Greens and Vegans Should Consider Adopting Georgism

 "All that is necessary is Land and Liberty", said the economist Henry George in his magnum opus, Progress and Poverty. George realized a growth in inequality despite the massive growth in technology and productivity during the 19th century. George argued that societal gains in infrastructure, productivity, and wealth, become built into the value of Land. This creates an effect where landlords are able to charge exorbitant prices for access to the land they own, without having taken unto themselves any cost of production. This process of extracting "economic rent" significantly heightens inequality, as landlords benefit from society's production, while the productive forces of Labor and Capital are over-regulated and bear all of the tax burden. 

George's proposition to alleviate this effect was a tax on the unimproved value of Land. So if a land owner's property goes up in market value due to rezoning or infrastructure development, that value is collected as a tax, and does not remain in the pockets of the landowner as windfall gain (unearned income). This effectively would keep the value of Land in the public sector; a form of common ownership, so long as the value collected is put to public use.

So how does this relate to Veganism?

Land is the ultimate source of value, provided there is Labor to create it. In fact, the current value of Land in the United States is greater than the entire Gross Domestic Product. A recent survey put the value of Land in excess of 23 trillion dollars. This value can be in the form of whatever Labor is employed to create. Currently, this is how Land is utilized:

That's right, the largest demographic of Land is for livestock. Then if you combine the segments of Land being used for monoculture farming for livestock feed, soy, corn syrup, and ethanol production, roughly a third of the Land of this country is being utilized for environmentally and economically destructive purposes.

Such gross misuse of Land is only made possible by the fact that agriculture in the US is built on maximal use of Land through maximally inefficient means. Farmers have to employ as much of their usable land as possible utilizing subsidized cash crops like corn and soy. They are also forced to hire as little, and pay as little as possible to Labor, while employing as little capital as possible into things like property improvements and machinery.

The beef and dairy industry use even more Land due to the extreme spacial needs livestock creates. Not only do they dominate Land use, but they are subsidized to do it, to the tune of nearly $40 billion a year. Comparatively, plant farming for human consumption (not soy and corn) receives less than $20 million.

Green and Vegan politics demand intensive, efficient use of Land, with a key focus on soil and environmental conservation. Our current economic structure creates the exact opposite effect.

Why?

The rentier landlord class' domination of land ownership and the politics of Land.  There is no penalty for the livestock industry's massive land claim or the pollution it creates. There is also only incentive for farmers to inefficiently use their land through cash cropping. This is why I argue that a Georgist approach to Green and Vegan politics could be the most effective one.

A Land Value Tax (LVT) could create the economic environment in which the livestock industry is incapable of using such gross amounts of land for a cruel, polluting practice. This would make plant based alternatives significantly cheaper, purely through market forces. They already need massive subsidies simply to be profitable. A tax on the amount of Land they use could break them, and open of the use of that Land for much more important needs of society.

Farmers would no longer be enthralled to cash cropping, or forced to sell their Land to corporate agribusiness. The incentive would lie with intensive use of Land for crops intended for human consumption. Farmers would be taxed for the Land that they use, not on the Labor they employ or the capital expenditures that they make, or even the product they sell. Land put out of use for conservation measures would not be taxed, allowing farmers to properly take care of their Land.

Here is a short video by Frank de Jong, a Canadian environmentalist, making this case: Land Value Taxation and Agriculture

Imagine an economy where groups of young farmers can acquire land with no upfront cost and mortgage, to produce local crops with the purpose of human consumption. Such a reality could be possible with the adoption of Georgist economic policy into Green and Vegan politics.

Currently, due to inflated land values create by untaxed economic rent, Land acquisition is simply an impossibility for the vast majority of people. We should all be given access to Land, with the purpose of bettering ourselves and society. "All that is necessary is Land and Liberty". Land is freedom and power for the people who own it. We should make our economics about the economics of Land, for the purpose of human betterment.

This provides an alternative means for marketing these politics to those who are unresponsive to current methods. Yes the livestock industry is viciously cruel, but many people prefer to simply separate themselves from such thoughts. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful effect, and people naturally are defensive of their status quo beliefs when faced with such a shock as is educating them of that cruelty. I personally know this, because I am guilty of it. I personally am more convinced by pragmatic reasoning rather than shame. I recently began transitioning my diet towards Veganism due to an amalgamation of reasons, including cruelty, but cruelty alone didn't convince me enough to do it. Such a change is a very major personal decision that has effects beyond the simple change in foods one eats. People like myself often will need more than just one reason, and by appealing to a different sensibility, it can happen.

The economics of Land should be just as important to Veganism as is cruelty to animals. The added support Georgism could provide will only aid the cause, and possibly induce greater change. Change for animals, for the environment, the economy, and for the human species. "All that is necessary is Land and Liberty." I particularly love that quote, and would like to end this appeal with the full context from Henry George:

"The ideal of socialism is grand and noble. I am convinced it is possible to achieve. But such a state of society cannot be manufactured — it must grow. Society is an organism, not a machine. It can live only by the individual life of its parts. In the free and natural development of all its parts, the harmony of the whole will be secured. All that is necessary is Land and Liberty."


Thank you for reading

My thoughts on ANTIFA

I recently had the pleasure of meeting with a group of Left Wing activists in Portland. I come from a predominantly white suburban community with no significant level of political activism. A place where elections come and go like sport events. People cheer on their favorite team (mostly Republicans), and maybe put up a lawn sign and a bumper sticker. Election day comes, some people vote, and it all passes with little to no consequence for the community. Life moves on as if it hardly happened at all. 

For these Portlanders, their political activism is a part of their identity. They are energetic, and very politically aware. They know their local politics, and are aware of the actions of political groups in the region. They balance their personal lives with their activism in a manner that puts us suburbanites to shame. "I just don't have the time" is simply not an excuse here. 

I was in town at the same time as a Patriot Prayer event (a white supremacist hate group). They were in town to harass the family of Patrick Kimmons. Kimmons was a black resident of Portland who was recently murdered by the Portland police, and the family had set up a vigil to bring about awareness of the murder. Patriot Prayer and their allies, the Proud Boys, commonly corroborate with police, and naturally were infuriated by another public, anti-police demonstration.

The Kimmons family and their friends were concerned that Patriot Prayer aimed to, in an extreme act of racism and disrespect, desecrate the vigil. Black bloc Antifascists (commonly called ANTIFA), SHARP (Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice), and other allies set out to disrupt Patriot Prayer, and protect the vigil. This event solidified my opinion towards ANTIFA in a big way. 

Anyone who aligns themselves with Left Wing politics, and/or considers themselves allies of minority groups, and is opposed to ANTIFA and their allies, is doing a major disservice to said minorities. You simply don't understand their purpose. As was stated previously, these far Right hate groups like Patriot Prayer corroborate with the police, and never face criminal charges for their violence. ANTIFA on the other hand are arrested regularly, often while being the victims of violence. ANTIFA exists as a means of protection against power. If the police aren't your ally, who do you turn to? For these assaulted minorities, people like Antifascists are all they feel they have. 

ANTIFA isn't a political action group. It doesn't have any central organization. It is a means of opposition for those who are threatened by institutions of power, and shows of force. They have no agenda aside protecting their communities from these hate groups. Keep in mind, groups like Patriot Prayer travel into cities where the participants do not live, in order to claim they are "taking back their homeland" or attempting to "liberate" cities like Portland by applying political pressure through intimidation. This is an identical tactic to Fascist paramilitaries in the past. There is simply no appeal to reason to be made here, hence the response ANTIFA creates. 

You cannot judge ANTIFA as if it were an institution of power, because it isn't even an institution, it is an action. Justifying violence is a burden which institutions of power must satisfy. if you are ignoring the violence of power and those aligned with it, and instead finger wave at those fighting back in opposition, than shame on you. You are part of the problem. Remember, these are people who live in these communities which these hate groups are harassing. They are protecting their homes from an apparent threat. It isn't some gang fighting a rival for their turf.  

It is a common white Liberal talking point that nonviolence is the only means by which abused minorities should seek emancipation. I counter with Malcolm X, who stated that calls for nonviolence are calls for being defenseless. Well these people don't want to be defenseless anymore. They feel threatened, and attacked. It is those in power who must justify their violence, or seek reconciliation with these people now. Until that point comes, let people like Antifascists do their work, and hesitate before you criticize violence during these sorts of events, especially when the framing of these events is done by institutions of power. 

An appeal to fellow Socialists

The lasting legacy of the Enlightenment is its Libertarian value system. That being, people are equal under the law, and have inalienable, natural rights as human beings, and are free to be self-determined individuals. This is an attractive, and morally defensible belief to hold, and is expressed throughout numerous political ideologies ranging to both extremes of the political spectrum in one fashion or the other. Many Socialists, despite Right Wing propaganda, hold these values dear, and quite rightly argue that Socialism, as a political philosophy, is built on them. Working people are unable to be self-determined, free human beings so long as they are required to sell their labor to Capital in order to survive. This is a core principle of Socialism.

Capitalism creates this system of power, where the owners of society enforce this relation, and Socialists of all kinds are right to reject it. Where I think this begins to be a problem, and becomes the appeal I make to you, is where this critical view of institutions of power becomes the Socialist's entire identity. Many of us seem hellbent on fighting institutions of power that we would reject the opportunity of having our own. This is most evident regarding the role of the State in society. Socialist opinion ranges from collaboration with a Bourgeois State, to complete abolition of the State as an institution all together. What many Socialists seem to reject (especially in the West), is the idea of wielding the power of the State for our ends.

I am not a Marxist-Leninist, but they understand this point better than most. The State is the ultimate institution of power. The more autocratic the State, the more power it yields, and the higher is its efficacy. One would be right to criticize with the point that this heightens the possibility for reactionary measures. I myself once held the belief that the State is an illegitimate institution in both theory and practice, but I've come to recognize that in practice, one cannot hold the same expectations as in theory. The ends surely don't justify the means, but the means must produce an end, otherwise, what's the point? Take for instance the two largest examples of Socialism; Communist China, and the Soviet Union.

Many Socialists, particularly in the West, have a reflexive distaste for China and the USSR. So much so, that they would happily run interference for Right Wing propagandists, and condemn them alongside each other, all in the name of maintaining ideological purity. One cannot hold Libertarianism so dearly that they sing in unison against their brothers and sisters with the very people who would crush them for a profit, otherwise, what's the point?

It is not a betrayal of your values to both condemn some of the more undesirable means China and the USSR took, whilst accepting, and praising the positive aspects of their successes. It is also not hypocritical to praise the heightened living conditions for over a billion people, while condemning those negative means. We can live on both sides of the fence. We can appreciate the positive ends while condemning the means which are unnecessary and cruel.

Consider the alternative for a moment. It's 1930's Russia. you foresee the coming conflict between France and Germany, and understand you will have a role to play. Your military is weak, you are still largely an agrarian peasant society, and your people have recently endured a famine. Do you consolidate your power, industrialize, and prepare for war, whatever the cost, to protect your country's interests? Or do you forego your central authority, re-establish the worker's councils, and decentralize land control in order to establish your worker's paradise?

Luckily for Europe, Stalin chose the former path, and while his purges were condemnable, the alternative is surely a resounding defeat at the hands of the Nazis. While that is speculation on my part, it is a confident one. It took a heroic effort to push back the Nazi war machine, and is a result of statecraft and planning. In no sensible respect, can one claim a decentralized group of worker's councils could muster the forces necessary for that victory in a non-coercive, cooperative manner. The end result of this particular suspension of Libertarian values was the complete victory over Nazi Germany, and the post war boom of prosperity for the Soviet peoples.

Now consider China. Leaving aside the justification for the Civil War, what has been the end result of China's particular brand of Socialism? The single largest leap in living standards for the largest population known in history. Has there been ecological destruction? Yes of course, and has there been a vicious crackdown on independent labor movements by the government? Yes as well, but once again, we can live on both sides of the fence. No Capitalist State could possibly dream of ending famine and extreme poverty with as large and dense a population as China's in such a short time frame. That is a far superior result to a junta-style South Korean type government the KMT was bound to be had the CPC not taken control and protected their interests.

Only power can liberate people. Power is transient, but conserved. Power must lie somewhere, with someone at any point in time, and any expectation that the most maligned populations of this world can be liberated without it is foolish. Lenin and Mao (and their allies) understood this, and acted upon it. Where Lenin and Mao succeeded, others have failed, particularly in the Middle East, Africa, and Central America. Regarding a concern for the victims of imperialism, these are the great concerns of today. These people so desperately need the full power of their own governments to work for their own ends, and not bow to international Capital.

What I beg of my Socialist brothers and sisters is to understand this; at least consider the fact that the path to liberation is most easily achieved through the State. If you care at all about the aforementioned Libertarian values; freedom, liberty,  and self-determination, you wont deny these populations of them. It is extremely easy to condemn State violence, and Socialist governments of the past are certainly guilty of this violence, but we cannot try to deny the people the power of their own State out of an ideological rejection of any and all violence. The power of the State is simply too important to their liberation. Rejecting State power out of a love for Libertarianism is a denial of Libertarianism for those with no realization of liberty, freedom, and self-determination.

Comparing Trump to Hitler Weakens the Opposition to Him

Comparing authoritarians to Adolf Hitler is easy. It is even easier to compare racist authoritarians to him. Which is why it is ultra convenient for the American political Center and Left to make such a charge when trying to rally opposition to Donald Trump. The problem with this approach though, is that it simply will not work. In fact, it likely makes things worse. Don't worry though, this isn't some call for "civility", or some milquetoast appeal for compromise. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

Donald Trump is a petty crook, and even more so, he is a racist authoritarian who happens to be President, while also being a petty crook. He is however, not a Fascist, at least not in the traditional sense that Hitler was. Hitler was  an incredibly impressive leader. Yes he was a monster, but none the less impressive. He was the most popular politician in German history. His regime created an economic powerhouse, and the world's most advanced military in the span of a decade. He was an artist, extremely learned and intelligent, advanced orator, and brilliant tactician. Trump is NONE of those things. He is a crass, rude, and narcissistic poster boy for Dunning-Kruger syndrome, who still doesn't have a popular mandate despite a "strong" economy (on the surface at least) and a completely inept opposition party. Comparing him to Hitler does him a favor. He could only wish to be as effective a leader as Hitler.

Here is an example I think illustrates the point effectively. Compare these statements:

Trump: "The beauty of me is I'm very rich"
             “I have total net worth of $8.73bn,” he said. “I’m not doing that to brag. I’m doing that to show that’s the kind of thinking our country needs.”
               “I’m proud of my net worth, I’ve done an amazing job … The total is $8,737,540,000 US. I’m not doing that to brag, because you know what, I don’t have to brag.”
There are loads more comments of him bragging about his wealth. He even recently stated that he was even "more elite than the elitists".

Now compare to Hitler: "Whenever I stand up for the German peasant, it is for the sake of the Volk. I have neither ancestral estate nor manor… I believe I am the only statesman in the world who does not have a bank account. I hold no stock, I have no shares in any companies. I do not draw any dividends."

Hitler did of course, live in luxury as the Fuhrer, but his rhetoric never included the self-aggrandizement of personal wealth. It was always about appealing to a unified Reich, and the rejection of Individualism in fealty to the State. Trump praises the division he creates. He makes no serious appeal to any sort of unified state. The more division he sows, the easier it is for him and his friends to continue looting the Commons. Hitler's convictions, while self-enriching, also led to vastly improved living standards for the German people (at the expense of some obvious groups), or at least until they began losing the war.

Hitler was also a proud veteran of World War 1, which strengthened his appeal with disgruntled German veterans. Trump is a rich draft dodger, which makes his appeal to Right-Wing patriots all the more laughable and somewhat vexing.

We must belittle Trump for the wanna-be, petty authoritarian that he is, not give him the same level of awe (in a terrifying sense) that Hitler warranted. We must call him out for not being the Fascist that the opposition claims him to be. An effective Fascist would actually be able to rally a popular mandate. An effective Fascist would build an economic powerhouse based on domestic industry and the unity of nationalized Labor, and not maintain the same Neoliberal bubble economy as his predecessors.

Trump's base simply does not care that you call him a Fascist or Hitler. What they do care about is, is he delivering what he said he would? The answer is simply no. He has an effective propaganda network claiming he does, but he hasn't accomplished any of the Populist proposals that rallied his base in the first place. He said everyone would get healthcare. He promised to discipline Capital abroad. He promised to end unpopular foreign interventions. He promised wage and job growth. He promised to protect Social Security and Medicare. He has done none of these things. These are all things I saw Trump supporters reaching out to Liberals and anti-Clinton Leftists with. They have simply given him a pass in the name of partisan support, or they have simply forgotten. It is up to us to remind them of it, and begin cracking his base of support, and show him to be the crook that he is.

US militarism

The consolidation of power post-WW2 by the United States, and its subsequent foreign policy decisions have resulted in massive suffering and theft of natural resources, second only to British colonialism. Today the US military is currently active in eight conflicts.

They are as follows:

1. Iraq

2. Afghanistan

3. Libya

4. Pakistan

5. Syria

6. Somalia

7. Yemen

8. Niger

Meanwhile we are saber rattling with Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela.

There are two reasons why I oppose this level of Imperial aggression: the humanitarian case, and the economic case. These are all instances of aggression on the part of our government. Not a single moral case can be made in favor of the United States.

It is quite clear that the US military has acted as an arm of private Capital. From its proxy wars against Communists, to its attacks on secular Arab Nationalism, Western corporate interests have followed the US military, or have outright lobbied for US intervention. I think providing a bit of history is appropriate to support my point. Before I do so, I want to make a crucial point. I am not writing in support of the autocratic rulers the US has worked in opposition of in these examples. Many of them are/were guilty of human rights abuses. The fundamental point of my argument is this; we MUST be critical of our government's abuses, and demand it takes responsibility for the suffering and loss of civilian life that has occurred due its actions. Never confuse solidarity for the victims of war for support of war criminals and their combatants.

Let's begin

Korea - The US backs West-friendly mass murderer Syngman Rhee in Korea in order to blunt Soviet influence on the peninsula, and prevented a unified Korea. The following war claimed nearly 3 million, yes MILLION, civilian lives. South Korea became dependent on US foreign aid and capital inflows to build their economy over the following decades, which were filled with authoritarian governments and political violence. Their economy has been heavily reliant on exports to the United States and other Western economies.

Iran - The CIA overthrows democratically elected, and secular Prime Minister Mosaddegh after plans to nationalize Iran's petroleum industry were revealed. British oil interests had colonized Iran for a number of years, and Mosaddegh was a serious threat to their interests. The coup was successful, and the Shiite Shah of Iran took power at the behest of British oil. These events destabilized Iranian sovereignty, leading directly to the Iranian revolution in 1978, which put Khomeini into power.

Guatemala - The CIA overthrows popular, and democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz after instituting a series of land reforms which aimed to distribute land ownership among the peasantry. The United Fruit Company lobbied the US government for intervention and the coup ensued. Several decades of Civil War followed with immense bloodshed, all for the UFCO to maintain its profits. Fun fact, the UFCO was the primary influence of the term "banana republic", named after its ability to undermine sovereign Latin American governments in order to build their industry.

Vietnam - The Vietnam War is probably the greatest example of American Exceptionalism. Two decades of bombing, napalm, and ground fighting claimed the lives of well over a half million civilians. French colonial interests lobbied for US intervention in order to stem the Communist majority in the North, and divided the country in two.

Cuba - Long a colony of the United States, Castro's revolution, at first lauded by the US, quickly ousted US financial interests after seizing control of the country. Castro's government expropriated large quantities of land, especially those owned by US entities. Eisenhower's administration quickly decided that retaking control of Cuba was a top priority, and Kennedy continued that focus, having said that the US would be "swept away in the debris of history" if it failed to take back Cuba. International opinion was important however, particularly among the rest of Latin America. US economic interests spread throughout the entire region, and there was a massive fear that Castro's Cuba would serve as model for other Latin American countries to oust US interests in a wave of Communist uprisings. Political and economic sanctions, along with outright CIA-planned invasion attempts (Bay of Pigs), have created decades of economic hardship for the Cuban people, long after any real concern over Communism in Latin America has dissipated.

There are more examples than these in recent history, and I encourage anyone reading to spend time looking into our government's foreign policy decisions.

What about today? Let's take a look at why our government is involved in each of the eight theaters of war I listed earlier. 

1. Iraq - Much like with Iran, control over Iraqi oil supply is of major strategic importance. The difference being, Iraq was exponentially weaker than Iran has ever been. A full scale invasion of Iran would never work without causing a World War due to the fact it would drag Saudi, Pakistani, Indian, and Chinese interests into play. Saddam was unilaterally hated, and economic sanctions had devastated the country. 9/11 and Desert Storm were recently in mind domestically, and Neoconservative influence was powerfully in control of US politics and propaganda. All the pieces were in place, and the invasion occurred. The ensuing occupation however, has not gone so easily, but that is a story for another day. 

2. Afghanistan has been a place of interest for a number of years, particularly due to its location. It was the pass-through for the Soviets into the oil rich Middle East. Reagan's administration spent years arming and training the Mujahideen to resist Soviet occupation through guerrilla tactics.  Little could the US predict that the Afghani rebels would later form the Taliban. Afghani civilians have suffered immensely for decades due to those Cold War tensions, and the US War on Terror, which took a strong focus on eliminating the Taliban. Between constant bombing, ground fighting, and economic sanctions, the death toll has become significant, with nearly 30,000 civilian casualties, and tens of thousands more dead and dying due to economic hardship. Also keep in mind that the heroin trade is also a crucial source of funding for covert military operations around the region, and Afghanistan is a primary source of poppies. US soldiers are currently guarding poppy fields as I write this.  

3. Libya - Again, much like with Iran, Arab nationalism is a great threat to Western oil interests in the Middle east. Gaddafi's successful revolution in 1969 caused a lot of concern in the Western international community. Gaddafi quickly nationalized the oil industry and enacted social reforms which quickly made Libya the most socially developed country in Africa, with the highest standard of living. The issue however, was Libyan oil revenue soon began to fund revolutionary armies and terror groups in opposition to Western interests. Gaddafi was a key target of the Reagan administration, especially due to Libya's control of uranium rich Chad. The West failed to remove Gaddafi from power for decades until the Arab Spring revolts washed over Libya and Gaddafi was killed in 2011. As stated earlier, the events following the collapse of Gaddafi's regime have been chaotic. Islamist militias have jockeyed for power with an inept central government propped up by the international community failing to exert any control. The people of Libya meanwhile have suffered tremendously with the economy collapsing and the development of a slavery market operated and funded by extremist militias in the region. 

4. Pakistan - Bordering Iran and Afghanistan, Pakistan is in a geographically important position, and was coerced into a shaky alliance with the US in the War on Terror due to that fact. The reward was lifting of economic sanctions and years of financial aid and weapon supply. Relations fell apart in recent years, particularly after Bin Laden was killed, and the US learned that Pakistani officials aided and abetted Bin Laden. Pakistan has been the target of years of drone warfare, reaching its height during the Obama administration, but recently slowing. Civilian death estimates range widely based on source, with the number lying somewhere between 200-1000, with thousands more injured, and hundreds of buildings and homes destroyed. 

5. Syria - The US has been interested in control over the Syrian region for decades. The CIA even backed a failed coup in 1949, and then again in 1957, in opposition of Communist control in Syria. Western oil interests have been interested in Syria due to its geographical positions and natural gas reserves. The original coup in '49 was a direct result of Syria's holdout from ARAMCO's Trans-Arabian pipeline plan. Declassified CIA documents from the 80's showed that US had intentions of "bringing real muscle to bear" against Syria, with the goal of regime change for Hafez al-Assad's closure of the Iraqi pipeline, and opposition to Israel's interests in Lebanon. Today, Bashar al-Assad is seen as the same autocratic opposition to US/Israeli interests as his father was. Missile attacks and support of rebel forces by the US has led to civilian casualties and human rights abuses. They have emboldened Islamist violence in northern Syria and Iraq, with the Kurdish rebels they supposedly support bearing the brunt of the violence. While direct regime change seems an unlikely result compared to Libya, a weak Syrian government suits the US in regards to their anti-Iranian, anti-Russian stratagem, no matter the human cost among the Syrian people and the Kurds in the north. 

6. Somalia - The Horn of Africa is vital strategic area for Western interests due to its proximity to the Arabian peninsula and the Red Sea/Gulf of Aden. The US military was directly involved in the Somalian Civil War in the early 90's, but largely withdrew after sustaining losses that created highly negative public opinion of our involvement. The US remained in a covert capacity, and still is today as evidenced by the recent reported death of a Navy Seal in Mogadishu. The US drone war program has risen recently in Somalia as well. The purpose being support of the fledgling Somalian government and resistance to al-Shabaab. Drone strikes have (officially) claimed dozens of civilian's lives. 

7. Yemen - There is currently an outright genocide occurring in Yemen. The Saudi Arabian government is currently bombing and blockading Yemen, preventing the import of food, water, and medicine in an attempt to kill as much of the Yemeni population as possible without direct invasion. This is occurring with complete acquiescence and indirect support from our government in the form of arms sales. Hundreds of thousands have died at the hands of the Saudi's, with 50,000 children having died just last year due to bombs, starvation, and disease. The US drone program is also active in Yemen, having killed an estimated 100-200 civilians. The lack of any resistance to this from our government is due to its policy to support the Saudi royal family at all costs. Forget Israel, the Saudi royals are the most crucial ally to the US in the region. This is the greatest humanitarian crisis occurring in the world today. 

8. Niger - It was recently revealed that the US has deployed covert forces in Niger, and has plans to create more drone bases to expand its UAV program. This is part of larger scale "shadow war" that has become increasingly clear in the Saharan region, with the US as the primary actor. Niger is in a centralized location, and an ideal place for military bases as per the strategy of AFRICOM. Africa continues to be a major focus for Western economic interests due to its massive reservoir of natural resources from oil, uranium, and copper among other important minerals. I have little doubt that as we learn more of the activities of AFRICOM in the Saharan region, human rights abuses and civilian deaths will be revealed. 

After writing this I am reminded of something Martin Luther King Jr. said in response to US involvement in Vietnam (MLK day recently passed). "I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent."

There is much evil in the world. Many leaders and organizations are responsible for untold suffering of innocents, but none as heavily involved in the business of war than my own government. The clear connection to economic interests makes it even more disheartening, yet makes the Socialist argument very clear. I suggest the following principles:

1. All military actions of our government are unjustified in the absence of direct consent of the local populations in response to a humanitarian crisis.  

2. All sales of military hardware and ordinance are immoral. 

3. We must allow populations to be self-determinant. Humanitarian crises deserve our involvement, but any and all attempts to open weakened populations to foreign Capital must be resisted. The land and its natural resources belong to the local populations. Aid is acceptable in the case that no return is expected. The principles of Humanitarianism don't involve a rate of return. 

4. Any politician not in agreement with these principles is unacceptable, and will get no support from me. There is no compromise to be had with Imperialism.

Sources provided upon request
-MT