Blog

The Hoover Institution provides a pdf of a
1993 book by Milton Friedman

Excerpt: from the Executive Summary

The major social problems of the United States—deteriorating education, lawlessness and crime, homelessness, the collapse of family values, the crisis in medical care—have been produced by well intended actions of government. That is easy to document.

The difficult task is understanding why government is the problem. The power of special interests arising from the concentrated benefits of most government actions and their dispersed costs is only part of the answer.

A more fundamental part is the difference between the self-interest of individuals when they are engaged in the private sector and the self-interest of the same individuals when they are engaged in the government sector. The result is a government system that is no longer controlled by “we, the people.” Instead of Lincoln’s government “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” we now have a government “of the people, by the bureaucrats, for the bureaucrats,” including the elected representatives who have become bureaucrats.

As published at: lewrockwell.com
By Laurence M. Vance
October 21, 2021

Neoconservatives—like Michael Rubin at the American Enterprise Institute (“The One Foreign Base Biden Should Abandon”)—haven’t gotten over President Joe Biden’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

But Rubin is also upset that “the Biden administration is determined to hold on to the one base that America should have abandoned a decade ago.” This is Incirlik Air Base in Turkey.

Rubin maintains that during the Cold War, Incirlik was crucial. But even though “the base supported U-2 surveillance flights, U.S. operations during the 1958 Lebanon crisis, the 1991 liberation of Kuwait, and, most recently, the fight against the Taliban,” Incirlik—which “also hosts approximately 50 nuclear weapons”—is “now a strategic liability” instead of “a strategic asset.”

Turkey “is as much an enemy as an ally.” President Erdogan cannot be trusted. “Every American serviceman, contractor, and family at Incirlik are potential hostages.” “Incirlik now risks a repeat of the 1979 Iran hostage crisis.” An American “departure from Incirlik” would not “affect U.S. operations.” The United States should use the “Mihail Kogalniceanu air base in Romania” or the “Souda Bay Naval Base” in Greece. It would not be “irresponsible” to leave “an obsolete base.”

Rubin is right. The United States needs to “end the U.S. military presence in Turkey.”

But here is a better idea: Why not abandon all foreign bases?

According to the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Base Structure Report: “The DoD manages a worldwide real property portfolio that spans all 50 states, 8 U.S. territories with outlying areas, and 45 foreign countries. The majority of these foreign sites are located in Germany (194 sites), Japan (121 sites), and South Korea (83 sites).” Incredibly, the DOD is “one of the Federal government’s larger holders of real estate managing a global real property portfolio that consists of over 585,000 facilities (buildings, structures, and linear structures), located on 4,775 sites worldwide and covering approximately 26.9 million acres.” The DOD has acknowledged the existence of about 800 U.S. military bases in 80 countries, but we know from the work of Nick Turse, David Vine, and the late Chalmers Johnson that that number could be over 1,000. The United States has about 95 percent of the world’s foreign military bases. “Red” China has just one.

There are also about 175,000 active duty U.S. troops overseas in over 170 countries and territories. World War II ended in 1945, and yet the United States still maintains tens of thousands of troops in Germany and Japan.

Why not abandon all foreign military bases, bring all of the troops home (not just the ones in Afghanistan), and stop policing the world? And while we’re at it, turn over all of the DOD golf courses in Japan to the Japanese.

The U.S. global empire of bases and troops is unnecessary to the defense of the United States, a global force for evil, and a drain on U.S. taxpayers. It’s only purpose is to carry out an imperialistic, militaristic, reckless, belligerent, and meddling U.S. foreign policy that is not in the interest of the American people.

#############

A Wall Street Journal opinion article by Dorian Abbott expresses my understanding of how individuals should be treated regarding speech and hiring.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cancel-culture-college-mit-dorian-abbot-university-chicago-representation-equity-equality-11635516316

Excerpts:

I believe that every human being should be treated as an individual worthy of dignity and respect. In an academic context, that means evaluating people for positions based on their individual qualities, not on membership in favored or disfavored groups. It also means allowing them to present their ideas and perspectives freely, even when we disagree with them.

I believe we are obliged to reduce bias where it exists, where we can. That includes honest reflection on whether we are treating everyone equally. But you cannot infer bias based only on the ratios of different groups after a selection. A multitude of factors, including interest and culture, influence these ratios. I disagree with the idea that there is a right ratio of groups to aim for. Instead, the goal should be fair selection processes that give every candidate an equal opportunity.

It is true that someone will occasionally say something that hurts your feelings. But hurt feelings are no reason to ban certain topics. We are all responsible for our own feelings. We cannot control things that are external to us, such as the comments of others, but we can control how we respond to them.

I did not know him personally, but I attended some of his speeches and was impressed by his editing and writing for the LP News. I was captivated by his melodious voice and friendly demeanor.

Here is a recent story about him.
https://www.libertarianism.org/articles/karl-hess-and-death-politics

The article doesn’t mention it, but it has been claimed in many places that he was the ghost writer for Barry Goldwater’s speech with the line “extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.”
https://www.niskanencenter.org/on-the-saying-that-extremism-in-defense-of-liberty-is-no-vice/

He ran as a Libertarian for Governor of West Virginia in 1992, shortly before his death. When asked by a reporter what his first act would be if elected, he quipped, “I will demand an immediate recount.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Hess

Here is a 1981 documentary about him.

In an August 2021 podcast Dave Smith took Bob Levy to task for his article:

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/568492-vaccine-mandates-a-liberty-minded-perspective

Possibly, Dave Smith misunderstands what Bob Levy truly advocates. How about considering that most of the article is a setup for the last two paragraphs:

“Finally, what peripheral concerns need to be addressed before implementing compulsory injections? What will be the enforcement process, and the punishment for non-compliance? Will there be reporting requirements? Data tracking? Will special interests — drug companies being one example — exploit their government-conferred market power? Will politicians use the next crisis to rationalize even more invasive decrees?” 

“Those are crucial questions, which should be examined before embarking on a program that encroaches on personal autonomy. And yet, we are in the midst of a health emergency, which means that suitably modified, narrowly-tailored, time-limited rules may be justified.”

Yes – Bob leaves open the possibility that narrowly-tailored, time-limited rules may be justified, but that does not mean that he advocates for those rules. Before he would be happy with mandates, he wants the crucial questions he raises answered. Since it is unlikely that his questions would ever get satisfactory answers, one could say that his article is attempting to put roadblocks in the way of those who want vaccine mandates.

Jonathan Turley discusses the shooting of Ashli Babbitt

Justified Shooting or Fair Game? Shooter of Ashli Babbitt Makes Shocking Admission

Excerpts:

“That’s my job.” Those three words summed up a controversial interview this week with the long-unnamed officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt on Jan. 6. Shortly after being cleared by the Capitol Police in the shooting, Lt. Michael Byrd went public in an NBC interview, insisting that he “saved countless lives” by shooting the unarmed protester.

I have long expressed doubt over the Babbitt shooting, which directly contradicted standards on the use of lethal force by law enforcement. But what was breathtaking about Byrd’s interview was that he confirmed the worst suspicions about the shooting and raised serious questions over the incident reviews by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and, most recently, the Capitol Police.

The DOJ report did not read like any post-shooting review I have read as a criminal defense attorney or law professor. The DOJ statement notably does not say that the shooting was clearly justified. Instead, it stressed that “prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so ‘willfully.’” It seemed simply to shrug and say that the DOJ did not believe it could prove “a bad purpose to disregard the law” and that “evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent.”

Of all of the lines from Byrd, this one stands out: “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” So, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon or an immediate threat from Babbitt beyond her trying to enter through the window. Nevertheless, Byrd boasted, “I know that day I saved countless lives.” He ignored that Babbitt was the one person killed during the riot. (Two protesters died of natural causes and a third from an amphetamine overdose; one police officer died the next day from natural causes, and four officers have committed suicide since then.) No other officers facing similar threats shot anyone in any other part of the Capitol, even those who were attacked by rioters armed with clubs or other objects.

Legal experts and the media have avoided the obvious implications of the two reviewsin the Babbitt shooting. Under this standard, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6 — and officers in cities such as Seattle or Portland, Ore., could have killed hundreds of violent protesters who tried to burn courthouses, took over city halls or occupied police stations during last summer’s widespread rioting. In all of those protests, a small number of activists from both political extremes showed up prepared for violence and pushed others to riot. According to the DOJ’s Byrd review, officers in those cities would not have been required to see a weapon in order to use lethal force in defending buildings.

Politico reported that Byrd previously was subjected to a disciplinary review when he left his Glock 22 service weapon in a bathroom in the Capitol Visitor Center complex. He reportedly told other officers that his rank as a lieutenant and his role as commander of the House chambers section would protect him and that he expected to “be treated differently.”

In the Babbitt shooting, the different treatment seems driven more by the identity of the person shot than the shooter. Babbitt is considered by many to be fair game because she was labeled an “insurrectionist.” To describe her shooting as unjustified would be to invite accusations of supporting sedition or insurrection. Thus, it is not enough to condemn her actions (as most of us have done); you must not question her killing.

Jacob Hornberger urges members of the military to not obey the President when his orders do not have Constitutional authority.

An Old Soldier’s Denial on Afghanistan

Excerpts

While U.S. soldiers technically take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, as a practical matter their oath is to serve the president and unconditionally obey his orders. Since the president is democratically elected, in their minds they are supporting and defending the Constitution when they dutifully and loyally obey the commands of their commander in chief.

It is undisputed that there was never a congressional declaration of war against North Vietnam or Afghanistan. Given such, no president had the legal authority to order U.S. troops to invade and occupy either country.

Nonetheless, such orders were issued. At that point, U.S. soldiers had a choice: either support and defend the Constitution by disobeying those illegal orders to invade and occupy or faithfully and loyally obey the president and, in the process, violate the Constitution.

U.S. soldiers chose to obey the president. They always do. They just rationalize their decision by convincing themselves that by obeying the president, they are supporting and defending the Constitution.

Adam Kokesh referred me to this quotation from John Lennon

Mises Institute published “The Real Trickle-Down Effect: Making “Luxuries” Affordable to Regular People” by Matthew Lipton on 6/24/2021

Full article – https://mises.org/wire/real-trickle-down-effect-making-luxuries-affordable-regular-people

Excerpts:
“In general, capitalism reveals a trickle-down effect by making luxury goods affordable to the masses. Through intense competition, capitalism drives down costs, thereby allowing ordinary people to access luxuries. For instance, in 2011, 35 percent of Americans owned a smartphone, and today the figure is 85 percent.”

“… capitalists lower costs by innovating, and innovations unleash a ripple effect throughout the economy. A case in point is the creation of the steam engine. Not only did the steam engine make it possible for people to travel within countries, but decreasing transportation costs resulted in the advent of international tourism. According to Marian Tupy: “Early steamships cut the sailing time from London to New York from about six weeks to 15 days…. But today an aeroplane can fly between the two cities in 8 hours.”

Yet it should be noted that capitalism also fuels entrepreneurship by ensuring the widespread availability of luxury goods. For example, many use their phones to launch businesses with an international scope. Moreover, the cellphone has promoted financial inclusion by increasing the involvement of poor people in the financial sector.”