One of the worst novels of the nineteenth century, aesthetically and politically, is Julius Vogel’s Anno Domini 2000 (1889). It is stylistically absurd because the author was a statesman with no literary prowess. It is appalling politically because it envisions a future in which the British Empire survives into the second millennium. It remains in print to this day.Vogel’s novel is relevant because it challenges recent scholarly attempts to portray the British Empire as a paragon of liberty. Neoconservatives such as Niall Ferguson and Nigel Biggar claim that the British Empire embodied liberal principles and spread them around the world. They argue that liberalism is secured through the power of empire, and therefore they lament the British Empire’s demise. From their perspective, only the

Most Western historians claim that World War I came about because of aggression from Germany and Austria-Hungary. However, Great Britain and its ANZAC allies were not innocent bystanders.

Original Article: "How Australia and New Zealand Helped Provoke and Escalate the First World War"
This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon.

Every year on April 25, Anzac Day is observed in Australia and New Zealand. It originally commemorated Australians and New Zealanders who served and died during the First World War. It has since become a day of remembrance for all Australians and New Zealanders who have served and died in military conflicts.
One can understand the desire to mourn the dead. However, the loyalist nature of the commemorations—military and government figures are prominent, and there is social pressure to wear a red poppy—symbolizes a lack of critical thinking about the First World War. Many, if not most, Australians and New Zealanders treat the war as a tragedy that was largely unforeseen and ultimately futile. A significant number still affirm the pro-Allied view that German imperialism was to blame and that

A key principle in understanding Austrian economics is seeing the inefficiency of government spending. In an era of overbearing states and reckless fiscal policy, this principle must be emphasized repeatedly. Politicians might claim the best of intentions when dishing out funds for military defense, social welfare, and public works. Their civil servants might try to realize these plans efficiently and thriftily.
However, the very nature of government spending goes against sound economics because government does not subject itself to the rigors of the free market. The latter operates according to a system of profit and loss, which enables entrepreneurs to use market prices as a guide to invest their limited capital rationally. Those who do this satisfy their consumers and earn a profit;

It is a great tragedy that many modern military leaders and strategists do not understand economics. If they did, I suspect that there would be a lot less war, a lot less military spending, and a lot less wastefulness. Certainly, there would be greater awareness of the appalling human and economic costs of war in a capitalist age.
Ludwig von Mises, the great Austrian economist, understood this point well. In his 1927 book Liberalism, he noted that as late as the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1792–1815), the world was divided into self-sufficient economic blocks.1 This factor helps explain the failure of Napoleon Bonaparte’s Continental System, a blockade designed to ruin Britain by excluding it from Continental European commerce. The system was poorly run, but Mises emphasizes