What just happened? A 90-year-old winner of a Medal of Honor pulls the political card to trump a contract he freely signed. And the White House is involved (at some level, anyway).
If only the homeowners association would have put up a fight.
Note: So what was the supposed reason for our involvement in Europe during WWII? The reason detailed in my government school textbooks. I seem to have forgotten.
{ 54 comments }
Next Comments →
“Well, since you are a distinguished veteran you’ll get to do what you want.”
That’s why after completing my degree, I’m going to move back to Spain. Although I may starve to death in our pseudo-Communist (or, at least, soon to be…) society, at least that stigma of being a failed militant won’t be attached to my name. Our culture of revering the military and all that which has to do with the glory of war is very dangerous.
“The Sussex Square homeowners association likewise has agreed to drop threats to take legal action”
So he used pressure to get the other party to ‘agree’ to not to enforce that term of the contract. Why is that not a legitimate tactic in a purely free world, he did not ‘initiate force’ good for him.
I am clearly not a pure libertarian, however I find myself agreeing with libertarian thought moreso than other economic/social positions. Having said that, I agree with krm that our 90 yr old vet simply pressed for an exemption regarding a particular element of the contract. He prevailed. Good for him.
By what right does this self-styled “Homeowner’s Association” claim to have the right to tell this man what he can and can not do on his own property? Last I checked, he isn’t renting his property from them.
It seems that, even at Mises.org, many people are ignorant of the basic premises of Rothbardianism. The only legitimately enforceable contracts are those that involve title-transfer. Contracts are only enforceable if some property is transferred in exchange for certain conditions and those conditions are not met. In such cases, the person wishing to pull out of the contract must merely repay the property that was transferred to them in order to get out of the contract.
Under libertarian law, contracts with “homeowner’s associations” are just as enforceable as the imaginary “social contract” would be if it existed. Furthermore, “deed restrictions” (or similar archaic practices such as the medieval practices of primogeniture and entail) are invalid, as only title-transfer contracts are valid.
These “contracts” are null and void as they are not title-transfer contracts.
Ragnar Daneskjold,
I’m not sure about this specific homeowners association, but I have to deal with a homeowners association in one of my condominiums in San Diego and I agreed to cooperate with the homeowners association when I signed the contract to buy the condominium (and, I also agreed to monthly charges to the homeowners association). The advantage to me was that they would take care of my “front yard”, pay to clean the streets to the complex, et cetera.
“Contracts are only enforceable if some property is transferred in exchange for certain conditions and those conditions are not met. In such cases, the person wishing to pull out of the contract must merely repay the property that was transferred to them in order to get out of the contract.”
He entered into a contract with the homeowners association, agreeing to its terms, when he bought the house, the document would be disclosed and he would sign it. In return he agreed to accept the valuable benefits thereunder, ie a safe, well kept street -whatever. There certainly is a bargained for exchange here. The contract is valid.
If he is a renter, no matter, the terms always subject the landlord to require any tenants to follow the rules.
The owners may sell only specific rights to dispose over the property and retain others. It is not only enforceable but consistent with Rothbardian property theory provided one realises ownership is a bundle of rights.
Oh and as for the criminal, *cough* veteran *cough*, if he used pressure that was political in its nature, no, no, not good for him, he is scum.
BTW even if one didn’t isolate particular property rights, the contract involved the transfer of title if XYZ conditions were satisfied. I.e. it is conditional, i.e. violation of those conditions obviates the transfer of ownership…
You people are all missing Jim’s point. I don’t think Jim made an issue of whether or not a person can contest a contract they signed. He made an issue that this particular contest of contract received political scrutiny– why? That’s the question implicitly asked by Jim.
The answer, of course, is because they have a stake in upholding this man’s complaint because it revolves around displaying a symbol of their power. This was not a person trying to put keep a humongous cross on his lawn, or wanting to paint his house an off-color, or keeping a small dog kennel in his backyard that some politicians decided to get involved with and support him on– this was about displaying the US flag, a symbol of power and glory for the state and oppression and social animosity for libertarians.
This incident highlights the arbitrary and self-interested nature of politics. Politicians aren’t out there to protect us and our feelings from stifling contracts that we signed… they’re out there to exert pressure to overturn contracts anytime doing so is convenient to glorifying their power and stature.
“Oh and as for the criminal, *cough* veteran *cough*, if he used pressure that was political in its nature, no, no, not good for him, he is scum.”
You certainly have a right to think lowly of his actions, but he did nothing inherently ‘wrong’
He convinced the other party to waive enforcement of a contract term using the pressure at his disposal. The other party did not have to agree to waive the rights, but they did, voluntarily, so they must have concluded that waiving their right was of some greater benefit to them over the enforcement of it.
“This incident highlights the arbitrary and self-interested nature of politics. Politicians aren’t out there to protect us and our feelings from stifling contracts that we signed… they’re out there to exert pressure to overturn contracts anytime doing so is convenient to glorifying their power and stature.”
Politician got ‘involved’ because voters, lots of them, ‘common folk’ are patriotic, and what politician would not want to be associated with such a ‘feel good’ patriotic story – why? to get votes, stay popular, so he can stay in office and enjoy the fat benefits of the gig, which are huge. This has noting to do with a politician trying to glorify state symbols or “glorifying their power and stature”
simple self interest
Chances are there is probably a clause in the contract that says something to the effect of “this contract is subject to the laws of the State of Virginia” and/or subject to regulations of Housing and Urban Development. Thus, both parties agreed to give some level of government the right to alter this contract.
On our “Fantasy Island” we can argue as to whether the government should have this right.
Tatu – Meester O’Rorke, Meesterr O’Rorke, the libertarians are coming!
“Thus, both parties agreed to give some level of government the right to alter this contract.”
There was n o Government power initiated here, the government did not ‘alter’ the contract.
Politicians used ‘shame’ : “In a letter last week, Webb urged the association to “consider the exceptional nature of Col. Barfoot’s service when considering his pride and determination in honoring our flag.”
Once again, the homeowners association voluntarily agreed to drop its case because they obviously did not want to look like a-holes to the broader community. If they wanted to proceed with their case they could have. It was their choice to drop it.
By what right does this self-styled “Homeowner’s Association” claim to have the right to tell this man what he can and can not do on his own property? Last I checked, he isn’t renting his property from them.
It’s not “self-styled.” It was created by someone.
This person either bought the house when it was already subject to the HOA’s scope of authority, or he was the one to voluntarily join the HOA himself. One cannot have an HOA imposed on your property without the consent of the owner, or by buying it after the prior owner did so.
By the way, the HOA’s authority is not contractual. It arises from the HOA’s property right. The landowner (or a prior owner) vested the HOA with power by actually transferring a property interest to the HOA.
As a result, the owner of a parcel of property that is subject to an HOA is actually not the 100% owner — a portion of the total, unfettered property rights in the property have been transferred away, from the owner to the corporation that is the HOA. It can’t be recovered unless the HOA deeds it back.
The property right that an HOA has is limited in scope, and defined by the express terms of the deed that grants the HOA its authority. It usually entails the power to control certain aspects of use and appearance.
I don’t know where you got the idea that “only title-transfer contracts are valid.” There are all sorts of property rights that are less extensive than title.
Anonymous wrote, “There was n o Government power initiated here, the government did not ‘alter’ the contract. Politicians used ‘shame’”
Whenever a state official comments on some activity in his official capacity, there is a threat of force if one doesn’t do what he wants. There are many ways he can make your life miserable, beyond simply charging you with a crime.
Shay said
“Whenever a state official comments on some activity in his official capacity, there is a threat of force if one doesn’t do what he wants. There are many ways he can make your life miserable, beyond simply charging you with a crime.”
Very well said – look what happened to the pension funds that held Chrysler Bonds during the Chrysler Bankruptcy. Their priority as secured bond holders was taken away by threats of bad publicity from the White House.
Unless I’m mistaken, Barfoot (the homeowner) did not seek political support.
Earlier articles on this reported that the HOA contract did not explicitly allow or disallow flag poles, whether in the yard or attached to the home.
Anyway, the HOA could have continued with legal action but decided against it. The question is, did they change their position because of the general support that Barfoot received or did they change it because of the political support he received, fearing some use of force?
In my neighborhood, the HOA usually uses force to get you to join them. If you deny them your money, they will watch out to make sure you observe all city ordinances, and when you slip up they report you to the police for failing to observe some ‘safety’ guideline. So, they use the threat of state force to go against property rights, which is hardly libertarian.
“Whenever a state official comments on some activity in his official capacity, there is a threat of force if one doesn’t do what he wants. There are many ways he can make your life miserable, beyond simply charging you with a crime.”
The senators wrote a letter *asking* to reconsider, until you have proof that some covert threat of force was used, stop making wild accusations.
The association buckled because the thing was getting national attention and the association no longer wanted to be on the perceived wrong side of an emotional issue. Again their reason to drop it was a free choice.
“”Nockian
In my neighborhood, the HOA usually uses force to get you to join them. If you deny them your money, they will watch out to make sure you observe all city ordinances, and when you slip up they report you to the police for failing to observe some ‘safety’ guideline. So, they use the threat of state force to go against property rights, which is hardly libertarian.
Published: December 9, 2009 3:53 PM”"
see this post above:
“This person either bought the house when it was already subject to the HOA’s scope of authority, or he was the one to voluntarily join the HOA himself. One cannot have an HOA imposed on your property without the consent of the owner, or by buying it after the prior owner did so.”
Ah, my mistake. Sorry ’bout that.
My deed includes a HOA and provides it with the right to create and enforce esthetic guidelines. Oh, sure, I have a vote … but we all know what that entitles me to.
It appears to me that public shame (via articles like the one linked) came after the political pressure, though I may be wrong.
It has been my experience that folks call their federal politicians for all sorts of nonsense. So I assume that the family contacted their elected officials, not that the elected officials picked up this fight on their own.
I still remember an incident when I served on a local school board (forgive me — I do homeschool now) and a local lobbyist called our congressman because he (the lobbyist) was unhappy with the bus route being run through his neighborhood.
Mind you, he called his congressman first. Then he went to his state representative. And, finally, the school board.
I wsa simply incredulous over this. It still amazes me.
For those who equate political power with shame, know that most folks roll over at any sign of political power. And the more powerful the position, the faster the roll over.
@kmr:
The fact that some people are pressured to join HOAs with mafia tactics has nothing to do with my comment.
No one’s land is part of an HOA for any reason other than that the owner of that land deeded a property interest to that HOA.
The fact that someone can be forced, using coercive threats, to issue such a deed is deplorable, of course, but beside the point. You notice that the coercion used in the cited example is the threat of governmental retaliation. Where did the city get the power to enforce ordinances? No where.
Governments don’t even bother with the formality of making you execute a document ceding power to them. States merely assert that they control everyone in a particular territory, whether the victims expressly granted such power or not.
In fact, even going through the empty formality of executing such consent would greatly reduce the claimed power of a state, since it would imply that express consent, even under threat of retaliation, were a prerequisite to its power.
HOAs are an affirmation of property rights. The coercive, unilaterally-asserted power of the State is the negation of property rights.
“”The Sussex Square homeowners association likewise has agreed to drop threats to take legal action”
So he used pressure to get the other party to ‘agree’ to not to enforce that term of the contract. Why is that not a legitimate tactic in a purely free world, he did not ‘initiate force’ good for him.”
So how is using coercion or the threat of violence a legitimate tactic in a purely free market? I don’t know you tell me genius.
“So how is using coercion or the threat of violence a legitimate tactic in a purely free market? I don’t know you tell me genius.”
Where, specifically, is the ‘coercion’ or ‘threat of violence’ against the HOA? Receiving a letter from a Senator is coercion? Violence? If so you have very thin skin my friend.
Not thin skin, kmr, rather a good understanding of the state (a child running in the road isn’t concerned about cars, even though we know better). Why would a senator send a letter in his official capacity except to put more force behind it, i.e. the implication that further action will be taken if his suggestion is ignored?
Shay –
Correct. Just as the muscle doesn’t need to actually break an arm in order to get the shop owner to voluntarily pay for “protection.”
The state is implied force … wait, it is actual force. And “legal” force at that.
“Why would a senator send a letter in his official capacity ”
so when campaign season rolls around he can say ‘look I’m patriotic and Vet friendly, look at the nice letter I sent out..’
Until I see ACTUAL evidence of govt threat of force or until I hear the HOA say the caved because they were afraid of an actual threat of force, I’m utterly unconvinced and believe you guys are wildly overstating your case. This is pure PR by the senators who I’m sure couldn’t give 2 sh*ts about the guy or his flag
Another example that is closer to the point:
An acquaintance was in a property line squabble with a business. Both sides lobbed rounds of attorney letters at each other, but neither was gaining the upper hand. My acquaintance then noted a pond and surrounding “wetlands” on the business’s property, plus the ducks and other migratory water fowl. So he writes a letter to the business noting the pond and “wetlands” and alterations the business had made, along with an implied threat that he was going to contact the feds. The business withdrew its complaint.
Folks who are not threatened the least by a lawsuit roll over to society’s apparatus of coercion and compulsion. Why? A justified fear for life, liberty and property.
The association is an association of similarly propertied residents.
Any outside threat that could affect the value of the properties in general, would be met by the other residents with distaste.
The association that coerces finds itself working at cross purposes to ……… itself! Not good for them. So the added “threat” of any bad publicity at all is a sure no no. The next vote in any meeting structure or officer structure the association might have or even the next bill recieved by the other homeowners would be a possible point of pressure for the association elite.
If enough homeowners cancel, they may re-form their own association. Assuming they have an exit in the contract.
It’s not in any way “bad” for outside influence, even powerful influence, to suggest a different tack. The fact that a flagpole was even an issue of aesthetics is ridiculous. If he had put up a short-wave radio tower the issue would have gone against him.
In a free society, we use the means we have to do what we want. But we must expect to meet “force” or “resistance” from the other players in the great game of life. The point, is to avoid the need to use force, and to avoid the need to have it used upon our person. The first will generally take care of the second.
The placement of the flagpole was mildly aggressive on the part of a man decorated for his stunning use of aggressiveness. Of course he “just did it”. He’s that kind of man, thank god!
But of course our HOA reacted to the flagpole with the response they SHOULD react with, and that was to preserve the rules as they were hired to interpret them. They are doing the right thing too!
Conflict! Enter the politicians!
First, the politicos examine the problem…..Hmm
Flagpoles are Patriotic! That’s US!
We like the flagpole!
Had it been an antenna……Hmmm
Radio..Radiate…RADIATION!
We like the HOA! Think of the RADIATION! (more conflict! [insert evil laugh])
Right? Wrong? Indifferent? Depends upon your point of view.
Oooooohhh! So Libertarians can become fascists when the shoe’s on their foot! Where the harm does this guy cause with a flag? “Doesn’t matter it’s the rules, harm or no harm!” That’s sounds like fascism: the rules are there to be obeyed not questioned. HOAs also prove that governments can indeed and usually do emerge privately as opposed to wishful thinking of Libertarians imagining outside gangs imposing their will on a happy anarcho-Capitalist village.
“Note: So what was the supposed reason for our involvement in Europe during WWII? The reason detailed in my government school textbooks. I seem to have forgotten.”
Reason was, that otherwise in the long run german forces, after defeating the soviets and the british and killing a few dozen millions of civilians, would have invaded the US.
And i didnt conclude that from government school textbook i read in school, but from the most adequate source to tell what the intentions of Hitler led Germany were – and no, i wouldnt call “Mein Kampf” a school textbook.
I’m a bit confused by this….
Couldn’t living in a country be seen as a contract that you are willing to abide by its rules (decided by its political system), thus you have no right to contest the most socialist of policies?
It seems to be the love it or leave it mentality.
One has to wonder if politicians would have still gone to bat for Barfoot if (a) he had not been a veteran and (b) he had been planning to fly a flag other than that of the USA (ex., Mexico’s flag, the Christian flag, checkered racing flag, etc.). I strongly suspect he would have been on his own instead.
It’s also interesting to note that 97% of the article’s readers who voted in the poll offered in the middle of the article (164,435 at this moment) supported the final decision. What does that tell us? That nationalism trumps contractual obligations for nearly all Americans?
It’s easy to fill in the gaps in one’s knowledge with assumptions.
Was force used to coerce non-action?
Did the contract stipulate that the flag was a violation?
Did the contract deny the ability of the violator to plead an exception?
Did the contract stipulate that the HOA has no discretion in punishing violators?
A lawyer could come up with even more than that, I’m sure.
It’s no surprise that people get into disputes over who’s version of reality is correct.
to carn,
you obviously didn’t understand mein kampf. “lebensraum” was eastern europe, not america.
read mises’ “economic calculation in the socialist commonwealth” for a clue why you’re wrong. war is costly and socialism is impoverishing.
http://mises.org/econcalc.asp
if you’re tongue in cheek, then i apologize.
@newson
did you read it?
Of course “lebensraum” was aimed eastwards. But not because of fondness for USA or some ideal to live in harmony with some, but because the eastern races were thought to be more inferior and therefre more easy prey. Hitler wanted to save the enemies he considered stronger(France, GB, in some sense USA) for later when Germany was more powerful.
Hitler would have preferred GB and France not to declare war in 39 simply because he thought germany was not yet powerful enough to win against them.
And by stating that with Hitler there was no choice except wait and prey(and hoping for e
an early death of Hitler and a much more moderate Successor) or fight, i do not in any way say, that war is cheap or socialism not impoverishing.
About war the problem is, that sometimes there are enemies, which leave no choice but war.
(Which again does not mean, that all wars fougth by the USA in the past 100 years were sensible. I just claim that for WW2, because Hitler aimed for the german race to dominate all others, which is nothing but control of the entire world.)
carn is a typical brain-dead conservative. Read some revisionist history, assuming you don’t live in one of those enlightened regimes like western Europe where you can be jailed for doing so.
I see no mention of wetlands, ducks or migratory fowl. What is the evidence the HOA was threatened by force or legislation?
@ Lord Buzungulus
You mean some literature that try to paint Hitlers views more positive than Hitler himself?
Mmh, where to start, lets try http://www.adolfthegreat.com/ , guess they dont make Hitler look more mean than he actually was?
http://www.adolfthegreat.com/Trails-Talent/philosopher-maxi.html
“No, there is only one holiest human right, and this right is at the same time the holiest obligation, namely: to make sure that the blood is kept pure and, by preserving the best humanity, to create the possibility of a nobler development of these beings.”
So humans are just sheeps and some shepherders have to ensure, that the sheeps breed nicely and produce better sheeps. So first decide what are good stocks, average stocks and bad ones. The good ones are to receive more food, the average get the leftover and culling the bad is obivously necessary – cant say, that Hitler betrayed his ideas.
Now thats what Hitlers fans claim what his opinions were. Normally that indicates that his real opinions were much more inhuman. But i cant think of much more inhuman than degrading humans to the status of sheep.(Obviously that holiest human right of Hitler is incompatible with selfownership.)
He wasnt the devil incarnate, but he made a good try and what he achieved he achieved with half the world against him. Take USA away from that coalition and he would achieved much more.
So dont bother me with prove that the official number of killed jews is incorrect, he was willing to kill millions of jews and other members of so called inferior races, that the exact number is just interesting in terms of score and his 2 most serious contestors for the monster of all time price Stalin and Mao.
carn, I did not think you could prove yourself to be an even bigger idiot (after your comments about Hitler wanting to conquer the world), but congratulations, you proved me wrong.
to carn:
i’ve read “mein kampf”. nowhere does it give the impression that america was one of hitler’s objectives. “in some sense” is your projection entirely.
if you read the mises’ work i cited, you’ll see why (national) socialism would have been a severe economic impediment to world conquest.
this is hoppe’s insight: in the industrial era, only domestically liberal (in the classical sense of the word) states can accumulate enough wealth to project their power aggressively abroad. hitler’s rise was financed by offshore lenders, not by a florid domestic economy. war cut off that bounty, and from that point to the bunker, germany consumed virtually its entire accumulated capital.
the thousand year reich could never have been, even without private ryan.
…and yes, hitler was a monster etc.
you don’t have to be an apologist for hitler to poke holes in hyberbole.
Q:why don’t mugabe and kim jong-il (bad!) take over the world? or even their neighbours?
A: no money left after the mercedes’ and the beluga.
@Lord
And you are dishonest. You asked me to check revisionist literature(without defining what revisionist is), i checked some writings i consider to be revisionistic(i did this already before youre suggestion) and realized, that this information does not contradict my view of Hitler. And you call me an idiot for checking alternative sources and not ending up with youre opinion.
@Newson
Its a logical consequence of the agenda proposed in “Mein Kampf”. The whole history is seen as a struggle between different races to get the upper hand. Hitlers aim was to end the struggle with a final victory(which then would somehow have allowed the reich to last a thousand years, since all other powers would have been throughfully subdued).
If you want youre race to dominate all others, you sooner or later have to face all other strong powers on earth. But you start with the weak neighbours to improve youre position, before you try to face the big guys.
Since another logical conclusion is to exterminate any races, who use some covert strategy to take control of other races by obtaining important positions in society and Hitler followed this conclusion to some extent at least. So i think it is very likely that he would have done the rest as well.
Now to youre correct concern about the ability of Hitler Germany to actually do that. Socialism is a severe restriction, but one important insight of austrians is, that predictions about real economic events are at best imprecise. So how big this impediment would have been, we can only guess.
We know that the soviet empire, although more socialistic than Nazi germany was, lasted 70 years and did control for 45 years about a fourth of the world. Its military power over the entire period was estimated to be second in the world – so without the US it could have made a serious try at seizing western europe.
45 years is more than enough to conquer the world, so the economic hurdle is no complete bar to conquering the world.
But first Nazi germany was far less bound to a real socialitic agenda than soviets, so it is possible, that the Nazis could have lessend their strangeling grip on economy a bit, to maintain more economic strength. And second if US would not have interfered, so would not have stopped trade to japan(the reason why the japanese attacked the US) and would not have unofficially aided GB by all means, GB would have been forced to sign some neutralizing peace agreements. The japanese would have suceeded in subduing china.
Then both empires together could have crashed the soviets very fast – the only reason why the soviets were able to defeat the german attack was, that a lot of air power was bound in defending german cities against bombing and that US provided a lot of resources for the soviets. Without US help and attacked by twice the force the Soviets would have lost fast.
Which would have left the arab peninsula to germany.
Now look at what ridiculous wealth is avaible simply through oil and think about how long this would have allowed Nazi germany to get away with having a partly socialistic economy?
I suspect long enough to at least put serious pressure upon US.
And dont make that mistake to conclude from the problems the US has in controlling the oil, that Nazi germany would have had the same problems. Most problems the US has, stem from the fact, that they try to avoid killing civilians(even the late soviets in 1979-89 had some reservations). Since the Nazis never had such moral limitations, they would have succeded far better.
Couldn’t living in a country be seen as a contract that you are willing to abide by its rules (decided by its political system), thus you have no right to contest the most socialist of policies?
No.
The corporation we call “the US government” was NEVER granted any property rights or authority by anyone.
No deeds were executed.
No (valid) contracts were executed.
Spooner demolished this idea in No Treason No. 6.
The US government merely ASSERTED the unilateral power to control everyone in its ever-expanding territory.
In contrast, an HOA is formed when actual, genuine landowners expressly execute a written deed conveying an actual, legitimate property interest to an HOA. The powers of the HOA are expressly spelled out in the deed, and cannot be unilaterally expanded.
In contrast, the USA’s powers were granted by no one other than a handful of people, agreed to by no one else supposedly governed by it, and its supposed powers have been unilaterally expanded by itself since Day 1. To the extent that the original signers of the Constitution were bound, which they weren’t, they have all since died. The Constitution is nothing, and means nothing. I wouldn’t even clean my car’s windshield with it.
If you could show me where I agreed to abide by anyone’s policies, socialist or otherwise, and transferred a property right to someone along those lines, I’d like to read it.
carn says:
“But first Nazi germany was far less bound to a real socialitic agenda than soviets…”
this is wrong. read walter eucken (1948) “on the theory of a centrally-administered economy: an analysis of the german economy.” economica, 15 (58/59). parts I and II.
the economic model was essentially the same. although the german model maintained the facade of private property, in reality all decisions were made bureaucratically.
the rest of your counterfactual relies on hitler getting cheap oil, but venezuela, nigeria and saudi arabia should suffice to show that readily available oil is no guarantee that national wealth be accumulated.
you’re completely wrong about the us. it’s been able to project power abroad because of the great comparative freedom back home. freedom that generated enormous wealth, and gave the government enough funds to wage offshore wars.
Whatever Magnus. As soon as the HOA was founded there was an implicit with that HOA and the rest of humanity that they had control over their land. By the same token when the U.S.A was formed it had jurisdiction over its land and everyone has to abide by it. Government could be thought of a HOA ‘gone bad’ to Libertarians. Maybe there’s something to be said that land is the most primal of the assets such that those who control and go bad take the longest time to get ousted from that asset.
“”But first Nazi germany was far less bound to a real socialitic agenda than soviets…”
this is wrong. read walter eucken (1948) “on the theory of a centrally-administered economy: an analysis of the german economy.” economica, 15 (58/59). parts I and II.”
Ideologically bound. They could have adjusted better the moment they realized, that the economy is falling. Even one Nazi general admitted after the war, that their economic model was bad. If they had beaten up GB and Soviets and had realized that their economy is failing they would have made some adjustments, which would have pushed the economic downfall farther into the future and continued with their other plans. The plans of the communists were about implementing a certain economic model, therefore they had huge problems adjusting even after they realized, that their economy cannot compete with US.
Nazis were concerned about racial domination and the economic model was just a mean to achieve that end.
“the rest of your counterfactual relies on hitler getting cheap oil, but venezuela, nigeria and saudi arabia should suffice to show that readily available oil is no guarantee that national wealth be accumulated.”
Correct.
But you should not compare Venezuela, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia with the US to determine whether or not oil has an effect upon military power but you should compare similar nations.
Compare Venezuela to Cuba, Venezuela is able to afford military equipment and pay for guerilias in other countries, while Cuba is dead broke.
Iran, Irak and Lybia all have more military power than without oil, the world would never have cared about Saddam, if he did not have oil, which allowed to pay for his expansionitic dreams.
So Oil does give a huge boost to the military abilities, because its worth so much money.
Would the boost have been great enough for Nazis?
I dont know, but i know, that they would have tried to use any means to achieve their goal.
Therefore i think it is likely, that whatever US government did after 33(before the Nazi power grab might have been avoided by not treating Germany like a piece of shit), a confrontation of one sort or another with nazi germany would not have been avoidable.
(Which of course does not mean, that the chosen path was realy a good one.)
The error austrians seem to make, is that from the correct observation, that a lot of things, e.g. pencils, are far too complicated to be taken care of by government planning panels, that war is among these.
But when the weeapons are avaible the rest is about killing. And i always wonder why austrians think that government planning panels fail at the task of planning to kill millions of people.
Next Comments →
Comments on this entry are closed.