Liberty Forged

the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. ` Nock

Posts Tagged ‘international’

whatever neffs

Posted by Jesse on March 14, 2009

if business owners expected “customers” to steal and murder, who would ever open a business?

if i pay for a service i expect what i paid for. if i don’t receive good service, why would i want to continue paying for it?

are you looking forward to your social security check in how ever many decades? i know i’m not. where’s the measure of success? i want to see some competition!

if the government is going to give my money to failed banks, “defense” contractors, jail people who smoke pot and try to prop up economic policies that don’t work, or even “invest” in some broad long-term Obama-vision that no one can seem to explain or agree on, why would i want to pay or invest in such an idea? the problem is, unlike in a free market, what choice do i have? they just take the money. and that’s supposed to be a good example of good government?

and then on top of that we have an organization that tries to rule the market too!

Unnatural Disaster by Thomas Woods

“As with all goods, the supply and demand for lending capital determines the price. If more families are saving or more banks are lending, borrowers don’t have to pay as much to borrow, and interest rates go down. If there’s a rush to borrow or a dearth of lending capital, interest rates go up.”

“Thus the interest rate coordinates production across time. It ensures a compatible mix of market forces: if people want to consume now, businesses respond accordingly; if people want to consume in the future, businesses allocate resources to satisfy that desire. The interest rate can perform this coordinating function only if it is allowed to move freely in response to changes in supply and demand. If the Fed manipulates the interest rate, we should not be surprised by discoordination on a massive scale.”

“The more the Fed inflates, the worse the reckoning will be. Every new wave of artificial credit deforms the capital structure further, making the inevitable bust more severe because so much more capital will have been squandered and so many more resources misallocated.”

Also see:

What is the Free Market by Murray Rothbard

The House Poor by Karen de Coster

And it’s this type of analysis I equate with law and rulers. If a dictator ignores the people’s cries [consumer demand] and continues to press on and oppress, eventually there will be all out war. Dictatorial rule is known for ignoring what people need and want. It destroys prosperity and trust. the ruler is acting in self-interest and is only concerned with the general welfare in so far as it affects self-interest. and the general welfare is defined by whatever the laws are, not what you or I think it may be.

i don’t expect you to agree with me, i don’t expect to change your mind, but if you claim to be able to empathize with “poor” people, or “minorities”, then i expect that one should be able to understand a very simple principle as letting people keep what is rightfully theirs, and not simply say “we’re taking from you for your own good”. you have to be able to convince those people and not just oppress them with your political programs. that’s not a very good long-term strategy to say the least.

Posted in Mine | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Until the philosophy is discredited and abandoned

Posted by Jesse on March 13, 2009

Posted in Mine | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

US agents caught in car bombs. 1 million Iraqi Civilians dead since 2003

Posted by Jesse on March 9, 2008

From antiwar.com:

Unembedded reporter Dahr Jamail discusses the continuing quagmire in Iraq, how the “surge” was just to appease Americans and buy time, how the decline in murders is due to the ethnic cleansing being complete, U.S. support for Iraqi separatists, U.S. claims of Iranian meddling in Iraq while we have over 300,000 occupiers and possible consequences for U.S. troops in Iraq in the event of war with Iran.

Listen to the interview. (26:59)

In late 2003, Weary of the overall failure of the US media to accurately report on the realities of the war in Iraq for the Iraqi people and US soldiers, Dahr Jamail went to Iraq to report on the war himself.

His dispatches were quickly recognized as an important media resource. He is now writing for the Inter Press Service, The Asia Times and many other outlets. His reports have also been published with The Nation, The Sunday Herald, Islam Online, the Guardian, Foreign Policy in Focus, and the Independent to name just a few. Dahr’s dispatches and hard news stories have been translated into French, Polish, German, Dutch, Spanish, Japanese, Portuguese, Chinese, Arabic and Turkish. On radio as well as television, Dahr reports for Democracy Now!, the BBC, and numerous other stations around the globe. Dahr is also special correspondent for Flashpoints.

Dahr has spent a total of 8 months in occupied Iraq as one of only a few independent US journalists in the country. In the MidEast, Dahr has also has reported from Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. Dahr uses the DahrJamailIraq.com website and his popular mailing list to disseminate his dispatches.

Posted in *Take Action, antiwar, Constitution, Current Events, democrat, economy, Education, election 2008, free market, Gold, government, healthcare, internet, mccain, obama, old right, Politics, republican, Rights, Ron Paul | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Russia’s KGB Putin-Americans Sovietized.

Posted by Jesse on March 5, 2008

MP3 here. (43:13)

Antiwar Radio: Scott Horton Interviews Eric Margolis

Award winning author, columnist, and broadcaster Eric S. Margolis has covered 14 wars and is a leading authority on military affairs, the Middle East, South Asia, and Islamic movements.

Eric Margolis, foreign correspondent for Sun National Media and the American Conservative magazine, discusses the state of emergency in Pakistan, the history of the Musharraf dictatorship, his relationship with Dick Cheney, the return of Benazir Bhutto, her accusation that Musharraf was behind the recent suicide bomb attacks, the Islamists in Waziristan, the cause of their insurgency, Pakistan’s feudal system and the slim chance that crazies could get their hands on the nukes, the tension between Pakistan and India, the collision course coming this way as the Kurdish PKK attacks Turkey and vice versa, the U.S. and Israel’s policy of splitting off Kurdistan Iraq while simultaneously backing the Turks, U.S. support for Kurdish terrorism against Iran and the plan for long term occupation of Iraq.

RSS feed

Posted in *Take Action, antiwar, Constitution, Current Events, democrat, economy, Education, election 2008, free market, Gold, government, healthcare, internet, Libertarian, mccain, obama, old right, Politics, republican, Rights, Ron Paul, technology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

June 3, 1997: PNAC, Obama’s Statement of Principles.

Posted by Jesse on March 5, 2008

This is actually from PNAC.

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America’s role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital — both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements — built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation’s ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration’s success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Project for a New American Century
————————
Ok. So it’s not Obama. But come’on. It’s a one party system folks.
banner.gif
————————

Letter to President on Iraq
January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration’s attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Posted in *Take Action, abortion, antiwar, Constitution, Current Events, democrat, economy, Education, election 2008, free market, Gold, government, healthcare, internet, Libertarian, mccain, obama, old right, Politics, Pro Market, republican, Rights, Ron Paul, Rothbard, technology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »