by A.T. Meininger

Created on: November 03, 2009

Only in the absence of governments is peace on Earth a possibility. The thought of what's possible-the idea of ending all war currently seems like a pipe dream. However, it's only when individuals challenge the status quo that real change is possible. I cite for example Einstein who rejected the current physics in order to advance, or the Wright brothers who challenged the notion that "flying is for the birds" and were consequently deemed "crazy". What's real is able to change with enough imagination: I'm willing to put peace into this category.

In the social contract theory Thomas Hobbes said that without government, there would be war of all against all. But it's that way with government! Republicans vs Democrats, pro-life vs pro-choice, minorities vs. WASP, pro-war vs anti-war, religious right vs secular people, pro-government health care vs anti-government health care, and the list goes on. And even after that there are the competing industries: bailouts for financial companies, auto industries, and any other company that needs help. After that, the President still has to pay off his friends who helped get him elected. Bush had to pay back the Haliburton and the pharmaceutical companies after re-election, just as Obama is currently paying back big labor and Goldman Sachs. Taxes are not a choice, and millions are exploited for their hard earned labor. The giant money pot is located in Washington D.C. and it's a war of all against all to get a piece of their own money back.

This internal war must stop. Once it stops, the possibility of stopping all external wars is possible. With no state, there is no central money pot for invading armies to seize. With a free population and no gun control, the possibility of invaders significantly decreases because the people are self-interested and more willing to band together for fighting off invaders than they would be to support a military-industrial complex. Where immediate self-interest takes place of third party benefits, the people are more apt to DIY defense than to pay for expensive national armies.

If another country were to attack, what would it attack? There's no central tax base to attack. The army would have to march from town to town, door to door to extort money from the people. But that would be an inefficient way of getting money when the country could simply create the wealth at home.

If another country were to attack, why would it attack? Without a central state that declares wars, the free people would

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>