You're right about the effects of wars, but my point is that war is a proper role of government, entitlements are not. I'm not carte blanche justifying every war in the last century, but I think you can agree that it is a proper role of government, though there is a time and place for it.
No, I'm not convinced it's a proper role for the government. An armed population seems to be way more than enough to stymie any attempt at occupation. I see no reason for state backed mass murder, especially when strict standards such as clear and present danger have been essentially abandoned. A good book on the subject is The Myth of National Defense. Historically the armies of kings were used to settle territorial disputes and to conquer new territory, usually with people living there already, one would think with claims to the resources therein as well. As we've morphed into social democracies wars have been ideological in nature and way,, way more bloody and expansive. No, I do not grant that offensive mass murder in the name of nationalism or national security is a given and proper role for government.
In fact the role of war historically has been to opportunistically expand the power of the state, and then to generalize those special powers, rarely giving them back. The war of 1812 left us with a central bank, tariffs, federal taxation. The Civil war left us with government grants for land, business subsidies, fiat money, an income tax, and conscription. Similar power grabs extend through the Mexican war, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, etc. Our current war gave us the PATRIOT Act, the DHS and now its subsidiary ERB, and suspension of Habeaus Corpus, pre emptive strikes as a normal tool of war, national guard call ups, and further militarization of the civilian police force. What's the next war going to leave us with, assuming we end this one without losing everything?
War, in the end, is just the exercise of state power over a foreign people to accomplish political ends. The peoples often have no quarrel, the competing states do, and use their power to whip up the populace into thinking people who are no threat are a dire threat, barely human, and justifiably killed. I'd wager none of the thousands upon thousands of Iraqi citizens who were killed in this current war had any aims higher than living their lives as comfortably as possible, and I seriously doubt any of them were ever even a distant threat to my safety or the safety of any other American. As such, their mass murder in the name of regime change, spreading democracy, or whatever, is not justified. War by and large is nothing more than mass murder in the name of state power.
Right. Again the fiat currency is the problem, not the fact that the government wages war. I think that we can agree that fiat currency is the root to both problems. As for entitlements, I don't like them and I think they are unconstitutional with or without a fiat currency.
Fiat currency is the means to the end: perpetual war and wealth transfer. Look at where social security, the mother of all wealth transfer programs, began: Bismark, in Prussia. Another good work on the equivalence between the two policies is The Cry for Security by Bob Murphy.
The dangers of these policies are front and center now, due to economic realities. During most of the middle Bush years people were so busy getting second mortgages and buying second residences nobody noticed the monetary debasement and increased government spending. Its human nature to not worry about things until they realize they are a problem. Also, keep in mind that just because TARP was a Bush bill, doesn't mean that all these people supported it. Most Republicans and many Democrats in the house voted against funding TARP due to overwhelming lobbying against it from their constituents.
The question remains though: would these people be out there protesting if it were Barak McCain proposing it instead of John McBama? I seriously doubt it. Where were they when Bush signed off on the prescription drug benefit that further swelled our debt? The spending on the wars is no secret, where were they when those costs became impossible to ignore?
But you're right, partisanship clouds views on government, however, I don't think these tea parties are 100% partisan. I think the concept of fiscal restraint just sells better to your average republican than your average democrat.
I'd believe that if, when in power, they actually exercised that restraint. As a matter of recent and past historical record the only spending Republicans get truly worried about is spending proposed by Democrats.
I think the natural continuation is just to continue monetizing and switch currencies when it gets untenable. Do you really expect our government to start taking responsibility for a fiat currency? How many votes does that get?
You can't just switch currencies. Fiat currency itself rides on faith and momentum alone, continuing only because people believe that those green slips of paper are indeed money themselves and because the past bears out that fait. **** with that and the whole system collapses. I have no care in the world how many votes such policy considerations get, their impact is real and does not change just because the population at large doesn't understand the details.
We were going to but Cindy Sheehan, Rosie ODonnell, and Bono beat us to it. :dunno:
They were protesting the war. Where were the protests against increased spending, money creation, and taxation?
EDIT: Also note, their recirocal hypocrisy in not protesting Clinton's over sears war acts.
. You seem to be confused and think I'm arguing on behalf of Bush, which is simply not the case. Bush was way too liberal for my taste. This country is on a beeline toward monetary chaos, no matter who may have set the course in that direction, and these tea parties are a way to show that at least some people don't agree with this direction.
