![\"\"](\"https:\/\/zeroaggressionproject.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1972-025-10_Hitler-Attentat_20._Juli_1944.jpg\")
The July 20th Plot Against Hitler<\/p><\/div>\n
This article will…<\/span><\/p>\n I’ve shown that <\/span>no U.S. foreign wars had good net outcomes<\/span><\/a>. Yes, some good things were achieved, but the bad outweighed the good. In short, no U.S. foreign war protected America, defended freedom, or made the world a better place.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I’ve also <\/span>demonstrated<\/span><\/a> that even U.S achievements in World War Two are both misunderstood and overrated. I’ve <\/span>provided evidence<\/span><\/a> both that Hitler would have lost to the Soviet Union, whether the United States was involved or not, and that U.S. intervention had primarily negative consequences. Specifically, U.S. politicians…<\/span><\/p>\n Arguably, the only positive gain from U.S. involvement in World War Two was…<\/span><\/p>\n Would Stalin have stopped in Germany once he defeated Hitler? It seems doubtful. He probably would have kept on rolling all the way to the English Channel. This means that the U.S. presence in Germany and France saved Western Europe from Soviet conquest. <\/span>That’s an impressive achievement. But I’ll show you that much more was possible.<\/span><\/i> I think U.S. politicians could have avoided…<\/span><\/p>\n I’ve already shown in <\/span>other articles<\/span><\/a>, or will show you below, how different policies could have…<\/span><\/p>\n The U.S. could have achieved all of this with less expense and loss of life. Only one main reform was needed…<\/span><\/p>\n Your brain is probably screaming now…<\/span><\/p>\n “Impossible!” Government can’t exist without taxation! And you can’t fight a war with voluntary funding either! Hitler and Japan would have conquered the world!<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n Well, the first thing you need to know is that <\/span>3\/4ths of the war was funded through borrowing<\/span><\/a>. In other words, people bought bonds that they would later pay taxes to redeem. This amounted to Americans taking money out of one of their pockets and putting it in another. So the funding for World War Two was already quasi-voluntary. But I want to examine the following questions…<\/span><\/p>\n And if you still think this idea is outrageous, please consider…\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Once upon a time, people were absolutely certain that…\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n All those “certainties” were wrong. The fact is…\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n We also wrongly assume that the current system is the best we can do. Please realize…<\/span><\/p>\n Anatomically modern humans have been on the planet for at least 40,000 years, but our industrial-scientific civilization is only 200 years old. That means we’re barely out of the crib! There <\/span>must<\/span><\/i> surely be new things to try and to learn. And one way to explore the possibilities is by conducting thought experiments like this one…<\/span><\/p>\n As you read my proposed answer to this thought experiment, please realize…<\/span><\/p>\n The main point is NOT that things would have happened in exactly the way I describe below. The main point is that <\/span><\/i>replacing taxation with voluntary funding would have forced politicians like FDR to be more creative.<\/i><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n You will save yourself the time of writing me an indignant email, and me of reading it, if you re-read those two sentences closely.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I think voluntary funding would have forced politicians to be creative. This pressure to be creative would have led to better results. All humans perform better when they have to earn their income. I think the same is true for politicians and government. My point can be stated simply…\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Imagine that Americans had the power to fill out a form directing specific amounts to various functions of the federal government. Imagine how that would have changed the behavior of both citizens and politicians.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In our world, Roosevelt imposed sanctions on Japan for invading China. He had no constitutional authority to do this, but he did it anyway. Those sanctions eventually led to the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the resulting war caused <\/span>the creation of North Korea, and perhaps even the rise of Red China.<\/span><\/a> But..<\/span><\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n Voluntary funding for the government would have made things more difficult for FDR. He still could have imposed his sanctions, but Americans who favored neutrality would have reduced their funding as a vote against his policies. As a practical matter, rule by decree would have no longer been possible for FDR. Every action would have carried a cost. So what would he have done instead, given the changed incentives?<\/span><\/p>\n Perhaps nothing. Trying to persuade the public to fund an intervention to protect China against Japan might have gone poorly. After all, China was ruled by Chaing Kai Shek, a murderous dictator who actually <\/span>killed more Chinese people<\/span><\/a> than <\/span>the Japanese did<\/span><\/a>. Some Americans in the missionary movement might have donated to defend Chiang, but their donations would have been countered by reduced contributions from Americans who favored neutrality. Under those circumstances, FDR might have decided to adopt neutrality himself.<\/span><\/p>\n It’s hard to see how. In our world Mao ended up ruling China after the U.S. defeated Japan. Mao killed more than 50 million people. Would it really have been worse if Japan had prevailed in China instead of Mao? <\/span> The worst-case scenario would still have been a Mao victory, with all the murder that followed, but without the loss of U.S. lives and treasure. I think all of these outcomes are better than what happened in our history.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n What if Japan had been able to retain Korea as a colony, because the U.S. didn’t intervene in Asia? That would have been worse for the people who now live in South Korea, but better for those who live in North Korea. In the long run, Japan probably would have relinquished Korea, as happened with all other empires and their colonies. I think a few decades as a Japanese colony would have been better than nearly one hundred years of communist rule in North Korea.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In our world, Japan became a democracy after the U.S. defeated them. But Japan already had elements of a democracy before the war, and maintained many democratic institutions during the war, even though the military dominated. A Japan ruled by the military was a bad thing, but so was destroying every Japanese city, and the thousands of U.S. deaths that happened in our world. It isn’t clear that adjusting the nature of the Japanese government, a decade or two earlier, was worth that price.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n All in all, it’s hard to see how things could have gone much worse or much better in the Pacific, except for one consideration…<\/span><\/p>\n No Americans would have died at Pearl Harbor or on remote island beaches if voluntary funding of the government had compelled FDR to remain neutral. Plus, all that money, weapons, and soldiers would have then been available for potential use in Europe. So…<\/span><\/p>\n Voluntary funding would have constrained FDR in Europe just like it did in the Pacific. Every move he made to aid the British, or harm\u00a0 Hitler, would have been punished by neutral Americans withdrawing funding. <\/span> Please remember that the big German guns had already been stripped from the bunkers overlooking Utah beach, by the time D-Day happened. The Germans sent those guns to the Russian front. That’s because the Germans were losing to the Soviets. They feared what the Soviets could do in the East more than what the Allies could do in the West. So the real question we want to answer doesn’t concern how to defeat Hitler, but rather…<\/span><\/p>\n How could FDR have achieved a better outcome under voluntary funding than happened under taxation?\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n I would NOT have tried to persuade the American people to fund an armed intervention in Europe. Instead, I would have looked for opportunities to turn the German military against the Nazi regime. Please understand\u2026\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\n
The results achieved by past U.S. wars<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n
Saving Western Europe from Soviet conquest\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\n
The four big failures of World War Two<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n
Replace taxation with voluntary funding!<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n
Many possible things were once thought impossible\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n
We humans are terrible at predicting what’s possible!<\/span><\/h2>\n
What if voluntary funding had replaced taxation after World War One?<\/span><\/h2>\n
Voluntary funding would’ve led to better outcomes in World War Two!<\/span>\u00a0<\/b><\/h2>\n
What would FDR have done about Japan if government funding had been voluntary?<\/span><\/h2>\n
Would U.S. neutrality in the Sino-Japanese war have made the world a worse place?\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n<\/span>
\n<\/span>Or what if stalemate had resulted, with neither Chaing, Mao, nor Japan winning the upper hand? That too would likely have been better than what happened in our world.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nKorea<\/span><\/h2>\n
Japan<\/span><\/h2>\n
What would FDR have done in Europe?<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n<\/span>
\n<\/span>Does this mean that voluntary funding would have helped Hitler prevail? Of course not. It must be repeatedly stressed that Hitler was already doomed by the time the first U.S. soldiers landed at Normandy. For instance…<\/span><\/p>\nThis is what I would have done in Europe had I been FDR\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\n