Declining hegemony in the nuclear age

Is it possible for a government in the nuclear age to be minimal?

Can the US withdraw from it's 'world policeman' role in the age of nukes?

The idea of the US retreating to more of a 'lassaiz faire' foreign policy is not only appealing to many americans, but is an economic mandate. We cannot afford to babysit all the despots of the world & threaten to paddle them if they misbehave. But, if we leave them to their own devices, will this unleash nuclear activity? I am a little surprised that there hasn't been a nuclear event since ww2. Small nations like iran are working on them, & many large nations have few safeguards for the technology.

If the US continues it's decline, both in global economics & influence, will other 'rogue' states spring up with nuclear threats? How will the world deal with them? The EU can only threaten with money, & only fiat at that. Nato is losing it's teeth, especially without the us propping it up. If China continues it's growth on the world stage, will it be a deterrence to nuclear threats, or will it let them go or even encourage them? Russia is broken up into many weaker states, & has little deterrence to these rogue states.. even the ones they support.

It seems to me, without the global deterrence of the US, another nuclear event is inevitable. How will that change the world, if some aggressive dictator explodes a nuke on an enemy? Will the world prefer the meddling & 'protection' of the us over nuclear proliferation? Will the world clamor for the US to return to it's role as a world policeman? Will they pay the US for this 'protection'?

If the us breaks up into several regional 'states', who gets the nukes? Who will have the power, or WHAT will the world do to counter nuclear actions from aggressors or terrorists?

Another nuclear event seems inevitable. It will change the world once again. Time & distance from the last one has dulled our memories & it seems like an old movie or a video game. But if & when another nuclear event occurs, how will the world deal with it, and future possibilities? Will we get a world clamoring for protection, disarming, & law & order, like 30's germany?

A tale of nations.. learning from history

In the last century, there were 3 european nations that had major changes in their political climate. There were more, but i'm focusing on these 3 for the lessons we can learn.

1. Russia
2. Germany
3. Spain

All of these were coming out of a monarchy system of govt. The people were tired of the corruption, the injustice, & the inequality that this system had perpetuated for generations. During the turmoil & upheaval of change, there were many voices clamoring for power. Anarchists were active, blowing up govt buildings, battling with police, & creating mayhem. There were socialists/communists in all of them, actively working to consolidate their power & build their view of the ideal human govt. Fascists were also competing for their slice of power. They were the ones rallying the people behind nationalism & racial superiority of their people. And there were also the monarchists.. those who supported the old system & wanted to return to the old ways.

These were significant world powers. Spain had ruled the world in the not too distant past. A major world war had been fought in the previous generation with Germany being the aggressor. And Russia had been simmering in political upheaval for years. But the main point is the result of the upheaval in all of these examples.

Russia turned to collectivism. The communists were able to consolidate their power, & gained control.
Germany went fascist. Hitler's nazis gained control, & ousted the commies & the old guard.
Spain's Franco used military dictatorship to squash the communist & anarchist uprisings, & kept many of the old ways, supporting the monarchy & the ties to the church. Spain had the most involvement from outside, with many internationals fighting for communism, but germany & italy helping franco.

We tend to focus on hitler's success, since it affected the rest of the world so intensely, but all are interesting examples. Russia had nearly a century of communism, but it eventually collapsed & broke into smaller states. Franco ruled spain until the 70's, when he died, and he tried to set up the old monarchy again. But it went through a democratic process, with plenty of competing voices clamoring for power. It is still pretty much in transition.. the economy is in shambles, & there is no political identity that has a consensus. Anarchists have a large constituency there, as well as the collectivists, & the traditionalists. Germany had a very interesting transition, from a dominating world military, to defeat, to rebuilding, to currently, the most successful economy in the world. They have stayed with the democratic process, which was based in part on the success of the usa & their constitution. But it was the german people & their industriousness that lifted them from the rubble of war.

The lesson i glean from these historical examples is the continued success of a democratic republic. Collectivism, fascism, anarchy, & reactionary moves do not provide the prosperity or the freedom for the people, like is found in a democratic republic. When the people are allowed to work & keep as much as their labor as possible, the nation flourishes. But when the people are taxed oppressively, or forced to labor for the state, they languish. All nations are always in transition, & nothing stays static. But people who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.

The Primary function of Govt

...Justice...

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter -- by peaceful or revolutionary means -- into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it. ~Frederic Bastiat

Justice is the central duty of any Government. Govt should protect the weak from the exploitation of the strong. It doesn't matter if the strong is a thug trying to mug you, or a foreign invader, or a greedy capitalist. The purpose of govt is to make & enforce Law to protect the citizens. In the mission statement of America, it is phrased like this:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

If Govt does not 'secure the rights of the people by providing justice, but instead uses Law & the force of govt as an instrument of plunder & injustice, then the people have the right to alter or abolish that govt, & provide one that is better suited to meet the goal.

"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience." ~John Locke

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Declaration of Independence

But what is happening to America? Justice is not being served. Laws are passed to enrich govt cronies, & corruption is running rampant. Policies are made, not with the best interests of the people, but the special interests of a favored few. There is little deterrence for injustice, & the nation is systematically being weakened. Whether it is corporate favoritism, tax subsidies, cronyism fraud, or graft, govt is NOT being used as an instrument of justice, but one of plunder. Redistribution is favored, & the force of govt is being misused to plunder the people.

It is time for Americans to demand justice. It is past time for us to become indignant over the use of govt force as an instrument of plunder. If our elected representatives will not serve the people by securing our most basic right to justice, we need to remove them & install those who will. The nation is being destroyed before our very eyes. Will we stand by idly & watch its destruction? Or will we act, & demand that our govt return to it's basic function of providing justice to the citizens?

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder. ~Frederic Bastiat

Capital & Currency

I need to make a distinction between 'capital' & 'wealth.' I don't mean wealth in the class usage, meaning riches. Poor people have wealth, just not as much as the rich. And of course, capital is only a representation of wealth. Capital & wealth are very similar, & seem like the same thing at times, but there are subtle differences. A farmer who owns a farm might be capital poor, but has wealth in his farm & what it produces. A security guard might be dirt poor, with regards to liquid capital, but might own a home, some cars, or a collection of high tech flashlights. A retired cop might have a large portfolio of stocks, ira's, or other liquid capital, & it is all part of his 'wealth'. Capital, though, is the most fluid (and fickle) measure of wealth. Since it is just a representative, it can purchase real goods or real estate. But a pile of representative capital can lose value through inflation. Most capitalists keep their stash invested, to keep it from being depleted. Sometimes it works, & they make more capital with their capital. But other times, it doesn't, & they lose money. A retiree or pensioner depends on the currency to be stable, for their income to have value.

Wealth provides our basic necessities. Human beings need food, water, air, & protection. Air is free, for now, & water is fairly easy to come by. Food is historically cheaper than any time in history, but that can change. Protection includes shelter, & is a pretty major expense & concern, even if you're homeless. Camping or living under an overpass might be free, but it requires a lot of your time & effort to survive. Protection can be clothing, healthcare, or a means of fending off thieves or invaders, in addition to shelter.

Getting food is not that easy. If we all had to hunt for our food, a lot of us would go very hungry. The  deer & rabbit population would deplete very rapidly, without an organized food distribution network. Roots, wild asparagus, & berries would get harder to find. Hunter/gatherers need a larger area, without a lot of competition. Farmers can cultivate more food in a smaller space than hunter/gatherers, & is a more practical method of providing food for larger groups. It is how we grew to the current numbers on this planet. If we all had to survive on what we ourselves hunted or gathered, i guarantee the world would not have the population it does now.

Most of us work, or used to. We use our time & abilities to trade for goods & services. We attach a value on our time & ability, & get that back in capital, which we buy the food & other necessities, as well as luxuries, like computers & internet access. But someone has to require our services, for us to make the exchange. If i am a skilled buggy whip maker, I can sell my wares to provide for my needs. But if the demand for buggy whips declines, i cannot increase production to make up for it. I need to adapt, or i cannot survive in the open market. Or, i can elicit sympathy from others, or con them into giving me their wealth to meet my needs. Or, i can get the govt to take wealth from other producers, to subsidize my outdated or obsolete venture. But if very many people do this, you will get fewer & fewer producers of actual wealth for the nation. Eventually, the representative capital will collapse, since the fiat part.. the declared value.. is no longer respected or recognized by those making the exchange. Hyper inflation has gutted the wealth of many people throughout history.. and a lot of it not that distant. Many current nations have major problems with their currency & inflation, because it has no credibility.

All of the 'quantitative easings' & other dumping of printed money into the economy has the end result of depleting our true wealth.  It dilutes the earnings of the laborer & steals their savings. And taxation is merely taking from the producers. A good govt takes a minimum from the people to provide justice, protection, & collective projects like infrastructure. A bad govt over burdens the people with taxation for foreign wars, redistribution, or other non-productive policies. Infrastructure & protection INCREASE production, & make the nation wealthier. War, welfare, & redistribution are leeches on the producers.

A nation may go through cycles, or the economy may shift to different sectors. We might go from agriculture to manufacturing, to high tech services, to weapons, or some other product. But we have to produce something. We cannot survive on printed money.  This is the problem with the current practice of 'financial sector' money shuffling. That is moving the economy OUT of a production based system, into a pyramid scheme. That is where you have an illusion of increase, but it is only from the constant flow of capital. THAT is the engine that drives a ponzi scheme. Nothing is produced, just money being shuffled around, pyramidded so the upper tiers get more, until the flow stops. Then it all crashes down.  An economy cannot survive with ponzi scheme parameters driving it.


A stable govt can provide a currency, & 'declare' it's value (fiat: literally, let it be done). If the citizens agree, & use this method of representative exchange, it makes transferring goods & products easier & more efficient, & opens up markets for other goods & services. The us govt had a 'gold standard' for nearly 150 yrs, to provide stability for the currency. The rest of the world was volatile, & currency was at the root of many a civil war.

But, if fiat money is manipulated by hidden agendas, or is used to fleece the producers out of their wealth, eventually the producers get wise to the scam & stop using it.

'Follow the money' This is often brought up for just about any subject. But if you dig deeper, & 'follow the production', you'll see that IT is the true driver of the economy, not currency. Look at any industry, or any service, & you will see production driving or supporting it. EVERYONE depends on the producers of the nation, even if they are in a support role. So economics is quite simple, if you ignore the cacophony of noise & commotion intended to obscure truth, rather than reveal it.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." ~Thomas Jefferson 

The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. ~Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

With the exception only of the period of the gold standard, practically all governments of history have used their exclusive power to issue money to defraud and plunder the people. ~Friedrich August von Hayek

Production: The basis for wealth

All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation. ~John Adams

At the root of all our national problems is money.  We want more.  We want more as individuals, families, businesses, local, & national governments.  We seem to 'get it' at the lower levels.  We know that we either have to work, or con someone into giving us money to increase wealth.  But for some reason, when we go to the national level, we disconnect.  We think money grows on trees.  We can just print money & give it out.  We view the federal govt as a doddering old grandfather, who hands out money to greedy & grasping children.

But it doesn't work that way.  Wealth, to be real, must come from real production in the nation.  You cannot just print numbers & pictures on paper & declare it to be of value.  It has to have backing.

True wealth has to be created.  You have to have a product that others will give of their wealth to purchase.  This is true from the smallest level to the biggest; from an individual to a superpower.  Here are the steps.

1. First, there is labor.  This is always the first, but it requires EFFICIENT & PRODUCTIVE labor.  Labor by itself has no value, only in what it is able to produce.  The commodity produced must have a market, & it needs to be competitively priced.  But labor is required to make it, extract it, or assemble it.  Oil, soybeans, cars, washing machines, homes, industrial plants.. all of these things required labor to produce.

2. Next, you need demand.  Food is always in demand, & has historically been the most important commodity we work for.  People used to spend a lot more of their working time to earn food.  Mechanization has lowered the cost of food so we can spend the fruits of our labors on other things.  That disposable income has opened up markets for other products.  That has created demand.  So now there are many other things, besides food, that we can spend our labors on.

3. Services that improve production.  These are in high demand, since they improve our productivity, & increase our wealth.  A farmer by himself can farm so much land.  With a mule he can produce more.  With a tractor, a lot more.  The cost of operating the tractor is offset by the increase in production.  Mechanization has increased production in every area.  Farming, mining, manufacturing.. all sectors of the economy have improved production with technology & mechanization.  These services include research & development, & the concept of higher education.  All of these things can provide cost saving measures that increase production.

4. Capital.  This is a tool for production, not production itself.  An individual or group can put together a process for creating a product, or farm, or extract oil or gold or copper.  Capital can be used to hire others to do the work.  If the product has demand & volume, a profit can be made for the capitalist, even though he did not do any actual work in creating the product.  Capital can be amassed by long term individual savings, or corporate ventures where many people pool their wealth to produce increase.  But capital by itself has no productive value.  It must be used by those actually producing something to increase wealth.

5. Wealth.  This is the result of intelligent labor.  A farmer increases his growing area, expanding his production, selling more crops, & amassing wealth from the increase.  Much of his increase he puts back into the farm.. outbuildings, machinery, barns, buying more land.. all of these things increase the wealth of the farmer.  A miner or manufacturer does the same.  Even a day laborer can save his daily wage to buy larger investments, or open his own business venture.  But all this wealth is acquired by a combination of market demand for the product, luck, & hard work.

This is all very basic stuff.. most children figure this out early on.  But there is a growing sense of 'entitlement'.  That is the idea that somehow, just being alive entitles you to wealth.  Working smart & hard are not factors, anymore, but it should be provided at birth.  I am not sure where this idea came from.. perhaps from statist regimes that have a cradle to grave management system for the citizens.  But those don't work, & a free people are always more productive than an oppressed one.

A productive people can afford to support a certain level of dependents.  If there are enough who are willing to work hard, many others can be afforded a life of leisure, or at least dependency.  The problems arise when the dependents grow, & the producers diminish.  At some point, an imbalance occurs, & the society can no longer function.  You can stall by borrowing, but eventually, reality sets in.  Someone has to work & produce.  These workers should be allowed to keep the increase from their labors, rather than have govt or the capitalists take from them.  But without a productive people, a society cannot prosper or even survive.

Does Voluntaryism Work?

I've not engaged in debate with libertarians a lot, because i tend to look for areas of agreement, & see libertarianism as an ally against statism.  But at some point, i knew i would need to look at the basis for the libertarian ideal.

What is the basic duty of government?

Provide justice.

This is the essence.  We want our rights protected from violators, either foreign or domestic.  The declaration of independence phrased it like this:  'That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'

People want to live in peace & provide for themselves.  A good govt does this without over burdening them with excessive taxation, or exploiting them for the benefit of the state.  A good govt is a deterrent to criminal activity & foreign aggression.  They provide common infrastructure & fair trade rules.  They  provide a stable currency so the citizens can engage in commerce & build a nation.

How does voluntaryism provide this?  By the open market.  They quote the non aggression principle & expect everyone to voluntarily observe it.

But here is where it fails:

1. If justice is a commodity, it can be bought & sold to the highest bidder.  This is a 'devolution' of society into more primitive governance, where 'might makes right'.
2. Without a common defense, and the power to enforce it, there would be a proliferation of 'justice providers', battling each other for control, & none as strong as if they combined their forces.  This weakens the society, & would encourage crime & foreign aggression.
3. There are NO examples of this actually working in any society in the history of mankind.

The non aggression principle is a fantasy.  It is just as much an illusion as collectivism.  Both require altruistic citizens, or a totalitarian system to enforce it.  That is the logical progression.  Any vacuum of power is filled by competing entities, looking to consolidate their authority & control.  The people will be at the mercy of those providers of power.. they do not choose them, or have any balance of power or rights to appeal to.  It opens the door for aggressive, power hungry oppressors, & does not secure the rights or interests of the people.

Everything in libertarianism hinges on following the non aggression principle.  But the whole history of man is that of aggression.  Governments are formed, either by aggressive powers, or to ward off those powers.  An aggressive force needs an equal or more powerful force to deter it.  Voluntaryists expect a balance of power to come naturally, not systematically.  But that is not how balance is achieved   It must be provided & enforced by a common force of will, powerful enough to deter competing factions.  This force is government.  Anarchy brings chaos, not order.

What we should be asking is, 'What is the best system of government we can provide for ourselves, to establish justice & provide for a common defense?'

Does 'no government' do that?  Anarchy movements seem to breed violence & destruction.  It is not a positive force on society, but negative.  There is destruction of property, looting, & lawlessness.  Generally, where anarchy has increased, the response of society is to turn to a totalitarian force to deter it.  Lawlessness breeds totalitarianism.  It does not increase freedom for the people, but decreases it.

The american ideal is that the people have a right to 'institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.'  (declaration of independence)

'We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'  (preamble of us constitution)

This works.  Yes, we've got some problems, but if we can get back to the basics, we can have a simple, effective government. The us constitution is a good base to work from. It provides a solid framework for governance.. justice, self defense, & protection of individual liberties. Of all the governmental systems in the history of the world, NONE have provided more freedom, prosperity, & opportunity than the US system of government.

It was very difficult to set something like this up.. we needed a lot of idealistic, altruistic people at the onset, which is extremely rare in human history. The usual scenario is for nice sounding words to be corrupted by those ascending into power, & the original ideals being set aside for the rulers' convenience. Look at every place where a statist system was rebelled from.. monarchies, dictators.. just about every nation on earth has had one oppressive state replaced by another, with less freedoms than before. The US evolution of govt is very rare.. for MORE freedom to be dispensed to the people by the central state entity.  We should not take it for granted, or toss it aside casually, for some pie in the sky fantasy.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité

Factories to workers, land to peasants! 

Peace, Bread and Land"

"Revolution is not a crime! 

Rebellion is justified!"

"Dare to think, dare to act".

"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!"
"Change We Can Believe In!"

None of these slogans provided freedom for the people, but only led to more oppression.  Some people may be bored with the US constitution, or think it obsolete, but the alternative is authoritarianism, if we cast it aside.

I've had enough slogans.  Give me something that works, with a real track record.

Capital Punishment

I see the central argument as this:

Capital punishment does more to prevent wrongful death than not.

The goal is preventing or minimizing wrongful deaths. Murderers kill people, & those who die at their hands have their basic right to life violated. Justice has said for millinea that if you kill someone, you lose your right to life. 'An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for life', was how it was in the old jewish law, & the same principle has been in force in every civilization of mankind. The anti death penalty argument is that it is barbaric, & there are times when mistakes are made. I also argue that capital punishment is a greater deterrent for those who might be considering a capital crime. But i will address the 2 main points against capital punishment:

1. 'Barbaric' is a judgment call. Justice is either always barbaric, or it brings order to a barbaric society, depending on which side of the law you are on. It is an emotional word to elicit sympathy for the perpetrators of the crime. It really has no place in the central debate, which is how to prevent or minimize wrongful death.  A society with the fewest wrongful deaths is the least barbaric.

2. Mistakes. This is probably the main argument against capital punishment. Sometimes, a person is accused wrongly, & convicted. In seeking justice, another wrongful death is caused.
a. Many criminals are repeat offenders. They cause more 'wrongful deaths' than any travesties of justice. If the goal is to prevent wrongful deaths, that is served better by taking the lives of violent criminals, with the very rare wrongful death of an innocent. Incarcerated criminals also commit murder in prison, adding more 'wrongful deaths' to their resume.
b. An innocent locked up for life is slim consolation. A travesty of justice has still occurred, & justice has not been served.

I submit that justice is not barbaric, & is a stronger deterrent. Another benefit of capital punishment, is the taxpayers are not overburdened with the very expensive cost of incarcerating those who commit capital crimes.

My arguments are few & simple. Capital punishment is a better deterrent & minimizer of wrongful death than not. You will have fewer wrongful deaths, statistically, with capital punishment than by keeping capital offenders alive. They will not be able to kill again, nor will they kill while incarcerated. Logically, capital punishment is a better solution to wrongful death. Most anti capital punishment arguments center on the plight of the poor accused. But no consideration is given to the victims, or future victims of the perpetrator. Many family members have to spend their lives continually involved in the crime, since the perpetrator is still alive, & they have to appear every so often before a parole board to oppose releasing the killer. They are not able to find closure, & their lives are disrupted by the continual opening of old wounds. Capital punishment brings closure for them.

Here's a summary of the benefits of capital punishment for a civilized society:

1. It minimizes wrongful deaths.
2. It is a deterrent to capital crimes.
3. It relieves the citizens from having to pay for the criminal's incarceration for life.
4. It provides more closure for the victim's family.

I have not listed statistics to support these points, but they are readily available. My purpose here was to make logical arguments for the value of the death penalty in a civilized society.