In this blog I will attempt to show you that two commonly held American beliefs are actually completely incompatible. They stand in direct opposition to each other and can not be reconciled. This post is intended to help you question your own thought process so that you may come to a better understanding of the interrelationships of economics, liberty, monetary policy, and foreign policy.  None of these things exist in a vacuum and, as I’m about to show you, some institutions harm people in other institutions.

“Support the Troops” even if you don’t support the war is among the most widely held beliefs in America.  Another widely held belief, often shared by the same people, is that the Federal Reserve is a necessary institution. Monetary policy and financial regulation must be conducted by a central authority.  These two positions are actually in direct opposition to each other.  The efforts of the Federal Reserve harm the very troops Americans “support.”

Defining Americans’ “Support the Troops” slogan

In order to engage this line of reasoning, we must first decide what Americans mean when they say “Support the Troops.”  To be honest, this is a gray area.  I don’t know what each individual really means when they say it.  Do they support warfighters as a rule of thumb?  Do they believe that the troops provide for their liberty, and so they must be taken care of?  Do they believe that the troops are making great sacrifices?  Or do they just say it because they would rather just repeat the slogan rather than face a backlash of criticism for appearing to not support the troops?  I honestly can not say what each individual American believes.  However, I must start with the basic premise that Americans “Support the Troops” and do not support any action that would bring harm to American troops through no fault of their own.  This harm must include any negligence by their superiors, any wrongful prosecution, undue economic hardships, or any violation of contract by the federal government.  I think we can all agree on that these situations would be things Americans who support the troops would find unfavorable.

The Contract

When a young person enters the military, they enter into a voluntary contract (assuming no draft is in place, which is a form of slavery and a wholly separate issue.) The contract is for a specific time limit.  The pay is lower, on average, than their civilian counterparts, particularly among the officer corps.  The difference, however, is made up in housing, medical, and educational benefits.  These benefits can be quite extraordinary.  The remaining equilibrium of recruiting is made up through the relentless pro-State propaganda that brings in a small fraction of patriotic young people (the number is higher during times of war) and the depressed economic conditions in the country (the number is higher in a depressed economy.)  All of these factors contribute to the make up the initial pool of available men and women that agree to the terms of their first contract.

Things get a bit more complex when the service-member decides to get out or enter into a second contract.  With the average contract being 4 years for enlisted and 6 years for officers, a second contract makes the likelihood of being a “lifer” a much greater probability.  A “lifer” is the military term for a career servicemen.  Career soldiers are important to the service, as they represent the knowledge of previous experiences and the leadership to instruct the new generation.  Regardless of your support of military institutions in general or warfighting in general, if you “Support the Troops” then you will understand that the “lifer” is an important competent of military competency.

The contract decision for a “lifer” then is quite different for the decision of a new recruit. The lifer now has experience and perhaps a technical skill that can be useful in the private sector.  They have completed a higher education, in general, than the recruit.  In order for the government to “negotiate,” they must offer something more.  The bargaining chip employed here is retirement.  After 20 years, the government will provide a generous pension to all service-members.  This is a desirable agreement, and usually puts the second enlistment soldier over the top.  Once a soldier does eight or ten years, it is very likely they will do the final half of their career to earn their retirement.  Once again, labor equilibrium is found.

(Side note: I got out after 10 years. I’m a different bird.)

But what if that promise of retirement was not all it’s cracked up to be?  What if that retirement benefit was destroyed through a reduction of purchasing power?  Would you be willing to support policies that purposely destroyed the government’s ability to fulfill its financial obligation to the soldiers you support?

The Benefit of Inflation

Inflation is defined as a persistent rise in prices.  This is the modern definition, however it is not the only definition.  Persistent price increases happen for a reason.  Here we must distinguish between the fluctuations in commodity prices (think oil last year) and real persistent increases over time, which is a purely monetary phenomenon.  Persistent price increases occur from currency devaluation, an increase in the amount of currency available relative to the market need.  This is the classical definition of inflation.  We refer to it as “printing money out of thin air, ” a cute euphemism for the practice of bringing about inflation.

Supporters of big government, and the Federal Reserve, point out a very obvious benefit of a moderate policy of inflation.  Debts contracted by the government can be paid back more cheaply if the currency used to pay back the debt is less valuable than the currency received.  If the government borrows $100 over 10 years, and then devalues the currency by 3% per year, while the rate of interest is 2%, the government makes a “profit.”  (I use quotation marks because the idea of profit here is completely different from the profit earned in the private sector. It’s a separate discussion but if you wish to delve into it further hit me up in the comments section.)

Certainly many Americans will agree that stiffing the Chinese on money we have borrowed to finance our government is a great idea. (Sarcasm only partially intended.)  Unfortunately, the Chinese are not the only people the American government has obligated to repay.  Not only have they promised Social Security benefits to generations of workers, but they have also promised a definite standard of living to American career soldiers in exchange for their service, as I explained above.  Had they not engaged in this negotiation, there would be fewer career soldiers.  It is part of the give-and-take market process that determines the labor force.

This money is owed to the people serving.  It is owed to the troops you support.  Would you feel comfortable knowing that the government must violate this contract?  That it has no choice?  The reason that it must violate this contract is because the Federal Reserve engages in a practice of inflation and has done so for the 96 years of its existence.

Much ink has been spilled on the Federal Reserve, inflation, the dollar losing 96% of its value since the Fed took over (with the directive to protect the dollar), fiat money, and fractional reserve banking.  I am going to assume that if you are still reading, you have a solid grasp of the basics.  The point of this post is to help you see the interrelationships of these institutions and for you to see that these two beliefs: Supporting the Troops and Supporting the Federal Reserve, are incompatible.

The Federal Reserve destroys the purchasing power of military veterans.  This point is irrefutable.  It has done so for 96 years.  Should the Federal Reserve bring about mass inflation (persistent double digit inflation), veterans will not receive the purchasing power of their obligation from the government at the level they were promised.  This is a violation of their property rights.  It is unethical.  Please do not “Support the Troops” and turn a blind eye to this fact.

Objections

This is a blog post and not an academic paper.  I don’t have time for the latter.  I can think of many objections, and can address them here, or I can let you make the objections and I will address them in the comments.  I’ll take the latter path to save me some time.

James Cameron’s Avatar has shaken the entertainment industry in the past couple months, raking in more than $2.3 billion so far in the box office worldwide. I first saw the film in January and was blown away by the incredible visuals, a detailed exploration of the Na’vi culture, and what I thought was a masterfully told story (as common or predictable as it may be to some). Unfortunately, some conservative and libertarian writers condemn the movie as a wackjob combination of pro-Green, anti-military, and anti-capitalist thinking wrapped into a movie. However, when I saw the movie I thought it strongly reinforced the importance of private property, individual rights, and protection against central force.

Consider the planet Pandora, where the “savage” Na’vi tribes have made their residence for generations. Their planet is their property. When a human corporation backed by hired mercenaries (hardly a constitutional military used for national defense) establishes itself on the planet to further the exploration and mining of a valuable mineral called Unobtanium, they face severe blowback from the tribes. One of the first scenes in the movie shows a massive vehicle returning to base with several arrows stuck in the tires. The tribes understandably felt threatened and saw the human tactics as an invasion of their property. Is this really an attack on the principles of peaceful exchange common in a free market?

The Omiticaya tribe that is prominent in the film does not need anything the humans offer in return for the mineral whether it be roads, education, medicine, etc. Is this really unreasonable? Does an owner of a product not have the right to negotiate the terms of a transaction? The Na’vi are not being selfish, the humans simply do not have a product or service that is more valuable than the land itself is already worth to the Na’vi. It is the same as if someone was offering $10 for a family heirloom that you will never give up. Just because you refuse their offer doesn’t mean they can take that item by force, as the mercenaries in Avatar did.  Once again, this reinforces peaceful and voluntary exchange in a free market.
(more…)

“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.
(more…)

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.

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.