“The way people speak of those in power, calling their commands “laws,” referring to disobedience to them as a “crime,” and so on, implies the right of “government” to rule, and a corresponding obligation on the part of its subjects to obey. Without the right to “rule,” (“authority”) there is no need to call the entity “government,” and all the politicians and their mercenaries become utterly indistinguishable from a giant organized crime syndicate, their “laws” no more valid than the threats of muggers and carjackers.”
“I always love how Chris grabs us by the brains and says, stop panicking. They can try, but people will build around them, as they always have before.“
The default position for British parliamentarians is to use the brash tools of the state to fix any, and every, issue. When you realize that all of this is objectively true, you learn something that will never leave you: our elites are not very impressive people.
Mainstream British political thought processes contain an epidemic of dreadful reasoning. Witness the average political interaction between “popular” British parliamentarians and voters, think through the reasoning of the topics discussed, and you will know exactly what is lacking. Unlike the remnants that remain on the American political scene, talk of philosophy and deeper economic beliefs are extinct. The United Kingdom is gripped by an election which acts as the perfect situation for our leaders to breakdown their deeper beliefs so that voters can truly understand whether they identify with them whilst effectively thinking through the reasoning behind their beliefs. This has not been the case in the UK for a long time; instead, voters are treated to non-tangible, ambiguous, and abstract babble about the imaginary sunlit uplands that will appear from renewed state intervention.
Bear witness to the commentary in this election and you will find no deliberation on why the state should take a larger role; certainly no discussion about if the state should have a role at all. The default position for British parliamentarians is to use the brash tools of the state to fix any, and every, issue. When you realize that all of this is objectively true, you learn something that will never leave you: our elites are not very impressive people. Absent a discussion on the necessity of state intervention, the United Kingdom will continue down the path of slow destruction and ruination.
The British population has spent the best part of a century demanding the state steps in to solve societal issues. Very little actual debate has been had as to whether the state should have such a role. The National Health Service has replaced religion in Britain, with any criticism levied at it seen as coming from a place of pure evil and hatred. This is despite it consistently underperforming relative to healthcare systems from around the world. Supporters may snipe back with rhetoric that the NHS has been grinded down by the Conservative Party, but even during Tony Blair’s premiership, it consistently underperformed relative to other countries despite record investment. The much hated £350 million investment figure on the side of the big red bus designated for the NHS during the Brexit campaign has been matched and exceeded, yet the NHS continues to underperform. At no stage of the discussion around how to make sure people have high quality healthcare has it been mentioned that perhaps continuous state intervention is not the answer.
The British pension system is nearing the end of the road due to our dizzying level of unfunded liabilities, yet the Conservative Party has made pledges to make our pension system more extensive. There is a complete lack of alert to the fact that the pension system is like a metaphorical Titanic; heading for disaster with very little knowledge of the impending ruin.
Propaganda and jingoism aside, the kind of people who run governments are not the best and the brightest, just the most ambitious and opportunistic. Without exception, they’re power grubbers who like to control other people.
Doug Casey: “Survive” is the prime directive of all living things, from amoebas to governments. That means if the government needs your life to survive or the lives of a million people like you, it will take them. To the State, you’re just a resource—notwithstanding all the rhetoric about democracy, the value of life, and blah, blah, blah.
International Man: UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak recently pledged to bring back mandatory national service.
The German government has also mulled reinstating compulsory military service. In Ukraine, it’s not uncommon for government agents to forcibly kidnap civilians off the streets and send them to the front.
These are a few recent examples. There seems to be a clear trend of governments preparing their citizens for some sort of mandatory national service.
Is conscription coming back in the West generally and the US in particular?
Doug Casey: The US is now automatically registering all males between 18 and 26 into the Selective Service databank. I’m no fan of conscription. Or the military in general. Of course, it shocks a lot of people when I say I’m not a fan of the military, although I tend to like soldiers as individuals. Don’t get me wrong; the military can serve a useful purpose. But when you’re in the military, you’re not necessarily fighting for the country or “freedom.” You’re fighting for the government and the people who control it.
Propaganda and jingoism aside, the kind of people who run governments are not the best and the brightest, just the most ambitious and opportunistic. Without exception, they’re power grubbers who like to control other people.
It’s one thing if someone joins voluntarily, but something else entirely if they’re coerced. The draft, or any kind of mandatory service or conscription, should be called what it is: Involuntary servitude. Or, as shocking as it may sound, slavery.
Anyway, this trend towards conscription everywhere in the West is most disturbing. It’s inuring people to the idea that they should serve the State, the government.
International Man: You’re well-known for saying, “Right now, by paying all their taxes, the government uses you as a milk cow. But they may decide to turn you into a beef cow.”
Can you elaborate?
Does conscription have any place in a free society?
Non-libertarians can understand the immorality and wrongfulness of private robbers forcibly taking people’s money and giving it to others. Unfortunately, however, many of them are unable to see that the same principle applies to the government.
The core principle of the libertarian philosophy is what is known as the non-aggression principle. It holds that it is morally wrong for one person to initiate force against another person, either directly or indirectly through the use of government. Libertarians understand the critical importance of the non-aggression principle and subscribe to it … mostly.
Let’s assume that I rob you of $10,000. I take the money and give it to the poor, needy, and disadvantaged. I don’t keep any of the money for myself. By robbing you of your money, I have initiated force against you. Under the libertarian non-aggression principle, my action is considered immoral even though I have selflessly given the money to others who need it.
The same principle applies to the government. If the government taxes you $10,000 and gives it to the poor, needy, and disadvantaged, the government has engaged in an immoral action. That’s because taxation is based on force. The government forces you to pay taxes. If you refuse to pay your taxes, the government will initiate force against you in the form of arrest, prosecution, conviction, incarceration, fines, liens, attachments, and garnishments. There is nothing voluntary about the government’s requirement to pay taxes. The fact that the government has given the money to others who need it does not change the wrongfulness of what the government has done.
Libertarians apply the non-aggression principle not only to the private robber but also to the government. Just as it is morally wrong for a private robber to take a person’s money and give it to others, it us just as morally wrong for the government to do it.
Non-libertarians can understand the immorality and wrongfulness of private robbers forcibly taking people’s money and giving it to others. Unfortunately, however, many of them are unable to see that the same principle applies to the government.
Unfortunately, however, some libertarians have carved out an exception to the non-aggression principle. They hold that it is okay to violate the libertarian non-aggression principle if one is gradually reducing a welfare-state program.
For example, consider Social Security, which is the crown jewel of America’s welfare state. It is based on the initiation of force because it relies on the IRS to forcibly seize through taxation the income of younger people in order to give the money to older people.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
As has been documented by such authorities on U.S. military spending as Winslow T. Wheeler, Robert Higgs, and others, America spends each year around $1.5 trillion for its military but hides at least around $800 billion of it (so as for the U.S. not to be publicly recognized as spending half of this entire planet’s military expenses) by spending it from other federal Departments than the Defense Department; or, “The US National Security Budget for 2023/24 is approximately $1.5 Trillion”, as Wheeler headlined a year ago, on 1 May 2023. He detailed there how approximately $800 billion of that $1.5T was budgeted as being from the Veterans Affairs Department ($320.8 billion, all of that for the military), Homeland Security Department ($103.2B for the military), Treasury Department ($78.2B+$13.1B=$88.3B for the military), State Department ($46.4B for the military), Energy Department ($35.7B for the military), Justice Department & others ($12.1B for the military), plus $146.0B national security share of interest on the federal debt. All of that non-‘Defense’ Department U.S. Government military spending totaled to $752.5B. He also mentioned “Supplementals” as then being “To come”; and, now, as-of the 19 April 2024 House passage (“Roll Call 142 | Bill Number: H. Res. 1160”) of the procedural motion “On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 316 – 94 (Roll no. 142)” so innocuously titled as to hide the dirty deed that they had just done, it added $26.38B to support Israel’s annihilation and/or expulsion of the 2.3 million Gazans, plus $60.84B to extend Ukraine’s war at least until President Biden becomes re-elected, plus $8.12 billion to encourage and support the leaders of Taiwan to declare Taiwan’s independence from China (of which it currently is a Province) so that the U.S. Government will have won Taiwan and would then need to invade China in order to defend from China that new U.S. colony (‘ally’). The “Supplemental” this year (Ukraine+Gaza+Taiwan) totals to $95.3B, which causes the original $886B ‘Defense’ (or Aggression) budget for this fiscal year to be:
MCViewPoint 