A President That SHOULD Live In Infamy

December 7, 1941. The Japanese launched an attack on the United States naval installation at Pearl Harbor, killing over 2,000 people and crippling the US Navy. The next day, the US declared war on Japan and Adolf Hitler declared war on the US shortly thereafter. This could have been avoided, but President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his staff wanted it to happen.

In the years prior, FDR was breaking international law by sending weapons to the Chinese (he was able to do this by denying that China was officially in a war) and to the British (via the Lend-Lease Act) and by reporting the locations of German submarines to the British. By doing so, FDR effectively goaded the Germans into attacking the US warship the Greer. In Winston Churchill's own words, "everything was to be done to provoke an incident."

The Pacific Theater is a totally different beast, but much of the same kind of activity can be found. On top of sending weapons to the Chinese who were fighting the Japanese, FDR froze Japanese assets in the US and, by setting up an oil embargo on Japan, greatly crippled them. FDR refused to negotiate with Japan who, according to the American ambassador to Japan, was willing to go so far as to remove all of their troops from China and Indochina. A little later, the fairly moderate, at least compared to his successor, Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoye was replaced by the minister of war, General Hideki Tojo, in October of 1941. The Japanese were in desperate need of resources thanks to the embargo that FDR organized, and they could acquire them in nearby British and Dutch colonies, but there was one thing in the way: Pearl Harbor. US Secretary of War Henry Stimson said it best when he wrote in his diary in November of 1941 that the US needed "to maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot." Or did former president Herbert Hoover say it best when he wrote that FDR and his administration was "doing everything they can to get us into war through the Japanese back door."

The attack on Pearl Harbor happened days later, and too many people were drafted and killed thanks to the actions of FDR and the US government. World War II was a devastating war for everyone involved, but hey, at least it got us out of the Great Depression right?*

It is important to remember that it was not an unprovoked attack that the Japanese launched on this day 68 years ago, but one that could have been easily avoided if FDR and the US government wasn't dead-set on entering World War II.

Most of the information (especially the quotes) was taken from Thomas Woods' great book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" and I would highly recommend it, and all of Tom Woods' other books, to anyone interested in history and/or economics.

*said with sarcasm

Yours in Liberty,

Andy

"V" - A Libertarian Review

Well, the remake of the 1980s miniseries "V" has ended its four episode fall run and I say, so far so good!

*WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD*

Essentially the show is about an alien race that refer to themselves as "The Visitors", or "V", that have come to Earth promising friendship with their catch phrase, "We are of peace, always." They claim that they need water and some other minerals and in exchange they will offer their superior medicine and technology. However, we soon find out that not everything is as it seems. Through an underground resistance, we learn that the Visitors have slowly infiltrated every facet of our world, through government, religion, business, and have twisted each thing to make the world a chaotic place that is in search of a savior. That is when the Visitors make their presence known.

The show (so far) has appeared to be very libertarian, and this makes me ecstatic! It is fairly rare to come across something libertarian on TV, so we libertarians tend to get REALLY excited when a show like this comes along. We have had lots (and I mean LOTS) of criticism of blind devotion and unquestioning loyalty to the wonderful V's (which can easily be read as the government or the presidency specifically), a little shot at universal health care (though probably for the wrong reasons), and a shout out to the dangers of vaccines, mandatory vaccines in particular (what with the possibility of a mandatory swine flu vaccination).

Another good reason to tune in is that the leader of the Visitors is played wonderfully by Morena Baccarin, who played Inara Serra in the show "Firefly", which was also very libertarian.

"V" manages to combine a great alien invasion story, with some very awesome libertarian themes and, so far, I am loving it!

Yours in Liberty,

Andy

Don't Compromise, Don't Quit, Don't Worry, Be Happy!

After many conversations and much reflection on my part, I've come to realize that libertarianism is too important a message to compromise. If followed to its logical conclusion, libertarianism leads to anarcho-capitalism. And even though this may seem like an extreme ideal to most, this is the only form of libertarianism that can work effectively for a long period of time. Classical liberalism, while better than what we have today, still allows for a government monopoly over defense, law, a police force and ultimate decision-making, and this power will no doubt grow to the level that it is today. Therefore, it is important to not settle for a limited government, but end it entirely!

Now, the ultimate goal of libertarianism is to create a peaceful and prosperous society for all and that should be the ultimate goal of every libertarian. This may just be the Catholic Christian in me, but aren't the needs of others just as important, if not more so than the needs of oneself? We should always be looking to help others, which is why the libertarian message MUST be conveyed! This should supersede all other things, because if you believe as I do, we should help others in life and the best way we can do this is through selflessly giving of ourselves, but also through the spreading of ideas. Libertarianism should be spread because, as Mary Ruwart says, "Liberty gives people what they want." But the question is: How does one convey the message effectively?

The answer is simple. We should all just look at the wonderful example of Mary Ruwart and convey the message with a smile. We have to be empathetic and realize that all people believe what they believe because they sincerely feel that what they believe will truly help people. We must always be polite and understanding and welcoming towards everyone. Now, I will be the first to admit that I still struggle with effectively delivering the message, especially to people that I knew before I became a libertarian, and that is something that I work on all the time, but again, this message is too important to just stop trying. I don't mean to sound melodramatic, but people's lives DO hang in the balance. Now are you just going to sit by idly as aggression and hatred run our lives, or are you going to fight for peace and prosperity? Yeah, that's what I thought. :)

Yours in Liberty,

Andy

WAR! What is it good for?

Absolutely NUTHIN'! Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Okay, today is Veteran's Day and I thought it would be appropriate to throw a number out there: 89,457.

What is the significance of this number? Oh, well that is just the number of US casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan since Oct. 7, 2001, which is when the war in Afghanistan began. Of course the number of casualties on the other side (but who cares about them right? I mean, they don't count as people) is much higher and includes many innocent men, women, and children.

Will we ever know peace? Is it too much to ask of people to treat others with respect and dignity? I guess all I'm really saying is, can't we all just get along?

I think that even a five-year-old can tell you that the more hate, death, and destruction that you spread, the more hate, death, and destruction you will spawn (maybe not in those terms, but they would agree that if someone took a toy from them or hit them, then they are more likely to retaliate violently than they would have been otherwise). How different would the world be if we all recognized this?

You still have to be optimistic about the future. We may not have the numbers and the musical talent of the anti-war movement in the 1960s (mainly because there was a draft then and there is not one now), but we are here! It is important for all the lovers of peace out there to continue to speak up against the actions of our government, not just for our own safety, but the safety of the entire world! Who knows what kind of future death and destruction that the US's actions in the Middle East will cause?

Peace is NOT unattainable. It is NOT unreasonable.

Yours in Liberty (and in Peace & Love),

Andy

Why Socialism (of any kind) Fails

My friend Daniel Krawisz gave a great presentation on the failure of socialism and how it can never work. On the anniversary of the collapse of the Soviet Union, I would like to very briefly summarize the austrian perspective on why socialism has never worked, and will never work.

Ludwig von Mises was the first who clearly articulated this in his essay "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth". Basically what is said is the following:

On the free market, businesses must make money by fulfilling a want or need in the marketplace. If a business is able to provide something that people want, and do so efficiently, they are rewarded with profits. If they are unsuccessful in this endeavor, they are penalized with losses, while other businesses that are able to allocate their scarce resources more effectively get the money that did not go to the other business. Therefore, the most efficient businesses that offer the best products at the lowest cost to the consumer get the most rewards. That is a VERY brief summary of how a free society, with no coercive agent such as a government limiting cooperation, would and should work.

On the other hand, socialism does not work that way. For my purposes, I will define socialism as any government action that involves funding (which essentially is any government action). As a government does not produce anything, they do not earn money in the way that a business would. Instead, a government forcibly takes money from individuals and businesses. Once they have this money, they simply reallocate it to whatever they deem is most worthy.

This creates THE problem of socialism: there is no way to determine if that reallocation is efficient. If this were to happen on the market, that is to say a business takes its profits and decides to spend some of it on a machine that could increase production and profits in the future, there is still some uncertainty. The entrepreneur will be able to find out if his or her investment was worthwhile by doing some simple cost-benefit analysis and by looking at the profits and losses. If the investment ends up increasing profits, then it was a good investment, but if it results in losses, then it was a bad investment.

A government, on the other hand, is incapable of determining this, because there is no system of profits and losses and no way to perform any sort of cost-benefit analysis. ANY government spending is inefficient because that money has been stolen from the market and there is no way to know how that money would have been spent otherwise.

This leads me to the great example that Frederic Bastiat discussed, "The Broken Window Fallacy". If one were to say that war is good for an economy (and yes, war IS a form of socialism), then this is a great example to use. Bastiat essentially pointed out the idiocy in saying that breaking a window is good for the economy as that action employs someone to fix or replace the broken window. Sounds well and good right? WRONG! The problem is this. Let's say that the owner of the building in which the window was broken has $100. He is now compelled to spend that $100 on fixing the broken window, instead of spending it on a new suit or whatever else he felt was a better use of his money. Now society has lost the benefits of whatever he would have spent that money on, because he is now compelled to spend his money on the window. It is inefficient to break windows and employ window makers, because without that money being spent on fixing and making new windows, it would be spent in other areas that the individual deemed more important.

Well, that is enough of my rambling for today. Happy Fall of the Berlin Wall Day!

Yours in Liberty,

Andy

Is Limited Government An Oxymoron?

The answer is, of course, a resounding "YES!".

On the Dallas/Fort Worth affiliate of PBS, they aired a show in which this was the topic and guests Tom Woods and Doug Casey talked about how it is ridiculous to think that a government is supposed to limit itself among other things. The show can be found here in its entirety on YouTube. I still can't believe that this radical anarchist thinking aired on PBS! Oh that just tickles me!

Also, this article on mises.org entitled "Classical Liberalism versus Anarchocapitalism" by Jesus Huerta de Soto adds a lot to this discussion of minarchy versus anarchy and how it is naive to think that a government will be able to restrict itself.

Also, on an unrelated note, my friend and fellow Libertarian Longhorn Daniel Krawisz recently got his second article published on mises.org! His article is called "How the Free Market Works" and it is a great introduction and explanation of Murray Rothbard's production theory. Congrats!

Yours in Liberty,

Andy

My Journey to Libertarianism

I've gotten into a few discussions recently related to political philosophy and economics and these made me really think about what it is that I believe and why I believe these things. I think it is always good to have these kinds of conversations because they led one to really research the different nuances of certain ways of thinking and can either lead to a) a stronger belief in that school of thought or b) an abandonment and subsequent search for a new way of thinking. Whatever the result, the outcome is always the same: the gaining of knowledge. We are all born ignorant, but we should all strive to achieve as much knowledge of our world as possible in hopes to improve our situation and the situation of those we leave behind after we are gone.

So, I think it is important for me to chronicle my intellectual journey from birth to the present. Maybe those that read this will take something from it as well, which is great, but my intention is to help clarify my current beliefs to myself in order to strengthen my conviction and resolve.

I was born and raised (and still am) Catholic. My parents raised me in a very loving environment and a very socially-conscious one. Myself and my siblings were constantly reminded of how blessed we were and how most people in the world were not as fortunate as us. At many nighttime prayers and prayers over meals, we would pray that the homeless could keep warm, the hungry could be fed, the sick could be healed, etc. etc. My father, my younger brother and myself would collect coins all year in a plastic container and around Thanksgiving would go to a Coinstar machine in a local grocery store and receive paper money for all of those coins that we had collected throughout the year. We would then sit down and look through a brochure for a charitable organization and purchase an animal for a poor farming family. The rest of the money would be spent on Christmas gifts for our family and friends. So we were taught to not only pray for those less fortunate, but we were also encouraged to be generous with what we had.

Both of my parents were fairly liberal (at least economically) as they felt that it was their duty to help others in need. I grew up with this line of thinking as well, that it was our duty to help our fellow man. I still feel strongly about this today. My faith has a lot to do with what I believe and it has been very central to what political philosophy and economic views that I espouse.

In high school, I became more conservative, at least I thought I was. I was a proud supporter of George W. Bush and the Republican Party, mainly due to the constant preaching I received from my church and my community about how it was a sin to support or vote for anyone who was pro-choice. So basically my idolization of W was the fact that he was "pro-life". However, during my senior year, I began to question the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, wondering how one could preach that they were "pro-life" and yet favor war and other things such as the death penalty. I was still largely ignorant however and this resulted in a general apathy until my freshman year of college at the University of North Texas.

While at UNT, my roommate introduced me to Ron Paul, a presidential candidate for the Republican Party and a Congressman from Texas. I saw many YouTube videos and many televised debates, forums and interviews with this man and his republican opponents. His logic is what blew me away. It was what I was thinking but unable to articulate. He just made so much sense to me! He was consistent in every thing he said and did and that is what drew me to him. I purchased his book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom", which is just a collection of speeches he delivered relating to foreign policy during his time in the House of Representatives. I read it fairly quickly and became anxious for his book, "The Revolution: A Manifesto". I saw him speak on the UNT campus and everyone was cheering about things like peace and ending war and helping others by ending policies that had the intention of helping others but ended up just exacerbating the problem. Finally his book came out at about the time that I was attending my county and state republican conventions in order to bring about change in the Republican Party. I read the book in one sitting, enjoying every bit of it, and attended the Republican State Convention of Texas, which I soon regretted. It completely disillusioned me to the democratic system in how corrupt it is. I soon realized that this "We the people" business was nonsense and an illusion that is necessary for the political elite and those dirty businessman that are in cahoots with them to maintain their control. I saw Ron Paul speak again at the convention one night (not at the actual convention because they would not let him speak there), which was the one redeeming part of the three days I spent in Houston. This talk, the one at UNT, and his book "The Revolution: A Manifesto" introduced me to the Austrian School of Economics and gave me a deeper understanding of libertarianism.

The following school year, I attended the University of Texas where I joined an organization called Libertarian Longhorns. This group helped me in my understanding of libertarian philosophy and the Austrian School. I started reading LewRockwell.com and Mises.org and began to become very interested in economic freedom and how it benefits all. Keep in mind that my main reason for becoming libertarian was that I felt it was most in line with my Catholic faith. I felt that if the world were more libertarian then the hungry could get fed, the homeless could have shelter, the sick could be healed, etc. etc. This is very prevalent in the Austrian School and in libertarian political philosophy, so I kept reading and learning.

My biggest leap (besides the whole Neo-Con statist to libertarian thing) occurred this past summer. I attended a one day seminar hosted by the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Fort Worth where I heard many great talks by some great thinkers whom I admire very much, including, but not limited to, Walter Block and Thomas Woods. I also purchased many books that have influenced me deeply, the one I enjoyed the most was "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. I wonder to this day how different the world would be if everyone were to read that very short, simple and beautiful book. Shortly after this seminar, I attended a week-long conference held at the Mises Institute called Mises University, which was this seminar times about a billion! I was able to converse with some great minds, and my knowledge and understanding of libertarianism and the Austrian School grew by leaps and bounds (although it is still nowhere near the level of many of my peers). It was also at this conference that I attended a few lectures given by Hans-Hermann Hoppe ("Law and Economics", "Economics of Risk and Insurance: From Healthcare to Welfare", "Economics of Political Centralization", and "Protection and the Market for Security") and which single-handedly transformed me from a Classical Liberal or a Minarchist (believing in a very limited government) to an Anarchist or what Murray Rothbard called an Anarcho-Capitalist (believing in no government at all, but maintaining a free market and private property). I again purchased many books and I am still working my way through them as we speak and, in all honesty, probably won't have them all read for a while.

So there you have it, my journey from a statist to a libertarian has been a long and thought-provoking one, but all the while it was spurred on by my sense of morality and concern for others that has been instilled in me since childhood. During my statist phase, I supported many socialistic policies because we are told that they work. They do have good intentions, but I later found out that the results are not what they originally envisioned.

Now, I urge all of those that read this to ask themselves why it is that they believe what they believe, and if you don't know, then maybe you need to educate yourself. Find out what is important to you, and find out how that can be achieved. That is what I did and I found out that the answer to the question "How can I help change the world for the better so that all may benefit?" is a simple one: liberty.

UPDATE (11/18/09): I was talking with some of my Libertarian Longhorn friends last night and one of them brought up the fact that there are rare moments in one's life when a light bulb just goes off. These epiphanies are very important to one's intellectual development, and I have chronicled some of the important ones in my life above. I would like to add two to the list:

1) Chuck Young from Texans for Accountable Government came and spoke to Libertarian Longhorns and he said a couple of things that really hit me. The first wasn't that big of a surprise, and that was that the Ron Paul "Revolution" has already been compromised and co-opted. During the election, Ron Paul had the chance to remain radical and keep the radical message alive, but instead he settled. The Libertarian Party told him that he could have their nomination, which would have led to ballot access in all 50 states, but he settled. Now his son, Rand Paul, is running for US Senate from Kentucky and he supports the war in Afghanistan! The second thing he said was what REALLY hit me. He asked the simple question, "Will a libertarian society be a good society?" He stressed the importance of being good people first, then achieve the freedoms that we should have. Even if we had all of those freedoms, the world would be a horrible place if we weren't good people.

2) It seems like every time I hear Mary Ruwart speak I have an epiphany! I at least get a reminder that we need to spread the message of liberty with a smile because as she says, "Liberty gives people what they want!"

I will continue to update this as I live my life!

Yours in Liberty,

Andy

Why Obama Winning a Nobel Peace Prize Is Bad for Everyone

Well, it happened. Hell has frozen over. I woke up Friday morning and wondered to myself what Will Ferrell said in the movie Zoolander, "I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS!" I mean, has the whole world gone nuts?!?!

Okay, people have been blogging about this nonstop, but they all seem to be missing something HUGE that affects the whole world.

Peace, unfortunately, seems to be very partisan. The left (at least in the past few years) have traditionally been the spokesmen (and spokeswomen) for peace. With Obama's campaign rhetoric, it seemed like there might be an end to these ridiculous wars of aggression. Of course myself and many others saw right through him and knew that he would be just as bad as McCain and the republicans. But the peace movement supported him and he, as every "pro-peace" candidate before him, won the election and the presidency.

Now what would happen in his first few days of his first term? This.

Obama betrayed his supporters and the world by authorizing his first murder. Of course this behavior would continue with bombings, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a "closing" of Guantanamo (which still remains open, and if it was closed the prisoners would just be moved to other secret prisons), torture, rendition, etc. etc.

And what has the anti-war left done? Unfortunately, nothing. They remain silent. Moveon.org has deemed it unnecessary to protest war now that a democrat is in charge of them. They have "moved on" to trying to get universal healthcare passed.

Judging by the number of anti-war protests that there are these days, one would think that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and the attacks in Pakistan) are all over. Unfortunately, they are continuing with no end in sight. Bush's wars have now become Obama's wars and the only difference is that everyone seems to be okay with the bloodshed now.

The Nobel Peace Prize that was awarded to Obama is the epitome of this attitude. Yes he did promote peace during his campaign, but talking shouldn't win you awards (unless it is some sort of public speaking or debate award). Actions should win you awards.

There is of course the little fact that nominations had to be sent in by February 1, giving Obama just enough time to order some attacks in Pakistan and.... actually I think that's about it.

So I will wrap this up with a call to action of any lovers of peace out there. Please, PLEASE end this idiocy and not congratulate, support, or sit idly by as murder and bloodshed gets rewarded with Nobel Peace Prizes. As George Orwell wrote in his scarily prophetic novel "1984", "WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH." How (sadly) true that is today.

Here are some great related articles. The first written by my friend Norman Horn on his website, and the second was posted on lewrockwell.com.

Yours in Liberty,

Andy

New Format Coming SOOON!

I know that nobody really reads this blog (neither do I haha), but I am thinking about restarting it with a new focus. As I have become more educated in austrian economics, I realize how important spreading that knowledge is. So I think that I will be deleting my previous posts soon and starting something new. I will focus on writing things that relate to libertarian political philosophy and/or austrian economics, reviews on books and/or movies that relate to libertarianism and/or austrian economics, and links to articles, videos, etc. about libertarianism and/or austrian economics. While I still enjoy movies and writing about them, I feel it detracts from the more important pieces that I could be writing. I will still try to make my posts humorous and entertaining by making them simple and easy to understand and by providing my own voice to them (which I think is funny and clever).

So I guess what I am trying to say is.....

COMING SOON (maybe) A NEW AND IMPROVED FREEDOMFORACHANGE.BLOGSPOT.COM!!!!

Yours in Liberty,

Andy