On 3 December 2015 four RAF Tornado jets took off from the Akrotiri base in Cyprus and dropped bombs on six targets in an Isis-controlled oilfield in eastern Syria. The Minister of Defence and media carefully positioning the move as an offensive operation designed to demolish a primary source of funding for Isis in Syria, and a show of solidarity with allies in the fight against terrorism. And this forged ahead despite a public outcry and appeals to the government to refrain from taking Britain to war.
War, typically speaking, doesn’t reflect the collective will of an entire nation. Through the use of the Internet and the availability of reliable alternative, independent news sources it’s becoming abundantly clear that the government that we, the British people, have empowered, are making decisions and taking actions that are against our general beliefs and wants. And they do so because war is a power pursuit that is hugely profitable for them, and their corporate masters.
Unfortunately for the men and women who don the British uniform and are manipulated into killing innocents, including children, and for those left grieving when life is lost in battle - war comes at an exorbitant humanitarian cost. It has long-term repercussions and the burden of the consequences don’t fall at the feet of the initiators and dictators. Instead it’s the citizens that carry the heavy weight.
But what power do we have against the government? How could we restrict their warmongering ways? How could we ensure that our general desire for peace is heeded by those who we put into a position to serve us?
Well, let’s consider a scenario.
What if, when wanting to go to war, instead of simply taking a vote behind closed doors in chambers, the PM had to present his case directly to the people. His address would need to declare his reasons for wanting to initiate an attack, and more pertinently, he’d have to advise the full cost of the planned action, specifically disclosing how much they have in reserves and what amount would be required directly from our pockets.
Let’s think about that for a moment.
The government would have to ask our permission to go to war because they’d need us to fund the surplus money required. Given this requirement, it’s my firm belief that we’d vehemently deny their appeal, not only from a humanitarian perspective, but for financial reasons too.
At this point you might be thinking, ‘This is absurd! Why would we need to give the government our money for war?’
Well, in this particular synopsis, the government lack something precious to them. In our story, money is finite. In our story, the money press doesn’t run at the whim of the government. In our story, Bitcoin is money. And it takes the power of money and puts it firmly in the hands of the people the government are supposed to serve, but bypass regularly for their own political and financial gain.
In the face of finite funding, wars simply can’t be initiated and continued. It’s impossible for government to manipulate Bitcoin like they do fiat currency, and therefore, in a bitcoin driven economy it would be up to the true owners of the wealth – the people – to choose whether they’ll willingly fund military action.
By taking infinite fiat currency out of the equation, we’re able to sever the government’s ability to do as they wish, most especially when it comes to how they spend what is, in principle, the nation’s wealth, not theirs. And put an end to politically fuelled wars for good.