A LITTLE REBELLION

Muslim Brotherhood Victory in Egypt Presidential Election Reveals Flaws of US Foreign Policy

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

In Egypt's first free presidential election last Sunday, the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi was proclaimed the winner. Tahrir Square, the site of numerous large and bloody protests, erupted into cheer when the results came in. In response, conservatives like Congressman Joe Walsh (R-Ill) and Congressman Alan West (R-Fla) called for the cutting of aid to Egypt because of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood's supposed desire to become closer with Iran and re-negotiate their peace treaty with Israel. 

While I completely agree that not a cent of taxpayer money should be sent to Egypt, what the Egyptian election and the Arab Spring really reveal is a microcosm of U.S. foreign policy and the errors of an interventionist foreign policy.

Decades before the Arab Spring, the U.S. government began supporting, both financially and military, Hosni Mubarak due to the peace agreement he signed with Israel. While receiving over $2 billion steadily every year, Mubarak was bribed to leave the Israelis alone and allowed to run a brutal police state inside Egypt that lasted until he was finally ousted last year. For almost forty years, Mubarak was the perfect puppet of the U.S., cashing Uncle Sam's checks and spending them on American made military equipment, making sure Palestinians couldn't escape into Egypt from the Israeli-controlled Gaza strip, silencing any dissent, and acting as a major partner in America's torture-rendition program.

Mohamed Morsi: The CIA's new puppet in Egypt.

But as disgust and opposition to Mubarak's regime grew among Egyptians, the U.S. realized that their precious puppet was in danger of falling and quickly stepped in. The much- lauded April 6 Youth "pro-democracy" movement of 2008 that was billed as a spontaneous uprising of solidarity was in fact trained, funded, and equipped by the U.S. State Department and various government-funded American NGOs as an attempt to foment, co-op and control the (largely Islamic) resistance to Mubarak's regime.

A few years later, the Muslim Brotherhood wins the Egyptian presidency. And while it is fairly predictable that many American politicians have a knee-jerk reaction against any foreign entity with the world "Muslim" in it, the Muslim Brotherhood are not "anti-Western" at all. As Tony Cartalucci in the Land Destroyer Report notes, "Despite the Brotherhood's lofty rhetoric, it has from its inception been a key proliferator of Western foreign policy. Currently, the Syrian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood has been involved heavily, leading in fact, the U.S., Israeli, Saudi, and Qatari-backed sectarian violence that has been ravaging Syria for over a year." 

In other words, the U.S. used the decline of its dictator in Egypt to, as Caralucci puts it, give Mubarak's replacement, the pro-American-foreign-policy Muslim Brotherhood, "a spin of legitimacy." The narrative of radical America-hating Islamists taking over our former loyal ally in Egypt, while no doubt imposing sharia law, is Pentagon PR meant for American consumption at home.

What almost a half of century of direct and indirect intervention into Egypt highlights is how futile this process is in acheiving peace and stability, especially coming at the cost of the liberties of the Egyptian people as well as the Americans whose paychecks are stolen from in order to fund it. Egypt's example is truly a microcosm for how counterproductive and costly U.S. intervention in the Middle East is and how it can lead to blowback, boomeranging back to us.

In Iraq, Bahrain, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Tunisia, Syria, Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries, the U.S. has used the installation of monarchs, bribes, coups, the turning of a blind eye to human rights abuses, the fomenting of uprisings, arming of rebels, taking sides in civil wars, and outright war and occupation in order to achieve its desired "national security interests." The result? An inability to negotiate and use diplomacy, populist hatred of American presence resulting in terrorism, a staggering loss of innocent life, and exploding Pentagon budgets. Just like in Egypt, "peace" earned through government intervention has been fragile and fleeting.

It's time the U.S. quits this unnecessary meddling in the internal affairs of other people's countries and relate to the Middle East, and the rest of the world, with a policy of neutrality, free trade, and enforcing the Bill of Rights here at home, leading by example to the rest of the world of what a free country looks like. After decades of swatting at hornet's nests and sponsoring police states abroad, the lessons of intervention into Egypt prove that what the U.S. needs now more than ever is a policy of humanitarian non-intervention.

Ron Paul to John McCain: Syria is None of Our Business!

 

Obama's Second Latin American Coup

First, in Ecuador. Now Mr. Nobel Peace Prize has his crosshairs on Paraguay.

The Lesser of Two Evils is Still Evil

 

What if Ron Paul Had Become President in 2008?

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

Being a libertarian can be incredibly frustrating during an election year. While at the very least enjoying the horse-race circus and laughing at the absurdity, most often we are left with two politicians who agree on 95%-97% of substantial issues, but differ on minor ones, wear different suits, or use different rhetoric. As Friedrich Hayek noted decades ago, liars and crooks tend to rise to the top in politics, and this presidential election is no different. Obama versus Romney, two wings of the same bird of prey.

Which is why I should be forgiven for occasionally indulging in political fantasy to ease my desperation. Let's say, for example, that instead of two corporatist and warmongers competing for the presidency, Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul was elected president in 2008. 

Far-fetched? Perhaps. But this idea deserves exploring given what Obama has done in the last three years, and what the Republicans and Democrats, the only two parties we're supposed to vote for, have accomplished in the last few decades. First off, President Paul — a genuinely humble and decent man, a doctor not a lawyer, someone who understands history, economics, and is as well read as Thomas Jefferson — would instantly bring a new look to the Oval Office. Paul stutters, stammers, uses run-on sentences, wears suits that don't fit, and would be the oldest president in history. He is the ultimate un-politician. In an era of sex scandals, teleprompters, and grammatically challenged leaders, Paul is a statesman that tells you the truth and is armed with the courage of his convictions. 

Paul talks openly about his philosophical opposition to the welfare-warfare state, his defense of individual liberty, and support for constitutional government, but dismantling decades of bad economic policies and unnecessary foreign entanglements can't be done overnight. Nor should it be. Given his strict adherence to the Constitution, Paul knows that he needs the approval of Congress in order to get anything done, like abolishing federal departments. Even with a loud populace behind him making call after call to their congressman, it would be unlikely to trim the domestic state down to its proper constitutional size. But Paul's best weapon is not an ability to legislate and compromise, but his veto pen and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

A Curtailment of Empire

Paul has said repeatedly that if the president has the power to order U.S. forces into combat on nothing more than his own say-so, then it stands to reason he can order troops home as well. On day one, Paul tells his generals that he needs a quick, effective exit strategy on his desk tomorrow morning, or their resignation letters. Troops (and contractors) are soon withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq, the over 1,000 military bases around the globe start shutting down, hundreds of thousands of troops come home to their families, and the Navy is pulled back. Paul announces to us and the world that the U.S. seeks peace, friendship, and trade with all, urges neutrality and diplomacy, and lifts sanctions and embargoes. In practical results, this means a likely huge drop in the price of oil (war causes volatility and shaky prices), billions if not trillions of dollars saved, no Predator drones, no assassinations of U.S. citizens, and puppet dictators are cut off from their taxpayer handouts. State threats are easily deterred by an armed populace, a strong Air Force, and a couple of nuclear submarines, and non-state threats are quickly and effectively captured and tried or killed by letters of Marque and Reprisal and other constitutional tools.

The Bill of Rights is Restored

Paul's "Freedom Agenda Act of 2007" would be the basis of his work to stop the erosion of our basic civil liberties. The bill, which basically repeals the Military Commissions Act of 2006, would "clarify that no information shall be admitted as evidence if it is obtained from the defendant through the use of torture or coercion. It codifies the FISA process as the means by which foreign intelligence may be obtained and it gives members of the Senate and the House standing in court to challenge presidential signing statements that declares the president's intent to disregard certain aspects of a law passed in Congress. It prohibits kidnapping and extraordinary rendition of prisoners to foreign countries on the president's unilateral determination that the suspect is an enemy combatant. It defends the First Amendment by clarifying that journalists are not to be prevented from publishing information received from the Legislative or Executive branch unless such publication would cause immediate, direct, and irreparable harm to the United States." 

Straightforward, direct, and the country'd be freer overnight. Paul does this simply by ordering federal agents not to snoop, spy, torture, or violate anyone's privacy or be fired. No more PATRIOT Act or Obama's NDAA. Paul would also direct federal agencies to respect the Tenth Amendment and refrain from undermining state laws. Fifty laboratories of experimentation with different policies and an end to a one-size-fits-all federal approach to delicate issues. Which brings me to...

Legalized Marijuana/End to the Drug War

Even with the threat of the federal government and a very aggressive DEA hanging over the heads of any state that wants to write its own laws, 16 states have already legalized or decriminalized marijuana. Paul's strong convictions against drug prohibition, combined with an enforcement of the Tenth Amendment, withers the drug war. This begins to highlight the true absurdity of the drug war and the black market profits that it creates, leading to the decriminalization of other drugs as well. Drugs are soon sold by pharmacies instead of ruthless cartels. Millions of non-violent drug users are released from prison back to their friends and families. Violent crime begins to decline, and with the expansion of individual liberty comes the growth of more humane ways of handling drug abuse and addiction. Prison costs fall. Both cops and neighborhoods are safer.

No More Corporate Welfare

This is an easy one. The super-rich are easily the biggest benefactors of government welfare and wealth transfers, and this becomes a popular place to cut. The Export-Import Bank is defunded, no more TARP-style bailouts, and corporations like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Monsanto, and hundreds of others that wax fat off of government subsidies are forced to compete in the free market and face the wrath of choosy consumers. The CEOs may not like it, but the people cheer.

Social Security Protected

While correctly noting the unconstitutionally of welfare transfer programs like Social Security, President Paul does more in one term to preserve the program than any person before him. Most of the empire and overseas spending is slashed by now, and the money saved is used to patch up the current holes in Social Security and help those who currently rely on it for their retirement. But in the midst of making sure these programs aren't touched, Paul is frank and honest with the American people: these types of programs are not authorizes in the Constitution, are antithetical to a free society, and that previous administrations have been lying to you about the cost. 

By 2050, "entitlement" programs will incur nearly $120 trillion of debt. Not only is the forced transfer of private property and wealth from one person to another immoral, Paul reasons, the program is bankrupt. Paul urges a program that would allow the young and most tax-burdened to "opt out" of the Social Security payroll tax, voluntarily creating a generation of more independent and free people.

Additionally, Paul constantly stresses the Federal Reserve's role in destroying the purchasing power of the dollar, a trickle-down tax that especially harms those living on savings and fixed incomes, like seniors. So what good is a Social Security check every year if it continues to buy less and less? Populist support for an audit of the Fed grows, as does support for Paul's calls tolegalize currency competion.

Now, this seems like a lot to get done in one term as President, but keep in mind that these are all things that can be accomplished simply by having a principled statesman in the White House dedicated to the repeal of unconstitutional government power. Most of the stuff Paul would like to get done, however, would require Congress (as it should). While dismantling an empire, restoring civil liberties, and pulling back federal bureaucrats, Paul would constantly be working with both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to lower taxes, auditing the Federal Reserve and repealing legal tender laws, repealing federal regulations, abolishing the IRS, and shutting down departments.

This will obviously keep Congress busy, and realistically, very little of these repeals (at least in their original form) will likely be approved by Congress. Much gridlock will ensue. But wouldn't that be great? Some peace and quiet from Washington! While Paul comes off as a moderate who will only sign a balanced budget and is honestly concerned about the financial future of the country, the spend-happy Congress looks more and more like extremists. The country's mood shifts, ever closer to Paul's pragmatism, discipline, and the power of his veto pen. Even if Paul does not get a single thing he wants from his domestic libertarianism, just imagine how much better off the country would be if Paul was elected in 2008 and only the above things were accomplished. That's quite the first term if you ask me.

And perhaps most importantly, for four years President Paul has the bully pulpit at his disposal, and in his calm and gentlemanly demeanor, would do what he did for decades on the House floor, issuing prophetic warnings about the dangers of central banking, empire, a vanishing Bill of Rights, and the virtues of peace and a free society. The national debate would constantly be shifting in Paul's direction, as people are finally offered an idea that isn't Left-Right bickering but a philosophy that synthesizes civil liberties and free market economics, that believes in the Fourth and Second Amendments. A Paul presidency would have been just what the country needed: a new foreign policy, decentralization, and a coming out party for a libertarian philosophical tradition that stretches back as long as human beings have desired to be free.

Stop Obama's Drone Wars!

Ron Paul on the House floor:

Last week I joined several of my colleagues in sending a letter to President Obama requesting clarification of his criteria for the lethal use of drones overseas. Administration officials assure us that a “high degree of confidence” is required that the person targeted by a drone is a terrorist. However, press reports have suggested that mere “patterns of behavior” and other vague criteria are actually being used to decide who to target in a drone strike. I am concerned that an already troublingly low threshold for execution on foreign soil may be even lower than we imagined.

The use of drones overseas may have become so convenient, operated as they are from a great distance, that far more “collateral damage” has become acceptable. Collateral damage is a polite way of saying “killing innocent civilians.” Is the ease of drone use a slippery slope to disregard for justice, and if so what might that mean for us as they become more widely used on American soil against American citizens?

This dramatic increase in the use of drones and the lowered threshold for their use to kill foreigners has tremendous implications for our national security. At home, some claim the use of drones reduces risk to American service members. But this can be true only in the most shortsighted sense. Internationally the expanded use of drones is wildly unpopular and in fact creates more enemies than it eliminates.

Earlier this month a former top terrorism official at the CIA warned that President Barack Obama’s expanded use of drones may actually be creating terrorist “safe havens.” Robert Grenier, who headed the CIA’s counterterrorism center from 2004 to 2006, told a British newspaper that the drone program “needs to be targeted much more finely. We have been seduced by them and the unintended consequences of our actions are going to outweigh the intended consequences.”

After a drone strike in Yemen last month once again killed more civilians than suspected al-Qaeda members, a Yemeni lawyer sent a message to President Obama stating, “Dear Obama, when a U.S. drone missile kills a child in Yemen, the father will go to war with you, guaranteed. Nothing to do with al-Qaeda.” These are the unseen victims of the president’s expanded use of drones, but we should pay attention and we should ask ourselves how we would feel if the tables were turned and a foreign power were killing innocent American children from thousands of miles away. Would we not feel the same?

The expanded use of drones overseas has been matched with the expanded use of drones in the United States, which should alarm every American who values the Constitution and its protections against government interference in our private lives. Recently, the governor of Virginia welcomed the expanded use of drones in his state because they “make law enforcement more productive.” I find that attitude chilling and am sure I am not alone.

Do we want to live in a country where our government constantly flies aircraft overhead to make sure we are not doing anything it disapproves of? Already the Environmental Protection Agency uses drone surveillance to spy on farmers and ranchers to see if they are in compliance with regulations. Local law enforcement agencies are eyeing drone use with great anticipation. Do we really want to live under the watchful eye of “Big Brother”? It is terrifying enough to see how drones are being misused abroad. We must curtail the government’s ability use drones right away lest the massacres in Yemen and Pakistan turn out to be crude training exercises for what the administration has in mind on our own soil.

The War on Drugs is a War on People

One of the most horrific aspect of the US government's drug war is how it curtails privacy and basic civil liberties, especially of the innocent. Here is just the latest example, via Reason:

At 7 a.m. on January 20, 2007, DEA agents battered down the door to Thomas and Rosalie Avina’s mobile home in Seeley, California, in search of suspected drug trafficker Louis Alvarez. Thomas Avina met the agents in his living room and told them they were making a mistake. Shouting “Don’t you fucking move,” the agents forced Thomas Avina to the floor at gunpoint, and handcuffed him and his wife, who had been lying on a couch in the living room. As the officers made their way to the back of the house, where the Avina’s 11-year-old and 14-year-old daughters were sleeping, Rosalie Avina screamed, “Don’t hurt my babies. Don’t hurt my babies.”

The agents entered the 14-year-old girl’s room first, shouting “Get down on the fucking ground.” The girl, who was lying on her bed, rolled onto the floor, where the agents handcuffed her. Next they went to the 11-year-old’s room. The girl was sleeping. Agents woke her up by shouting “Get down on the fucking ground.” The girl’s eyes shot open, but she was, according to her own testimony, “frozen in fear.” So the agents dragged her onto the floor. While one agent handcuffed her, another held a gun to her head.

Moments later the two daughters were carried into the living room and placed next to their parents on the floor while DEA agents ransacked their home. After 30 minutes, the agents removed the children’s handcuffs. After two hours, the agents realized they had the wrong house—the product of a sloppy license plate transcription—and left. 

In 2008, the Avinas—mom, dad, and both daughters—filed a federal suit against the DEA for excessive use of force, assault, and battery in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. That court ruled in favor of the DEA, and the Avinas appealed. Last week, the family got justice.

While the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals defended the agents' rough treatment of Thomas and Rosalie, it also declared that yanking the Avina children of their beds and putting guns to their heads did, in fact, constitute the “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” (Read the Obama administration's defense of the DEA agents.) 

Austerity is the Answer to US and Euro Economic Woes

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

It is no secret that Europe is in an economic and fiscal mess. Faced with a debt bubble, European governments and central banks have resorted to bailouts, fiscal "stimulus," and money printing to patch up the problems, but still economic growth remains stagnant. Over the weekend, parties sympathetic to bailouts and the fiscal status quo dominated the Greek elections, promising as well to stay committed to the European Union and the euro. And while minor cuts in government spending have been proposed and enacted in much of Europe — incorrectly dubbed "austerity" — a look towards Eastern Europe reveals that real austerity is proving to be the answer.

In Estonia, once under the thumb of Soviet rule, austerity programs have allowed them to bounce back from the 2008 crash and recession and are now producing steady economic growth. Although it was one of the countries that was hardest hit, Estonia's economy grew by 7.6% last year (five times the euro zone average) and slashed its budget to 6% of GDP (compared to 81% in Germany and 165% in Greece). They did this, as Peeter Koppel, investment strategist at the SEB bank, explains, very simply,"I can answer in one word: austerity. Austerity, austerity, austerity." 

Ministers' salaries were cut by 20%, civil servants' salaries were cut by 10%, and they raised the retirement age, made it harder to claim benefits, and reduced job protection, according to Estonian Economy Minister Juhan Parts.

What is also noteable about the Estonian example is that immediately after the bubble burst in 2008, Estonia tried similar stimulus programs that Western Europe and the U.S. have tried. The result? It shrank the economy a staggering 18%. After this, Estonia decided to go against conventional wisdom and the advice hammered home by Paul Krugman and other Keynesian across the world and cut spending drastically, leading to clearing of bad debt and economic growth. This also led the president of Estonia, Toomas Hendrick, to stand up for himself against those who would advice against such "draconian cuts" by blasting Paul Krugman on Twitter. Hendrick, with a tint of sarcasm, attacked Krugman for ignoring and dismissing Estonia's successful example and for Krugman's supposed elitism.

Estonian President Toomas Hendrik has cut government spending and helped create economic growth. Obama could learn a thing or two from him.

Estonia is not the only country doing the opposite of what "mainstream" economic advice suggests. As Matthew Feeney explains in a recent article for Reason, up until the 1970s, Sweden had a long history of a free market economy, protection of private property, limited government, light regulation, a largely free banking sector, and has wisely avoided foreign wars. Then Sweden began moving towards a social-welfare state by increasing taxes, subsidizing industries, devalued their currency, and implemented burdensome employment regulations, leading to economic crisis and little economic growth. But since then, Sweden has instituted market reforms and economic liberalization that would make any libertarian cheer, including a popular school voucher program and the most market-friendly school system in the world. This has resulted in steady economic growth and budget surpluses.

What the recent economic crises facing the U.S. and Europe do is help discredit central banking, government management, the welfare state, and the ideology of statism itself. What a century of these policies have given us are booms-and-busts, devalued currencies, little economic growth, and an unsustainable amount of debt. They have failed for the same reasons Soviet Communism collapsed: economic calculation is impossible without the pricing system that markets provide, signals that provide coordination, order, and organization. Reversing this century-long course even slighty, as was done in Estonia and Sweden, resulted in a booming private sector responding to the demand left by the vacuum of cuts by providing creative and innovative ways to provide services at a price that consumers will voluntarily pay for. Additionally, the "Failed States Index" shows that about 70% of the 177 states around the world are in the "alert" and "warning" categories, which doesn't include most of the Western countries that face significant financial messes. Government management, control, and direction is proving itself to be just as costly and inadequate at solving the problems we face as classical liberals and libertarians have been saying for centuries.

The examples of Estonia and Sweden, combined with a knowledge of economics and how free markets create peace and prosperity, are proof that what Europe and the U.S. (and the rest of the world!) desperately need is a good dose of liberalization, economic freedom, and austerity. Unfortunately, austerity has been conflated with slight cuts in debt and to increases in government spending, like someone who after consuming 10,000 calories a day for decades, starts consuming 9,500 calories a day and wondering why he isn't healthy.

Real austerity is what allowed the U.S. recover after the depression of 1920 and after World War II. In today's context, here in the U.S., that would mean a balanced budget, stop printing money, massive reforms to entitlement programs, stop policing the world, cutting spending, and cutting taxes. And what the examples of Sweden and Estonia prove is that the quicker debt and spending is attacked, the quicker the recovery will be. Austerity may be tough at first, but the only thing tougher will be dealing with our economic woes down the line if the policies that created the crash - easy credit, central banking, deficits, and unsustainable debt - continue to be implemented and expanded.

'The Libertarian Speech I Would Deliver to the Whole Country'

Thomas Woods at the Texas State Libertarian Convention.

 

A Must Read List For Every Serious Libertarian

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

In a recent post at LewRockwell.com, Robert Wenzel offered a "30 day reading list" designed to introduce the basic tenets of libertarianism by offering a daily article to read for a month. For anyone interested in learning a lot more about libertarianism in a short period of time, I highly recommend taking Wenzel's offer.

And while I am at best a lightweight compared to Wenzel, who runs one of the best read libertarian blogs in the world, I thought I'd do something similar and offer my own introduction to libertarian philosophy. 

First of all, I used to be your fairly typical conservative Republican, with some minor libertarian sympathies. I read the writings at Cato and Reason, and while both organizations are loaded with incredibly talented writers and researchers, their utilitarian and at times compromising demeanor turned me off. It wasn't until I discovered the ethical and philosophical underpinning of libertarianism, through hardcore libertarians like Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises, that really lit that spark and led to me read voraciously, challenge my own thoughts, and slowly become more and more libertarian.

Libertarian philosophy rests on a major concept — self-ownership — that necessarily leads to other philosophies, like the non-aggression principle, property rights, and individual liberty. Thus, as long a person doesn’t murder, rape, burglarize, defraud, trespass, steal, or inflict any other act of violence against another person’s life, liberty, or property, libertarians hold that the government should leave him alone. Fundamentally, the strength and power of libertarianism comes from this ethical, rather than empirical, defense of individual sovereignty. Libertarian philosophy attempts to come up with a framework that defends individual rights for their own sake, analyzes what the proper role of force is in society, and reasons that law and morality mean little if they are not universally applied to all individuals in society. Because of this, libertarians reject the state from a moral and philosophical position, and either aim to limit it to it a few specific functions or abolish it all together.

And with that out of the way, here is a list of articles, short books, and long essays that I think provide a great summary of libertarianism.

Libertarian Philosophy/Ethics:

The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism, by Walter Block

The Philosophy of Ownership, by Robert Levefre

Rothbardian Ethics, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

If Men Were Angels, by Robert Higgs

Proving Libertarian Morality, by Stefan Molyneux

The State, by Franz Oppenheimer

No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, by Lysander Spooner

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat

Ending Tyranny Without Violence, by Murray Rothbard

How and Why the State Destroys Society, by Frank Chodorov

Entwined intimately with libertarian philosophy is a defense of the market economy, again based not on practical reasons (though markets have shown to be the most effective way of decreasing poverty and increasing standards of living), but because it is a natural extension of individual liberty and property ownership. Libertarians embrace the market because it provides individuals the opportunity to maximize their interests by engaging in mutually-beneficial trade with another, provides order through the profit-and-loss/price signals, and reject state intervention because it tends to harm this unbelievably complex and decentralized coordination that markets create.

Economics:

Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt

Planned Chaos, Ludwig von Mises

What Has Government Done to Our Money?, by Murray Rothbard

An Introduction to Austrian Economics, by Thomas C. Taylor

An Introduction to Economic Reasoning, by David Gordon

Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, by George Reisman

No, the Free Market Did Not Cause the Financial Crisis, by Thomas Woods

Recession and Recovery, by Robert Higgs

There are, of course, many objections raised to libertarianism on issues of practicality. How would roads be provided without a state? Environmental protection? Money? Regulations? Welfare? Education? Healthcare? Law and order? Security?

Practical Problems and Solutions:

Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution, by Murray Rothbard

The Privatization of Roads and Highways, by Walter Block

The Private Production of Defense, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Private Law Society, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Welfare Before the Welfare State, by Joshua Fulton

Practical Anarchy, by Stefan Molyneux

From Mutual Aid to Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967, by David Beito

The Not So Wild, Wild West, by Terry Anderson and P.J. Hill

Education: Free and Compulsory, by Murray Rothbard

Top Ten Objection to Libertarian Anarchism, by Roderick T. Long

Arguments Against Anarchy, by Jarret B. Wollstein

What Has Government Done to Our Money?, by Murray Rothbard

A Four-Step Health-Care Solution, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Who Will Regulate the Regulators?, by Thomas DiLorenzo

And finally, the most important issue facing the U.S. and the libertarian movement in general: war and peace. As the great classical liberal Randolph Bourne said, "war is the health of the state." Not only does war kill, injure, and displace human life and destroy wealth and property, but it diverts production from what the market and consumers want to what politicians, lobbyists, and generals want. War has traditionally been the number one contributor to the growth of state power, for it is during wartime that states justify the most amount of secrecy, expansion, and obedience. War, like any force or violence, is only justified in self-defense.

War and Peace:

War, Peace, and the State, by Murray Rothbard

War is a Racket, by Major General Smedly Butler, USMC

How the Swiss Opted Out of War, by Bill Walker

Imagine an Occupied America, by Ron Paul

Stopping the Next Hitler, by Bill Walker

God of the Machine, by Isabel Paterson

Why Libertarians Oppose War, by Jacob Huebert

The War Prayer, by Mark Twain

Robert Higgs and the 'Ratchet Effect', by Daivd Beito

GOP Election Fraud Lawsuits

Lawyers for Ron Paul is teaming up with Tools for Justice to sue various state GOP parties and the Republican National Committee for election fraud, voter intimidation, outright violence, and other shenanigans that have occurred since the primary season began last year.

There have been many claims against the Republican Party this year, and I'm not quite sure if the accusations are true - this is the evil GOP we're talking about here - but these kind of stunts happen in every election. Since the ancient Greeks cast votes, elections have been corrupt and rigged to one degree or another.

And with literally trillions of dollars of stolen government loot, contracts, favors, subsidies, etc. up for bid, I would be shocked if Romney and Co. didn't try to steal votes and delegates away from the very effective grassroots organization of Paul's campaign.

Who knows if this lawsuit will go anywhere. I hope it does. But one thing is for certain: this last year has helped confirm to me how corrupt the much vaunted "democratic process" is and am happy to not participate in it.

Thomas Woods: An Appeal to Ron Paul

 

Paul Krugman Gets Smacked Around by the Estonian President on Twitter

In a previous post, I linked to a story about what the government of Estonia, and Eastern Europe in general, is doing (or more importantly, not doing) in the face of a debt-bubble recession.

The "national consensus" in the economics realm, urged by Paul Krugman and other Keynesian interventionists on the Right and Left, is when faced with a recession, governments should spend or print money to boost consumer demand, lower interest rates, and take on huge deficits. But Estonia did the exact opposite, and have quickly turned around their country and are experiencing excellent economic growth.

And apparently the president of Estonia doesn't like the arrogance and condescension of Krugman and the ivory tower socialists in America:

Don’t you just love social media?

A few days ago we posted a story about a debate between two UK conservatives and Paul Krugman who was peddling his economic snake oil on the other side of the Atlantic last week. Krugman dismissed the challengers as reactionary agents who simply did not understand that deficits needed to be run up, damn the consequences, of which Krugman seems to think there are few of the negative variety.

“What then of Estonia and it’s success?” One of the conservatives asked.

“Estonia?”

 We didn’t get to hear the Estonian story.

But the president of Estonia wanted to make sure the message got out:

Estonia cut government, got it out of the way in a big way, and is now seeing robust growth. Estonia, as the attached article explains “went full on TEA party,” and actually cut the size of government. Now it is growing while much of the rest of Europe looks into, or falls into, the abyss.

In short Estonia went in the opposite direction from what Krugman advises and is seeing very positive results.

As Estonian presidents don’t get as much attention in the west as perhaps they should and Twitter is a natural outlet to take issue with the dismissal of the Estonian experience by Mr. Krugman.

And with the grassroots influence and legacy left behind by Ron Paul combined with he growth of Mises.org, the Internet, and the spread of a real understanding of economics, we should be seeing similar stories in the future.

Ron Paul Message and Legacy Are Trashed by Rand Paul Endorsement of Mitt Romney

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

While Congressman Ron Paul and his son Senator Rand Paul have differed on issues, strategy, and rhetoric, the biggest difference between the two was revealed in Rand's recent endorsement of Governor Mitt Romney for President. 

Ron has consistently refused to endorse Romney or rally behind the GOP for the sake of some notion of "party unity," opting instead to, like he has done for the last few decades, be a maverick in his own party. As Ron is set toretire from political life at the end of his Congressional term, it will be interesting to see which strategy will be more effective at spreading influence and ideas.

As the son of Ron Paul, someone I support enthusiastically, I have to admit that as much as I am inclined to distrust politicians, I initially liked Rand. He rode the Tea Party wave in 2010 into a Kentucky Senate seat against establishment candidates of both parties. 

But I can remember the feeling of my jaw dropping when he voted in favor of sanctions against Iran. At a time when the U.S. is dangerously close to a full-scale war with Iran, the last thing we needed was another Senator advocating economic sanctions, a direct and overt act of war.

I quickly found that my instinctual hostility to anyone in public office was correct. While talking a good game and wrapping himself in libertarian rhetoric, Rand has proven to be a fairly typical conservative Republican and very different from his father on the defining issue of the liberty movement: war and peace. While on the campaign trail for Ron, instead of advertising his father's record, he gave mealy-mouthed and eye-rolling attacks against Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

It has been fairly obvious that Rand is much more comfortable cozying up to the GOP than Ron is, and Rand may well be rewarded with a possible Romney cabinet slot, a presidential run in 2016, or other perks within the Republican hierarchy.

Meanwhile, on the same day that Rand endorsed Romney, Ron addressed the Texas Republican State convention and was asked to speak about "party unity" and "balancing the budget." Ron was having none of it. 

As the Washington Times reports, "Paul made it clear that he wasn’t going to play ball, or shall we call it what it is -- politics. His speech was a virtual litany of the positions that have defined his candidacy." He received ovation after ovation, like he has for the last year, by attacking the Fed, advocating a non-interventionist foreign policy, and scathingly criticizing President Obama's civil liberties abuses and his "kill list." 

Party unity? The Republicans have no problems with a huge bulk of Obama's worst excesses, Paul warned.

Rand justified his endorsement of Romney by claiming that in a 30-minute meeting with the former Governor, Rand was assured that Romney supports auditing the Fed, opposes SOPA legislation, wants to construct the Keystone Pipeline, and even praised his foreign policy credentials. 

Assuming that Romney actually holds these positions, there are dozens of others that are completely antithetical to individual liberty. If Rand truly believes in the libertarian rhetoric he uses, how could possibly endorse someone who promises trillions more dollars in spending, is surrounded by some of the same neocons that were in the Bush White House, knows very little about economics, and agrees with the president on nearly every substantial issue?

Besides, President Obama has said that he'll portray Romney as some sort of "extreme libertarian." Rand's endorsement helps advance the false narrative that libertarians are a different version of right-wingers, which could help to actually undo the progress that Ron has advanced in showing that libertarianism is neither left or right but a philosophical and practical opposition to government coercion and a defense of civil and economic liberties.

One might say, as some on the right have, that Rand has to compromise and be pragmatic. That's the nature of politics, Pat Buchanan endorsed the nominee in the past, etc. But the Republican Party is openly hostile to liberty, free markets, peace, and limited government and, with very few exceptions, supports torture, perpetual war, the drug war, debt, deficits, and paper money. 

By planting his flag with the GOP, Rand is showing that more than liberty, he wants power, and one should always be skeptical of anyone who wants power over others.

Ron, on the other hand, has used the Republican mantle and a Congressional seat solely as a platform in an attempt to conserve the western legacy of classical liberalism. While flying under the radar for the last few months, Paul has given stump speeches to crowds Romney could only dream of, building a grassroots message independent of the Republicans or any political party. 

With all due respect to the hundreds of Paul delegates headed to Tampa this summer, Ron's attempts to infiltrate the GOP have been met with hostility, contempt, and even outright violence. And despite claims that Ron Paul supporters are "cult-like," I can only imagine how quickly they would desert him, myself included, if he went to Fox News and endorsed Romney for president.

Rand's endorsement of Romney is further proof that, if one values anything resembling peace and a free society, politics, elections, and political parties are the last place to look to. 

Ron found that out early on, and has built a grassroots and independent revolution that will only continue to grow. Rand, on the other hand, appears more interested in his own political career. While Ron has been busy striking the root, as opposed to hacking at the branches, of vital issues, it is a shame that the apple has fallen so far from the tree.

Paycheck Fairness Act: Senate is Right to Stop Misguided 'Gender Pay Gap' Legislation

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

On Monday, President Obama urged Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill aimed "to increase protections for women filing gender-discrimination lawsuits, as well as create a federal grant program to improve women's salary negotiating skills.” The bill was defeated 52-47 in the Senate on Wednesday, and President Obama accused Senate Republicans of “putting partisan politics ahead of women and their families” by voting against it.

Like a lot of legislation, the bill was proposed with good intentions. But a closer look at the underlying premise behind this type of legislation - that there is a “gender pay gap” between men and women and widespread discrimination against women in the workplace - shows that the issue is much more complex than the President would suggest.

For example, it is often claimed that women earn only 70-80 percent of what men earn. Taken out of their proper context, it would appear that women are being underpaid and taken advantage of in the marketplace.

But it is a bit more complex. First of all, basic economics will tell you that if this were true, men would be completely out of work tomorrow. If capitalists and business owners are the greedy, profit-hungry caricatures that the Left makes them out to be, they would only hire women at the lower wage rate.

A more detailed look reveals that there are many economic and non-discriminatory factors that explain these statistics. Marriage and childbirth play a huge role. In general, women are more likely to drop out of the work force for a period of time to raise children while men aren’t. Women lose years of training and experience, and tend to go back into the workforce seeking jobs that fit their schedules as opposed to a higher wage. I’m not saying that this is the way it should be, but it is reality.

What is most interesting are the comparisons of incomes between men and women who either haven’t had children yet or have chosen not to. Single, childless women between 22 and 30 actually earn 8 percent more than their male counterparts. Women who have never had a child, regardless of age, earn 113 percent of what men earn. Unmarried college-educated males between the ages of 40 and 64 earn nearly 15 percent less than their female counterparts. 

Additionally, men are more likely to take more dangerous and hazardous jobs, longer hours, commute long distances to work, but are also much more likely to becomes homeless, incarcerated, sacrifice their prime years in the military, or lose their employment in bad economic times.

Women obviously face a certain amount of unfair and undeserved discrimination by employers and fellow employees, but by far the biggest factors in determining how men and women are paid are a result of individual choices and differing time preferences. But as Carrie Lukas argues in Forbes, “Women are increasingly taking on leadership roles in businesses around the world. Technology is increasingly creating more flexible work arrangements, creating new options for parents to combine work and family life. Women are excelling academically (earning far more college degrees than men).”

Beyond the rhetoric and casually thrown-around statistics aimed at appealing to our emotions and our natural sense of justice, basic principles of economics disprove the supposed “gender pay gap.” The statistics, whichever way you look at them, are largely the result of the market coordination of the subjective values of men and women, offering a diversity of options and choices. 

Federal intervention, in the form of the Paycheck Fairness Act, is a solution without a problem, and a cynic might even see it as just one more excuse to expand the power and control of the federal government. Besides, if President Obama is truly concerned about a “gender pay gap,” he should start by looking in his own White House.

'5 Facts That Will Annoy Your Keynesian Economics Professor'

Here are just a few historical incidents that the Borrow, Print, and Spend Stolen Money Forever "economic experts" should have some trouble explaining. Via SpeakLibertyNow.com:

Not every college professor is a Keynesian, but there’s a good chance that yours is, or at least subscribes to part of the Keynesian mindset. If so, here are some fun facts you can bring up that desecrate the Keynesian worldview.

1.) The Not-So-Great Depression of 1920-21

The Great Depression (1929-1940+) was a horrible era, and it takes center stage in a lot of the current debate on economic policy. But few people mention the Depression of 1920-21. Unlike the Great Depression, which lasted one-and-a-half decades, the Depression of 1920 only lasted a year or so. During the Great Depression, massive government stimulus was used. Everyone knows that FDR was a big supporter of stimulus i.e. increasing the debt, spending money, and lowering interest rates, but it has been left out of the popular dialogue that Herbert Hoover also engaged in massive amounts of stimulus.(1) Now contrast that with the Depression of 1920, which was dealt with, as Jim Grant put it in the Washington Post:

By raising interest rates, reducing the public debt and balancing the federal budget. Eighteen months after the depression started, it ended.(2)

The Keynesian prescription of lowering interest rates and increasing government spending was not only ignored, but the exact opposite was done. Let 21st-century economists rub their eyes in disbelief.

2.) The Nonexistent Depression of 1946

Millions of Americans were employed in the armed services in 1945, and according to Keynesian logic, if they were all laid off at once and government spending was drastically cut, an enormous depression would result.

Prominent Keynesian Paul Samuelson said:

When this war comes to an end, more than one out of every two workers will depend directly or indirectly upon military orders. We shall have some 10 million service men to throw on the labor market…were the war to end suddenly within the next 6 months, were we again planning to wind up our war effort in the greatest haste, to demobilize our armed forces, to liquidate price controls, to shift from astronomical deficits to even the large deficits of the thirties–then there would be ushered in the greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever faced.

And indeed, the troops were all laid off, price controls ended, and federal government spending was cut by an incredible 61%. Did the worst economic catastrophe in history occur? No, the economy entered the enormous prosperity of the late 1940s and 1950s once resources were taken from the nonproductive state sector and given to the productive private sector.(3)

3.) The Harvard Business School Study that Shows Government Stimulus Hurts the Economy

The Keynesian theory doesn’t differentiate between good spending and bad spending: All spending in a recession/depression is good for the economy. In fact, Keynes notoriously claimed that,

If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez faireto dig the notes up again…there need be no more unemployment.(4)

So any study the shows government spending harms the economy deals a death blow to the Keynesian theory, but this is precisely what a Harvard Business School study found:

Recent research at Harvard Business School began with the premise that as a state’s congressional delegation grew in stature and power in Washington, D.C., local businesses would benefit from the increased federal spending sure to come their way. It turned out quite the opposite. In fact, professors Lauren Cohen, Joshua Coval, and Christopher Malloy discovered to their surprise that companies experienced lower sales and retrenched by cutting payroll, R&D, and other expenses…’ The average state experiences a 40 to 50 percent increase in earmark spending if its senator becomes chair of one of the top-three committees.’(5)

As the government spends more, it occupies a larger share of the economy: The government snatches resources up and crowds out private, productive investment.

4.) The 1870s

During the 1870s, pricesin America were falling. The Keynesian theory says that wages are “sticky downwards.” This means that, if prices as a whole are falling, there will be high unemployment. But this simply was not the case in the 1870s:

Historians long attributed the turmoil to a ‘great depression of the 1870′s.’ But recent detailed reconstructions of 19th-century data by economic historians show that there was no 1870′s depression: aside from a short recession in 1873, in fact, the decade saw possibly the fastest sustained growth in American history. Employment grew strongly, faster than the rate of immigration; consumption of food and other goods rose across the board. On a per capita basis, almost all output measures were up spectacularly. By the end of the decade, people were better housed, better clothed and lived on bigger farms.(6)

The economy increased production faster than the amount of dollars grew. Today, in a few very fast growing industries like cell phones and laptops, prices fall, but almost every other industry grows at a slower pace than the money supply, and this means prices rise. But this doesn’t have to be the case.

5.) Stagflation

According to the Keynesian theory, either prices are rising and unemployment is falling, or prices are falling and unemployment is rising: A situation where prices are rising and unemployment is also rising is impossible. But this is untrue because,

In the 1970s, however, many Western countries experienced ‘stagflation,’ or simultaneous high unemployment and inflation, a phenomenon that contradicted Keynes’s view.(7)

To this day, macroeconomics students are taught that there is a direct trade-off between inflation and unemployment. But the 1970s show this is clearly false.

So, What’s Going On Here?

Despite the enormous failings of the Keynesian theory, how is it that this theory has remained the most-taught theory in the economics profession? It’s a question that’s up for debate, but I will point out this fact: The Federal Reserve is an institution that is explicitly Keynesian in its policies. The Fed lowers rates during recessions with the intent of stimulating the economy. This is also known as printing money. And what are some of the things it does with this money?

The Federal Reserve, through its extensive network of consultants, visiting scholars, alumni and staff economists, so thoroughly dominates the field of economics that real criticism of the central bank has become a career liability for members of the profession.(8)

Now, I wouldn’t confront your professor and accuse him of corruption, he is the one grading you at the end of the day, but the Fed’s involvement in academia is an interesting fact to note.

Why the Estonian Economy is Booming

The rest of Europe and the Amerikan Empire of Debt could learn a thing or two from Estonia:

It’s the euro zone Jim, but not as we know it.

Sixteen months after it joined the struggling currency bloc, Estonia is booming. The economy grew 7.6 percent last year, five times the euro-zone average.

Estonia is the only euro-zone country with a budget surplus. National debt is just 6 percent of GDP, compared to 81 percent in virtuous Germany, or 165 percent in Greece.

Shoppers throng Nordic design shops and cool new restaurants in Tallinn, the medieval capital, and cutting-edge tech firms complain they can’t find people to fill their job vacancies.

It all seems a long way from the gloom elsewhere in Europe.

Estonia’s achievement is all the more remarkable when you consider that it was one of the countries hardest hit by the global financial crisis. In 2008-2009, its economy shrank by 18 percent. That’s a bigger contraction than Greece has suffered over the past five years. 

How did they bounce back? “I can answer in one word: austerity. Austerity, austerity, austerity,” says Peeter Koppel, investment strategist at the SEB Bank.

After three years of painful government belt-tightening, that’s not exactly the message that Europeans further south want to hear.

At a recent conference of European and North American lawmakers in Tallinn, Koppel was lambasted by French and Italian parliamentarians when he suggested Europeans had to prepare for an “inevitable” decline in living standards, wages and job security, in order for their countries to escape from the debt crisis.

While spending cuts have triggered strikes, social unrest and the toppling of governments in countries from Ireland to Greece, Estonians have endured some of the harshest austerity measures with barely a murmur. They even re-elected the politicians that imposed them.

“It was very difficult, but we managed it,” explains Economy Minister Juhan Parts.

“Everybody had to give a little bit. Salaries paid out of the budget were all cut, but we cut ministers’ salaries by 20 percent and the average civil servants’ by 10 percent,” Parts told GlobalPost.

“In normal times cutting the salaries of civil servants, of policemen etc. is extremely unpopular, but I think the people showed a good understanding that if you do not have revenues, you have to cut costs,” adds Parts, who served as prime minister from 2003-2004.

As well as slashing public sector wages, the government responded to the 2008 crisis by raising the pension age, making it harder to claim health benefits and reducing job protection — all measures that have been met with anger when proposed in Western Europe.

Jeremy Scahill Calls Obama's Drone Strikes 'Murder'

Scahill, who actually travels to the regions of the world he's reporting on and doesn't spew Pentagon propaganda, is one of the best reporters out there and knows exactly what the effects of Obama's drone strikes are. Here he is telling what should be an obvious and self-evident truth on MSNBC:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy