Return to Isolationism

My article for the current issue of The Kenyon Observer is now online at out brand-new website. Here is the opening paragraph:

"American foreign policy has become infused with an air of self-righteousness and moral superiority. We have long since strayed from the advice of Thomas Jefferson, that it is best to maintain 'peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.' Foreign adventurism, never-ending war, and complex alliances have entirely perverted the foundation of this country’s foreign policy."

Read the Rest.

The Ron Paul Counter-Revolution

Many libertarians laud the American colonists for instigating a revolution against the British crown, and rightly so. I don't see any more effective redress for the time and circumstances. But I have begun to think that continuing such an analogy to the Ron Paul movement is in error.

Can we really call this the Ron Paul Revolution? I say this is a Counter-Revolution. What is revolutionary about bringing back the traditions of freedom and limited government? I say it is revolutionary to call for destroying the Constitution and starting wars to "democratize" those countries we view as uncivilized.

Garet Garrett put it best in the opening of The Revolution Was:

"There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom."

We are here to take back what is rightfully ours; no more New Deal-style socialism; no more Wilsonian wars for "democracy"; we want authentic prosperity and lasting peace.

What brought this all together for me was reading a blog post by John Cochran on the Mises Institute Blog. He posted a poem by Patrick Barrington, entitled "I Want to be a Consumer":

I Want to be a Consumer

"And what do you mean to be?"
The kind old Bishop said
As he took the boy on his ample knee
And patted his curly head.
"We should all of us choose a calling
To help Society's plan;
Then what to you mean to be, my boy,
When you grow to be a man?"

"I want to be a Consumer,"
The bright-haired lad replied
As he gazed into the Bishop's face
In innocence open-eyed.
"I've never had aims of a selfish sort,
For that, as I know, is wrong.
I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And help the world along."

"I want to be a Consumer
And work both night and day,
For that is the thing that's needed most,
I've heard Economists say,
I won't just be a Producer,
Like Bobby and James and John;
I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And help the nation on."

"But what do you want to be?"
The Bishop said again,
"For we all of us have to work," said he,
"As must, I think, be plain.
Are you thinking of studying medicine
Or taking a Bar exam?"
"Why, no!" the bright-haired lad replied
As he helped himself to jam.

"I want to be a Consumer
And live in a useful way;
For that is the thing that is needed most,
I've heard Economists say.
There are too many people working
And too many things are made.
I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And help to further trade."

"I want to be a Consumer
And do my duty well;
For that is the thing that is needed most,
I've heard Economists tell.
I've made up my mind," the lad was heard,
As he lit a cigar, to say;
"I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And I want to begin today."

The true revolutionaries are those who inverted the entire discipline of economics. The Austrian economists fought for decades to show that prosperity can only be attained through production, savings, and capital accumulation.

The post-Keynesian and neoclassical economists of today would have you believe that printing money and spending it is the true path to a world of wealth. That is simply wrong; it is, however, the true path to depression and financial disarray.

I could be mistaken, but I do not see what is revolutionary about returning to sound economics, limited government, and a humble foreign policy. We had it once and they stole it from us. Let's win it back.

Long Live the Counter-Revolution!

Merry Christmas

From my favorite movie:

Campaign Statement Following $6 Million Day

From the Ron Paul campaign:

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - Following its historic fundraising day on December 16th, Ron Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder issued the following statement:

"There is an unprecedented outpouring of grassroots support for Dr. Paul. The message of freedom is powerful and uniting people across America. And, Dr. Paul is the only candidate offering real solutions to the issues Americans care about, with the record to back it up.

"Americans are sick and tired of our broken borders and they know the other candidates are not serious about illegal immigration. Dr. Paul has proposed serious and substentative legislation to fix our immigration problems once and for all.

The $6 million one-day total means the campaign has raised over $18 million this quarter, far exceeding its goal of $12 million.

"Finally, as Americans see the value of their dollar plummet, they know Dr. Paul has devoted his political career to stopping the inflation that makes it impossible for middle-class families to get ahead. Only Dr. Paul has a plan to cut spending, balance budgets and take care of people who have become dependent on government programs.

"Americans spoke loud and clear on December 16th. They want Dr. Paul's solutions."

$6 Million in 24 Hours

I thought November 5th was big, but December 16th, the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, takes the prize.

You can find the figures at Ron Paul Graphs and the analysis at their Blog.

Apparently the biggest fundraising day in campaign history (regardless of party or source) was by John Kerry in 2004; he took in about $5.7 million in 24 hours. Ron Paul just made over $6 million with almost 60,000 donors.

What will the establishment make of it? Probably not much. After all, what would they do without more war and more taxes?

Greece - 1, Germany - 0

Probably my favorite YouTube video ever. Monty Python's "International Philosophy":



"Hegel is arguing that the reality is merely an a priori adjunct of non-naturalistic ethics, Kant via the categorical imperative is holding that ontologically it exists only in the imagination...and Marx is claiming it was offside."

How Counterfeiting Can Make Us Rich

One of the greatest blog posts I have seen in a while; short, yet very telling:
"NYT:

A day after the Federal Reserve disappointed investors with a modest cut in interest rates, central banks in North America and Europe on Wednesday announced the most aggressive infusion of capital into the banking system since the terrorist attacks of September 2001.

And it makes you wonder why they don't do a one-time zillion dollar infusion of 'capital' and make the whole world wealthy forever." - Jeff Tucker, Mises.org

This is why I can gladly call myself a follower of the Austrian school of economics. The neo-Keynesians and Friedmanites can't explain why Fed tinkering in the economy is bad. In fact, they encourage it. Printing new money and injecting it into an already ailing economy is not going to make us rich. The only road to true wealth is through free-markets and natural capital accumulation.

Giuliani Wants a New Cold War

"Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani on Friday advocated a strong military build-up by the United States as a bulwark against the oil-rich Russian President Vladimir Putin and his increasing consolidation of power in the country," reports CNN Political Ticker.

Tell me, what good will a new Cold War do? I would venture to say it will do us no good. In fact, I believe only bad things can come from that. It's too bad that the Russians have to deal with a President that is "increasing consolidation of power," but what does that have to do with America and being the American President?

I like this whopper of a statement: "He justified his claim, explaining that a robust military was the primary reason behind the United States' success in the Cold War. Giuliani said U.S. and European demilitarization after the two World Wars was a mistake that contributed to the growth of Nazism and communism..."

First of all, we did not beat the Soviet Empire because we had the most nukes. The two primary reasons for the fall of the Soviet Union were (1) total economic collapse and (2) political independence movements.

Ludwig Von Mises predicted that socialism was doomed to failure...in 1922. The basic reason is that without a pricing system (i.e. free market supply and demand determining prices) there could be no rational economic calculation. Thus, a socialist economy was doomed to fail because no one would know where to allocate scarce resources.

Sure enough, economic downturns in the early 1990's, characterized by a 17% drop in GDP and hyperinflation, saw the end of the Soviet economic system.

Various political reasons were also factors in the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Gorbachev's glasnost, non-communist trade unions, and a plethora of independence movements undercut the centralized power of the communist leaders.

U.S. demilitarization caused the growth of Nazism and communism? What possibly could Mr. Giuliani mean? To begin with, the radical communists, or Bolsheviks, first gained control in the October Revolution of 1917. After that, Russia was ruled by local "worker's councils", or soviets, which were dominated by Bolsheviks. The radical communists would not officially establish the Soviet Union until 1922, when the Red Army defeated the monarchist/liberal White Army, but they still effectively controlled Russia up until that point.

As for the rise of Nazism, any student of history knows that the primary reason for the rise of Hitler and the Nazis was the widespread German opposition to the Versailles Treaty. Their nation was totally demilitarized and forced into bankruptcy by the terms of the Treaty. The global depression of the 1930's also left many Germans looking for a strong government to spring them from poverty.

These movements were established with no connection to the state of the American military. They were bound to keep growing, no matter how many weapons we had. Would attacking Russia and Germany have helped end communism and Nazism? I hardly think so; both countries were in distress and looking for a strong state to direct them. The worst thing we could have done is centralize the ire of those centralized states on us. All totalitarian regimes are looking for some kind of foreign bogeyman to help them control their citizens.

Rudy Giuliani has absolutely no historical knowledge. He does not even know commonly accepted historical truths. How is this man fit to be president?

Ron Paul 4th Place in NH

Two of the latest opinion polls have Ron Paul in fourth place for the New Hampshire GOP Primary. The first, from Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, has Dr. Paul at 7%, tied with Mike Huckabee. The second, from the Boston Globe also has him at 7%, but ahead of Huckabee.

Some interesting things to note:

Boston Globe Poll

- 60% of Republican voters have not decided on a candidate
- Ron Paul is in 4th Place for "Which candidate is the strongest leader", "Which candidate can best deal with terrorism", "Which candidate has the most experience", and "Which candidate has the best chance of beating the Democratic nominee"

Marist Poll

- Paul breaks his tie with Huckabee among self-described "Republicans"
- He is polling at 18% among those who make less than $50,000 a year, putting him in third place behind only Romney and Giuliani.
- He is at 12% in the 18-44 age group, once again putting him only behind Romney and Giuliani.
- Paul is also in fourth place, beating Thompson and Huckabee, when asked "Who has the best chance of beating a Democrat"

Great Ad Suppoting Ron Paul

I just saw a link to this new ad at LewRockwell.com

Ron Paul is the only GOP that gets it about Iraq: