How to end wars and create peace on the planet

Post Reply New Topic

To end wars power must be descentralized.

It is impossible for the funds acquired by small states, fractions of today's nations, to finance wars of today's magnitude.
There will only be conflicts, in which neighbors could be able to isolate the oppressor and not only prevent other conflicts but make the oppressor reform itself.

Wars are possible thanks to the funds acquired by a central govt that is able to tax a large amount of people.
Through wars these empires expand and grow. When they grow they are able to make more wars with more ease. A vicious cycle that must be stopped with secession from federal/central govts.

I wonder why you keep insisting on this fantasy. It's not going to happen.

I think generally speaking people in alternate positions like say sadists, masochists, thin-skinned a***holes, people like that could care less about the golden rule. It seems like for 'nice' people (not pushovers always so much as 'I could destroy you if you push me but - I'd rather have peace') its a healthy measuring stick and usually comes quite intuitively as the best way to explain why they believe what they do or prefer like meets like in their relationships.

Not level of technology. In the 70's we had the technology for it. But rather it is a matter of economics.

What makes it a fantasy?
How do you know it is not going to happen?

Are you kidding? Some of the most vicious and genocidal conflicts have been "small states" having at each other. The Balkans are a classic example. The numerous african conflicts are another. Creating small states isnt a fantasy.. they have existed for years.. expecting them to be less warlike is.

Some people would like to be tied up and beaten, so that philosophy wont always work.

i am mainly only aware of my own world and i have not read all the political and religious posts in this thread because i do not research things to do with humanity.

so forgive my spanner of ignorance that i drop in the mechanics of this thread. i am a simple thinker about matters such as world peace.

from what i have gleaned from incomplete observation throughout my life, wars and unrest are the result of either greed or disapproval.

greed: people desire to live in much comfort and do not want to suffer any disappointment. they may have enough to eat, and they may have shelter, but they want riches, and they use their might to extract riches from areas where people are poor and can not protect the only resource they have that the greedy people want.

wars are waged over territory and resources because people want to live excessively comfortably at the expense of those they believe they can vanquish.
they either exploit or usurp what they believe they are entitled to at the expense of even the lives of those that have an ingredient that will make their lives more comfortable.
it seems to me that even if a race has access to all they desire except for one thing they would like (that is not crucial), they will move in on those that have that one thing and can not defend it.

like if a person fancies a particular nectar to add to their diets that can be taken from a poor race of people who possess that nectar, but are in misery because they have nothing else, they will take it if they can.

disapproval: even if a race of people have everything they desire, they may not approve of how others lead their lives, and so they desire to exterminate what they disapprove of.

actually i will end my post here because it is very simple and i will waste energy replying further because my post will be like dust in the cracks of the floorboards of discussion of the other passionate posters who wish to talk about specific examples.

(there is nothing else yet that i can post to here tonight, and i am now going to check other threads that may have arisen while i was writing this)

It is intellectually dishonest to use examples like these to discredit the people who want their independence from tyrannical governments.
Specially when these examples denote a group of people trying to take over the land of other people using violence. I do not propose that.

All I'm saying is lets decentralize power because too much power on a few hands proves to cause corruption.
If you believe that power centralization is a good thing, promote it, but admit that violence must be used to keep power in the hands of a few.

The State does that, they create and support corporations to do it under the banner of "the private sector".
The State fears a free market where no one has special legal privileges over others, they can't compete with that, their monolithic institution would simply dissolve if that was the case. They rather maintain market intrusion through their monopoly on force and laws to maintain their agenda of expansionism, power centralization.
They do not help the "private sector" unless it is profitable for the existence of the State.
The mistakes these corporate giants make are paid by printing paper money and by the treasury, creating a debt that will be paid by the public through their extorted production.
All under the excuse of "too big to fail" and "we have to save the economy".


This disapproval is seen among religions and the State(which are basically institutions operating on the same terms of higher than thou mentality, telling you what is right or wrong, what you can and cannot do, undermining ethics and focusing on an arbitrary doctrine based on the judgement of a majority and politicians).
They FEAR that others will endanger their way of life. They are paranoid. They thrive on "if you're not my friend then you are my enemy".
They need to convert you and force is their preferred method of conversion.
Violence initiation seems to be the factor that makes their disapproval a problem.
You can disapprove of something but taking violent measures to stop these things, when they do not affect you, is where the problem forms.

Everything that pertains a violent nature and/or promotes violence should be avoided, boycotted and discredited. Violence in self defense is another thing and what "self defense" is should only be a physical matter and not and ideological one(i.e. material possessions and ideology/doctrine).

Its just plain dishonest to deny that small states can and do engage in horrific violence and warfare, both internally and externally. Decentralizing power does not prevent conflict, it merely changes its nature. Regime change is often a very nasty form of warfare, as is fighting "for independence".

Mutually Assured Destruction

(deleted)

Last edited by Tim_Tex on 01 Feb 2010, 7:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kill the Rothschilds

Imagine there's no......


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GAHFrLAxzM[/youtube]

I thought your answer was going to be to legalize public nudity...