That Newest North Korean Nuclear Missile Controversy Though…

170109100009-north-korea-missile-launch-threat-trump-hancocks-lok-00002012-large-169

Kim Jong Un, pre-teen boy with nuke-headed ocean-crossing missiles. And an army of impulses posing as a brain.

The Kim Dynasty poses a real problem for the American People, especially as of ultra-recently.

He ho hum. Well, I never thought I would have to address this issue in the following big terms. However, I feel I must make a small little hill of disclaimers before I legit dig into this titular topic.

Basically I am someone who is registered to vote as a Libertarian Partier for reasons that are frankly known in LP circles as minarchist reasons. Espousing minarchism as I do means that I believe there are only two services for national government to provide, those are diplomats and military. Plus, on the local level which for me just means big cities and small towns, this means courts, jails, and the emergency services. Otherwise, I want other publicly marketed services to be provided by small businesses and by NGOs of philanthropy.

Now that this is out of the way, I am going to have to come out on a position that I know will dismay many if not most of my fellow LP minarchists.

Where I stand on this issue

To me, I will begin my assertion by lecturing you, readers, about the history of North Korea and its bellicosity against America’s civilian population. Elan Journo, though he’s an objectivist and thus does not identify with Libertarian Party activism, nails a pattern down better than even I ever could! Journo frankly has broken it down starting in a year I think is quite fitting for who was in charge of North Korea in which time. Yeah, go read his article linked there! After you do, here is what I say.

Okay, so here is where I stand on the issue. Frankly I am convinced through and through on the idea that the time to attack North Korea was during the Kim Jong Il reign. This means I would rule the time to attack North Korea as having been sometime between 1994 and 2011. If I was being peer pressured to annoyance levels for an exact year, I would say 2002 was the year to destroy the Kim Dynasty of The North. Basically this is because in that year, based on what Journo published to the internet, North Korea was threatening a second time to murder every American civilian in the world. First time NK was threatening genocide against Americans and trying to build a means of doing so was in 1993. We gave them what should have been their absolute only chance to earn mutual respect between America and both Koreas.

Okay, sounds factual… but why this view?

In essence I take this opinion into heart, mind, and if souls are internal organs than soul; because of an ethic for dealing with bullies, con-men, and others I learned from family. I’ve been raised to name this ethic the Two Strike Rule, as opposed to the Three Strike Rule from baseball it is named and modeled on. Which means, in this topic, Strike One was in 1993 when North Korea was boycotting an anti-nukes treaty in their desire to murder everyone who rejected the dumbass cult of Karl Marx. Then, one year later, North Korea signed a pact to change its mind about this barbarity. But yet again in 1998 there they were blowing up missiles a mile above Japan and merely four years after that, threatening to kill all Japanese and Americans in both nations [Japan and America that is].

Annihilation of North Korean regime should have been our 2002 reply to this 2002 threat of theirs against We The People and against the good people of digital age Japan.

Conclusion

Point being… we should have acted in 2002 instead of letting it get to this point, where Kim Jong Fool is bragging about having synced a nuclear warhead to an ocean crossing missile. But let me throw around Disclaimers about what I am calling for before I go. I am not calling for any kind of Democracy Promotion quagmire as was our solution to the small problem of Taliban-era Afghanistan and the fake problem of Saddam-era Iraq. What I’m truly calling for is swift and complete purging of all North Korean soldiers, politicians, buildings, vehicles, edibles, and anything else that’s not human civilians, within a 2 year or shorter, preferably much shorter, timezone.

And one more thing… we have the great misfortune of having a straw-headed clementine who has no idea what the necessity is of just doing the above to North Korea without saying anything about it beforehand to anyone or in front of anyone. Oh yeah, you know that’s me closing this post with a strategic and tactical slam against Donald Trump’s very high impulsivity level. If you ask me if this is one of those reasons someone else should have been 45th American President, I’ll answer it should have been Austin Petersen. Even Austin has admitted that a militant rollback might be needed against the insanity that is North Korea.

That’s it, I am done! Thanks for reading.

~KSP Perkins

Advertisements

Why Diplomacy With Iran Will Only Make Them Worse To The American People

tehran_1806952b

Azadi Tower, a monument in Iran, built in 1972.

America was dead on arrival for even considering diplomacy.

Okay, so I stumbled upon this piece of venomous appeasement addict trash. And I really must say, the article, even though I agree that imposing democracy is a provenly mistaken idea, is calling for an even worse answer to Iran. However, I am going to start off by getting the people reading this who don’t know about Iran’s bellicosity to Americans up to speed. Firstly, I am going to break down the history of Islamic Nationalism, starting with little difference there is between it and the German, Italian and Japanese nationalisms of World War Two.

Islamic Nationalists vs European Nationalists

Basically, the only difference between Islamic nationalism vs the nationalisms we fought against during WW2 is that while European and Japanese nationalisms are all racisms, Islamic nationalism is a school of thought among religious fanatics. Other than that, we basically see all the same behaviors inherent to all of nationalism. Reading up on the Laws of War for the sake of breaking them malevolently, running society to be a pile of absolute despotism, fear-mongering for the sake of reducing individual liberty, war-mongering for the sake of demolishing free enterprise, so forth.

How did America defeat European and Japanese Nationalisms in WW2?

Historically, America and other free societies like post-WW1 Britain, for example, have defeated the evils of nationalisms. But how? Frankly, diplomacy and negotiation was never the key to defeating these nationalist movements, all of which wanted to enslave the entire world to despotism. Instead, the solution for a free society to the problem of foreign dictatorships aspiring to force one kind of nationalism or another onto the world, was always war. Not a war of regime change, not a war of conquest, not a war for paternalism, not a war for democracy promotion, certainly not a Cold-War-style war of containment. Rather, a war of annihilation. Allow me to cite examples from history.

When Winston Churchill was the president of Britain, there was a time when he decided he would work bilaterally with America to send a crushing firestorm all over every urban piece of Nazi Germany. In February of 1945, Dresden and all other Nazi occupied big cities and most Nazi occupied small towns, were showered in massive firebombs because, according to Churchill, “The severe, the ruthless bombing of Germany on an ever-increasing scale will not only cripple her war effort… but will create conditions intolerable to the mass of the German population.”

Same action was taken bilaterally between America and the people who are now the Taiwanese, against Japanese nationalism. We worked with… I think I can just call them Taiwan… on totally destroying all big cities and most small towns under General Hideki Tojo’s control, the same way we worked with Britain on against the Nazis.

Okay, how then must America defeat Iran and why?

Firstly I am going to go into why.

Why? Iran wants to impose a sort of religious fanatic theocracy onto every part of the planet, including America. Hence why the enemy ideology we must call by its best known name: Islamic Nationalism. Basically Islamic Nationalists are a politically motivated subset of muslims who want to use arbitrary militarism and despotic imperialism to turn the entire planet into a religious fanatic ball of authoritarian statism. But Iran is not the only one; there is also Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Qatar. The only difference is this ‘team’, if you can even call them a team, sees Iran as wanting the ‘right’ goals in the name of the ‘wrong’ brand of Islamic Nationalism.

Time for how.

How? We basically need to do to Tehran and every Iranian big city what we did to every big city in Nazi Germany, to do so is within our right of self-defense, given Iran’s history of taking Americans hostage. Unarmed, physically and mentally peaceful American civilians who were only there for tourism, diplomacy and/or trade. However, I will not go into any deeper details than that as I do not want to make anything easy for these enemies to dance around. Any deeper detail I think is best kept secret between the United States military and its fellow free enterprise country militaries, frankly.

Closing Ramble

Okay, so now you know how I feel towards the issue of Iran’s bellicosity toward us. But I need to answer one more potential question before I sign off. “What do we do after victory against the enemy?” Well, my answer is also based directly on what we did to keep nationalisms defeated forever in Germany and Japan and Italy post-WW2. Leave a few thousand US troops behind, after drafting a constitution for each of these currently Islamic Nationalist regimes, after we defeat them. These constitutions need to be based directly on the principles and ideology of minarchism. Lastly, we will need to be overseeing these for about 50 years before they fully become free societies, just as was the case with Germany, Italy and Japan.

Thanks for reading this, my visitors!

~KSP Perkins

The Statism of Opposing Regime Change in Iran: Liberty minded case against letting Iran stay as it is at present; part 1

92031f8a0a7496e3486e6123fba248d6

“This deal will HEAL our relations! Just have faith here!”

No, I will not have faith in the deal!

Ugh…. here we go again. So I was sitting in the break room of my workplace around reading some Reason Magazine via the Reason Magazine app on my phone, during my break from 2;15 to 2;30. Frankly I stumbled upon this piece and I read the full thing, and wrote a hand written rough draft to debunk it. But then on my way home after clocking out at 4;00… I decided I am better off debunking it digitally.

Debunking my own default political news source on a big issue.

Basically I’ll open like this.

Disclaimer one. The following rebuttal is not about accusing the author of wrong-think or any tyrannical charge, frankly. Instead, it is about trying to explain to this author I’m gonna debunk, that he does not seem understand the world around America. And that I suspect it’s because of antiwar activist rhetoric.

Disclaimer two. I have been into the doctrine of free will since roughly the age of questioning what I really believe, which I assume is fourteen. I’m in favor of free trade, marriage privatizationcharter schools and free banking. I oppose the entire status quo of Taxation in the United States, and favor snappily replacing all of it with a national sales tax of 15% for anyone whose hourly wage is more than $20. My stance on healthcare, food, clothing, housing, and other facets of standard of living? Four words; Unlimited, Freedom, Of, Choice.

Okay, time for rebuttal!

It was not Iran that spawned the scariest enemy now on the horizon—the Islamic State group. It was the U.S. occupation of Iraq after we invaded in 2003 to, yes, topple the government. President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were among those who thought America could never be safe as long as Saddam Hussein was in power.

As it happened, America was safer with him than it has been without him. The invasion bogged us down in a bewildering civil war that left 36,000 Americans dead or wounded, destabilized the region, and expanded the influence of … Iran

How does Steve fit so much wrong into one paragraph?

  1. The only thing stopping Iran and ISIS from uniting for their mutual goal of killing all Americans down to the last unborn… is Iran and ISIS hate each-other as a ‘wrong-think’ strain of religious fanatic statism.
  2. American invasion and occupation of Iraq 2003 to 2011 had nothing to do with spawning ISIS which was spawned purely by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, Egypt, and Lebanon sponsoring Jihadi terrorism everywhere they can.
  3. Cheney as of 1994 was against the idea of toppling Saddam because according to him “If the US goes to Baghdad then it’ll be all alone as none of our honest friends in the region or even in the OECD are willing to topple him. Even though he is making the mideast a very volatile part of the world, taking him down will just make that worse by making bits of Iraq fly off. Turkey will want a little part of it as will Iran and the Kurds will want to make an independent Kurdistan. It’d be a quagmire!
  4. Toppling Saddam made almost no difference in American safety. Instead Saddam first became enemy of us when he sponsored the murders of our then ambassadors to Kuwait, to Israel and to Turkey therefore provoking our 1991 act of smacking him right back. Then we toppled him in 2003 for a trash reason, which was explicitly stated as imposing democracy without any hint of the Liberty component anywhere in the mix. And in doing so we ended a genocidal state who sponsored terrorism until its demise.
  5. What actually destabilized the region is the 2011 total withdrawal of all 156k surviving US troops [it was 192k who went in during 2003, minus 36k which I can believe equals 156k survivors]. Our 44th POTUS did this after being requested by his entire Geopolitics team to leave behind 15k or 16k US troops to guard free trade and freedom of movement between Iraq and America. Kinda like we did for American trade and travel to and from Germany, Japan and Italy since the late 1940’s! It takes 55 years on average for a newly liberated foreign society to become a free society independently from any need for American oversight! And the US military pulling all 156k of its surviving Iraq War goers out of Iraq only eight years, 15% of the way, into that is the real culprit of this insanity we see ISIS breathing.

Faced with a perennially hostile government, our best bet is to use pressure and diplomacy to moderate its behavior—as Obama did with the Iranian nuclear deal. It’s not ideal, but it’s the best of our bad options

Relying on any means short of war to overthrow the government has little chance of working. Military force might be more effective, but it would mean full-scale war in Iran. Even if we were to win, the outcome would most likely yield more chaos, conflict and terrorism

  1. Actually, the Iran deal is the worst option on the table. Even liberty activism hero Rand Paul knew this! In the Republican Primary of 2016 he said that “I oppose the Iran deal and will seek to undo it, but I don’t instantly discount pressure and diplomacy. The true reason why the Iran Deal is the worst of our all-bad options is because it was not done through a viewpoint of strength. Raegan did do pressure and diplomacy to Soviet Russia but did it from Peace Through Strength. We have to see consistent evidence of compliance by Iran with the laws of war. I even asked John Kerry in-person if he believes Iran can be trusted to obey the laws of war? And he said ‘no’ and I said ‘then why did you go along with the Iran Deal as is!?’ As for me I would’ve never done an Iran Deal without consistent evidence of Iran complying with the laws of war.” Grant you I am paraphrasing, but point is that even Rand Paul would know you are pushing suicidal foreign policy, Steve, by endorsing the Iran Deal.
  2. Ruthlessly obliterating a state sponsor of terrorism does not create more terrorism, that’s just common sense. Terrorism is not avenging the destruction of one’s family, that’s not what terrorism is. Acts of terrorism means going around murdering innocent civilians in the name of the ideology of the regime who sponsors the actors! This is way dumber than saying that abolishing corporations who sponsor YouTube ad revenue will create even more YouTube ad revenue! Plainly makes no sense! Not to mention, going for total destruction of any and all legit military targets in a Take No Prisoners way is historically how defeating foreign tyrannies’ aggressions has been done. Here is what legit military targets are just for your information.Legit Military Target

One more thing before I close up post: Iran has been proven to use its nuclear power stations and maybe also hydroelectric dams for weapons of mass destruction and then lie about what it’s using these two elements for.

Well, thanks for patiently reading all 1190 words of that. And for all you Antiwar candidates, reporters, and other activists thanks for your negative-numbered IQ comments if you give me any… I can guess I’ll enjoy laughing at them! Will I get any, though?

~KSP Perkins

Not All Libertarians Are Pacifist-Until-Attacked Thinkers. A Geopolitical Post.

trade2520facilitation_source

The essence of the liberty movement’s foreign policy is free trade

Buying into the Ron Paul vs Neocons false dichotomy in foreign policy helps no-one but the vile and corrupt Normie Parties.

Essentially I have done this a few times before but I gotta come clean about something before we begin. This online diary is basically for me to keep getting better at articulating my thoughts as I post them in enormously different ‘how I say it’ plans.

Now that this has been verified, let us begin.

Like a dictionary definition libertarian, I think up my own individual view of the world around me and indeed of the world around America. So let me start with what I believe. Then I am going to put you through a Six-Flags-model water ride of polling facts about how regular rank & file Libertarian Partisans think on Geopolitics!

My Point of View on a Foreign Policy level

Basically, I believe that the very first pillar of the Free Will’s foreign policy Doctrine is free trade. No, that does not mean trade deals or anything to do with the alt-right’s fake definition of globalism, real definition of that word here.

Instead, free trade means undermining foreign economies’ regulatory burdens as stealthily as can be without military involvement. It means using harshly delivered diplomacy to forbid foreign governments from regulating their people’s trade overseas beyond a tariff burden and the golden rule. Free trade means demanding that our own government keep the same tariff rate on all trades with all foreign markets, with no other mandates besides the golden rule attached.

Next there is the diplomacy field. As far as I am concerned, the diplomacy field of Free Will Doctrine’s foreign policy is to play very heavy favorites with other free societies. From only negotiating and compromising with nations who are freer societies, to being a vicious trash-talker against despotic filth pits.

Also, I believe that a capitalist regime is the best-behaved, most peaceful regime possible to live under. And that the sort of moral freedom and governmental integrity that capitalism makes normal is best preserved by an unfathomably powerful military. And I also believe that the best way to keep the healthily disruptive freedom that capitalism speeds up scientific progress with going eternally is to be militarily vigilant worldwide. Not militarily active at all places at all times, but rather militarily vigilant.

  • active = acting on all foreign issues at all times
  • vigilant = only acting on foreign issues that pose serious threats to the liberty of one’s friends or one’s people

Lastly, how should a free society’s military fight? Well, to me it is a matter of not using warfare to spread the values of liberty. Instead, the military facet of Free Will’s foreign policy deals with, according to me, the time when a certain despotic filth pit threatens the free society. When there’s indisputable evidence the planned-market regime is planning to attack or has already attacked the free-market regime, then the latter needs to reply callously to the former. The capitalist regime must drive its military to do Take No Prisoners to the statist regime’s troops and to do Scorched Earth to the statist regime’s infrastructure. Whatever the pro-capitalism liberal regime needs to do to soullessly smash the planned-economy fascist regime. And once the planned-economy fascist regime is destroyed, then the pro-capitalism liberal regime can think about imposing liberty onto those the anti liberalism planned economy used to rule before it threatened violence onto the free market regime.

How Regular Rank and File libertarians look at foreign policy

As always, I look into the Pew Research Surveys from 2011 and 2014 to talk about typical libertarian foreign policy. Basically, while most libertarians are opposed to global paternalism and nation building, those are not the only normal sentiments in this Independent-majority movement in foreign policy.

For starters, half the liberty movement believes the best way to ensure world peace is through US military strength. Half also believe that overwhelming military annihilation of state sponsors of terrorism is often the only way to defeat terrorism. It’s only a third who believe both opposites. Next, it is only 5% of the liberty movement that resonate with Anti-American rhetoric like from AntiWar.malware [as I call it], fully 38% feel how I feel about America as a country. The facts-backed feeling that America is flawed but the best country there is. The majority sentiment [56%] is that America is one of the best countries on Earth along with other Western-world nations.

Curiously, the liberty movement and the regular rank & file Libertarian Partisans are both split somewhat evenly between multilateralists and unilateralists. However, the thing that mostly unites unilateralist libertarians and our multilateralist counterparts (I’m a unilateralist myself) is a hostility which I fully espouse to the United Nations as an institute. Also, most libertarians want honest friendship with China, but that sentiment I am not sure if it still exists as our relations with China are hard for even me to fully grasp. And you are reading from a foreign policy super-nerd here! Libertarians as a movement appear to be evenly split on trade deals, half the movement like trade deals, the slightly bigger half want to push free trade onto foreign economies instead of making trade deals.

Unlike the AntiWar.malware rhetoric would suggest, most libertarians including me believe that Islam puts more religious fanatics up to more war crimes than any other organized religion. And comparing that faith’s history to other faiths, I’d say that’s a historically accurate sentiment. However, we predictably don’t allow that to get us into any anti-Bill-of-Rights ramble of fear-mongering. Instead pretty much all of us keep on defending freedom of religion and right to privacy including for American muslims.

Closure

Thanks for reading this big one, other people of internet!

~KSP Perkins

I Might As Well Say Something About Nukes and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction…

mtredoubtedit1


Mushroom cloud behind mountains. What I think when I hear ‘WMD’.

For all my advocacy of Anticipatory Self-Defense, Capitalist Regime Change and Unilateral Free Trade…

Why have I never staked out an opinion on nuclear weapons let alone on weapons of mass destruction in general? Well, it may take me at least four hundred words to explain. So, everyone sit back and read this so that we can all understand where I stand, along with my own political self-discovery.

My Moral Perspective

Basically, I am going to be frank on this and on the tactical perspective. I will be totally and utterly honest and simple about my own individual moral perspective.

So far as I am concerned, only free societies should be able to decide independently whether or not to own nukes. Whether or not they have WMDs. If you don’t know what I mean by ‘free societies’, let me summarize.

  • A free society is a country that breathes the doctrine of free will and the principles of individual liberty, both in preach and in practice, both in economy and in culture.

No free society should really tell anyone but itself who can and cannot own WMDs. Basically, a free society should only concern itself with its own arsenal, not with the arsenals of its fellow free societies. Free societies should not care what anyone but themselves say about their respective arsenals.

My Tactical Perspective

My argument against a free society stocking or using nukes and other WMDs is purely a battlefield brilliance argument. Specifically, it is as simple as this.

  • Weapons of Mass Destruction, such as nuclear anythings, are totally not compatible with a Sun Tzu~like foreign policy.

In essence, I am a kind of individual liberty activist who wants to have free markets, limited government and secular morality domestically. And to get us back on topic in the foreign policy field I am most like Sun Tzu. This kind is most precisely summed up as ‘neolibertarian’; meaning exactly what I describe above about free markets, limited government, secular morality and Sun Tzu.

Which in this topic means I cannot support the mere existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction as there is no tactical brilliance at all to… any of them, really!

All Summed Up

Frankly, here is my morality regarding weapons of mass destruction. Only free societies have the moral right to choose whether or not to have WMDs, and even then I’d advise all free societies against having WMDs on behalf of a Sun-Tzu-like foreign policy.

Thanks everyone for learning and understanding where I am on weapons of mass destruction;

~KSP Perkins

The People Who Argue Against America Being Humanity’s Only Military Superpower

shutterstock_262713128

Time to debunk foreign tyranny sympathizers’ myths about American military might again.

Introduction

As far as I can tell, American military might is exactly what has allowed free markets and free trade to pop up all over the world since World War Two. Also, from what else I can gather, America’s military cannot simply retreat to within American borders and expect the world to be super duper nice to any and all American civilians. Sorry, fellow libertarians, human nature itself stringently forbids the world from working that way.

Basically as one who likes learning the facts of human military histories, I can only ask one question from now on next time a fellow libertarian argues against the American military’s global vigilance.

  • If human nature is so exceptionally perfect as of the Age of Enlightenment that foreign countries don’t need American military oversight to stick to political individualism, then…
    1. How come Karl Marx was able to get socialism normalized? How come the House of Saud was able to produce and normalize Islamic Fascism without any attention, initially, to America?
    2. How come every time since world war 2 leaving 10% of a surviving US brigade behind for 55 years has lead to a newly Westernized libertarian republic taking root?
    3. How come every time since world war 2 taking out 100% of a surviving US brigade has always lead to a barbarian regime built purely by the biggest government statists in the native population?

Of course I expect alarmingly few in the same movement with me to answer honestly as opposed to silencing me with a label or some other dishonest insult. The offensive part to me being the dishonesty, not the status quo of being an insult. In fact, I can name only two people in my movement who are more on the Dovish side of thoughts (Austin Petersen and Liberty Laura) but will still answer classily.

The ‘Bloated Spending’ Argument

The favorite argument of people who actively blow off numeric factoids about American government spending on federal level. If these people would study these numeric factoids, then here is what they would learn.

  • Out of our $854 billion in defense spending, military spending is a $617 billion majority of that.
  • That is a 72% majority of defense spending to be exact
  • The rest is stuff like foreign aid ($56 billion, 7%) and Veteran’s Handouts ($181 billion, 21%)

Also, comparing American military budget to foreign countries’ military budgets is purely about emotionally manipulating newcomers to the topic of foreign policy. Emotionally manipulate how? Basically, it’s emotionally manipulating topical newcomers into sharing the outrage of openly barbaric tyrannies toward American military oversight of the world around America. Even though this oversight is precisely what keeps the world invested in the individual rights of the human being to life, liberty and property, like John Locke advocated.

A truly facts-over-feelings comparison to make would be of American military spending to other American federal spendings. Especially as military is only the third biggest drainer of American tax revenue. Tax revenue, which by the way, is supposed to only be raised through taxing foreign trade as of the Constitution, even though I myself morally prefer Non tax Revenue Only. Anyway, Pension and Healthcare spendings are so terribly out of control that they make military spending by America look trivial on the revenue draining scale. $1 trillion and $1.2 trillion respectively, these are the spendings most in need of dramatic reduction in short order. Pensions I am not yet sure how to cut spending on, but for healthcare I’d like to see a Hong Kong style system due to their system’s high efficiency and superior life expectancy at a very low cost.

The ‘Word Policing’ Argument

Disclaimer time! I do want to get government out of the business of rescuing foreigners from themselves, and I do oppose imposing democracy on foreign countries. The latter because democracy is basically allowing, in this political topic, foreigners to choose any kind of elections they want, no matter how anti-American and no matter how anti-liberty.

Okay, that’s enough with disclaimers. Basically when I hear people talk about world policing, I ask the following objective & neutral question.

  • May you please give me an example of how the world would be better off if America just let Iran and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Sudan do whatever they want to the world around them?

And almost no one can give me an example without brazenly lying! It is very ridiculous of antiwar activists to act like they know everything about the world around them, which for me to put it bluntly is all of the time.

I might make a sequel to this for my other arguments against this kind of sentiment, but for now I am stopping here. Thanks everyone,

~KSP Perkins

Peace Activism vs Defensive War (Libertarian Case Against Antiwar Candidates or Antiwar anything)

A Libertarian case against ‘peace activist’ foreign policy

The truth is that liberty is a rare thing in the world, and only ever exists when people are eager to kill to establish and protect it… barbarians, tyrants and fascists are far more common because human nature is raw, animalistic, kill-or-die barbarism.

As the owner of the Cheshire Libertarian Town Committee, and of PD-PAL News (PD-PAL = Pro Defense Pro America Libertarianism), and a very-rare-time The Libertarian Republic anchor myself, I oppose antiwar activism. However I do not discount the moral need to keep a free society’s warfare well within the Western World norm of Right of Self-Defense.

If you don’t know already, the reality I can add to Keith’s details, is there’s only two root causes of war of aggression, meaning unprovoked acts of warfare against a neighboring society.

  1. Non-capitalism
  2. Anti-capitalism

See here for why I say that.

Diplomatic Self-Restraint vs Anticipatory Self-Defense

Which one of these two courses of actions gets more killed? The statistical reality for free societies is that it’s actually diplomatic self-restraint that gets more people killed.

It was well known during World War II that Adolf Hitler wanted to annex the entire world and purge it of any dissenters to National Socialism. Basically, that means that he wanted in part to conquer the United States. Early war against Hitler’s Germany in 1933 would have saved 21 million Non-combatant lives. But instead we decided to wait until General Tojo attacked us in Pearl Harbor for telling him to stay away from Britain’s then Southeast Asian colonies. Then we lashed out against Hitler for his attack on us over our attack on Tojo.

Speaking of Hideki Tojo, his rule over Japan got 6 million people killed, and even though only 68 of those were Americans, a 1936 war against Tojo’s Japan would have saved not just 68 American lives but 6 million human lives including those 68 Americans.

And of course World War One did nothing to really achieve any moral good, but a 1909 war against Ottoman Turkey would have saved 2 million lives ranging from 1.5 million Armenians, to 250,000 Greeks to 250,000 Syrians. And yes, Right of Self Defense does double as an option to use force to defend lives of others.

So in short, the painful reality in foreign policy is that war is inherently the only answer to evidently clear threats of foreign aggression.

To give another example, in 1917 when the Bolshevik Revolution went on and threatened to enslave the entire globe [including America] to communism, a 1917 war against Soviet Russia would have stopped the Cold War from erupting against America in 1941, long after saving 62 million human lives, foreign and American alike.

Libertarian Opinions on Foreign Policy are not all the same!

If you came here from an external link, then you noticed the 48% statistic and the rambling about how 48% of libertarians oppose antiwar activism. Where did I learn this?

Back in 2011, Pew Research Center found that half the liberty movement is very rejecting of pacifism.

Outside of the LP anyway, 67% of libertarians are Independents as opposed to Democrats or Republicans. To keep us on topic, I must point out more libertarians believe American military might is what ensures world peace than doubt. While it can be guessed that 33% believe war is not the answer to self-evident threats to the American People, 48% accept that war is inherently the only answer to self-evident threats to the American People.

Section Nine of this report, combined with all this military related data and some updates to some of it made in 2014, tells something about most libertarians on average.

Here is what the average is in the libertarian movement

Most libertarians, statistically meaning 54%, just want a domestically focused America that practices an anti-United-Nations brand of multilateralism and values stability over democracy in the GME, while still knowing that stability requires capitalism. Most libertarians, again meaning 54%, want American foreign policy to also be about getting friendlier with European and East Asian markets alike, refusing to sacrifice liberty for greater safety, and recognizing Islam as the world’s most eager religion at the moment to unprovoked war of aggression. Militarily, most libertarians want American foreign policy to be about accepting that most problems in the world would be worse without US interference, accepting that American military vigilance worldwide is what keeps world peace, and that overwhelming military force is always the only way to defeat actual threats to the American people.

Thanks everyone for reading my case against antiwar activist laws and platforms and policies,

~KSP Perkins

How to Win the War on Terror

US troops

United States military gathering to a cause

Some Advice on how to claim victory ‘against terrorism’

So I was browsing TIME Magazine’s official site and stumbled across an article posted by someone to and for The New Yorker. Specifically this article talks about the Syrian refugees and Donald Trump and the title of this thing I am replying to is ‘How to Lose the War on Terror‘. But let me stress that the article touches minimally on the titular topic, and here I am doing a responsive article that’s more on the subject than what it’s replying to.

1. Call the Enemy out by Ideology Name

One major intellectual influence of mine, Yaron Brook, tells us masterfully that a military cannot fight a tactic, and that terrorism is a tactic. He calls out the enemy properly by whipping up the term ‘Islamic Totalitarianism‘, the official name for the ideology of ISIS and their various assorted State Sponsors. Islamic Totalitarians are a political sect of Islam who seek to control every aspect of life on Earth according to puritanical intake of the teachings of the Koran and of the Hadith, specifically Sharia. Some synonyms that exist for Islamic Totalitarianism are Islamic Nationalism, Islamic Radicalism, Political Islam, Salafism and Khomeinism. One synonym I propose in order to wake many of my fellow libertarians up to the reality of its threat to libertarian ideals is Islamic Statism. So we do have a handful of options as to what exactly to call the enemy out by. World War Two was not a war against blitzkrieg but against Nazi fascism, and the US Civil War was not a war against threat-making but a war against White Supremacy. Personally I think it is intellectually honest to call these enemies Islamic Statists and/or Salafis.

2. Adopt a tough Foreign Policy Doctrine

By tough foreign policy, what I refer to in this step is to formulate a doctrine that accepts the painful realities that directly tie into foreign relations and national defense. Here is what I propose.

  1. Unilateral Free Trade
    • Go around the world circumventing foreign governments’ power over their respective societies by lowering their tax burdens, tariffs and regulatory counts to absolutely puritanical zero.
  2. Annihilation of State Sponsors of Jihad
    • With Jihad being the official name for Sharia-motivated terrorism, it should not matter to America or any of its 34 different OECD friends whether a state sponsor of Jihad is theocratic or a government of secular personalism.
  3. Preventive War
    • If we sit around and wait for a regime where Sharia applies in full to start actually sponsoring Jihad, or especially for such a regime to finish prepping its establishment military for attack then we have legit waited for too long.
  4. Capitalistic Regime Change
    • Before telling me that this is some kind of untried mass of idealist trash, let me explain to you the difference this has against Democratic regime change. As we have seen in Germany after obliterating the Nazi regime, bringing a majority of US troops home while leaving some behind to oversee the fostering by private merchants of capitalism lead Germany to become a whole new free society. While the Democratic RC of letting the people build whatever kind of democracy they want, no matter how anti-capitalist & no matter how anti-libertarian, has failed us in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

3. Treat all Islamic Totalitarian regimes in the Greater Middle East as imminent threats

If a regime is on this simple map here and it is marked in purple, then Victory ‘against terrorism’ requires We The People to brand the regime an imminent threat to the American People and also to libertarian values. No further comment needed here.

4. Militarily strategize to care purely about Victory against this Totalitarian menace

What do I mean by this? I say we need to school the US military into caring fanatically about one thing and one thing only: Victory. And this kind of schooling totally requires the United States military to be trained to spend each and every battle obsessing on total destruction of absolutely all Legitimate Military Targets, but that’s not exactly enough. We need to train the US military to passionately add any and all civil service based actors, institutions and objects as LMT; and all while keeping the exact battle plans top-secret. For the military history of American self-defense has about two or more fine examples of targeting enemy-employed civil service being mandatory to getting radically quick and fiscally libertarian victory.

5. Steps 1 to 4 should have been the plan fifteen years ago.

And this is all I have to say. Thanks for reading, and I would appreciate you my reading public signing below onto donating $1.75 per month every month, please & thanks.
“Subscribe

~LDA

List of Libertarian Principles

Superior LP Logo

If only the United States Libertarian Party promoted libertarianism as being just these principles below!

This is a Listicle about the dictionary definitions based Code of Activism for Libertarians

I hold a mansion of political opinions that, taken as a whole, can be most accurately labeled as ‘libertarian’. But there are countless people out there who have no idea what the word libertarian even means, and I think I should explain what makes me a libertarian. The meaning of a libertarian, as in the official English language dictionaries’ definition of a libertarian is this.

Person who upholds the principles of individual liberty both in words and in actions.

Furthermore, liberty means this.

Status quo of being free as in

  1. freedom from physical bounds
  2. freedom from impulsive and/or tyrannical control
  3. grandeur entitlement to various civil liberties, political rights, and economic freedoms.
  4. freedom of choice

So then libertarian principles are basically matters not of hating government but rather of deterring impulsive and tyrannical rule. I’ll name the principles and define them in my own words.

Freedom from Physical Bounds

  1. Freedom of movement
    • The freedom of people to travel to any place in the world they desire and to move to whatever nation they want if they feel a move-out need.
  2. Bodily Integrity
    • The status quo of having total freedom in regard to one’s own body.
  3. Free Migration
    • The right of people to migrate to whichever nation, province or town they choose to migrate to.

Freedom from Impulsive & Tyrannical Rule

  1. Constitutionalism
    • The idea that society should base its government on a constitution as supreme law of the nation.
  2. Rule of Law
    • The idea that government should abide by laws exactly as society does.
  3. Presumption of Innocence
    • Burden of proof being on the accuser so that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
  4. Western Democracy
    • A form of rule by elected representatives that abides by the various tenets of individual liberty.

Grand Entitlement to Civil Liberties

  1. Freedom of Speech
    • The right to express one’s own individual opinions freely without fear of being violated for one’s opinions.
  2. Freedom of the Press
    • Right for journalists to freely report the news including with blogs on the internet.
  3. Freedom of Religion
    • Freedom to choose one’s own religious or secular morality independently of any authority.
  4. Right of Self-Defense
    • Right to use defensive force to save the lives of oneself and/or the lives of others including defensive use of deadly force.

Grand Entitlement to Political Rights

  1. Right to Vote
    • Freedom to participate in elections and to cast votes for candidates and/or specific policies.
  2. Right to Petition
    • Freedom to collect signatures on a document urging government or other authority to address a specific concern.
  3. Freedom of Assembly
    • Freedom to gather together with other like minded individuals on behalf of a mutually shared cause.

Grand Entitlement to Economic Freedoms

  1. Free Enterprise
    • Freedom for private merchants and markets to compete freely with only enough government oversight to stamp out fraud, theft and force.
  2. Free Trade
    • Untaxed trade by merchants with foreign merchants that has only to deal with laws against fraud, theft and force.
  3. Supply and Demand
    • A price calculating science wherein demand surpassing supply means higher prices than average, supply surpassing demand means lower prices than average, and supply equaling demand means exact average prices, also applies to predicting profits and even a worker’s total wage for one specific shift.
  4. Freedom of Contract
    • The freedom of individuals to set their own terms and agreements within the labor market place.
  5. Right to Work
    • The freedom of individuals with jobs to choose for themselves whether or not to be in labor unions along with whether or not to work overtime.

Freedom of Choice

  • The ability and power of an individual to choose from two or more offered options when it comes to food, clothing, and various other assorted items and services.

Now that this is done…

If you like this kind of honest and simple commentary then please donate $1.75 per month with the button below. Thanks for reading!
“Subscribe

~LDA

The Liberty Doctrine: A Foreign Policy and Defense Policy for libertarians

judge-2-6-1897

I’d call myself a Jefferson libertarian for reasons I will explain in this article.

Libertarians lack cohesion on national security due to our own lacking of a Doctrine.

And so as a radically small-government libertarian, I notice about my own political psychographic a lack of national defense coherency.

I suspect this is due to our lack of a Doctrine. Almost every executive branch since the James Monroe executive has had a defensive posturing Doctrine of one kind or another. Thus I think it is only appropriate for us as libertarians to create a doctrine that reflects both the libertarian principles of Jeffersonian Democracy’s foreign policy, and the predicaments we face in the Digital Age.

Pillars

I will attempt to make pillars in sentence form without paraphrasing or copying too much. So here is my proposal, or rather my list of proposals for a Doctrine, for the US Liberty movement.

  1. Abolish trade barriers, tariffs, and corporatist elements without caring what country the barriers, the tariffs and the corporatism belong to.
  2. Treat both factions of the Salafi movement and nations where Sharia applies in full as one enemy, due to the Salafis’ desire to make Sharia apply in full to the whole planet.
  3. Stop jihads, as in genocides & holocausts by the Salafis, on their very first days of taking place.
  4. Obligate the government to avoid military alliances while obligating it to make true friendships via diplomacy and only letting government wage war to directly defend innocent people from Salafi violence.

Yeah, it is rather clear what I am calling for in the way of libertarian Doctrine of foreign policy and libertarian defense policy. Unilateral Free Trade; Ending Nations Who Adopt Salafism In Full; Preventive Anti-jihads; Basic Textbook Nonintervention.

Unilateral Free Trade

The very essence of libertarianism’s foreign policy is not trade deals, not border walls, but instinctive, unilateral free trade. Which means America’s number one concern in foreign policy (we’ll get to defense policy later) should be unilaterally setting up total free trade as pushed for by economists Friedrich Hayek and Adam Smith and Milton Friedman as the entire planet’s trade policy.

Not only was America founded on libertarian values like economic freedom, civil liberty and decentralized republic; but also it is the US military that has been working with US diplomats for seven decades so far in unilaterally propping up free trade. And of course, this is the case in US relations with a majority of foreign countries. Objectivist movement founder Ayn Rand knew the moral necessity of America making unilateral free trade its favorite thing to act on in foreign & defense policy, to; except she described it as “the essence of Capitalist foreign policy.” A very tiny nitpick, I know.

Ending Nations Who Adopt Sharia In Full

Now, what’s this doing on the list of pillars? What is Sharia, and what does it have to do with the Salafi movement? What is this ‘Salafi movement’ thing anyway?

All valid questions. Let me answer these questions in reverse order to the order I listed them in.

  1. The Salafi movement is a bombastically authoritarian, and puritanically theocratic movement that seeks to turn our entire planet into a religious dictatorship based on an unhealthily political interpretation of an organized religion called Islam.
  2. Sharia is a legal system of laws and regulations found in the Islamic holy book, which is called the Koran, and it is the most authoritarian legal system ever made by people. The Salafi movement wants to create a planet that is based in nothing but Sharia.
  3. I made this pillar the number two pillar of my “Liberty Doctrine” thing because the Salafis are to the Digital Age as the Nazis were to World War Two and as Communism was to the Cold War era. In other words, the nations who adopt Sharia in full are aiding the Salafis by doing so, and are therefore posing a new threat to the American People.

All one has to do is look up “Application of Sharia by Country” and they will know exactly which countries are the current enemies of the United States. On Wikipedia for example, the map has our current biggest enemies marked in Purple.

And as Ayn Rand Institute CEO Yaron Brook duly notes,

  • “Without logistical and spiritual support by these Islamic Theocracies, the Salafi movement cause would be a hopeless and discredited one.”

Preventive Anti-Jihads

So let me dig into what I mean by this before I dig into why it is legit part of libertarian military policy in the Digital Age.

But let’s define our terms first:

  • Preventive action refers to action undertaken to defense against predicted future aggression.
  • Due to Jihad being holy war waged for Sharia, that makes Anti-Jihad to be war – holy or secular – waged against Sharia.

The Salafi movement seems to be mostly relying on genocide to carry out their desired world conquest. And history is full of examples of ignoring genocides for many years each to lead to millions of lives lost and in these times a victory for the Salafis.

Take the deadliest in history, for example: The Nazi Holocaust 1939 to 1945. This atrocity killed 11 million innocent people across Europe, meaning 2 million dead every year, therefore 5000 dead every day. Early destruction of Nazi Germany, meaning bringing out retribution on the Nazis for the Holocaust on Day One, mathematically would have saved 10,995,000 lives across Europe.

Nowadays, if a Salafi regime is massacring its own at such a rate, it is likely that regime is targeting Christians, Jews, Atheists and Deists. Let’s say Iran decided it was going to spend however long murdering every atheist and deist in that country, for example. There are about 266,000 nonreligious people in Iran, who’s atheist and who’s deist is known only in Iran, I think. To carry out such an atrocity in two years would cost 370 innocent human beings’ lives, so a Day-One retaliation against Iran for such an atrocity would prevent 265,630 further innocent lives from being wasted.

Basic Textbook Nonintervention

Don’t go to war unless it is to save innocent lives long-term, I say. Also I say we ought to refrain from doing military alliances in order to focus on economic friendships like we have through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Lastly I believe that human rights activist groups and other NON-government entities should be able to intervene overseas but that Government should not intervene overseas, except in matters of Self Defense and Defense of Others.

According to Wikipedia, this is Non-interventionism, or as I specify it “Basic Textbook Nonintervention”. This I specify in order to oppose the puritanical Just War Theory nonsense that mainstream libertarian narrative currently passes off as the only kind of Nonintervention ever possible.

The job of spreading freedom across the globe, or ‘Empire of Liberty’, belongs not the American government but rather to the American markets and individuals. This is perhaps the main way Nonintervention differs from Isolationism, which calls for tougher border controls than is needed (disease check, security check, done) and opposes free trade of any kind. Nonintervention also differs from Isolationism in that isolationism demands private sector entities to not be allowed to do anything about any foreign troubles at all.

Interpreting Nonintervention by all of its differences from isolationism is mandatory to advancing the ideal of nonintervention.

Conclusion

I have taken four ideas, three from pragmatism and one from American libertarianism, and meshed them into a Doctrine. Thanks for reading,

~LDA