Congress has Six Bad choices for North Korea… and one Good choice.

North Korea Threat

North Korea reminding everyone of their latent plan to murder every civilian of South Korea, of Japan and of America.

Piece from Observer claims Congress’s options are Trump’s. And leaves out the only good one.

Okay, so the Congress needs to think through line through about what it decides to do about North Korea. Basically, North Korea’s homicidal behavior is the direct product of a pattern America has had of emboldening them by negotiating and compromising with them. You know how the Doves of my movement will tell you just make a trade and tourism deal with the Dictatorship and it will consider changing itself to another free society? Well, that’s bullf–k! If a free society negotiates and compromises with a dictatorship, then the free society just comes off to the dictatorship as a submissive wimp, and the dictatorship is going to try even harder to get the free society to self-destruct!

Case to make against diplomacy with North Korea

Frankly the reason North Korea now has nukes is because of our long history of encouraging their belligerence, as Elan Journo tells better than I can. Furthermore, another better person than me to go to about North Korea is Steve Simpson. Steve reminds us that Sony delaying the release of comedy movie The Interview is not the fault of Sony, but of our federal government. Specifically he calls out the presidency. However, I will say this again, here is how federal government action in any facet of humanity works in American civics. The Congress does its legislative process from Article Five of the US Constitution, then the president either agrees to the bill, or vetoes the bill.

Contrasting with South Korea, we learn that…

Anyway, let’s stay on topic: why diplomacy does not work with North Korea or any other dictatorship, especially not one that sponsors terrorism. Basically a Dictatorship will stop at nothing to constantly wage unprovoked war, sponsor terrorism, commit genocide, and institute slavery. You know why? Because the root cause of war, famine, bigotry, genocide, famine, poverty, terrorism, slavery and other barbarisms is Non-capitalism. Having a totalitarian state, instead of a minimal state, always creates famine, poverty, genocide, terrorism, slavery, and the obstruction of progress toward curing cancer. Meanwhile, if a nation is a minarchist free society, or at least a free society much closer to minarchism than to statism, then that nation thrives on peace, prosperity, innovation, volunteerism, charity, and the speeding of progress to curing cancer. This is not me spatting out inflammatory jibber jabber space dialect with long words, this is me basing an opinion on an empirical fact of humanity.

Take South Korea, for a relevant example of this difference.

  1. Evidence of South Korea sponsoring terrorism? Nope, that’s all North.
  2. Evidence of South Korea owning slaves? Nope, only it’s North-neighbor.
  3. Evidence of South Korea running Auschwitz style camps? NO! It’s all North K!

What should Congress do then?

Firstly, when it comes to regimes who threaten the American People as flagrantly often as North Korea does, Congress has the power to address them, not the Donald. And even then I would like to see Congress take actions against North Korea that require no American deaths. Specifically, economic actions that privatize every market in North Korea, unilaterally, that way we are collapsing their regime without spending American lives. But if that does not work, then we need to militarily destroy them with a goal of crushing their ability and desire to threaten genocide against Americans. And even so after the Kim Dynasty, as I call it, is erased, we need to leave behind 1 of every 10 surviving victors so that North Korea can become another South Korea by 2067. Now, I do not expect to be alive for that, but I do know that after defeating a despotic regime, it takes about 50 years normally for a minarchist regime to supplant it.

Thanks all!

~KSP Perkins

“Trade And Defense” And Not “Trade And Diplomacy”. My letter as one LP voter to the rest of the LP around me.

trade2520facilitation_source

Yes, it’s important for trade to be the number one emphasis of American and libertarian foreign policy!

But that does not mean trade and diplomacy alone make for the ‘correct’ libertarian and moral foreign policy.

Basically, I have said other things like this trillions of times. We do need free trade and we do need honest friendships and we do need to be skeptical to the idea of alliances. However, none of those needs justify ignoring the fact that any free society [and I genuinely mean any free society] needs a very powerful military in order to stay free. But why the open-minded, thoughtful LP doves who really care what this LP hawk [me] has to say, will ask me?

The case for a Free Society pairing a strong military with an alert foreign policy

Firstly, there is human nature. Now, human nature is a historically big pile of animalistic, kill or be killed instincts, but how? Anthropology will explain better than any political ideology, and far better than any organized religion. Human history is riddled with examples of humans being eager to set up tyranny every time they start a new civilization. I can go all post long naming examples, but I am only singling out a few so that I can make this as brief as can be. Ancient Sparta, Ancient Rome, Inquisition Era Spain, Rashidun Arabia, Ottoman Turkey, King George III’s Britain, Napoleon’s France, Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Tojo’s Japan, Saddam’s Iraq, Soviet Russia. Twelve examples is plenty good for this case. Only in 1776 AD with the American Revolution was a nation born to be, systemically, a free society. And rather than respect the sovereignty of America, the then Dictatorships of British Empire and Turkish Empire repeatedly picked fights with America. It was only after James Madison learned from winning the Second Barbary War how a free society needs a mammoth military to stay free when foreign dictatorships started fearing, most of them, what might happen if they try to annex America. Liberty is the fringe and tyranny is the norm, in human nature.

Secondly, there is what happens to free societies when they try to defeat their assailants with diplomacy alone. When 9/11 happened to America, I can tell you we went after the wrong nations, but we did target the right ideology: Islamic Statism. When other free societies had their equivalent events to 9/11, only the ones who replied rebelliously against the Islamic Statist movement were able to keep their internal degradations to trivial levels. While Spain for example around that time and more recently France of just a few months ago, tried relying purely on diplomacy to deter this religious fanatic movement I have named by ideology twice. The result for Spain was liberty is crashing down much worse in those two nations than it is in… Britain and Australia, to name some Non-US examples.

Thirdly, there is the meaning of the word ‘terrorist‘. Many if not most of my fellow “I am registered to vote as a Libertarian” types seem to ignores this in ways which are frankly sickening to me. Well actually, one way. Basically, and I am talking to you fellow LP voters, you guys need to know something very clear about what a terrorist does. This narrative you have does not apply to real life. Listen, terrorists don’t stay peaceful and liberty-loving until their families are attacked and do violence to obvious soldiers as revenge. That’s not what a terrorist does! A terrorist goes around murdering obviously defenseless civilians, on behalf of some big-government, anti-capitalist, deep-statist, anti-libertarian ideology!

Finally, and my case I will close here, there is the meaning of an honest friend. Basically there is a difference between being contracted to defend someone and defending someone because you are a true friend who truly loves that someone. In essence, there is something golden you can learn from psychology, another science I am citing for this case, about friendship. True friends defend each other passionately against physically violent bullies without feeling compelled by anything but empathy and friendship to do so. However this does not make free societies dependent on each other for national defense. Free societies need to defend themselves with strong militaries and alert foreign policies, but also to be true friends to each other they need to treat each other like family. And a mentally healthy family of free societies is one wherein free societies are very happy to defend each other just out of mutually affectionate kinship.

Anything else out of me?

Nope, that was all. Just wanted to drop this onto that “Third largest part in America” I am registered to vote in. Thanks!

~KSP Perkins

Suicidal Foreign Policy Actions and Exempting Healthcare from Freedom of Choice ~ A Donald Trump Update

maxresdefault

Been a while since I genuinely cared what this cult of personality was or is up to! What is new?

After seeing this video [warning; some mature language; if that’s not for you then the video is not for you]…

…I decided to craft my own perspective on the three things that were touched on there. Firstly, Donald Trump recently revisited his travel ban from seven different Greater Middle East nations. Secondly, Trump is selling $35 billion of weapons to Saudi Arabia per year for ten years. Thirdly, his replacement of Obama Care with Trump care is being skewed even by the video as mandating coverage denial. Okay, so allow me to break these down from my own unique angle.

Part One; Travel Bans vs Freedom of Movement

Okay, so unlike CNN, Politico provides actually impartial reporting on the travel being partly in effect until October. Apparently the only reasons people from Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Iran, and Yemen are allowed to travel to America are education and family. For example, they are not allowed to travel here for business trips or to visit musicians who perhaps visited them first.

Now from a foreign policy perspective this makes no sense at all, because the state sponsors of 9/11 are not on the list. That is; Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Egypt, and Afghanistan are, in order from biggest degree to smallest degree, the state sponsors of 9/11 and of ISIS. So if the idea is to stop travel from nations who have sponsored 9/11 and as of 2011 are sponsors of ISIS, then why ban a random slew of nations who has little if anything to do with 9/11 or with ISIS?

As for the immigration perspective this is against the 9th and 14th amendment rights to respectively freedom of movement and equal treatment under the law. Now, I am not denying the negatives of Europe having adopted total open borders, what I am going to say to you is this. That’s not a lesson in how there is anything good at all about nationalism, which spoiler alert there is nothing right with nationalism. Instead, this is a lesson why we need to merge total freedom of movement with the historic Ellis Island vetting system. Basically that means medical exam, moral exam, English class, Civics class, done. And by done I mean “free to formally apply for citizenship”. It has nothing to do with Amnesty because from what I know, amnesty is being arbitrarily granted citizenship without having to fill out any kind of application. And I speak that as a 3rd side of the immigration and refugee debate, a side that says exactly as I do. The libertarian and objectivist hybrid side of the refugee debate.

Part Two; The Weapon Sales To America’s Enemies

Ugh— why exactly are we selling weapons to the biggest-time foe of the seven I singled out above? Seven countries who are known to sponsor Al-Qaeda and the Taliban but nowadays mainly ISIS! Far as I’m concerned, the Hamas and Hezbollah sponsoring nations of Iran, Syria, and Iraq are really just secondary targets of American Self Defense. But selling weapons to those who should be our primary targets is nothing short of suicidal.

And we are selling them $35 billion of annual weaponry for ten years! That will basically be enough for Saudi Arabia and its six fellow ISIS-sponsors to put ISIS up to a massive domination if not destruction attack against the American People. One that will make 9/11 look in comparison like a matter of 3000 people stubbing their toes all at once.

A proper policy with regard to the Greater Middle East, to me, is an instant and soulless ending for the primary foes. Meaning the total destruction of any and all Legit Military Targets under Saudi, Pakistani, Qatari, Emirati, Lebanese, Egyptian, and Afghan control. Not only this I also say include any and all political establishment actors and institutions in those nations as legit military targets. After these regimes are destroyed, we need to bring most of the victors home and leave a few thousand behind to allow a free society [aka capitalism] to take root.

Part Three; Still no freedom of Healthcare choice!

Anyone who interprets me honestly knows I am very into the notion that total freedom of choice is the answer to every question in standard of living. But medically, no, instead We The People have to settle for what I call “Reducing Normal Obama Care to Diet Obama Care”. And here is what TJ who did the video I opened on linking to is saying. He is saying that people are going to be forced to give up their health insurance under this new bill.

Two problems I have hearing this from someone I have my atheism and my live & let live outlook on lifestyles in common with. One; wasn’t TJ very against Obama Care for being, in his words, “A mandate to buy private insurance” and “Essentially just a gift to private insurance companies“? What it really does, from what I can gather, is it gives up on forcing Americans to buy private insurance. And in essence it is the revoking of that corporatist approved gift to private health insurers. And the new bill does this by ending the individual mandate, from what I can read from Wikipedia who TJ screen capped from. No, I am not defending the bill, I am just pointing out features that I don’t think were pointed out in the video. I accept that generally it is not the healthcare reform we need. What is needed?

To me, the answer is in four words. Total Freedom of Choice. Basically this means I think the answer is to pass a bill that has nothing to do with Obama Care or Diet Obama Care, one that does something totally different. One that motivates market competition for insurers to provide the best health insurance possible for the lowest prices that Supply And Demand will allow. That way, consumers will not need to stick to plans where the health insurance companies can treat them anyhow as the companies will get consumer money no matter what. Instead, health providers will only get their monthly profits by treating their communities like family. And that ethic will be for the same reason as the prices: Lack of Subsidies.

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

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

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

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