Healing Our World:
The Other Piece of the Puzzle
Healing Our World:The Other Piece of the Puzzle
The Other Piece of the Puzzle
We are fortunate. We live in a nation founded by people
who knew that aggression through-government creates poverty and strife.
Consequently, we have become the wealthiest nation on earth. How can we
apply our new understanding to help the developing nations, where people
still die regularly of starvation and disease? Despite popular myths, rapid population growth and high population density are not major factors in Third World poverty either. Hong Kong and Singapore, with annual per capita GNPs in excess of $6,000 in 1985, had more than 10,000 people per square mile. In contrast, India and China, with fewer than 1,000 people per square mile, have per capita incomes of less than $400! (1) Developing countries that enjoy the highest economic growth rate often have the highest population growth rates as well! (2) Between 1775 and 1975, the United States had the biggest population explosion in history, (3) yet Americans now earn the highest wages in the world. Clearly, rapid population growth and high population density are no more responsible for poverty than inadequate resource endowment. Poverty in today's world is primarily due to aggression-through government. When we look closely at Third World nations, we see this aggression everywhere. Jobs, and consequently the Wealth Pie, are constantly limited by it. In spite of all the examples given in the previous chapters, our country still enjoys more freedom - freedom from aggression - than most nations. The level of aggression in undeveloped countries is difficult for most Americans to imagine. For example, in Peru, it takes an average of 289 days to obtain a business license. It takes the equivalent of 32 times a Peruvian's monthly minimum living wage to open a small garment factory. (4) Small industrial firms spend approximately 70% of their profits to pay taxes and meet legal requirements. (5) A license to homestead state land takes an average of 83 months and the equivalent of 56 months of minimum wage pay. (6) Building a market "mall" legally can take 17 years. (7) A license for a new bus route takes approximately 53 months to arrange and is only rarely granted. (8) Under such restrictions, it is surprising that Peru-vians create any wealth at all! The pattern is repeated, with some variation, in the poorer nations of the world. Thus, the most effective way to help other countries is
to export a repugnance for aggression-through-government. The best way to
teach an idea is simply by living it and letting others observe the benefits.
When our country was founded, it was the first Western country to reject
monarchial rule in favor of a less-aggressive representative system. Today,
a scant 200 years later, the few remaining Western monarchs are mere figureheads.
Our system worked so well that it was emulated throughout the world. We
did little to produce this paradigm shift other than living our ideal. Most of this aid goes to loans and grants for the purchase of U.S.-made military equipment. (14) Security assistance becomes a subsidy from the U.S. taxpayer to the weapons manufacturers and dictators of the world. In the past, we've justified our aggression with the argument that we are keeping the Third World "free from communism." The next chapter shows that the opposite is true. You can probably hear the representative from the weapons factory explaining to your local congresswoman. "Ms. Congresswoman, we charge top dollar for our weapons. Of course, our stockholders and our employees, who are your constituents, profit handsomely as a result. In fact, the local economy depends on us. If you don't vote for this aid package, we might have layoffs. People in these parts could get mighty angry come next election, and we couldn't blame them. In fact, we might even help them by throwing our financial support toward someone who stands up and fights for those who put them in office." The congresswoman sighs and agrees to vote for the subsidy. After all, if she doesn't, the weapons manufacturers will back someone who will. Eventually the arms manufacturers will be successful, and the aid package will pass. Why should she sacrifice her career for something she can't stop? If the voters she represents care more about their paycheck than the exploitation of the Third World, why shouldn't she? Tomorrow she will vote for range land subsidies in exchange
for support on the foreign aid bill. Both sets of constituents will be happy,
even though they are simply subsidizing each other's special interests and
paying their congressional representatives handsomely to negotiate the deal.
The voters in both districts end up with less than they would have if they
had honored their neighbor's choice. The voters are reaping as they have
sown. In the famine of the mid-1980s, Bangladesh sold "free"
food at market price in urban areas and at one-fifth the market price to
its military. (17) Somalia allocated 80% of food aid to its military and
government employees. (18) During the famine in Ethiopia, the government
sold donated food or diverted it away from the hungriest provinces as punishment
to those areas for harboring rebels. (19) Haiti's Jean Claude Duvalier converted
aid into personal gain. (20) When we remember that poverty and starvation
in these countries are caused by the aggression of these same leaders, we
should not be surprised that our aid becomes a tool for more aggression. Ironically, poor rural farmersthe ones we are supposed
to be helpingare hurt the most by food aid. If the peasant farmers manage
to survive our security assistance and food aid, however, our aggression
causes still more problems. Why does our government keep giving such destructive aid in our name and with our tax dollars? Of every aid dollar, 82 cents is spent on American products. (24) Thus, the aid programs are really a transfer of wealth from the American taxpayer and the Third World poor to American-based multinational firms. Like any special interest group, these firms have a strong influence on our representatives, because they can commit large amounts of money to the campaign chests of those who serve them best. Not understanding how wealth is created, many sincere heads of state agree to borrow money for such projects in the hope that prosperity will follow. World Bank projects usually create subsidized government monopolies. Because of the inevitable inefficiency and high cost, the project cannot generate enough new wealth to pay for itself. The country ends up with a debt to the World Bank that cannot be repaid. Sometimes, the World Bank steps in with more loans for agricultural development. In the early 1970s, Tanzania received more bank aid per capita than any other country. Much of this money was used to support the army's efforts to drive the peasants from their land to government villages or communes. (25) Generous loans to the governments of Vietnam, (26) Indonesia, (27) Ethiopia, (28) and Guatemala (29) funded similar resettlement programs in these countries. The communes were seldom productive. (30) Land taken from the peasants was awarded to political favorites. Once again, money taken by aggression from the U.S. taxpayer was used to support more aggression. In Indonesia and Brazil, peasants who were robbed of their farms were often resettled on cleared rainforest land. (31) In some countries, the newly landless cleared the forests themselves in an attempt to create new farms. When the authorities caught up with them, the peasants simply moved on, clearing more rainforest as they went. Governments claim the rainforests as their own, just as the U.S. government claims much of our western range land. The rainforests are populated by natives who create wealth by using the rainforests sustainably, just as the Native Americans once did on our Western Plains. Peruvian Amazon dwellers, for example, cultivate the rainforest profitably and sustainably by harvesting its fruit, rubber, and timber. They make up to three times as much as they would if they cleared the forest for cattle ranching. (32) Consequently, they have no incentive to destroy the forest that they have homesteaded. Governments in developing countries, in their eagerness
to repay the loans from the World Bank, use new loans to drive the natives
off their homesteaded lands in much the same way as the U.S. government
drove Native Americans onto reservations. The government rents the forest
to loggers so that payments can be made to the World Bank. Since neither
the loggers nor the politicians "own" the land and profit by caring
for it, both groups have every incentive to exploit and no incentive to
preserve or replant. "You see, Mr. Congressman," she begins sweetly, "those loans are guaranteed by the U.S. taxpayer. If these Third World countries default, the United States will be plunged into a depression. It's much better that we lend a bit more and restructure their economy. With the resettlement programs, we can control what is planted on the farms and the villages. By focusing on export crops and clearing the rainforests for cattle grazing, we can ensure that we are repaid. In addition, the American consumer will enjoy cheaper coffee and cocoa prices when more farmland is devoted to export crops instead of food." "But those poor peasants!" protests the congressman. "We're playing God with their lives and their land. What about the loss of the rainforests?" The congressman is clearly frustrated. He had supported World Bank funding in the first place in the hopes of helping the less fortunate. Because he doesn't understand that more aid through aggression will make the bad situation worse, he once again supports the World Bank's plan. Even if the congressman had objected to throwing the taxpayers' money down the World Bank's "black hole," he would have gained little. The American-based, multinational firms that profited either from the rainforests or from the purchases made by the dictators have every incentive to generously fund his opponent in the next election if the congressman doesn't cooperate. When I was in high school, I could not understand why Third
World people called us "imperialists." Why would these ungrateful
primitives try to bite the hand that feeds them? Now, of course, I understand.
My tax dollars are used to exploit those who have so little in order to
benefit dictators, multinational firms, and banks. Our desire to control
our neighbors once again ripples outward, fueling the flames of poverty
and strife. We reap as we sow - the money that goes into the pockets of
the well-to-do comes, in the final analysis, from us by either inflation
or taxation. Tariffs are taxes paid by traders of foreign goods sold
in the United States. The price that consumers pay is raised proportionately,
so fewer goods are imported. If American citizens want to buy a product
directly from a Third World vendor, bypassing the tariff, they'll be stopped
- at gunpoint, if necessary. This form of aggression, which prevents Third
World people from helping themselves, is used to protect American jobs.
Like all forms of aggression, the outcome is very different from what was
intended. Instead of creating new wealth, regulators who enforce the tariff law only stymie it. Thus, saving the job of one textile worker costs 3 to 12 times that person's annual earnings. (34) The consumer pays these additional costs. Tariffs and quotas increase prices for a family of four by an average of $2,000 per year, (35) which represents a hefty 32% of the purchasing power of families at the poverty level.36 As with all aggression, tariffs only make poor workers poorer. Tariffs harm Third World entrepreneurs as well. Essentially, the tariff is a license that those businesses are required to buy for every item sold. The tariff is passed on to the consumer through increased prices. Fewer consumers buy the tariffed item, discouraging trade. The underdeveloped countries advance more quickly when they trade, (37) because division of labor and specialization make wealth creation more efficient. When wediscourage trade with tariffs, our aggression prevents Third World people from helping themselves. Free from aggression, the marketplace ecosystem favors the entrepreneurs who serve their customers best. If a business enterprise in a poorer nation uses inexpensive labor to keep prices down, American consumers get more for their dollar. When Americans buy from the foreign vendor, they create jobs for the underprivileged. When Americans support the aggression of tariffs, they sacrifice the disadvantaged in a futile effort to help more-fortunate American workers who produce the same goods less efficiently. Just because other countries foolishly harm themselves with tariffs is no reason for us to do so. Japanese consumers, for example, pay up to ten times as much for their rice as they would without the tariffs imposed by their government. (38) When we follow Japan's protectionist lead, we also pay more for less. If other countries can produce certain items more economically,
we benefit by turning our efforts to businesses in which we excel. Yankee
ingenuity is our forte. By focusing on innovation, we focus on developing
a creative and intelligent populace. Our current protectionist position
means more menial jobs for our populace and fewer white collar ones. When
we buy goods manufactured with the cheap labor of Third World nations, we
help them while helping ourselves. To set this example, we must abandon the aggression of tariffs and taxation that gives special interests and dictators control of the Third World people. When we abandon these forms of aggression, we will have set the stage for development in the Third World. If we continue our aggressive practices, we will create poverty and strife abroad just as surely as we are creating poverty and strife at home. Instead of using our resources to make the poor nations poorer, we can volunteer our support. Those concerned about the rainforests can supply funds to native people who are defending their homesteading claims. The Malaysian village of Uma Bawang, for example, recently took its state government to court to legalize native homesteading rights. (39) Most native people are much more careful in managing their homeland than distant politicians are. When we encourage ownership of the environment, we increase the chances that Nature's bounty will be nurtured, protected, and preserved. Some people object to individual ownership of rainforests for fear an unscrupulous, wealthy person might buy these sensitive environments and destroy them. The marketplace ecosystem regulates such individuals with the feedback of profit and loss. Daniel K. Ludwig, the richest man in the world in the 1970s, cut down 250,000 acres of rainforest for a tree farm. He lost billions of dollars because the new trees were not able to grow well there; naturally, he stopped cutting down rainforests. (40) Few individuals can afford to duplicate his mistake. Politicians, however, are more likely to continue such practices, because they do not lose money by destroying the rainforests; indeed, they profit by it. When we stop supporting dictatorship, stop subsidizing environmental destruction, start encouraging recognition of homesteading claims, and start trading with Third World nations non-aggressively, we will contribute significantly to their progress. Ultimately, peace and plenty in these countries are a product of the hearts and minds of their people. Until they, individually and collectively, forsake aggression, Third World people will, like ourselves, reap its bitter fruits. We hesitate to abandon our aggression overseas. We are fearful that somehow selfish others will take control if we don't. In our hearts, we still aren't sure that non-aggression works in the real world. Let's take a closer look at the Communist threat that affected our foreign policy over the past several decades to see if our fears are well founded. |
...economic studies have failed to demonstrate that population growth has bad effects. - Jacqueline Kasun, THE WAR AGAINST POPULATION
Generation after generation, the poor have streamed to America and been lifted out of poverty. This "liberation theology" actually does liberate. - Michael Novak, WILL IT LIBERATE?
...human development is frustrated in most Hispanic-American countries-and most Third World countries-by a way of seeing the world that impedes the achievement of political pluralism, social equality, and dynamic economic progress - Lawrence D. Harrison, UNDERDEVELOPMENT IS A STATE OF MIND: THE LATIN AMERICAN CASE
Let the Tao be present in your country and your country will be an example to all countries in the world. - Lao-tsu, TAO TE CHING
Giving countries money that will be badly used is worse than not giving them any money at all. - James Bovard, Cato Institute
When the U.S. makes fear of the Soviet Union the... guide in policy decisions, it alienates Third World people. - Frances Moore Lappe et al., BETRAYING THE NATIONAL INTEREST
...it's impossible to go through the powerful to reach the powerless. - Frances Moore Lappe et al., BETRAYING THE NATIONAL INTEREST
...the World Bank has contributed as much to agricultural disaster in Ethiopia as the governments themselves. - Yonas Deressa, President, Ethiopian Refugees Education and Relief Foundation
...according to the U.S. Department of Labor's own statistics, "protectionism" destroys eight jobs in the general economy for every one saved in a protected economy. - Vincent Miller and James Elwood, "Free Trade vs. Protectionism"
It is no coincidence that some of America's most lethargic industries-steel, footwear, rubber, textiles-are also among the most heavily protected. - Thomas DiLorenzo, WHY FREE TRADE WORKS
...our greatest contributions to the cause of freedom and development overseas is not what we do over there, but what we do right here at home. - Frances Moore Lappe et al., BETRAYING THE NATIONAL INTEREST
Genuine development cannot be imported or imposed; it can only be achieved by a people for themselves. - Frances Moore Lappe et al., BETRAYING THE NATIONAL INTEREST |
Since World War II, much of our foreign aid and military
build-up has been to defuse the Communist influence. Has the Communist threat
died with the breakup of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)?
To answer this question, we must first understand what communism (also called
socialism by some of its proponents) is. Many of us have experienced some form of the Communist ideal in our immediate families. Many parents do without so their children won't have to. Parents can keep the wealth they create for themselves, but they are likely to generously share with their children. No one points a gun at Moms and Dads to get them to comply. Parents choose to give out of love. Communists believe that we should all be family to one another. If we won't voluntarily give to others until the available wealth is evenly distributed, then we must be forced - at gunpoint, if necessary. Such tactics quickly destroy the love that is the source of such giving. For example, we might help a family member in need, even if the need is frequent. If that family member insisted, with gun in hand, that we were going to help whether we wanted to or not, we'd probably feel less inclined to give anything at all. Instead, we'd probably hide what we have. Aggression inhibits spontaneous giving while encouraging resentment and hoarding. Creating Strife Traveling by train through Poland and East Germany in the early 1980s, I always knew which side of the border I was on by the temperament of the customs officials. Those from the so-called free nations were courteous and friendly; those from the Eastern Bloc seemed miserable and eager to take out their frustrations on the passengers. A society based on the belief that selfish others are to blame for the world's woes is a society in which others who have more are seen as enemies. One person's gain is seen as an-other's loss. A Communist society believes in a win-lose world. Creating Poverty Because of this win-lose belief, most of the wealth in
Communist countries is taken from its creatorsat gunpoint, if necessaryand
is distributed by a handful of government officials. People who create more
wealth than others seldom benefit by having more for themselves or their
loved ones. Aggression has disrupted the marketplace ecosystem so much that
the Wealth Pie is just a fraction of what it otherwise would be. Creating Class Distinctions The Communist ethic championed a classless society with an even distribution of wealth, but the aggression used to implement it in Communist countries actually produced the greatest extremes. Individuals who created goods and services that the government considered critical were rewarded with the best food and living conditions. Such people might have developed new military technology or excelled in athletic competition, for example. Under communism, the average Soviet waited in long lines at state stores for unwrapped and unattractive produce and occasional meat, while high-ranking party officials and political favorites ordered high-quality, well-packaged food in exclusive stores and restaurants that were off limits to the average Soviet. (10) Medical care likewise depended on one's status. High-ranking party members and other citizens of status were able to get Western-style care in special hospitals. (11) In spite of the high-sounding rhetoric, top-level Communists enjoyed a lifestyle that the average Soviet had no chance of attaining, no matter how hard he or she was willing to work. To understand how politicians dedicated to an even distribution of wealth could let this happen, put yourself in their shoes. Imagine that you are a concerned head of state who wants everyone in the country to enjoy the same standard of living. You have the guns of government at your disposal, so you start by forcing everyone - at gunpoint, if necessary - to work for the same wage. Since doctors are paid the same no matter how many patients they see, the doctors work at a leisurely pace, and lines outside their offices grow. To counter this, you consider paying doctors according to how many patients they see. Since doctors respond to incentives like everyone else, they see as many people as possible, giving all patients cursory exams and sending them on their way. Soon the doctors are making more than the workers they treat. Using aggression as your means, you have created a privileged class! Instead of paying the doctors per patient, you set a quota for each doctor and send someone to make sure that the doctor spends the allotted time with each patient. The monitors are paid the same regardless of what their reports on the doctors contain. Knowing this, doctors will undoubtedly suggest that the monitors look the other way while the physicians maintain a leisurely pace. In return, the doctor will put the monitor's family at the front of the line if they should need treatment. This "medical insurance" cost the monitors nothing, so they have every reason to accept it. If the doctor lets some patients bribe their way to the head of the line, some of this money might also be split with the monitor. You have created two privileged classes instead of one: the doctor and the monitor. You could have a second monitor check on the first, but what prevents the new monitor from accepting bribes as well? The more layers of monitors you have, the less wealth is created, since monitors produce no new goods and services. More dissatisfaction arises. You could ask the police to torture any monitor who takes bribes, but the monitors might very well bribe the police. Because monitors take bribes, they can probably offer the police a better deal than merely making the same as everyone else. If you threatened to torture police who accepted bribes, you would incur the animosity of an armed elite skilled in violent action not a good idea if you want a long life. To make your police unbribable, you must pay them more than anyone else. Once again, you must create class distinctions, with those who wield the guns of government at the top. Equality cannot be achieved through aggression. Harming the Environment The more often that aggression thwarts the natural regulation of the marketplace ecosystem, the more often the environment is devastated. In the United States, energy consumption is minimized so that profits will be maximized. As a result, the energy used in 1989 to produce a dollar's worth of goods was about half what it was in the late 1920s. (12) In Communist countries, however, no one profits by conserving energy. People do not reap as they sow, because the wealth they create is taken from them - at gunpoint, if necessary. Manufacturing becomes wastful. As a result, the Communist economies use almost three times as much energy as the so-called free nations for every dollar of goods produced. (12) In Communist countries, the only choices that are honored are those that the government officials make for the entire nation. If government control were the solution to pollution, the Eastern European countries would be pristine. Instead, pollution runs rampant to an extent seldom seen in the Western world. For example, in Cop a Mic , Romania, carbon spews nightly from a nearby tire factory, literally coating everything and everybody black. (13) In Leipzig, East Germany, more than 90% of the population suffers health problems because of the high level of sulfur dioxide.14 Polish economists estimate that pollution destroys 10% to 15% of their nation's annual GNP. (15) The Czechoslovakian Environment Ministry estimates that 5% to 7% of their country's annual wealth creation is similarly wasted. (15) Two-thirds of the forests may be dying, and half of the water is undrinkable. (16) One allergy specialist in the Bohemian city of Most blames pollution for lowering the life expectancy of the residents by 10 years, compared to the already low national average. (17) The plight of Eastern Europe reminds us that aggression-through government makes pollution worse, not better. When aggression prevents homesteading the waterways and owning the environment, individuals do not profit from protecting it. Altruists who are willing to preserve the environment, even without the positive feedback of profit, find themselves thwarted by the guns of government as well. Sovereign immunity protects the government officials who choose pollution for the sake of political gain. Since selling out the environment is the only way the public officials can profit from it, they have little incentive to do otherwise. Turning Adults into Children The greatest tragedy of communism is not the poverty, sullenness, or even the environmental destruction it encourages. The devastation of the human spirit is its greatest casualty. A medical colleague returning from Finland in the 1980s told me how Russian men would marry Finnish women so they could emigrate to Finland. Once there, however, the array of decisions that the average citizen makes concerning housing, shopping, etc., was just too much for many of them to bear. Overwhelmed by the task of taking responsibility for their life, the men went back to Russia where scarcity and aggression make choice a rarity. This destruction of the questing human spirit, of the confidence in one's ability to cope with the world, is the most devastating effect of the extreme aggression of communism. Like overprotective parenting, aggression- through- government hinders normal human development. On the average, individuals, knowing their situation, strengths, and limitations, make the best choices for themselves. Even when they choose poorly, the lesson to be learned prepares them for better decisions later on. As each individual optimizes his or her own well-being without aggression, the whole society benefits. Looking out for Number 1 is nature's way of ensuring that we optimize the whole. If each cell maintains its health without harming the others, the body can hardly be diseased! A little bit of communism is like a little bit of disease. Mixing aggression with non aggression isn't a happy medium; it's the beginning of societal ill healthin more ways than one. As the United States embraced aggression, it started down the path to communism as well. The architects of communism knew this well. In 1847, Marx and Engels proposed ten steps to convert the Western nations to Communist countries without firing a shot. (18) Most of these ideas have been successfully implemented in our own country with little, if any, resistance! Is It Happening Here? One of the ten steps called for "centralization of
credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state
capital and an exclusive monopoly"just like our own Federal Reserve!
As described in Chapter 9, a central bank transfers the wealth of the average
person to the well-to-do through inflation. Communism, like all aggression-through-government,
is a tool of the rich. The next chapter explains how domestic aggression
in the U. S. banking industry created our need for national defense by helping
to establish the Communist threat overseas. |
It is wrong to demand that the individual subordinate himself to the collectivity or merge in it, because it is by its most advanced individuals that the collectivity progresses and they can really advance only if they are free.... The individual is indeed the key of the evolutionary movement. - Sri Aurobindo, THE FUTURE EVOLUTION OF MAN
...violence is the cornerstone of socialism's existence as an institution. - Hans-Herman Hoppe, A THEORY OF SOCIALISM AND CAPITALISM
Soviet citizens have a worse diet than did Russians under Czar Nicholas II in 1913. - Mortimer B. Zuckerman, editor-in-chief, U.S. News & World Report, 1989
Measured by the health of its people, the Soviet Union is no longer a developed nation. - Nick Eberstadt, THE POVERTY OF COMMUNISM
The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests. - Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winner, Economics
When man interferes with the Tao, the sky becomes filthy, the earth becomes depleted, the balance crumbles, creatures become extinct. - Lao-tsu, TAO TE CHING
The ecological situation in Czechoslovakia is, in a word, disastrous.... It's nothing short of a catastrophe. - Dr. Bedrich Moldan, Czechoslovakian Environmental Minister
Our power does not know liberty or justice. It is established on the destruction of the individual will. - Vladimir I. Lenin, Bolshevik revolutionary leader
Socialism of any type leads to a total destruction of the human spirit.... - Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Soviet dissident and defector
Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. - Thomas Paine, COMMON SENSE
Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist system was to debauch the currency. - John Maynard Keynes, THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE PEACE
Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted. - Vladimir I. Lenin, Bolshevik revolutionary leader
The control of the production of wealth is the control of human life itself. - Hilaire Belloc, THE SERVILE STATE
The right of private property in land is forever abolished. All land owned by the Church, by private persons, by peasants, is taken away without compensation. - Vladimir I. Lenin, November 8, 1917
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
It is a known fact that the policies of the government today, whether Republican or Democratic are closer to the 1932 platform of the Communist Party than they are to either of their own party platforms in that critical year. - Walter Trohan, Chicago Tribune, October 5, 1970
The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag... The American people will hoist it themselves. - Nikita Khrushchev, Soviet premier, November 16, 1956 |
In the previous chapter, we learned how our desire
to control our neighbors expands to create the "foreign" threat
of communism in our own backyard. In this chapter, we'll explore how our
domestic aggression establishes enemies abroad as well. It was common knowledge earlier in this century that U.S. banking interests helped establish communism in Russia (Figure 20.1). A 1911 cartoon from the St. Louis Post Dispatch by Robert Minor showed Karl Marx welcomed to Wall Street by John D. Ryan (National City Bank), and John D. Rockefeller (Chase Bank and Standard Oil), as well as J.P. Morgan and his partner George W. Perkins (Guaranty Trust Co. and Equitable Life). Andrew Carnegie and Teddy Roosevelt were also featured. Why did America's wealthy encourage a philosophy that portrayed them as selfish others who should be forced - at gunpoint, if necessary - to give up the wealth they had accumulated? These men were not stupid. They knew that aggression- through- government always favored the rich while fostering the illusion of helping the poor. Many of them had profited greatly from the aggression of licensing laws.  The bankers had done especially well, even before the Federal Reserve put the banks at the apex of the Pyramid of Power. Banks created more money than they would have in a marketplace ecosystem free from aggression. These extra dollars, subsidized by the American public primarily through inflation, were loaned or given to the Communists to aid them in their rise to power. (1) In 1917, three factions were involved in the Russian revolution. Besides the Communists and those loyal to the czar, a small group championed the benefits of non-aggression. (2) Of the three groups, only the Communists favored the aggression of central banking. Not surprisingly, the banking and business elite gave substantial support to the Communists, the group most willing to reward their financiers with plunder gained through aggression. As the Communists gained strength from Western support, they were able to defeat the czarists and the small group that advocated non-aggression. By allowing domestic aggression to create the money monopoly, Americans unwittingly laid the yoke of communism on the backs of the Russian people and saddled themselves with additional inflation and taxation. The communists repaid the loans from the banking interests with imperial gold coins taken from the czar's treasury. (3) By exporting large portions of farm produce as well, the Soviets were able to buy modern machinery. (4) As a result of exporting much of the food supply, starvation threatened the Russian populace in 1922. Herbert Hoover, then Secretary of Commerce, sent the Russians famine relief, subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer. (5) Without American aid through aggression, the Communist regime would probably have collapsed. Instead, the Communists rewarded people who had helped them with licenses in the Soviet Union. (3) They took the privately owned oil fields at gunpoint, if necessary and assigned them to their political favorites. (6) For example, Standard Oil was given control of the Russian oil fields that had prevented Rockefeller from keeping his worldwide monopoly on oil (Chapter 7: Creating Monopolies That Control Us). (7) By 1928, oil was the largest export, contributing almost 20% to Russia's foreign exchange.8 By supporting communism, Rockefeller was able to escape the regulation of the marketplace ecosystem and do away with much of his international competition. Chase National Bank helped the Soviets obtain a steady stream of credit. (9) The New York financial house of Kuhn, Loeb & Company financed the Soviet's First Five-Year Plan for economic development. (10) Without the massive creation of money made possible through the Federal Reserve System (Chapter 9: Banking on Aggression), these loans might not have been possible. The Communist regime was able to buy the technology their system could not produce, because Americans were willing to use aggression-through-government to control their neighbors. In 1929, the Soviet government forced citizens at gunpoint, if necessary to turn their gold over to the government, (11) possibly to begin the necessary loan repayments. Did the Soviet government use these loans to feed and clothe its people? Hardly! Just as in the Third World today, the poor rural population was forcibly removed from their land and taken to collective farms. During Stalin's campaign in the 1930s, millions of people were killed. (11) The desire of Americans to control their neighbors rippled outward into other nations. The great wealth that Americans had created gave them incredible power to help or harm the rest of the world. President Franklin D. Roosevelt supplemented the bank loans to the Soviets with taxpayer-financed assistance. He arranged secret military transfers with the Soviets, to help defeat Adolf Hitler. In addition, the Lend-Lease program transferred industrial and military supplies to the Soviets on easy credit terms from 1941 to 1946. (12) In 1944, Stalin noted that two-thirds of Soviet heavy industry had been built with U.S. help. Almost all the remaining one-third was imported from other Western nations. (13) Massive transfer of equipment and skilled personnel from the occupied territories to the Soviet Union supplied further technical expertise. (14) Our domestic aggression undertaken to protect the world from Hitler's dictatorship, created an equally vicious enemy that enslaved much of Eastern Europe. Without U.S. assistance, Soviet technology would have remained so primitive that it is unlikely that they ever would have developed nuclear capabilities. (15) Without the bomb, the Cold War would never have been waged. Nuclear warheads could never have been shipped to Cuba. The United States need not have undertaken the massive military build-up that consumed its wealth. Innovation and the creation of wealth are greatly stifled in aggressive Communist societies (Chapter 19: The Communist Threat Is All In Our Minds). Without U.S. aid, the Soviet Union could not have long survived. As evidence of this, consider that in 1960 the American government offered to release the Soviet Union from its Lend-Lease debt to the United States of $11 billion if the Soviets would pay $300 million of it. Although the Soviets reportedly had $9 billion in gold in their national treasury in 1960, (16) they refused. Without American-taxpayer assistance, the Soviets would have been bankrupt! Even with such aid, however, the Soviet Union could hardly feed itself. The Soviet Wealth Pie was attenuated by massive aggression- through- government. American loans were used to assist the Soviets in financing food purchases after the poor 1972 harvest. (17) In Poland, such credits added over 10% to the national income in 1974! (18) The ability of the United States to make massive contributions to the Eastern Bloc testifies to the incredible wealth-creating ability of our marketplace ecosystem, which is less troubled by aggression than the Soviet one. Although much of the Soviet aid was offered through private banks, the American taxpayer was usually at risk. Loans were usually guaranteed by the taxpayer-financed Export-Import Bank. (19) Even without such guarantees, U.S. taxpayers could be liable. Loans that are not repaid can bankrupt lending institutions. In such cases, taxpayers (not the bankers who took foolish chances with their depositors' money) are usually expected to make up the loss if the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) cannot. We expect our government to protect us from aggressors, whether they are individuals or other nations. The Soviet threat, however, was built largely through the guns of government that we hired to protect us! Communists won the Russian revolution with the help of bankers and industrialists who became enriched through exclusive licensing laws and further Soviet borrowing. Stalin's regime enslaved Eastern Europe with the extra money created through the exclusive, subsidized monopoly of the Federal Reserve. Lend-Lease, which probably contributed to the Soviet acquisition of nuclear technology, was paid for through the aggression of taxation. Finally, taxes were used to guarantee loans for food aid. At every turn, domestic aggression-through-government built and maintained the Soviet "enemy." It's somewhat disheartening to discover that we were responsible
for creating the superpower which we've feared for so many years. On the
other hand, if our most formidable foe is only a paper tier dependent on
us for its continued existence, maybe the world is not such a dangerous
place after all! After the Sandanistas ousted the Somoza dictatorship from
Nicaragua, President Carter gave them $75 million in foreign aid. (21 )Shortly
thereafter, President Reagan declared that the Sandanistas were exporting
communism to El Salvador with the ultimate intent of threatening our borders.
Such fears seem unfounded. The Sandanistas hardly appeared bloodthirsty;
they abolished the death penalty and limited prison terms to 30 years. (22)
Like all communist countries the Sandanistas could not, without help, create
the wealth necessary to undertake an invasion of the best-armed nation in
the world. Certainly Communist Cuba, barely 100 miles from our shores and
subsidized by the Soviets, had shown no inclination to invade us after the
nuclear warheads were removed in the 1960s. Nevertheless, our government
spent more than $100 million in support of the counterrevolutionary Contras
before Congress forbade further expenditures in 1984. (23) Our CIA, however, did not honor this choice. Instead, they taught the Contras to terrorize the Nicaraguan population. When it surfaced, the CIA training manual, Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare, became a great embarrassment to the Reagan administration. (26) The Contras were encouraged to blow up bridges and attack health clinics, hospitals, and schools. (27) Widespread civilian killing, kidnapping, rape, torture, and mutilation by Contras were extensively documented. (28) These terrorist tactics apparently had the desired effect. In 1990, the Nicaraguan population ousted the Sandanistas and voted for Violetta Chamorro who allegedly had up to $20 million in CIA campaign support. (29) Perhaps the Nicaraguans decided to accede to the demands of their Yankee neighbors in the hope of stopping the terrorism. The Sandanista forces probably committed atrocities as well. Nevertheless, CIA intervention intensified the war of terrorism instead of letting it die a natural death. Without support from the United States or the Nicaraguan people, the Contras could not have continued and the civil strife would have ended. This was not the first time our country had armed and trained terrorists. In the 1950s, the CIA recruited East German dissidents and trained them in bombing and damaging dams, bridges,trains, and other civilian facilities. (30) Could modern-day terrorists have learned their techniques from our own CIA or CIA-trained foreign operatives? When Americans are kidnapped, bombed, or tortured by terrorists, are we simply reaping as we have sown? We don't need to fight fire with fire. We don't need to
encourage torture and mayhem to topple Communist dictatorships. The former
Soviet Union, favored with so much aid from the West, could not even feed
its own people. Other aggressive governments will fare no better. With a
few exceptions, all we need do is let them reap as they sow. A wealth of evidence suggests that funding overseas covert operations with "protection money" from drug lords is not unusual. (33) The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) claims that the CIA has attempted to interfere with 27 prosecutions of drug dealers acting as CIA informants. (34)Our taxes went both to fight drug dealers and to protect them! When we use aggression as our means, we only end up fighting ourselves! When we start practicing non-aggression, we can stop spinning our wheels! The Rich Get Richer Our national officials control the federal budget, funded by our tax dollars and deficit spending. Except for the separately-funded social security program, our two biggest expenditures are defense (26% of federal outlays in 1989) and interest on the national debt (15% of outlays in 1989). (35) The primary special interest groups that profit from theexpansion of these items are the military-industrial complex and the money monopoly, respectively. These groups have great incentive to see that candidates who support deficits and military build-up are elected. The War on Drugs contributes to U.S. deficits while providing huge drug profits to fund clandestine activities and arms sales abroad. Ex-president George Bush, a former CIA director, was an ideal special-interest candidate. His office was reputed to have been the first informed when the Hasenfus plane crashed in Nicaragua and began the unraveling of the Iran-Contra affair during his vice-presidential years.36 He ran up deficits faster than Ronald Reagan, who himself set new records.37 During Bush's first term of office, U.S. troops landed in both Panama and Kuwait. Bush was committed to the War on Drugs as well. We can hardly blame special interest groups for exploiting
us when we have given them power by our attempts to control others.
They only reflect our own actions back to us. We made the rules; we can
hardly complain if we have been beaten at our own game. Once we forsake
aggression, however, special interest power, whether due to ignorance, chance,
or design, (38) simply dissolves. When we take responsibility for what we
have created, we can consciously choose differently! We made the rules;
we can change them! Let's start with Nicaragua. Since the Contras did not have popular support, it is unlikely that they would have had the ability to arm themselves and terrorize the countryside without U.S. assistance. A civil war afterSomosa's overthrow,if it happened at all, would have been much less devastating. Without our aggression, many of the 45,000 people who were killed might still be alive. (39) Much of the country's wealth might not have been destroyed by the war. Effort that could have created wealth was dedicated to defense instead. For ten years, the Nicaraguan Wealth Pie was attenuated much more than it would have been in the absence of aggression. Other Third World nations have suffered similar fates. Civil strife in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Angola was instigated or prolonged by U.S. intervention. (40) Our hopes of helping the oppressed Third World people throw off their domestic oppressors turned sour because we did not know The Easy Way Out (see below). Instead, the Wealth Pie of many nations, already diminished by the aggression of their own domestic government, dwindled further. After being subjected to civil war and our aid by aggression (Chapter 18: Beacon to the World), it's a wonder the developing nations are still developing at all! Our Wealth Pie also diminished as time, effort, and money were put into buying destruction rather than production. The Wealth Pie of the entire world is much smaller than it could have been. Less wealth means our world has fewer goods and services. Would we have cures for cancer, AIDS, and Alzheimer's disease if we hadn't squandered our talents on aggression? Would we enjoy a 20 hour work week with 40 hour week benefits? Would we have extended our lifespan to encompass more than a century of healthful living? Would we have broken the barrier that the speed of light poses to interstellar travel? Would we live in a world where no one ever goes hungry? Would we have learned how to live in harmony with our environment and our own inner self? By greatly slowing the global creation of wealth, even the special interests which seemingly profit from a world of strife, will lose. No amount of money can buy wealth that has not been created. When they and their loved ones meet an early death due to an "incurable" disease, they pay the ultimate price of attenuating the world's Wealth Pie. Today's wealthy are poor compared to the wealth an average person would enjoy in a world of non-aggression. When special interests encourage aggression, they deprive themselves. This impoverishment extends beyond the realm of physical wealth. I once had the opportunity to question a man who was intimately involved with the special interests that dominate our country's national defense policies. When asked what his goals were, he immediately responded, "Power and money!" Since this man was already quite wealthy and powerful, I eventually rephrased my question. "What would make you happy?" I queried. His answer was profound. He explained that he felt separated from the rest of humanity, as if he were apart and different from other people. He wanted that to change; he wanted to feel connected. At the time, I didn't appreciate the implications of what he had said. After much reflection, it seems that this feeling of separation is a direct result of how we view those around us. If we tell ourselves that others are not as wise as we are, as unselfish, or as informed, if we judge their choices to be inferior to ours, we no longer consider them our equals. We set them apart from ourselves. If we follow this judgment by forcing our choices on them at gunpoint, if necessary_the chasm between us grows. Aggression is the physical manifestation of our judgment of others. In this manner, a person who practices aggression regularly becomes separated from those he or she trespasses against. Those who create a reality where they, even with the best intentions, try to control the selfish others of the world may indeed find themselves looking down on the rest of humanity. At the apex of the Pyramid of Power, one is very much disconnected and alone. I suspect humans require a sense of connectedness and community with the rest of their kind to reach the heights of happiness for which they were intended. When we use aggression, we destroy connectedness and community. When we use aggression, we forfeit the happiness that we are ultimately trying to achieve by controlling others. Aggression is not in anyone's best interest. Only when we realize this will we have peace and plenty in both our inner and outer worlds. Luckily, we do not need to wait until others who practice
aggression become enlightened. Special interest groups only fan the The power broker I spoke with acknowledged that the special
interests would be foiled if ordinary people ever realized what power they
possess. Indeed, special interest elite spend much time and effort encouraging
a sense of helplessness among the American public. We hold the key if we
choose to use it. We can be victimized by special interests only when we
try to victimize others. When we refuse to do unto others, others cannot
easily do unto us! How can we reclaim our heritage of political non-aggression? If we want a world of peace, the first sensible thing to do is to be sure that our actions do not cause war. Otherwise, we will only be fighting ourselves. Conversely, when we abandon the domestic aggression that funds overseas dictators, teaches terrorism, and nurtures the Communist threat, we stop creating enemies! Even without our country's aggression, however, it's unlikely that the world will be totally peaceful. How does a nation of non-aggressors fare in a world of aggressors? Non-Aggression Wins the Game Even in a World of "Meanies" Once again, the computer games give us a pleasant surprise. Even a population of players as small as 5% do so well with each other using TIT FOR TAT that non-aggression is the most profitable strategy even if the rest of the population always aggresses! (41) Even if other nations never followed our example, we would still come out ahead! In the computer games, doing well meant getting points. In real life, the rewards of non-aggression are more tangible. Because non-aggression greatly increases the Wealth Pie, a lone nation practicing non-aggression would eventually be the wealthiest nation on earth. It would be technologically superior to other nations. Commercial aeronautical and space flight capability would be more advanced. Communications would be superior. Machinery would be more sophisticated. Nuclear energy would be better understood and applied. A country with such advanced technology would be a formidable foe. Indeed, at the turn of the century, the United States was evolving in exactly this way because it practnone non-aggression to a greater extent than most other nations. One of the reasons a nation practicing non-aggression would be so prosperous is that its people could trade without the restriction of tariffs. International trade would flourish as it does in every duty-free zone. Trading partners seldom need to resort to violence to work
out their differences. They have every incentive to avoid fighting. On the
other hand, stopping trade with the guns of government can provoke conflict.
Indeed, some historians believe that a primary reason behind Japan's attack
on Pearl Harbor was the embargo (prohibitive licensing) that prevented Americans
from selling oil to Japan! (42) While aggressor nations might be deterred from invading the borders of a non-aggressive nation, seizing American assets abroad would still be tempting. How would we, as a nation of non-aggressors, defend our interests abroad? At times, our troops have been sent into a country when property of U.S. companies have been threatened by aggressors. The American citizenry has been forced at gunpoint, if necessary to subsidize the protection of profits when companies have taken the risk of locating in an unstable area. If our neighbor George opened a convenience store in a high-crime area, we'd expect him to hire extra guards to protect it and pass the costs on to his customers by raising prices. No one would be forced at gunpoint to subsidize his business or his profit. We should expect American companies operating abroad to adopt the same non-aggressive approach. Companies wishing to locate in another part of the world could hire their own protection agents or insure themselves against nationalization or confiscation. Insurance companies would charge higher premiums for businesses locating in unstable countries, just as they charge businesses more to insure them in high-crime areas. The marketplace ecosystem, free from aggression, encourages companies to locate in areas that practice non-aggression and to shun those that don't. Toppling Modern-Day Hitlers Sometimes our troops have gone into other countries to support one side or another in a civil war in the hopes of containing communism or saving the world from would-be Hitlers. Most often, we are only protecting ourselves from our own creations. For example, Hitler, like the Soviet Union, was greatly
empowered by the funding he received from German banks and the American
Even if our aggression no longer funds dictators, other banks and governments still could. We do not have the only central banks or weapons manufacturers. We are the most affluent, the most influential country in the world, but not the only one. Those who would dominate their countries require money and supplies for their military. Plundering peasants and destroying their means of wealth creation is a self-limiting supply system. Dictators cannot maintain their power without subsidies. These subsidies usually come from the loans and gifts from Western nations, including the United States. Taxation and the inflation generated by the money creation of central banks makes these loans possible. If a central bank inflated its nation's currency in a world where our country practiced non-aggression, citizens of the inflating nation would convert their currency into U.S. dollars to protect its value. They would not want their saving to be inflated away if they had another choice! As they made this conversion, they would be deflating the currency of their own nation. In a world where even one country practiced non-aggression, the central banks' ability to expand the money supply would be limited automatically! Subsidies to dictators would be limited as well! If we practiced non-aggression, would-be world conquerors might not even be able to subdue their own people! Let's assume, however, that a head of state amassed enough power to invade another country. Today, a few government officials decide for everyone which side should be supported and to what extent. This support is taken at gunpoint, if necessary in the form of taxes, forced military service, or inflation. How would a nation of non-aggressors react? Obviously, we would not all agree on exactly what should
be done, any more than we would agree on what to do if we stumbled upon
two people fighting each other in the street. Both combatants would claim
to be the wronged party and cry for help. How would we know who is the aggressor? If both sides of a conflict were welcome to present their side of the story and solicit support from Americans directly, terrorism against our people would dissolve. Terrorists harm civilians in an attempt to change aggressive government policy. (47) If we had no aggressive government policy, there would be no incentive for terrorism! Dissidents could solicit help directly from Americans. If the dissidents weren't satisfied with the outcome, terrorist action would only cost them the support they did have. If we practiced non-aggression, terrorism against our people would serve no purpose! Policing Aggression In a non-aggressive society, people would decide what to do about international conflicts much as they do when witnessing a street fight. After hearing both sides of the story, some people might offer to arbitrate so the two could settle their differences. Some people might fight on one side; some might fight on the other. Still others might not want to get involved at all. We wouldn't dream of forcing other bystanders at gunpoint, if necessary to fight on the side we chose. We'd expend more energy trying to force our neighbor to do as we wish than we'd exert in vanquishing the aggressor ourselves! In our neighborhoods, we honor our neighbor's choice. When it comes to an international dispute, somehow we see the situation differently. We want to stop aggression so badly that we are willing to become aggressors ourselves to achieve our goal. By using aggression as our means, we only create ends we'd rather not have. Think how differently Vietnam might have been if we had honored our neighbor's choice! No More Vietnams When the war started, many Americans were proud to be "saving" South Vietnam. However, as the fighting dragged on, sentiments changed. This shift was dramatized in a recent movie, Born on the Fourth of July, depicting Ron Kovic, (47) who enthusiastically served in Vietnam and protested American involvement in Indochina when he returned. In a non-aggressive society, those who no longer wished to contribute to a war effort could simply stop supporting it. Had we honored our neighbor's choice, Vietnam would almost certainly have ended sooner, saving many hundreds, even thousands, of lives. Instead, Americans were forced at gunpoint, if necessary to pay taxes to fund a war that few wanted. Young men were drafted into service at gunpoint, if necessary. Our youth were forced to risk life and limb with monetary compensation well below the minimum wage. We could hardly hope to teach the virtues of freedom while enslaving our own youth! Meanwhile, the money monopoly and military- industrial
complex profited from the Vietnam War. The many paid through inflation
and taxation, for the profits of the few. A recent movie, JFK, based
on the research of Jim Garrison, (49) suggested that President Kennedy was
assassinated because he did not support the Vietnam War which generated
special interest profits. My own research suggests that we went to war in
Vietnam for some purpose other than containing communism. I spoke with a
high-ranking officer who commanded an aircraft carrier group sent to that
region. He told me that the war could certainly have been won, but that
the military was not permitted to take the necessary action. We needn't worry that Americans would fail to come to the aid of a foreign nation beset by a vicious aggressor. Historically, Americans have shown their willingness to help those battling aggression. Large deficits and defense budgets have been accepted by the American populace when the cause is considered just. However, if we are willing to force our neighbors at gunpoint, if necessary to support such causes, we become like the enemy we are fighting. Our belief that we should force our view point on others is what Vietnams are made of. Protecting the Home Front Obviously, the best protection against foreign invasion is to create as few enemies as possible. As we've seen throughout this chapter, a nation practicing non-aggression is most likely to do just that. When we no longer fund aggressors through domestic aggression, when we listen to both sides of a dispute, when we support those fighting aggression, would-be world conquerors have trouble subduing their own people. When we practice non-aggression, we stop would-be invaders before they begin! If a defense did become necessary., a nation practicing non-aggression would be likely to have the strongest one. As we learned in Part II (Forgive Us Our Trespasses: How We Create Poverty in a World of Plenty), non-aggression increases a country's wealth. Aggression, and defense against aggression, consume wealth rapidly. The wealthier a country is, the longer it can sustain its defense. Our country currently has a strong nuclear deterrent that is primarily directed at the former Soviet Union. Thankfully, most governments that possess nuclear technology have little incentive to use it. Because we are the wealthiest nation in the world, other countries depend on our technology. Destroying us would only make an attacking nation poorer and could contaminate the entire globe with radioactive fallout. Thus, a nuclear strike, if it came at all, would most likely come as a terrorist act. Against such strategies, we currently have no defense. Indeed, our best deterrent against a terrorist nuclear attack would be to defuse the tensions that might precipitate it by the practice of non-aggression. Switzerland, a country historically dedicated to neutrality, has a strong defense against armed invasion. Switzerland has a part-time national government and no nuclear capability, yet sometime in the 1990s, it will have bomb shelters for every man, woman, and child. Every man is part of the army and is required to keep his military weapon in his home. An invading army would literally have to subdue every household to conquer that nation. Indeed, in both World Wars, when the Germans threatened to invade, the Swiss simply dissuaded them by inviting key German officers to witness their preparedness! The Germans had been considering a short-cut through non-mountainous regions of the tiny country. The Germans, however, decided against invading "the little porcupine." (51) A non-aggressive nation could easily and affordably develop a Swiss-style defense, without the aggression of taxation or the universal draft that the Swiss use. People fearing a nuclear strike could construct their own shelters or participate in fund-raising for community facilities. People concerned with armed invasion could encourage the build-up of community defense forces. Military Olympics could stimulate proficiency in defensive skills among those who were inclined both toward athletics and the civic pride associated with being part of a community militia. Some communities could support their local militia much as they support their local sports teams. Fees could be charged to watch the Olympics. Local businesses and clubs could engage in fund-raising to outfit the citizen army. These troops might also be hired by other nations or sent to aid them by Americans who supported their cause. An armed citizenry is an important aspect of national defense that has been neglected in this country. Instead of discouraging firearms with licensing laws, we could encourage wide spread proficiency with military hardware of all kinds. As we learned in Chapter 16 (Policing Aggression), we need not fear that an armed citizenry is a violent one. The belief in aggression, not the possession of firearms, is responsible for murder and mayhem. Proficiency in handling firearms among the general population would deter foreign aggressors just as surely as it deters individual criminals. An armed populace forces an invader to conquer each household, making successful foreign takeovers, if not impossible. Non-Aggression Is the Best Defense In other sections of this book, historical examples of The Easy Way Out have been readily available. No nation with modern armaments has a national defense completely free from aggression. As a consequence, predicting exactly what such a defense would look like is, at best, speculative. Based on the other consequences of non-aggression detailed throughout this book, however, we can confi-dently expect such a defense to be less expensive and of higher quality than defense through aggression. More importantly, non-aggression provides us with the best deterrent of all, because it stops most would-be Husseins and Hitlers from ever coming to power. Historically, we have felt that national defense is too important to put in the hands of ordinary, everyday people. However, if we are willing to force others- at gunpoint, if necessary - to provide time and money toward defense, don't we become the invaders? We are trying to protect our lives, liberty, and property from those who would choose differently for us. If in the process of defending ourselves, we turn on our neighbors and make their lives, liberty, and property forfeit, haven't we become what we most fear? Only when we no longer sanction aggression, ours or anyone else's, will we excise the cancer that causes war. Nothing less will create a peaceful and prosperous world. We cannot truly claim to be interested in peace if we are willing to perpetrate the actions that cause war.  |
...for the period 1917 to 1930 Western assistance in
various forms was the single most important factor, first in the sheer survival
of the Soviet regime and secondly in industrial progress to prerevolutionary
levels. - Anthony Sutton, WESTERN TECHNOLOGY AND SOVIET ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT The Soviet government has been given United States Treasury
funds by the Federal Reserve Board and the Fed Reserve Banks acting through
the Chase Bank and the Guaranty Trust Company and other banks in New York
City. - Louis McFadden, Chairman, U.S. House of Representatives,
Banking Committee ...we are conducting a mass annihilation of defenseless
men together with their wives and children. - Nikolai Bukharin, Bolshevik leader ...10,000 German scientists and technical specialists
had been absorbed into Soviet industry by May 1947. There is no question
that there were sizable Soviet equipment removals from occupied areas after
World War II; a minimum value figure in excess of $10 billion in 1938 prices
can be set for equipment thus removed. - Anthony Sutton, WESTERN TECHNOLOGY AND SOVIET ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT Our whole slave system depends on your economic assistance.
When they bury us alive, please do not send them shovels and the most up-to-date
earth-moving equipment. - Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Soviet historian, Nobel Prize
winner The most fraudulent thing about the Nicaraguan election
was the part the Reagan Administration played in it. By their own admission,
United States Embassy officials in Managua pressured opposition politicians
to withdraw from the ballot in order to isolate the Sandanistas and to discredit
the regime. - John Oakes, New York Times Sometimes terror is very productive. This is the policy,
keep putting on pressure until the people cry "uncle." - Edgar Chamorro, Contra leader The justification for those actions was that we were
living in a very hard, predatory, "cloak-and-dagger" world and
that the only way to deal with a totalitarian enemy was to intimidate him.
The trouble with this theory was that while we live in a world of plot and
counterplot, we also live in a world of cause and effect. Whatever the cause
for the decision to legitimize and regularize deceit abroad, the inevitable
effect was the practice of deceit at home. - Norman Cousins, PATHOLOGY OF POWER ...We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence by the...military-industrial complex. - President Dwight D. Eisenhower, January 1961 Every $1 billion of tax money the Pentagon spends on
military purchases causes a loss of 18,000 jobs in the nation, compared
with how consumers would have spent the money, a study said yesterday. Employment
Research Associates of Lansing, Michigan, analyzed the effect of military
spending on the U.S. economy using Defense Department and Bureau of Labor
Statistics figures. - United Press International, October 25, 1982 Judge not lest ye be judged. - THE HOLY BIBLE, Matthew 7:1 For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the
world and lose his soul? - THE HOLY BIBLE, Mark 8:36 I spent 33 years... in active service... most of my
time as a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and the
bankers. Thus I helped make Mexico, and especially Tampico, safe for American
Oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the
National City Bank boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the raping of
half-a-dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street...
I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers
and Co. in 1909. I helped make Honduras "right" for American fruit
companies in 1903. - General Smedley Butler, Marine Corps Commandant Saddam is a Frankenstein monster that the West created. - Hans-Heino Kopietz, English Middle East analyst Neither slavery or involuntary servitude... shall exist
within the United States. - U.S. Constitution, 13th Amendment We should have closed the harbor of Haiphong... we permitted
them to import all the necessities of war... - Admiral U.S. Grant Sharp, Commander-in-Chief of U.S.
Naval Operations in Vietnam Suppose they gave a war, and no one came? - Leslie Parrish-Bach, actress, Vietnam War protestor,
and Richard Bach's BRIDGE ACROSS FOREVER ...people want peace so much that one of these days
governments had better get out of their way and let them have it. - President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1959. Men are afraid that war might come because they know...
that they have never rejected the doctrine which causes wars... the doctrine
that it is right or practical or necessary for men to achieve their goals
by means of physical force (by initiating the use of force against other
men) and that some sort of "good" can justify it. - Ayn Rand, CAPITALISM THE UNKNOWN IDEAL |