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.