Congressional Issues 2012
Ozarks Virtual Townhall
- January 10th, 2009 "The War President"
- Click here January 3rd, 2009 "The Path of Peace"
- December 27th, 2008 "War on Earth" - Christmas in Washington, D.C.
- June 7th, 2008: "War Supplement Bill"
- May 24th, 2008: "Memorial Day"
- May 17th, 2008: "60th Anniversary of the State of Israel"
- May 10th, 2008: "Mother's Day"
It's a war between mothers and "archists"
- April 12th, 2008: Assessing "The Surge" in Iraq
- April 5th, 2008: Expanding the Entangling NATO Alliance
- March 16, 2008: St. Patrick and U.S. Foreign Policy
Click here for notes and resources
- March 8th, 2008: Government Torture of Terrorist Suspects
- February 23, 2008: The Protect Telecommunications Companies Act
- February 16, 2008: The Protect America Act
- January 12, 2008: The President's Plan for Israel
- January 5, 2008: The President's Entangling Alliances in the Mideast
- December 15, 2007: Defense Appropriations
- November 10, 2007: "Veterans Day"
September 15, 2007: General Petraeus Reports on Iraq
- September 8, 2007: Iraq: From "Dark Ideology" to "Normal Life."
August 25, 2007: A "Safer and More Normal Life" in Iraq
July 28, 2007: Expanding Powers of Government Surveillance
- July 21, 2007: Intelligence Estimate on the Terrorist Threat
- July 14, 2007: Progress in Iraq?
- May 26, 2007: Memorial Day
- May 5, 2007: The Funding of the War in Iraq
Defense is listed under "Foreign Policy" because Defense is no longer viewed solely as the Founding Fathers viewed it -- as the defense of our homeland against foreign invaders -- but now embraces U.S. military intervention in foreign nations. We need to ask (1) What is our goal and (2) Who can best provide it?
Liberty and Security
Although the federal government spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year on "defense," few Americans feel as secure as they did 15 or 20 years ago. Even if we doubled that budget, we would not feel more secure. In fact, if we shipped more arms to foreign nations, doubled the number of soldiers wearing jungle camouflage in our airports, and increased the number of bombs that are capable of obliterating millions of non-combatant civilians, we would probably have an even greater feeling of insecurity. We would feel that our liberties were even more threatened.
Suppose that instead of increasing the defense budget, we radically slashed it. How would this affect our nation's security?
Surprisingly, the more we cut, the more secure we will be.
Even the most inexperienced political observer can guess that the 112th Congress will not cut the defense budget by much, if at all. We can only imagine the effect on Congress and upon the national debate if a
Congressman boldly and articulately advocated the following:
But we need much more.
We need a radical reassessment of our national vision. For America's Founding Fathers, that vision was Micah's "Vine & Fig Tree" vision -- of swords being beat into plowshares and every one dwelling safely under his vine and fig tree. President Ronald Reagan, echoing our forefathers, spoke of America as a "city upon a hill," exporting this vision of peace and private property by exporting the Gospel of Jesus Christ around the world. We must repudiate U.S. imperialism.
Obviously America's politicians and the "military-industrial complex" have lost this vision.
A vote for Kevin Craig is a vote to put one voice for "Vine & Fig Tree" in Washington D.C.
Many people -- probably most -- would agree that a government monopoly on the delivery of parcel packages was unnecessary. It's a good thing to allow FedEx and UPS to compete with the Post Office. It would probably also be a good thing to let creative entrepreneurs try to deliver Christmas cards for less than 44¢, and not restrict them with a government monopoly. I've spoken with postal employees who are absolutely passionate and adamant that the delivery of 1st-class mail should ONLY be undertaken by the lawful authorities of the federal government.
I disagree with them. I trust UPS or some similar corporation to deliver my Christmas cards securely and inexpensively. And better than the federal government.
The war in Iraq is being fought by "mercenaries" -- employed by private corporations, hired and paid by the U.S. federal government. USA
There are now nearly as many private contractors in Iraq as there are U.S. soldiers — and about half of them are private security guards equipped with automatic weapons, body armor, helicopters and bullet-proof trucks.
There are many scholars who believe the economics of private post offices are the same as the economics of private security and defense. Private Security agencies should be allowed to compete to protect us. I'm convinced these scholars are correct, and the time has come to begin discussing privatizing national defense -- along with the Free Market delivery of Christmas cards.
- National Defense at Mises.org
- The Myth of National Defense is a collection of essays by an international assembly of social scientists concerning the relationship between State and war and the possibility of non-statist property defense: by militias, mercenaries, guerrillas, protection-insurance agencies, etc.
- In For A New Liberty Murray Rothbard applies abstract libertarian principles to solve current welfare-state problems. How would a stateless society provide for goods such as education, money, streets, police, courts, national defense, social security, environmental protection, etc.? Here are the answers.
- National Defense at LewRockwell.com
- National Defense at Independent.org
- other sources: For Austrian critiques of the concept of public good, see, for example, Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State, pp. 883-890; see also Hans-Hermann Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics (Boston:
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989), pp. 187-210. For the classic article defending the competitive production of defense services by private enterprise, originally penned in 1848 by a leading economist of the French liberal school, see Gustave de Molinari, The Production of Security J. Huston McCulloch, trans. (New York: Center for Libertarian Studies, 1977). For more recent expositions of how the free market would work to provide defense and other public goods, see Morris and Linda Tannehill, The
Market for Liberty (Lansing, Mich.: Morris and Linda Tannehill, 1970); Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty, 2nd ed. (New York: Collier Books, 1978), pp. 215-41; Rothbard, Power and Market, pp. 1-7; Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, ‘National Goods Versus Public Goods: Defense, Disarmament, and Free Riders,” Review of Austrian Economics 4 (1990): 88-122; and Jeffrey Rogers Hummel and Don
Lavoie, ‘National Defense and the Public-Goods Problem,’ Journal des Economistes at des Etudes Humaines (June/September 1994): 353-77.
What exactly is the "nation" whose defense is contemplated in the phrase "national defense?" After July 4, 1776, you had "nations" like Spain, France, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The Declaration of Independence spoke of "the State of Great Britain" and "Free and Independent States," which "have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."
Why not abolish the Federal Government and create 50 new "Free and Independent States," each capable of defending themselves against "the enemy" of the day. Each one having a population and an economy as big as all the united States in 1776.
None of these States would choose to spend defense dollars as wastefully as the Federal Government does. None of them (currently) debase the currency in order to do so.