Search Results
You searched for "Peace" and here's what we found ...
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson set forth one of the founding principles of our nation:
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.—George Washington
Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.—Thomas Jefferson
That guiding principle went out the window with the advent of the U.S. national-security state, a governmental apparatus consisting of an enormous standing army, military-industrial complex, overseas military bases, CIA, and NSA, and, of course, ever-increasing military alliances in Europe, Asia, and other parts of the world.
One of those entangling alliances — the one with South Korea — is now subjecting the American people to the mercies of South Korean activists who are provoking North Korea by sending balloons over the North with anti-communist messages.
The North Korean communists are saying that if this activity continues, North Korea will consider it an act of war and respond with a military attack on the South.
The South ...
The great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises pointed out that one government intervention inevitably produces a crisis, which then causes government officials to enact a new intervention to address the crisis. The new intervention, however, produces a new crisis, which then necessitates a new intervention. With each new intervention, the government’s power continues to grow.
While Mises was referring to economic intervention, the principle applies in other areas. Good examples are the drug war, immigration controls, healthcare, and education, all areas that are characterized by a perpetual series of crises and interventions.
The principle also applies to foreign policy. Iraq provides a good example. Let’s examine the history of U.S. interventionism in Iraq.
1953: The U.S. government, operating through the CIA, knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately destroy Iran’s (Yes, Iran’s) experiment with democracy by ousting Mohammed Mossadegh from power in a coup and re-installing the Shah of Iran, who proceeded to establish one of the most brutal tyrannies in history, with the full ...
It was a foregone conclusion that President Obama wasn’t going to change his stripes when it comes to economic philosophy and policy. Like Republicans and other Democrats, Obama is a died-in-the wool socialist and interventionist. He believes in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, public (i.e., government) schooling, farm subsidies, foreign aid, and other welfare-state programs. Like his statist cohorts on both the left and the right, he is also a fierce advocate of the war on drugs, a federal program that has brought nothing but death, destruction, corruption, and loss of liberty all over the world.
Thus, no one, and especially not libertarians, ever thought that there was a possibility that Obama’s election to the presidency would mean any shift toward the philosophy of economic liberty and free markets. If anything, libertarians were convinced that his election would mean even more socialism and interventionism.
But Obama had the opportunity to move America in a dramatically different direction with respect ...
