Costs of the Warfare / Welfare State

I had to reply when a friend sent me this video about the multiplying cost of war.

The main thing that comes into my head when I read about how US war adventures are costing trillions of dollars (beside visions of dollars with wings flying into the sunset): War is just another socialist wealth - redistribution scheme (see "Karl Marx" or this article).

1. Where does the money come from? - Our pockets, our families, our businesses, our safety, our property, our stability of life!

2. Where does that money end up? - Bank accounts of the politically well-connected; politicians and their friends - bankers, foreign agents and officials, war-industry businesses.

The Pentagon is the biggest pork-packed-corrupt-centralized-socialist-government program of all time.

Conservatives have their eyes shut when they look at the Pentagon - they believe their government-school brainwashing.

But, ...

• With welfare socialist programs, at least families end up getting a place to live, some food, some healthcare, or a satellite dish, while government-friendly businesses get rich when those welfare dollars get spent. And politicians get more power.

• With warfare socialist programs, innocent families get bombed out of their homes, the healthcare and infrastructure of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, ... are destroyed, the world gets more unstable and dangerous, young American soldiers are killed and maimed for life, ... fat cats who manufacture war equipment get rich. And politicians get more power.

Stupid comparison; my bad. It's called a "false dichotomy" - meaning that there is a choice of two separate answers to two separate problems. That's an illusion and a distraction from real answers. It's just as bad as the false dichotomy of the "Left vs. Right" fighting that I always bitch about. Wasted Time and Energy!

• Take your pick; the Welfare / Warfare state comes in one package - you rarely have one without the other. As far as I can tell, we rarely see a government that is a big Welfare State without also being a big Warfare State. And we rarely see a government that is a big Warfare State without also being a big Welfare State. Sweden might be the exception that proves the rule.

Conservatives claim to HATE welfare programs and LOVE war programs, because the costs of WAR programs are not as easy to see. They claim to love the Free Market, but they don't trust trade and commerce to keep the peace (No one attacks their favorite trading partners - actually a strategy being used by China to "take over" the world without violence). Conservatives don't see that the guns pointing outward will always be pointing inward as well. War destroys the winners as much as it destroys the losers, in the long run.

Liberals are so "highly educated" by the socialist colleges, they claim to HATE warfare programs, but they LOVE welfare programs. They are so smart that they think only smart bureaucrat politicians can run people's lives efficiently and fairly - people can't just do it themselves because they're too dumb. Liberals don't want to look at the fact that welfare programs are always used as a distraction so governments can carry on their war programs. Liberals don't see that welfare costs trickle back down to the very poor people that welfare programs claim to be helping. "Government aid" keeps poor families at a lowest common level, and the middle class is pushed down to the poverty level, in the long run.

And, both liberals and conservatives get burned by the dollar-destroying inflation blow-back from their most-loved programs. Not to mention getting burned by government inefficiency, fraud, waste, red-tape, corruption, and all that good stuff.

That's what I think.

Rick Doogie

"It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood...War is hell." ~ General William T. Sherman

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4377.htm

Alex Jones and 9/11 Truthers

There is nothing new in what Aaron Russo or Alex Jones says to get excited about. I get that same feeling every time I watch any Alex Jones. He just doesn't go far enough for me. Everyone thinks Alex and 9/11 Truthers are so radical, but they still think in terms of collectivism - God bless America and all that constitution stuff.

Alex and Aaron are a good first step. But, I think that long-time followers of Alex Jones and the 9/11 Truth movement are way overdue in taking the next logical step; learning more about the history and philosophy of Voluntaryism (anarchism) and the Free Market. Because when the system collapses (which we can't stop but who knows when?) only one thing will matter: What Next?

And "what's next" will be determined by what is in people's heads. So, the only thing important to me is learning the philosophy of freedom and applying it to my life and helping others to learn the importance of liberty. That doesn't mean getting "mad as hell" and blaming others; it means doing the hard work of learning about history and economics. That's what matters, not the plans of the boogie men in the Trilateral Commission, Rosicrucians, Bilderbergers, or whatever. They can do nothing without soldiers and cops to carry out their bidding.

We need to teach the next generation of kids not to be sheeple, and not to look to the iron fist of government to solve problems and give hand-outs.

I'm trying to say that I know Aaron Russo from way back, and I know the conspiracy crowd from way back. And, in my view, it's not enough to look for corruption, crimes, and conspiracies in government. I know the intrigue of it all is fascinating. But nothing is going to come from any exposure of plots and crimes if we don't look at ideas for changing the entire system - the system which is a breeding ground for power-monger schemes. That means changing people's heads and the way they raise their children to love power and worship authority.

Aaron keeps talking about "the America I thought I knew" and there is lots of talk about what is "legal" under the constitution, the Bill of Rights and Amendments, and court rulings. Aaron says "The 16th Amendment does not give the IRS the authority to tax your labor and your wages".

Do you guys understand the history of what Aaron is referring to there? The 16th amendment had procedural problems, and so it "isn't legal".

But the root problem is not where does the Fed or IRS get so-called "authority" as found somewhere in the constitution. The root problem is "where does the Constitution get authority"? Read some Lysander Spooner. That's not as easy as watching hours of Alex Jones videos, but it's a lot more educational. An old saying goes: "great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people".

I'm interested in ideas, not events and people so much... Not because I think I have a great mind, but because ideas are what molds people and events. Change ideas and you change people and events in the long run. Change people and events, and you don't change a thing in the big picture. Changing people and events is merely defensive and reactive - wheel-spinning activities.

Aaron says "The Supreme Court is the law of the land". That is bull. We are playing the game of those in political power if we think that we can "take back the republic" by forcing politicians to play by their rule-book, The US Constitution. It doesn't matter what is or isn't "an inside job". It doesn't matter what is a "false flag operation" or not. It doesn't matter that, as Aaraon says "the war on terror is a phony". Aaron says "9/11 is the root cause of everything". I don't give a crap what someone predicted or what some UN asshole wrote on a piece of paper. I've been reading about the UN agenda for a one-world government since the early 70's. I've been reading about the UN's desire for world-wide population reduction since the 70's. I've heard about FEMA camps since they invented FEMA back in 1979. None of this is new, none of this is the root problem.

I saw "Mad As Hell" at a libertarian meeting in Grand Rapids back in the mid 90's. At the very beginning of "Mad As Hell", Aaron says "the most fundamental problem that we have in America, is that it is no longer a free country". That's all well and good, but America NEVER WAS a free country. Even at the very beginning the government was too big, too centralized, too easily used by evil men for corrupt purposes

The constitution was a perfect example of creating bigger government to solve problems created by government in the first place.

Aaron and Alex, and that whole crowd of fear-mongers don't ever point out that we can't go back to some dreamy world where there was freedom and all the politicians played by the rule-book. There never was such a world. We have to look for ways to get completely rid of politicians running our lives. My big problem with Alex and Aaron is that they stir up all these fears of a "totalitarian state", but they never show the one way to avoid a totalitarian state - that is to get rid of all government and all states. And - "The only way to unseat tyranny is to unseat tyranny in people's minds".

They make this big deal of America being a "Constitutional Republic". Does anyone read enough to understand what that means, and the history of Constitutional Republics? The idea of a Constitutional Republic goes back to Aristotle, not the US founding fathers. All Constitutional Republics in history have evolved into totalitarian and/or socialist states.

A Constitution is nothing but paper. Here is a list of countries that have constitutions. I think there are almost 200 countries that call themselves a "republic". It means nothing. There is virtually no difference between the word "democracy" and the word "republic". Those two words are just words. I used to think that the difference between "a republic" and "a democracy" mattered, but I was wrong to think that way. Governments give themselves these labels for the sake of political theater.

Labels and words on paper don't matter. What matters is ACTIONS. For example; If you give money to someone else under fear of being kidnapped or worse, that is called "theft". It doesn't matter that government calls it "taxation". A "republic" is a mafia. A "democracy" is a mafia. Like Aaron rightly pointed out - government is no different than the mafia. The most important point that Aaron misses is that people know the mafia is evil, but people are taught that government is good. Government is an "Evil" that everyone is taught to see as "good". There's the Root. Education of young minds.

All of this is an endless recurring cycle, which will not end until people decide that they don't need a congress, a president, a constitution, a supreme court, or even a county commission to run their lives efficiently and fairly. It's not hard to make predictions, and I'm not impressed by Aaron's or Alex's predictions.

It's a distraction to think that "exposing" evil plots will help. What will help is changing people's minds by helping them to learn that their faith in government is what is empowering the people in the UN and elsewhere who have all the evil plots. Take away their power, and their plots won't matter.

Excuses for Obama's war, Pt II

I had a prolonged discussion with a friend who still wants to make excuses for Obama's expansion of wars that the Bush administration started; wars that were the reason why many Obama voters went to the polls wearing peace signs and expecting "change".

I'm just saying that Obama inherited a mess.

That's what is said by each administration, and they use it as an excuse.

It's called "politics" and that's the game that they play with our dollars and our lives.

But I'd say that excuse doesn't fly when it's innocent people getting incinerated, maimed, and displaced by the millions.

Who expands government more, Liberals or Conservatives? Look at the facts- they both do about the same in that area.

No argument there. And that wasn't my point.

Obama has the power to stop the carnage now - no he doesn't. He has the power to stop only America's military part of the carnage. The rest would continue.

Another empty excuse - the same one that the conservatives were using to back Bush in Iraq. Step back from the left / right mirage and see the real problem. In addition, America is the biggest arms dealer in the world, by far. Most conflicts would remain small without American funds and arms.

withdrawing is the only compassionate thing to do. Perhaps....... but only if we convert the military spending to humanitarian aid

It sounds like you're saying, "if we can't send medical supplies and food, let's keep sending bullets and bombs". It sounds like a plea to keep up the facade of "doing something".

When humanitarian aid is directed by politics, it causes more conflict and harm than good. Private charities are not directed by power politics. They aren't perfect, but they don't magnify a small local conflict into a disaster that displaces millions and kills and maims hundreds of thousands.

We'd still be in Vietnam today if everyone followed that line of irrational thinking. Of course I see that.

Then how is this different in Afghanistan and Iraq? There will always be local conflicts and criminal gangs as long as government is there providing motivation. Most terrorists and warlords get recruits because of some perceived imbalance of government favors. The bigger picture is the fact that small governments create small conflicts, and then the big governments from Europe and US, etc., come in with their "aid" and magnify the problems by 1000% or more.

But given the choice between him and Bush/Cheney/McCain/Palin etc's war-mongering loose-canon cowboy bullshit,

The difference is in words, not action.

Bush smirks while he bombs the crap out of innocents, and Obama furrows his brow while he bombs the crap out of innocents.

Window dressing does not change what is right and wrong.

Obama only keeps warmongering because HE CAN.

Because of people who defend him and buy his excuses.

Obama was elected because the popular perception was that he was the peace candidate.

And now, anyone who tries to hold Obama's feet to the fire gets the "well, he's a lot better than Bush" justification.

On what planet would that be called "compassionate"?

Building true change involves discarding the existing paradigm.

Hearts and minds need to change, and they will change.

The evolution of mankind shows that we are in the process of learning to discard the notion that one human can own another human, that women are subservient creatures, that the weak and powerless are irrelevant pawns in the pursuit of money and power, that children can ground into the dirt because they are "owned" by parents, that we need popes to guide our moral decisions, that we need kings and princes to guide our commerce, that ends can justify means, ... these things are not perfectly realized, but, in general, they have lost the backing of intellectuals and pundits. And this relates to the fact that - once the human pool of intelligence (we call it "culture") corrects a mistake in thinking, there can be no "Unlearning" of the truth.

We know the world is round, not because everyone did the calculations to prove it, but because human culture knows this. We know that diet matters to health, not just from our own experience, but because our culture has learned that fact. In the same way, human culture is learning that the biggest exploiter of the weak is what we call "government".

Mankind will learn to discard coercive government, and there will be no going back. This idea is being pushed forward by radical thinkers, not by those making excuses for the present paradigm. We must and we will throw out the whole distraction that is the Left / Right debate. And the next step will be to throw out politics altogether. Without politics, there can be no wars that kill thousands and displace millions. You can't have war without taxation.

Consider a serious heroin addict, and the effects of "Cold Turkey" withdrawl.

That is a myth; Cold Turkey withdrawal is what people do every day to quit their cigarette addiction, cocaine addiction, heroine addiction.

And the truth is that we can stop any addiction cold turkey, and that also applies to any government program, including war.

Medical professionals like to scaremonger against quitting narcotics cold turkey, because they wouldn't make any money off that. Likewise, the politicians, the military-industrial establishment, and the statist intellectuals warn against stopping a war cold-turkey, because they would lose billions of dollars.

When government failure becomes obvious, individuals rush in to help. And free individuals can always help more quickly and more efficiently than any politically-hamstrung government program. Katrina is a good example. Too bad the government makes outlaws of anyone or any group that tries to supplant their botched-up government assistance programs.

Arguing on the side of government beneficence is arguing that committees can do better than individuals. Most of the good things that happen in this world happen because of individual intelligence, creativity, and morality. Committees are good at finding excuses for bypassing intelligence, creativity, and morality. Committees are more worried about appearances, and that's what Obama is worried about primarily. He talks a good talk, to keep up the political theater.

(if war is so good for business, why is our economy such a mess?)

I said that war is good for Obama's political friends and big corporate donors.

The economy is a mess because the guns of government try to control all the details of trading, banking, industry and so on.

Guns are not a good way to organize society, and that includes the economy. My point exactly.

Liberals love a war when it's started by a liberal, conservatives love a war that's started by a conservative. Yup. But don't lump me in with The Liberals.

Gladly. But I will lump you in with the statists. And, if you see government as a solution to problems that government got us into in the first place, why linger over labels of "leftest", "rightist", and "centrist"?

My point is that all this arguing among left, right, and center about where to aim the government guns is a huge distraction over the real debate that matters: should we organize our social life according to the dictates of power and privilege or according to freedom of association and human rights?

(Note that politicians always make a big fancy show of being all about freedom and human rights. And then, after they destroy thousands of lives, they cry out that their "intentions were good", or that they "inherited a mess" from the previous political leader. I'm interested in examining actions, not words.)

"I'm ALREADY against the next war.

Then don't look for excuses to support war.

The "inherited a mess" excuse is classic.

They've been using that one for thousands of years, and it is nothing but words.

Obama has managed to destroy the peace movement with his talk, much to the delight of the military industrial complex and the billionaires who feed at the Pentagon trough.

Also that Cold Turkey withdrawl will not help. Let's find the way that leads to permanent peace.

As long as you hesitate to advocate cold turkey withdrawal, you are playing into the hands of the warmongers.

he's fighting against a lot of very ingrained and inbred thinking. He can't change the world right this minute any more than you or I can?

It's this type of thinking that stops good things from happening. "We can't simply end slavery willy nilly, it would wreck the economy".

The excuse is classic. Of course I sound utopian, because everyone is taught that discarding government programs and relying on "people" is utopian. This argument forgets that the government is simply a big group of "people".

Hhmmm........ that's rather a Fascist argument, isn't it? "I'm right and you may not disagree?"

2 plus 2 is not 5. It's not authoritarian to say that. You forget that I don't believe in relative morality. Your argument in support of keeping war going for the sake of "compassion" is worse than saying 2 plus 2 is 5, It's more like saying 2 plus 2 equals "green". If killing is wrong for the thug on the corner, it can't be right for someone with a uniform and medals on his chest.

Morality is very simple and easily defined. It doesn't change because you make some elaborate argument and excuses. If it is indeed wrong for one human to kill another human who has not threatened anyone, then it's wrong for any human to kill another who has not threatened anyone. Of course, we will occasionally need a court (non-government, of course) to define whether someone was truly threatened or not, but the conclusion will be obvious when we have some evidence presented to us.

There is no evidence that extending the occupation of one country by another is some kind of moral good. Show me evidence to the contrary. An occupation always involves bloodshed and imprisonment, not to mention the fact that it is involuntarily funded by taxpayers back in the fatherland. (or is it "motherland"?)

He loves his political career more than he hates innocent bloodshed. I've never met him, so I don't feel qualified to make a judgement one way or the other on that one.............

You don't need to meet someone to judge them. Just look at their actions. Don't listen to their words - a good idea when judging politicians. Jefferson spoke great elaborate words human freedom, while he owned, tortured (of course they called it "discipline"), and had sex with his slaves back at Monticello. There are arguments raised that "he lived in a different time period", but the fact is that many people in that time period got along fine without owning slaves.

Have you found God, and now believe in The Universal Truth? Sorry but I just had to poke a hole in that balloon...........

Funny, but not funny. Sorry to pick apart something said in jest, but, ... People have been taught that you must "find god" to pursue a definition of moral behavior. But that's another roadblock put up by priests and politicians. There is definable right and definable wrong. Morality can be scientifically and intellectually defined without gods or governments. That's part of the evolution of human knowledge that our culture is going through (painfully, like childbirth).

I simply can't believe that anyone, anywhere, has a lock on Truth and Right.

There certainly is never a conclusion to the pursuit of truth and right. We can never have 100% certainty. But we CAN have enough certainty to act. We CAN have enough certainty to say "this is right". We might only have 95% certainty, but if we waited to take action before 100% certainty, we would die in our beds. What we can be certain of is the method of searching for truth and right. That method is called empirical reasoning or, more grandiosely, The Scientific Method.

Quite simply, and I don't presume to teach you anything; we construct theories and then test them with evidence. We throw out our made-up answers if there is no evidence for them. But, we don't wait to boldly state our theory until we are 100% certain, or until we have verified every prediction that our theory entails. We act on our principles.

There is no "lock on Truth and Right", but there is action based on principle. I am for acting, not constantly hesitating in stating my convictions because there may be unanswered elaborate lifeboat scenarios where my moral principles fall apart. Moral principles are tools for living in society in everyday scenarios. There is nothing made-up or magic about morality. It's a science, a branch of philosophy that most philosophers have garbled with elaborate and confusing rubbish, all in the name of defending the horrors of church and state.

"Changing patterns of thoughts is the only way to change patterns of behavior." Dalai Lama

My point exactly, Making excuses for leaders is not conducive to changing anyone's patterns of behavior.

"There has never been an idea in human history that has retarded progress more than the idea that the way something was being done at any given time was the best way that it could be done."

Brett Veinotte