US History Questions-

-People say the government profits from war- if this true why, at a time of 3 wars, are we facing such steep economic issue?

-Isn't there a connection to the growing US Welfare State and growing US poverty levels?
 
No. Congress can raise Armies under Article 1, Section 8. This power is not qualified by specifying whether or not Congress can authorize the use of force to raise an army.

Article 1, section 8 only allows Congress to raise an army for 2 years, to be more specific.
 
we entered ww 1 after the zionists ordered Britain to use their influence to bring america in the war....in exchange, Britain was to dismantle the Ottoman Empire and take over palestine for them.

we also entered so that a new world order could be establ;ished afterwards
 
-People say the government profits from war- if this true why, at a time of 3 wars, are we facing such steep economic issue?

-Isn't there a connection to the growing US Welfare State and growing US poverty levels?

yes....

producers are carrying non producers on their backs. As the economy groans under the burden...more people fall thru the cracks and turn to the government....and the cycle continues...

read this my son www.tomatobubble.com
 
In reality nobody profits from war. Money spent on the war effort could have been spent on food building etc. In addition property is destroyed, and resources spent rebuilding could have been used to improve the property rather then rebuilding it.
 
Free Markets:

Milton was completely wrong. In his example of steel, not only did the price of steel go up, it has nearly doubled. This I know having worked in this industry for over 30 years. Not only did the price go up, we lost all those jobs and they have never been replaced by "exporting" jobs...lol...it was all a lie. Ross Perot tried to tell us what would happen with trade agreements an 8 yr old could have made better. He said we would all hear the great sucking sound of our jobs leaving if NAFTA was enacted....and that's exactly what happened. It wasn't about free trade at all. It was about profits shares. People who did absolutely NOTHING thought that they deserved more return on their investment than the people who labored at a company and actually did all the work.Those companies were making a fair profit before they moved and most of them were non union so that whole argument is false. The price for doing business here wasn't too high because they were doing fine and growing according to the economy, or they would have closed long ago. It wasn't until someone pulled this magic fuzzy number out of their ass to claim that unless we had over 2% growth, this country was in trouble. Now, not only did we loose those jobs, but many, many more. Whenever a factory closed, local businesses were also closed and even more people were fired (they call it lay offs but we should call it what it really is) because it was those millions of factory workers who supported smaller business and governments, not the handful of owners. Sure the factories themselves supported many businesses, which had to close too. firing even more. This is the real trickle down economics. States and businesses rely on people working and making a decent wage to buy things and pay sales tax. Without sales tax, they wither and die, which is happening right now to both the people and the government. It's also starting to effect those companies that moved too since the mexicans and chinese don't make enough to buy their products.
"Free trade" was also designed to eliminate borders, eliminate the middles class, destroy the dollar and transfer the wealth. What did we get in return...dog food that kills our pets, drywall that makes us sick, baby toys that make babies sick and pollution that goes unchecked. EPA laws were enacted because people were actually dying without them. Just as unions were formed so that people could make a decent wage while working under SAFE conditions, 40 week, benefits like health care and a pension, vacation and sick leave. Many people actually believe the spin that has been used to justify the attack on unions, but when you look at the actual money that is made by non union owners, their argument should cease to exist, which is why they hide their money in places like the Cayman Islands. If anyone objects to union campaign contributions, (which are voted upon by the members) then they must also object to corporate contributions as well, they can't have it both ways. Contributions and lobbying should be illegal anyway. Politicians should be working for their constituents and not the campaign donors or lobbying firms they represent today.
Welcome to the New World Order.
 
WWI:

This is a very good short explanation that sums up how this war escalated. If you really want to understand what happened though, you must go back a few decades prior to all of this. Then you can begin to understand that this war was really about imperialism and natural resources. Thomas Jefferson once said "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."




The commonly held notion that it was started out of outrage over the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife Sophie at the hands of Serbian nationalist secret society known as the “Black Hand” isn’t entirely correct. In fact, the Emperor Franz Josef himself expressed relief over the assassination because it rid him of an heir whom he deeply disliked. The Emperor commented that “God will not be mocked. A higher power had put back the order I couldn’t maintain.”
Indeed, it wasn’t just the Emperor who was relieved; it was reported by an Austrian newspaper that the general consensus among the various political circles was that the assassination, though a tragedy, was for the best. As far as the Austrian people were concerned, it was noted “The event almost failed to make any impression whatever. On Sunday and Monday, the crowds in Vienna listened to music and drank wine as if nothing had happened.” Indeed, it took the government itself a full three weeks to react.
As you’ll see shortly, the “treaty alliance system” that was prevalent in Europe with numerous treaties interconnecting the various states was really at the heart of why what would have been a small conflict, not noteworthy in any way in history, escalated into one of the bloodiest wars in human history with over 15 million people dead. Somewhat ironically, the spark that set it all off was the assassination that nobody really cared about.
So why go to war over an assassination, if nobody cared? Because, while nobody seemed to much care about the assassination itself, Austria-Hungary had been looking for an excuse to wage a “preventative war” against Serbia as a state in order to weaken or destroy them so as to take back territory in the Balkans, which had been taken during the Balkan Wars. They had not taken it back up to this point because they lacked Germany’s support; without that support, they feared Russia too much, because of the treaty Russia had with Serbia.
With the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife on June 28th, 1914, Austria-Hungary was able to secure the promise from Germany that it would aid in a war with Serbia and possibly Russia, if Russia chose to enter the fray due to their treaty with Serbia. It should be noted here that Austria-Hungary did not really expect Russia to enter the fray as they expected this to be a very small war that would be over quickly, before Russia would be obligated to respond. Now with Germany’s support if Russia did enter the fray, Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia with remarkably severe terms that Serbia would be sure to reject, thus giving Austria-Hungary an excuse to go launch a limited war on Serbia to reclaim territory in the Balkans.
Surprisingly, Serbia responded relatively well to the ultimatum, but they did dispute a few minor clauses, which gave Austria-Hungary the excuse they needed to go to war. At this point, the following general series of events happened due to a variety of existing treaties between various nations, which escalated this minor clash into the first “Great War”.
Russia bound by their treaty with Serbia decides to come to Serbia’s aid.
Germany, with the recent treaty with Austria-Germany, declares war on Russia.
France, bound by an existing treaty with Russia, now is at war with Germany by association. Germany then invades Belgium to have easy access to France.
Britain, allied to France with an existing treaty, declares war against Germany. This was unexpected by Germany as they expected Britain to stay out of the war, due to the fact that the treaty with France was loosely worded and not entirely binding. However, Britain also had a 75 year old treaty with Belgium. So because of both of these treaties, they decided to declare war on Germany.
With Britain now warring with Germany, Canada, India, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa enter the war as they were colonies of Britain.
Japan honors an existing treaty with Britain and declares war on Germany.
Austria-Hungary declare war on Japan for declaring war on Germany.
The U.S. tries to stay out of the war but in 1917 decides to enter due to Germany’s submarine’s hindering the United State’s commercial shipping because the U.S. was shipping a lot of supplies to the Allies.
So in the end, a small quick war over a minor land dispute got turned into a lengthy war that was joined by powers all over the globe due to a variety of existing treaties dating back as much as 75 years before the war started.
 
How does the free market stop outsourcing of jobs?

Under the constitution, the government has no right to stop it. It should however, have a moral obligation to ensure that jobs do not get outsourced. Our government on the other hand encourages it through tax credits. They also encourage the H1-B visa program which outsources jobs to foreigners here at home. Want to stop it, simply impose tariffs equal to what other countries impose on us and stop giving out tax breaks and eliminate the H1-B visa program. It's pretty much that simple. While I believe that we need to uphold our constitution, I also believe that certain actions must be taken in order to bring those jobs back since corporations have abused their position.
FDR had proposed a tax on unused profits...
A tax called the Undistributed profits tax was enacted in 1936. The idea was to force businesses to distribute profits in dividend and wages, instead of saving or reinvesting them. Business profits were taxed on a sliding scale; if a company kept 1% of their net income, 10% of that amount would be taxed under the UP Tax. If a company kept 70% of their net income, the company would be taxed at a rate of 73.91% on that amount. Facing widespread and fierce criticism, the tax was reduced to 2½% in 1938 and completely eliminated in 1939.
Today, these companies that have been given billions in tax breaks and bailouts have hidden well over over $2 TRILLION in offshore accounts. This works out to $13,000 per household. If you or I did this, we would be in jail right now.
The 2004 Jobs Creation Act which passed with "bipartisan" support, allowed more than 800 companies to bring that money home at a very reduced tax rate. The companies said bringing the money home, "repatriating" it, would mean jobs...lots of jobs...over 600,000 of them according to Sen. John Ensign.
Pfizer was the biggest beneficiary, it brought home $37 billion, saving $11 billion in taxes. Almost immediately it started firing people. Over 40,000 lay offs since that law took effect. All in all, it appears that over 100,000 jobs have been destroyed because of this act, I can't find any that have been created.
 
How does a country accumulate wealth? If the central bank doesn't produce more, how does more money get created over time? Won't the money supply never increase whatsoever?
 
How does a country accumulate wealth? If the central bank doesn't produce more, how does more money get created over time? Won't the money supply never increase whatsoever?

The aggregate wealth of individuals within a country accumulates primarily through entrepreneurship and increases in productivity.

To answer your money question you must define "money." Real money is not wealth, it is a measure of wealth. If by money you mean commodity money then the only way money is created is by mining more precious medals. Even with a nearly constant supply of real money productivity and hence wealth can increase. This would be visible in the form of falling prices i.e. getting more for your money.

I believe the correct definition of money does not limit it to legal tender or gold, but anything that is accepted as payment of debts. This is outside the scope of your question but I believe this also includes private currencies, even discounted fractional reserve notes.
 
Why shouldn't governments nationalize companies?

Morally, because government is force. Initiating force against a person or group of persons by taking their company is wrong. Using stolen (ie "tax") money to buy a company is also wrong.

Practically, because government responds to political forces and incentives, not market forces. They don't get the same signals as a company that has to turn a profit to keep the doors open. Because of that, they are less likely to make good decisions that will benefit their customers. Example: The US Post Office.

The information contained in the billions of market transactions that take place everyday is incredible. Governments largely ignore market forces because they make money through force. An interesting book to read about this is "The Wisdom of Crowds" by James Surowiecki. It isn't a political book, and doesn't really deal with market forces directly, but does do a great job of explaining how the aggregation of information from multitudes of independent sources is almost universally preferable to a more "top-down" dissemination of information. Government would be an example of "top-down" information or "group think".
 
In disasters such as Katrina, should the US Gov have any part in rebuilding New Orleans? Do libertarians support FEMA, or think we should end it?
 
In disasters such as Katrina, should the US Gov have any part in rebuilding New Orleans? Do libertarians support FEMA, or think we should end it?

In disasters such as Katrina, should the private sector have any part in rebuilding New Orleans? Do statists support FEMA locking down entire states from people trying to bring ice, food and supplies (whatever the price), or think we should continue giving complete dominion to bureaucrats whose only solutions are putting people into "mobile home camps" (which are poorly made and probably a health hazard in themselves) and bring in the military to manage rationing?

Seriously dude, the govt shouldn't have the power to do this type of thing. And you're focusing on the "seen", what about the "unseen"? Shouldn't the National Guard, if it exists, be defending National security, not giving out food to people in need? Shouldn't the Federal govt, if it exists, be limited to making sure that the states don't use aggression against each other after a disaster hits? How many resources are wasted because FEMA claims a monopoly on disaster relief? FEMA is an unmitigated disaster, and should be ended because its supposed benefits are small and fleeting, and its costs are outstanding and tyrannical.
 
BUMP. This thread has so much important information on so many different topics and should be read by all people new to the theory of Liberty. It's a great place to throw questions that are posed to you, get concise answers, and have talking points back for discussion.

Thank you to all! I will continue to throw questions up here.
_________________________________________________________________________

How do Libertarians stop inner cities with such intense gun and gang issues. Wouldn't the Second Amendment hurt the city even more?
 
BUMP. This thread has so much important information on so many different topics and should be read by all people new to the theory of Liberty. It's a great place to throw questions that are posed to you, get concise answers, and have talking points back for discussion.

Thank you to all! I will continue to throw questions up here.
_________________________________________________________________________

How do Libertarians stop inner cities with such intense gun and gang issues. Wouldn't the Second Amendment hurt the city even more?

Inner cities? You mean where the government has "housing projects"? :D

*But srsly, gangs are not likely to follow gun laws. Therefore, if the people that live in inner cities where there are armed gangs wish to defend themselves, what better way than to have a firearm? Extreme poverty like this is prolonged by government intervention. Building houses where they don't belong, raising pay rates above what they should be, subsidizing poverty by paying people through handouts like unemployment benefits. (What benefits should their be from unemployment anyway?). And most notably, debasing the value of the currency which always hurts poor people first.

Inner city gang violence is like a rotten toenail. It is the extremity that is showing obvious deterioration, but it is malnutrition (which occurs internally and is systemic) that is causing the problem.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top