Lies For Empire

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by James E. Miller via Mises Canada,

In his provocative cover story “Why Liberalism Means Empire” for The American Conservative, Daniel McCarthy makes a rather astounding claim: that liberalism, or rather laissez faire secular order, needs a state hegemon to be long-lasting. I call this argument astounding because McCarthy often advocates non-intervention in foreign affairs. He’s never one to shy away from damning the bellicose transgressions of the United States government. Yet he, at times, seems to be defending Washington’s vice grip on global affairs, and claims that such mastery is necessary for liberal democracy and the free flow of trade. He writes:

“Liberal imperialism is not directed toward gratuitous conquest but toward maintaining a global environment conducive to liberalism.”

Whether McCarthy’s argument is correct or not will not be addressed here. Rather, the question of intentions behind empire will be examined, as they receive scant attention in McCarthy’s polemic. It’s certainly true that governments are driven by people trying to shower their universal values upon the planet. But is it really the case that the U.S. government is interested in promoting liberal democracy abroad?

McCarthy points out that the British Empire played a key role in engendering autonomy within the early years of the U.S. He notes that with “Britain keeping any possible global predator at bay, American statesmen could pursue their ends through means other than war.” Following World War I, and Britain’s war losses at the hands of Germany, it was time for a new world power to rise up and reestablish the liberal order. The United States, which had largely minded its own business prior to the Great War, was thrust to the forefront of being the globe’s protector of classical liberalism.

Decades later, neoconservative ideology adopted the “spread democracy abroad” trope as an excuse for imperium. But today, as the American economy remains bogged down in stagnation, and the national debt climbs ever higher, the salad days of U.S. worldwide influence are waning. Empire is expensive. In a representative democracy such as America, it also requires both the votes and tax dollars of citizens to sustain itself. Public perception is leaning more towards non-intervention. The warmongers and elites in D.C. decry the shift in sentiment, and are busy trying to find excuses to continue propping up the Empire. Their efforts will be in vain mainly because their rhetoric is no longer trusted. The lies, deceit, and subterfuge used to justify foreign adventurism is finally coming to a head.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose unfettered U.S. intervention abroad. But one, I suspect, is having a stronger effect than others: the American people, along with many citizens in Western countries, no longer believe empire means the promotion of equality, rule of law, and liberalism around the world. Due to Washington’s contradictory alliances, the ostensible need for imperium comes off as a wash. Blood and treasure aren’t being wasted on making the world more conducive to the West’s values; rather it’s for the aggrandizement of the political class above all else.

One country in particular is demonstrative of the American government’s hypocrisy-ridden foreign agenda. According to a new leak by famed whistleblower Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency is working closely with the Saudi Ministry of Interior, an agency described by journalist Glenn Greenwald as “one of the world’s most repressive and abusive government agencies.” Saudi Arabia is notorious for its horrendous human rights record. Yet the NSA has cultivated an ever-closer relationship with the Arab theocracy in recent years. In a top secret memo from 2013, the intelligence agency admits to providing “direct analytic and technical support” to the repressive regime. This was after the State Department determined that the Saudi Ministry of Interior officials “sometimes subjected prisoners and detainees to torture and other physical abuse.” The agency’s report also states the regime is responsible for:

“torture and other abuses; overcrowding in prisons and detention centers; holding political prisoners and detainees; denial of due process; arbitrary arrest and detention; and arbitrary interference with privacy, home, and correspondence.”

The Saudi regime is not only being propped up by the American taxpayer, but it’s given expertise from government officials on how to better suppress political dissidents. It’s these kind of instances of glad-handing with dictators that turn off normal, working people. Americans see pols give lofty sermons about promoting freedom and democracy on television, and then witness their tax dollars go toward brutal authoritarians to retain global standing. It’s a perverse message that even a child can detect is painfully dishonest. From Egypt to Kuwait, coffers of oppression are filled with U.S. dollars swiped via payroll taxes. How long was the dissonance supposed to last before suspicion set in?

The current push to punish Russian President Vladimir Putin for the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 – a crime there is still no evidence he or his government committed – is gaining no ground. After the boondoggle of Iraq, there is little confidence in another full-on ground invasion. Last summer’s threat of war in Syria was challenged outright by angry voters. The working class in flyover country is tired of the half-truths and propaganda. They don’t care much for universal values or overthrowing despots or maintaining a worldwide liberal h?gem?n.

McCarthy may be correct that liberal social orders require the threat of a strong, centralized state. Even so, control rendered from on high cannot last. As he writes, “[L]iberal democracy is unnatural. It is a product of power and security, not innate human sociability.” Democracy from afar is a house of cards, poised to fall when those in charge demonstrate effete management. If a house divided cannot stand, then a house of lies cannot keep up the charade. People want a bargain for the money they pay; they want a tangible result that matches their expectations. In the case of American empire, they aren’t getting the goods.

The world is no more safer than it was when the War on Terror began. Some of the Middle East’s most brutal dictators were removed from power, but radical jihadists have filled the vacuum of authority. Men and women are still coming home in caskets draped with Old Glory, or they come home mentally and physically debilitated. And for what exactly? The Persian Gulf is arguably more tyrannical and dangerous than before Uncle Sam made a point of establishing liberal democracy at the turn of the century. Either the mission was a failure, or there was another objective involved. If Smedley Butler was correct, and war is a racket, then there was another measure of success at work. And it sure wasn’t the promotion of universal democratic values. If empire can’t bring that, then there isn’t much of a point outside of domination. In other words, somebody benefits from imperium, and it’s not the average voter. Sooner or later the jig is up.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
junction's picture
Labour MP suspended from the Commons after blaming 'lying' ministers for the deaths of British troops in Afghanistan 
  • Paul Flynn kicked out after likening conflict to the First World War when 'politicians lied and soldiers died'
  • Speaker John Bercow suspends him for the day for behaving in a 'grossly disorderly manner'
  • Defence Secretary Philip Hammond says the claims are 'scandalous'

By Matt Chorley, Mailonline Political Editor. Daily Mail (UK)

TeethVillage88s's picture

Bears repeating that US Tax Dollars are supporting Repressive Rajimes. US Raj supports other Raj with Taxes.

We should list them, article gives the first one

A) Saudi Arabia
B) Afghanistan
C) Egypt??
D) Israel

Older ones might be Easier:

1) Chile' Pinochet Raj (Dirty Wars)
2) Argentina's Raj (in Dirty Wars)
3) Brazil Raj (in Dirty Wars
4) Uruguay Raj (in Dirty Wars)
5) Peru (in Dirty Wars)
6) Bolivia (in Dirty Wars)
7) Paraguay (in Dirty Wars)
8) South Africa (in Apartheid)

kchrisc's picture

"It's not lies if it's all bullshit."

world_debt_slave's picture

mission accomplished, false flag, put a name on a spying program, patriot act, and the rest is history

A Lunatic's picture

Nothing spreads democracy better than killing a shitload of people in senseless foreign occupations to establish corporate control of resources.......

Ignatius's picture

The 'War on Terror' has an unstated strategy that is in controvention to the stated policy.

Terrorism is theatre.  The War on Terror, like the War on Drugs, is bullshit.

Statetheist's picture

The idea of government itself, is a lie.

potato's picture

Try this for lies: Operation Geen Run

8000 curies intentionally released into the atmosphere to test effects on citizens; (Three Mile Island was less than 24 curies and there were evacuations and food bans).

Residents in the area were told "not one atom" had been released from the Hanford Site.

apberusdisvet's picture


Pimping out Black Box sisters, his mother and also all of his nieces.  As a Bonus I received a $210,000 grant from the Feds to have Black Box be obama's bitch.

ebworthen's picture

War is a racket.

Problem being, the neo-Cons and Progressives have joined arms to fight the "war on terror" while enriching the corporatocracy, the M.I.C., the banks, the insurers, and themselves.

No reason for the U.S. to have military bases anywhere other than on U.S. soil.

But...that would be sanity.

samsara's picture

"But...that would be sanity."

That would have been Ron Paul.

Jack Burton's picture

I am going to be interested to see how much traction Obama and CNN can get for US intervention to save the Kiev coup government which is suffering badly in their invasion of East Ukraine. Not to mention the economic collapse of their state. Obama is selling war and intervention very hard. He resorts to lies similar in nature to the Bush Iraq lies. Obama failed to gin up his war with Syria, that has been replaced by his new project, the war on Russia. It remains to be seen if Americans can also see though the Kiev Fascist Governments mass killing program in the east and Obama's desire to further spread the murder spree into the Russian Federation.

The USA having the NSA as world spy makes it possible for the US to blackmail the leadership all across Europe and especially the UK, where the government is ridden with child sexual abusers. This blackmail allows the US to control EU governments to follow US dictates on sanctions and NATO military moves.

As fall approaches and the Ukrainian offensive in the east is ground up by the Self Defense Forces of Donbass, Obama will be tempted to ask for a NATO advance into Ukraine to defeat the rebel east. He will need American people to back this, so expect the Obama hard sell complete with lies, fabrications and false flags. Sometime soon Obama the war monger will be on CNN screaming that Russia is a threat to every American in his home. Putin plans to attack us all, unless Obama acts. When he comes to sell war, I suggest to kick him in the nuts and show him the door.

Captain Jack Sparrow's picture

Big trouble in little china is my favourite movie!

ThirteenthFloor's picture

Create a sequel....Little trouble in big America.  

It would be a smash.

Seer's picture

And nowhere will anyone ask: WHY? or, What's in it for us?

The US/West cannot come out and say why this apparent suicidal activity is pushing ahead, that it's to keep the USD from falling out of favor.  Mentioning this would result in people having to be told exactly what That would mean, and, when that happens then everyone realizes the game is pretty much over (because they'd have to firmly join in The Big Lie- it would either be end it, or it would be Big War).   So, I figure that Dick Cheney's remarks that "the American way of life isn't negotiable" is pretty much the answer.  The internal villans will look to disrtact using external villans: I think Mencken had something to say about this.  Scoundrels in our midst.  War is always the last act...

bid the soldiers shoot's picture

And nowhere will anyone ask: WHY? or, What's in it for us?

Seer,  If I've posted it once, I've posted it an hundred times. There's a whole department at the Pentagon, DLA Energy, whose task begins with acquiring crude oil (or electricity etc) and making sure it is distributed as needed.


1-1. JP 4-0, Joint Logistics, Appendix B, Supply Commodity Executive Agents, delineates Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and service responsibilities for providing bulk petroleum. (See table 1-1.) DLA, 

as the executive agent, is responsible for providing bulk fuel from the source to the customer (using unit). 

However, DLA is not manned or equipped to provide bulk fuel during unified land operations and depends on the other services to support DLA’s mission by providing transportation and storage when necessary. 

Table 1-1. Joint Publication 4-0 

CL III Bulk Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Subclass: Bulk Petroleum 

DLA- Energy Executive Agent - Acquire, store, and distribute bulk petroleum from source of supply to acceptance by customer. Establish equipment standards and interoperability requirements. Establish customer relationships with defense agencies and friendly forces where U.S. is designated fuels role support nation" 

 This quote tells you how enormous the Pentagon's crude oil procurement dept is.Take a look at it.

And if you read between the lines you have to understand that the Pentagon, the largest consumer of oil in the world, must have a notion as to how much oil is left and how fast it can come to the surface.

Don't expect it to say "We must attack Iraq.",  "We should have confrontations with countries with large reserves oil, like Iran, Venezuela, Russia, etc.", "And by the way, we should be seeing a large drop off of crude production in 15 or 20 years. 

I understand that most everybody doesn't want to hear this, but, as You-know-who said:

"to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man."

That's the main thing I'm interested in.

Implied Violins's picture

Have you seen the stuff on the internet about Kevin Annett (sp?) and his common-law international court? A toothless org, and Annett definitely has an axe to grind having been disbarred by the church (and he's just a wee bit weird too boot) - but he apparently has the goods on not only the ex-pope, the new pope, but a lot of world leaders who not only were involved in child rape but also trafficking and even supposedly ritual sacrifice. I know I've heard rumors about what goes on in California at that retreat on the Russian River (Pleasant Grove?), and I've seen a book written by someone who claims to have been sexually abused by many politicos (and mind-fucked by MK Ultra) there, and her book is BANNED in America. You can only get it by ordering from her overseas. Wish I had the link...

Anyway: IF this shit is true - and Annett apparently has hundreds of witnesses, some of whose testimony against Francis he will release in September - then THIS could be the thing that takes all of these bastards down.


Lin S's picture

Say Jack, can you share how/where you get up-to-date and accurate info re: the military situation in Donbas?

You have a much better grasp of the situation on the ground than I do.

My thanks in advance...

g speed's picture

I think you underestimate the blackmail thingy-----it's the blackmailer that procures the children in the first place and then sets up the "sting" --- IMHO the sooner "we the people" of the US get out from under our sick fucking piece of shit, malignant, rotting corpse of a gov't the better-- this slimy barackracy will bring us all to a bad end--- 

WTFUD's picture

In 1830 it cost approx. $174 ( in today's dwollars ) to move a ton of goods a thousand miles by wagon; in 1910 , the price of the same haulage by rail was approx. $23, around 1/8 as expensive and several times faster.
Where did it all go wrong?

Seer's picture

Well, when you kill a bunch of natives and lay railway you have embodied energy and that energy is what gave those lower costs.  Most people think all sorts of weird reason why things are "cheaper."  It's the illusion that things are cheaper that is all... (the rate has changed because we've been able to employ energy slaves to expedite the extraction of physical resources, oil/gas being the key)

samsara's picture

Where? Let's see.

Well first let's look at the 'Trolley Conspiracy'.

"This is not about a "plot" hatch by wild-eyed corporate rogues, but rather about a consummate business strategy crafted by Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., the MIT-trained genius behind General Motors, to expand auto sales and maximize profits by eliminating streetcars. In 1922, according to GM's own files, Sloan established a special unit within the corporation which was charged, among other things, with the task of replacing America's electric railways with cars, trucks and buses.

A year earlier, in 1921, GM lost $65 million, leading Sloan to conclude that the auto market was saturated, that those who desired cars already owned them, and that the only way to increase GM's sales and restore its profitability was by eliminating its principal rival: electric railways.

At the time, 90 percent of all trips were by rail, chiefly electric rail; only one in 10 Americans owned an automobile. There were 1,200 separate electric street and interurban railways, a thriving and profitable industry with 44,000 miles of track, 300,000 employees, 15 billion annual passengers, and $1 billion in income. Virtually every city and town in America of more than 2,500 people had its own electric rail system."

"Where these measures were unavailing, GM formed holding companies to buy up and motorize the railways directly. Thus, it helped organize and finance United Cities Motor Transit as a wholly owned GM subsidiary, as well as Greyhound, Rex Finance, Omnibus Corporation, National City Lines, Pacific City Lines, American City Lines, City Coach Lines, Manning Transportation and numerous other concerns, which acquired rail systems across the country, including those in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, Sacramento, San Diego and Oakland.

With officials of Greyhound and National City, it helped acquire and dismantle the $50 million North Shore Line, the fastest electric service in the world, providing Wisconsin's lakeshore cities and Chicago's northern suburbs high-speed access to the downtown loop. With a pack of notorious mobsters, it helped purchase and scrap the street railways serving Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Where rail systems could not be bought, GM bought rail officials instead, giving Cadillacs to those who converted to buses."

That's. Just the first reason, there a lot more.

Seer's picture

I think it was GE that killed solar water heating in Florida.

RafterManFMJ's picture

Read a book about solar hot water and it stated that most homes and businesses in Florida and California had solar hot water; the period photographs in the book were striking, with nearly every roof having at least one tank.

Turned out, the utilities needed electric demand. Turned out, the way to generate that demand was to offer free or subsidized hot water heaters to one and all.

And solar hot water became something that only 1960s Hippies were interested in.

ThirteenthFloor's picture

Samsara > Bit later during the depression, FDR convinced TV Soong to STEAL the Central Bank of China Gold (his sister was Chaing Kai-Shek's wife) and invest in GM and DuPont in order to get both companies out of near bankruptcy > (there is your free-trade economy hard at work again /sarc.)

FDR told him that during the up and coming big war, he would become wealthy, since GM would supply military vehicles and DuPont gun powder.  He was right.  TV Soong became one of the richest men in the world in the fraud.  When it was found out the gold was stolen he was the add to your history



T.V. Soong (1894-1971)

Occupation: Financier, government official

Source of wealth: Banking, fraud


ThirteenthFloor's picture

1. Fed Reserve and private financier usury -> Loss of the free sovereign state status.

2. Off the Gold Standard. Disconnect between legal tender and asset value.

3. Multi-Nationals and "Adam Smith UK Style British East India Company" free trade -> loss of local production and real income.

4. Capital retirement after #3.  

To quote Ross Perot...."there will be this giant sucking sound"...NOTE: Chinese Workers built the TransAmerican railroad.

1/6 of all American grown goes to China to feed chinese cattle...we cannot even use our own alfalfa.

Meanwhile American's number one crop....Marijuana.  

5. bye bye Miss American Pie

Seer's picture

Empires are a racket.  - Seer

BTW - It's about POWER!  The need for ever-greater amounts of resources means that one has to increase non-productive elements such as militaries (to "spread democracy" so you can get your resources), which further require more overhead in the form of administration/bureaucracy: this basic flow is immutable; and it's also pretty much what a BIG look into three thousand years of empires shows:

We grow and then we die...

Yen Cross's picture

  I'm catching some ZZZZZZZZ's, C.Ya in London

q99x2's picture

You are not allowed to say "The jig is up" while Obama is the president of Washington D.C.

Lin S's picture

The lies were so tens of thousands of Somalis could be imported here and use the legal system to codify protection for female genital mutilation. Or something like that.

All sarcasm aside, America will be burned to the ground for the sloth, greed, and stupidity of the majority of its adult citizens.

kurt's picture

Who says I support Saudi Arabia?

Who says I support Israel?


FACT: Both shitholes have slaves. They fuckin OWN people. The United States of America should not, could not, support these ASSHOLES!

Also stop listening to British Royalists and Zionist fuckheads!!!!

honestann's picture

It’s certainly true that governments are driven by people trying to shower their universal values upon the planet.

No, governments are human predators sucking the life out of human producers.  The only value to predators is... dominance and destruction of producers, and consumption & control of the goods and goodies the human producers create.

Human predators know exactly what they're doing, and why.  Sadly, most human producers have little or no idea what's going on, or what they believe.

Ghordius's picture

that "government are human predators" meme is based on a "sheep and wolfes" simplification

"dominance and destruction of producers"? you probably mean dominance and enslavement of producers. in the same way as humans hold cows and ants hold aphids

but your whole construct of theories has two issues: we aren't "pure" sheep or wolfes or cows or aphids and government is a human feature

yes, we are highly social animals. and imho it's empirically demonstrated that if you put enough humans near enough to each other... we form some form of order

in it's most primitive form, warlords and tribe chieftains. in it's best form, republics based on plurality and rule of law (where producers thrive, btw)

if you weren't a social animal... you would not post your thoughts in a blog like this. you too, are an agent of order. though you promote a kind of order based on a low-density environment morality which imho has the chance of a snowflake in hell to be ever considered in high-density environments like cities (the chief regulation-spawning machines on this planet)

imo it's a question of quality of government. over 50% of humans live in cities, btw

honestann's picture

Sucking the life out of creatures is what predators do.  The fact that they don't suck all the life out of a creature at one time doesn't change that fact.  Furthermore, human predators are perfectly aware that they can suck more life out of each producer if they don't suck it all out at one time.  That doesn't change what they do, or what they are.

Most creatures can only survive one way... consume whatever naturally occurring goods they find in their environment.  In contrast, humans can chose between two approaches:

#1:  consume naturally occurring goods in the environment.

#2:  produce goods that would not otherwise have occurred.

That's the fundamental choice humans have to survive, and the fundamental distinction in human behavior.  Think about it.

I'm not a social animal.  I am an independent animal.  However, nothing prevents independent animals from communicating or interacting with other humans.  The notion that "opening my mouth" converts me into an ant or some fundamentally dependent creature.  I'm not, and neither are you.

HOWEVER... predators ARE fundamentally dependent creatures.

Think about it... carefully.

A producer creates what he needs to survive and prosper.  A producer gains nothing from predators, and in fact is endangered, thwarted, harmed, and quite often eventually destroyed by predators.

In contrast, predators are fundamentally dependent on other creatures... they consume them.  Or in the case of human predators, they depend on human producers who create the goods they need to survive and prosper.

But... you are correct in your final analysis... predators and their parasite partners grossly outnumber producers, even in the modern, technological world we live in (because producers are so enormously productive (produce much more than they consume)).  And so, they dominate producers (who are apparently too busy to figure out the fundamental nature of the scam).

In fact, sadly, the only hope in the medium or long term is for human producers to get the hell outta dodge.  And by "dodge" I mean earth.  Until humans move into outer space, producers are screwed.  That is, unless they wake up, get smart... and shrug.

Unfortunately, your estimate of probabilities of that is approximately correct... as much chance as a snowflake in hell.  But... I still do hope a few of us manage to escape.  We have a better chance of success at that than a snowflake in hell, but realistically, still probably a bit of a long shot.


For one thing, government doesn't exist.  What you call "government" is nothing but a name for "predators-DBA-government".

The two (predators and "government") cannot be disconnected.  That is a fact.  Why?  Because if anyone (non-predators) started a system that DID NOT involve predatory behavior, then nobody would pay any attention to them.  It is EXACTLY and ONLY when predators steal resources from others, and force others to obey, are they even called "government".

So-called "government" IS the name for human predators doing their predatory harm.  This cannot be escaped, no matter how many word games they attempt.

falak pema's picture

So if Plato and Arsitotle are wrong, and the world should not be governed based on "ethical values",  pure smoke and mirrors according to libertarians, as those who are supposed to enforce them are by DEFINITION --(or thru recurrent abuse of power)-- corrupt,  and the world should be a Jurassic park and a game of survival of the fittest, how does that make it a better place to be?

Anarchy and Ayn Randish value maximisation for self betterment means you rob your neighbour of his POTENTIAL, either 'cos you are more intelligent, more entrepreneurial or stronger than he. And, there is no one there to apply rule of Law, as by definition Law is a by product of a STATE system. When I say Potential I mean his ability to learn from others, as well, to come up to their material level.

We reverse the historical learning process as the "best and brightest" then keep knoweldge and power to themselves and form castes to protect that as a recurrent hereditary right to progeny.

Does that ring a bell?

Conversely, if that is NOT OK as it smells of "oligarchy governance", we should all then live in caves and use MINIMAL levels of energy and intelligence. 

That way the population would be in line with that mode of living; aka around a few hundred thousand on the globe. 

Welcome back to the Stone Ages! 

Your line of reasoning, if pushed to its logical conclusion, comes a full circle.

What is worse is that no form of human experience know to Man on a sustainable basis has ever achieved that status. The Communists did dream of it :

The STATE WITHERING AWAY once class systems and predatory customs were ABOLISHED... We know how that finished.

No, what is being witnessed today is the betrayal of Plato and Aristotle by those who govern. We have the value systems BUT they are NOT APPLIED. 

THere lies the rub, as those who govern do it in OUR NAME! Not theirs! 

So we do not exercise due diligence as the people who own the nation! 

And, If we can't then its a recurrent see-saw.

Welcome to Dystopia and Utopia on the see-saw of human societal pendulum. 

g speed's picture

above you find list of "old school" definitions of gov't and how it works--IMHO gov't is just a middle man-- a go between to comunicate the wishes of the oligarcy-- like the "slave in the big house" is used to comunicate the wishes of the slave owner. It all depends on if we think we're slaves. In reality its only the belief of slave status that keeps the enforcers accendent. The truth is we don't need the middle man. Its a new age and we can communicate and orchestrate endeavors with tech not envisioned by the gov't based exploters--gov't is obsolete and the biggist enemy we have is COG ---

by the way I like to look at the slavers as a virus--not preditors--

falak pema's picture

now you've caved into populist fascism all dressed up as false nosed anarchical free will. 

If the slave owners are the Oligarchs and government is surrogate to them then we are into fascism of Oligarchs; aka Mussolini style state/coporation crony monopoly rule. But with Mussolini being junior partner to Mr Moneybags, whoever he may be --a Krupp or an Agnelli.

That is more in line with US capitalism history as it was practiced before FDR changed the mix. But it was firmly reborn under Reagan and rules US capitalism, now gone global and massively militarist, since NWO was born in 1991 in the wake of Soviet collapse and Iraq 1 dictat.

If you define your blend of libertarian anarchy as "bottom up creative destruction" without state intervention then you are delusional.

You will always fall victim to an Oligarchical despot like a Koch who sings your song and then rewrites the reality to his advantage; useful idiocy par excellence. 

An oligarch needs POWER to run his system and without rule of law imposed by a regulatory body BEYOND his reach he is unsinkable.

Until he shoots himself in the foot; which they always do with us as "idiot collateral", like in Syria or Ukraine or iraq or Gaza today. 

History teaches us that most of the time Empires fall thru IMPLOSION under their own corruption. Very seldom under ire of the people like in 1789 France or 1776 USA, as 1917 Russia (but that does not mean all revolutions stay virtuous as dictators always lurk and surf on useful idiocy!)

honestann's picture

Note: voluntary interactions of individuals is NOT populist fascism, or anything even remotely similar to populist fascism.


An oligarch needs POWER to run his system and without rule of law imposed by a regulatory body BEYOND his reach he is unsinkable.

Completely backwards again!  Throughout history "regulatory bodies" always do the bidding of oligarchs.  Almost always these fictional "regulatory bodies" provide cover for the oligarchs.  So much so, that very few humans even knows who the hell the oligarchs are!

rule of law == rule of oligarchs == rule of predators

And even when empires collapse, because the regulatory facade of the empire shields the oligarchs from view, the oligarchs simply move on to dominate yet another empire, while everyone else in that fictional empire spirals down the tubes.


That humans cannot identify or understand even the simplest of facts and phenomenon they face every day.  And so, humans have no chance.  Humans are finished.  Take your seat and watch the show, because humans are sure to destroy themselves completely.  All but the oligarchs and their personal slaves, who may survive [for some time] in their remote hideouts.

honestann's picture

Yikes!  You are so burried in false assumptions.  Let's attempt to identify some of these, so we can put them (and your worries) to rest.

First, the world should not be governed.  By anyone.  By any individual.  By any collective (including "the majority").  Can you not see that by assuming the world must be "governed" that you've completely eliminated the possibility of ethics, liberty and individualism?

If you want, you can ask the question, "should the world be governed?".  The only sensible answer to that question for any civilized human being is NO.  Quite obviously, NOBODY has ANY basis whatsoever to govern ANYONE but themself.  This should be self-evident, but if you are so habituated to the insane notion of "govern" and "government", then here is the starting point to consider this question.  You came to exist by being born.  Every other human came to exist by being born.  This is called symmetry... you have the same relationship to each other.  And thus, you cannot have any more basis to govern someone else than they have to govern you.  Which means, the very first, most basic and fundamental step taken to consider this question proves that no basis exists for any form of "govern".

I must sadly agree with you that many liberty advocates can't quite identify the clear, correct, fully legitimate basis for liberty and against slavery (government).  Sadly, many people first "sorta get it" before they "really get it" before they can clearly and precisely elicit the exact reasons that justify their understanding.  Of course this applies "vastly more so" to their adversaries (advocates of statism, slavery, tyranny, collectivism and so forth, which are all just minor tweaks on the notion that some humans should "govern" others).

ANY POWER over other human beings is ABUSE OF POWER.

Gads, you have everything backwards!  Mostly because you are careless with concepts.

Okay, first of all, "ethics" and "ethical values" cannot govern anyone or anything.  Why?  Because "ethics" and "ethical values" are CONCEPTS in the BRAINS of humans.  Those concepts are just patterns in the brain.  By their nature, they have no power to "govern" anyone or anything.

What DOES have power to "govern" --- that is, steal, force, enslave?  Human beings do.

Now.  Somehow you manage to EQUATE "ethics" or "ethical values" with "govern".  That is not only preposterous, that is backwards and opposite.

Do you want to know what is the "ethics" or "ethical values" of liberty advocates?  I will be happy to tell you the soundbite version (which requires very little elaboration to be complete).

Every human being should enjoy/bare/suffer ALL the consequences of his own actions, and enjoy/bare/suffer NONE of the consequences of the actions of others.

This is very simple.  If a human invests his time, effort and resources to take actions that grow a garden, that human should enjoy/bare/suffer the consequences of those actions... he should eat or distribute the veggies, fruits and nuts that grow as he wishes.  And since his neighbor did not invest his time, effort and resources to take actions to grow a garden, his neighbor should NOT enjoy/bare/suffer the consequences of that garden.

This is 100% scientific ethics.  It is, in fact, "cause and effect applied to human actions".  If you take actions that cause some effects, you are connected to those effects... you created them.  And so, "ethics" is also an expression of the single most fundamental aspect of reality (existence versus non-existence).  If you make it exist, you can enjoy/bare/suffer it.  If you don't make it exist, you should not enjoy/bare/suffer it.  These apply both to actions that have positive consequences and negative consequences.

You ask how can such "ethics" make the world a better place?  The answer SHOULD BE OBVIOUS to anyone not utterly, totally and completely brainwashed to death by insane statist parents, teachers, media.  But in case that applies to you, I'll answer the question.

This "ethics" informs you (and everyone else) of the nature of causality in general, and specifically human action that causes production and destruction.  It says, "you can take actions that create goods and goodies that help you survive, be healthy, and enjoy life".  It also says, "you can also take actions that destroy goods and goodies that help you survive and prosper".  As a direct corollary and consequence, it also says "to live a good, health, happy, prosperous life... figure out which actions create goods and goodies that benefit you and human life in general, and which actions destroy goods and goodies that benefit you and human life in general".

In other words, it tells you HOW you and everyone else CAN live a good, healthy, happy, prosperous life.  It tells you everything you need to know to LIVE that good, healthy, happy, prosperous life.  This works fine in a group of producers who all understand why and how "ethics" and "ethical values" benefit every individual.  And so, "ethics" is essentially the tacit agreement between producers --- to "leave each other alone" and "do not harm each other or the goods/goodies they created" and "only interact in voluntary ways".

This works great!  However, producers make one HUGE mistake.  They forget that a portion of the human species decided to remain predators, even after the enormous efficiency of productive activity was discovered.  And so... most producers attempt the completely insane, misguided, inherently unworkable policy of treating human predators as if they are human producers (with some minor disagreement).

And so, the human predators laugh their asses off, grab control of the mechanisms well meaning producers created to resolve minor disagreements, and eventually enslave the producers.  I must admit, it is completely revolting and strange that human producers are too stupid to realize what happened!  They're hoisted on their own theory of ethics!

The producers operate on the false assumption that human predators have ethics.  They do not!  Human predators have a modus-operandi, but no ethics.  The modus-operandi is "get away with whatever we want, if we think we can".

And so, because human producers are MORONS, they ALLOW the human predators to enslave them.  Even though this issue is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, most human producers remain completely clueless to the absurdity that is in front of their faces every day.


You are TOTALLY, COMPLETELY, FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG about the relationship between human producers and human predators [and parasites].  Listen up.

What is the nature of this "self betterment" of producers and individualists you mention?  The answer should be clear from above.  The fundamental nature of producers is... to create goods and goodies that would not have come to exist by means of the natural processes of the [earth] environment.  And so, "self betterment" simply means to "create something that did not exist before"... and then benefit from it and/or enjoy it (eat it, sleep on it, whatever).

That takes NOTHING away from your neighbor.  You see, your attitude is PRECISELY the attitude of a predator, not a producer.  And yes, when a predator consumes goods or goodies, he takes it away from someone else (usually someone who produced it).  However, when a producer consumes some goods or goodies, he DOES NOT take those goods or goodies from anyone else... HE CREATED THEM.

While it is NOT the responsibility of producers to benefit the lives of predators (or clueless human morons), you should note that producer do greatly benefit EVERYONE ELSE, including other producers, but also parasites and predators and clueless dependents (including kids).

How so?  Well, producers invest a huge amount of time, effort, attention and resources to determine the most efficient ways to produce goods and goodies.  And guess what?  Every other producer, parasite, predator and clueless doofus can simply watch their actions (or ask them about their actions) and thereby learn to be more efficiently productive more quickly than they could all on their own.  In fact, many producers will happily "hire" formerly non-productive humans to help with their productive activities, and exchange goods and goodies for their efforts.  After a short while observing what activities happen where they work, they too have a pretty good idea how to strike out on their own and be productive.

So your claim that liberty advocates and producers just want to be STRONGER in order to steal from non-producers is COMPLETELY INSANE.  For one thing, non-producers have nothing to steal... or so close to nothing that there is no point whatsoever in any such activity.  Plus, you COMPLETELY REVERSE the phenomenon, then imagine I won't notice.  The producers are not the thieves or destroyers, the predators are!

LAW is absolute, complete, total, pure FICTION.  Perhaps some misguided producers in early history wrongly or mistakenly tried to convert their "ethics" (voluntary and understanding) into "laws" (involuntary and arbitrary aggressive theft and force and fraud).  I'm not sure.  But LAW and ETHICS have NO REAL CONNECTION.

LAW is pure fiction.  LAW is nothing but pure threats, by and for the benefit of predators.

ETHICS is contextual scientific understanding (described above).  What has been missed by EVERYONE throughout history (as far as I can tell) is that ETHICS only applies to human producers, because that is the only and necessary context within which it applies or makes any sense whatsoever.

ETHICS only applies to producers.  In a very real and fundamental sense, this is THE fundamental choice for a human being.  Will you be a producer, and therefore subscribe to the fundamental causal relationship between your actions and their consequences?  Or will you be a predator, and therefore just get away with whatever you want, if you think you can?

That is a CHOICE.  That is THE FUNDAMENTAL CHOICE for every human being.


When you go back through history, the kinds and emperors and such were NOT the "best and brightest".  They were the most effective predators.  The dangers you worry about do not come from producers (as you seem to imagine), they come from predators (who you praise, and apparently can't imagine being free of).


Also understand an important consequence of human production.  In the few decades and centuries after the knowledge of human production spread across the globe, the human population of earth exploded by factor of 10,000 or so.  The reason?  The reason is clear.  Because even a fraction of humans who adopt human production as a way of life generates tens or hundreds of thousands of times the quantity of goods and goodies that allow humans to survive and be healthier and happier.

If you wish to end the producer, and return to complete predator dominance, AT LEAST 99.9% of mankind MUST DIE and WILL DIE.  Is that really what you want?


You are exactly backwards about almost everything.  The current state of affairs, where the predators increasingly dominate everything, is precisely the farce that traces back to Plato (the philosopher king idea, which is PRECISELY what the oligarchs and central banks mimic if not implement today).


We don't need "the state to wither away".  The most egregious human predators ARE the state.  The so-called "state" is just a fiction, merely a name, that MEANS and IDENTIFIES these most egregious of human predators.

No, we don't need the state to wither away... we need the human predators as well as the fictional state they pretend to be... TO DIE.  IMMEDIATELY IF NOT SOONER.  And that is the only solution.

There is no "nation"... that is a pure fiction.

There is no "government"... that is a pure fiction.

However, there are human beings, and they do live on a planet.  What we "need" is for human producers to wear 6-shooters (better yet, 666-shooters), and instantly exterminate every last human predators they encounter with extreme prejudice.  And no, this is NOT unethical.  In fact, this treats predators EXACTLY in accordance with the predator modus-operandi.  Everyone (including predators) can and should defend themselves against predators.  To imagine that somehow producers should NOT defend themselves against predators is... definitely the most pro-predator theory anyone could imagine!  And yet, that is the dominant theory today.  The predators can kill millions in wars (with no negative consequences to them), the police-state thugs kill millions on the streets (with no negative consequences to them), but somehow, in what must be one of the most insane phenomenon in the universe, humans accept that, but do not accept producers killing predators in self-defense!  Now you know why makind is finished.  They're too stupid and corrupt to survive!

Only when human producers become willing to treat predators of ALL species as predators can the good life be achieved by decent human beings.  Nothing else will work.  Nobody else has any interest in the healthy, efficient, productive existence.  And so, nobody else can be expected to lead mankind to the good life, not the savage life humans have today, dominated by human predators.

IndianaJohn's picture

"sucking the life out of human producers" is what parasites do. Predators kill you and eat you. Criminals take what they want from you and then kill you for sport. I must add the obvious; all warfare is an armed robbery.  

honestann's picture

The term "parasite" is simply one type of "predator".  Obviously the fundamental nature of both is the same... suck the life out of other creatures.  In the context of humans, calling the oligarchs, politicians and their paid thug enforcers "predators" makes more sense, because it leaves the term "parasite" for the endless "small fry" humans who vote in huge numbers for the predators, because the predators leave them a few scraps from the human producers they consume (in exchange for their votes).

Also, a fundamental feature of "predator" is to actively hunt their prey.  Without a doubt the humans who call themselves "government" and "corporation" actively hunt their prey.

AnAnonymous's picture

Empire is expensive.

Without it, though, 'americans' will be worse off. Comical 'american' article.
This 'american' propagandist smells that the question of racket becomes central: an extorter/farmer is always worse off when the extortion/farming business is closed. It is not an open question. The open question is for the extorted, farmed who might be better/worse off.

'Americans' are spreading 'americanism'. They are good at it and they manage to do it. Of course, claiming that they are spreading something else will lead to erroneous conclusions.

Laughters at the unbalanced vision of the wars: this 'american' author lists the expenses and fails to list the revenues. Where is the list of those 'american' middle classers who saw their life changed thanks to the opportunities provided and fulfilled by the wars?
Usual 'american' tric: with no revenues, it cant be profit, with no expenses, it cant be loss.

The conclusion line is 'american': the 'american' middle class do not benefit from the wars. They cant.

EBT excepted's picture

nor are the impoverished any richer since the war on poverty began...that is, if rich means the ability to fend for ones self...

Ghordius's picture

Liberal imperialism is not directed toward gratuitous conquest but toward maintaining a global environment conducive to liberalism.

historically/empirically sound thesis, imho. the fun is in this Mises club having a fit because of that

liberal imperialism goes back to the very first empires, and it's based on a very simple call: "My Lords, our merchants are being unfairly harassed by foreign devils! We have to do something about it, we have to protect our peaceful trade, by Jingo!"

and so warships and armies are sent to errands

then liberalism, in it's most primitive form, is just that: our merchants, our trade. the next step is to treat merchants fairly at home, to allow them status and to allow them to keep most of their gains. which, interestingly, is a stepping stone to pluralism and the rule of law, which then can lead to treat fairly everybody at home

there is nothing holy about liberalism per se. because the merchant might be as well buying slaves against weapons and mind-destroying drugs, or subvert or even conquer the countries he sees as his legitimate markets

one of the best examples of liberal empire was Globalization 1.0, aka the British Empire, and it's two most notable "vehicles of empire" were the East India Company and Cecil Rhodes

the question a truly liberal empire has to pose itself is always: "how much". How much support our interests get, and "when is it too much". Before the logic of the empire starts to destroy the liberal fabric at home. Ghandi posed that question, btw

Xandrino's picture


If this is true, it's the biggest lie EVA


"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it." Padelford, Fay & Co., vs. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 520 You have to understand that Great Britain, (Article six Section one) the United States and the States are the parties to the Constitution not you. Let me try to explain. If I buy an automobile from a man and that automobile has a warranty and the engine blows up the first day I have it. Then I tell the man just forget about it. Then you come along and tell the man to pay me and he says no. So you take him to court for not holding up the contract. The court then says case dismissed. Why? Because you are not a party to the contract. You cannot sue a government official for not adhering to a contract (Constitution) that you are not a party too. You better accept the fact that you are a Slave. When you try to use the Constitution you are committing a CRIME known as CRIMINAL TRESPASS. Why? Because you are attempting to infringe on a private contract that you are not a party to. Then to make matters worse you are a debt slave who owns no property or has any rights. You are a mere user of your Masters property! 

g speed's picture

forbidden knowledge? ---the only forbidden knowledge is living forever-- It's all the kings and emperors ever wanted---

so--with out further adieu---  

gov't is obsolete--