Let’s prevent wars

There are no good and bad reasons for war; they are all bad. All wars kill people. There is not any justification for that. War is a crime.  

Everyone thinks that armies protect people, but primarily they actually protect the system that privileged people have established for themselves; they protect the interests of authorities. No wonder why authorities love armies. Authorities teach us to endorse armies, to be proud of them but there is nothing to be proud about. Those who teach wars and learn wars are in reality only criminals. Soldiers are just killers. Killers do not kill other people only; they kill their own souls as well. Such people cannot be normal and cannot live a normal life. 

All the wars are initiated by narcissistic greed of authorities for reaching more power over people. Authorities oppress people and then direct their dissatisfaction against other people. This is a simple formula for manipulation that makes all wars. To stop wars we need to stop authorities. The system I have proposed will do that.  

Let us give each man an equal limited right to give one positive or one negative evaluation to a few people in society monthly. Let each positive assessment gives one dollar to evaluated person, and each negative evaluation takes one dollar from the evaluated person.  

In such a system the President of the US might get 100,000,000 bad evaluations from the American people for the criminal aggression on Iraq for example. That would cost him 100,000,000 dollars. Let’s assume another 99,999,999 people love what the president is doing and evaluate him positively that would bring him 99,999,999 dollars. As a result of all penalties and awards, the President would have to pay a total of 1 dollar.  

However, such support for the war is hard to be achieved even in a competitive warrior up brought society such as the US. Besides that, the people who like such a president would probably have many other people on their lists with a higher positive evaluation priority, so that, they would spend their positive evaluations before the president gets in turn.  

Those who do not like wars could hardly despise someone more than the militant president so that they would undoubtedly give him negative evaluations. Moreover, those who have lost relatives or friends in war or those who become war invalids would probably give bad evaluations to such a president all their lives. I think even today, the President of the US would pay a lot of dollars as a result of his unacceptable leading of the country and therefore he would not dare to call for war anymore.  

Societies where the majority of people support wars, build their own self-destruction. Strong authorities are able to postpone it for a while but the self-destruction is inevitable, and their own practice teaches it.  

Unfortunately, the societies that do not support wars are not successful in building knowledge that may spread such a social orientation around the world. On the contrary, these societies were permanently challenged and attacked from inside and outside so that they failed to present how wonderful life in a beautiful society should look like.  

I've accomplished to present a good society in my book Humanism. Once the system I have proposed is established, people would be satisfied with their lives so that no one would support a militant president and no one would dare to call for war anymore. Besides that, in the system I have proposed, the people decide directly democratically about the allocation of all joined resources, including the monetary assets for the war machine. By having a stable, right, and the just relationship among nations, the new system offers, peoples would allocate no money for armies and armies will cease to exist. In the new system waging wars will be utterly impossible.

 Back to Top