Author: Chad Nelson

American criminal law takes a nuanced view of murder by creating several punishable degrees of it. First degree murder is generally defined as premeditated murder. The murderer has a plan to kill and has taken sufficient time to map out his crime. Second degree murder involves the killer who hasn’t necessarily taken the time to plan out his crime, but nonetheless has an "evil mind" and intends to kill. Another variety of second degree murder involves the killer who engages in conduct so depraved that the law says he should’ve known that his behavior would likely result in death. There is also manslaughter, sometimes referred to as "negligent homicide", wherein the killer was behaving negligently (less egregious than depraved behavior) and killed someone in the course of his negligent conduct. These are age-old American legal traditions.

Somehow, American war culture manages to turn a blind eye to these longstanding, basic legal principles when it comes to its government’s wars. Americans have no room for nuance when it comes to war. A war with massive civilian casualties is the same as a war in which there are no civilian casualties, as long as some vague government objective is met. For anyone who doubts this lack of distinction, simply look at the body of historical work that exists surrounding "The Good War" – World War II.

War is hell, they say. War is a dirty business; sometimes, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. There are countless despicable metaphors used to describe war which are intended to distract people from what war really is: non-punishable mass murder.

Unfortunately, no matter how reckless, depraved, ill-informed or misconceived American war-making is, the war-makers are never held to the same standards that run-of-the-mill murderers are. George W. Bush, were he tried in a criminal court of law (loud laughter), wouldn’t stand a chance of being slapped with anything less than first degree murder. No American president would escape that fate.

Continue reading “Challenging the Motives Behind War”

Bipartisan criticism of the Export-Import Bank is all the rage these days, after new Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy spoke publicly about his intention to end its very existence. From the standpoint of a libertarian, the criticism and the shedding of light on such a blatant corporate welfare scheme should be welcome news. Even a lot of mainstream media outlets have latched on to this populist issue du jour. Fox Business’s Stossel devoted an entire hour-long segment to the topic, presenting guests on both sides of the debate, with John Stossel attempting to rebut the ones who favor reauthorization of the bank. I repeat: all of this new anti-Ex-Im fervor is extremely pleasing, but it leaves this libertarian, and should leave truly reform-minded Americans, hungry for much bigger fish in need of frying.

It is not my intention to remake the case against Ex-IM It has been well-made over and over again since McCarthy’s remarks. Those who continue to favor the bank’s existence have shown their true colors. And many of these remaining supporters are no surprise. To this crowd, any measure that stands to bolster the American War Machine is good, no matter the cost. These folks are almost not worth engaging in debate. Everyone has at least one of these creatures in their lives. You know: The ones who don’t really need to hear specific details about a government program, as long as it seems vaguely useful in killing foreigners and securing the oil underneath their feet.

No, the far more troubling types are those who loudly slam Ex-IM as crony capitalism, yet can’t bring themselves to critique the biggest and most deadly government-corporate partnership: War. These people will parade through the television and talk radio circuits harping on the failed, government-backed, 300-million dollar lizard farm, but wouldn’t be caught dead criticizing multi-billion dollar foreign wars.

Continue reading “Don’t Get Too Excited Over the Ex-Im Debate and the ‘Reform Conservative’ Crowd”

The verdict is in. All civilized people must hate Dennis Rodman. Politicians from John McCain to John Kerry, and pundits from Bill O’Reilly to Chris Matthews are outraged that any American, let alone the eccentric Rodman, would travel to the land of the third member of the Axis of Evil. Earlier this week, Rodman, along with six fellow former NBA players, left for North Korea where they played an exhibition basketball game against a team of North Koreans. The game took place in front of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, as part of Kim’s birthday celebration. American politicians and pundits across the board are aghast, and most Americans are not far behind them in their hysteria. The atmosphere evokes George Orwell’s "Two Minutes Hate" sessions from 1984, where citizens of Oceania are forced to watch daily video shorts depicting scenes of Oceania’s enemies in order to keep the Oceanic people frenzied with war fever. Similarly, any deviation from McCain’s or Clinton’s hardline hatred of our mortal enemy North Korea borders on treason. The nightly headlines detailing Rodman’s idiocy are constant.

Is Rodman’s trip really that bad? I don’t think so. In fact, I think it’s an extremely positive step in the right direction if one is truly concerned with the freedom of North Koreans. For one thing, can anyone name a single thing that the State Department has done to normalize relations between our feuding governments? Have Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, or any other so-called diplomats spoken with their North Korean counterparts, let alone traveled there to show solidarity with North Korean citizens? Not that I know of. I don’t care if the North Korean government is "unreasonable" or "insane". That’s a state diplomat’s sole job, to forge peaceful and harmonious relationships with other state actors, no matter how difficult they may be.

How any government official could call herself a diplomat when her first instinct in statecraft is to issue harsh condemnations, threats and ignite cold wars is beyond me. Diplomats are supposed to be peacemakers, not antagonists. If I didn’t know better, I’d think the State Department & Co. are more interested in maintaining preselected foreign enemies than they are in peacemaking. But the State Department’s propensity for feuding is part of a larger problem — government’s utter inability to give repressed foreigners their freedom. Governments have only one arrow in their quiver: Force. When there is a problem, foreign or domestic, force is the government’s only answer.

For what tools does a state actually have in foreign policy? Sanctions. Threats of war. Actual war. Foreign aid. That’s it. All involve violence, real or threatened, and in the case of foreign aid, theft and grotesque cronyism. Of course, a Secretary of State could travel to a foreign country just as Rodman has done, but what good would such a visit do? At the end of the day, a politician’s visit would be nothing more than one master telling another master how to treat his subjects. North Koreans, and all other unfree persons, need less masters and more experience. The experience that comes from seeing other cultures and from learning that there is an entire world outside their own small country. No, Rodman and six old NBA players may not be the major dose of culture that’s going to set the North Koreans free. But it’s a start. A start at opening up North Korea to outsiders who bring with them a diversity of appearance, lifestyle and opinion, all things that are celebrated here in the United States.

Continue reading “Privatizing Diplomacy – Dennis Rodman Style”

It is a curious phenomenon that misery, death and widespread destruction of property is mourned when it comes as the result of a natural disaster, or at the hands of a tyrannical foreign government, yet is callously disregarded when undertaken as part of the military pursuits of the United States government. Humanitarian aid and relief efforts so prominent in the wake of events like Hurricane Katrina or genocide in Darfur are not even an afterthought in response to millions of displaced Iraqis or sick and starving Iranians. To the contrary, these occasions of mass human suffering are cheered and celebrated as victories by the large majority of Americans, to the extent they are even aware of them.

One need only look to mainstream news outlets for further evidence of this moral decay. Horrible conditions that would be daily front-page headlines were they the result of an earthquake are easily ignored when they are caused by our government. What is it that exists in the psyche of a population that allows the bulk of its inhabitants to turn a blind eye to these conditions so long as they are taking place in far off lands and done as part of government sanctioned war strategy?

One of the few people to publicly challenge this mindset is Ron Paul. Paul has attempted to teach Americans about a foreign policy based on the Golden Rule–that one should treat others as he would like others to treat him. Paul has used the hypothetical scenario of Chinese troops patrolling the streets of Texas under the auspices of "safety", "promoting democracy", and "protecting strategic interests". What, he asks, would Americans do in response to such a Chinese occupation? Although this kind of talk regularly elicits criticism from Republican and Democratic audiences alike, Paul says that many have expressed that this part of his message has been more enlightening than any other.

While it is important to look at American foreign policy through the eyes of non-Americans, it is even more important to look at such state action abroad in the same light as individual action. In his essay, War, Peace, and the State, Murray Rothbard does just that, applying the same principles to war as would be applied to two feuding individuals. In doing so, he deals the state a devastating blow. Rothbard begins by stating the obvious–that it is perfectly just for an individual, Jones, finding that he or his property is being attacked by Smith, to employ self-defense against Smith. Everyone would agree, however, that Jones would not be justified in using violence against innocent third parties in attempting to catch Smith. For instance, if Jones’s valuables are being stolen by Smith, he has every right to use force to attempt to repel or catch Smith, but he does not have the right to repel or catch Smith by indiscriminately spraying machine gun fire into a crowded shopping mall where Smith hides. Doing so would clearly make Jones as much a criminal aggressor as Smith.

Continue reading “Viewing State Action the Same as Individual Action”