Let’s prevent wars
There are no good and bad reasons for war; they are all bad. Wars kill people. There is no justification for that. War is a crime.
Everyone thinks armies protect people, but they primarily protect the system privileged people established for themselves; they protect the interests of the authorities. No wonder authorities love armies. Authorities teach us to endorse armies and be proud of them, but there is nothing to be proud of. Soldiers are killers. Killers do not kill only other people; they kill their own souls as well. Such people cannot be normal and cannot live a normal life.
The narcissistic greed of authorities initiates all the wars to gain more power over people. Authorities oppress people and then direct their dissatisfaction against other people. This simple formula for manipulation causes all wars. To stop wars, we need to stop the authorities. The system I have proposed will do that.
Let us give each person an equal, limited right to give one positive or one negative evaluation to a few people in society monthly. Let each positive assessment give one dollar to the evaluated person, and each negative evaluation take 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 in 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. After all penalties and awards, the President would have to pay a total of 1 dollar.
However, such support for the war is hard to achieve even in a competitive, war-oriented society such as the US. Besides, people who like such a president would likely rank many others higher for positive evaluations, so they would spend their positive assessments before the president gets a turn.
Those who do not like wars could hardly despise someone more than the militant president, so 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 for all their lives. I think even today, the President of the US would pay a lot of dollars as a result of his unacceptable leadership 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 can postpone it for a while, but the self-destruction is inevitable, and their own practice teaches this.
Unfortunately, societies that do not support war fail to build the knowledge needed to spread such a social orientation worldwide. On the contrary, these societies were permanently challenged and attacked from both inside and outside, which prevented them from demonstrating what a wonderful life in a beautiful society should look like.
I’ve presented 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. In the system I have proposed, people would decide directly and democratically how to allocate all shared resources, including the monetary assets for the war machine. By fostering stable and just relationships among nations, the new system suggests that people will allocate no money for armies, and armies will cease to exist. In the new system, waging wars will be utterly impossible.