Robert Higgs Interviewed: The Expanding Pork for Military Pay and Towns
By David J. Theroux • Monday August 30, 2010 2:58 PM PDT • 1 Comment
Independent Institute Senior Fellow Robert Higgs is interviewed by Scott Horton of Antiwar Radio on the widening gap between public and private sector pay, the increasing affluence of military towns compared with others, the disappearance of traditional checks on government power, and the predation and incremental “ratchet effect” of expanding governmental powers that increase “temporarily” during wartime but never really recede.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Download audio file (28:41 minutes)
Please also see the following books by Dr. Higgs:
Depression, War, and Cold War: Challenging the Myths of Conflict and Prosperity
Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government
Neither Liberty Nor Safety: Fear, Ideology, and the Growth of Government
Against Leviathan: Government Power and a Free Society
Opposing the Crusader State: Alternatives to Global Interventionism
Tags: American History, Austrian School of economics, Bailouts, Books, Budget and Tax Policy, Civil Society, Constitution, Corporatism, Corruption, Culture, Defense, Economics, Employment, Fascism, Free Market, Government subsidies, Great Depression, Liberty, Media, Military, Peace, Personal Liberty, Politics, Socialism, Terrorism, The State, Unemployment, War, Weapons, Welfare 
Unfortunately I was unable to listen to the interview with Robert Higgs on “bloated” military expenditure. However, I have heard Higgs speak at a session of the Cato University in San Diego in 2009, and have read other things of his, so I think I know about his particular economics and philosophy.
I wish that I could know the specifics of that interview, but I am commenting now because I am a life-long libertarian of the FEE stripe. I became that as a teenager decades ago, literally. I continue to support FEE, Cato, IJ, etc., and I subscribe to the output of the Independent Institute, as well. (I realize that Higgs is the editor for one of the major outputs of the Institute.)
Not sure therefore what all Higgs considers “bloated” about the taxpayer support of the Federal Military, but probably I would agree with most in any case!
In “my” case, the U.S. Government would be responsible for two matters: Justice, and the External Defense of this country, and the ability to tax to support these. (I am not, therefore, an anarchist, even though I could be for some forms of anarchism.) This would include the proper use of the various States’ militias in external national “emergencies.” Otherwise, I do not think that these militias could or should be responsible for external defense, only internal defense.
And, by the way, I am not for the Senate and House being an only sinecure for our “representatives.” In my form of federal government, our “representatives” would probably meet only a couple of months of every year, and more in external emergencies.
I write now because I happen to also be a “military pensioner,” and therefore receive a monthly check that is my principal, but not only support. I also receive a monthly check from Medicare, even though I do not believe in Medicare. There would not be such a thing if I had my way, but I did pay into the system for decades, so I am trying to get back some of that. (I realize that some live long enough to get back more than they paid into the system during their working years.) Thus, I am a “double-dipper,” some would say.
I have no family background in the military of this country, and thus I did not “gravitate” into the military profession. And, I could but won’t go here into the reasons that I did become a so-called “lifer.” Suffice it here to say that I am one.
I suppose that I can say nothing that will not be labeled a kind of self-serving apologia, but I do want to state that years I ago entered a kind of “contract” with the U.S. Government (military). I did my best to fulfill my obligations under that contract for 22 years, and expect that the U.S. Government will/should do its part in return.
One can certainly and properly debate what should be the proper total compensation that would be enough to attract all the individuals that make up the military, some of whom, after all, do lay down their lives to be part of the wars that this country gets involved in (some of which wars that I personally would not sponsor). And, here I hasten to add that I am one who believes in civilian oversight of the Federal Military; I do NOT want “generals” running this country!
That’s it. One might argue that I personally receive too generous a pension (Of course, I do not think so), but in the last analysis I made a contract with my employer: I did my part, and expect the same in return.
Dallas B. Tuthill, M.D. | Sep 4, 2010 | Reply