War & Taxes to Separation of State & Capital
Jul 7, 2009 Corporatism, Philosophy, Politics, history
War creates absolutely nothing. War can use resources, and money can be spent on those resources, but in the end it provides nothing but destruction. Every resource spent in was has failed to replenish itself because the act of waging a war in itself is an act of destroying and lending nothing to the people of a nation and nothing within itself to the economy and prosperity of the nation. In a case such as world war two, The United states saw prosperity only from a shift of wealth. Since the destruction of the war was primarily overseas then shifting wealth spent on the war to the United States, and the women and minorities were finally employed while funds came in from exporting goods to other countries. This left the European countries devastated. The United States escaped this fate because it was not the target of the devastation, but the profiteer of all the other nations. In the case of the Seven Year war France was led to debt to pay for the war and chose to resolve this through taxation of it’s people. In the Case of the Iraq war the United States was left to find resources from other sources such as borrowing, debt, and eventually finding a way to pay for all of this.
Leaving a governing power in the position that it now needed money would lead France to unjust actions. Power and privilege was then sold. When the state has need for money, it will find a way to wield the power they have to obtain the money needed. This is much like the Corporatism and Lobbying of today. Those with the power to effect change through legislation for personal gain did so. Those with the money to buy into the power for personal gain also did such. This was government acting in self interest for individuals that were placed above others for the gain of the government, not for the betterment of the people. Because of government’s need for money it became corrupt acting against the interest of the citizens. This makes one wonder if a concept of separation of state and capitol might be just as needed if not more needed than a concept of separation of church and state.
What is liberty in relation to the government or the constitution? More importantly what is Liberty in relation to the subject? How can a state have the interest of the subject in mind if it needs to profit from its only resource, the subject? If all the state can produce is what it takes from the subjects, then the state produces nothing at all, and lives off the labor of the subject. How can a state act in the interest of the subject if it then begins to be involved in capital, and the only source of capitol it has are the subjects whose liberty depends on the states decisions? Will the state act in the subject’s interest or its own interest if it holds the power to advance itself at the expense of the subject?
Related posts:
