War only benefits those that wage it: it will never be the way to create peace, it won’t ever be a smart way to deal with rivalry between nations and it won’t ever have ‘good results’ since war is anything but constructive, it is the most vicious of humankind’s enterprises since it represents the epitome of ‘divide and conquer’; and because the greatest problem in the world is money, war then becomes a supposed ‘remedy’ for it, without understanding how this ‘solution’ is formed within the same mentality that believes we should always exist in fear of each other, of the potential attacks that we’ve allowed as part of our geopolitical arrangements wherein entire nations are supposed to hate each other in the name of following a history, a culture, a tradition, a religion… right now waging war due to religion is as valid as waging war using the now worn up excuse of ‘terrorist threats’ to justify waging war against countries that most of the times do not represent an ‘threat’ but are deliberately made a threat to the current hegemony that certain countries manufacture in this world through the link between wars and the money systems.
What do we get from war?
Deaths, suffering, torture, destruction, post traumatic disorders, diseases, chemical pollution, desire for revenge, ‘winners and losers’ – but overall, what matters the most is money, the military industry behind all wars are the ones that really benefit from convincing the public that for example, 40% of each tax dollar paid by American people goes to the military budget
For more charts and information visit: http://warnomore.wordpress.com/facts/
Who is responsible for wars?
Is it only certain corporations that make the weapons, the vehicles, drones, uniforms, food and services for the military abroad? No, that’s the materialization of money directed to war, but the consent resides within the each one of us that still accept war as something that does any form of ‘good’ which we should already know can only be a lie since deliberate attacks, harm and abuse won’t ever be what is best for everyone.
Now, I mentioned how we suggest that instead of having a basic income/ living income be financed by augmenting taxes in each country, creating further scorn within the taxpayer due to ‘their taxes funding ‘lazy people’s right to a basic income,’ we can instead use the money that would usually be directed to fund wars which for example in a country like the United State of America is equivalent to trillions of dollars. Such money should be instead directed to finance a Living Income for the people that is supporting such war in the first place due to economic interests or ‘manufactured consent’ within the idea of taking revenge or settling peace and democracy somewhere else.
See, as humanity throughout history, the old way to ‘revive the economy’ in times of crisis was through scheming a war and then having people producing and working in order to get an entire nation strengthen and ‘moving on’ within the common goal of uniting to go to war against so and so. This is still being applied in 21st century, though more and more we become aware of how All Wars are Bankers Wars and that World Wars I and II have only been waged for the purpose of redrawing the map of the world, occupying territories and generating ‘world powers’ as the ones that apparently ‘win’ the war creating the illusion that ‘a war solved the problem,’ whichever the ‘problem’ was in the first place.
So, with regards to the proposed ways to fund the Living Income Guaranteed:
REDIRECTION OF MILITARY BUDGETS
Every democratic government has a duty first and foremost to the citizens of their
I got the following comment from Ann upon explaining the solutions to fund a Living Income without resorting to use personal taxes for it and instead, using the money that would usually fund wars:
“I like the idea of having money that goes to arms and war, going to the living income. However I also see an issue with this, in our current system, where there are many international actors with opposing goals, in conflict with each other, and which will not de-arm themselves because they you are basically naked towards the others who might still have arms and use them. Your then defenseless. So for that to work everyone would together need to stop wars, armies etc… Which would not be easy because of all the conflict and manipulation going on.”
This is so and it sounds quite ‘logical’ within our current accepted ways of thinking and it is due to reasons like these that some nations have not yet signed treaties for disarmament and still reject the idea of ever having to sign any document to stop nuclear proliferation – this is obviously tied in with the excuse that ‘vulnerability exists’ between nations and that is why ‘everyone should have the right to have weapons to defend themselves’ – but we don’t even question any longer WHY such conflicts exist in the first place. The notion that a nation is vulnerable and becomes ‘defenseless’ exists as a consequence of a world wherein we’ve always learned how to ‘get what we want’ through force, and that means mostly power, gaining more money, more territories, enslave people, use their resources, invade with people and businesses… you name it, wars always exist as a façade of ‘valid excuses’ to kill, harm, occupy and abuse others in the name of so-called peace, which is in fact only more money and power.
Let’s talk about the most common example. The Unite States of America has a large capacity for such intimidation which can be seen as ‘preventing attacks’ from its smaller and less capable ‘enemies’ due to the fact that the US can annihilate them and they – most of the times – do not have the means to prevent this or retaliate in any substantial way. If the USA redirected the military budget, many could look at this as a form of weakening/weakness placing the USA in a more vulnerable position to be attacked due to its lessened ability to intimidate others or defend itself.
The offense-defense game in international political affairs is played by creating a continuous process of intimidation through potential military interventions by the world’s hegemons/ world powers upon nations that represent an obstacle to their expansionist greed. This is how ‘pseudo enemies’ are deliberately created to give continuation to a warfare industry that enables profit to be made upon these constant calls for the necessity to intervene in the name of peace and democracy in other countries or defend themselves from ‘potential terrorist attacks’ which is mostly a fabrication of such threat to keep the military industry in place.
This continuous provocation forces the nations ‘under the mire’ to arm themselves as well to have the means for defense. This ever present tension between nations is what creates the belief that each nation should always be ready and prepared to go to war, when in fact wars only represent the interests of a few that benefit from it, since war is always implying death and destruction using the public’s opinion as manufactured consent to support it in the name of fighting against terrorism and national defense; other reasons include fighting certain nations that do not comply to the views of imperialist-powers and so represent an obstacle to their own imperial position. However throughout history we’ve witnessed how wars are justified consent to commit crimes against humanity including the use of tax payer’s money to fund such destructive enterprises.
If the USA redirected their military budget – which accounts to 40% of tax payer’s money – to fund a Living Income Guaranteed, those with common sense would not perceive it as a weakness to not intimidate or invade others for the sole purpose of generating profit for few corporate elites, realizing that the nation is already having a weak economy due to most of the funds being directed for military purposes for the illegitimate benefit of a few, instead of strengthening the economy at home if such funds would support individual’s financial security.
Now, what to do with the apparent ‘potential threats’?
United Nations and such Conventions exist for a reason: to get together and establish solutions that benefit everyone: win-win solutions.
Let’s take once again the example of America, the most bellicose country on Earth. If the money spent currently in the ongoing Afghan war and Iraq occupation that has been going on for over a decade now, would be instead given back to the Americans in the form of a Living Income and Higher Wages for those that work, then there would be no such high poverty rates in America, no such grave unemployment rates or cuts in food stamps and/or unemployment benefits: because people would have money to live in dignity, would support the stability and continuous genuine growth of the economy – with the increase of each one’s power of acquisition – as well as ensuring that every bit of taxpayer’s money stays ‘at home.’ This is the real way to empower a country, however when nations participate in expansionist ‘foreign policies’ then such resources are aimed to wars that become a ‘necessary evil’ according to the manufactured consent in the public to gain resources, land, good position in the world-system, etc. As an extra fact, it is no coincidence that the country with most debt in the world is also the most bellicose.
So, international treaties should be signed between nations to cease all fire and/or potential threats and manipulation such as economic sanctions and instead, focus on establishing a Living Income Guaranteed model that will immediately support each country’s people at home. This will strengthen the weakened economies around the globe, and generate a true global market wherein each nation can still compete to be the most successful by providing the best living standards for their population. Trade will thrive, but some things will change now that for example people won’t have to resort to do ‘any type of job to make a living’ as there won’t be such imperious necessity since a Living Income will be provided to avoid such forced labor conditions, which is also another form of warfare too, structural violence.
Now, these treaties would most likely not imply that nations will become ‘friends again’ – that would be mostly ideal, but we are realistic and understand that to ‘straighten trees’ that have been born crooked will take a while or simply a new generation to be educated with principles of supporting each other human being as an equal rather than identifying oneself from a certain nation, race, religion, political affiliation, financial status etc. so until then, It should be part of our democratic decision-making processes to endorse the Living Income model as a way to stop wars, redirect that money to fund social security, to provide higher wages as the incentives for people to realize that a nation’s power and ability to compete within the global market resides within the ability to have every citizen protected with money to live as a human right, having access to good public services, higher wages, improved education systems, unconditional healthcare, participating in the administration of nation’s resources through national corporations and in essence becoming a person that works on building and strengthening the nation’s economy, instead of taking the job to become a soldier – due to having no other means to make a living – to kill with the excuse of defending their nation, leave their families and return with missing limbs, diseases/addictions and post traumatic disorders – or worse, not return at all.
War has never been and won’t EVER be the way to get a nation out of a crisis – it might be so for certain corporations and businesses but for the people, for life on Earth it is obvious it only means death and destruction and a direct attack against ourselves.
So, How can the military budget be redirected to fund a Living Income?
Through new or emerging political parties that endorses the Living Income Guaranteed proposal which will have to result in an unprecedented political revival from the people that have been currently disenchanted by politics and the government, because in essence: we have to become the politicians that can propose and vote on these fundamental changes. It’s time we learn how to manage ourselves, our lives, our resources, our nations in a way that is best for everyone, including those that are already living quite well off within the current version of capitalism we live in. The ability to change our current ‘war paradigm’ is in our hands.
Investigate more in the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal where not only do we propose the funding of each individual’s right to live in dignity, but also contribute to a genuine way to implement world peace.
For more education on war expenditure visit:
- Like us on Facebook: DAWN
Artworks by: Damián Ledesma