Ebeling, R
---
~ iran war seems reversio to isolationism?
---
li 6 26
[BB&T Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership The Citadel
Aug 2014 - Present · 11 yrs 11 mos](https://www.linkedin.com/school/21508/)
---
LOMBORG HILLSDALE
Thinking Smartly About Climate Change - Imprimis
---
BIDEN COMMIE?!
The Paternalist Instincts of a Central Planner | The Daily Economy
The Paternalist Instincts of a Central Planner
“We are in the presidential executive grip of someone who is determined to make us all the players on a grand stage of life upon which he gets to make up and make right for his own frustration, anger, and embarrassment that he experienced as a youngster over a world that did not give his…
May 24, 2021
Both supporters and critics of President Joe Biden have been surprised and amazed by the immensity of his political agenda and his recent actions for a far more expansive role for the federal government than many had been expecting from his time in office. He is clearly on a “mission” and is pursuing it with seeming urgency. So, what is driving him, and is this what the task of presidents is supposed to be all about?
New York Times columnist, David Brooks, recently did a lengthy phone interview with Biden and conveyed his understanding and impressions of what guides the president in pushing for a larger and more intrusive government in people’s lives. Whenever a politician tries to tell you what drives him in pursuing government office and his motivations for wanting political power and authority, it must always be taken with a grain of salt.
After all, when have such public pronouncements not always ended up with basically asserting the same things, no matter how differently the chosen words might be? It usually comes down to a desire to “give back” to society, a “calling” to help solve any number of “social ills” afflicting the country, and confidence that his experience and “good intentions” are just what is needed to bring about that “better world” for his fellow citizens.
What really may be behind such a “wanting” for political office is never stated directly or openly. That being: arrogance and power-lusting, with a wish to privilege some (those who have supplied the campaign contributions and votes that have won that politician the election) and to plunder others (those who will provide the taxed funds and bear the regulatory burdens to supply those special benefits). How many of us want to be told to our face that the candidate wants to play many of us for suckers so he can have the political position he craves, and to bestow those special favors and redistributed gains to his supporters through the fiscal and interventionist policy tools of government? Instead, it invariably gets candy-coated with amorphous rhetoric about the “common good,” the “general welfare” or the “national interest.”
Biden’s Worldview Shaped by His Father’s Hard Times
But let us put this aside, and hear what Joe Biden has to say for himself, as explained by David Brooks. It seems that Biden’s worldview has all been shaped by the misfortunes and frustrations experienced by his father. After managing a ship retrofitting company during World War II, his father ran a wholesale business that went bust because his partner gambled away all the company’s money. Then, according to Biden, his father had to get by, from job to job, suffering a life of disappointment and lost pride.
Biden’s dream, therefore, is to make that better world where bad things never happen to people, especially hard-working middle-class people like his dad. These bad things happen for no good reason to good people, and it’s just not fair. So, he wants to play political big brother for all the other dads who may find themselves in his dad’s position. In other words, he wants to use other people’s money to do for other dads what as a boy he couldn’t do for his own father.
How do you give back or preserve the pride and dignity that his own father lost, according to Biden? You guarantee people work – “good-paying jobs” – and social and economic security through redistributions of government supported higher education and welfare safety nets that supposedly reinforce self-respect. Or as Brooks says, Biden has a “governing philosophy, and subsequently a set of policies, that work strenuously to support people amid the setbacks of life, that offers people good jobs so they can live with dignity, that pushes against the arrogance of wealth.” This is reinforced by a Christian outlook in Biden, Brooks explains, that emphasizes “social solidarity, the organic interdependence of people and communities . . . [plus] you have serious responsibilities for one another.”
Brooks points out that while some who enter into politics are motivated by stated ideological convictions or philosophical outlooks on the human condition, Biden’s foundation is basically emotive; that is, he extrapolates out from his own personal life experiences about what he thinks government policy should be all about and focused on. If we take Biden at his word, his worldview had been constructed from “feelings” of his saddened youth due to seeing his father’s bad luck, much more than a more general reasoning and reflection on man and society.
To Do Good Biden Demands “Details” About Everything
If this sounds like psychobabble, well, then, it is psychobabble about Joe Biden’s own psychobabble about himself. How does his own psychobabble manifest itself in terms of his governing style, particularly now that he is president of the United States? A few days before David Brooks’ column on his interview with Biden, The New York Times ran a piece on “Beneath Joe’s Biden’s Folksy Demeanor, a Short Fuse and an Obsession With Details” (May 14, 2021).
In general, Biden is presented as a relatively slow and deliberative decision-maker, wanting to mull a matter and its policy possibilities over and over several times, along with calling upon a number of trusted advisors and “experts” from whom he expects reams of details and facts about a wide variety of aspects of any issue that he is mulling over. He is presented as short-tempered, easily impatient with those from whom he wants information or opinions, and often wanting minutia but rude and insulting when he does not get the facts he asks for. “I want the details,” he is quoted as saying, whether the news is “good” or “bad.”
Embedded in Biden’s mindset is the micromanaging social engineer. During a meeting with his advisors about the worldwide effects of global warming and themes that should not be ignored (including methane emissions from the backsides of cows):
“Biden quizzed them on how his climate policy would influence specific workers in Pennsylvania, his home state. How would all of this affect earth-moving workers, fabricators, those pouring concrete, derrick operators, plumbers and pipefitters, and licensed truckers, he asked. ‘We walked through each of those specific occupations, those specific tasks that people do,’ [one of Biden’s aides] Mr. Zaidi said. ‘And he probed on, you know, ‘And how much do these folks make?’ and ‘How many of them are there in southwestern Pennsylvania?’ and ‘OK, you told me about this geothermal resource, but does this geothermal resource exist in West Virginia?’”
To Centrally Plan, Biden Needs to Know Everything
If Joe Biden is to see to it that no dad anywhere in all of America is to suffer any of the troubles that his own father had experienced, then he must presume to and insist upon knowing everything, about everyone, everywhere throughout the country. And, especially, in Pennsylvania, because in the psychobabble of his own mind those are his folks in the state where he comes from and to which he would have the closest emotional attachment. Besides, how would it look if “saving the planet” ended up having such negative effects on the people of Pennsylvania that Biden were to lose his birth state, if he were to actually run for reelection in 2024, as he says he intends to? So those under Biden better see to it that all the voters in Pennsylvania have all the “good jobs” and government guaranteed income “dignity” needed to get them to cast their ballots the right way in the next Congressional election in 2022 and the next presidential election two years after that.
Even if we assume that Biden only has good intentions, no matter how misguided and misplaced, we are face-to-face with Friedrich A. Hayek’s warning of “The Pretense of Knowledge,” which was the title of his 1974 Nobel lecture. No one mind and no group of “experts,” however well-informed and worldly wise, can possess the necessary and sufficient knowledge to successfully plan and direct the economic affairs of an entire country, or even just the state of Pennsylvania, to assure effective, efficient, and coordinated outcomes between all the consumption and production activities of all the members within its complex social system of division of labor, upon which our material and cultural standards and qualities of life are dependent.
The New York Times article highlighted Biden’s often slow deliberativeness before deciding on a specific policy course of action. In the real world of ever-changing market supply and demand conditions, adaptations and adjustments in small and significant ways must be made every day in different ways in multitudes of corners of society to assure effective and appropriate rebalancing and price-coordinating shifts in how resources (including labor) are allocated and utilized so they are producing the right products, in the right amounts, with the right qualities, features and characteristics, to serve and satisfy the wants and desires of the consuming public, which means, of course, all of us. (See my article, “F. A. Hayek and Why Government Can’t Manage Society”.)
Biden’s Political Paternalism Means Economic Chaos
However, what Biden and those around him who are deciding on what political paternalistic policies to implement and impose have in mind is not, “somehow,” setting prices to their market-clearing levels more efficiently than a competitive interaction of supply and demand, or a more cost-effective use of scarce resources on the product sides of the market. No, what they are deliberating on is setting prices and wages at levels having little or nothing to do with underlying market supply and demand patterns.
Their concerns are with “social justice,” “fair wages,” and “equity” allocations of jobs based on race and gender. In other words, their world is one of potential economic irrationality, production inefficiency, and social disharmony in the division of labor. Setting prices and wages at levels defined as “socially just,” and determining employment based on race and gender “equity” having little or nothing to do with the skills, knowledge or experience to perform specific jobs in different corners of the stages of the supply-chains of the production processes of the market.
What it would mean is nothing less than increasing economic chaos. Too little of many goods that people want; too much of other goods that those same people don’t desire; and too many of the wrong people doing the wrong work in the wrong places due to the fact that they have been assigned and assured quotas of jobs in employments for which their abilities are not matched with what the work requires. (See my article, “Hayek’s Still Relevant Response to Today’s Paternalist Planners”.)
It is impossible, of course, for Joe Biden and those immediately around him to not only decide all the politically correct things to do, and then to directly manage and oversee all of the multitudes of specific tasks to make that social justice better world. Responsibility and authority have to be delegated to those manning and managing the government bureaucracies.
Bureaucratic Mandates for Climate Control of Business
For instance, on May 20, 2021, the White House reported that Biden had signed an executive order directing federal agencies to determine the financial costs and risks of climate change on various sectors of the economy, and especially the financial and investment markets, with a mandated “revealing” by regulated industries and companies to provide money estimates of everything they do that could in any way affect “climate change.” Gina McCarthy, the White House climate change advisor to the president, told the press, “This cannot be voluntary. This cannot be optional. The stakes are simply too high.”
Based upon the climate-affecting financial and risk assessments, the government bureaucracies would then decide what controls, commands, and restrictions would be imposed upon those who have supplied the cost data needed to determine the climate central plan to be imposed on all of those same private enterprises and organizations. Is this an exaggeration? Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, said: “The global financial sector will be a crucial player, helping channel capital into investments to green our society.” In other words, there is to be direct political planning over the economic future of the United States.
In his interview with David Brooks, Biden said, “The progressives don’t like me because I’m not prepared to take on what I would say and they would say is a socialist agenda.” However, here is a name for what Joe Biden is determined to implement and impose over the entire country. It is called economic fascism. Yes, the government does not, outright, nationalize, own and directly plan the economy. Instead, private enterprises are placed under the straightjacket of government-mandated prices and wages, methods and amounts of production, and uses and allocations of resources (including labor) in virtually every economic sector of the society.
It is the command and planned economy with the outward veneer of private ownership, but under which private businessmen are reduced to the role of enterprise managers following the compulsory government orders of how and what for “their” companies shall exist and operate. “Socialism” and “fascism” are simply two institutional variations on the same collectivist theme of government coercive control of economic and social life. (See my articles, “Biden’s Agenda of ‘Democratic’ Paternalism and Planning” and “Stakeholder Fascism Means More Loss of Liberty” and “Why Hayek was Right About Nazis Being Socialists”.)
Under the Dictates of a President with Paternalism Issues
If Joe Biden is sincere about what motivates his quest for larger and more intrusive government, then we are in the presidential executive grip of someone who is determined to make us all the players on a grand stage of life upon which he gets to make up and make right for his own frustration, anger, and embarrassment that he experienced as a youngster over a world that did not give his father a “decent break.” We have a 78-year-old president with some very serious paternalism issues.
This may be true, or it may be merely one of the typical fairy tales that politicians try to create to make themselves seem “sincere,” and “human,” and just like the “common man,” with whom Biden says he identifies. The result, nonetheless, is someone in the White House who lives in an emotive and irrational mental world, with a misunderstanding of how an economic system works and how dangerous it is to try to nullify or circumvent the laws of supply and demand, the reality of scarcity, and the value of individual freedom of choice and personal decision-making.
We are in for one hell of a ride that may lead to “destination hell,” and not the la-la land utopia that Biden and those around him imagine will be the last stop. (See my article, “Free-Market Liberalism vs. Corrupted ‘Capitalism’ and La-La Land Socialism”.)
//HEARTLAND
October 5, 2022
If America Were Totalitarian, Where Would You Want to Live?
August 31, 2022
Out of Control Government and Isaiah’s Job
---
Stand Up For Freedom Of Intellectual Inquiry
- September 19th, 2019
“Open, honest, and fearless discussion of climate science is more important than ever before” said Gideon Rozner, promoting the publication of Climate Change: The Facts 2020. The latest instalment will bring together expert authors to present research on climate change that is too often ignored by our public institutions. Watch Gideon’s video here.
You can make a tax deductible donation to support the publication of this new book of research here.
Not everyone agrees that there should be an open conversation about climate change. The Conversation Australia has implemented a “zero-tolerance approach” to “dangerous” “climate change deniers” on their website. Commentators on the government and university funded website will have their comments deleted and accounts banned if they dare question the climate change orthodoxy.
A new version of Monopoly where female players are awarded 40 more monopoly dollars for passing ‘Go’ than their male counterparts has been released. As Madeleine Kearns pointed out in the National Review last week, Ms. Monopoly “symbolizes the pointlessness of a certain type of feminism” that cares more about affirmative-action themed board games than actually helping women.
In the latest expansion of the surveillance state, all Victorian driver licence holders will have their photos uploaded to the National Driver Licence Facial Recognition Solution. The Victorian government argues this is needed for “combating identity fraud” and that access to the database will be limited, but we’ve seen how this worked with the data retention database – how long until we have 60 agencies joining in the surveillance?
Sunday marked 70 years since the publication of economist Ludwig von Mises’ magnum opus, Human Action. Richard Ebeling noted Mises’ great work is a “cornerstone for understanding the nature of the free society and the workings of the market economy” at the American Institute for Economic Researchon Sunday.
Richard M. Ebeling, an AIER Senior Fellow, is the BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel, in Charleston, South Carolina.
Ebeling lived on AIER’s campus from 2008 to 2009.
Books by Richard M. Ebeling
---
Professor of Economics
Northwood University
Aug 2009 - Aug 2014 · 5 yrs 1 mo
---
[President Foundation for Economic Education
Jun 2003 - Jun 2008 · 5 yrs 1 mo](https://www.linkedin.com/company/28910/)
---
Education
[Middlesex University Ph.D., Economics
1998 – 2000](https://www.linkedin.com/school/11125/)
---
Middlesex University PhD, Economics
---
scrape
More profiles for you
[
Boettke Peter
- 3rd
Distinguished University Professor of Economics at George Mason University](https://www.linkedin.com/in/boettke-peter-a3a24264/)
[
Alexander Salter
- 3rd
Georgie G. Snyder Professor | Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech University](https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexander-salter-6347752bb/)
[
Lawrence H. White
- 3rd
Visiting researcher](https://www.linkedin.com/in/lawrence-h-white-ab51b711/)
[
Christopher Coyne
- 3rd
Professor of Economics at George Mason University](https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopher-coyne-52a2359/)
[
Joseph Salerno
- 3rd
Academic Vice President, Mises Institute;
Professor Emeritus of Economics at Pace University](https://www.linkedin.com/in/joseph-salerno-92359022/)
[
Walter Block
- 3rd
Professor at Loyola University](https://www.linkedin.com/in/walterblock/)
[
Robert Murphy
- 3rd
Chief Economist, infineo](https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-murphy-24358a9/)
[
Nicolas Cachanosky
- 3rd
Director | Center for Free Enterprise](https://www.linkedin.com/in/ncachanosky/)
Follow
[
Vernon Smith
- 3rd
Professor of Economics and Law, George L. Argyros Endowed Chair in Finance and Economics at Chapman University](https://www.linkedin.com/in/vernon-smith-49a32536/)
[
Samuel Gregg
- 3rd
President and Friedrich Hayek Chair in Economics and Economic History, American Institute for Economic Research](https://www.linkedin.com/in/samuel-gregg-618a9310/)
[
Jeffrey Tucker
- 3rd
Founder and President, Brownstone Institute](https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffreyatucker/)
Follow
[Jeffrey Herbener · 3rd
Professor of Economics at Grove City College](https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffrey-herbener-76210a94/)
[
Peter Boettke
- 3rd
Professor at George Mason Universtiy](https://www.linkedin.com/in/peter-boettke-64454a2/)
[
Tamás Klein
- 3rd
Economics graduate of Grove City College, incoming Master’s student of Law & Finance at the University of Angers](https://www.linkedin.com/in/tamasklein/)
[
Junjie MA
- 3rd
Chief Economist, Yi China Economics; Founder, CEO, ENC International Advisory Group; Member, Mont Pelerin Society; Obama Foundation Leader; Writer](https://www.linkedin.com/in/junjie-ma-47295350/)
[
Richard M. Salsman
- 3rd
Chief Market Strategist, InterMarket Forecasting, Inc. Professor of PP&E at Duke University](https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-m-salsman-5645a037/)
[
Abigail R. Hall
- 3rd
Economist | War, Militarism & the Hidden Costs of Policy | Prof, Sykes College of Business, UTampa | Senior Fellow, Independent Institute | Senior Affiliated Scholar, Mercatus Center | TEDx speaker](https://www.linkedin.com/in/abigail-r-hall-38633a56/)
[
Mike Grimshaw
- 3rd
Associate Professor of Sociology at University of Canterbury](https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-grimshaw-89461124a/)
[
Dr. Saifedean Ammous
- 3rd
Founder and CEO at saifedean.com](https://www.linkedin.com/in/saifedean/)
Follow
[
Joshua D. Glawson
- 3rd
Writer, Speaker, Content Manager at MoneyMetals.com 🪙](https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshua-d-glawson/)
Follow
[The Damage Still Done by Keynesian Economics, 90 Years On
Apr 1, 2026
Richard M. Ebeling
The Future of Freedom Foundation](https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-damage-still-done-by-keynesian-economics-90-years-on/)
[
Why Gold Continues to Buck Trends and Outperform Stocks
Mar 27, 2026
Timothy G. Nash
The Daily Economy](https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/why-gold-continues-to-buck-trends-and-outperform-stocks/)
[What President Trump Can Learn From Reagan’s Playbook
1 month ago
Kristin Tokarev, Timothy G. Nash, Alex Tokarev
RealClearWorld](https://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2026/04/28/what_president_trump_can_learn_from_reagans_playbook_1179359.html)
[
Opinion: With federal debt, is the U.S. going the way of Rome?
Apr 2, 2026
Timothy Nash, Bob Thomas, George Lang
The Detroit News](https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2026/04/02/opinion-with-federal-debt-is-the-u-s-going-the-way-of-rome/89421528007/)
[
The Damage Still Done by Keynesian Economics, 90 Years On
Apr 1, 2026
Richard M. Ebeling
The Future of Freedom Foundation](https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-damage-still-done-by-keynesian-economics-90-years-on/)
[
Why Gold Continues to Buck Trends and Outperform Stocks
Mar 27, 2026
Timothy G. Nash
The Daily Economy](https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/why-gold-continues-to-buck-trends-and-outperform-stocks/)
[### Richard M. Ebeling
Mises Institute
https://mises.org › profile › richard-m-ebeling](https://mises.org/profile/richard-m-ebeling)
Dr. Richard M. Ebeling is a professor of economics at The Citadel. Among the courses he has taught are “Market Ethics in Modern Society” and “The Economics ...
---
6 26 SOME TALK SELF EDIT? STUDENT?
Richard M. Ebeling (/ˈɛbəlɪŋ/; born January 30, 1950) is an American libertarian author who was the president of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) from 2003 to 2008. Ebeling is currently the BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina.[1][2][3]
Ebeling is a supporter of the Austrian School of Economics and written extensively on the subject, particularly as inspired by the works of Friedrich Hayek, Israel Kirzner, Ludwig Lachmann, and Ludwig von Mises.[4][5] Much of his career has focused on Ludwig von Mises, for whom he posthumously published a trove of writings that had been looted by the Nazis from his Vienna apartment in 1938 and subsequently captured by the Soviet Army at the end of World War II.[6][7] Following the documents' discovery and translation, Ebeling edited and published the three volume series Selected Writings of Ludwig von Mises.[8]
Ebeling's most recent works include Political Economy, Public Policy, and Monetary Economics: Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian Tradition (Routledge, 2010), Austrian Economics and the Political Economy of Freedom (Edward Elgar, 2003), Monetary Central Planning and the State (The Future of Freedom Foundation, 2015) and For a New Liberalism (American Institute for Economic Research, 2019). He was a co-author and co-editor of In Defense of Capitalism in 5 volumes.[9]
Biography
Ebeling received his B.A. degree in economics from California State University, Sacramento, his M.A. degree in economics from Rutgers University and a Ph.D. in economics from Middlesex University in London.[10][non-primary ^source ^needed]
Ebeling served as a lecturer at University College Cork, Ireland from 1981 to 1983 as an assistant professor at the University of Dallas from 1984 to 1988 and then as the Ludwig von Mises Professor of Economics at Hillsdale College from 1988 to 2003.[11][non-primary ^source ^needed] From 1989 to 2003, he also served as vice president of academic affairs for the Future of Freedom Foundation. Ebeling was named president of Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) in May 2003[12] and announced in April 2008 that he was resigning his position to return to teaching. From 2004 to 2005, Ebeling served as an adjunct professor at The King's College in New York City. He also serves as an adjunct scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama.[13]
Ebeling was the Shelby C. Davis Visiting Professor in American Economic History and Entrepreneurship at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut (2008–2009) and a senior fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) in Great Barrington, Massachusetts (2008–2009). Ebeling was a professor of economics at Northwood University (2009–2014) in Midland, Michigan.[14]
Ebeling received the Franz Cuhel Award for Excellence in Free Market Education presented by the Liberální Institut (Prague, 2007)[15] and the "Liberty in Theory: Lifetime Award" presented by Libertarian Alliance/Libertarian International (London, 2005). He has also twice been a Hayek Fellow at the Institute for Humane Studies (1975, 1977).
References
---
---
---
march 13 2026
Arguments have become heated among classical liberals, libertarians, Objectivists, and conservatives over the rationales, justifications, and constitutional legitimacy of Donald Trump’s new war with Iran. Like many other military actions ordered by U.S. presidents since the end of the Second World War in 1945, Trump initiated this foreign intervention without a congressional declaration of war. It has been executed under presumed executive authority and without another country having actually attacked the territory of the United States.
[America is no longer a constitutional republic of free individuals, but instead an increasingly authoritarian, imperial state.
[Click to Tweet]](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=America%20is%20no%20longer%20a%20constitutional%20republic%20of%20free%20individuals%2C%20but%20instead%20an%20increasingly%20authoritarian%2C%20imperial%20state.&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fff.org%2Fexplore-freedom%2Farticle%2Fdonald-trumps-war-and-the-loss-of-american-liberty%2F&via=FutureofFreedom)
For eight decades, presidents have claimed that matters of “national security” or the “global interests” of the United States call for and even require the chief executive to take military action almost everywhere and in various forms around the world. However, one of the differences between Trump’s public statements and rationales for his war against Iran from those of other presidents in defending their own foreign interventions is that these previous ones were usually couched in soothing or altruistic rhetoric that made it seem that the necessity and the justification were more than the wishes of one man living in the White House.
Trump’s language is far more “first person singular”: I have the authority; I have the power; I want; I demand; I will decide; I will punish; I will reward; I will order; I said this yesterday, and I say this today, and I may say something different tomorrow, but none of it is contradictory, inconsistent, or hypocritical because I know more than anyone, so any day-by-day changes in my words or deeds are all the right actions in the latest circumstances based on my superior insight. And anyone who disagrees with me shows his anti-Americanism, his disloyalty, his hatred for all things Trump, a loser enemy of making America great again. Me, Me, Me.
Part of the debate and argument over the current conflict in the Middle East, therefore, not surprisingly, has been reduced to the personal: do you or do you not like or trust or support Donald Trump? But his actions in intervening in Venezuela or, now, Iran, are really no different in terms of presidential authority presumed and applied by his predecessors in the White House.
The more general questions that should be asked are: Does the president of the United States have the authority to intervene, when he deems it necessary, into the affairs of other nations and in other parts of the world even when the United States has not been directly attacked and without a congressional declaration of war? Anyone who follows various social-media outlets knows that this has divided many classical liberals, libertarians, Objectivists, and conservatives. And their rhetoric towards each other has often been heated and, dare I say, sometimes “impolite.”
So, having said all this, the following, in brief summary, are some of the reasons why I oppose Donald Trump’s war with Iran.
- The purpose of the government is to protect the individual rights of Americans within the jurisdiction of the U.S., not to play policeman to the rest of the world. There is certainly nothing in the United States Constitution that assigns the policeman role and task to the decision-making and actions of the president of the country. Yet, the policeman role has been assumed and acted upon by presidents since the end of the Second World War in 1945. Those, of course, who believe that the Constitution has to be a “living document,” one that changes its meaning and assigned purposes in evolving circumstances, will not be persuaded by my words. Since many on “the left” have not felt tied to what the Constitution says in terms of limits on government power, I am not too surprised that others may have joined their ranks on certain issues, including the presidential authority to go to war.
- In such foreign interventions, the U.S. government invariably takes sides in some dispute within another country or between countries. As the old adage says, “The friend of my enemy is my enemy.” Invariably the opposing group or nation who the American government does not support comes to view the U.S. as the enemy as much as the other group or nation with which it is in conflict. Then either with the innocence of an idiot or as a manipulative tool to deflect responsibility, when that opposing group or nation with which we have not sided considers Americans as much of a legitimate target as the group or nation they are in actual conflict with, the U.S. government, invariably, expresses “shock” that America, as innocent as a newborn babe, has come under attack for no other reason than “for who we are.”
- Such foreign interventions create the very enemies who then become the rationales for reducing American liberty at home in the name of “national security.” As additional layers of restrictions on personal and civil liberty are added, one by one, in the name of that “national security,” Americans, over time, lose any sense or even memory (when enough time passes) of what liberties they have lost or had restricted. This ends up becoming so much the case that a far greater government-controlled society becomes the new “normal” taken by many to be what a free society is like. This is particularly the case when government propaganda insists that everything it is doing at home and abroad is in the name of preserving “freedom” in America.
What is “seen” by people today is the degrees of freedom they still possess, and which they take for granted as the meaning and limits of individual liberty. What is “unseen” are the forms and types and degrees of freedom that have been whittled away, bit-by-bit, with every new “national security” threat that justifies ever more extensive and intrusive and controlling government power and intervention into people’s everyday affairs and choices. Unless you are old enough to remember what that greater degree of personal liberty had been and was like in the past, or unless you are inquisitive enough to read about the history of America in an earlier time and to compare forms of liberty then and now, you have no perspective to understand that the “freedom” the government claims to be intervening abroad to protect is a shadow of what liberty meant before that government began its many foreign adventures abroad.
- Since “national security” is one of those ambiguous and nearly undefinable terms (like “the common good” and “the general welfare”), it inevitably results in those in political power becoming the ones who determine what and when the “national security” of the country is at risk. Increasingly, government becomes the “rule of men” rather than the “rule of law.” Government is guided by political expediency rather than constitutional principle. Regardless of the circumstances leading up to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, it was very clear what an attack on the territory of the United States meant and the intent of the Japanese government from that point. A declaration of war was called for and passed by Congress giving the president the authority to respond under the Constitution. Though there was much in Franklin Roosevelt’s foreign policy actions leading up to Pearl Harbor that reflected the arbitrary “rule of men,” there was still the notion of constitutional formality and complying with the principles of the document.
But presidents since the Second World War have presumed not only to determine what is a “threat” or a “danger” to “national security” or the “international world order,” but even what are “bad acts” by “bad governments,” even when only against their own people, to claim it is in America’s “interests” to act accordingly to stop those bad acts by those bad governments. American military personnel may be put in harm’s way and possibly lose their lives, and the territory of other nations may be entered without the knowledge or approval of that nation’s government to undertake bombings or drone attacks on presidentially determined targets based on the president’s judgment of guilt or innocence, with death not only to those targeted but to bystanders as well. Those dead or injured innocent bystanders are then sanitized by the U.S. government as “unintended collateral damage.” On the other hand, when such acts are undertaken by any other government with which the U.S. government is in some conflict or rivalry anywhere around the world, those same types of military actions are for some reason now categorized as “murder” and unjustifiable disregard for human life.
- As more areas outside of the U.S. become defined as within the scope and “national interest” of America, the entire globe, or a large portion of it, now falls within the orbit of an American “empire,” with American military forces, “security agents” (CIA), and diplomats with U.S. taxpayer dollars to spend to “sway” (pressure, bribe, intimidate) those in other governments to follow and do the bidding of the U.S. government. This breeds arrogance, hubris, corruption, and power-lusting in those wielding such power.
Is this not what we see in Donald Trump’s behavior? How does he speak? I want Greenland for America’s “national security,” so if puny Denmark does not give into my demands to sell (using U.S. taxpayers’ money to purchase of course), well, I can just send in the troops and take it. The president of Venezuela is a commie and a drug-dealer who ridicules and ignores my threats against him; I will just send in “my” special forces to grab him and put him into a New York prison. And if those other socialists in his government don’t do everything I say, well, their fate could be worse.
I, Donald Trump, say that the Ayatollah running Iran must stop building ballistic missiles, stop any nuclear program, stop funding those groups that I consider a threat to America’s “national interest” and that of our allies (Israel). To show that I really mean it, I will order a “big and beautiful” military armada to intimidate you. And when you won’t be intimidated by “my” military force – the most powerful on the planet, I assure everyone – I and my Israeli allies will kill you and those around you, and if necessary rain down on Iran the entire armed might of the United States until you give into my demands, including my telling you who will run your government from now on. And, why? Because I know what is good for you, just as I know what’s good for Americans with “my” tariffs on all the goods from all the countries of the world to make America great in my image of what I think America and your country should look like.
- At the end of the day, America is no longer a constitutional republic of free individuals, but instead an increasingly authoritarian, imperial state. The rhetoric of liberty may persist, but the reality is gone. I oppose Donald Trump’s war on Iran because it is a set piece in a pattern of an out-of-control government claiming unlimited authority to direct the military forces and taxpayers’ dollars in virtually any manner deemed by a president as concerning the “national interest,” or “national security,” or the “common good,” or the “general welfare.” These phrases possess such elasticity of meanings that when allowed to guide government actions, they undermine the wise constraints that the Framers intended to prevent arbitrary and centralized power and abuse by any branch of the government and, most especially, by the executive branch, including in matters of war.
- What needs to be challenged and opposed is the very mindset that has created what is referred to as the “imperial presidency,” or the “national security state,” or the “American empire.” What has to be restored is the idea and ideal that constitutionally limited government is meant to and should secure Americans’ rights to their life, liberty, and honestly acquired property. It is not to be a political paternalist, or social engineer, or policeman of the world. When government inappropriately takes on these and similar roles, tasks, and asserted duties, the liberty of the American people – indeed, any people, anywhere – are threatened and then lost.
Until this radical change in how liberty is understood and how government has to be restrained, American presidents will take the United States into wars on their own say and and their own claimed authority, regardless of their party labels and the slogans they use to rationalize courses of action that lead nowhere but to less freedom and more death and destruction.
Category: Iran
This post was written by: Richard M. Ebeling
Dr. Richard M. Ebeling is the BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel. He was formerly professor of Economics at Northwood University, president of The Foundation for Economic Education (2003–2008), was the Ludwig von Mises Professor of Economics at Hillsdale College (1988–2003) in Hillsdale, Michigan, and served as vice president of academic affairs for The Future of Freedom Foundation (1989–2003).
---
OH NOT 2026 180
caplism mag dusclaier
by Richard M. Ebeling | Nov 9, 2015
If “climate change” and “global warming” are, in fact, problems facing people on Planet Earth, it is due to an atmospheric tragedy of the commons.
Bill Gates of Microsoft is one of the wealthiest individuals in the world, so when he speaks it is not surprising that the world tends to listen. In a recent interview, Gates has said that capitalism is inherently unable to solve the problem of global warming, and instead there have to be world-encompassing government-business “partnerships” to save Planet Earth.
In the November 2015 issue of “Atlantic” magazine, Bill Gates asserts that private enterprisers are too self-interested, too narrowly focused on short-run market profitability, not innovatively-oriented enough, and not sufficiently incentivized to develop on their own the needed alternative energy sources that can eliminate the use of fossil fuels by the middle of the twenty-first century.
Thus, the only answer is for governments to design an agenda and a plan of action to direct and subsidize the private enterprises that cannot be trusted to solve what he considers the leading problem facing everyone in the world: climate change and global warming.
Bill Gates’ Claim that Climate Change is Real and Government Can Fix It
He pushes aside anyone who questions that: (a) global warming is actually occurring in a scientifically meaningful sense, and (b) that “man” is a leading if not the primary cause of this threat to sustainable life on Earth.
He asserts that anyone who can do a little “math” should see the truth of humanity’s dilemma and the magnitude of its danger. I do not in anyway claim as an economist to know very much about the scientific evidence or its reliability. But there are enough natural scientists and social scientists whose judgment I trust and respect to believe that the case for climate change and global warming is not necessarily a “closed book,” with no basis for questioning the evidence or the climate models used to make the frequent forecasts of planetary doom that are bandied about.
But let us assume for the sake of the argument that the dire predictions were to be true. And that the projected and feared increases in average temperature around the globe threaten to have some or many of the negative effects that are often warned about.
Is Bill Gates correct in his bad-mouthing of private enterprise and his praising of the superiority of government direction and subsidizing of businesses to find solutions to the problem, if it exists?
A number of news and editorial outlets that have commented on Bill Gates’ remarks have said that he declares that only “socialism” can save the planet. In fact, he never uses the word socialism anywhere in the interview, as best as I can tell. But his comments do raise the issue of the institutions of a market economy versus the workings of the political process.
Adam Smith, Self-Interest, and “the Invisible Hand”
Since the time of Adam Smith in the eighteenth century, economists have explained and emphasized that there is no denying that people are guided by the pursuit of whatever they come to consider to be their own “self-interest.” Self-interest, however, comprises more than the distorted and cliché conception of the greedy person who cares for nothing except his own narrowly defined material desires.
Reasonable economists and social scientists in general have always insisted that for people in the real world self-interest includes and incorporates whatever the individual considers to be of value and importance to him. This may include family and friends, neighbors and the community in which a person lives. It can also extend to a serious and thoughtfully benevolent concern for the betterment of humanity as a whole.
But whatever maybe the horizon and content of the individual’s concerns, they are what he defines as important and of value to him. The question is, how shall he proceed to attain the goals and values he wishes to pursue and provide for?
The unique character of the free market society is that it is based on the idea of the rights of the individual to his life, liberty and honestly acquired property. The “rules of the game” in the competitive market economy are fairly simple and commonly shared by most rational and reasonable people: you don’t kill; you don’t steal; and you don’t deceive or defraud.
This means that all human relationships are based upon and require the voluntary choice and mutual consent of the participants. If you want something that another has, you must apply your knowledge, talents and abilities to produce and offer to that person something that they may value more highly than what they have that you want, and therefore will be willing to give to you in trade at terms that have been agreed upon.
This is what Adam Smith and others after him meant by the phrase that, as if by “an invisible hand,” each individual following his own self-interest in the competitive market at the same time serves to improve the circumstances of others in society, even if it was not the original motivating and conscious intention of any of the people participating in the arena of what is, now, a vast market of global trade and exchange.
Precisely because of the inescapable self-interested conduct of each and everyone of us, we all have a motive to wisely, thoughtfully and effectively use, husband, and improve the property that we own whether it be the “human capital” of our own skills and abilities, or the resources and physical capital equipment in our possession, or the financial assets through which we save, investment and plan for the future.
Private Property, Future Gains, and Humanity’s Improvement
Why? Because all of these productive means to our various self-interested ends depend upon not wasting and wrongly applying them in ways that diminish their value and usability both in the present and the future.
Don’t repair the roof on your house and you not only risk ruining everything inside when it rains but also you diminish or even destroy its resale value sometime in the future. Too wastefully or hastily use up a resource that has marketable value both now and in the future, and you reduce its capacity and availability to enable you to earn income in the years ahead to acquire the things that money income can buy both now and then.
This is why businesses take valuable and productive machinery off-line for repair and maintenance so as not to have to incur a greater expense to replace it sooner than would have to be the case. Or why the farmer leaves fields fallow to restore nutrients in the soil so the land may be used for generating profitable crops in future years.
When property rights are secure and income received from profitable use is allowed to be retained by individuals owning that property, the more that prospective gains and personal improvements act as positive incentives for thinking ahead, and planning and acting with opportunities in the future in mind.
The Austrian-born economist, Joseph A. Schumpeter described the market-oriented entrepreneur as the positive innovator of change who, precisely in the pursuit of self-interested improvement and profit constantly, transforms the society through innovations that improve the quality of existing products, offers new and previously unimagined new products, introduces new and more efficient technologies to more cost-efficiently bring goods to market, and devises ways to more effectively organize private enterprises to get more of what people desire through the better arrangement of the production process.
Schumpeter famously called it the market’s competitive process of “creative destruction,” which innovatively substitutes the existing productive means of providing standards of living in society with better means and methods that improve the quality and standard of life for virtually all over time.
Government and the Politics of the Short-Run Horizon
Contrast this with the motivations and incentives of politicians and government planners and regulators. Those in political office or who manage the government bureaucracies have no “assets” to use and spend other than those that have been taxed away from the citizenry of the country.
Their effective control over those tax funds and government-owned assets extends no further than the next electoral cycle, the outcome of which can see them removed from office and replaced from their senior positions of power. Hence, the politician’s horizon of personal interest and planning rarely extents beyond the next election, whether that be two, or four, or six years away in the American political system.
And those who hold the appointed senior positions in the departments, bureaus, and agencies retain their power only for as long as they focus on and serve the interests of the president who has made them the head of a branch of the bureaucracy.
Short-term pay-offs that offer vote-getting photo opportunities, or that satisfies the financial and related interests of individuals and groups whose pockets can provide the campaign contributions for the next run for re-election, or positive “images” for the media and future history books as part of the “legacy” of a president (or prime minister) are as far as those who guide and direct governmental policies and actions have as their decision-making time horizon.
Private vs. Government Incentives and Planning Horizons
The private enterpriser in the marketplace invests his own money or borrowed funds for the use of which he has entered into legal obligations to pay back with interest. When the businessman plans the construction of a new manufacturing factory that once built can stand and be productively used for decades; or purchases land that has on it raw materials under the ground or timber on the surface, for instance, that have marketable value and profitability for even a century ahead if properly conserved and economized; or who buys expensive and durable capital machines, tools and equipment the productive lifespan of which may extent, with proper maintenance and repair, for many years into the future; when he does any or all of this, he must weigh the financial gains in the present with the profitable rewards that may be available in the future with wise use of the private property that he oversees, manages and owns.
Who, therefore, has the greater personal incentive and financial motive to take the future into account before making decisions in the present? The market-oriented private enterprisers who must carefully weigh how his present actions will have a positive or negative effect on his abilities to earn desired revenues and profits in the future, depending on how they wisely use their own property? Or the politician who spends other people’s tax-collected money and has no permanent “skin-in-the-game” outside of his ability to pander to special interest groups before the next election to obtain from them campaign contributions and votes on election day?
Yet, because some other businessmen may not share Bill Gates’ conception of desirable and profitable in terms of what he thinks to be important and should be invested in, those other businessmen are, therefore, shortsighted and “irrational” in their disregard of what should be done to “save the planet.”
While, clearly, politicians, scientific “experts,” and non-governmental organizations that share Gates’ views on the form and types of “solutions” to environmental and related problems are far-seeing, thoughtful, and “rational” in understanding what sacrifices and actions are called for in the present to save the future from disaster.
Private Property, Profits, and Environmental Rationality
In a free, competitive market, private enterprisers direct their production activities to serving and satisfying what they perceive as the most likely and profitable consumer demands of the future.
This applies no less to the environment than any other aspect of economic life. One of the most vital functions performed y a free market economy is to assist in economizing and preserving resources that people value and that are limited in supply.
Nothing is a stronger force for conservation than the profit motive and the institution of private property. When a person is allowed to own something, he has incentive to think twice before he wastes or abuses it. If he does waste or abuse what he owns, he directly suffers the cost because he loses the benefits that could have been his if only he had shown more care. And nothing is likely to result in greater abuse and misuse of something than when it is owned by nobody.
What is worth preserving in nature? What are the best means and methods to care for resources? Should we merely maintain what we have, or should we expand its supply? Have we set aside too much and, in fact, encroached too heavily on the attainment of other ends we also value?
Even the most ardent environmentalist – unless he is one of those few extremists who would like to see man extinct in the belief that everything is worth preserving except the human race – believes that some land also must be used for residential housing, for places of work, and non-wildlife recreation.
To live, man must grow food, raise animals, and use resources for clothing, the daily amenities of life, and the arts and sciences. The advantage of leaving these problems to the marketplace is that it is then up to the people themselves to decide these issues.
Suppose that people want more wildlife areas for aesthetic appreciation or recreational enjoyment. The greater demand for these things, as expressed in the prices that consumers are willing to pay, increases the profitability for land and resources owners to use less of what they own for other purposes and instead shift their resources and property into these more highly valued uses. If owners of land and resources most attractive for these purposes fail to do so, they will miss out on the higher income they could be earning.
If an increased demand for housing and arts and crafts brings about an increased rate of deforestation, the remaining forests not yet touched by the woodchoppers axe will rise in price because of their increased scarcity. This creates incentives on the part of the forest owners to think ahead and replant trees as a greater rate, so the prospective higher profits can be reaped in the future through harvesting or through other uses valued by consumers.
If urban areas begin to encroach on areas of natural beauty – and if members of the society value them enough to be willing to pay for their preservation – the market will see to it that ownership of these areas passes into the hands of these people because that where the greatest monetary return is expected.
Environmental Problems and the Tragedy of the Commons
Where are pollution problems, ecological imbalances and assaults on areas of natural beauty most often taking place? Invariably, they are taking place in areas in society in which private property rights have not been permitted or have not been clearly defined and enforced.
No one knows for certain, in these cases, “what is mine and what is thine.” In many of these areas, the resources in question are either in a no-man’s-land of non-ownership or they are under the jurisdiction of the government. Non-ownership always produces what is known as the “tragedy of the commons.” Where there is no owner, there is no or a reduced cost for excessive misuse of a resource. And when no one directly feels the cost – in terms of lost income or depleted resale value – then everyone who has access to that ownerless resource will try to get as much out of it as is possible before others do.
When property rights are not clearly defined, people will often act in ways that do not take into consideration the full effect and cost upon others. Resources, or land, or the air are wrongly or excessively used because the users do not have to weigh or pay for the full consequences of their own actions upon others. This is the source of practically all of the environmental and pollution problems that are cause for concern today.
If “climate change” and “global warming” are, in fact, problems facing people on Planet Earth, it is due to an atmospheric tragedy of the commons. The question, then, is, are there private solutions to this problem – if it exists as proponents claim – or does it have to be “solved” through the central planning of global governments and government-business “partnership” as asserted by some such as Bill Gates?
That is what will be discussed in next week’s article.
---
ggl
[### Cartoon Introduction to Climate Change: Experimental vs. ...
The Library of Economics and Liberty
https://www.econlib.org › 2014/06 › cartoon_introdu_1](https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/06/cartoon_introdu_1.html)
Jun 5, 2014 — Richard Ebeling has an insightful article that beautifully introduces to the contemporary reader the "father of economics". Scott Sumner ...Read more
Missing: warming | Show results with: warming
[### Bill Gate's Solution to Climate Change Reveals His ...
Capitalism Magazine
https://capitalismmagazine.com › 2015/11 › bill-gates-s...](https://capitalismmagazine.com/2015/11/bill-gates-solution-to-climate-change-reveals-his-misunderstanding-of-capitalism-and-free-markets/)
Dr. Richard M. Ebeling is the recently appointed BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel. He was ...Read more
[### Thinking Smartly About Climate Change - Imprimis
Hillsdale College
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu › thinking-smartly-about-...](https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/thinking-smartly-about-climate-change/)
To begin to think smartly about climate change, we have to understand climate-related economics. There are costly damages associated with climate change.Read more
[### The Paternalist Instincts of a Central Planner
The Daily Economy
https://thedailyeconomy.org › Daily Economy](https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/bidens-daddy-issues-is-why-he-wants-to-plan-our-lives/)
During a meeting with his advisors about the worldwide effects of global warming and themes that should not be ignored (including methane ...Read more
[### Richard Ebeling - The Heartland Institute heartland.org
https://heartland.org › Profiles](https://heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/richard-ebeling/)
Dr. Richard M. Ebeling is the BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel. He conducts courses such as “Leadership, ...Read more
Missing: warming | Show results with: warming
[### Stand Up For Freedom Of Intellectual Inquiry
The Institute Of Public Affairs - IPA
https://ipa.org.au › publications-ipa › stand-up-for-freed...](https://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/stand-up-for-freedom-of-intellectual-inquiry)
Sep 19, 2019 — The latest instalment will bring together expert authors to present research on climate change that is too often ignored by our public ...Read more
Missing: warming | Show results with: warming
[### Richard Ebeling's Post
LinkedIn · Richard Ebeling
30+ reactions · 2 years ago](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/richard-ebeling-46181414_pdf-the-failure-of-central-planning-and-activity-7166066439785799681-jlgb)
In June 2022, I delivered a keynote address at a conference on Austrian Economics in Wroclaw, Poland. My talk on, “The Failure of Central ...
Missing: warming | Show results with: warming
[### The Calculation Debate and Climate Change
Sage Journals
https://journals.sagepub.com › doi › abs](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/04866134251355007)
by LA Busk — This article reinterprets the socialist calculation debate of the 1920s and 1930s with reference to climate change and planetary boundaries.
[### Richard Ebeling - Add Relationship - LittleSis
littlesis.org
https://littlesis.org › person › 242830-Richard_Ebeling](https://littlesis.org/person/242830-Richard_Ebeling)
Business Positions. Heartland Institute Non-profit research and education organization, climate change denial front group. • Policy Expert. Richard Ebeling.
Missing: warming | Show results with: warming
---
GGL 6 26
Mises Institute https://mises.org › profile › richard-m-ebeling
Dr. Richard M. Ebeling is a professor of economics at The Citadel. Among the courses he has taught are “Market Ethics in Modern Society” and “The Economics ...
[### richard ebeling
Google Scholar
https://scholar.google.com › citations](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=W4aqiS0AAAAJ&hl=en)
Professor of Economics, the Citadel - Cited by 1339 - Austrian Economics - History of Economic Thought - Monetary Theory and Policy
[### Richard M. Ebeling: books, biography, latest update
Amazon.com
https://www.amazon.com › Richard-M-Ebeling](https://www.amazon.com/Richard-M-Ebeling/e/B001K893IG)
Follow Richard M. Ebeling and explore their bibliography from Amazon's Richard M. Ebeling Author Page.
[### Richard Ebeling
Facebook · Richard Ebeling
5.2K+ followers](https://www.facebook.com/richard.ebeling.7/)
Awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1974, it was a small recognition of his contributions on monetary and business cycle theory, his critique of socialist ...Read more
[### Faculty Profile: Richard Ebeling
Clemson University, South Carolina
https://www.clemson.edu › capitalism › sisc › richard-eb...](https://www.clemson.edu/centers-institutes/capitalism/sisc/richard-ebeling.html)
Richard M. Ebeling, Ph.D., is the BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina.Read more
[### Richard Ebeling | Online Library of Liberty
Online Library of Liberty
https://oll.libertyfund.org › people › richard-ebeling](https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/richard-ebeling)
Dr. Richard M. Ebeling is the BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel. Show more.Read more
[### Richard Ebeling
Libertarianism.org
https://www.libertarianism.org › people › richard-ebeling](https://www.libertarianism.org/people/richard-ebeling)
Richard Ebeling is currently a professor of economics at Northwood University. He was the president of the Foundation for Economic Education from 2003 to ...
[### Richard Ebeling - BB&T Professor of Ethics and Free ...
LinkedIn · Richard Ebeling
1.7K+ followers](https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-ebeling-46181414)
Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, United States · BB&T Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership · The Citadel
BB&T Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel · Experience: The Citadel · Location: Mount Pleasant · 500+ connections on LinkedIn.
---