Not Quite a Fisking
I don’t get too often into the comments on this site, but this one has me scratching my head:
I wonder why you call yourself a libertarian.
You say you love this kind of government and you love that kind of government.
And you are in favor of MASSIVE government spending programs……
Don’t you realize by now that the only way to get your massive spending programs approved is to give everybody else their massive spending programs too?
You are a good writer and I enjoy reading what you have to say. But to paint yourself as a fiscally conservative libertarian is truly a work of fiction.
I appreciate the compliments about the writing, but I’ll be damned if I can remember the last big government program (other than the current War, which isn’t a “program,” it’s a necessity for national survival) I supported.
In fact, searches for the terms “government spending” and “government programs” yielded some libertarian gems.
I’m no supporter of government-sponsored research, especially in medicine. Libertarian that I am, I think business should invest their own money in profitable areas.
Gore now supports a single-payer socialized medical insurance plan. A sure recipe for greater government spending and, eventually, higher inflation.
Getting serious about terrorism means taking the fight to the bad guys. It shouldn
So hoe do other nations survive without spending anything near as much money per head on the military? The Iraq War was a war of choice. You could as well have used that money to try to balance the budget.
They don’t spend much money on their military because they know the U.S. will save their butts (a third time!) – if the excrement hits the fan.
Stephen,
Thanks for addressing my issues. Small l libertarian is good. One of the fundamental aspects to libertarianism is understanding why government doesn’t work; in other words, why does government almost always achieve the opposite of what is intended.
Some quick examples – The War on Poverty, The New Deal, which lengthened and deepened the Depression, compulsory government schools, which have reduced literacy from 90%, to the point where graduates now are incapable of reading and writing.
“I’ll be damned if I can remember the last big government program (other than the current War, which isn’t a “program,” it’s a necessity for national survival) I supported.”
“I want to go to the Moon. I want to go to Mars. …
But since there isn
Other nations survive without spending so much per head because of the shield of protection provided by the U.S. Military.
Witness the ridiculous amounts of money plowed into social programs by the French, Germans, and Scandinavians, all at the expense of their militaries.
They can afford this spending because of the benevolent presence of the U.S. G-I, discouraging those who might entertain thoughts of being serious bad actors.
World War II was a “war of choice.” Old Europe had the option of intervening in Germany long before the start of hostilities– Germany was in serious breach of treaties that ended World War I.
Old Europe chose not to go to war, hoping for peace in our time, until war was brought to them.
Kosovo was a War of Choice as well. Old Europe chose to do next to nothing. Leaving it to the unilateralist war monger Bill Clinton to impose his attempt at bombing the Kosovars back to the stone age, without even consulting the UN.
The nerve!
Sorry Old Europe.
I’m joking here at the end, because the idea of Europeans arguing about military spending after their record over the last 60 years is laughable.
Doing a selective reading of history is always easy.
You have to some extent a point with respect to the wars in Yugoslavia. But even there it wasn’t the source of the problem that the European states didn’t have the military capabilities to intervene, but that they didn’t want to.
That there is a necessary “shield of protection provided by the US military in Europe” is a senseless argument. They provided protection during the Cold War. Now they are forward bases for the US, nothing more.
Laugh about current military expenditure in Europe if want, but I don’t think you seriously want to extend your argument back to the last 60 years. It would be a bit perverse to state that Nazi Germany didn’t spend a lot on its military. In fact they spent much more in comparative terms than any other nation. Neither would the critique fit to any of the great European powers at the beginning of the first World War.
Overspending on one’s military is the old curse of empires. You are proud of belonging to the new empire. Are you prepared to confront its curse, too?
TOE:
You’re back! Once again spreading inaccuracies, I see.
Europe, frex, relied on the presence of 2.5 corps of US troops, and the planned deployment of ten divisions in ten days.
That costs a little money, you know.
And guess who paid for the airlift and sealift capabilities? Hint: It wasn’t Europe.
And weren’t you the one who claimed that Europe doesn’t have a space-based set of sensors? Guess who does, and whose citizens paid for it? Hint: It wasn’t Europe.
On the other side of the world, Japan currently pays (barely) 1% of its substantial GDP on defense. Its sea lanes are protected by the US Navy. In their case, they actually DO foot part of the bill, since they help pay for US bases, maintenance, up-keep, etc. Nonetheless, capital costs are shouldered by someone else. Hint: It’s not the Europeans (or the Japanese).
If a war HAD broken out in the Mid-East in the 1980s, just how substantial a non-US contingent do you think there’d have been? Indeed, considering how stretched the Brits were to do the Falklands, you have to wonder whether the rest of the Europeans had ANY power projection ability outside of Europe during the Cold War. Operation Dragon Rouge 1956, frex, required US airlift to bring in the Belgian commandoes. French operations in Chad against Libya operated under a US supplied AWACS umbrella.
Speaking of which, who paid the up-front R&D costs on those AWACS, JDAMs, and GPS? Hint: It wasn’t the Europeans.
Is this utter lack of knowledge the result of the vaunted European educational system? Or simply a deliberate attempt to systematically avoid anything that mars your view of the world?
Dean,
Don’t “wonder whether the rest of the Europeans had ANY power projection ability outside of Europe during the Cold War.”
They had none, aside from the UK.
TOE:
BTW, just one interesting little observation:
How much did France spend on defense in 1985, as a percentage of GDP (which reflects the “burden” of defense on the economy)? 4.0%
Germany (Western half)? 3.2%
South Korea? 5.0%
How much is the US currently spending on defense as a percentage of GDP? ~3%.
By contrast, the Spanish Empire of Ferdinand and Isabella spent something around half or more of its “GDP” on empire maintenance. You might read Paul Kennedy’s book “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers” for actual figures. But, as w/ you, he appears to believe in magic math.
After all, he noted that we were spending 6% on defense in the late 1980s (when the book was published), and that was irresponsible and heading down the path of Empire. Then pointed to China’s sensible defense spending at the time. China’s defense spending as percent of GDP? 6%.
Harold:
Yup. The French have forces that are earmarked for overseas deployment, but they lack the lift to do more than bring them into a benign environment. Germany has even less. Only the Brits still retain the ability to “kick the door in.”
Some government programs are more equal than others when it comes to spending.
The military? One of the few things that the government does that it’s actually supposed to. Considering the rest of the economy wouldn’t exist without a safe business environment, it’s a worthy expenditure.
Space program? It may seem like a luxury, but it has been one of if not the largest single driver of new technology in the last 50 years. The technology and financial benefits of the space programs and moon landing are plentiful and well documented (and often ignored), and there’s no reason to believe that a new moon mission or mars landing wouldn’t have similar effects. Another worthy investment, and the benefits to science, knowledge, and national pride are immeasurable.
The point being that the idea of being a fiscal conservative doesn’t necessarily conflict with big government programs, if the program is something that the government should be involved in.
And don’t forget prescription drug subsidies.
And some countries STILL owe us for the Marshall Plan.
VODKATARIAN
Stephen Green demonstrates that he is indeed a libertarian but will never be a Libertarian….
“The point being that the idea of being a fiscal conservative doesn’t necessarily conflict with big government programs, if the program is something that the government should be involved in.”
Well, that may be so. However, the reasoning that by collecting less taxes and handing out more money to the military one will eventually end up with a balanced budget definitely collides with basic maths. The idea of squeezing lots of other programs – which don’t account for that much of the budget and which is is anyway only a short-term solution, won’t get far in an election year. So you can thank Bush for ruining your national budget.
What kinds of successes is he going to sell in his re-election campain? Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq are turning out the showcases they were supposed to be. And at the domestic politics front the outlook now is even worse.