Welcome to the don't tread on anyone podcast and the
libertarian Institute. Today.
I am joined by read Coverdale of the naturalist capitals podcasts
read. Thanks so much for your time,
brother. Thanks for having me on again.
Keith and we have Patrick McFarland of the libertarian
Institute and the Liberty weekly podcast.
Patrick. What's happening, Brother?
Hey, not much, man. Thanks for having me back.
I saw this collection of quotes in a publication by the Mises
Institute. These are basically War and
Peace quotes by Ludwig, von mises from a collection of his
work. So I thought we could read three
at a time and see if they have stood the test of Time For
Heaven's Sake, the guy was riding in like the late 40s and
the 50s English was not even his first language.
So I thought we could test the Austrian master and see what he
was up to see if his his ideas. Are are still valid today.
Read do you want to read the first three for us and then we
can discuss them. Sure.
Do you want me to read what? It's from too?
Or just the quote not necessarily because there's a
lot of repeats from Human Action.
Okay. Sure.
All right, first up we got whoever wishes peace among
people must fight statism modern society based as it is on the
division of labor can be preserved.
Only under conditions of lasting.
Peace. The market economy, involves
peaceful cooperation it bursts asunder when the citizens turn
into Warriors, and instead of exchanging Commodities and
services, fight one another Pat. What are your first thoughts
when you hear those three, well, the first quote, basically kind
of drives home this point that war itself is the final product
of statism itself because it's Statham statism itself.
Does realize. So we really identify statism as
being threats of violence, like a legal Monopoly over the use of
force, the legitimize use of force.
And then, so war in of itself would just be the actualization
of that process. So there's this distinction
between, you know, the the voluntary sphere, where people
are exchanging goods, and both sides are benefiting, while
Warfare is just the absolute opposite of that.
And I think that's what these three quotes, really.
Encapsulate. Yeah, I love how he hates
cooperation from war because, sadly, that needs clarifying.
People will blame the voluntary sector for the
military-industrial complex, funded by taxation and literally
involves initiating violence against peaceful people.
And they'll be like, yep. There's the free market when
it's antithetical to free market principles in the concept of
statism is always some people trying to initiate a Going
against others and those people just not resisting.
So if the victim resists it's a war if they don't resist it
statism so yet but virtually all of government is this constant.
Some people who are going against others, read any
thoughts on statism Peaceful cooperation and exchanging
Commodities and Service as opposed to fighting one another.
Yeah. I think it's interesting that a
lot of the interest in Ukraine right now has to do with
politicians having relatives, who are Are instrumental in
certain areas of the gas industry in Ukraine, and there's
been an extortion, and bribery and blackmail and things
involved with that nature, from the government.
When, if this was just a voluntary exchange wouldn't be
having all this conflict taking place at all.
So, I think that just points to these quotes, that once you have
the state involved, trying to aggress against certain people,
then The voluntary exchange goes away, and then eventually you'll
have conflict. That read the next three for us.
Okay. So modern war is not a war of
Royal armies. It is a war of the people's a
total war. It is a war of states which do
not leave to their subjects, any private sphere.
They consider the whole population of part of the Armed
Forces who ever does not fight must work for the support and
Equipment of the army army, and people are one in the same.
The citizens passionately, participate in the war for it,
is their state, their God. Who fights what the
incompatibility of warranty? Tourism really means.
This is the next quote, is that war in high, civilization are
compatible, or incompatible rather?
And the final quote is society, has arisen out of the works of
Peace. The essence of society is peace,
making 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, and War destroys.
What I love about this. First one is back in the day.
He also saw that, people were not differentiating between the
citizens of a certain geographical area.
And the people who claim to roll them.
In other words, a criminal element within this, this group
of people because it was almost always seen as Royal armies
fighting on behalf of Kings. But today, it's like rushes at
war with Ukraine. What percentage?
If we merge those populations, what percentage decided to go to
war, something like zero percent.
I don't know what the exact number is, but it's something
like zero. It's amazing.
Some of these read. What are your thoughts on these
last three? Yeah, I really agree with what
you just said and what's ironic is even the people who do
support going to war. They know nothing about the
situation. They can't even find Ukraine or
some of them. Even Russia on a map.
They have no idea what strategic importance, Ukraine holds to
Russia, or to Nato, or to the United States, or especially
specifically to them, and they're still very opinionated
about it. So, even the people who do want
to go to Or rarely have a justifiable reason to want to do
so, but I think you're right that most people don't even want
to at all. That's very classic democracy,
people feeling like they have to have an opinion on something
because they have to be part of the body.
Politic, as opposed to, you know, what?
I'm not sure. I don't know how to fly an
airplane or give surgery. So I'm not going to well, you
also don't know what's going on in all these different
geographical areas. Heck, I hardly know, but But
apparently there's no humility in the religion of government.
Pat thoughts on these last three.
Yeah, I mean, around mises this time.
You really have this idea of Total War coming into being, I
mean, during during the first world war, especially, but we
see it happening as early as the Civil War.
So, in the 1860s with Sherman's, March to the Sea where civilians
were really becoming the Target, and again, with the, the
increase in democracy, you just have this.
Like rothbard said, later on, is that You have the stiff this
merging between the state, is us the state and the citizenry when
that just doesn't really make any sense when you think about
it, but the unfortunate result of it is that civilians become
targets, nieces continues. All the materials needed for the
conduct of war must be provided by restriction of Civilian
consumption. By using up a part of the
capital available and by working harder the Whole burden of
Warring falls upon the living generation at The Breakfast
Table of every citizen sits in Wartime and invisible guests, as
it were a GI who shares a meal in the citizens?
Garage stays not only the family car, but besides invisibly, a
tank or a plane. The most important fact is that
this GI needs more in food clothing and other things, then
he would use to consume as a civilian and that military
equipment wears out much quicker.
Then civilian equipment the costs of a modern war are
enormous. Finally men are fighting one
another because they are convinced that the extermination
and liquidation of adversaries is the only means of promoting
their own well-being. Read Coverdale of the naturalist
capitalist podcast. Any thoughts on these last
three? Yeah, I think it's really
interesting how he points out. That war does not benefit the
common consumer, but it actually benefits the very wealthy few at
the top, who profiteer off the mass murder of people on either
side of the war. It's interesting when you look
through World War 2 and even like after WWII a lot of the
same people who you know, were making products in Erica.
They were also making products in Germany and then a lot of
people who worked for the Nazis, ended up working for the CIA
after the war was over. So the people empower, the
people making the weapons, the people making wartime supplies,
they always profit and they always win.
Where the common man. Always loses.
Patrick thoughts on the military industrial complex and the
Common Man bearing. The cost of the burdens of War.
Yeah, it seems, I mean, to dovetail off what Reed was
saying, one thing we're going to talk about later as our book
recommendations, but I, you know, spoiler alert what have we
done? Is one of these books, this
concept of moral injury, but it really kind of deals as well
with who who becomes a Target because when you talk about the,
the morality of War itself, It seems like there's this even in
like accepted international law. There's this this distinction at
play between like, okay. Well, when two states get
together and they have conflict then all of a sudden a different
moral landscape applies. A different moral compass
applies. And that's how they weave.
Oh, well, you know if we're invading soldiers in a certain
area, then that's how we're going to weave civilians as
being a legitimate Target. Because, you know, if these two
Soldiers are invading, then the civilians are also part of the
war effort. So we have to liquidate them as
well. Oh sure.
So is that? What was the title of that book?
Yeah. This one is what have we done.
The moral injury of our longest wars.
And this this I mean it has to do with the terror Wars itself.
So, sorry to jump the shark here you guys.
But that's, that's fine. I was going to ask worried.
What if he could pick one anti-war book to promote to
people? What what would it be?
Mine would be enough already. Time to end the war on terrorism
by Scott. Or and I think it's written in a
very plain language that most Americans will understand.
But it also just clearly displays the insanity of what
we've what we've done over the years, you know, and I mean,
it's just an insane mixture of stupidity and evil, you know, I
mean there were intentional decisions made that would cause
intentional blowback. And then there were other
decisions that were made that were just straight up stupid.
So anyone who has Isn't quite accepted that the foreign policy
establishment in the military industrial complex don't really
have it all together. I think they should read that
book and probably change their minds.
So I I know that you too focused quite a bit on this foreign
policy aspect, much more than the average person.
I had a video asking people to guess.
How many bombs? They think America dropped in
2016. The significance as this was the
last time we had a cool trendy. Winner of the Nobel, Peace Prize
in office. Whereas Trump is like this evil.
Brute was set up, was pushed in by the Russian, so he doesn't
even really count. So I go, I'll give you a real
legitimate president and I want you guys to guess how many bombs
they dropped that year. So this is according to cfr.org.
Patrick, if you had to guess, how many bombs did the United
States drop in 2016. I mean, I might have seen this,
but I think it's around 10,000. And read if you had to guess.
How many bombs would you say the United States dropped in 2016?
I believe it's 26,000, but I'm not sure.
Well, that is why I do so much work because people like read
know the answer. They so so 172 Council on
Foreign Relations is almost supported every intervention
since I don't know. What the franco-prussian War.
I mean, every single time there's a war, they can find a
justification. So, briefly, Syria. 12,000,
Iraq. 12,000, Afghanistan. 1300 Libya 496, Yemen, 35, Somalia,
14, Pakistan 3. And they even mentioned in this,
that these numbers are a little off because one, quote bomb can
include a number of precision strikes there.
This article is just so evil. They said, whether this strategy
Works, IE reduces the threat posed by extremist.
Operating from these countries, improves overall security and
governance on the ground is highly contested.
So they don't know if all the people they murder and the
trillions of dollars. They spend are actually
improving the well-being of these countries or making
America more safe. There's a lot of evidence to
say, it creates terrorists and makes us less safe.
My favorite part though, is threat.
By extremists. You see?
It's not extreme to drop 26,000 bombs and kill a ton of
civilians, but entering the Capitol Building without
permission. That is just really, really
extreme. And I can't believe that ever
happened. Oh, that's so terrible.
I think I need another investigation Now Keith.
What I'd like to know is how many US manufactured bombs were
dropped in 2016. That will have to be for someone
in the comment section to inform us on.
So I think so. That's the last year Obama was
President, and did not Trump dropped more bombs and four
years than Obama did in eight. Is that correct?
You know, I have heard that. I heard that a number of years
ago. I don't have anything concrete
in front of me. But this article, I went, I
clicked on every link and read through all of their sources
that So, I felt comfortable put plugging it in this one.
But yeah, I mean, Trump, while he bragged about not starting
any others. He never mentioned.
I also didn't intensify. Any.
So you think, well, that might be something you want to clarify
as well. But back to the great wisdom of
Ludwig. Von mises read.
If you could, please start with where are we?
This one right here. The Distance of armaments.
Sorry, the existence of the armaments.
Industries is a consequence of the warlike Spirit.
Not its cause What basis for war could there still be?
Once all peoples had been set free?
The liberal thinks otherwise he is convinced that Victorious.
War is an evil. Even for the Victor, that peace
is always better than War. He demands, No sacrifice from
the stronger. But only that he should come to
realize where his true interests lie and learn to understand that
peace is for him, the stronger, just as advantageous as it for
the worker. Sorry for the weaker.
Isn't that interesting? It also hurts the strong as
well. If you look at all the Empire's
whether it's the Japanese empire, the German Empire, the
Russian Empire before the Soviet Union the British Empire and
sadly the American Empire. It's always wore that brings
these people down. They always get blood to
bankruptcy and either have to tax a ton and not be productive
or they have to drastically inflate, the currency and
impoverish themselves this way. Pay These that these Empires
Patrick on these last three. Yeah, go to the first one
because I think that's a direct endorsement of recreational
nuclear weapons. It's it's a yeah, so it's the
the armaments industry is a consequence of the world like
Spirit. Not it's caused.
So by that logic recreational nukes, you know, not an issue
for War and Peace So, I think that's all I got.
Read any thoughts on the warlike Spirit and the armaments
industries and hurting the strong as well as the week.
Yeah. Well that middle quote there
says what, what case for war would there be if men were set
free or something along that line?
I think that's a very important Point here to, you know, if the
government got out of the way, there would be more freedom.
There would be more flourishing. People would be happier.
People would be The trade with each other but since they
restrict that people have more miserable lives and they're
easier to control because they're angry and they're
desperate and you get into situations.
Like we are now in the United States where our economy has
Ghibli been completely destroyed and we're looking for an
external enemy and that's happened in history before.
And that doesn't tend to bring countries to good conclusions
when their economy falls apart and they Art finding foreign
entities to blame their problems on but that's that's kind of
where we are now. And like you said it ruins
everybody in the country except for the weapons manufacturers.
Like I said, they win the war no matter what.
Exactly. Yeah, this is a very valuable
Point here. We certainly see that war is the
health of the state. That any time, there's a war,
the state can justify actions it.
Otherwise would have a very difficult time for Waiting the
populace on. For example, I need a ton of
power. Well, why the hell do you need
that? It's like well because of the
evil Germans and the evil Russians and the evil Al-Qaeda.
Okay. Well now people give it up but
also the inverse is true that the state is the health of War.
So when I am swiping, someone else's credit card or I'm
sending other people's kids off to die, and I don't have the
legal repercussions of, you know, Murder being recognized
because if you've murder on me, Yes, it's just called foreign
policy. Well, then in all of these
cases, you see that the state is the health of war that having a
state that doesn't have moral standards.
That has its own magical money printing machine.
That no one else has, that gets the right to conscript.
There's conscription in both Ukraine and Russia and America
until the 70s around of the time of Milton Friedman.
So again, so long as we have this state, we're constantly
going to have this rent-seeking incentive of people to Pi it and
go to war with with their enemies.
I think that I think he was just so insightful that book
specifically is called nation-state and economy.
That one I have not read. Patrick start us off Wars
foreign and domestic Revolution Civil Wars are more likely to be
avoided the closer, the division of labor binds men.
The pacifist line of argument goes too far.
If it's simply denies that a people can gain by war or is the
alternative to freedom of foreign investment as realized
by the international Capital Market.
Yeah, when whenever I see those when I think of pacifism, a lot
of people think it's just step back and let murderers do
whatever they want. My understanding is you don't go
in search of monsters to find but you have no problem or
sponding to aggressors as Mark. Passio says cause no harm take
no shit is the correct line of thinking.
Pat any thoughts on these three? What About Bob Murphy i-i've
never actually Ali. Listen to Bob give his pacifism
argument and I don't know if that's the non-aggression
principle or not. Yeah.
I think Pat that Bob just says, it's uneconomic to engage in
such activities. So a Roth party in society, or
any society that didn't have a recognized state would not use
aggression. In that sense.
They would more or less hedge. Their bets economically.
I see. Oh, so they could go ahead.
Like take care of that, even by not participating in the
conflict at all. I believe so.
Yeah, just simply the costs are so astronomical and the amount
of power concentration. It takes to exert those cost.
For example, a prison system. Some people locking others up is
just so costly that. It's just not worth engaging it,
in engaging in it at all. So, but I believe that was his
point when he debated Tom Woods. Good old Bob Murphy.
Well, the last one I think is incredibly important, especially
We as as it stands right now because I I truly believe that
the the new cold war with China is one of the most dangerous
things that we're currently experiencing.
And I think that avoiding that is one of the most pressing
issues for the Liberty Movement to to, you know, pursue and warn
everyone about. And right now, there's this
great narrative going on, especially in the populous,
right? That we need an economic
decoupling from China and I think that's incredibly
dangerous. It's and and judging off mises
as quote here. I think it backs that up war is
the alternative to freedom of foreign investment as realized
by the international Capital Market.
So the more that we trade with China, the less likely that a
conflict is to occur and that I mean that kind of goes to the
situation and relationship between China and Taiwan right
now. I mean Taiwan I believe is
China's second largest trading partner.
So if they're going to go and blow the whole island up and
invade it, while they're going to lose all that.
All that Revenue, so I wrote about that recently.
But Peter Van Buren has wrote about it more extensively than I
have. I believe for responsible
statecraft. Not sure.
So, anyways, that's my take read Coverdale any response to the
division of labor people, gaining by War, and foreign
investment. Yeah.
I think, what's really interesting in that first quote
is the idea that war is less likely.
And the more division of labor binds men and I used to work on
power lines where you had Crews of large people working together
and you'd be shoulder to shoulder with some guy that you
might disagree with completely on politics and foreign policy
or whatever religion, but it didn't matter because you were
both working together trying to achieve a common goal.
So you'd kind of put everything aside and what I've noticed is
people who work more white collar jobs.
It's Easier for them to other Rise.
People who aren't in the same category they are because
they're more of a computer screen to them than an actual
man, standing in a trench digging next to them.
And it seems like the more our society goes in that direction.
The more digitized, everything becomes, the less Hands-On.
It is the less interactive with people.
The easier, it is to demonize entire swaths of people from
other places. Aces or people who think
differently. I mean you're seeing it in our
own country like you were talking about earlier with
January 6. Those are the crazy extremists
that need to be put down. I think that's so possible
because of how digital and age we're living in and I think that
it's only going to get worse and the more desensitized we become
to violence. The more desensitized would
become to hatred. The harder, it is going to be to
fight this. So, obviously, the more we
trade, the more we work with, and the more we just interact
with people. From other countries from other
religions, from other political backgrounds, the more peace.
There's going to be From Ludwig. Von mises Human Action.
The statement that one man's bun is another man's damage is valid
with regard to robbery or and booty.
The robbers. Plunder is the damage of the
despoiled victim, but war and commerce are two different
things. The philosophy of protectionism
is a philosophy of war. The wars of our age are not at
variance with popular economic. Once they are on the contrary,
the inescapable result of consistent application of these
doctrines. Finally, what has transformed
The Limited war between royal armies into Total War.
The clash between people's is not technicalities of military
art, but the substitution of the welfare state for the
laissez-faire state that Rick McFarland of the Liberty weekly
podcast thoughts on these Mises quotes.
Yeah, let's go. I mean, the second quote really
kind of touches on what I said with with China and Taiwan, but
the last quote, let's read that again because I don't think I
quite grasp it and first reading.
So War has transformed The Limited war between royal armies
into Total War. The clash between people's is
not technicalities of military art, but the substitution of the
welfare state for the laissez-faire state.
So if mine General outlook on the world, is I don't deserve
anything from anyone unless I can voluntarily.
Get it from them. I don't deserve a second of
their time. I don't deserve a penny of their
income unless I can voluntarily, give it from them, get it from
them. That is the laissez-faire
capitalist free-market ideology. But the welfare state ideology
is, people owe me stuff and more or less anything that someone
has they've either in Inherited it or they've got it through
exploitation. This is the welfare state
mindset, that allows things like War to take place.
Both domestically through Civil Wars, like the French Revolution
and Wars between nations and makes a much more likely than
they, otherwise would be. That's what I take away from it.
Granted. This was on page, eight hundred
and twenty of human actions. So maybe they were some things
proceeding it and I'm totally wrong, but that's what?
I think wait, so I hope I'm not being stupid here.
But it's he's saying that substituting the welfare stayed
for the laissez-faire capitalist state is what is transformed
limited War into Total War. Saying that the bigger, the
welfare state, the more people identify with the government,
the more they see, democracy is legitimate and they see other
countries as being representative of their domestic
populations. So the bigger the welfare state,
the more likely I am to say those goddamn Germans deserve,
what they got at Dresden. That's the other way.
I don't know if I'm wrong here. Let us know in the comments
section below. I'm sorry.
Or please do you have? Mediums are always open and
those give me tons of material for future videos.
Read Coverdale thoughts on the last three pieces quotes all are
from Human Action. Yeah, if you go to the third
one, too, because that one was the one that stuck out to me and
I agree. I think it's saying what you're
saying it says because I agree with your analysis that if you
believe in extortion if you believe in the Forceful seizure
of something, that is somebody else's to better yourself.
Then it's not hard to make the leap from your personal
well-being, to your nation's well-being.
And that's why it would transform from Royal armies to
Total War because the welfare state is an all encroaching
system that you know, everybody takes part in.
So if everybody is you To that idea of extortion of theft then
thinking that that is okay or even virtuous to a certain
extent. It's not a huge leap to think
that, you know, if if Saudi Arabia is not going to keep
selling us oil. We need to you know, do regime
change their or something. So, I don't know.
I just think that's an interesting thought.
I'd never really put together. Okay?
Least open up the goddamn Keystone.
And I mean, for the, the least you could do is allow capitalist
acts between consenting adults. Once you've now gotten Russia on
our bad side and have been driving them driving Putin, into
the arms of XI for the last what 30 years by expanding NATO into
13 countries, that not only were former Soviet countries, but
were part of the previous Russian Empire in the 1800's
just absolutely. Unbelievable.
The matches that they play with knowing that.
Yeah, but we need our coal-powered Tesla's to protect
the environment. Don't you do Keith, we really do
read. As someone who is read enough
already time to end the war on terrorism by Scott Horton.
The only time that NATO, the North American Treaty
Organization. Again, it's a military treaty,
not as Trade Organization. When you look at the very first
time, That NATO ever invoked Article 5 an attack on one is an
attack on all was after September 11th into Afghanistan.
Would you say that the US military response along but the
NATO response in Afghanistan was a net benefit or a net cost.
Definitely a net cost. I mean, how many trillion did we
spend in Afghanistan? Anyway, I don't really know
that. I'll still had what?
We'll never know something like it was in the trillions.
After 20 years, thousands of lives trillions of dollars.
And then with our, you know, with our exit last year.
I don't think anyone looked at that as successful and I might,
I mean, you guys might agree with me, but in the general
public, I'm definitely a minority when I'm sad that
people. The die in our exit from
Afghanistan, but as far as Optics go, I was actually very
glad that it was such a catastrophe from you know, a
public standpoint that people were kind of embarrassed to see
how horribly it was executed, because I think it was very
reflective of our entire involvement over there.
So yeah, complete nothing, but a disaster, absolutely completely.
A negative outcome from being there, Pat.
If you're looking at or assume you're talking to someone who
says, well 9/11 happened and we haven't had a major terrorist
attacks like 9/11 since u.s. NATO involvement in Afghanistan.
So, therefore, NATO and US involvement in Afghanistan has
been a net benefit Pat. What do you say to that mindset?
Well, I think it's emblematic of what the foreign policy
consensus is. I A few years ago.
I was reading something in foreign affairs saying.
Basically this that oh, well, you know, over the last what 40
years NATO has presided over or since World War Two NATO has
presided over world. Peace.
And that NATO is the cause of World.
Peace, being the implication and I think it just completely is an
orwellian Distortion of exactly what we're seeing here, but
specifically with that, I mean you'd have to get in Into what
the history of, you know, the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks
and the role of the Taliban and who we went after exactly seeing
that, you know, and then you'd have to get into blowback and
things like that, too. I realized what's wrong with
that last quote. I'm sorry, is I'm reading for as
by in that last substitution of the welfare state by the
laissez-faire State. I think it's a bad translation
of the German anyways. Very possible.
Yeah, it's it's too sad that Scott Horton and enough already.
So it's the fact that he actually uses the citation from
a CIA analyst that on in September of 2001.
There were about 400 members of this organization known as
Al-Qaeda. This was Abdullah azzam Ayman
al-zawahiri. And Osama Bin Laden's group, in
the Middle East. There were about 400 members in
One and one. And after the 20 year war that's
cost trillions of dollars killed.
Stunned has killed tons of civilians and given a ton of
people pts T. There is more Al Qaeda than ever
before and they have bigger reach in places like Libya with
the Libyan Islamic fighting group in places like Syria with
job at all news or even places in the Philippines and Niger or
Nigeria, I believe. So it absolutely.
Stating and the fact that they don't have any humility.
They're not even like, well, maybe we should question bore
with a nuclear power and a no-fly zone.
Considering the Taliban. We lost two in 11 days, after we
left, no humility at all. That, that's what statism does
to your brain and it's terrible. You lose all standards for the
people. You Pledge, Your Allegiance to.
It's really really devastating recover tail.
Could you start us off? On these next three.
Underlays. A fair peaceful coexistence of a
multitude of sovereign Nations is possible under government
control of business. It is impossible.
What? They need some commas in that
sentence. That was tough in the long, run
War and the preservation of market economy are incompatible.
Capitalism is essentially a scheme for peaceful Nations, but
this does not mean that a nation which is forced to repeal
foreign aggressors must substitute government control
for private Enterprise. If it were to do this, it would
deprive itself of the most efficient means of Defense.
There is no record of a socialist Nation.
Ian, which defeated a capitalist nation in spite of their much,
glorified War. Socialism.
The Germans were defeated in both World Wars.
The emergence of the international division of labor
requires the total abolition of War.
So read when you read these last three, discussing war in the
preservation of the market economy, depriving people of
their most efficient means of Defense.
If they give the state too much power, what what are some
thoughts that come to mind? Yeah, it's interesting.
The countries that took over the most of their economies to run
on warfare. They all eventually lose and
more quickly than countries. That don't necessarily convert
everything to Warfare. I mean, and it says, was this a
there that no socialist nation has ever defeated, a capitalist
Nation. That's something I've never
thought about, but that's still true today.
Isn't it? I think the greater degree.
So, if we're taking hop has definition of socialism a
greater institutionalized aggression against private
property. Whereas capitalism is a greater
recognition of the institution of private property and
voluntary exchange that more capitalist countries would would
tend to be more socialist countries yet.
You know, it would be hard to Linguist just because of the
amount of Guerrilla warfare that that's involved.
That is one that that I might have to think about.
Yeah, in spite of their much glorified War socialism.
The Germans were defeated in both World Wars.
It's a good line right there. So yeah, if I just have an end
that I want to be more productive in the field of
armaments and my ability to defend myself, I certainly want
the high amount of options that a capitalist free-market economy
would give me rather than a state-controlled one.
Where they're not only were regulations.
I probably wouldn't be recognized as having a right to
purchase some things and not others.
And there'd be one Monopoly Security Agency, called the
state. Wouldn't be competing ones
trying to protect me, knowing they could lose my business if
they didn't protect me. So it's absolutely possible.
But this is the only one that I will more or less raise an
eyebrow at Pat thought on these last three.
Yeah, it kind of gets into a mean, mises known for his
critique of socialism being the the calculation problem.
And of course, if you're trying to, you know, arranged all of
the, all of the instruments, Ants of the market economy into
one end, which is Warfare than you just have a single buyer for
all these weapons. And therefore, I mean, it would
seem like you would have a pricing problem if there's just
one singular demand, but I wanted to point out that there
was an issue with commas and something that reads said, so
we're just going to spend this whole time crapping on whoever
made this this translation and I was thinking in the An old quote
that Miss Mark Thornton some kind of profound point or
something like that that he was saying, oh, you know, something
about the laissez-faire economy. I don't think it was Mark
Thornton. I don't think he translated it.
I think he just arranged this. I'm talking about the original
Human Action quotes. Oh, okay.
Yeah, I got a question about World War Two.
I know we obviously had a ton of government intervention in the
US economy during World War Two but was our production much more
lazy Fair than Germany or Russia because I mean I also know we
had a lot of Natural Resources in the United States, but it's
ridiculous. How quickly the United States
jumped into war production and had airplanes and tanks and the
I mean, I feel like there's a lot of misinformation around
World War 2 saying that the Nazis had the best army because
they really didn't the Nazi Germany.
Moved a lot of its artillery with horses.
All the way through the war that bolt-action rifles.
They did have some like crazy scientific discoveries.
Toward the end of the war. Like they had jet engines and
things like that. But most mostly they were pretty
technologically impaired compared to us.
Do you guys do either you guys know much?
About that. Yes, certainly in the works of
Antony Sutton who was a researcher at the Hoover
Institute. He wrote two books called Wall
Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, as well as Wall
Street, and the rise of Hitler, which is where you can have both
of these parasites called national socialism in Germany,
International socialism in Russia and Democratic Socialism
or social democracy in the form of America.
So long as you have this capitalist engine that you can
sort of siphon off of so Antony Sutton wrote a three-volume work
specifically on Soviet Russia, but also places in National
Socialist, Germany teaming with places like IBM and IG farben
that that's where they got a lot of their strength from.
So I'm not exactly sure what percentage of the economies of
America versus Britain versus Germany in the first And and six
second world war existed, but it all goes back to critiques.
That Adam Smith was making when he was criticizing the concept
of mercantilism where he said that businesses and the state
are constantly colluding against the consumer.
Not because businesses want this total free market, because in
the free market businesses would face competition, whereas when
they can invoke regulations and As mm.
Well then they don't have to necessarily meet consumer
demand. It's not necessarily they don't
get a dollar out of your pocket unless you give it to them.
They have a direct line to a few politicians who are happy to
write them legislation in their favor.
So all throughout the world wars.
I my understanding from the work of Anthony Sutton is that
America was constantly having companies bankroll these large
institutions pets, you have anything on that?
Yeah, I mean I was just going to talk about the role of the CFR
and IG farben specifically like between World War one and World
War Two. I started writing a piece on
this, but you just have lots of investment being driven by CFR
members to create World War Two, essentially with the Treaty of
Versailles. And the What is it like the
restitution package that they put together from from Germany
from the vine, Mar Republic to the other to France and all
these other nations. So kind of creating that you
have CFR men. And I think it was j.p.
Morgan to, that was involved with this financing project, but
creating this impossible situation, and people from from
those banking institutions, creating it essentially Yeah,
the the Sutton books that I was thinking of one is titled
National Suicide and that's a summary of his work.
But the other is titled Western technology and Soviet Economic
Development 1917 to 1990. It's in three different volumes
and it's just just incredible. That would you mind reading
these these next ones? Yeah, modern war is merciless.
Does not spare pregnant women or infants.
It is indiscriminate killing and destroying it does not respect.
The rights of neutrals. Millions are killed enslaved or
expelled from The Dwelling Places in which their ancestors
lived for centuries. Nobody can foretell what will
happen in the next chapter of this endless struggle.
This has little to do with the atomic bomb.
The root of the evil, is not the construction of new, more
Dreadful weapons. It is the spirit of Conquest
itself. It is probably the, it is
probable that scientists will discover some Methods of defense
against the atomic bomb, but this will not alter things.
It will merely prolong for a short time, the process of the
complete destruction of civilization.
Well, that's promising, that's inspiring to defeat.
The aggressors is not enough to make peace durable.
The main thing is to discard the ideology that generates War
ownership turns the fighting man into the economic man, only the
exclusion of private property, can maintain the military
character of the state, only the warrior who has no other Patient
apart from war, than preparation.
For war is always ready for war men occupied in Affairs.
May wage Wars of Defense but not long Wars of Conquest, read.
Coverdale any thoughts on those last three?
Yeah, you know, it's an interesting thought experiment
to ask people which they think was worse, the Holocaust or
World War Two because like something like 10 times, the
amount of people died in World War Two.
That died in the Holocaust. So and so many innocent people
on both sides, you know, who were just murdered and cities or
firebombed, or machine gun down, or whatever.
And the same would like the, what was worse, the the Civil
War or the institution of slavery, even though the Civil
War wasn't to end slavery, but, you know, when you start asking
people about these things. I feel like a lot of them.
They're not even necessarily thinking it was a horrible
price. That had to be paid to stop
these things. They're thinking this isn't as
bad as the thing that was going on in the first place.
And I think this is really interesting because that's the
way I used to think. I used to not think World War 2
was horrible. I used to think it was a noble
cause that just had to be fought to stop Hitler from taking over
the world and committing mass murder and on all, you know, six
inhabited continents or whatever.
And that's a Big transformation. I've gone through over the
years, and I think that, I think it was that first, quote that
really spoke to that about the murder of.
Where's the quote, there? Is that the one on the top right
now, now, Yeah, that one modern Wars merciless.
It just not spare pregnant women or infants.
It is indiscriminate killing and destroying.
I don't think people, you know, you know, it's weird, how people
always focus on the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, which was
horrible, but they forget about firebombing Tokyo for months
ahead of that. Killing wait, you know, many
more people in a much more terrible way or the firebombing
of Germany. I mean, just Stuff that went on
during that war and every war since is just absolutely
horrific and innocent people died.
They burned to death they you know, they get killed in the
crossfire they get accidentally targeted and I think people just
forget about that. You know, we have a very
romanticized vision of what war is and it's not what we have
come to think it is. Exactly.
It's always so vague. It's always, we defeated the
enemy. It's never tons of women and
children and innocent guys died. A lot of guys who died in combat
were conscripts and they thought they were doing the right thing,
just like the other people were, because they were tricked by
their ruling class. Who they were brought up to
pledge their allegiance to. Well.
Once you realize how complex it is, then you don't see things as
black and white because Only once you see things in black and
white, are you able to say? Oh, yeah, let's bomb the hell
out of them. Yeah.
Let's look. Let's just murdered those Branch
Davidians God. Do they deserve it by now?
51 days. God.
I hope they all suffer. Only at that point.
Could you get people to think in in such a tragic way?
Pat, any thoughts on the three quotes you read their, I'll
focus on the first one to because I think it's important
that Misa says the root of the root of the evil is.
Not the construction of new more Dreadful weapons.
It is the spirit of Conquest itself.
But yet at the same time me, sis doesn't say that we could get
rid of that. And and I think that if missis
was saying we could get rid of the spirit of Conquest, he would
be more like a Marxist saying that we need to create a new
man. A new non violent man.
I think the the truth is more complicated.
Is that while the vast majority of people and I've done work
about this but the vast majority of people would not kill.
War. In fact, they have to be
conditioned to do so they would they would die rather than kill
another person or they would die.
Even if it meant saving their friends.
They refuse to kill even if it meant saving their friend, but
there is 10 to 15 percent of the population that are sociopaths
or Psychopaths and they will always exist. 10 to 15 percent
really, it's less than that. Maybe.
Like I'm just gonna I was going to say I support India's system
of putting a DOT on your head instead if you're married, if
you're a psychopath, I mean, but God if it's 10, 15 %, I mix got
a change where I shop. I mixed up the statistics.
This is the statistic is that 80% of people will not use their
weapons in combat at all and 15 to 20% will, but of that 15 to
20%, Most of them will purposely not shoot the enemy and we'll
miss and will posture. But there is a small percentage,
which is probably like one to two percent of men who will kill
without remorse. Thank heavens from nieces
omnipotent government page 3 within a world of free trade and
democracy. There are no incentives for war
and Conquest only in the case of Prayer.
Native peoples does war lead to the selection of the stronger
and more gifted and that among civilized peoples.
It leads to a deterioration of the race by unfavorable
selection. The only means to Lasting peace
is to remove the root causes of war.
Read Coverdale thoughts, on any of those three that middle?
One is interesting. I need to read it again.
Only in the case of People's does war lead to the selection
of the stronger and more gifted and that among civilized
peoples. It leads to deterioration of the
race by unfavorable selection. So he's suggesting that war was
may be necessary at one time along the evolutionary path, but
we've evolved past it. And now it's it's a - that's
kind of how I'm reading that. I'm thinking that if we are in a
very primitive tribe, the strongest are absolutely needed
as in physical strength and they're going to be the ones who
we need in case of War. But now, but Bill kristol and
John McCain, you think they could beat anyone in an arm
wrestling match? No today.
It's the intellectuals who are able to manipulate the
consciousness of the masses. Who are More not the physically,
strong the physically ambitious, or emotionally ambitious as
well. So, the people pushing for war
back then verse the people pushing for war, nowadays are
two very different demographics. Pat.
That's right. Yeah.
Pat any thoughts on these last three?
No mises goes on. He says, but what is needed for
a satisfactory solution of the burning problem of international
relations? Is neither a new office with
more committees, secretary's Commissioners reports and
regulations nor a new body of armored Executioner's, but the
radical overthrow of mentalities and domestic policies, which
must result In Conflict, full freedom, of movement, of
persons, and goods the most comprehensive protection of the
private of the property and freedom of each individual
removal of all state compulsion in the school system.
In short, the most, exact and complete application of the
ideas of 1789 are the prerequisites of peaceful
conditions. If you want to abolish War you
must eliminate its causes. What is needed to restrict
government activities to the preservation of Life Health and
private property and thereby to safeguard the working of the
market. Sovereignty must not be used for
inflicting harm, on anyone, whether citizen or Foreigner.
We got a couple more here. I'm just going to go through
these, if some people's pretend that history or geography.
Gives them the right to subjugate other races Nations or
people's there. Can be no peace.
Only one thing can conquer war that liberal attitude of mind
which can see nothing in war, but destruction and Annihilation
and which can never wish to bring about a war because it
regards water as dangerous. Even to the victors.
Finally, if we're is regarded as advantageous than laws will not
be allowed to stand. In the way of going to war on
the first day of any War, all the laws opposing obstacles to
it will be swept, aside, read Coverdale thoughts on any of the
previous quotes from Asus. Well, I think the kind of all
encapsulating concept here is just let people live and let
them trade with each other and let them.
Interact with each other and it'll be harder for them to want
to murder each other. And if you look at governments,
they basically do everything they can to segregate, people to
separate people by race religion ideology of any sort and you
know, make people hate each other based on which country
they're from. So if the government is just not
there doing that like Patrick was talking about a couple
minutes ago, most men don't have an inherent desire to actually
shoot at somebody. You have to be forced into that
into that mindset. So if we just let people live
Wars probably are not just going to naturally spring up Pat
thoughts on the last mises quotes.
Yeah. I mean I couldn't put it a
better way myself. I think, you know Dave Smith and
read you said this earlier too is that when you're cooperating
with someone you you learn to rely on them and you work
together to reach a goal and that Operation leads to less
conflict. Read when Bill kristol debated,
Scott Horton. He said I'm also anti-war.
In fact, I only justify some US military intervention because I
think it will lead to less war than more war.
So great when you say you are anti-war, what does that mean?
I think war is the worst thing that has ever plagued humanity.
And I mean the worst thing, it should be the absolute Last
Resort. I mean nothing else.
It should be, it should proceed nothing else.
It should be the absolute Last Resort when you have no other
options and you're just defending yourself and I can't
think of a single us intervention that resembles that
template at all. And also, you know, I'm not much
of a statist or a collectivist myself.
So when I'm thinking of self-defense, it's if there were
an invasion into this country where people were trying to burn
my property and hurt my family. I would defend myself but being
anti-war is just realizing that it is the worst thing that has
ever existed and that it should be avoided at all costs.
Patrick McFarland of the Liberty weekly podcast, Liberty, weekly
dotnet where a you can be found. Patrick.
What does it mean to be anti-war?
Yeah, likewise. I mean, war is absolutely the
worst thing that happens in. I want to say it's completely
avoidable. Obviously, there are examples
where we were just talking about that.
We're mises was talking about this need for human Conquest.
So unfortunately, I don't think it'll ever go.
Way, but I think that it takes people like us to to speak out
against it and to try and make everyone realize that there are
far more people that will not kill and take other human life.
So if we just all got together and collectively said, no maybe
that might make a difference. So we're here trying to do that
work, especially at this time where I think it's very very
sorely needed as the propaganda machine ramps up.
Yes, I definitely think that the great crime in war is not that.
Well, I secretly love Putin and I really like the head of the
Taliban. They're all politicians.
I couldn't care if they lived or died.
Actually. I have a preference.
Don't ask me which one it is. The point is, is that the great
crime in war is imprecision? It's not that, well, I'm against
guilty, people who are responsible for murder and
torture. I'm against them being held
accountable. No, of course.
The reason that I'm against war or what means us here has called
total war is because of its imprecision.
It conscripts people by the millions and more or less in
slaves. Them into the worst work.
You could possibly be in forced labor to.
It gives tons of people PTSD. It takes husband's away from
others. It takes, father's away from
kids, it gets people. His limbs blown off
unnecessarily who aren't necessarily guilty of any
wrongdoing. So it's not that I kind of have
a soft spot for Putin. It's I kind of have a soft spot
for ukrainians and Russians and Americans.
And anyone who hasn't initiated fraud or violence against anyone
else. Yeah, excellent points.
There about being anti-war and Bill.
Kristol owes us an apology for lying.
Patrick McFarlane. Read the next up for for us,
please. Alright, so the way to Eternal
peace does not lead through strengthening State and central
power as socialism strives. For history is witness.
The failure of many Endeavors to impose piece by War.
Cooperation by coercion, un unanimity by slaughtering
dissidents. A lasting order cannot be
established by bayonets. War can really cause no
economic, boom. At least not directly since an
increase in wealth. Never does result from
destruction of goods. And read one more for us.
Not not through war and victory but only through work can a
nation create the preconditions for the well-being of its
members conquering Nations, finally Parish either because
they are annihilated by strong ones are because the ruling
class is culturally overwhelmed by the subjugated read.
Could you please finish this off by reading the final few quotes
here? Economically considered war and
revolution are always bad business.
The essence of so-called War, Prosperity, it enriches some by
what it takes from others. It is not Rising wealth but a
shifting of wealth and income. There is.
But one field of public administration in which the
Criterion of success or failure or failure is unquestionable,
the waging of War, but even here, the only things Certain as
whether the operation has been crowned, with success War
socialism was by no means complete socialism, but it was
full and true, socialization without exception.
If one had kept on the path that have been taken.
Or Prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or
a plague brings. The earthquake means good
business for construction workers and cholera improves the
business of Physicians Pharmacists and Undertaker's.
But no one has for that reason yet sought to celebrate
earthquakes and cholera as stimulators of the productive
forces in the general interest. While that's a great, that's a
great one right there. Interventionism generates
economic nationalism and Economic nationalism.
Generates. I don't know.
This Bella Bella. How to use.
What is this word? Bellicosity, bellicosity.
My dad's an English teacher. He'd be ashamed.
If men and commodities are prevented from crossing.
The border lines, Why should not the Army's try to pave the way
for them. So read what about the cholera
quote from nation-state? And economy.
Did you think was so significant?
Well, it was like I was saying earlier the arms manufacturers
and the people making the tanks and the bombs and the Machinery,
they always win, right there, the ones who win a war they make
millions of dollars and tons of profit and then even if their
country loses a war or they get employed by whoever ends up
beating them, so they just never lose and they're like The
Undertaker's, the doctors, the Pharmacists and the construction
workers. Earthquakes and cholera
outbreaks. Patrick, McFarland, any thoughts
on these last set of mises quotes?
What God she discussed so much. Here.
He went into nationalism, interventionism Prosperity being
like an earthquake channeling Frederic bastiat here, enriching
some by what it takes from others that there's so much
here. Pat final thoughts here.
Yeah, I mean war is just another big government program and
that's why you know, like the book of anti-war.com They they
it's a Randolph Bourne, driven by that Wars, the health of the
state. It's just a big government
program. It's a, it's a program of
redistribution essentially. And I think that the quote that
read pointed out. I love it too.
Because it's such a good illustration.
That's easy to grasp and the imagery that it brings to mind.
Is it really works? So, when having this discussion
with people, about the concept of War, there is one war that
constantly comes up in any English-speaking country.
Even in russian-speaking, countries that I have recently.
Come to learn. That is the second world war.
Now. First of all, this is kind of
odd. First, you would think that the
war that they brag about would be a war that lasted like a very
short amount of time killed a very few innocent.
People it mainly focused on the guilty people and was a great
success for the good of mankind. But what they focus on is the
second world war, which killed a lot of people.
So, Pat Buchanan had summarized his findings after having
researched. The second world war.
Remember tap you Cannon was someone who supported.
George kennan's containment philosophy and Domino.
They were. So Pat Buchanan supported the
war in Korea Vietnam. Granada Nicaragua Afghanistan in
the 1980s. So this is not some libertarian
who is just constantly questioning things.
Here is Pat Buchanan on the second world war on September
1st, 1939. 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish
Frontier on September 3rd, Britain declared war six years
later, 50 million, Christians and Jews.
Perished Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany.
A smoldering ruin Europe. Had served as the site of the
most murderous combat known to man and civilians had suffered
worse Horrors. Then the soldiers by May 1945.
Red. Army hordes occupied all the
great capitals of Central Europe.
Began a Prague Budapest Berlin. 100 million Christians were
under the heel of the most barbarous turning in history.
The Bolshevik regime of the greatest terrorist of them all
Joseph Stalin. What cause could justify these
sacrifices recover Dale? Please.
Explain where people can find the naturalist capitalist
podcast and any thoughts on the second world war and the quotes
of Ludwig von mises. Yeah.
The second world war is the worst conflict in human history.
And I think this is why We learned so much about the
Holocaust in high school and why, you know, Nazis are so
inundated into our culture, as the most evil thing that's ever
existed, because until recently, now Putin's worse than Nazis,
but before that, you know, Nazis were always like the epitome of
evil. And I think it was just drilled
into our brain because we had to believe that What is it?
Like 77 million people died in World War 2.
The estimates go up that high, I think something like that.
So we had to think that nuking Japan and leveling half of
Europe and you know, the Battle of Stalingrad and all these
things were all worth it because this was going to be a plague on
Humanity. That was just going to destroy
the world. But yeah, my podcast is the
naturalist capitalist podcast. You can find me on YouTube,
Odyssey, Spotify app, Podcasts under the naturalist capitalist
and then you can follow me, read Coverdale, on Twitter,
Instagram, gab getter float. All those places?
Just I'm the only read Coverdale out there and the only
naturalist capitalist out there. So if you look for me, you'll
find me. I should have chosen a different
aim. There's a black cartoonist sjw
by the name of Keith Knight, and I really wish I would have gone
with something else. Read last time you and I spoke
you would Told people they should check out the Mike Rivera
podcast that you did with him. He has done so much excellent
work. And I've gone to his site so
many times in my past when it comes to foreign policy or the
economics of foreign policy or just the cost of wars in
general. What is a podcast or video that
people should check out. If they only have time for one,
which one of your podcast, should they check out?
Man, if we're if it's going to involve economics and also
political motivation man, it's I'm just going to I'm going to
say two because I can't choose one.
But I did the Ukrainian situation.
I believe it's episode 195 with Scott Horton.
And I did this before Russia invaded, Ukraine.
It was a week or two before and we went into the entire history
with Crimea with the donbas region with Luhan.
In Donetsk and just covered it all and then another one that
had it about a week ago is Corn Pops, Ukrainian Revenge with
Ryan Dawson. It's a great episode.
We go into, you know, us politicians involvement with
energy companies in Ukraine and we kind of dig into, you know,
more of the history of Ukraine and Russia and the just the evil
of our own government and Financial.
Interest that are really propelling this war.
So I would recommend both, I can't really choose between
either of those links to both of those will be in the description
below. Patrick McFarland of Liberty
weekly dotnet. My audience knows where to find
you at both that website and the libertarian Institute.
Final thoughts on the quotes. We read from mises and the
second world war, the single War glorified by the CFR and all of
their friends. Yeah, like read said, I mean, I
think it's most important for the powers that shouldn't be to
make it that World War Two is the Glorious war.
That we are the heroes and I think that's directly because it
was the most horrible thing to ever happen.
And so therefore the narrative has to be completely captured so
that people think that these things are absolutely necessary
because otherwise they would look at the cost and I think
that we would have focused more on that in school.
About all the death and destruction that occurred, not
just because of how evil Nazism was but because of the
conflagration and the conflict itself.
So I think it's important especially in these times to
look to what mises and rothbard actually said and to look to
people like Hapa and, you know, all these different philosophers
that we talk about all the time, but to really try to see this
conflict through that lens but to get it right.
Damn it. I mean it.
So important to be right at the right time.
And I think that as this is really caused, a lot of people
to, to kind of lose their minds. It's like covid all over again,
except in a different way. So, I think that we, we really
just need to get this right? And to see these things with
Nuance because foreign policy is hard and I find it to be harder
than, than actually studying the philosophy.
I mean, we've been doing non-aggression principle
podcast, 44, Almost a decade. Now.
They've been all over the place and they're good.
But at the same time foreign policy, I think it's more
important to apply those principles to foreign policy and
get the right answer and I think it's more challenging.
So so that's what I've been trying to focus on lately and
it's difficult. I mean, it's not easy because
you need all this other background information.
So, confined my work at Liberty, weekly dotnet libertarian
Institute if I could direct people to Work that I did.
It would be why can't Johnny kill I titled it 11th Hour
conscientious objection and moral injury.
That's Liberty. Weekly dotnet forward.
Slash 178. I wrote a little article about
it, but it's a short documentary talking about the statistics
that I flubbed earlier sociopathy and, you know, moral
injury, but moreover, what makes people kill?
Because most people won't kill. And so we talked about that in
that documentary. Thanks to everyone for watching
the libertarian Institute and the don't try it.
On anyone podcast, read Coverdale, and Patrick
McFarland. Thank you so much gentlemen, for
your time. Thank you.
American people need to understand.
This is just a money laundering operations.
I mean, 10 years of war in Afghanistan for us to leave.
We could even take back the billions of dollars worth of
weapons that we just left them on the soil, the soil and for
the Taliban to take over. I mean, every single American
should be outraged, and that's why I say that we have to remain
focused and understand the enemies for us.
For the American people are not in Ukraine or Russia, the right
sitting down in Congress on Capitol Hill.
Those are the enemies of the American people.