Tim Starr

Tim Starr is an autodidact writer and independent thinker exploring the deep interplay between **economic liberty** and **military defense**. Through his Substack, *Free Markets and Firepower*, he examines how free markets generate prosperity while credible firepower secures the conditions for liberty to thrive—rejecting both naive pacifism and unchecked statism. His essays blend rigorous historical analysis, counterfactual reasoning, and libertarian principles, tackling topics like the true drivers of the Industrial Revolution, WWII logistics and American power, the role of public goods in a free society, critiques of influential libertarian theorists, and the necessity of strategic strength in an imperfect world. On X (@timstarr2001), Tim delivers sharp, no-holds-barred commentary on foreign policy, individual rights, historical myths, and current events—always grounded in incentives, evidence, and a clear-eyed defense of freedom against ideological capture or folly. A long-time observer of ideas and power, he values systems that align incentives with reality: markets for creation, resolve for protection. Follow him for thoughtful takes that treat liberty as a practical achievement, not a slogan.

An oil refinery just exploded in Venezuela. Venezuela urgently needs total privatization of its oil industry and a transition to democracy and rule of law before the incompetent crooked socialists destroy what's left.

Raúl Castro ordered the shootdown of two civilian aircraft over the Florida Straits in 1996, killing four American citizens. For 30 years, no administration held him accountable. Clinton condemned it. Bush moved on. Obama rewarded the regime with normalized relations. Biden ignored it entirely. Now the U.S is preparing to indict him. This only happens under @POTUS.

What is a key theme of Soviet/Russian influence ops, according to the highest ranking East Bloc defector? That the CIA & Mossad killed JFK. Now Russia-linked Elizabeth Lane is following the same playbook with pro-Putin & likely Russia-linked Candace Owens.

@BrianHatano @LudwigNverMises I need to read that book, BTW, it's one of the few of VDH's I haven't read and don't have a signed copy of. :-)

@timstarr2001 @LudwigNverMises I agree. If a General like Petraeus can sell political cases, or if Commanders-in-Chief can predict political winds and understand warfare execution, many things can be accomplished. I was just reading VDH's Savior Generals, and Belisarius apropos Julian is relevant.

Libertarians have adopted the Neocon frame that the US will lose in Iran without a full occupation. Suggesting surrender rather than occupation. And I’m sure any withdrawal will be framed that way. But the problem with the Neocons wasn’t that they had the right facts but came to the wrong conclusion. It’s that their understanding of the situation was wrong. You have to leave their frame if you want to understand the situation accurately. If appeasement is your only counter option to occupation then you continue to leave a window for the neocons to act when the situation doesn’t magically improve. And then you give them the opportunity to launch a full occupation which risks word war three. Thankfully Trump intervened with their plans and realized he does not have to invade Iran to win, regardless of what neocons say. We never had to appease Iran or fully commit to win. We have the technological capacity to make their life impossible if we use it intelligently. Nothing about Irans current situation is winning. The Ayatollah is gone, the less ideological technocracy is in charge, their offensive capability is destroyed and they are blockaded. China is switching to US gas imports and urging Iran to stop. China is happy for Iran to cause trouble for America but they are not going to sacrifice themselves for Iran. China said “well played” and is now aligned with the US towards the deconstruction of Irans deterrence measures and nuclear capability. You have to stop playing into your enemies frames if you want to break the matrix. Even if you disagree with the war as it is, it’s not going to end the way Neocons like Robert Kagan say. And anyone who understand the risk of blow back should know there are real risks to the can of worms the neocons opened up, especially in the current technological landscape. Risks which will be greatly reduced if the Middle East goes more in the direction of the gulf states than Iran. There is a similar overarching problem with Marxist reactionaries on the right manifesting the lefts strawmen rather than establishing truly separate values or solutions.

Yes, but here's the other thing: The only reason Petraeus was interested in COIN at all was because he saw the old Anthony Quinn movie about the French war in Algeria, and he made COIN a hobby interest for himself. It wasn't part of his standard military training or education. That means that we didn't have a good system for producing such leaders at scale, we just got lucky that we had one in Petraeus. And, as soon as he was done, the US military promptly did its best to forget about COIN again, just like it did after Vietnam, where it also took years to figure out what it had to do and made it work (by about 1971 or so).

You're right, but it's more a matter of leadership setting the right expectations from the start, then not squandering political capital floundering around while searching for the right strategy. Petraeus had it right from the start in 2003 in Iraq, then he got removed from command, only to come back & be put in charge of the Surge 4 years later. That 4 years was crucial. There was no COIN strategy from the start, we took 4 years to come up with and implement one, then it worked very well and quickly, but by then it was too late, the American people had lost confidence in the project.

@timstarr2001 @LudwigNverMises I agree with you IF one understands political cycles. America is not prepared for any occupation that is not mutually beneficial (i.e. Japan Naval bases) longer than 2-3 years. You can't just say, "If other president stayed the course..." when America is divided politically.

@StealthMedical1 x.com/Davids_Sarcasm…

@StealthMedical1 x.com/JenniferJJacob…

@StealthMedical1 This guy covers Russia's ops in Africa: x.com/PhilipObaji

@MailynSpeaks Thank you!

@timstarr2001 Ricardo Alarcón; one the biggest sleazy SOBs in the realm of international relations from the Cuban regime … but then, I repeat myself. 🤷‍♀️

This commie rat in the photos with Radcliffe is the Murderer in Chief of the repressive forces in Cuba. 🤬

@StealthMedical1 Here's the McAdams photo:

Good for you @IsraelMFA. As a lawyer & historian, I’ve spent years studying both defamation law and the long, dark history of blood libels against Jews. The New York Times’ decision to publish Nicholas Kristof’s May 11 column, “The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians,” is one of the most disgraceful acts of journalistic malpractice in recent memory. The piece does not merely report allegations. It elevates unverified claims—drawn heavily from the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, whose founder Ramy Abdu has been flagged by Israeli authorities since 2013 as linked to Hamas fronts in Europe—into an accusation of systematic, state-orchestrated sexual violence by Israeli soldiers and prison guards. This includes the grotesque claim that guards trained dogs to rape detainees. This is not opinion journalism. It is a modern blood libel. A blood libel has always been the same thing: a fabricated accusation that Jews, acting as a group or on behalf of some supposed “policy,” commit ritualistic atrocities—murder, torture, rape—against non-Jews. Medieval Europe saw Jews accused of using Christian blood in Passover matzah; those lies triggered pogroms and expulsions. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion updated the script for the 20th century. Kristof’s piece does exactly that in 2026. It takes contested detainee accounts, many sourced from Euro-Med, and frames them as evidence of an “organized state policy.” It then creates a false moral equivalence with Hamas’s documented, systematic sexual atrocities on October 7—published deliberately on the eve of a new independent report by the Civil Commission that confirmed those Hamas crimes as “systematic, widespread, and integral” to the attack. The Times calls this “deeply reported.” It is not. It is the inversion of documented truth into a weaponized lie that endangers Jewish lives worldwide. The State of Israel has now expressed its intention to defend the honor and reputation of its soldiers and its institutions against defamation. Under Israeli law, this case is far more viable than many assume. The Defamation (Prohibition) Law of 1965 defines a defamatory statement broadly: anything likely to degrade, ridicule, or injure a person or group in their profession or standing. Truth is a defense, but the burden is on the defendant to prove both the truth of the claims and that they were published responsibly. The Times would have to show it acted in good faith after reasonable verification—something made difficult by its reliance on a source long flagged for terror connections and by the timing that appears designed to bury Hamas’s own record of rape. Israeli courts can assert jurisdiction because the reputational harm is felt by the State and its people, and the Times maintains a physical presence and correspondents in Israel. If the case is pursued in U.S. courts, where the First Amendment sets a particularly high bar under New York Times v. Sullivan, the suit does not collapse at the first motion. Israel would have to show the paper acted with “actual malice”—knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth—but that standard still allows the case to advance to discovery. And that’s a big kicker. There is no way the New York Times wants to be subject to discovery in this case. In fact, one could argue that obtaining discovery is reason enough for Israel to file suit in the United States. Suddenly, Israel would have subpoena power to examine internal Times documents on how Euro-Med was vetted, what editors knew about its Hamas ties, and why this piece was rushed out when it was. Absent a protective order of confidentiality—which feels unlikely in a case of this public importance—all of that information could become public. So you see, this is not symbolic theater. It is Israel finally drawing a line after years of unchecked propaganda disguised as prestige journalism. Lies of this magnitude do not fade; they fuel real violence, just as their medieval predecessors did. By forcing the record into the light of sworn testimony, the State of Israel is doing what civilized societies must: refusing to let a blood libel stand unchallenged. The fight for truth is never easy, but it is necessary.

@rdgrongoodnet1 @_Billy_Beck_ Yup. Full commitment.

@_Billy_Beck_ @timstarr2001 The way I normally put it is: "If you're going to bother, then *bother*--or don't bother doing it."

Yes, it's the real Vietnam Syndrome:

@_Billy_Beck_ @symeew13 I go Back In Time. :-)

@symeew13 I remember changing a PAR-64 lamp on the upstage truss during the show. Jeff Alder was the lighting director.

What do YOU do when YOU hear Huey?

It's specifically the sort of zero-sum wealth-redistributionist worldview of Socialism, where for anyone to gain someone else must lose. National Socialism says this happens between nations. The notion that two nations could each benefit from interacting with each other escapes them.

@Schwalm5132 We were going to tactically nuke Warsaw Pact forces as they crossed Poland.

This was how I started my career in the military. The Die In Place (DIP) mission. In all likelihood you're not going to make it out alive. Now go fight like you mean to make every second count.

@_Billy_Beck_ @LudwigNverMises Yes, but only so long as he needed to consolidate internal power. Then he went back to expansion.

@timstarr2001 @LudwigNverMises Stalin put on a great show with his "socialism in one country".

Socialism is more defining of the Nazi’s than nationalism. Any people that survived longer than 3 generations throughout human history was nationalist. Socialism destroys civilization and is what created the level of control throughout society that enabled the mass tyranny the Nazis carried out. Socialism was the spirit of their age and we are still dealing with the demons of that manifestation.