Is there anything Good about America?

fc8a3eb0-400c-44d9-9378-d95b7a2e94ac

One of my favorite national flags of real life.

Libertarian Case against the Blame America First band wagon

So! Many people readily go out of their way to paint America as a kind of real-world Satan. Now, I may be a total atheist but I say this metaphor is totally backwards, if anything the correct libertarian and moral metaphor about America in biblical terms I say is to paint America as a real-world Jesus. Why? Because nearly all America lovers, myself included, are very happy to accept that America has very severe flaws at present. And some of us, myself also included, are happy to tell you the US constitution was far from perfect.

However, there are absolutely no America haters that apply our side’s messaging method to their messages. Instead, every single America hater uses the very same overly emotional, eagerly ill-mannered messaging methods I first encountered in my middle school teen days of debunking Anti-atheism rhetoric. So America lovers are a mixed side of folks like me who speak wisely and are factual vs those who are what Cato Institute rightly condemns as ‘Patriotically Correct‘. While America haters consist purely of those who love to think interrupting, shushing, swearing for every 3rd word, and name calling are the tools of politely & classily winning debate. Now that all this is done factually, let me get to the titular topic.

So, what’s good about America?

Allow me to start with what’s actually wrong with America, meaning what is factual criticism of America, in a numbered list of questions.

  1. Why are there so very few politicians these days treating the Bill of Rights as totally unconditional?
  2. How come when a little kid sets up a lemonade stand he or she is at high risk of a super expensive fine?
  3. If giant medical and other corporations make billions per year how does that entitle them to government handouts?
  4. When exactly are we going to end that senseless and purely good-for-nothing war on drugs?
  5. None of the burglars that steal my hard earned money with things like income tax, payroll tax, and others did anything to deserve it so why is the FairTax Act of 2017 not signed into law yet?
  6. How exactly am I the only American that’s arrived at the conclusion that Pro-Comprehensive-Sex-Ed and Pro-Life-on-abortion are mutually dependent on each other?

But please do grant me permission to stop there. Now, allow me to go into actually answering the titular question. Ya know, finally.

Being Asked the title Question one last time

Again, I feel like doing this as a numbered list.

  1. World’s largest economy, even by excluding government activity from the numbers!
  2. World leader in Nobel Prizes in general.
  3. World leader in Nobel Science Prizes.
  4. World leader in Science Documents.
  5. World leader in University Integrity.
  6. NASA, NOAA, DOD and their American free market counterparts share the ‘world leader’ status in Space Exploration.
  7. First free society and minimal state to be recognized as its own country.
  8. Favorite nation on the planet to be an immigrant in.
  9. Leading nation in the defeat of Nazism.
  10. First country in human history to ever quit slavery.
  11. First country in human history to ever sign up for legal equality.
  12. First country in human history to ever choose equal opportunity over equal outcome.
  13. Still to this day one of Earth’s top 20 freest market and freest enterprise economies.
  14. Still to this day one of Earth’s top 10 most permissive societies regarding lifestyle liberty.
  15. Still to this day one of Earth’s top 30 most respectful countries to both individual freedom and minimal state.
  16. Still to this day one of Earth’s top 30 freest trade countries ever.
  17. Still to this day one of Earth’s top 20 most loyal countries to the Rule of Law.
  18. Still to this day one of Earth’s top 20 least corrupt governments per national level.
  19. Still to this day one of Earth’s top 30 hardest national governments to bribe.
  20. Still to this day one of Earth’s top 20 most supportive countries of Property Rights, the favorite human right of most fellow libertarians to emphasize.
  21. Still to this day one of Earth’s top 20 most transparent governments nationally.
  22. Still to this day one of Earth’s top 10 easiest nations to open an all-new small business in.
  23. Ultimate most eager nation of any Western World country to promote private charity.
  24. One of the top ten richest middle classes on the planet.

Welp, thanks everyone for reading!

~KSP Perkins

East Asian Regional Leadership belongs to Japan, not to China

soldiers51750299

Japanese troops marching through what looks like a desert.

China wants to do East Asian regional leadership, something best done by Japan.

So, I read this sadly legit article in the happily legit ‘Real Clear World’, about how China wishes only to be a Regional Leader for East Asia. However, China has made no indication since 1921 that they are in any way, shape or form deserving of this role. What’s going on is China wants to be the regional hegemony of East Asia, the East Asian regional superpower, frankly. Allow me to break down for everyone the differences between China and Japan. That way, I’m showing why every honest friend Japan has needs to shift East Asian regional hegemony status away from China and towards Japan.

Japan’s Fiscal Superiority to China

Fiscally, Japan as a society with a regime has tons of self-control that China does not have. Basically, I need to show you this by mapping how much economic liberty is in either region. Here are screen caps I took of the relevant maps.

Economic Liberty East Asia

Economic liberty in East Asia, taken from Fraser Institute. Closer to total blue means freer market, Closer to total red means more centrally planned market.

Prosperity East Asia

Average per-citizen prosperity in East Asia. Darker means richer average, lighter means poorer.

So basically from the maps I capped from above, I can tell you that the average Japanese citizen is $31,000 per year richer than the average Chinese citizen, respectively $39k annual compared to $8k annual. So basically Japan’s freer enterprise has lead it to richer average wealth per citizen, Japan having the 40th freest market on Earth and China having the 113th freest. And in that Fraser Index of 159, my country America is at 16th freest market with my immigrant ancestors’ homeland, Ireland, being 5th freest market, in case anyone’s wondering about those. And Ireland’s average Jill’s $63,000 annually makes her $6,000 richer on annual average than America’s. Go figure!

Unlike China, Japan prefers to Be Squeaky Clean

Prosperity is not the only warrant to be East Asian regional hegemony that Japan has that China does not. Japan’s drastically freer markets give it a much less corrupt government as well, as revealed to the world by Transparency International, an activist team who opposes Governmental Corruption more than anything else known.

Squeaky Clean Japan

Japan is closer to squeaky clean. China is closer to deeply corrupt.

In other words, Japan does not have the same severity of corruption issues that China does because freer enterprise for population means cleaner integrity for government.

Can Japan be the East Asian Regional Leader?

Yes, indeed it can! But every one of its honest friends, everyone in OECD and not just America for example, needs to help Japan out. For while China is 2nd toughest military on Earth, Japan is 7th toughest, thus every honest friend Japan has needs to assist it in becoming the new strongest military in East Asia. So far as I am concerned, we need to start by lowering China’s government regulation of market to basically nothing. Why? Because it is fully unwise to try to make this happen for Japan by military means. Instead, we need to look for every economic and diplomatic option for taking East Asian regional leading power away from China and giving it to Japan.

Thank you for reading, readers of mine!

~KSP Perkins

Given the dictionary definition of a Globalist… do my views make me one?

no-step-on-snek

Not sure if the above flag can refer to globalism or not. Really not going to confirm anything about it…

First off, what exactly is a globalist?

According to the dictionaries of the English language, globalism is a doctrine of treating the entire planet as a proper sphere of political influence. By this definition, ideologies which are strains foreign interventionism are all globalist in a different sense each. For example, Objectivism and Neolibertarianism are both globalist ideologies in the sense of treating the whole planet as the sphere of influence for free market capitalism. And on the evil side of globalism, Islamic Totalitarians are globalists in the sense of treating the entire planet as the sphere of influence for Islamic Theocracy. But let’s look at who I am individually and determine if I am any kind of globalist, as I just broke down there are both Good globalisms and Evil globalisms too.

Where I stand on American Influence overseas.

Looking at what Americanization does on foreign soil regarding cultures, I love it. I don’t care that McDonald’s is seen as the symbol of Americanization, I care that when American civics influences the laws and norms of foreign countries, those countries wind up being less corrupt and more into liberty. Individual liberty, that is. And I am not the guy who created this sentiment of wanting America to spread individual freedom and economic liberty to the entire globe either.

Back on Christmas Day of 1780, Thomas Jefferson spoke to the American People about Empire of Liberty, the goal of spreading freedom to the world not as a war monger but rather as a role model. Basically, America was founded on everything every advocate of free will calls “Morally Good”. Even today, America is either at the top or near the top of everything that John Locke minded libertarians and Ayn Rand minded objectivists can agree is good.

From human development to economic freedom to moral freedom to democracy index to human freedom index to internet hosts to internet access to scientific sources to innumerable other things to be saved for a future post. America stands near top or at top for each of these things as it is the only free society founded to be systemically and eternally a free society. Yes, Britain did harbor the birth of the virtues of a free society. But Britain was never founded to remain irrevocably a free society, only America was.

So how does this apply to whether the globalist label applies to me?

Basically, I am someone who thinks there are many strains of globalism and that there is only one morally good strain: Capitalist Peace Theory. If you read my tangent about how to end war and famine that is made very clear to basically the entire internet.

Thanks for reading!

~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

Nicolas Maduro the Tyrant and Murderer and the Fate Venezuela Needs Him To Get

bn-th622_venhun_p_20170504174912

This farm used to be packed with many pigs. Nationalizing farms caused it to empty drastically.

Venezuela was South America’s richest country! What happened?

Okay, so I had a very vague understanding of this issue until about 11 pm of the evening of this post. But then this tyrant named Nicolas Maduro went and nationalized all Venezuelan farms and did central planning for prices, wages, and currency production. This is currently causing a famine that so far has killed 35 people. Which is small, but I am going to carefully explain to you how that can be stopped from ballooning to something like 35 thousand or 35 million. After explaining to you what I know about the world around me in the context of Venezuela’s situation.

Attempting utopia and rejecting capitalism from any public policy field in particular has never worked.

Capitalism may be a flawed economic doctrine, as in it does leave it entirely up to consumers what markets can and cannot do including in terms of worker treatment. But it is the best we have as it is the only one that has trained consumers to truly be concerned with the quality of what they buy. It’s also the only one that’s trained consumers to actually be concerned with the conditions of workers, as well as the work ethics of workers.

Here in the Digital Age, this is obvious in the existence of tools like Yelp and Meta Critic and Rotten Tomatoes! People go to these places to be honest about their individual experiences at markets. Personally, I learned this lesson about economics from reading Game Informer reviews of video games during my teenage life. If I see that a game has been found to be unplayable or if it is found to have endless amounts of rude or trashy content that ESRB – the content maturity rating people for games – gave the game a free pass on, then I do not buy a copy of that game!

Also, when a Yelp review indicates that a restaurant or a grocery store is poorly managed in any way, whether its badly treated workers, lazy work ethics, corrupt practices for upholding store policies, or whatever else; I boycott that place! No two people may have the exact same IQ, but easily any consumer is smart enough to know full well who to buy from and who to boycott out of existence when deciding which corporations decide which fates!

Intentions vs Outcomes

Anyone who knows how I feel about intentions vs outcomes will tell you I am gleefully and chirpily dismissive of even the best intentions if the outcomes are all atrocities.

So for example, socialists may want to stamp out corrupt behaviors by corporate executives, but their policies (tons of different taxes, spendings bigger than revenues, regulatory burden the weight of 1000 blue whales, putting politicians in charge of corporate standards) actually produce the outcomes of worsening corrupt behavior by private sectors execs and/or corrupting politicians themselves.

Meanwhile, capitalists tend to have varying intentions (because we are all individualistic Actual liberals), but what we all have in common is that our policies (only one kind of tax, revenues bigger than spendings, regulatory burden the weight of half a memory foam pillow, letting consumers boycott the corrupt corporates out of existence) are the policies that make the outcomes of truly reducing if not eliminating corporate corruption.

What needs to be done for Venezuela?

Well, Venezuela needs capitalism back, but it seems like Maduro is getting more and more power unchecked. So what I say we do for the plan is we work to unilaterally privatize Venezuelan farms. And also to unilaterally overturn Maduro’s price and wage and currency controls and put measures in place to make sure he cannot restore his power grabs. That way we can see him and his regime collapse without losing any American or other Western world lives. Thanks readers!

~KSP Perkins

What Capitalist Regime Change is, why I support it, and why I advocate for it.

judge-2-6-1897

Political concept art in an 1890’s news magazine about the Thomas Jefferson concept ‘Empire of Liberty’

To be defining the terms

Firstly of all, what exactly is regime change in general?

  • Regime Change is the act of converting the political atmosphere of another country into some different political atmosphere.

Next, we must define capitalism in an honest way.

  • Capitalism is an economic system and doctrine of private individual ownership of items and talents, of investments which are decided by individual decision, of prices, profits, and wages rising every time demand gets bigger than supply, and of these three dropping every time demand gets smaller than supply.

Finally, we can talk about what democracy is.

  • Democracy is a government wherein supreme power is voted on by the people, often on the basis of majority rule and of ‘wisdom’ of the crowds.

Okay, so now we have three solid pieces of a legit jumping point.

Contrasting Two forms of Regime Change

Okay, now let us look at the difference between Democratic regime change vs Capitalist regime change.

Democratic regime change means once the free society has militarily defeated the tyranny that either threatened or assailed it, the free society then…

  • sends its military into a nation-building campaign that sets up the natives of the tyranny with whatever kind of society they want as long as it features semi-annual elections.

Capitalist regime change means once the free society has militarily defeated the tyranny that threatened or assailed it, the free society… you ready for this?

  • Pulls a huge majority of its surviving victors home and leaves something like 10% or 20% of the surviving victors behind to guard the flourishing of free markets and free trade in what used to be the tyranny.

So in essence, Capitalist regime change is the action we took with Germany and Japan after World War Two and the action we took with South Korea after the Korean War.

Any errors with this idea?

As with any idea formulated by people, there are flaws to Capitalist Regime Change, and no these do not include the fact that it’s a form of regime change. And it most certainly does not include the focus of capitalism on the individual and its open favoritism to smarter work ethics, those are some of the best things ever about capitalist regime change.

The actual major flaw of Capitalist Regime Change is that it takes about half a century for free markets, free trade and free enterprise to finish raising government integrity and raising moral freedom for long enough for American military oversight to stop being needed by the foreign society.

Another big flaw with Capitalist Regime Change is you are keeping a few thousand US troops on a foreign soil they just destroyed the latest ruler of over undeniable evidence of that latest ruler doing state sponsorship of terrorism. Tends to be dangerous for the American troops, or if some other free society like Israel or whoever is doing it, then it’s still dangerous for the overseers. Mainly, as this is the big factor for why Capitalism takes a while to take root even with totally no nation building and with no world-police acts of nannying foreigners whatsoever. Basically you will have surviving acolytes of the previous despotic statist regime that will take up arms over how they see free trade and free migration altering the society they used to callously enforce tyrannical grip of.

Why I favor a foreign policy of Capitalist Regime Change

Because tyrannical societies are barbarians who forfeit all rights to national sovereignty by rejecting individual liberty and by rejecting free enterprise. And also, there is already a case I did for how Peace On Earth is going to totally require the making of every country in humanity into a Free Market economy with no monopolies.

As for here, I will do short summary. The root cause of terrorism, genocide, slavery, famine, war, and other atrocities done by abusive authorities, governmental or otherwise, is Non-capitalism. Not America, not Israel, not Neocons, not Zionists, not even bigotry. Only non-capitalism.

Lastly, I will say this. I find it consistent with the doctrine of free will and the principles of individual liberty to favor a form of regime change that imposes the economic system & doctrine that has created more prosperity and more transparency than any other devised by people. Thank you readers;

~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 End War And Famine: Make Every Country a Free Market Capitalism Land

Introduction

Capitalist Peace Theory

What is a Free market? And what is Capitalism? Merriam-Webster dictionary explains.

Some very simple points I want to make quite clear. And yes, I will try to keep each sentence 20 words or shorter in length.

  1. Ethnic Diversity does not lead to war or to famine. Countries with minimal ethnic diversity tend to be the most eager to civil war.
  2. Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and even Religious Affiliation. All of these basically avoid correlating to war and famine.
  3. As much as I respect democratic peace theorists, I don’t see as big a tie between democracy and peace as I see between capitalism and peace.
  4. According to me, based on what I can gather data-wise, only one thing fully correlates to terrorism, genocide and other anti-humanism atrocities. Socialism and Statism in any form at all inherently correlate to a belligerent, barbaric, misanthropy land. Capitalism inherently correlates to a land of peace, commerce, honest friendship and of no alliances needed. This is not an argument but rather an empirical fact.

How to End War aka How to End Famine

Free market countries limit their disputes with each other to just peaceful ones. Often these lead to Agreeing To Disagree. Planned market countries incessantly go to war with each other like war is water to them. And planned market nations obsess on war against free market nations.

Historical Quotes on Capitalist Peace Theory

Immanuel Kant, who I personally don’t know enough about to really pass any intellectually honest judgement onto, said this:

  • The spirit of commerce, sooner or later, takes hold of every nation, and has no room for warfare.
  • In his 1795 essay “Perpetual Peace”

Norman Angell, who individually I only know for this quote, had this to say:

  • Trade interdependence in modern economies makes war non-profitable!
  • In a speech he perhaps delivered in either 1911 and/or 1913.

Regulatory Burden vs Upholding Individual Liberty for all individuals equally

Many will try to argue, I suspect, that an absurdly giant regulatory burden is the only thing…

  • preventing toddlers from starving to death
  • holding abusive CEOs in check
  • keeping human rights the norm of the human species
  • allowing people freedom of choice in healthcare
  • allowing people freedom of choice in education
  • allowing people to choose secular morality in place of organized religion

None of these “people” who argue this get any sympathy from me, NONE. Instead I am going to preemptively debunk them right here and now.

  • Broken Windows Policing
    • Constitutional problem with this kind of policing (in America, anyway). Stop and Frisk for example is toxically anti-4th-amendment.
    • In essence, I would argue that if police would invoke and enforce natural rights to life, to liberty and to pursue happiness there would be no need for a regulatory burden
    • And in turn, I’ll doubly argue that if there was no regulatory burden then police would free to do “broken windows” policing from within what’s allowed in the Bill of Rights.
    • But no, in America anyway, police have to be super glued to 80,000 regulations that have nothing to do with upholding life, liberty and pursuit of happiness equally for all individuals.

Capitalism: demonstrably Better at ‘Treat others as you wish to be treated’ than Any form at all of Socialism

Key to moral freedom and to governmental integrity, for the most part, is what free market capitalism is.

Economic Freedom maps:

Heritage Foundation map left, Fraser Institute map right. But then look at the maps below.

Left is Transparency International map of Corruption Perception Index. Right is World Index of Moral Freedom map. There is a mostly diamond-hard correlation painting capitalism as both key to transparency and key to permissive society.

Conclusion

In case you need a simpler case than even what’s laid out above, here.

  1. The root cause of famine in humanity is Anti-capitalism
  2. The root cause of refugees in humanity is Anti-capitalism
  3. The root cause of poverty in humanity is Anti-capitalism
  4. The root cause of pollution in humanity is Anti-capitalism
  5. The root cause of corruption in humanity is Anti-capitalism
  6. The root cause of war in humanity is Anti-capitalism
  7. The root cause of genocide in humanity is Anti-capitalism
  8. The root cause of terrorism in humanity is Anti-capitalism

Lastly, I am going to now thank you all for reading this,

~Perkino

PS I am lately trying to get away from the ‘LDA’ label, especially as my true nickname all along was and is and will always be ‘Perkino’, to be honest.

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