War And Peace
Some readers may wonder what a discussion of war has to do with their personal freedom, their efforts to achieve financial independence, or their desire to open an offshore bank account and gain more financial privacy.
And my answer is, "A lot!".
War is the opposite of peace. And peace is a prerequisite for freedom.
In fact, war undermines freedom at every turn. Just consider the following:
War demands the expenditure of huge amounts of money. Amounts so large that the average human mind cannot even conceive of such numbers. Take the US war expenditure in Iraq as a current example. The numbers are mind-boggling.
Where does this money come from? It comes from the bottomless bank account that funds all government activities. This bank account is constantly replenished by three forms of revenue.
Taxes, borrowings and money creation.
Your government has absolutely no money except for what it can steal off you, borrow off others, or simply print.
This massive economic irresponsibility can only be undertaken by governments, as only they have such money-generating powers.
To put this in perspective, imagine you went to "war" with your neighbours and wanted to up the ante with a financial war chest. What would be YOUR options, as a private citizen?
You could use your savings. You could borrow money. You could sell off your assets. Two things you couldn't do would be to print money or steal off other people. And no matter how you did it, your ability to wage "war" on your neighbours would finally come up against the limits of your own capacity to sustain it. And of course, you'd likely be broke at the end!
On the other hand, the state has unlimited resources at its disposal - which is source the the state's power to wage war.
This war-waging power alone impacts on your freedom in many ways, including the fact you are taxed for such wars, and that you also pay "again" for such wars by virtue of the ensuing inflation that is caused by the state creating money to fund the war costs.
So war undermines your financial position by making you carry the financial burden of it - even when you have no desire to support it.
War also undermines and even eliminates other freedoms - like the freedom of the press, freedom of expression, and freedom of movement.
In times of war, the state undermines the freedom of the press, it engages in outright propaganda, and it enacts various forms of draconian legislation to "protect" you from the enemy.
The only people who profit from war are those in power, and those who support them (including all the war-profiteering industries).
War is an instrument of the state. In fact, war represents the highest pinnacle of the state's reason for existence. If one believes that the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect you - from thieves, murderers and external aggression - then it's obvious that the state's highest purpose is fulfilled when it is at "war" - on behalf of its people.
This is the whole justification for the bogus "war on terror".
People all over the world have swallowed this idiotic concept hook, line and sinker. But it doesn't even stand up to a moment's scrutiny.
To realise the absurdity of the notion, just consider the words being used - "war" and "terror".
War can be considered as military action undertaken by one territorial entity against another. World Wars I and II come to mind.
In all such wars, ordinary civilians get hurt. In fact, during the two world wars, targeting civilians was the name of the game - as the bombing of London, Dresden and Hiroshima clearly showed.
Terror, on the other hand, is military action conducted by a non- state entity against a state - and once again involves the killing of innocent civilians.
Some people will split hairs and suggest that terrorists deliberately target civilians, while states only do so by mistake - "incidentally", as collateral damage, and not as a matter policy. However, history and reality say otherwise. Governments have killed far more innocent people than terrorists ever will.
The difference is one of semantics. State entities wage "war", while non state entities wage "terror" - or war by non-state means.
So, a "war on terror" means in effect - a war against war. A war of one type, against a war of another type. As you can see, this is like running round in a perpetual circle - and no straight thinking can arise from it.
The war on terror can thus best be understood as state military action against non-state military action - and as such, is a doomed idea and strategy - and certainly not an idea worth losing your freedoms for.
Consider the present war between the state of Israel and the non- state of Hezbollah. In this war Israel is confounded. They cannot take on Hezbollah without waging war on the state of Lebanon - a country which they are supposedly NOT at war with, but which is bearing the brunt of its "10 eyes for an eye" religious and political war philosophy.
The world is also confounded. We're witnessing the slaughter of innocent people in the name of a "just" war. But most people's gut feeling is that it's not just at all. The Lebanese did not initiate any war - but they are primarily the ones suffering under it.
The US government insists that Hezbollah started this war - by capturing Israeli soldiers. On the other hand, a longer view of history (even recent history), shows that Hezbollah was taking what it sees as a legitimate action in defence of their "brothers" in Palestine. The roots of the Middle East conflict do indeed go much further back than Condi's smiling face stepping off a plane last week - or George Bush's most recent smirk!
We may call Hezbollah terrorists - but they are seen by their own people (and increasingly by most in the Middle East) as freedom fighters.
What's worse, this situation has all the necessary ingredients to morph into a much wider conflict.
Contrary to the US's and Israel's assertions, the notion that the application of excessive force can solve the problem is likely to be exposed as nonsense - and result in a much bigger problem.
It's entirely possible that as Israel increases the use of force, in response to Hezbollah's stubborn refusal to "lose" - it will inflame more of the Arab world and lead to Syria and possibly Iran coming into this war.
In other words, the kidnapping of a couple of Israeli soldiers could escalate into World War III.
Talk about the law of unintended consequences!!
What's worse, ordinary people are powerless to stop it - at least they are powerless because they don't know HOW to stop this madness.
For the sake of a minor military skirmish between two entities, that hardly concerns the rest of the world, we could be plunged into chaos and mayhem. All as a result of the irrationality of war and the mentality of those we have voted in to represent our vital interests.
But this "skirmish" could have other consequences besides. It could completely destabilise the Middle East, causing existing "friendly" regimes to be toppled by angry mobs. It could cause a surge in global energy prices, and plunge the world economy into a major economic depression. That, in turn, could cause millions to lose their jobs, their homes and their very lives.
And all of this because we have trusted politicians to look after our best interests.
Through all this militaristic madness, I'm hoping that enough people will wake up and realise the con they have been subject to - that governments are there to protect us.
If you look at the facts, you'll realise that the state is only responsible for chaos, war, poverty, corruption, economic decline and moral degeneracy. The state has no redeeming features at all. And yet it continues to exist - because we, as individuals, continue to demand that it exists.
And the root of this demand is the refusal to grow up and accept responsibility for our own lives. Our relationship with the state is like our previous relationship with our parents. We simply grew up and left that dependent relationship, only to enter another one - with the state as "parent".
We ask it to look after us. We ask it to protect us - from all sorts of harm (including from harming ourselves!) We hand over our money and nature-given sovereignty to thugs and con men - those who assume the power to "lead" and control us - in the mistaken belief that our lives will be better and safer as a result.
So I just want to leave you with this thought - as you watch the images of innocent men, women and children being killed around the world - in Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan - and dozens of other hellholes.
It is worth it? What has the state really done for you except bring destruction on a grand scale?
In all of history, there have only been three forms human action that have lead to human progress and peace - and government is NOT one of them.
These are science, technology and business. Science, because it is the ultimate engine of all progress. Technology, because it has applied the findings of science - and business, because it has brought that technology to the mass market, so we can all benefit from it.
Everything that makes life better is a result of the truly human trinity of science, technology and business.
If you add to these the human spirit itself, and its expression in all the arts - you have what it takes to create a peaceful, productive and free society.
The state is but a parasite. It is but a drag on human progress - but more dangerously, it has the potential to completely destroy us - its host.
If there is any light at the end of the tunnel, it's the hope that any impending or future war has the potential to wake people up - to make them realise the true nature of the beast, and to reign it in once and for all.
Yours in freedom