The Logical Anarchy Today Show Episode 212 – Trump Strikes Syria and What This Could Mean

Logical Anarchy Today – Logical Anarchy Today Episode 212 – Trump Strikes Syria and What This Could Mean

Trump has launched 59 missiles at Syrian military targets. This is a complete and unsurprising reversal on his promises. On this episode, Jon talks about why this is a problem and how bad this could possibly be.

US air strikes in Syria: Russia suspends agreement preventing direct conflict with American forces

Here’s how much 59 Tomahawk missiles cost

Donald Trump Foreign Policy Speech

Old Trump Tweets About Syria

Logical Anarchy Merchandise

Tom Woods Liberty Classroom

Interested in Bitcoin as an alternative to US Dollars? Use our Coinbase link!

If you sign up with our coinbase link and purchase $100 in bitcoin, you will receive an extra $10 from coinbase.

The “Shift” Bitcoin debit card is through coinbase as well.

Support the show by entering Amazon through our link HERE!

Support the show with Bitcoin HERE!

Use this address to add the Logical Anarchy Today show to your podcatcher or subscribe on iTunes!

Liberty Classroom!

Logical Anarchy Today Episode 12 – America’s Terrorist Bastard Children

Logical Anarchy Today – Logical Anarchy Today Episode 12 – America’s Terrorist Bastard children

On this episode of Logical Anarchy Today, Jon discusses America’s role in shaping the Middle East into it’s current day chaos. This is a great episode to listen to debate people with on how the US is completely unjustified in meddling in the region.

Bin Laden, Warrior of “Peace”.

Why Assad Isn’t “Our Son of a Bitch” by Sheldon Richman

The Hidden Origins of Syrias Civil War

The US Hand in the Syrian Mess

Blowback the Prequel

How the US baited Saddam

How Bush 41 Tricked Saddam

Jon totally under estimated how many children died in US sanctions on Iraq. It was 576,000 children.
Read the NY Times article about that here.

Interested in Bitcoin as an alternative to US Dollars? Use our Coinbase link!

The “Shift” Bitcoin debit card is through coinbase as well.

Support the show by entering Amazon through our link HERE!

Support the show on Patreon HERE!

Use this address to add the Logical Anarchy Today show to your podcatcher or subscribe on iTunes!

The Cost of Statist Foreign Policy: War and Intervention

“War is the mother of everything.” -Heraclitus

War (good God y’all) what is it good for? Absolutely nothing? Not entirely. War is good from a certain perspective… If that perspective is to increase the revenue and power of the State and erode liberties and freedoms of the citizenry at home. Other than that, war accomplishes nothing other than destruction of life and property. There are those that argue that war boosts the economy and gives full employment. There are those that say war is fought for freedom and liberty; but the growth in power of the State back home due to the “need” to increase defense only means we become less free (see the “War on Terror” or “The War on Drugs”).  What does war do exactly? What is the true cost?

Blowback was a CIA internally coined word for the unintended consequences of covert operations. The Unites States would attack someone else, and of course, the group attacked would retaliate. More often than not, they would strike civilian targets simply because the civilians are associated with the attacking government regime.

Blowback has occurred quite often due to U.S. Foreign policy. Sometimes I wonder if the United States instigates attacks on purpose so they can use the guaranteed retaliatory attacks as an excuse to expand their power. This way, they can create organizations like the N.S.A. or the T.S.A and other alphabet soup departments who’s sole purpose is to infringe on our rights or spy on us. They militarize the police at home by giving them tanks and dressing them up like Marines in Iraq. We have even gone so far as to adopt war tactics for domestic policing which is not appropriate since the tactics a soldier use do not regard the “rights” of their enemies very highly. Consequently, neither do domestic police regard our rights as they become more and more militarized. They take away guns because “We can’t have it too easy for terrorists and bad guys to get them”. All of this is done under the guise of our own protection. It is either this, or Governments really are that stupid as to believe that they can attack someone else without instigating an equal or greater response. All of these facts make it hard to argue that “war is fought for freedom” when freedoms always erode during and after war.

Government Protects its Rackets, Not its People
Governments protect us like a rancher protects his cattle. Seeing as Government is just a giant non-producer that leeches off of it’s citizens through taxes, they will “protect” us not because they care about our lives but because they care about our wallets. Wars are fought to defend a tax base or steal someone else’s. That is the only reason wars are fought when one reduces the reasons down to their core issues.

Governments cannot survive if a portion of their tax base is killed or annexed. If they do survive with a smaller tax base, their taxation racket is at least less ludicrous profit wise than it was before. Therefore, wars are fought to protect the racket and instituted robbery any particular State has. This is why governments make us less safe. If a free society existed where force was evenly distributed through a well armed populace, an invading force would have to build the institutions for taxation from the ground up. In the end, it would be more costly to build and maintain this tax base than it would yield in revenue. That is why a free and well armed society is safer than a centralized, less free one.

On the flip side this is precisely we the United States is in a constant state of war. It can gain influence by toppling dictators it does not like and instituting ones it does. This is not to spread democracy and freedom but to expand the protection racket. The “freedom and liberty” speech is given to the masses in order to make it so they can swallow inflation and higher taxes in order to pay for their statist crusades and machinations of war and profiting from it.

War Does Not Create Wealth
There is a common fallacy that circulates among State apologists that argues that war is good for the economy. “Look at WWII,” they’ll say. “It helped to end the depression!.” I have already shown this to be false in another post, but we can have a simpler argument against wars supposed economic gains here.

War diverts capital, labor and resources from the true demands of the market that lead to innovation and wealth, to destructive ends. Many potential laborers are wounded, maimed and killed in war. Resources that could be better used towards innovations in the market are diverted towards tanks and bombs. This can only stagnate an economy, not boost it.

If wealth and prosperity were the true goal we would abolish all tariffs. A wealthy trading partner makes more wealth for the other party than invading it would. If we wanted to excerpt control over the world, we should do so through voluntary business relationships, not through dropping bombs.

The Alternative
People like me advocate for non-intervention in foreign conflicts where the Unites States is not immediately threatened. We are called “isolationists” and told “Look, isolationism didn’t work very well in WWII.” Again there is a common collectivist fallacy present here. It’s really quite anti-freedom to think that the only way a population can interact with others outside their borders is through their government. That mentality shuts down a lot potentially prosperous global relationships. But isolationism does not equal non-intervention.

Isolationism has always been a smear word used to muddle up non-intervention. It was coined in the 19th century by Alfred Thayer Mahan, a militarist, who called people “isolationists” because they opposed American Imperialism. In his time you were an “isolationist” if you opposed “civilizing” the Philippines at the point of a gun. Now it’s a similar thing if you are opposed to “civilizing” Syria and Iraq.

Non-intervention is not advocating for having no stake in the global community, it only goes about it differently. Trade with people rather than bomb them. It’s really not that complicated.

War is massive propagandized organized murder. It isn’t anything else. If one loves liberty, free markets and freedom of the individual, one has to oppose war on 3 fronts. The moral ground, the utilitarian perspective, and the pragmatic perspective. War is not moral and it does not work economically therefore a population should not have such itchy trigger fingers if it values freedom and prosperity.

Intervention In Iraq is a Terrible Idea

Iraq is just a mess right now. The Kurds have seen an opportunity to make a move and seized Kirkuk (which to be fair was theirs to begin with). The Kurds are actually pretty good fighters but they are more used to fighting in the mountainous and hilly places they call home. Kirkuk does not play to their strengths so it will be interesting to see if it comes to fighting. We have the Sunni Insurgents who are, for the moment, welcoming to ISIS since they both want the same thing, Nouri Al-Maliki (The Prime Minister) gone. An interesting alliance that has come about through the destabilization of Iraq is the uneasy Alliance with the Baathist (the party of the former dictator Saddam Hussien) and ISIS. Jordan has been deploying on it’s borders and if something was to threaten Jordan’s borders, you can be sure that Israel will get involved. If Israel gets involved you can be sure the Zionists here in the States and abroad who hold some sway with the U.S. will call for U.S. intervention.

Iran will have to get involved too since they directly border Iraq and have always been in opposition to these Binladenites. More than likely this will end up being Iran’s equivalent to the Vietnam War. The odd part about this is that Iran and the U.S. now share the same interests so they will make for some strange bedfellows. Through all of this, Maliki is not listening to either the U.S. or Iran. Both powers are telling him to resolve with the Sunnis and give them a stake in government as was one of the bench marks of the U.S. occupation. He of course wants nothing to do with this idea and has had his own plans for the country.
So one can see how the country is a mess. We have ruined the idea of “freedom” for these people, especially the younger generations. For them, “freedom” is the right American’s have to kill them and they want nothing to do with that. Now Obama is a terrible leader, but this is not completely his fault. Yes, he bankrolled ISIS in Syria in his attempts to out Assad (even though Assad has been fighting Al Qaeda himself). We thought we could ally ourselves with Al Qaeda in Syria because, well Al Qaeda is not backed by Iran and Assad is (as a side note, ISIS was part of Al Qaeda at one point but pretty much said to Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current Al Qaeda leader, “screw you old man!”). So naturally we ally ourselves with “The Butchers of New York” as Scott Horton likes to call them, simply because we want to take Iran down a peg in the region. What a bunch of hypocrites right? But none of this would have happened if Bush and his cronies had never pushed for the invasion of Iraq back in 2003. In fact many Neo-Cons today are essentially saying “Look, we were wrong about Iraq, Its our fault. But what are you going to do? Are you going to let the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria go from the name of an organization to a country?! Put some boots on the ground!”
My answer to them would be “Yes, let them become a country.” First of all it is not our fight, what would we be fighting for now? There is no good excuse to go back there. Let these Binladenites do what they do best, kill each other. ISIS will not be able to hold power for long on their own. If the U.S. gets involved we will assuredly entrench them further in the region. ISIS and it’s leader bu Bakr al-Baghdadi, have declared Caliphate which means they are calling for submission from all Muslims. It is them claiming to be the defenders of the faithful. This puts them at odds with Al Qaeda who have already declared themselves as such. So let us just sit back and watch them destroy themselves. We have no reason to get involved and its still not too late. It was not Obama’s fault for pulling back troops, who had no business being there in the first place, back home. It was Bush and his administrations lies that are the progenitor of this mess.

I’d like to end by asking what the middle east would look like if the U.S. never meddled in it. Iraq and Syria would probably still be dictatorships, but the entire region itself would be much more stable. Al Qaeda and ISIS would never have had a foothold in the region. I mean, that is precisely what the U.S. seems to have fought for right? It wasn’t freedom, it was to give these despicable groups a foothold in the region because the U.S. hates Iran. And they hate Iran because they can’t control them.