The
Future of Freedom Foundation| The
Future of Freedom Foundation |
08/21/08
|
|||||||||||||
|
June 04,
2007 These words come to mind whenever I hear conservative enthusiasts for the Iraq occupation complain about political interference with military operations. They don't understand the most basic fact of war: it is a government program. So why aren't people who claim to be suspicious of other government programs suspicious of war? I can see only two reasons, neither of them flattering: power lust or nationalistic zeal. Many of us grow up believing that government reflects the will of the people. But skeptics know better. Government has assumed more and more control over private life not because the people demanded it, but because power-seekers and privilege-seekers sought outlets for their ambitions. They then propagandized the public until a sufficient number of people came to believe government control was good for them. ("Public" education has been remarkably effective in this regard.) The story is similar with war. Politicians start wars for political reasons. They may seek to control resources or a foreign population. Or they may want to secure existing interests that could be at risk without war. The military is a means to political ends. War always has a domestic side. Ruling classes hold power so that they may live off the toil of the domestic population. And because the ruled far outnumber the rulers, ideology and propaganda are necessary to maintain the allegiance of the subject population. War is useful in keeping the population in a state of fear and therefore trustful of their rulers. H.L. Mencken said it well: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." War is more dangerous than other government programs and not just for the obvious reason -- mass murder. Foreign affairs and war planning seem to justify secrecy, shutting the supposedly sovereign people out of the government's scheming. Politicians would have a hard time justifying secrecy in domestic affairs. But it is routine in war-related matters. So much for government's adventures mirroring the people's wishes. Most unappreciated of all is that war is the midwife of intrusive bureaucracy. James Madison understood this. "Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.... No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." On their own, people do not go to war, and without compulsion they would never pay for it -- they have better things to do with their money. Herman Goering, Hitler's second in command, understood this: "Of course the people don't want war.... But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it's a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship." Mencken knew this too: "Wars are seldom caused by spontaneous hatreds between people, for peoples in general are too ignorant of one another to have grievances and too indifferent to what goes on beyond their borders to plan conquests. They must be urged to the slaughter by politicians who know how to alarm them." War is
politics. And that's no compliment. Tibor Machan holds the R.C. Hoiles Chair in Business Ethics and Free Enterprise at Chapman University’s Argyros School of B and E and is a research fellow at the Pacific Research Institute and Hoover Institution (Stanford). He is an advisor to Freedom Communications. His most recent book is Libertarianism Defended, (Ashgate, 2006).
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va., author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine. Visit his blog “Free Association."
Scott McPherson is a policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Samuel Bostaph is head of the economics department at the University of Dallas and an academic advisor to The Future of Freedom Foundation
Anthony Gregory is a policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation
James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy (Palgrave, January 2006) and Terrorism & Tyranny (Palgrave, 2003), and is policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation
Benedict LaRosa is a historian and writer and serves as a policy advisor to The Future of Freedom Foundation
Bart Frazier is program director at The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email. |
The Surrender of Conscience to the President What Exactly Did Gerald Ford Heal? Mr. President, the CIA Is Already Talking to Syria Bush and Chavez: A Marriage Made in Hell Shssh! Don't Tell Americans How We Treat "Enemy Combatants" The Pentagon's Power to Jail Americans Indefinitely Our Patience on Iraq Should Be Exhausted Once Again, Gun Control Doesn't Work Bush War Policy Comes Crashing Down Presidential Politics and Foreign Policy Immigration Policy Reveals What We Are Complete Archives for The Future of Freedom Foundation  |
|||||||||||
