Freedom Chatter Blog – Foreign Policy

Guns or Health Care?

Saturday, January 2nd, 2010

“We can do without butter, but, despite all our love of peace, not without arms.  One cannot shoot with butter, but with guns.” — Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Germany’s Reichminister of Propaganda

Throughout time, governments have strong tendencies to simultaneously splurge on both domestic spending and the more sinister business of warfare. This is referred to as the “guns versus butter” economic model. “Butter” is synonymous with domestic spending, while “guns” is synonymous with military spending. As with any economic goods or services, there is always scarcity of labor, machines, raw materials, land, et cetera. Individuals find it very easy to understand that if you want to spend 100% of one’s resources on “butter,” no “guns” can be purchased or vice versa; there is always a trade-off.  Steel can be formed into either a refrigerator or a tank; it can not be used for both.
Read the rest of this entry »

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

Tags: andrew carnegie, Bailouts, Constitution, Corporatism, Federal Reserve, food stamps, great society, habitat for humanity, Health Care, lyndon johnson, Medicare, red cross, Stimulus Package, United Nations, vietnam war
Posted in Business, Current Events, Economy, Foreign Policy, Government, Historic Analysis, Public Policies | 4 Comments »

Afghanistan War Plank

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

“All Warfare is Deception… There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited.” – Sun Tzu, circa 250 BC

Summary: I will not approve spending to extend this unconstitutional war of aggression against Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Congressman, I will drive for a rapid immediate and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan and redeployment to protect America’s sieve-like borders. I support increasing the reward for the capture of Osama Bin Laden forty times from $27 million to over $1 billion. I support issuing constitutional letters of marque to bring indicted terrorists to justice in a court of law.
Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Borders, Federal Reserve, Iraq, Middle East, Military, Osama bin Laden, Pakistan, September 11, Terrorism, War
Posted in Current Events, Featured, Foreign Policy, Government, Historic Analysis | 2 Comments »

Remember the Constitution and our Veterans Today

Wednesday, November 11th, 2009

Today, many Americans take a moment to remember the veterans that have fulfilled their oaths to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies foreign and domestic.”  All too many have paid the ultimate price, many defending their fellow soldiers, and many believing they were defending their countrymen.  I am sure that this year the all-too-fresh Fort Hood tragedy will be on the minds of all veterans.  As I stated in the campaign’s veterans plank:

“Service members shoulder a heavy burden when they volunteer to risk their lives in defense of our country. They perform a necessary function in our society and for their service veterans receive deserved benefits and gratitude. However, the greatest way to honor them is to keep them out of unnecessary conflict. The only just war is one carried out in self-defense, as a non-aggressor, and as a last resort.

“It’s important that we have a strong military to deter attacks against the our country and protect it when attacked. However, asking our young men and women to participate in unjust war is a moral abyss that we as a country should never leap into. If we aspire to be a just nation ruled by laws we must resolve to never ask our military men and women to engage in unconstitutional warfare and nation-building missions.”

Honor our soldiers abroad by bringing them home to protect our borders.  Never EVER accept the shipping their bodies and brains to a war zone without a constitutional declaration of war.

One of the disappointments I have had with the antiwar movement, generally speaking, is that somehow they believe they have elected a “peace candidate” in Barack Obama.  As a result, they have been largely silent for 10 months while the troop escalation to 68,000 and record American combat deaths continued in Afghanistan, and troop levels remain steady on the Iraq War front.  One shocking interview is Antiwar Radio’s Scott Horton debating with a co-founder of CodePink (the group had formally been for immediate withdrawal under Bush II) why American troops should remain in Afghanistan. Even if your thoughts on foreign policy differ from mine, the reversal of principles without reason is disturbing.

Here is my message – only when the members of the antiwar movement unite with the constitutionalists will our wars abroad cease.  Those outraged at the violations of the rule of law,  the violations of the criteria for “just war,” and the immorality of the slaughter of innocent “collateral damage” must join forces or be cut to pieces as seen in the 1734 Ben Franklin cartoon.

Jake Towne is running for U.S. Congress in eastern Pennsylvania’s 15th district in 2010. Prior to returning home, he had been living in Shanghai as an engineer in the semiconductor industry for over 3 years. As part of defending liberty and championing the Constitution, Towne is offering the citizens in his area a novel form of accountable government called “Our Open Office.”

Tags: Activism, Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Constitution, George W. Bush, Iraq, Morality
Posted in Current Events, Foreign Policy, Public Policies | No Comments »

Deception in “Free Market” Banking

Wednesday, June 24th, 2009

The free market is constantly blamed for mistakes made by banks, when in reality the economic problems begin when a free market is overridden with excessive and unnecessary government law, intervention, and agencies.

To grasp banking we must first learn and understand fractional reserve banking.

The fractional reserve banking system gives banks the chance to keep only a portion of their deposits in reserve, allowing them to loan or invest the rest. Today U.S. banks are required to keep only 10% of their deposits in reserve. So if you deposit $100 in the bank, legally the bank is only required to hold $10 of it in reserve. This provides cash for “day to day” privileges and allows the bank to invest in securities and loan out funds, among other things.

You may have heard how the “panics” in the 1800s were a failure of the free market. Many of the “panics” were caused from bank runs, meaning that the banks had overextended themselves and their promises and could not provide the money when customers decided to withdraw their holdings. In the 19th century banks kept gold (primarily) in their vaults and issued paper promises, so to speak, guaranteeing people their gold. Banks would print more of the paper money, loan it out or invest it, creating monetary inflation (because the new paper notes were not backed by more gold; rather they were diluting the value of the gold held in the bank’s vault).

In the Panic of 1819, both local banks and the national bank joined in the practice of spreading themselves too thin through fractional reserve lending. When people wanted to withdraw their funds and realized they couldn’t, it led to the bank runs and harsh economic conditions as the economy was forced to contract after the unsustainable monetary inflation.

The inflation caused by the banks led to higher prices domestically, an outflow of gold from the U.S. due to the suddenly more attractive prices from foreign producers, and banks were therefore forced to draw back on their commitments. The law in 1819, and for many years following, allowed banks to neglect their depositors’ holdings while still continuing their operations. If they overextended themselves, banks were given a special privilege and protection from government that allowed them to ignore their clients’ rightful and original property, and instead pursue the unsustainable and destructive road of monetary inflation and the creation of artificial credit.

I bring this up because people who support government and central economic intervention will often bring up the “financial panics” in the 1800s to show how disastrous a free market is. But the truth is that the government protections placed on banks helped cause a great majority of the panics. Because of the government protection, banks were able to take unnatural risks that never would have been possible in a free market. Government shielded banks when the fractional reserve process failed. In other words, the government protected the fractional reserve system in order to benefit banks, not the citizens.

Fast-forward to 1907. This was the time of the last “panic” before the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law, creating the central bank, in 1913. Once again this crisis came about because banks were unable to give customers their initial deposits. This caused a whole stream of withdrawals (or attempted withdrawals) by bank customers around the nation. Banks had placed the deposits into income-earning securities and did not have the necessary cash to meet customer demands.

After the Panic of 1907 and the umpteenth failure of fractional reserve lending, the attacks still were not aimed at the fractional reserve system. This system, when protected through law, gave banks the undoubted opportunity to inflate the money supply, overextend themselves in ways that would never be sustainable in a free market economy, and give little regard to the customers’ original property. Instead, economists began calling for a “lender of last resort” to bail out banks if they were caught overstretched in commitments. Many people don’t realize it, but the U.S. financial system has been in bailout mode for nearly a century since this event. In an otherwise relatively free market system, banking started as the largest sour grape of interventionism in the bunch.

What are the alternatives to fractional reserve lending, which has been criticized by free market, sound money supporters since its inception in the U.S.? Interestingly enough, the Romans sorted this out by making a clear legal distinction between “demand deposits” and “time deposits.”

Demand deposits are the deposits and withdrawals you and I make everyday. We expect to get the same amount of money that we initially deposited to the bank. Just as when you give $100 to a friend to hang on to for a week, you are not giving him the right to invest or spend it for his own personal gain at the risk of you completely losing that money.

Time deposits are essentially what we have today with Certificates of Deposit (CDs), where a depositor and a bank enter into an agreement of money guaranteed somewhere down the road (such as 1, 3, or 5 years). Time deposits represent fixed contracts where both parties know what they are getting into and what the terms and risks are.

Under a system similar to the Roman principles, banks would legally be required to hold 100% reserve rates with demand deposits. This guarantees that individual property is protected and not at risk of being permanently inflated or loaned away by the bank. With time deposits, however, the bank and the depositor agree on a certain time frame that the funds would be controlled by the bank, giving the bank the opportunity to invest or loan the money. If a depositor decided to withdraw his funds before the agreed-upon date he would be given a fee of some sort, just as we have with Certificates of Deposits today.

Understanding banking and monetary history in the U.S. is pivotal to understanding how booms, busts, and “panics” are initially created. Harsh economic times have more often than not, whether in the 19th, 20th, or 21st century, been created through government protections and privileges to certain industries, central manipulation of interest rates and credit, and unceasing government intervention in the economy.

People point to the failure of the fractional reserve system that occurred time and time again in the 1800s (through bank runs) and mistakenly shove the blame on the free market, and use it as an excuse to bring even more government intervention into the economy. History shows that when the free market is manipulated from outside forces the worst problems come about.

Today we are led to believe that a bailout-guaranteed, centrally manipulated, and government protected banking system is the most sustainable and sensible option. I have a very hard time believing this, just by looking through our own history. Government somehow fooled the majority into believing that it had absolutely nothing to do with causing “panics,” recessions, or any other rough economic situation you can think of.

It is long overdue that people cease buying into this ridiculous idea of an angelic government that knows the cure for every economic ill. Allowing the government and central bankers to freely mold and manipulate the economy is precisely what caused the many economic collapses over the decades and centuries. Freedom and the protection of private property represent the most solid and sustainable foundation for a prosperous economy.

Tags: Bank Runs, Banks, Central Bank, Credit, Federal Reserve, Fractional Reserve, Free Market, Gold, Inflation, Interest Rates, Lending, National Bank, Panic of 1819, Panic of 1907, Panics, Romans, Silver, Specie
Posted in Business, Economy, Foreign Policy, Government, Historic Analysis, Investing, Monetary Policy, Public Policies | 4 Comments »

Finding the Balance in Foreign Policy

Sunday, May 10th, 2009

Since World War I, the U.S. has generally accepted a foreign policy of military involvement overseas. It almost seems as though we believe things would completely fall apart were we not to be militarily present around the world. However much we may accept these ideas, they do not represent the foreign policy of a free, sovereign, and leading nation.

It was the Treaty of Versailles that played a major part in the popularity and rise of Adolph Hitler in Germany. For starters, the U.S.’s national security was not threatened during WWI, yet we still felt the urge to get involved in the mess in Europe. The Treaty of Versailles was essentially created by all major countries involved with WWI, except Germany, in an effort to promote peace in Europe. The U.S. took a large role, as well as France and Britain, in creating and finalizing the Treaty.

In short, the Versailles Treaty brought enormous pressure and devastation upon Germany; forcing the country to reduce its army size, give up land, and pay for many of the rebuilding efforts in Europe. This is not to downplay Germany’s role in the war, but the Treaty did not give the German people a warm and fuzzy feeling about the outside countries dictating the rules to Germany. Adolph Hitler took advantage of the anger and resentment felt by Germans by uniting the country, partly by downplaying and attacking the outlines of the Versailles Treaty and the people behind it. Hitler came to power in 1933.

In 1930, Herbert Hoover and the U.S. Congress enacted the Smoot-Hawley Act, raising tariffs to record levels on thousands of items. Incredibly high tariffs led to decreased trade, and other countries enacted similar policy to retaliate and show resentment to the U.S. for heavily limiting trade. The U.S. was in the midst of starting a period of protectionist economic policy worldwide, after getting much more involved in world affairs in WWI and the Treaty of Versailles.

Ever since the Versailles Treaty and Smoot-Hawley Act, the U.S. has struggled to find the balance between forceful intervention overseas and domestic protectionism. Both policies are costly and counterproductive in the long run, but today we fail to recognize the dangers of foreign and domestic intervention.

Foreign intervention is simply built on bad principles. We do not carry the right to occupy other sovereign nations because we are a superpower. We do not have the moral authority or the constitutional authority to do this. Plus, it is costly in money, lives, and creates resentment towards the U.S., and in extreme cases will backfire in terrible measures such as terrorism.

Protectionism and isolationism are no better. Shutting down trade also leads to resentment, as we saw in the Great Depression, and keeping ourselves out of the rest of the world will greatly hold back the ultimate goals of world peace, friendship, and cooperation. If countries can’t freely exchange goods between each other without putting up a fight, that alone will be the beginning of major long-term problems.

Both interventionism and protectionism are shortsighted policies. Today we accept government-managed trade in the forms of NAFTA, NATO, etc., as free trade, but it is nothing more than a cover for more government interference and control in the marketplace. Pursuing either an interventionist foreign policy or protectionist domestic policy eventually leads to its own brand of isolationism, rarely serving the interests of the people.

As with domestic policy, the U.S. has maintained a very short-term view of how the world works. Truthful, sustainable, reliable cooperation will come by empowering people to trade and travel between countries. Governments have biases and lust for control that always seem to get in the way of creating a lasting and principled foreign policy. At least, this is how history has shown it.

Ever since the U.S. decided to get actively involved militarily in foreign problems, we have seen much bloodshed, war, and violence. The Vietnam War dragged on for years, but only when we pulled out our troops did the country start to recover to be the prosperous and expanding country that it is today. We have been in Korea for sixty years, yet the tension there is still high and lasting today. We continue to isolate ourselves from Cuba, despite the fall of the Soviet Empire years ago and no threat to our national security.

Fire does not disappear with more fire, yet even in many of the smallest skirmishes that occur in the world, violence is seen as the first retaliation. The 20th century saw many governments get forcefully involved in world affairs and it turned out to be the bloodiest period in the records of history.

Despite the high levels of interference from the U.N. and numerous governments (primarily the U.S.), the violence and wars continue unabated. Just look at the ongoing messes we face in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iraq is years from reaching a conclusion with U.S. presence. And don’t forget, we have military bases in nearly 130 different countries today.

Just think for a moment. How would we feel if China built several military bases in the U.S.? How would we react if Russia deployed even as little as three hundred soldiers on our soil? We would not accept it without putting up a serious fight. Is it so hard to comprehend that when we build permanent military bases in sovereign nations, sometimes even on their holy land, it won’t result in serious blowback?

It was in the first grade when I first learned the golden rule: treat others the way you want to be treated. This simple principle that six-year-olds are learning isn’t understood by our own government. Even the people who support military intervention today can’t pretend that these policies won’t have consequences.

Foreign policy is much too dangerous of an area to follow a flawed belief, principle, or argument. A lasting, sustainable, and prosperous foreign policy will come not from government force, but with honest free trade, strong diplomatic relations and discussions, and a relentless pursuit of friendship before force.

Tags: Adolph Hitler, Blowback, China, Congress, Cuba, Germany, Great Depression, Herbert Hoover, intervention, Isolation, Korea, Protectionism, Russia, Smoot-Hawley, Terrorism, Treaty of Versailles, Vietnam, Woodrow Wilson, World War I, World War II
Posted in Featured, Foreign Policy, Government, Historic Analysis | 1 Comment »

Recommended Video: Ron Paul Opposes New Budget

Thursday, April 2nd, 2009

This is part of the ongoing Recommended Video archive.

Tags: Budget, Congress, Federal Reserve, Free Market, Regulation, Ron Paul, Sovereignty
Posted in Business, Current Events, Economy, Foreign Policy, Government, Media, Monetary Policy, Public Policies | No Comments »

Legality and Morality in Foreign Policy

Tuesday, March 24th, 2009

It seems to have become a mainstream acceptance that the U.S. has the responsibility to keep its military overseas. It’s the role of the world superpower, they say, to maintain a military presence and spread order through the world. It’d be nice if this were true, but no superpower has lived long enough to show the success of this theory.

The very principle of maintaining an empire, presence, or force outside of your own borders is not one that you’d expect to be followed by a country founded on individual and state sovereignty. Our current principle is worse than this, however. We say that because we’re large we have the responsibility or right to spread our force around the world. This has been the policy followed through history by tyrants, emperors, and kings, not free individuals.

Whether force is spread through trade or military decisions is irrelevant in the long run. When a government uses force to shut down free trade, as many countries (starting with the U.S.) did in the Great Depression, the effects will often be as painful as military force. Individuals suffer, the economy weakens, and freedom is reduced. Sanctions and other trade control methods do not harm the governments they are intended for, but the people within those externally manipulated countries.

The Constitution gives the U.S. no authority to mingle in the affairs of other nations, and certainly not ongoing military occupations and nation building. Today, approximately one quarter of the U.S. military is overseas in more than 150 countries, racking up a bill to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It is a weak argument that having all of those American troops constantly in foreign countries adds to the safety and security of our nation.

Ever since World War 1, when the U.S. took a much more forceful role in world affairs, we have had nothing but trouble. The U.S. took it upon itself to lead the charge of an interventionist foreign policy after World War II, which brought about the terrible atrocities of the Vietnam War and an ongoing war in many Middle Eastern countries. It was after WWII that Congress ceased to follow its constitutional duty to control and maintain the decisions of war, and the U.S. has not won a foreign conflict ever since.

Recently, the U.S. has had the problem of getting deeply involved in conflicts that it simply can’t contain or control. Through the CIA we helped arm the mujahideen “freedom fighters” to battle against the Soviets in the 1980s, which backfired largely in the form of two men who we supported and trained, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Those who are our friends one day turn against us years later, in cowardly but deadly fashion.

As Congress has either neglected or forgotten its duty when it comes to military spending, the executive branch has grabbed much of the power of war and military might. Mixing executive power and war is extremely dangerous, and will more often than not lead to the work of tyranny, unpopular and unnecessary wars and entanglements, and a larger disconnect and misrepresentation of the people.

U.S. foreign policy today has become a philosophy aimed not at protecting our own country, but using military force for the benefit of a select few who certainly do not have the interests of the American people in mind. We keep thousands of troops in countries that have not committed any harm to the U.S., have not threatened national security, and represent the furthest thing from a danger to the U.S. War is a terrible thing, but the more it gets into the hands of the executive branch and the more that Congress ignores its responsibility, the higher the likelihood of corruption, influence of special interests, and needless death of American troops and innocent civilians is.

A foreign policy of a nation keen on spreading freedom must support the ideals of non-interventionism and free trade; protect and strengthen our troops by having them defend their own country, and maintain a policy of true free trade with all nations decided by the people, not their governments. People talk about global society and how we’re all one family, then it’s time to act like it. Enough of this nonsense that we need governments or the U.N. to spread these ideals. We are all humans and a few empowered officials cannot spread principles or beliefs through forceful actions, a lasting change will only come from change in the minds of man.

It is time to recognize the fallacies of an interventionist foreign policy. A playground bully seems to best represent our current foreign policy principles: because I am the biggest one, you and your friends must obey my commands or face the consequences of my force. It is ludicrous that because we are the biggest and most successful nation we have the right, duty, or responsibility to use our military for a use other than national defense and the protection of individual liberty and freedom.

This does not make us any friends. It’s come to the point where we bribe, sanction, and occupy nearly every country in the world for one reason or another to our liking.

What message does this current belief send the world?

Let’s say that China passes the U.S. in economic size in thirty or forty years, as has been projected by many economists and investment firms. Does this automatically give them the right to come into our borders, overthrow our government, train our police, control our trade, install new leaders, and give us a new system of government? There is no justification for this belief. Just as a man who is seven feet tall does not have extra duties or rights than a man who is six feet tall, neither does a superpower have the right or duty to intervene in the affairs of all nations smaller than itself.

It is time that we abandon the foreign policy followed in the medieval ages and return the the principles of the Founding Fathers, freedom, and peace. It is neither sustainable or practical to assume that military force can accomplish more long-term change than strong minds and the peaceful exchange of ideas, goods, and discussion between people and their respective nations.

Tags: Global, Iraq, Middle East, Military, Trade, United Nations, Vietnam, WWI, WWII
Posted in Current Events, Foreign Policy, Government, Public Policies | 1 Comment »

American Principles of Foreign Policy

Wednesday, March 18th, 2009

Today foreign policy has largely taken a backseat to the economy as the main issue being discussed locally and nationally. But foreign affairs have done anything but settle down over the past several months.

During the Presidential debates between Senators’ Obama and McCain, the main debate on foreign policy was over how to best invade and increase forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The two did their best to separate themselves from each other on the issue, but in the Senate they have both voted similarly on key foreign policy legislation. Whether it be the FISA bill in 2008 granting immunity to telecommunication businesses wiretapping phones under federal order, or consistently voting to continue funding the Iraq War over the years. By looking at their voting records we can see that Obama and McCain have largely seen eye to eye on foreign policy.

Today, the lack of change in foreign policy is apparent. The marines currently in Iraq are beginning transfer to Afghanistan, and more troops are planned to be brought into the country this year. The “Iraq withdrawal” plan has turned into nothing but a cover to continue the occupation of 35,000 to 50,000 “residual force” troops beyond 2010. The body count in Pakistan, from U.S. attacks, continues to rise since late January when the Obama Administration began its operation. Despite protests from the Pakistani government, these attacks are expected to continue increasingly in the days ahead.

True debate on foreign policy has been disregarded and ignored for quite some time. Ever since World War 1, the United States has taken a larger military role in world activities. As we have seen with Obama, McCain, and Bush, the principles have remained the same: continue and increase interventions in the Middle East, keep thousands of troops in Iraq for an indefinite period of time, and hardly a thing is mentioned about the countless troops placed worldwide in Europe, Korea, South America, and many other countries.

The core problem with U.S. foreign policy is very similar to the core problems of the federal government’s escalated domestic involvement with the economy. It is a short-term focused approach that does not account for individual responsibility, long-term sustainability, or the effects of blowback tomorrow because of yesterday’s actions.

The principles of domestic and foreign policy that a nation takes are very much intertwined with each other. A government heavily involved in foreign policy will lead to a government much more involved domestically, and visa-versa.

While the effects may not be immediately seen, it can’t be interpreted as a mere coincidence that U.S. entanglement overseas greatly escalated after the Federal Reserve and Internal Revenue Service were created in 1913. The power to print money and tax private property will lead to an expanded, intrusive government domestically, and in the long run that government will not hold back from expanding overseas.

What is it that we stand for? Democracy? Individual liberty, freedom, and right to one’s life are what we have fought for since 1776; not a majority rule through democracy. No matter how worthy or incredible a system may be, not one political, economic, or social system can be spread through force and sanctions without weakening or completely destroying its reputation.

The U.S. has pursued a foreign policy approach resembling that of a bully, rather than a beacon of freedom. How can we say that spending nearly 20 years in Iraq has spread American ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Spreading principles cannot work if it is done through force, whether it be with the economy or dealing with a foreign country.  Leading by example, proving that freedom works, showing that free individuals can achieve more than use of military force, will bring about much more powerful, effective, and respected solutions of peace and prosperity worldwide.

Tags: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, FISA, George Bush, Iraq, John McCain, Middle East, Military, Pakistan, Trade, War
Posted in Current Events, Foreign Policy, Government, Historic Analysis, Public Policies | 1 Comment »