georgephillip;
et al,
No, I don't think so. The difference is in "intent" and the extension of "influence."
Unacceptable risk.
(COMMENT)
All you do in this case is make it impractical and unaffordable to maintain a defense program. And while that might suit your agenda for the US, it would merely transfer the industry off-shore, prevent the US from maintaining a standing force, and raise its vulnerability and susceptibility to external aggression, coercion and political intimidation.
In effect such a policy would make it impractical "provide for the common defence" under The Constitution.
No other nation in the world is going to unilaterally disarm.
Most Respectfully,
R
Rocco...aren't you conflating "defense" and "war?"
Defending the US homeland hasn't required a war since 1945, at least.
It makes more sense to defend this country from Wall Street and Pentagon corruption, IMHO.
Taxing war into extinction wouldn't prohibit all defense spending, but it would trim the profit margins found in
imperial projects like the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Who knows, maybe more of America's richest 1% would have a Pat Tillman experience?
(COMMENT)
Profit is a necessary evil of capitalism and the insistent climb up Malsow's Ladder of Hierarchy. It is part of the human condition set in our society as a species.
Taxation is a means of support for the infrastructure framework supporting the society. While it can have adverse effects in braking aspects of the economy, that is not its intended goal; nor should it be an intended purpose. The maintenance and advancement of the infrastructure should, to the maximum extent possible, be beneficial to the health and prosperity of the culture, and society as a whole. Not a braking mechanism.
The US doesn't have "imperial" aims; that is, the US does not have the intent to establish an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship with other nations through military might --- using the concept of domination and subordination as a foundation. However, it was
(for a short time) a political-military hegemony; that is to say, that after WWII, it had a huge "sphere of influence"
(hence the concept of a "superpower"); however, the US is on the downward slope on that curve of power, lacking the resources and economic might to maintain the infrastructure that powers scientific and technical advancements that keep a nation strong above all other in commerce and industry.
The US introduction into Afghanistan was originally a move to curb Soviet expansionism. However, after the events of 911, direct intervention was required as a retaliatory measure against the aggression of a non-state actor
(al-Qaeda) being sheltered by the Afghan Regime
(the Taliban). This differs significantly from the intervention in Iraq which was a hegemonic move to establish an umbrella of influence over the entire Middle East/Persian Gulf Region, caught in the turmoil of multiple destabilizing influences; tackling several several issues at once
(only one of which was Palestine).
I was a soldier for a major portion of my life
(having retired as a result of a permanent disability). No true soldiers want anyone to have the "Pat Tillman experience;" socio-economics the least of all in the universe of reasons. Again, life as the currency means for another form of taxation, is not a braking mechanism.
BTW: There will always be rich, powerful, and influential in society, above and beyond the less affluent; just as there will always be the righteous and criminal. They are just a few of the facets that shape both America, and the developing nations of the world. If everyone was affluent, then "affluence" would have no meaning, everyone would be in the middle class.
Most Respectfully,
R
, the Hanja for 'dream' and 'light.' He is rare among politicians in modern Korean history in that he is revered in both South and North Korea."
