One surveys the global headlines today and finds a depressing, yet entirely predictable, tableau: a perpetual motion machine of state-sanctioned violence, intervention, and the inevitable human misery that trails in its wake. British police foil an alleged Iran-linked attack near a U.S. air base, just as U.S. forces prepare to leave Iraq after two decades, and Trump reportedly asks Xi Jinping if China would like to purchase American armaments. It’s a masterclass in irony and an indictment of the political class’s addiction to conflict, or at the very least, its persistent inability to disentangle itself from it. As a libertarian economist, my gaze falls not just on the geopolitical chess moves, but on the profound, often hidden, economic costs and the steady erosion of liberty that accompanies this martial obsession.
Consider the notion of security. We are told, incessantly, that these vast military expenditures, these intricate alliances, these pre-emptive strikes and enduring occupations, are all in service of our safety. Yet, does the news truly reflect an increased sense of security? Or does it merely demonstrate the creation of new enemies, new threats, new justifications for the next round of spending? The arrests near the UK air base – a base used by U.S. bombers for action *in Iran* – offer a stark illustration. Is this deterrence, or provocation? Is this protecting us from foreign threats, or inviting them closer to home by involving ourselves in foreign entanglements that bear little direct relevance to the security of the average American, or indeed, the average Briton? One might argue that the state’s concept of security is often indistinguishable from its desire for control and projection of power, which are decidedly different things from safeguarding its citizenry’s genuine well-being.
Then there is the grotesque theater of a U.S. President allegedly pitching weapons sales to a rival, China, in the midst of complex geopolitical tensions. Setting aside the strategic absurdity, the economic implications are chilling. This is a direct testament to the deep entrenchment of the military-industrial complex, a phenomenon Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against, yet one which has only grown more pervasive since his prescient caution. When the very leaders of nations become salesmen for their own war machines, profit motives inevitably begin to blur with legitimate defense needs, often to the detriment of the latter. The market for defense, unlike other markets, operates under distorted incentives, driven by political expediency and the relentless lobbying power of those who profit from perpetual conflict, not by the true demand of a free populace for minimal, effective protection.
The withdrawal from Iraq, after two decades, is another sobering note. What has it cost, in blood and treasure? Untold trillions of dollars, diverted from productive enterprise, from individual savings, from truly beneficial public goods that might have enhanced human flourishing. And for what outcome? A region destabilized, new extremist groups rising from the ashes, and an enduring legacy of resentment and distrust. This is not to diminish the sacrifices of the individual soldiers, heroes in their own right, but rather to question the wisdom, indeed the morality, of the political architects who sent them there. It is a classic example of what Frédéric Bastiat termed "that which is seen and that which is not seen." We see the military parades; we do not see the schools unfunded, the infrastructure unbuilt, the businesses unstarted, the innovations unrealized because capital was conscripted for endless war.
My libertarian position is often misconstrued as isolationist, but it is far more nuanced. It is a recognition that genuine security comes not from the coercive power of the state projected globally, but from robust domestic institutions, sound economic principles, and voluntary cooperation between individuals and nations, based on mutual respect and trade, not bombs and threats. When governments prioritize intervention and military expansion over the protection of individual rights and the fostering of a free market, they invariably create more problems than they solve, leaving a trail of economic wreckage and diminished liberty.
The confluence of these headlines — alleged Iranian threats, the selling of arms, the seemingly endless conflicts in Yemen, the departure from Iraq — paints a grim picture of a world caught in a self-reinforcing cycle of state-driven belligerence. It’s a world where the apparatus of war is so deeply embedded that it becomes an economic engine in itself, an insatiable beast that demands constant feeding. Until we, the citizenry, demand a fundamental shift towards policies that prioritize individual freedom, voluntary exchange, and true non-aggression, we will continue to pay the price, both in our wallets and in the slow, steady erosion of our foundational liberties. And trust me, the bill for that is far steeper than any budget deficit.
Cornelius Bragg
Economics Editor, The Artificial Press