Ludwig von Mises, Neocon

From Mises' Omnipotent Government, Chapter X - "Nazism as a World Problem," Part 4 - "Alternatives":


The reality of Nazism faces everybody else with an alternative: They must smash Nazism or renounce their self‑determination, i.e., their freedom and their very existence as human beings. If they yield, they will be slaves in a Nazi‑dominated world. Their civiliza?tions will perish; they will no longer have the freedom to choose, to act, and to live as they wish; they will simply have to obey. The F?hrer, the vicar of the "German God," will become their Supreme Lord. If they do not acquiesce in such a state of affairs, they must fight desperately until the Nazi power is completely broken. There is no escape from this alternative; no third solution is available. A negotiated peace, the outcome of a stalemate, would not mean more than a temporary armistice. The Nazis will not abandon their plans for world hegemony. They will renew their assault. Nothing can stop these wars but the decisive victory or the final defeat of Nazism.

It is a fatal mistake to look at this war as if it were one of the many wars fought in the last centuries between the countries of Western civilization. This is total war. It is not merely the destiny of a dynasty or a province or a country that is at stake, but the destiny of all nations and civilizations. Europe has not had to encounter a similar danger since the Tartar invasions in the thir?teenth century. The lot of the defeated would be worse than that of the Greeks and the Serbs under the Turkish yoke. The Turks did not attempt to wipe out the vanquished Greeks and Serbs, or to eradicate their language and their Christian creed. But the Nazis have other things in store for the conquered: extermination of those stubbornly resisting the master race, enslavement for those spontaneously yielding.

In such a war there cannot be any question of neutrality. The neutrals know very well what their fate will be if the Nazis conquer the United Nations[1]. Their boasts that they are ready to fight for their independence if the Nazis attack them are vain. In the event of a defeat of the United Nations, military action on the part of Switzerland or Sweden would not be more than a symbolic gesture. Under present conditions neutrality is equal to a virtual support of Nazism.

The same holds true for German‑speaking men and women whether they are citizens of the Reich or not. There are citizens of the Reich who want to save face by asserting that they are not Nazis but that they cannot help fighting in the ranks of their fellow citizens. It is a man's duty, they say, to be unconditionally loyal to his own linguistic group whether its cause is right or wrong. It was this idea that turned some citizens of Austria, Switzerland, and various American countries either toward Nazism or toward what they believed to be an attitude of neutrality.

But this doctrine of the unlimited solidarity of all members of a linguistic group is one of the main vices of nationalism. Nobody would be prepared to maintain such a principle of solidarity with regard to other groups. If the majority of the inhabitants of a town or a province decided to fight against the rest of the country, few would admit that the minority had a moral obligation to stand with the majority and to support its action. The issue in the struggle between Nazism and the rest of mankind is whether the community of people speaking the same language is the only legitimate social collectivity, or whether the supremacy must be assigned to the great society embracing all human beings. It is the fight of humanity against the claims of the intransigent par?ticularism of a group. On better grounds than those on which the Nazis deny to the Austrians and the Swiss the rights of moral and political autonomy and of unrestricted sovereignty, the members of the human society must deny these rights to the various linguistic groups. No human co?peration and no lasting peace are conceivable if men put loyalty to any particular group above loyalty to hu?manity, moral law, and the principle of every individual's moral responsibility and autonomy. Renan was right in asserting that the problem is whether a man belongs to any particular group or to himself.

The Nazis themselves realize clearly that under the conditions brought about by the international division of labor and the present state of industrialism, the isolation of nations or countries has become impossible. They do not want to withdraw from the world and to live on their own soil in splendid isolation. They do not want to destroy the great world‑embracing society. They intend to organize it as an oligarchy. They alone are to rule in this oligarchy; the others are to obey and be their slaves. In such a struggle whoever does not take the part of those fighting against the Nazis furthers the cause of Nazism.

This is true today of many pacifists and conscientious objectors. We may admire their noble motives and their candid intentions. But there is no doubt that their attitudes result in complicity with Nazism. Nonresistance and passive obedience are precisely what the Nazis need for the realization of their plans. Kant was right in asserting that the proof of a principle's moral value is whether or not it could be accepted (the pragmatists would say, whether or not it would "work") as a universal rule of conduct. The general acceptance of the principle of nonresistance and of obedience by the non‑Nazis would destroy our civilization and reduce all non‑Germans to slavery.

There is but one means to save our civilization and to preserve the human dignity of man. It is to wipe out Nazism radically and pitilessly. Only after the total destruction of Nazism will the world be able to resume its endeavors to improve social organization and to build up the good society.

The alternative is humanity or bestiality, peaceful human co?peration or totalitarian despotism. All plans for a third solution are illusory.


Though we know, of course, that Mises was no sort of Neoconservative at all[2], his point rings true today- take out "Nazi" and put in "Islamist", or even specifically "Al Qaeda" and it still works. The word "Islamofascist" was coined advisedly.

I'm with Mises. The point in this passage is that in the course of a war between civilization and barbarity, liberals must choose civilization. The threat must be dealt with before the liberal project can be resumed. War is bad, and carries many bad consequences for liberalism, but the consequences of losing are far worse. Debate the means, debate and fight the bad consequences, but remember that isolation and neutrality are not options, for the barbarians can strike us at any time and any place, and will not be satisfied until we're all under the boot, or decapitated.

(via the comments thread on the Mises Blog)


fn1. Mises here is referring to the Allies, who were often called the "United Nations" during WWII.

fn2. It is amusing to watch the efforts of self-labeled "paleos" try to square the circle of Mises' robust and categorical rejection of Rothbardian foreign policy to claim that they're both on the same side of the issue. If Mises meant what he said, then shouldn't he be demonized, too, along with the dreaded Neocons? Or is there special pleading in his case?

Share this

"The threat must be dealt

"The threat must be dealt with before the liberal project can be resumed."

Just lemme know when the Nazi threat will be over, so that the liberal project can be "resumed", Brian.

I'm sure it'll be any day, now.

So Osama, Zarqawi, et al,

So Osama, Zarqawi, et al, the guys who want to establish an islamic caliphate over the entire world and will kill, murder, and destroy as many innocents as they can in the meantime, are somehow not a threat?

What are you trying to say, John?

Hey. I'm the guy who dug up

Hey. I'm the guy who dug up that Mises quote over there. Found your blog through the trackback link. Anyway, it just makes me wonder how much Mises these guys have read, you know? I'm a Mises fanatic, but I suspect most fo those guys are merely Rothbard fans.

I'm merely noting that it's

I'm merely noting that it's better than *half a century* after the end of Nazi Germany, with no "resumption" to the liberal project ever being seen. Why d'ya think *that* is?

Try this thought experiment: what's the likely result of a *private* individual using *his* production to fight terror/Islam as *he* sees fit? Answer: he's going to run afoul of FedGov about that >< quick, whether through "hate-crimes" or refusing to pay "his fair share", or whatnot. *That* alone ought to show the foolishness of implicitly invoking the spirit of The Gub'ment to look out for *anything* other than its own immediate interests.

Get this, Brian, and get it real good: the Terror War is only another *facet* of the liberal project, one properly aimed at a subset of savages who are merely less sophisticated and more forward than their Western soul-brethren.

There can't be any "putting it on hold until a better day", or there *won't be* a better day.

ohhh. Well, in that case

ohhh. Well, in that case then we're in agreement.

Though I do think that the liberal project has gone on since the end of the war against the Nazis; it just took a long while before Hayek pried the door open and other non-Austrian liberals helped burst through. America is a far more liberal place now (2004) than it was in 1974.

Of course, that has something to do with Reagan, etc, but that's another post.

Michael- Yes, many at the

Michael-

Yes, many at the Mises Institute are Rothbard fans. Rothbard's economic work is high caliber, and I think his work on the economic history of the Great Depression is masterful. Uncle Murray's problem was that as far as politics went, he was completely tone deaf. Blinded by either a hatred of or an unreasoning revulsion toward the US government, he took as an a priori axiom that the US was bad and thus anything the US was against, he was for, and anyone the US fought was at worst misunderstood, at best the victims of the evil US gov't. That was moral idiocy and I think the foreign commenters on that thread pointed that out fairly well. His revisionist program was overtly propaganda, and history only in vague approximation. That much is too bad, and a waste of talent.

"America is a far more

"America is a far more liberal place now (2004) than it was in 1974."

Things aren't getting better. No way, and nohow.

John, I think you are

John,

I think you are missing a bit of history. We could also subsitute in "Communism" fo "Nazism". With Communism we had another ideology bent on world domination and completely contrary to the views cherished by so many of the "paleos".

Both Johns, Communism

Both Johns,

Communism amounted to a rival empire--it was an exception or anomaly within a global system dominated by the U.S. And that global system was designed, in the latter years of WWII, largely without regard to a prospective Cold War with communism.

During the war U.S. policy makers designed what Huntington called a "system of world order" centered on the Bretton Woods institutions, the UN Security Council, neoliberal (i.e. neomercantilist) economics, and the U.S. military-industrial complex. NSC-68 admitted that something very much like that system of order would have existed even if there had been no USSR.

The fall of communism meant a great deal more freedom for those who lived within the USSR's imperial frontiers. It also meant a reduced outside threat to the global system organized by the US in the 1940s, and a reduced threat of global nuclear war. Its most important effect, though, was to allow the global system designed by the US to exist without a truly global system, without any outside restraint. In other words, while the fall of communism meant more freedom for those who had lived under it, for everybody else it meant a consolidation of American power over the world. It's hard to believe that international trade is genuinely more free in an age of statist constructs like NAFTA, GATT, and Oceania's wars to seize the Central Asian oil basin from the ruins of the Former Eurasia. The present danger is not a global caliphate, but someting very like the "US/UN hegemony" Ken Macleod described in The Fall Revolution.

I take Chomsky with more than one grain of salt, but his general characterization of the Cold War: it was, in the guise of a war between the West and communism, actually a war between the USSR against its satellites, and between the West and the Third World.

Personally, I like the thought of a regional power bloc with at least a minimal nuclear deterrent that can challenge American hegemony.

As for Mises, he neglected the extent to which WWII came about as a result of imperial rivalry over markets between the U.S., Fortress Europe, and the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity sphere (see especially Joseph Stromberg's use of W.A. Williams and other New Left historiography on this theme). Not to mention, the extent to which the rise of fascism was an unintended consequence of the grandiose proto-neocon foreign policy agenda of the Wilsonians twenty years earlier. While Rothbard may have gone too far, he's a pretty good antidote to Mises' excesses.

Correction paragraph 3: Its

Correction paragraph 3:

Its most important effect, though, was to allow the global system designed by the US to exist *AS* a truly global system, without any outside restraint.

Oops.

We could also subsitute in

We could also subsitute in ?Communism? fo ?Nazism?. With Communism we had another ideology bent on world domination and completely contrary to the views cherished by so many of the ?paleos?."

Leaving aside the fact that Communism is still alive and well in China, Vietnam, and the Republican National Commitee, is your point that Communism's fall in Russia was only because of government action?

There is always a certain group of purportedly free-market folks who think that the crises of the decade (Nazis/Communists/"Terrorists", for instance) is so Godawful that only *the government* has the means/ability to deal with it, and everyone else ought to shut their traps. You know, the same government that they can give plenty of examples of utterly failing to provide other goods and services. Somehow, the government, which is too incompetent to deliver *mail* for example, is supposed to take care of Terrorism.

John Lopez, What

John Lopez,

What non-governmental approach to fighting terrorism are you proposing as a superior alternative?

"What non-governmental

"What non-governmental approach to fighting terrorism are you proposing as a superior alternative?"

The same non-governmental approach as I'd propose to any other problem: let the people who worry about terrorism use *their* money as *they* see fit to fix the situation.

Hmm, weird. For some reason

Hmm, weird. For some reason the personal info had John down for my name. The post at 1:09 PM today was actually by me.

Anyhow,

Leaving aside the fact that Communism is still alive and well in China, Vietnam, and the Republican National Commitee, is your point that Communism?s fall in Russia was only because of government action?

Let me put it this way, I am not convinced that a market oriented approach to national defense would work all that well.

There is always a certain group of purportedly free-market folks who think that the crises of the decade (Nazis/Communists/?Terrorists?, for instance) is so Godawful that only the government has the means/ability to deal with it, and everyone else ought to shut their traps.

And there is a group of pugnacious, know-it-all paleocons who can't debate an issue without becomeing giant hairy sphincters who have to stake out a new straw version of their opponents and then kick the crap out of the strawman. Can't you guys actually deal honestly with your opponents?

Here is a hint, why don't you stop trying to tell me what my position is. I know precisely what my views are and you are not even close.

You know, the same government that they can give plenty of examples of utterly failing to provide other goods and services. Somehow, the government, which is too incompetent to deliver mail for example, is supposed to take care of Terrorism.

Ahhh the good ol' "No true Scotsman fallacy" how quaint with a nice hasty dose of Hasty Generalization. Simply because the government is inefficient in areas A, B, and C, it does not have to be the case that government is inefficient in areas D, E, and F. Just because the government does a piss-poor job with say Medicare, doesn't mean that the government does a bad job everywhere.

The idea here is simple. Government, while perhaps not the most efficient entity, can at least in theory improve on the market outcome when there are external effects and public goods. Thus, there are those areas where government is intervening in those areas and all the rest. All the rest (i.e., non-public goods/externality areas) are where the government is going to end up doing an exceptionally bad job. Case in point, Medicare. Health care is a private good, and government involvement is not justified on public goods grounds. There might be some external effects, but these are limited and do not justify a behemoth of a program like Medicare.

Now I am aware that the Anarcho-capitalist view is that national defense is not a public good and that it can be provided via the market. I am not convinced that this is case.

"Let me put it this way, I

"Let me put it this way, I am not convinced that a market oriented approach to national defense would work all that well."

I'll note that you may be correct as far as you go: there may not be a market-oriented approach to *national* defense. In fact, the existence of a nation-state pretty much comes at the expense of some part of the market. But that doesn't mean that a culture can't defend itself quite successfully against a nation-state via non-state methods.

Al-Qaeda funds itself through mostly market methods, which may or may not include initiating force as well. Nobody can look at the world ca. 2004 and think that a handful of dirt-grubbing savages aren't taking on the world's largest military/intelligence complex and *at the very least* making a very good show of it.

Will the US give up and let the Islamic fundie loonies control the Mid-east? This is the key thing: *no one knows at this point*. It could happen, just like a relative handful of colonial trouble-makers kicked the world's most powerful empire back across the Atlantic some 200-odd years ago.

"Simply because the government is inefficient in areas A, B, and C, it does not have to be the case that government is inefficient in areas D, E, and F. Just because the government does a piss-poor job with say Medicare, doesn?t mean that the government does a bad job everywhere."

Please name one thing that the government does better than the private sector, not to include mass initiation of force.

"The idea here is simple. Government, while perhaps not the most efficient entity, can at least in theory improve on the market outcome when there are external effects and public goods."

No, the idea here is that government intervention (otherwise known as shoving The Gun between some poor sod's teeth) is *wrong*, from beginning to end.

"Now I am aware that the Anarcho-capitalist view is that national defense is not a public good and that it can be provided via the market. I am not convinced that this is case."

Then (and please correct me if I'm wrong) am I correct to infer that you favor taking *my* production to use for *your* ends (those ever-nebulous "public goods" you refer to)? Because if that's the case, then the only question left is the *degree* that you want to hitch me up to your particular value-wagon and whip me along.

Steve, Now I am aware that

Steve,

Now I am aware that the Anarcho-capitalist view is that national defense is not a public good and that it can be provided via the market. I am not convinced that this is case.

I don't know about the Austrians, but as for the neoclassical anarchoists (i.e. David Friedman and Bryan Caplan - have I missed any?), they agree that national defense is a public good, especially in world with nation states. This is indeed a hard problem (perhaps the hardest problem) for any anarcho-capitalist system.

Mr. Doss: I believe that the

Mr. Doss:

I believe that the statist perspective on the grand virtue of endless war against the amorphous "terrorist" enemy gets more than enough exposure on the 99% of the internet that isn't dedicated to liberal thought. Is it really necessary to soil this site too?

"We have always been at war with Eastasia..."

Steve, There is no way of

Steve,

There is no way of knowing how "efficiently" government does anything, because it is providing "goods" to "consumers" who do not willingly spend their own money on them. Since exchange value depends on voluntary exchange between willing parties, there is no meaningful way of calculating the "value" of government services.

I?ll note that you may be

I?ll note that you may be correct as far as you go: there may not be a market-oriented approach to national defense. In fact, the existence of a nation-state pretty much comes at the expense of some part of the market. But that doesn?t mean that a culture can?t defend itself quite successfully against a nation-state via non-state methods.

I never argued otherwise. I think an armed society is probably a good thing, in the end.

Al-Qaeda funds itself through mostly market methods, which may or may not include initiating force as well. Nobody can look at the world ca. 2004 and think that a handful of dirt-grubbing savages aren?t taking on the world?s largest military/intelligence complex and at the very least making a very good show of it.

Even the tiger is annoyed by vermin (ticks, fleas and other parasites). The U.S. military was geared up to fight a similar large opponent. That the military has not yet transitioned into a force to deal with the new threats is indeed a problem. Of course, I'm not convinced that the market would have done any better. Private firms get caught with their pants down too.

Please name one thing that the government does better than the private sector, not to include mass initiation of force.

The space programs...at least for now. The actual benefit provided to society is debatable, but I think it is pretty obvious that right now governments have the private sector beat.

No, the idea here is that government intervention (otherwise known as shoving The Gun between some poor sod?s teeth) is wrong, from beginning to end.

Are you talking about national defense or government action in general? No system is perfect, the question is which one is the least onerous.

Then (and please correct me if I?m wrong) am I correct to infer that you favor taking my production to use for your ends (those ever-nebulous ?public goods? you refer to)? Because if that?s the case, then the only question left is the degree that you want to hitch me up to your particular value-wagon and whip me along.

It would be nice if you actually tried to read a bit of mainstream economics. You'd realize there is a precise definition for public goods and there is no "degree" involved.

Also, I suggest you take a page from Micha Ghertner. He and I differ on this view (I think) and yet we manage to discuss it politely. I also suggest you read this post by Micha and the first comment; especially the idea of a reluctant minarchist.

Micha,

I don?t know about the Austrians, but as for the neoclassical anarchoists (i.e. David Friedman and Bryan Caplan - have I missed any?), they agree that national defense is a public good, especially in world with nation states. This is indeed a hard problem (perhaps the hardest problem) for any anarcho-capitalist system.

I agree it is the toughest problem. I've read some of Friedman's work on this and while he has taken a thoughtful approach to it, I'm not convinced by his arguments.

There is no way of knowing how ?efficiently? government does anything, because it is providing ?goods? to ?consumers? who do not willingly spend their own money on them. Since exchange value depends on voluntary exchange between willing parties, there is no meaningful way of calculating the ?value? of government services.

Uhhhmmm, isn't this criticism true of any good? I mean if Bob buys a book for $5 we know Bob at least values the book at $5, but he might have been willing to pay as much as $10 for the book (i.e., using Neoclassical partial equilibrium jargon, Bob is getting $5 of consumer surplus).

Micha, I don't deny that

Micha,

I don't deny that government goods and services may have some use-value. But coercion, by overruling individual choices, renders any knowledge of exchange-value of meaningless. Exchange-value is possible only in the realm of voluntary individual choice. That, as I understand it, is the implication of Mises calculation problem for all government-produced goods and services.

It's the same reason I have a problem with state-set prices for land taken through eminent domain, or with the state assigning a value to the room and board of prisoners. The state has no idea what its services are worth to me, or what my money is worth to me; so if it wants to rob me, let it say so instead of calling it the supply of a "service."

Kevin, If there is no way of

Kevin,

If there is no way of knowing how efficiently government does anything, then there is no way of knowing whether government or private markets do a better job of providing goods and services. Extreme agnosticism in economic method does not lead to laissez faire conclusions - it leads to skepticism of both governments and markets.

1. Mises was being an

1. Mises was being an emotional human, not an economist, in this passage.
2. Sure, terrorism might be a big problem for us. IF IT IS, it will be worth it to someone, somewhere to try and stop it. And so they will.
3. How much land could the Nazis possibly occupy before they ran out of troops? Imagine Iraq on a continental scale...
4. First it's the Nazis. Then the Communists, then the "terrorists"... when do we run out of enemies and start reducing the state? Do we have to crush every dissenting group first? Not going to happen. See point #3.

"Even the tiger is annoyed

"Even the tiger is annoyed by vermin (ticks, fleas and other parasites)."

Steve, the point is that those parasites can *kill* that tiger. In fact, I'd wager that "ticks, fleas, and other parasites", either as harmful agents or as vectors, have killed orders of magnitude more tigers than have Brits with .470 Nitro-Expresses.

You're trying to laugh those vermin off, and a quick glance at history would show you that that is not wise at all. Sitting here, on my desk, is a book titled _The Tunnels of Cu Chi_. It's about tunnel warfare in Vietnam, and that snort you just gave about "vermin" rings startlingly like the expert predictions given at the beginning of the Southeast Asia debacle. Here's a paraphrase of the attitude: 'There just isn't no way that a bunch of dirt-grubbing little Commies living in holes in the ground can defeat the United States of America'.

Well, *they did*, against every single "expert" prediction. It's never a good thing when the "experts" laugh at their enemies.

"The space programs?at least for now. The actual benefit provided to society is debatable, but I think it is pretty obvious that right now governments have the private sector beat."

If the benefit is debateable, then why do you say it's obvious that government efforts are better? Lessee: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/launches/launch_schedule.html shows plenty of Orbital Sciences Corp, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc for 2004. No NASA. One Soyuz. I think it's pretty obvious that commercial satellite launches, at least, are overwhelmingly dominated by non-government companies.

"Are you talking about national defense or government action in general?"

Government action in general.

"It would be nice if you actually tried to read a bit of mainstream economics. You?d realize there is a precise definition for public goods and there is no ?degree? involved."

Sure there is. You want something (a fireworks display, let's say). You really, *really* want it. But you realize that you can't have your display and convince *me* pay for it, too. I can watch it for free. So, your choices are to a) pay for it yourself, or b) call it a "public good" and tell me I need it in an attempt to lamely justify your *forcing* me to pay for it.

It'd be nice you'd come down off your high horse for a second and think about the simple fact that people golly-gee-actually *pay* for things they want, and *don't pay* for things they don't. Like fireworks displays. Like the kind I can see from my patio, right now, for free, that other people paid for, given away by folks who don't give two flips if I'm free-riding off of their pre-July 4th fun or not.

"Also, I suggest you take a page from Micha Ghertner. He and I differ on this view (I think) and yet we manage to discuss it politely."

Please cite an example of my rudeness towards you.

"I also suggest you read this post by Micha and the first comment; especially the idea of a reluctant minarchist."

'Reluctant minarchist' = euphemism for 'wants just a *little* bit of violence applied just where *he* thinks it's needed'.

I should have checked in

I should have checked in earlier on this thread. I see John Lopez is still confused.

Sure there is. You want something (a fireworks display, let?s say). You really, really want it. But you realize that you can?t have your display and convince me pay for it, too. I can watch it for free. So, your choices are to a) pay for it yourself, or b) call it a ?public good? and tell me I need it in an attempt to lamely justify your forcing me to pay for it.

Bzzt. Wrong. Calling it a public good is not a justification for anything. It is merely noting some properties of the good in question. This is like getting pissed off at calling a car a car.

Whether we have to use taxes and coercion to pay for the public good is open to debate. The fire works display may be a case where taxes and coercion are a bad thing. In small communities evidence is building up that often times it is best to let the small communities deal with these kinds of public goods. Like I said, try expanding your horizons instead of being an argumentative jerk.

Steve, the point is that those parasites can kill that tiger. In fact, I?d wager that ?ticks, fleas, and other parasites?, either as harmful agents or as vectors, have killed orders of magnitude more tigers than have Brits with .470 Nitro-Expresses.

You?re trying to laugh those vermin off, and a quick glance at history would show you that that is not wise at all. Sitting here, on my desk, is a book titled The Tunnels of Cu Chi. It?s about tunnel warfare in Vietnam, and that snort you just gave about ?vermin? rings startlingly like the expert predictions given at the beginning of the Southeast Asia debacle. Here?s a paraphrase of the attitude: ?There just isn?t no way that a bunch of dirt-grubbing little Commies living in holes in the ground can defeat the United States of America?.

Nice strawman. Is arguing honestly and forthrightly beyond your abilities? I'm not laughing off the parasites, but pointing out that our forces are not trained to deal with such threats. Our military needs to change.

If the benefit is debateable, then why do you say it?s obvious that government efforts are better? Lessee: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/launches/launch_schedule.html shows plenty of Orbital Sciences Corp, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc for 2004. No NASA. One Soyuz. I think it?s pretty obvious that commercial satellite launches, at least, are overwhelmingly dominated by non-government companies.

And how many private companies/concerns have put men in space? One. You focus on one area, and ignore everything else.

Please cite an example of my rudeness towards you.

Right here jerk.

?Reluctant minarchist? = euphemism for ?wants just a little bit of violence applied just where he thinks it?s needed?.

You are such and arrogant condescending prick, you can't even envision the other guy having thought out his position and holding it in good faith. You have to make up some bravo sierra and then knock down that false position. It is dishonest and offensive.

Idiot.