Welfare vs Warfare

We have a false dilemma, a bit of theatre that reminds me of a Japanese Samurai movie theme: of the two rival factions, the same man is in charge of both.  People need something to believe in.

People tend to pick sides as though there are only two options, and with no where to go, people feel stuck.

With the welfare state, there is a safety net. But you cannot have a welfare state and open borders. Assuming there is a respect for property rights, then the best safety net is open borders. We become a country of producers in that case, no need for a safety net.

You cannot have freedom and a standing military.  The founders understood this and abjured a standing military, and you can thank a soldier for our lack of freedom.  A standing military looks for purpose, and is an incredible cost for little return.  The system makes for massive distortion in the marketplace, unrest, and therefore inevitable fascism.

The original sin of these United States is slavery and war.  The Continental Army was constantly at a disadvantage because the British offered American slaves freedom, and the American slaves worked for freedom against the colonies. Had we forsworn slavery the British would not have attempted war.  Most colonials were against the American war, including many of the founders, but in a democracy it takes very few people to get a war going.  No Revolutionary War was necessary, for example Canada gained its independence without war.  And the unfreedom for Afro-americans has never been resolved.  Indeed, after the war between the states, the winners made slavery permitted in the constitution, in the 13th amendment.

If we respected property rights in law and culture, the best defense we would have is the armed citizenry.   But both the welfare and the warfare peoples minds race to Somalia at the sound of that.

It should race to Switzerland instead.  And Hong Kong.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post