War: Big Government’s Best Friend

My presentation at the Mises Institute’s event at Furman University last weekend called “War: Big Government’s Best Friend.” Makes a libertarian case against war and chronicles my own evolution from neocon to libertarian.

Share this post:Digg thisShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on Twitter
  • JRT

    Thanks for the upload!! Are the speeches of Tom DiLorenzo and Robert Higgs also available?

  • http://plenarchist.wordpress.com/ plenarchist

    Another great talk. What I find interesting is the use of the phrase ‘War on…’ for every major statist initiative. It’s as though war is the only mindset these people can have. War is the health of the state after all. War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terror, War on Literacy, War on Aids… But all these wars can be replaced by one all-encompassing phrase since they refer to the same statist program, the ‘War on the People’.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/William-Schooler/100003032488972 William Schooler

    I love it, I assumed, never better said.

    WHO cares about LIFE?

    Compassion?

    Loss of LIFE?

    Its good those thoughts never left you.

    Great recognition of Harvard, thank you.

    The mirror is far faster on the moral issue and honest questions to yourself, do you like living?

    Military might is a very dumb idea, but many have supported dumb ideas for a long time, look at the idea of wealth from the same people and the same idea that created this crap.

    Governments do not keep us safe, this has been shared over and over. What we refuse to see is our Declaration of Independence as the foundation of Independence of such an idea, yes we continually never include it.

    Love the party analogy, thank you.

  • cbsorsby

    It was a great event!… Here is the link to all three speakers
    http://vimeo.com/37514556

  • Anonymous

    well that was excellent.

  • Anonymous

    Another great essay by Dr. Woods.  However, I disagree with Rothbard’s stance on strategic weapons, as until the world becomes a place where all states are libertarian, they provide a deterrent.  

    Something else that is needed are rebuttals to the Progressive doctrine of Responsibility to Protect, R2P, which is being used to extend the warfare state.  Hopefully Dr. Woods can help out on this.

  • http://www.facebook.com/krmont22 Kyle Montgomery

    Excellent.  I agree that the term “war” has expanded into other markets.  It is not drug prohibition, but the war on drugs.  It is not welfare, but the war on poverty.

  • http://twitter.com/Samuel_E_Amer Sam Amer

    Tom, you are an inspiration. Fantastic speech, you really add a great personal touch.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eddie-Davis/100002484598013 Eddie Davis

    Great as always, Tom! I especially liked the way you told us about the path you followed from follow the crowd neo-con thought, to common sense individualism. I have a parallel journey, a couple of decades removed from yours, maybe I’ll relate it to you sometime. 

  • Csooch

    Fantastic speech, Tom. Thanks for mixing to such a great extent your own personal development with the entire scholarly background which you found. I think it’s one of the deepest speeched I’ve ever heard from you !Thank you !!!
    Chris

  • Marcos

    What was the Mises quite you used and from what source? I liked it a lot.

  • Marcos

    Quote*

  • Sam Geoghegan

    I think the reason why neo-cons don’t
    question war is because of the corollary. -It leads to the logical
    dismantling of the party’s core beliefs. The mechanism by which
    neo-cons are prevented from doing this, is
    patriotism -misapplied of course.

    This appears to be one of the leading
    problems concerning any absolutist doctrine, the “commandments”
    themselves become more important than the morality they’re
    supposed to foster. Essentially then, what we find is a protection of ‘belief patterns’
    rather than morality.

    Conclusion: Attack the protective mechanism to reach the person.This applies to the left as well.

  • Sam Geoghegan

    That’s not my paragraphing above.

  • NJDave

    Tom, do you ever get tired of being awesome?

  • Bigcountry350

    Thank you for all that you do.

  • Federalfarmer177

    Very much enjoyed this lecture. Was reminded of a book I read relating to his comments about wasteful weapons procurement. The book is, “When The Pentagon Was For Sale” by Andy Pasztor. It’s about illegal and wasteful weapons spending between the Pentagon and weapons corporations during 1980’s, culminating in FBI’s operation “Illwind”.

  • Adrian

     ”
    Peace is at once the mother and the nurse of all that is good for
    man; war, on a sudden and at one stroke, overwhelms, extinguishes,
    abolishes, whatever is cheerful, whatever is happy and beautiful, and
    pours a foul torrent of disasters on the life of mortals. Peace shines
    upon human affairs like the vernal sun. The fields are cultivated, the
    gardens bloom, the cattle are fed upon a thousand hills, new buildings
    arise, riches flow, pleasures smile, humanity and charity increase, arts
    and manufactures feel the genial warmth of encouragement, and the gains
    of the poor are more plentiful.” Truer words where never “spoken”

  • http://www.facebook.com/jeremy.r.hammond Jeremy R. Hammond

    Excellent. 20 minutes in. Will post at www.foreignpolicyjournal.com. My interest in economics has stemmed from my work in foreign policy. I’ve come to realize that the two fields cannot be separated. The study of foreign policy IS the study of economic policy. Iraq is a perfect case in point, the war having nothing to do with WMD or terrorism whatsoever.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jeremy.r.hammond Jeremy R. Hammond

    Nice. You just mentioned (still watching) the King-Crane Commission. Right on. I’ve written a booklet titled “The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination” (http://www.amazon.com/Rejection-Palestinian-Self-Determination-ebook/dp/B0059JFL38/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1331117430&sr=8-2) in which I discuss that. You are right, in fact, at that time, the US was well respected in the region. Under the League of Nations Charter, the populations were supposed to be consulted on the choice of their mandate (occupying power). They looked to the US. Britain ended up receiving the Palestine mandate with the Palestinians (Jews and Arabs alike) not having been consulted.