The products of government:
While many neo-conservatives feel obligated to point out that Fannie and Freddie, along with a host of other institutions, are nothing more than
private front companies under government control; they seem to gloss over the fact that the above institutions are no different.
From where does Lockheed get most of its funding?
From private individuals looking to buy F-35s and Littoral Combat Ships?
If violent looting of the innocent was illegal, would Lockheed still be around today?
If government did not buy the steel to produce LCSs, would there not be more steel available for the production of cars, tools, buildings, and other
goods that the private sector actually needs? What would happen to the cost of steel?
If government did not horde the engineers and laborers necessary to produce F-35s, would there not be more engineers and laborers available to produce
goods that the private sector needs?
What would happen to the cost of copper if the government stopped purchasing endless miles of wiring for the production of weapons systems?
Wouldn’t the price fall, making it cheaper for private sector producers to manufacture goods that the public actually buys?
Is it necessary to spend half a trillion dollars a year on government weapons systems when we have a population of 65 million gun owners, which is 20
times the size of China’s entire military, including its reserve forces?
Does the country face the threat of invasion and foreign military occupation? - and even if we did, would the US public not be a thousand times more
nasty in its response than the Taliban is to us in Afghanistan? Would any invader actually be able to conquer a country of 65 million armed citizens,
when the US Military is having trouble conquering some mud hut dwelling goat herders?
If we engaged in free trade with everyone, would any first world nation bother attacking a trade partner that mutually benefits it? Why would any
country attack another country that provides it with a net benefit?
That last point bears repeating, because the point is lost on so many people. It is a massively costly enterprise to invade and occupy a foreign
territory. And even if successful, the resources of the country can not be acquired without even greater expense at the cost of the invaders, since
the occupied people will refuse to cooperate voluntarily. The economic calculation of trade over war is a no-brainer.
What I find absolutely amazing about all of this is that not only do the neo-conservatives laud the glories of the State, but the liberals are right
behind them. The liberals decry defense spending, but laud the economic chaos caused by institutions such as government backed mortgages and student
loans. The neo-conservatives decry the epic waste of government subsidized housing and home loans, but laud the vast economic waste of defense
spending to protect us from imaginary enemies.
Neither side questions the State itself as being an inherently violent institution that has no goods of its own.
Neither side questions the fact that the State must violently take from one group of people before it can give to another.
In the end, as with all institutions of violence, it will implode on its own. However, the ensuing chaos could be avoided if people simply accepted
the fact that coercively funded government is an unnecessary evil in a modern civilized society.
No, they prefer to go through the chaos of a currency meltdown instead.
Looters know no other way of sustaining themselves other than through the enslavement of those who produce.
edit on 16-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)