Author: Anthony Gregory

The great Robert Higgs, author of many books and classic articles on political economy, and longtime opponent of the U.S. government’s policy of imperial war, will be speaking at the Independent Institute in Oakland, CA, this Thursday, December 6. The reception is at 6:30 and the talk begins at 7. There will be Q and A and a book signing.

In light of his recent book, Neither Liberty Nor Safety, the Higgs presentation will be called “Why Are Politicians Always Trying to Scare Us?” Antiwar.com readers would also be interested in his book, Resurgence of the Warfare State.

Every day, politicians, the media, and interest groups warn of imminent “crises” and “emergencies” which they claim only government can solve by wielding massive new powers. Too often, such purported crises — particularly in the realm of foreign policy — are later proven to have been exaggerated, erroneous or even fabricated. However, such knowledge usually comes well after the new harms created by the government’s “crisis” programs have taken their toll. Higgs has long stood up against the fearmongering warfare state, and has done so with the highest level of scholarship and dedication to principle.

If you’re in the Bay Area, you won’t want to miss it!

Vineyardsaker has a provocative post on Ahmadinejad’s description of America as a “big prison.” He posts this chilling data (emphasis added):

Incarcerations per 100,000 population (sample):

1014____Texas (in 1999) (governor George W. Bush)
1013____Louisiana (2001)
715_____United States of America (2001)
584_____Russian Federation
554_____Belarus
487_____Cuba
416_____Ukraine
402_____South Africa
388_____Singapore
267_____Namibia
253_____Tunisia
248_____Taiwan
210_____Poland
204_____Chile
194_____Iran
189_____Hong Kong (China)
178_____Czech Republic
177_____Greenland (Denmark)
176_____Jamaica
174_____Israel
173_____Libya
169_____Brazil
169_____Mexico
161_____New Zealand
158_____El Salvador
146_____Lebanon
142_____United Kingdom: England & Wales
129_____Portugal
126_____Colombia
125_____Republic of (South) Korea
121_____Egypt
119_____China
116_____Canada

Now surely, some regimes have more draconian prisons than the US. But consider the absolute reality of the situation. American prisons are also worse than some other nations’, with widespread rape, brutality, inter-prison gang violence. And we can’t forget that half or so of American prisoners are in there for non-crimes — victimless offenses against the state, such as drug, gun and tax violations. Then there are hundreds of thousands of property criminals and others who, for all their criminality, surely do not deserve being shoved in cages for years on end. America’s terribly sorry record on prisons alone would seem to put the lie to the idea of this country as the world’s greatest shining embodiment of freedom and human dignity. Before Americans talk about liberating the rest of the world, they should look at the rape rooms in their own neighborhoods, housing hundreds of thousands of non-violent enemies of the state.

Matt, here’s what strikes me as the irony. Not only has the Iraq war become increasingly unpopular, but Ron Paul has repeatedly been credited by the MSM for having opposed the war back when we peaceniks were in the minority. If there were ever a time to worry that Ron Paul’s advocacy of peace would hinder “a wider acceptance of the libertarian principles that would promote the general welfare of the American people,” it was maybe four years ago, when most Americans were still favoring the war and we libertarians and other doves were outnumbered. And then it would have only been a short-term concern.
Indeed, the Paul campaign has succeeded like nothing else in recent times that comes to mind in showing people that peace and liberty go together as do statism and war. Ron Paul is getting the credit he deserves and making people wonder, “Why did this man know, back when most Americans didn’t, that this war would be such a disaster — could it have had something to do with his libertarianism?” And there’s Barnett saying, “No, no, no. Libertarianism doesn’t inform us on whether to support or oppose the war. We wouldn’t want to give people the impression that there’s some connection, in principle, between peace and liberty.” If anything is truly hurting the ability of libertarians to increase our ranks it is this muddy picture people have of us. After all, what use is a philosophy against big government if it offers no principled critique of the biggest government failure in the last decade, one that nearly everyone is now sour on?  Thank goodness Ron Paul has been so quick to connect our troubles in terms of civil liberty and economic prosperity back to the issue of war. He has done a lot to reverse the damage of the liberventionists, such that now they see it as necessary to respond to him.
Wars are generally popular at first, only to wane in their popularity as the tragedy continues and its advertised goals go unachieved. Not only is opposing war the only sensible thing for anti-statists to do, it is in the long-term the best strategy in showing people the value of our critique.

Remember how I dreamt of more national dialogue on the war from a sane perspective? It seems the Washington Post has the precise opposite hope: They want the antiwar candidates, Ron Paul and Mike Gravel, out of the debates. These debates are “cluttered,” apparently, by too much focus on the evil of US imperialism, which is bankrupting Americans, corrupting our culture, and recruiting more fanatics in anti-American terror groups.

After all, why confuse the American public with off-topic, taboo talk of how the maniacs of the War Party still want to nuke Iran, or talk about how the US shouldn’t be policing the world in the first place? Shouldn’t we instead hear the six or seven respectable candidates from each party, discussing the ins and outs of health care and trade policy that none of them understand, or waxing passionate and empty on who is the real champion of God, country, equality, family, the middle class, safe schools, safe neighborhoods, a clean environment and a strong economy?

Paul and Gravel actually say something important, and thus they are just too fringe. There you have it: The supposedly liberal Washington Post is as much a shill for the establishment, including the warfare state, as any other paper or network. Don’t rock the boat.

Those who know that there’s an alternative to this establishment press, a news source that understands that war should be a mainstream issue, discussed in every debate with more substance than “we should support the troops and win this thing by stopping it from being mismanaged,” can help keep the flame of truth alive by going here.

Thanks to Lew Rockwell for the Wash Post link.

I turn on the television. Somehow, I must have slept longer than I thought. It’s already the middle of 2008 and the presidential debates are going on.

The Democrat is Mike Gravel, and he’s attacking the war. He is saying he wants to pull out of Iraq immediately. He promises never to preemptively nuke Iran. How did he get the nomination?

The Republican on stage is Ron Paul. He agrees with Gravel. He wants to go further and end the US foreign policy of imperialism and constant world policing altogether.

I’m surprised to see the Libertarian, Green and Constitution Party represented in the debate, too. Amazingly, all three of them are against the war and want America’s troops to come home. Fortunately, the Libertarians actually nominated a libertarian and not a warmonger, as is always my fear.

I wake up, disappointed. What a wonderful dream, though: The national political scene mostly staging a debate over domestic policy, where everyone agrees for once that the US should stop trying to rule the whole world.

Well, the United States used to have more of a non-interventionist consensus. There was a time both major parties eschewed international imperialism, as opposed to both supporting it. A dedication to peace with all nations once united Americans from across the spectrum.

The government does what it does with the tacit consent of the people. Unfortunately, public ideology has become imperialist. The right has become plagued at various times by Cold War belligerence and then later by neocon fantasies of democratic internationalism. The left has long been inconsistent, favoring many wars, especially Democratic ones, in the name of democratization and human rights.

But ideology is changing, and eventually the politics will reflect it. As Alexander Cockburn notes, only Gravel and Paul get it: Americans are getting sick of the war. Sooner or later, the major parties will have to bend to this trend if it continues.

Antiwar ideology relies on information and communication. Thank goodness for Antiwar.com, which has done so much to show people everywhere the truth about US foreign policy. It is impossible to measure exactly the influence of any one antiwar writer or activist, but without Antiwar.com, constantly speaking truth to the war power, constantly keeping the hawks in check, I am confident we’d be much worse off.

Ideas will eventually be what kicks the war party out of power, and gives voters a choice of at least one major peace candidate. One day, the American consensus might once again be pro-peace and it will be harder to drag the nation on a crazed war based on lies and utopian fantasies.

Help Antiwar.com move the country in that direction. We are coming at a crossroads for America, where the public can reassess our disastrous foreign policy, or be duped by a whole new slate of propaganda for a war with Iran. It really is up to getting the information out there. Help AWC do its great work for peace at this crucial time.

I just now read Chris Matthew Sciabarra’s note at Liberty and Power that Bill Bradford, editor of Liberty Magazine, lost his life to cancer on Thursday, December 8. He was 58.

I am very sad to hear this. I had the pleasure of meeting Bill at the LP National Convention in Atlanta in 2004, and was fortunate to write several book reviews for Liberty over the last couple years.

Bill Bradford, on top of being a dedicated hard-working libertarian editor, was very strongly opposed to the war machine. I had several long conversations with him on the phone and he told me more than once that there wasn’t a war in the U.S. government’s history that he thought was necessary and unavoidable — that there was always a better way than war to achieve the desired results. We have lost, among other things, another force for peace with his death.