I have a number of peculiar guilty pleasures, as any regular reader of the blog can attest. Among these is a fondness for watching hippie films from the sixties and seventies and laughing at their simple minded pontificating and the absurd "insights" they considered profound. "Man is the only animal to kill its own kind". Well, except chimpanzees, black widows, most fish, almost any animal in mating competition, male cats with the offspring of other males, dogs, ants... You get the idea. "Greed is the root of all evil." As proved by the joys brought to the world by selfless leaders such as Stalin and Pol Pot. And it goes on and on...

The reason I mention this is that I have long been amused by the quest many undertake to end war, and end it by political means. I suppose in one way they are right, as some of the roots of war are political, but the specific political means they inevitably choose are precisely the wrong ones, which is why I find their quest both futile and absurd.

I suppose I should back up a bit and start with a few disclaimers, as having jumped right into my topic, I fear I might have given a few false impressions.

First, ending warfare both is and is not a worthwhile goal. All thinking men, excluding perhaps a few with delusional Nietzscheans, abhor war. Despite the myths of the left, conservatives recognize as much as liberals that war is a bad thing¹. In fact, they may recognize it even more, as what war destroys is often more prized by the right than left. War does not only kill men, nor does it bring pain and suffering. War also has long term effects, and many that pass unnoticed. War destroys accumulated wealth, setting us back years, decades, even more, moving back progress. Look at the gap between the high point of the Romans and the depths of the Dark Ages, that was largely the result of centuries of grinding warfare². Beyond that, war destroys trade, cooperation between men, it breaks down communication between distant lands, and it destroys the infrastructure of society, eliminating those traditions which are so important for a society. ("In Defense of Standards", "Addenda to "In Defense of Standards"", "Cranky Old Man?", "The Fascination with Change", "An Immature Society")

However, as horrific as war can be, as destructive as it is, eliminating war is not the highest goal a human can adopt. If war could be eliminated, it would clearly be beneficial, but there are costs which would be too high to pay for such a result. And so, though eliminating war is a worthy goal, it is not the highest possible aspiration. In addition, as I shall argue shortly, war can be eliminated without explicitly doing so, as a consequence of other actions, and so, while we wish to see an end to war, there is no need to pursue that goal itself, as it can come about on its own without anyone taking any extraordinary steps.

I suppose I should also distinguish "war" from other types of violence. Often in discussions such as these, people will blur the line between warfare and any form of violence, making a random mugging the equivalent of military occupation. It is easy to see why, the confusion serves to advance some arguments ("Protean Terminology", "The Most Misleading Word", "Luxury and Necessity"). It is similar to the confusion over public and private racism. ( "Private Versus Public Racism", "The Danger Inherent in Banning "Bad Ideas"", "In Defense of Discrimination", "A Statute of Limitations for Race", "How to Handle Idiots", "Back Again") If I argue that war can be ended through several simple steps that would end up leaving government no incentive to fight, those who dislike my conclusions can argue that my solution is incomplete, as "war" will still exist in the form of private acts of violence. Confusing private and government action makes it almost impossible to find a solution which eliminates all "war", and thus it is possible to shoot down any proposal.

So, when I speak of an end to war, let me make it clear I mean an end to war, which is a government action.Private acts of violence, deplorable though they might be, are not warfare, warfare is the act of a government. Admittedly, there are some grey areas here. We have civil wars, where actions are undertaken by private individuals to overthrow the state, and we have groups of bandits, thugs and others, the coteries of various "warlords", whose actions could possibly be seen as "war". provided it is directed against some governmental entity, but those cases can be handled as they arise. For now, the point I want to make clear is that ending war will not end violence, it will only result in the end of governmental acts of violence against other states. But, in my mind, that seems a pretty worthwhile goal.

Allow me to end these opening caveats with one final point. Though I speak of ending warfare, and I mean it precisely as it sounds, I do not begin to claim that ending war will end the need for a  military. Yes, if the world were to structured as I shall soon suggest, there would be little or no incentive for governments to war, but that does not mean they can disarm. The moment the world is without soldiers, it is almost inevitable some immoral individual would raise his own army and seize a state, and then proceed to use that state to plunder the rest of the unarmed nations. Or, to put it more simply, the lack of a current foe does not allow one to disarm, as there always exists the potential of a future foe.

Hopefully those few paragraphs have made a bit more clear the basic beliefs upon which I rest the argument I am about to make. As they differ from the many stereotypes of conservatives, and may even be at odds with the impression my opening gave, I thought it best to state them explicitly, even if it did break up the flow of this essay. But, having done so, it is probably best to say no more and jump back into the argument proper.

As I said at the beginning, a political solution to war is not without some justification, as war often has political causes. Granted, there are other causes as well, but many are either reinforced or simply given free rein by the existence of bad political doctrines. So, in a way, it makes sense to turn to political solutions to try to end war.

My objection is to the doctrines to which these individuals turn. In general, historical peace movements have adopted some variations of either internationalism or socialism, or perhaps a blend of the two. Recently there have been a new wave of pseudo-federalist internationalist solutions, mirroring the rising popularity of multiculturalism, but we will deal with those last, as they are effectively just a variation on the other alternatives.

I don't think it would be too unfair to say an internationalist, global solution is the absolute worst way to end war. Of course, if we stick to a strict definition of war as being between two independent political entities, I suppose a global government makes that impossible, as there would, by definition, be but single combatant, but if we allow for civil wars, uprisings, insurrections, internal fragmentation and all the other woes that strike imperial powers and absolute states that suffer internal discord, then that is not just possible, but inevitable.

Before explaining why, allow me to say that if globalism is the worst solution, then socialism is the second worst, and a close second at that. And, as blending the two tends to create not a dilution of globalism's ills, but rather a synergy between the failings of each, it may be the worst of all. But that definitely requires some explanation, so allow me to provide it.

Globalism is a bad solution in terms of peace for the same reason it is a bad solution for individual rights. (Cf. "Why I Am Not A Libertarian", "The Benefits of Federalism", "Redundancy as a Protective Measure", "Adaptability and Government", "A New Look At Intervention", "Consolidation and Diffusion") I have often approached this topic from the opposite end, arguing for the many benefits of federalism, and in a way the argument against globalism is simply the inverse of those arguments. But rather than simply say that and refer to my older essays, allow me to provide a brief synopsis.

Government is stable to the degree citizens support it, or, if they do not actively support it, to the degree the non-supporters remain indifferent to it. The best solution to this quandary is to provide a government which citizens feel is responsive to their desires. And the easiest solution to that problem is to provide a government which represents a very small body of individuals, and which has frequent elections, allowing those unhappy with the present administration to feel they have a chance in the near future to replace the disliked entity. A global government is exactly opposite to that principle. A county or even town government is representative and responsive as a few thousand votes could change a single seat, making tens or hundreds of voters significant. A small body of individuals can feel they will be heard. A world government, in contrast, would not recognize an issue until millions, or at least hundreds of thousand, were invested in it. In other words, only the most publicized issues would receive attention, leaving a host of issues, even ones which affect tens of thousands, feeling disenfranchised. And, with many  tens of thousands of disaffected individuals, it would not take long for unrest to either arise spontaneously, or to be drummed up by opportunistic individuals.

In short, even if endowed with relatively modest power, a one world government is simply a recipe for discontent. And, as we know well, most plans for world peace do not envision a weak one world government, and the addition of excessive power adds even more problems, as we will see next.

I suppose the easiest argument to make would be the one I made in "Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences", that the philosophic justification for powerful government inevitably entails a belief in the incompetence of the bulk of humanity, and, given that belief, it is inevitable those holding power will abuse it, if only because, believing they are superior to the uneducated masses, they would want to to keep power lest it fall into the hands of hoi polloi. But someone would argue that my view is too cynical, that some idealist could believe in interventionist government without looking down on individuals in that way. I do not believe it, and think I have made my case very well that only by adopting that perspective can one truly justify intervention, but rather than make that argument, allow me to offer an alternate one. I am not giving up on my initial inclination, nor am I admitting my first argument is flawed, I simply want to avoid the time it would take to justify, and instead offer an argument more likely to appeal to those who are unable to believe liberalism rests on arrogant disdain for one's fellow man.

As I argued in "Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government" (as well as  "The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism"), government support rests not only on the appearance of representation, but also upon the appearance of equity, especially in these modern times, when representational government and so vague belief in social contract is almost universal, at least in the west. Now, before anyone who knows my political predisposition believes I am going to take this too far, allow me to explain that "equity" is not the same as absolute equality, or my own beliefs that some find so extreme³. The conventional view of government is happy to accept some degree of inequality, provided it is either justified, in a manner acceptable to the voters, or rests upon some historical tradition. For example, the exemption of churches from taxation, though the cause of some grumbling, is unlikely to lead to widespread revolt. Likewise, the fact that the military can carry arms citizens cannot is generally accepted and causes little stir. On the other hand, efforts to create privileges for select minorities is generally met with widespread discontent, as are special advantages given to specific businesses, localities, or other favored entities.

This sounds like a problem inherent in government, at least to those who have become used to government being little more than a patronage machine, or a poorly disguised struggle for advantage, but that ignores one crucial aspect of this problem. The greater the advantage gained, the greater the disadvantage others suffer, the more the public will become outraged. And, the greater the power granted to the state, the greater the disparities between groups.

Some will argue this is impossible, as socialism is intended to produce equality, but that ignores two truths. First, equality of result means hindering those who are superior in performance, in short, imposing greater burdens upon those who are more able. And so, to produce the socialist "equality", one must consistently favor the less able, giving them ever greater advantage in direct proportion to their incapacity. And so, to produce socialism, even in its "ideal" form, requires fairly significant advantages be conferred upon several groups.

But there is another consideration. Apart from ideology, ignoring the ideology, government exists to accomplish tasks⁴.  Once an office has been granted a power, it will not want to relinquish that power.This is not necessarily sinister. There can be a very noble motive. After all, it once needed that power, and so it is likely they will believe they might need that power again. However, to maintain a power, government must also show a need, and so they must exercise that power. And in that process, they will inevitably end up conferring advantage on some group and disadvantage on another. Likewise, every department wants to do its job to the best of its ability (ideally⁵), but to do that they need sufficient power. And power is only gained by requesting it, which requires a justification. Those justifications come from showing a need, which also requires that need be "resolved" by applying the newly gained power. And that process, as you can imagine, also creates new winners and losers. That is, it widens the gulf between the advantaged and disadvantaged.

Now this alone would be more than enough to tear a government apart. Imagine the ease a malcontent would experience trying to recruit among the disaffected and you can see how such inequality would end up giving rise to political tensions, but that ignores one other, even more basic source of discord.

There is one even greater division between the advantaged and disadvantaged, and that is between the government and everyone else. As government power grows, the wise begin to realize the only power remaining is government power, and, as more realize that, the struggle to be in charge of that power grows. And this leads to three types of turmoil. First, the struggle between those in government and those outside who want to seize control. Second, those in government who wish to evict some of the others in government in order to seize control. Finally, those who have lost such a struggle, and are fighting a last ditch effort to regain their control of the government. All three are almost inevitable when government becomes sufficiently powerful, and all three are likely to only extend in scope, as those involved in the struggle bring in all other sorts of disaffected, forming coalitions of various outsiders.

And, as should be easy to imagine, this only gets worse when we come to consider a one world government.

When we are dealing with a single state among many, the discontent may eventually flee. They are not forced to remain within a state where they are unwelcome. They may form a government in exile, try to seek foreign support, or even give up and become private citizens. In a one world state, none of those options exist. As personae non gratae, they have no option but fighting, as the alternatives are likely imprisonment or death. And that leads to longer, more brutal fights, with surrender out of the question. Not to mention that the scope of power available to a government ruling an entire world provides a much more attractive lure to the ambitious than a government of more limited scope. And, of course, without the ability to flee to another land, the discontented in the nation are now left nowhere to go, and thus form a perpetual pool of possible recruits for the opposition.

All of which is a rather wordy way of saying globalism and socialism are poor means for ensuring peace.

But, what about some alternatives proposed by more "pragmatic" soul? Such as a stronger UN? Or some sort of "Swiss canton solution?" Or maybe a federation of various ethnic blocks? A whole slew of alternatives have been proposed by those seeking solutions to war, so how do they measure up?

Well, the first problem is that we are still talking about a one-world government here. Yes, the "canton" proponents always pay lip service to "local autonomy" and "respecting cultural heritage", but as their first goal is avoiding conflict, they refuse to grant any real power to the smaller governmental entities, making any sort of "federalism" a sham.  In fact, that is the primary problem with these theories. To the degree they allow autonomy, they create the very situations they believe lead to war. But to the degree they centralize they risk becoming the homogeneous world government they admit won't work. And so they are faced with an impossible balancing act⁶.

But let us, for the moment, ignore that most obvious, and devastating flaw, and look at some other problems.

First, we have a slightly smaller scale version of the big problem itself. Once we allow some power to drift down to the smaller segments, but leave a larger power in the hands of the central government, we run into the problem of various factions arising, states joining together to make their interests receive first considerations, using what power they have to control the central government. As soon as you have a powerful entity, and a controlling body made up of limited individual actors, this is almost unavoidable. So long as the state wields power which may be profitable in some way, there will be those who will fight for it. ("Bureaucratic Management and Self-Policing", "Transparency, Corruption and Reform", "How the Government Corrupts Relationships", "What Is Fair? or, How Game Theory Leads Us Astray")

Another problem that arises with such a subdivision is one the UN faces today⁷, how is power to be subdivided? Dividing based solely on population makes each subdivision little more than a province, an administrative unit. However, if we grant each unit a single vote, we run into the "Cameroon problem" we have in the UN, where the vote of a single tiny state can cancel out, say India, or China. It is a problem for all federations, but once you hand that federation extensive power, or, worse, make it responsible for the entire globe, the problem becomes much more severe. If you doubt this, look how little interest there was in the District of Columbia having congressional representation when the US government had little or not power, and how much concern there now is that the federal government has extensive authority over all aspects of life.

Finally, if we move into the variant which most closely follows modern multiculturalist trends, we run into very serious issues.If we grant representation not to traditional national entities, current nation states, or simple fictional divisions, but to "cultures" or "ethnicities" we are simply asking for endless war of all against all. (Cf. "The Problems of Group Identity") First, what ethnic groups are recognized, and which are not? Second which ethnicity claims contested or mixed areas? And if a given subgroup is claimed by two ethnic groups, to whom does it belong? What about subgroups which don't want to be included in an ethnic group? What about ethnic groups with internal turmoil? All of these and more allow for endless infighting and constant struggle. The moment that the ugliness of nationalism is allowed entry into politics, things just go from bad to worse, and the odds of avoiding war drop significantly. ("Thoughts on the Irrationality of Nationalism")

"So," I can hear readers asking, "You have shot down all these proposals. What is your solution? How do you intend to bring peace to the world?" But, unlike most who write such questions and then cop out by saying "there is no easy answer", I am happy to say, loudly and clearly, there IS a simple answer, and it requires of us very little. In fact, it requires, if anything, that we do less than we have been doing, at least in terms of government.

That is because the most basic solution, the way to end war, or at least to remove any incentive for states to go to war, is to make war unappealing. I know that sounds either obvious, or insane, depending on one's perspective. Either war is so self-evidently unappealing that it would be impossible to make it look any worse, in which case my suggestion is mad, or else my reader understands that humans are basically rational beings ("Clarifying a Reality of Capitalism"), and would obviously avoid any activity if the cost becomes too great.

But those initial impressions are a bit misleading, as not only am I offering very general ideas on discouraging war, I am also about to offer some very specific solutions.

First, let us start by agreeing on the general causes of war. War is of two types, offensive and defensive. Defensive war is easily explained, being wholly reactive. One party attacks another, and the party which was attacked has no choice but to offer a defense. That type of war, quite obviously, will end only when the aggressive type of war is ended. I suppose it might be possible for the world, or part of the world, to become so pacifist that they would offer no defense no matter how unjustified the attack, no matter how horrific the actions of their foes. But, were that to happen, unless every last individual were to become so dedicated to peace, the pacifism of large numbers would actually be an incentive to war, as it would reduce the cost of warfare for the aggressors, making war more attractive, rather than less. And so, though pacifism could end war if universal, anything less than total success would only encourage war, meaning that my first statement was correct, until aggressive war ends, defensive war will persist.

And what brings about aggressive war? Quite simply, the possibility of gain. Before anyone objects, allow me to say this is not a mercenary statement, I do not say that war is driven by greed, or that business causes war. When I say "gain", I mean that those who commit to war expect that war will, in some way, bring them benefit. It may enrich them, as with the proconsular governors of the late Roman Republic, who grew rich on the loot of their conquests. It may bring them political advantage. It may bring them personal prestige. It may eliminate a dangerous rival. it may bring more subjects under a dictator's sway. It may just satisfy an ancient grudge between ethnic groups. But in some way war is expected to bring benefit. In short, as with all human endeavors, those making a choice sacrifice something of lesser value to gain something of greater value. ("Protectionism", "Protectionism Right and Left", "Bad Economics Part 14", "Planning For Imperfection", "Greed Versus Evil", "In Praise of Contracts")

One thing that should be clear form all of these descriptions is that war is generally brought about, or is easier to bring about, when the government is closely identified with the rulers. That is, when a state is seen as embodying the will of its ruler, or perhaps of the ruling party, it tends to be easier for that state to enact policies which are intended to fulfill the desires of the leader. And, conversely, when a state is seen as being an embodiment of many individuals, it is much harder, though not impossible, to convince the populace to support military adventures⁸.

But that perspective is more of a symptom than a cause. States which tend to identify strongly with their rulers are also those states which tend to accumulate more power, as states with little authority, or with authority distributed at various levels, tend not to have much concern with who is holding office. Only when certain central positions become very powerful do the office holders become interesting to the public, and thus states with weak governments tend to have little interest in their rulers, and so do not identify with them.

On the other hand, even the amount of power is not a perfect predictor. Yes, states which grant much power to individuals do tend to have expansionist aims. Partly for idealist reasons, the same way the communists wanted to bring their "enlightened" philosophy to the world, many who are convinced their state is ideal will want to "liberate" the masses in other lands, leading to expansion. And, of course, there are less noble reasons as well, for example the desire of the holders of power to exercise control over more people.

And there is one specific application of that power which causes more strife than any other, and that is the exercise of power over commerce. As I wrote many times, nations which trade tend to have fewer conflicts. In fact, trade is something of a remedy to conflict, as I will explain shortly. But, more than that, efforts to restrict trade, to gain local advantage, to regulate domestic markets and generally to control both production and commerce, tend to create situations which encourage one nation to do harm to another, sometimes in terms of non-violent "trade wars", but other times in terms of very real conflict.

Before I describe the ways in which protectionism and regulation help spur men to war, let me explain in some simple terms how trade is a remedy to war. Let us start by looking at a situation which terrifies protectionists, a nation which buys many of its goods from overseas. According to the protectionists, we are at a disadvantage, because if China declared war, we would lose access to their steel. But that overlooks the other side, if China declares war, they lose their biggest customer, and the goods and services those steel dollars bought. Not to mention that we are discouraged from starting war because we would lose Chinese steel.

And that is what protectionists miss. All trade is symmetrical. And between individuals. The US does not buy steel from China, Joe Smith sends $X to Ha Le for Y tons of steel, which Ha Le then either uses to buy US goods or exchanges with another who wants US goods. At some point, someone spends those dollars on US goods, as there is no other way to spend them^9,10. And thus trade makes all individuals interdependent, and makes any conflict costly to the average individual. If we depend upon goods from a given nation, then war with them will be painful to the man in the street. And if it is painful to the common man, then leaders will have a harder time pushing a war without good cause. Only if the public supports the conflict will war be possible.

In addition, free trade eliminates one of the causes of war brought about by trade restrictions. Many nations impose restrictions upon the import and export of goods, making citizens of other nations pay more for those desirable goods. From the World War II rubber embargoes after the Japanese conquest of the Dutch holdings in the Pacific to OPEC and their embargoes of the seventies, there are many historical examples. And, as anyone who lived through the seventies can attest, it is not hard during such an embargo to work up the public against the party enforcing the embargo. And thus, with very little difficulty, nations which practice restrictions upon trade, and those nations around them have little trouble declaring war in order to "liberate" various natural resources.

Which is the problem free trade resolves. Yes, under free trade, a nation may still not obtain as much of a resource as it wishes, it may still pay more than it would like, but it will get as much as it can buy, given the market conditions, and the market will also ensure that more of the resource will be made available as well. ("Who Will Decide", "Envy Kills", "Envy And Analogy", "Saving Us From Lower Prices", "Price Gouging", "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is, Or The Logical Implications of Price Gouging Laws")

Which brings me to the problems brought about by economic regulations. I could probably fill a book with all the ways such rules lead to political strife. From the economic disadvantages suffered by nations with stronger workplace safety regulations or more generous worker benefits, and their need to impose comparable burdens on other nations, to the discord caused by tariffs or quotas, there are endless ways in which government regulations can bring two nations to blows. Not to mention, as I did above, that governments which provide advantages to some groups, and not others, as all interventionist states do, also provide many groups with economic incentives to bring the state into conflict with another nation. In so many ways, regulation is at the root of wars. If nothing else, look at the international discord brought about by the many tariffs extant in the 1930's, and ask how much cooperation was made more difficult by preexisting disagreements between nations which would otherwise have been allies.

Perhaps it would be most simple to look at war from the perspective of an individual. Especially as no war can exist without popular support. Even the most totalitarian state shows the truth of this, if only by the amount of propaganda they produce, despite the nominal lack of power their citizens exercise over political decisions.

In a free state with little governmental power and largely free individuals, there is not much to gain from war. War costs money, meaning taxes will rise precipitiously¹¹. If the nation trades with the enemy state, goods will no longer be imported or exported, meaning goods will become more expensive and incomes will decline. As citizens are recruited into the military, there will be an increase in wages, but that wage increase will be reflected in massive increases in costs of goods and services as everyone feels the same increase in labor costs. When added to the rise in taxes, this "benefit" will be seen to be a considerable loss. On the other hand, there is little benefit for the individual.

In a state with more powerful government, things change. Big government is costly, and it must be funded. Yes, war is costly too, but for a total state, the plunder gained in war can not only offset that cost, but also pay for the state itself or a time. For example, as the Germans conquered more and more of Europe in the Second World War, not only did they take over land to "settle" ethnic Germans, they disassembled factories to ship back to Germany, and abducted slave labor. In this way the gains of the war offset some of the burden of funding the state, making the common man somewhat less impoverished.

Nor is that all. In many cases the conquest provides other financial incentives as well. By bringing other markets into the control of his state it may remove trade barriers that were inconvenient to his industry, or may provide access to resources his industry needed. And, going beyond the economic to the more subjective, to the degree an individual identifies with his state (as I said, more likely in states with more central power), he is likely to feel pride at the victories of his land.

Which brings us to my point, the simple solution to war. All we need, the one way to stop war, is not to implement a one world government, nor to impose universal socialism. The simple answer is to bring about a world filled with small, federalist governments, where power is exercised on as local a scale as possible, and individuals are left a maximum of freedom, a place where trade is unrestricted and regulation is unheard of. And, most importantly, where citizens view government properly, as a tool they deputize to protect their rights, and nothing more¹².

No, this is not a perfect solution, but as I said in "The Threat of Perfection" (also in "Utopianism and Disaster"), chasing perfection is one of our problems. This solution will end the wars that arise from states with too much power, with too much identification between individual and state and from economic conflict which leads eventually to military conflict. No, it will not eliminate all violence. Nor will it end wars arising from irrational strife, such as ethnic conflicts or age old arguments between states. But at least by providing so few advantages to war, even those irrational causes will appeal to many fewer individuals, making it harder to inspire much enthusiasm for such wars. While they may not be impossible, they will certainly be less frequent.

And that is more than globalism or socialism can offer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. In my essay "Fiction, Play and Violence", I wrote the following:

[W]ar is never a winning proposition. (Cf. "War Stimulates the Economy? Let's Nuke San Francisco!") And, though we often have to argue in favor of the military as a remedy to the left's insanely anti-military bias, I think most conservatives agree. We believe in peaceful coexistence, voluntary exchange and independent individuals undertaking to live together through private agreements. The use of force, even when used in self-defense, interferes with that process. It may be necessary, but it is still damaging. And so, whatever the common caricature of the right -- and it may apply to a handful of those nominally "right", such as paleo-cons ("The Political Spectrum") -- those of us who believe in the individual, in private cooperation, individual agreements and minimal government are all, of necessity, pacifists of a kind. We might allow for the regrettable necessity of self-defense, but we never seek it out. Given the choice, we would happily avoid all war. But, unlike the pacifists of the left, we would not avoid war at the cost of our freedoms. And for that one difference, they somehow paint us as war-mongers. Which is nonsense. Wars are deplored much more by those who advocate small government than those advocating for big states. Big states have much to gain from war, a free people does not.

That is as good a summary as I could offer of the differences between right and left regarding war. No one wants war, but the two differ on whether it is to be avoided at any cost. (Though the dividing line is not always clear, as some on the nominal right, such as some nominal libertarians, have adopted the Ron Paul "peace at any price" dogma as well -- see  "The Problem With Ron Paul" and "War As Last Resort")

2. Of course it was exacerbated by the effects of economic mismanagement, an influx of unassimilated barbarians, and a few other factors, but it was largely warfare, both with external foes and civil war between factions, that eroded the wealth of Rome. Not just physical assets, but the cultural and artistic wealth as well, the political infrastructure, the social framework and all the rest. That is the cost of long term war.

3. For examples of my beliefs, which I confess proudly to be "outside the mainstream" see "Reticent To Adopt a Title", "A Possible Designation" and "The Right Identity".

4. Whether I agree with the propriety of those tasks or not, all governments are nominally task oriented. Governments, outside of absolute tyrannies, feudal/manorial systems, and other kleptocratic states, claims to exist to resolve problems confronting their citizens. We can see this in the standard bureaucratic design of government. Within broad topics, such as "Department of Labor", subdivisions are established which relate to common complaints (retirement, employment opportunity, occupational safety), and with each problem then subdivided into individual tasks, with a subordinate office for each. It makes clear that government, despite all the many mistaken beliefs about it, is still rightly seen, on some level of thought, as a tool for solving problems. (Now, if only we could make that thought explicit in more minds, and lead them to ask what those tasks should be.)

5. I know there are many in government who seek nothing more than accumulating power, protecting their position, enriching themselves, gratifying their ego, or fulfilling hundreds of other petty needs. But, for the sake of argument, I am here considering government as it should run, and granting that each office holder is motivated by an idealistic view of his office. And yet, even granting that assumption, the problem of ever-expanding power is still present. (Cf "Recipe For Disaster", "The Endless Cycle of Intervention",  "The Cycle of Compassion", "Government Quackery".)

6. As mentioned, most avoid this problem by providing only vague descriptions of how power will be actually divided. To give the benefit of the doubt, some may actually be fooling themselves, failing to fully think through all the implications of their theories, leaving "the details" for others to work out, and thus failing to spot the inherent contradiction in their premise. On the other hand, I can't believe that is universally true, so some, at least, must be deceiving others intentionally. Whatever the case, when viewed critically, these theories fall apart rapidly.

7. To a lesser degree, so does the US. After all, the move to eliminate the electoral college (one of our last relics of true federalism) is akin to this issue. So is the effort to grant DC statehood. Both are efforts to move us from a federal system which recognizes the states has having value apart from the number of citizens they contain, and move the US toward a system based entirely on enumeration.

8. Good examples may be found in both classical Athens and medieval Venice. Neither was a perfectly free state, but to the degree the individuals saw their state as independent of the current office holders, they generally avoided most wars of conquest. In fact, Athens may provide the best example, as it was during eras characterized by either exceptionally charismatic leaders, or strong factionalism, that Athens was expansionist in outlook. When the Athenians held a more cynical perspective about their leaders they tended to avoid wars other than those required for defense. Of course it is not a perfect guarantee. And Venice provides a good example. Venice largely avoided wars of conquest, but from time to time a clever leader or peculiar circumstances could bring the populace to support a war of conquest.

9. I wrote about this in more detail in "The Sky's Not Falling Part 2", "Production and Consumption ", "Has No One Heard Of Lord Say?", "Free Trade, Employment, Outsourcing, and Protectionism", "Cheap Lighters, Overseas Dumping and Monopolies" and "Production and Consumption". All trade is symmetrical, and we only have the illusion of a trade deficit because "China" may buy $X in goods, but sell us $Y. Y can be greater than X because China sells the difference in dollars to France which then buys our goods. There is also the artificial distinction between "consumer goods", "producers' goods", "investment" and even spending done by foreign firms in the US for land or construction. This all hides the fact that goods trade against goods.

10. My previous comment is incorrect in one way. Goods do not trade against goods in one situation. If the government of one nation inflates it can effectively pick the pocket of trading partners by reducing the value of all currency held. But that sort of deceptive practice is not something I endorse. This problem can easily be remedied by either eliminating state run central banks, or by simply returning to a commodity currency, such as gold. (See  "Why Gold?", "What Is Money?", "What Is A Dollar? ", "Inflation and Uncertainty", "Bad Economics Part 7 " and  "Bad Economics Part 8".)

11. I am assuming here a truly free state would not inflate. Even if we allow for inflationary funding, it will still cost citizens, the costs will just be distributed somewhat randomly and will be accompanied by the destructive consequences of inflation.

12. This is a difficult topic, as many take offense when I suggest national pride is a bad thing. However, this may be partly a problem of terminology more than anything. I have no objection to taking proper pride in the merits of one's land. What is a problem is when individuals come to see their nation as a surrogate for their own accomplishments. When the victories of Germany become their victories, for example. In those cases it can be far too easy to use "national pride" to justify ill-conceived military adventures. And that is a very real risk.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

Giving credit where credit is due, this essay was inspired by Joe Bannerman's review of "The Lucifer Complex". It is possible his frequent complaints about hippies had something to do with the overall tone of the essay. Then again, do I need a reason to mock hippie beliefs?