illogical. Does not compute... compute...compute...

 

World War 1 - Wilson - Democrat

World War 2 - FDR - Democrat

Korea - Truman - Democrat

Viet Nam - JFK + LBJ - Democrats

 

Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none. - Jefferson

Robbing citizens at home to protect countries abroad is not a good policy. It's perfectly fine to have friends in the world, but at the end of the day your country should be devoted to your country. Getting involved in Rwandan genocides and fighting Somali pirates might seem like a good idea, but it really does very little to strengthen actual, legitimate national defense.

The defense industry has really become more of a Keynesian machine than anything concerned with defense.

If Pearl Harbor happened today they'd find their entire force wiped out rather quickly. In any case, at least this falls under the category of national defense. They attacked your homeland, you responded. Was there a need to bomb their cities? I don't think so - but at least you didn't throw the first punch.

Fighting an insurgency based on radical theism is quite a different task. In Japan you could fight the government - force the government to surrender, and the army ceases to be a problem. In the War on Terror there is no single leader. They're devoted to an ideology, not a hierarchy. You can't just cut off the head and leave the body to die. That's pretty much what's happened: we (incl. the UK, Aus, etc) have made a lot of progress in killing insurgents, but they just recruit more people and move on. It's especially complicated because their ideology really revolves around the idea of Western aggression. Fighting them has definitely weakened their position, but it also makes their message more appealing.

Was fighting back against Japan for the Pacific a good idea? Yeah, because if they had gained control of Pacific ports as used them as a route to the homeland it could have been quite disastrous. The potential for disaster is quite great. With 9/11 though, it's an absolute miracle that they managed it at all. The future threat if you had done nothing was pretty miniscule compared to the cost, both in lives (American and civilian) as well as economic costs of an invasion. I don't find the two to be at all comparable.

Don't have the figures off the top of my head, but I knew they were moving to reduce military spending. He's keeping the same general goals, but cutting back the scale. I have no interest in those goals to begin with.

Judge expected losses in a war against expected losses in peace. If Japan had gained control of the Pacific they could have wreaked serious damage. The consequence from ignoring 9/11 would be pretty much nothing. At least nothing approaching the cost of the GWOT, in both human and economic terms.

If I recall correctly, despite the executive's leeway in responding to immediate defense concerns, Jefferson still went to Congress asking for the authority to defend American ships.

In any case, Jefferson's Presidency was a letdown compared to his rhetoric preceding it. He was a much better thinker than he was a President. He didn't so much put his ideas into practice. I like the idea that nations should conduct themselves so as to not get involved in the affairs of others. To not tie themselves up in treaties which commit them to war. To avoid fighting wars for other countries: ie: aiding the Colombian rebels to secure the Panama canal, aiding the Contras in the Nicaraguan revolution, interfering in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, etc. Spreading democracy. All that nonsense.

 

Jefferson was talking when the US was a small power, that is the policy of all small powers because they don't have any interests or influence. There is defence territory and defence of interests both are national defence. You aren't protect countries overseas you are protecting your trade and keeping the peace between other countries so you are sucked into another world war. It isn't a good policy you are right, it is the only policy the US can follow unless it want Russia to dominate the Mediterranean and China to dominate the South China sea which means they can cut off US trade. Do you want that to happen?

 

Disastrous? For which country? You seem to be arguing for a purely territorial defense. Hawaii was US territory, but the only other place that was US territory that we fought in was The Philippines. Hawaii was never invaded and going by my understanding of your view of warfare retaking the Philippines should have been the end of the war for the US. So worrying that the Japanese could have "gained control of Pacific ports as used them as a route to the homeland it could have been quite disastrous" seems to be contradictory. Tough luck for Australia and New Zealand huh? And it exposes the flaw in your thinking. It's impossible on a strategic level to secure the homeland when under attack like we were in World War II without defeating the source of the threat. I was in the military for many years and have studied at least a fair amount of military history, and using your same logic, it must seem insane to you that the first place the US got into the ground war after Pearl Harbor was...North Africa. In a strategic sense, it makes sense to me to do that, but I imagine to you the proper response would be to mobilize our Army on our coasts and borders and just wait for the Japanese and Germans to come.

I don't think you can know that. Allowing Al Qaeda to continue to operate unmolested in Afghanistan, a country they had turned into a terrorist launch pad and planning center would be the greater disaster. We only suffered one 9/11, but we immediately reacted to it, and went on the offense. Doing nothing could have lead to a 9/11 every year. I imagine even your cost benefit spreadsheet would have to conclude that could lead to a greater number of lives lost as well as economic damage/

Europe endured that sort of piracy and slave raiding from the North African coast for a very long time (over a century?) before the US actually had flagged ships that were attacked. And we responded. Even under Jefferson, America was saving the world from it's fecklessness.

 

Civil War - Lincoln - Republican

 

Except the Civil War wasn't a foreign war. Glad you agree that nearly all US foreign wars are started by Democrats. You better go run and tell Mr. Truth now.

 

I don't think has ever said it better than J William Fulbright, Senator and Schlitz Wholesaler

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/fulbright.html

 

Well, let's think about that for a minute, shall we? More than half the GIs killed in Vietnam were on Nixon's watch. 30,000 dead guys for 'peace with honor'. Then you have the invasion of Grenada - Reagan; the invasion of Panama - Bush41; the invasion of Afghanistan - that would be Bush43. Finally, we had the $2,000,000,000,000 invasion of Iraq - that would be Bush43 again. Yeppers, nearly all foreign wars are started by Democrats. Except for those that aren't.

 

Bosnia - Clinton

Kosovo - Clinton

Libya - Obama

 

Who pushed for those wars?

Let's see:


Teddy Roosevelt - Republican and others of his ilk pushed for war on Germany:


http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/us-president-woodrow-wilson-signs-national-defense-act




World War II? Who armed the Nazis and Soviets? It was Republican Wall Street:


http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/


http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/




Who got us into Vietnam? It was Republican Eisenhower.



Who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan? It was Republican Bush.



Time to do your homework xAWACr

 

It was Wilson, and no one else, that approved the not-so-covert US aid to Britain while we were supposedly 'neutral'. This threatened to cost Germany the war, and forced them to resort to unrestricted submarine warfare, which resulted in the loss of US ships and US lives, and the Zimmerman Telegram. These were the causes of US entry into the war, not anything that Roosevelt or anyone else said or did.

Whatever 'Republican Wall Street' did was done under the FDR administration and therefore with their tacit, at least, approval. And since you apparently don't know this, the Soviets were our allies and we entered the war against the Japanese, not the Germans.

He gave a speech, big f*cking deal. It was Kennedy and Johnson who signed the deployment orders.

But Clinton ordered air strikes against Iraq first, therefore Iraq is actually his fault. And Bush was fully justified in going into Afghanistan, he just shouldn't have stayed.


Edited out Personal Insult

 

Anyone can readily look up a history book and know that Teddy Roosevelt and Republicans pushed for war against Germany. In fact it is well established that Wilson ran on a "he kept us out of the war" campaign. Thereafter he succumbed to all the pro war agitation.

It was Republicans who caused the rise in Bolshevism and Nazism. Professor Sutton who wrote the two books I mentioned was a CONSERVATIVE which makes his writing palatable to the right wing.

The first war casualty in Nam came under Eisenhower because he was the first one to deploy the military there. That is a well established fact.

Before Clinton, there was Bush I who ordered strikes against Iraq.



All of these are facts readily proven by anyone who cares to do the research.

And it shows you can discuss this without insults or profanities the way the highly emotional right wingers resort to.

- - - Updated - - -

... and, of course, I should have noted above that it was Bush II who caused the invasion of Iraq based on all his lies as shown in the Downing Street Memo.

 

OK, so Wilson, FDR, JFK, and all the rest were actually a bunch of weak-minded, ineffectual, spineless stooges who, despite occupying the highest office in the American government, and in some cases having their party in control of both houses of Congress, were STILL unable to prevent the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' from manipulating them, and their governments, into doing exactly what the conspirators wanted. I personally think that's a little harsh, but if you say so, I won't ague with you.

 

spineless?

Yeah like the USA is supposed to walk away after the Republicans cause all the hassles created by the Republicans. Or mebbe you mean like when Reagan turned tail after over 200 marines were murdered in Lebanon under his watch.

 

Actually, it was mostly the Zimmerman Telegram that caused the war.

You know, that really minor international incident where Germany attempted to bribe Mexico to join them in an alliance and invade the United States.