From: matus [matus@snet.net] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 7:53 PM To: matus@snet.net Subject: MFD List - The free market is the best weapon against terrorism (This is an interesting article relaying many sentiments I share (and some I do not). Most importantly though is the fact that free trade is the best weapon against terrorism, as the author says. Free trade necessarily raises the global economic medium as capitalism pushes products to get better, more reliable, and less expensive. As this occurs, more and more people are able to afford such things as housing, heat, and food. Even today the average inhabitant of this world has better nutrition and medical care then the royalties of Britain in the 1700's. The global economic median continues to rise, making both the rich AND the poor wealthier, granting them longer and more fulfilling lives with more free trade. Closed political and economic boarders stagnate this change. If we want to end terrorism, remove the incentive for it (foreign military intervention) and, most importantly, open up trade with those countries, create a middle class. Happy, healthy, well fed people are far less likely to commit crimes and are almost impossible coax into any fundamentalist religious idolatry, especially one that may require suicide. The free exchange of information, products and services are the best weapon against tribalism and terrorism. Non capitalist countries can not compete economically with capitalist nations and will have their despotic rulers soon overthrown as thier people learn more of the rights of citizens in free countries. China and Afghanistan's massive internet censorship is evident of the fear of the free exchange of information, cant let the rest of the world know how well things are, or else your people may desire the same. While this solution may require extra time, the outcome would be far more desirable. The other options, as the author points out, include continuing support of Israel in the Middle east. Assuming the 'War on Terrorism' is successful and a more friendly government is placed in place of the Taliban, the animosity in the Middle east will remain (and may be heightened after this conflict) but it will be most important to put a plan into effect much like the one implied below, open as many political, economic, trade, and information channels up with these countries. Also, following the article is a response from list member Will regarding some of the authors comments on both foriegn policy and history. As a side note, the author mentions that we should rely less on foreign oil by building more nuclear plants, unfortunately research into advancing nuclear energy generation has been banned for decades thanks to the mislead 'green' movement, as nuclear generated power is far more environmentally friendly than a massive coal burning plant. The German and French have perfected reactors that are incapable of 'melting down', as they encase their uranium pellets in ceramic shells that will not melt at any temperature the uranium can create and keep them spaced far enough to not go critical. Fast breeder reactors can feasibly create up to 100 times more energy per unit of uranium burned then our current plants can. When the money spent on ensuring oil interests overseas is taken into account, the cost of gasoline easily doubles, but this money is hidden in the federal military expenditures, and paid out of your income tax instead of at the pump. - Mike) The free market is the best weapon against terrorism ---------- LewRockwell.com by Bob Wallace "What we need is more freedom, not less. More of the free market, not less. That's the way to defeat terrorists. We'll grow richer and stronger and they're [sic] grow weaker and poorer. Unless, of course, they grit their teeth, realize the value of freedom and open markets, and imitate us." (10/16/01) http://www.free-market.net/rd/505981100.html The Free Market is the Best Weapon Against Terrorism by Bob Wallace Okay, so we're now in a war, one that we will win. The Taliban, Al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden will soon cease to be. All of them will presently be in Paradise, reassembling their body parts and looking around for all those 70 black-eyed-virgins-per-man. And anyone else who gets in our way will be virgin-hunting, too. But at what cost? How many Afghanis are going to die from war, disease and starvation? How much money are we going to spend to rebuild Afghanistan, in the near and far future? How many hundreds of billions of dollars are we going to spend on this war - money that, spent on alternative uses, would increase the amount of jobs and our standard of living? How many soldiers will come home dead and wounded? How long will it last - months, years? How much freedom are we going to lose in the U.S., and how badly will the economy be damaged? And who are we going to invade next? Iraq? Syria? Sudan? What is this - World War III? The U.S. is already an empire. Are we going to extend it, and in the end, meet the same fate as all empires? Are we going to end up like England, or worse, Rome? Isn't there a better way? Actually, I think there is. If libertarianism/classical liberalism is correct and really does work at all times and in all places, then it is an absolute, unbreakable law of nature, like gravity. It will always win. Nothing can oppose it. Political liberty and the free market will always beat anything that it goes up against. I would have liked the U.S. government to say something like this: "Okay, you want us to stop bombing Iraq and lift sanctions? Okay, we will. We will also pull our troops out of Saudia Arabia. We will stop our government's support of Israel. And we will stop supporting repressive regimes in the Middle East. "In fact, what our government is going to do is not interfere politically in any way in the Middle East. We will engage in free trade with you, and that's it." This is basically what George Washington and Thomas Jefferson suggested over two hundred years ago. Jefferson, however, wasn't completely correct in referring to Europe as "nations of eternal war." It's the whole world. If you are seeking "revenge" for the World Trade Center, then this is the best way to do it. It might take a while, but as the old French/Chinese/English/Spanish/Klingon saying goes, "Revenge is a dish best eaten cold." And if you are seeking justice and fairness, then this is still the best way to do it. What would happen? If the countries in the Middle East wish to be Islamic theocracies, fine. Then they'll get even poorer and more backward. Political freedom and the free market are what brings civilization and prosperty to people, and Islam, according to the arguments of people such as historian Paul Johnson, pretty much has a track record of one thousand years of poverty. If what he believes is true, they're always going to be dirt-poor. Just let them do it on their own dirt. Maybe Oprah and her Islam 101 just might be propaganda. There are dozens of verses in the Koran that justify revenge and murder. If Islam believes in theocracy, doesn't support political liberty and the free market, and justifies vengence and murder, then that might be why its Golden Age lasted for only a blip and then ceased to exist over 1,000 years ago. And it just might never come again. One of the things that rankles the Middle East is that if Islam is the final word of God, the completion of religion, then how did the West and Christianity take over so much of the world? Why are the Islamic countries so backward? It is because the West discovered what freedom can do, and has, however poorly, disseminated it to at least some of the world. Even the Chinese, who currently are authoritarian, are discovering the wonders of capitalism. Critics will claim if we pull out Iraq will go into Kuwait again (one of the reasons Iraq went in the first time is because Kuwait was slanting its drilling into Iraq and stealing its oil). And oh no! Saudia Arabia will fall! So what? It's the history of the world. We can't stop it in the long run. We'll pay a few cents extra for gasoline for a while. They have to sell that oil to someone or else they'll be really, really poor. Most of the countries in the Middle East aren't real, historic countries anyway. They were created by the meddling of the now-extinct British Empire (I repeat: empire). All the Middle Eastern countries are currently run by thugs. When Iraq invaded Kuwait the first time, it was the case of Al Capone (Iraq) invading Dutch Schultz while Bugsy Segal (Saudia Arabia) looked on in consternation, wondering if he was next. Saudia Arabia used to be called Arabia. The Saudis are just one tribe, the one that conquered most of the rest. Then they named the country after themselves. As Richard J. Maybury has pointed out in his book, The Thousand Year War, this is the same thing if a family named Ferguson conquered Canada and called it "Ferguson Canada." The Saudi government lops off heads and hands, and persecutes Christians who, bothering no one, gather in private dwellings to worship. It is this kind of government the half-educated half-wits in the media refer to as "moderate" instead of "repressive." For that matter, the Kuwaitis are just another tribe, one the Saudis couldn't conquer (that's why Kuwait is on the edge of Arabia). While we were defending their "country," some of the "royal" family were gambling in Las Vegas. A lot of the "Kuwati" soldiers wouldn't even defend their "country." They bugged out and hide behind British and American lines. It is for these kinds of rulers that we lost nearly 300 soldiers, wasted billions of dollars and killed who knows how many Iraqis. Thank you, Daddy Bush. I hope your son is less of an imbecile than you were. The Saudis have no more right to those hundreds of billions of oil dollars than the other tribes. In the long run, they'll fall. The only unknown is when. We can't stop it. We can just postpone it. The only thing we want from the Middle East is its oil. To be less dependent on that oil, we should drill for our own domestically, and build more nuclear power plants. Less money would then flow to the Middle East (after all, haven't bin Laden and Al-Qaida been using our own money and inventions against us? I find it a tragicomedy how many of the Talaban wear Western eyeglasses and use Western cellphones. And bin Laden rides around in a fleet of SUVs.) If leftist Gaia-worshippers are aghast at the idea of nuclear power and drilling for oil, my best suggestion is that if they really want to save lives, they should go clear some of the ten million landmines out of Afghanistan. (Maybe Jesse Jackson can get a real job: "Hey, hey, ho, ho, these landmines have got to go. But you walk first, okay?") What we need is more freedom, not less. More of the free market, not less. That's the way to defeat terrorists. We'll grow richer and stronger and they're grow weaker and poorer. Unless, of course, they grit their teeth, realize the value of freedom and open markets, and imitate us. The main sore point with this program is, of course, Israel. To which I say, "Jew or Christian, if you want to support Israel privately, then jump to it. Send your money to them - or yourself. But don't expect the government to send other people's money or other people's sons over there to fight your fight." Those who talk the talk are invited to walk the walk. And they should walk it, not demand the government make someone else do it for them. Do it on with your own dime, on your own time. A consistent, logical libertarian position demands that if the U.S. government not meddle in the Middle Eastern Islamic countries, then it can't support Israel. We can't have it both ways. We can pretend we can, but in the long run we'll find it's not possible. Actually, the long-run is already here. I have met quite a few Christians who do support Israel, since they believe the 1948 founding of Israel is foretold in the Bible, and that the Last Days are coming soon. Be that as it may, I still don't see how that justifies the government putting a gun to anyone's head and saying, "Your money and your sons." "You shall not murder" and "You shall not steal" are not just suddenly, magically suspended even if the end of the world is around the corner. I fully understand that there are Muslims in the Middle East who would, if they could, slaughter every Jew and throw their bodies in the sea. That particular war has been going on for about 1,000 years. The whole Middle East has been a battleground for 4,000 years. I doubt it will end any time soon. It's is because of this 1,000-year war that I understand that Jews in the media and the administration are beating the war drums to get America to solve their problems. Were I Jewish and a staunch supporter of Israel, I would probably do the same thing, especially considering two millenia of progroms. However, these problems aren't solvable. Sometimes, as Thomas Sowell has pointed out in his book, "Conflict of Visions," there aren't solutions, only trade-offs. The trade-off for the existence of Israel is that it's probably always going to be under attack. And it is only a only a media cover story that the Islamic world hates us for our virtures - because of our "freedom" and "democracy" (do people really fly airplanes into skyscrapers screaming, "Die, democratic capitalist, die!") This freedom-and-democracy cover story I suspect sooner or later will crumble. As this war goes on, more Muslims in the U.S. are going to be attacked. That's obvious. It's human nature. What's less obvious is the possibity of a rise in anti-Semitism. How long can the media keep a lid on the fact that government support of Israel is one of the problems? At what critical mass of body bags and missing body parts will anti-Semitism show itself? And what will happen then? If the countries surrounding Israel don't want governments that create freedom and prosperty, then they'll get poorer and be even less of a threat to that country. As it is, Israel's enemies are reduced to inculcating their five-year-olds to grow up to be suicide bombers. It's doesn't get much more pathetic and weak than that. Even the U.S. government ceases to support Israel and quits its other meddling in the Middle East, Israel's enemies still won't be able to defeat her. Not if it's really true that you have a 7th-century culture going up against a 21st-century one. And that would be humiliations galore. If you're into revenge, how's that? Then, here, we should cut taxes by 80% and close down about 80% of the federal government. Everyone's income and standard of living will soar so much that private citizens who wish to support Israel will have plenty of money to do so. And the U.S. government, deprived of oceans of cash, couldn't stick its nose in the world's business. Then we wouldn't get blowback the way we did with the World Trade Center. (The terrorists planned this for years? Thank you, Bill Clinton. There is a special place in Hell for you.) While we're at it, let's legalize drugs so billions of dollars will not go to narco-terrorists. Some of which are in Afghanistan and Iraq, which produces a lot of heroin. We're sending them money so they can use it to kill us, while at the same time we're sending the U.S. government oodles of cash so they can waste it trying to prevent drug smuggling and drug use. Something that has never succeeded once in recorded history. The right hand, obviously, knows not what the left hand is doing. Since so many are quaking in their shoes over a Fifth Column in the U.S., deport all illegals immediately. Then stop all government welfare so they immigrants can't lounge on the dole instead of working. And cut off immigration from the Third World. People who come here are supposed to become Americans, not bring their tribal hatreds with them. And multi-culturalism, if it is anything, is tribalism. For that matter, what gives several hundred people in the federal government the right to set immigration policy for a nation of 280 million people? What gives them the right to ignore the states, counties, cities and neighborhoods? One of the ways to deal with this problem is to repeal all anti-discrimmation laws. As for bin Laden, we are going to expend mountains of explosives to kill a nerd (a Saudi official who knew him said he "couldn't lead ducks across a road"). It would be easier just to declare him, Al-Qaida and the Taliban outlaws. Bush almost got it right when he spoke about wanting bin Nerd "dead or alive." Declaring someone an outlaw means, literally, that he is outside the law. He has no more rights than a cockroach. Anyone can kill him. Put a substantial bounty on all of their heads, sit back, and smile. There are a lot of mercenaries out there. The old saying is that you can't buy the Afghanis' loyalty, only rent it. I suspect bin Laden will be sleeping with one eye open, expecting a sword to come whirling down on his neck. If he has any sense, he'll take the diaper off of his head and put it someplace else where it would come in more handy in case of a really bad scare. Now, the other hand, if the Islamic countries decide to embrace freedom and open markets, then they'll develop a middle class. And middle-classes generally don't become religious fanatics. Probably the greatest defense against terrorism is the middle class. Most of them don't take their religion that seriously and certainly aren't willing to die for it. It's mostly the desperately poor, with little hope, who are falling for this particular, extreme version of utopian, genocidal Islam. Then we can trade peacefully with the Islamic world. And free trade is what helps prevent wars. As Bastiat noticed, "When goods don't cross borders, armies will." The problem, ultimately, is as it has been for decades - the Ugly Americans who work for the State. The ones who got us involved in Vietnam, at a cost of 55,000 Americans and two million to three million Vietnamese dead. The same Ugly Americans who arrogantly and blindly interfere in the rest of the world, in the name of American "interests" (where in the Constitution are these interests defined?) If a private company had failed as horribly in New York as the federal government did, they would loose all their other clients and get sued out of business. Yet, when it comes to the federal government, we think it'll do better with more money and power. Sowell mocked the kind of people who think they can run societies as "the Annointed." The ones deluded with what Hayek termed "the Fatal Conceit." The kind of self-appointed pseudo-elites who think they can run the lives of billions of people, and who never, ever see the unintended consequences. The same blind-leading-the-blind who got us in this mess. Early American coins had "Mind your own business" stamped on them. That's wise advice, and we have once again got ourselves in trouble by ignoring it. October 16, 2001 Bob Wallace [send him mail] former newpaper reporter and editor and now a free-lance writer living in St. Louis. Copyright © 2001 LewRockwell.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- "And who are we going to invade next? Iraq? Syria? Sudan? What is this - World War III?" No. Hardly. A World War would be what it says, a war fought with all fronts of the world involved. There would probably also have to be a chance of defeat thrown in there. "The U.S. is already an empire." What?! I guess then that we're one of those empires with no territory and no satellite nations that we force to follow our way of life. "We will stop our government's support of Israel." This statement alone seriously undermines the credibility of this article. Let's ignore the fact that repressive regimes we don't support have tried for 55 years to destroy Israel, and assume things will be hunky-dory if we let them exchange home goods. "In fact, what our government is going to do is not interfere politically in any way in the Middle East. We will engage in free trade with you, and that's it." Okay! I guess Iraq will let bygones be bygones, and Iran will but aside twenty-one years of vitriolic hatred for us just like that! "but as the old French/Chinese/English/Spanish/Klingon saying goes, "Revenge is a dish best eaten cold." " That's "served cold." "The main sore point with this program is, of course, Israel. To which I say, "Jew or Christian, if you want to support Israel privately, then jump to it. Send your money to them - or yourself. But don't expect the government to send other people's money or other people's sons over there to fight your fight." Because we often send troops over to Israel during wars there with Arab nations. Like 1982, no wait..Or 1973, no wait.., Or 1967, no wait..1956..no...1948..no. Hmm. Again, we libertarians love free markets and freedom for people, etc, but we should let the only true democracy in the Middle East go down the drain because it requires some moral fortitude to stand with the only nation in that region who consistently rejected Soviet overtures. "It's is because of this 1,000-year war that I understand that Jews in the media and the administration are beating the war drums to get America to solve their problems." This passage is downright insulting. "Even the U.S. government ceases to support Israel and quits its other meddling in the Middle East, Israel's enemies still won't be able to defeat her. Not if it's really true that you have a 7th-century culture going up against a 21st-century one. And that would be humiliations galore. If you're into revenge, how's that?" The author again obviously has no concept of the history of the region. Without Nixon's intervention in 1973, there would be no Israel now as Egypt, Syria, and Jordan (thanks to the Soviets) would have succeeded in their goal. And of course the Soviets would have asked for nothing had this been successful. Is there some sort of amnesia going on where we forget about them now? "The terrorists planned this for years? Thank you, Bill Clinton. There is a special place in Hell for you." The best thing the author had to say. "The problem, ultimately, is as it has been for decades - the Ugly Americans who work for the State. The ones who got us involved in Vietnam, at a cost of 55,000 Americans and two million to three million Vietnamese dead. The same Ugly Americans who arrogantly and blindly interfere in the rest of the world, in the name of American "interests" (where in the Constitution are these interests defined?)" I'm glad that ugly American chose to ignore the three million Cambodians wiped out by the Communists and the million South Vietnamese boat people who drowned in the South China Sea. But we interfere in the rest of the world, not our enemies who for the better part of fifty years wiped out millions and would have killed who knows how many more had we not intervened. But I forgot, the Soviet Union was a paper tiger that eventually collapsed. Come on. Aside from all of the above crap, the author does make a few points. The federal government does need to be severely "downsized", something last seriously proposed by RN in his second term, but we know how that went. I also believe that the question of legalizing drugs should be seriously discussed, but perhaps by those who choose to learn about our foreign policy first before crapping on it. - Will www.matus1976.com