In deciding whether to wage war against yet another regime that has fallen into disfavor with DC, the United States must make some hard choices. Gregory Bresiger asks: will we follow the traditions of George Washington or those of Woodrow Wilson? "War," wrote Mises, "is harmful not only to the conquered but to the conqueror."
It is natural that liberty and peace go together, writes Lew Rockwell. Liberty makes it possible for people from different religious traditions and cultural backgrounds to find common ground. Commerce is the great mechanism that permits cooperation amidst radical diversity. It is also the basis for the working out of the brotherhood of man. Trade is the key to peace. It allows us to think and act both locally and globally.
Thomas Woods recently wrote on LRC, "It still frustrates me that some people who really believe themselves to be conservatives are so enthusiastic about the impending war with Iraq." We've all encountered this in our private lives, people with whom we have agreed with on a huge range of economic and cultural issues are just downright wrong on the war.
The anticipation surrounding the new movie "Gods and Generals" underscores the continuing fascination that Americans (and the world) have with the meaning of the Civil War. What continues to be missed are the economic roots of the North-South conflict—roots which represent deviations from the free-trade ideal.
It is slowly dawning on people that to understand George W., one must understand his religious impulses, which all evidence suggests are intensely important to him. His views are no different from that of the typical evangelical who absorbed his faith from the American Baptist culture. But they merit closer attention when they are held by an arrogant man with his finger on the button and who is contemplating total war.
"War," said Ludwig von Mises "is harmful, not only to the conquered but to the conqueror. Society has arisen out of the works of peace; the essence of society is peacemaking. Peace and not war is the father of all things. Only economic action has created the wealth around us; labor, not the profession of arms, brings happiness. Peace builds, war destroys."
In tough times, people cling to the words of politicians and the statements of TV's talking heads—the two sources least likely to offer a broad perspective that yields answers. Jeffrey Tucker recommends five books for a clear a historical perspective, a theoretical explanation, a forecast for the future, and an agenda for change.
David Frum did not intend to write a send-up of the state. His goal was not to demystify the White House. But that is the effect of his chatty little book, The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush (NY: Random House, 2002).
If the pundits and politicians ever succeed in imposing the draft again on American citizens, for purposes of bolstering the military empire or doing social work, writes Jeffrey Tucker, they will have to look for support outside the libertarian tradition. Mises is not enlisted in this cause.
The idea that commerce and war are allies is a complete perversion of the old liberal tradition. The first theorists of commerce from the 16th through the 18th centuries saw that a most meritorious aspect of commerce is its link to freedom and peace, that commerce made it possible for people to co-operate rather than fight. It made armaments and war less necessary, not more.
