The need to convince the public to go to war is the only ethical and necessary negotiation that has to take place. If the public agrees they will pay their taxes or buy war bonds. If not, there can be...
Agree.
Convincing the public that some war is "justified/necessary" has worked far too often.
Don't you think?
Why? Because A, states/war lobbyists intentionally escalate. And B, they come up with very well crafted narratives.
Separation of money and state is necessary and would go a long way.
But I'm afraid it's far from enough to prevent "unnecessary" wars.
Government would IMO also need to be more transparent and function with much more simple principles so that the public is actually in control, instead of just being made spectators of a well crafted theatre play with the purpose of simulating public influence on policy.
Convincing the public that some war is "justified/necessary" has worked far too often.
Don't you think?
Why? Because A, states/war lobbyists intentionally escalate. And B, they come up with very well crafted narratives.
Separation of money and state is necessary and would go a long way.
But I'm afraid it's far from enough to prevent "unnecessary" wars.
Government would IMO also need to be more transparent and function with much more simple principles so that the public is actually in control, instead of just being made spectators of a well crafted theatre play with the purpose of simulating public influence on policy.