Warfare & Welfare

You fell and cried as our people were starving
Now you know that we blame you.
You tried to walk on the trail we were carving
Now you know that we framed you
--The Who

Opponents of the current war with Iraq often argue that the conflict is unjust on the grounds that it violates individual liberties. Such an arguement is correct and applies to all wars. Wars violate the freedom due all individuals.

Somewhat paradoxically, many of those who oppose military conflicts tend to condone government programs aimed at improving ‘social welfare.’ Those in favor of such ‘progressive’ social programs fail to acknowledge that the same liberties they passionately seek to preserve by abolishing military conflict are compromised when pursuing government sponsored welfare initiatives.

Compare, for example, the infringement of liberty during wartime versus the loss of freedom imposed by one of the more entrenched social programs here in the United States, the Social Security program. Parenthetically, it is instructive, and somewhat ironic, that the word ‘security’ appears in the title of this social program. Are not most military programs promoted under the ruse of ‘national security?’

Many object to the Iraqi war because it has decreased individual rights to privacy. Programs such as the Patriot Act have increased state capacity for monitoring individual activity. Profiling techniques to rapidly detect potential threats have compromised freedoms of individuals of particular race or religion. People deemed as potential threats have been quarantined in prison and detainment zones. None of these approaches are peculiar to the present Iraq war, of course. During WWII, the US government imposed curfews, monitored the activities of people of particular ethnic descent, and operated concentration camps such as Manzanar.

The Social Security program has violated privacy in similar fashion. Individual social security numbers were spawned by this program, permitting pervasive government monitoring of individual activities. Profiling is commonplace—both in terms of those deemed to qualify for state assistance, and those who must pay into the system to support others. Detainment comes in the form of slums or prison.

Privacy is a subset of the general category of property rights. The tab for the Iraqi war is currently about $1 trillion. US citizens foot this bill, either through higher taxes, increased debt, or a depreciated dollar. Particular industries, such as those in transportation sectors, have lost some freedom of operation. Once again, none of this is new. Resources necessary to fight wars must be funded; fiscal burdens on citizenry must be imposed. The state often assumes control of industries during conflict, as the US government did with the domestic railroad industry during WWI.

The Social Security program has similarly driven confiscation of property. The Social Security tax is, of course, direct evidence of this. However, similar to the fiscal drag imposed by supporting a standing army during peacetime, the persistence and escalation of the Social Security program has driven government to spend more on this program than incoming receipts. Higher tax rates, more debt, and further dollar devaluation have been, and will continue to be, the consequences.

Liberty is also lost through increased dependence on government. If people come to depend on a standing national army for security, then they typically become less capable of defending themselves. Moreover, they must surrender a perpetual stream of property in order to fund the protection agency. Similarly, a significant citizenry has become dependent on Social Security benefits, to the point where they may have trouble existing without this resource stream. To fund this dependence, an ever increasing quantity of resources must be channeled away from private ownership towards government agency. Dependence on either the warfare or welfare state reduces freedom.

When it comes to loss of liberty, warfare and welfare are two sides of the same coin. If individuals oppose freedom lost from one but not the other, then this hypocrisy suggests either ignorance or political bias.

no positions