Though it’s rare to hear someone praise the military-industrial-congressional complex, it is only the latter component that masks a praiseworthy feat. Markets—also known as “people” voluntarily exchanging—have devised the most efficient methods for producing weapons in the United States, but Congress—or the government, in general—is what hampers the sale of these weapons. The U.S. is the world’s largest arms exporter, but the international weapons market would benefit further if the U.S. regime had nothing to do with it. Ensuring the separation of administration and armaments would benefit not only Americans but virtually every person on the planet. When it comes to manufacturing weapons, American industrial prowess is unrivaled, but, as Robert Higgs explains, the level of corruption also appears to be unmatched:
It is regrettable in any event for people to suffer under the weight of a state and its military apparatus, but the present arrangement—a system of military-economic fascism as instantiated in the United States by the [military-industrial-congressional complex]—is worse than full-fledged military-economic socialism. In the latter, people are oppressed by being taxed, conscripted, and regimented, but they are not co-opted and corrupted by joining forces with their rapacious rulers; a clear line separates them from the predators on the “dark side.” In the former, however, the line becomes blurred, and a substantial number of people actively hop back and forth across it…
How can the military-industrial-congressional complex become less loathsome? Make it less fascistic; remove democracy’s corrupting influence by extricating Congress from the complex. When a foreign government wishes to purchase weapons from an American manufacturer, it must first gain approval from the State Department, Congress, the Department of Defense, or even from the president. Why is that? Defenders of the status quo screech the tired refrain of “national security,” but as John Tamny makes clear, there’s no way of guaranteeing a good’s final destination:
It’s too easily forgotten by the deep and not-so-deep in thought that production is all about the getting. Goods and services always flow. Everywhere. Without regard to embargoes and sanctions. To be clear, if you’re producing, you’re getting.
Yes, if Country A produces weapons but doesn’t want Country Z to have them, there’s no stopping Buyer D, U, M, or B from selling to Z. But will “we” sell weapons to “the terrorists?” That is the wrong question. Per Tamny, “there’s no getting around the economic fact of life that there’s no accounting for the final destination of any good,” and there’s no policy—imposed preference—that can get around that fact either. “The terrorists” will obtain whatever they’d like. The pertinent question to ask is, who will sell to “the terrorists”? Currently, weapons manufacturers are somewhat insulated from the court of public opinion. Instead of the collective judgement that markets provide, only a handful of bureaucrats—or just one person, the U.S. president—decide which buyers are morally deserving of receiving American weapons, and, unlike with markets, they’ll suffer no repercussions if their decisions are wrong.
Can government officials be trusted to make ethical decisions? The question answers itself. Again, “the terrorists,” like it or not, receive the weapons they’re able to purchase, just as addicts receive the drugs they’re not ‘allowed’ to have. What must be scrutinized is who bears responsibility for the transactions. Under the status quo—because it’s immune from market forces—not only will government officials suffer no consequences for their lack of knowledge; the collective knowledge of the people—“markets”—is subordinate to the limited knowledge (and morality) of the parasitic caste. When a monopoly loses its state-sponsored privileges, it must act like every other business: it must adapt to social pressure. The newly ‘exposed’ weapons manufacturer must suffer the consequences—good or bad—of selling or marketing to governments or “terrorists” when doing so might carry some moral implications.
Hellbound and Down 