Thanks for alerting everyone to this. I was inclined to sign until I read
this portion:
"The root of all war is profit and we will not allow the war profiteers to
own our labor or steal the fruits of that labor to be used solely for their
greed of power and money;"
I think this is supposed to mean that socialist countries don't start wars,
which is contradicted by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the war
between Vietnam an Cambodia. Anyway, I do plan to attend the anti-war
demonstration tomorrow at the Civic Center - even though I don't agree with
all the slogans.
A socialist/communist country, does not wagine war for the profit of corporations, but instead promote the hegemony of the party in power, since payments and prestige handed to a bloolusting army will protect the political elite from being deposed.
Not all people work surely for profit. All people will look after their self-interest, however.
On an unrelated note:
Big story in the WSJ. Too bad they don't mention libertarians once...
I started to sign Cindy's peace petition, but upon reading it I also had qualms; to me it sounded a little too one-world orderish for my taste.
The WSJ link did not work for me. However, there is an interesting article in the front page of the print version of today: "Tea-Party Activists Complicate Republican Comeback Strategy." Whew! good that it is not those pesky third parties messing up the works this time!
Cindy, I signed it and forwarded it but below is a post to lpsf by Marc Joffe who organized a very large protest in front of Pelosi's office on the fifth anniversery of the Iraq invasion. He was concerned with the sentence about profits.
“The root of all war is profit and we will not allow the war profiteers to own our labor or steal the fruits of that labor to be used solely for their greed of power and money;”
The sentence would better read
“The root of all war is illicit gained profit and we will not allow the war profiteers to own our labor or steal the fruits of that labor to be used solely for their greed of power andillicitly gained money;”
I will tell you what I learned from Mises. (Honestly earned) Profit is the measure of the amount of value that a firm has added to a society's well being. The firm takes labor , capital and land , mixes them together and directs them in such a way that more value is created in the form of products and services than resources are consumed in making them.
Would the world be better off if we had nothing but losses. How long would the organic grocer last, or the organic farmer, or the electric car maker, or the windmill maker if they only made losses. Would there be more poverty if everybody was making losses?
Honest profits need to be distinguished from illicit profits made from unfair advantage given by the government, and especially the governments fascist financial system.
Thank you, Kurt. Yes, that was an interesting article to us libertarians, in that we have always been ignored, excoriated for encouraging "wasted votes", or putting "worse evils" in power, etc. Now with the rise of Republican Party factions, such as Ron Paul and Tea Parties, these factions seem to have inherited the criticism previously saved for us. As you say, the article totally ignores libertarians; and I expect that trend to continue as Tea Party activists, and experienced Ron Paul strategists take over the small-government mantle.
The root of many wars is war profiteering and we will not allow the war profiteers to own our labor or steal the fruits of that labor to be used solely for their greed of power and money.
War profiteering is evil. Profit in general is necessary and good if we are not to have universal poverty.
Focusing the statement on the real evil doers, war profiteers, may make the statement more effective and more appealing to people outside of the left leaning community.
Most profit creation is not enhanced by war, as most profits are earned make what people need, food, education, shelter, medicine, transit, clothing, heat, etc. Firms engaged in making what people need to live and prosper are usually hurt by war, with business uncertainties aggravated by the taxes and inflation and financial instability related to funding the wars, not to mention the destruction of resources.
And many other wars have other motivating factors...
Socialist countries that outlaw profit, also make war. War is good for the regime. It focuses the populations attentions outward so they will ignore the shortcomings of the rulers.
Perhaps anothe sentence could be added...
The root of many wars is the selfish self preservation of the power elite in government.
And God knows that impoverished Religious Theocracies make war, with nary a profit to be found. The root of theocratic wars is the selfish preservation of the power of the religious elite. This is the most common root of war in the long torrid tale of History. So how about adding this..
The root of many wars is the self aggrandizement of the power elite in government and religious institutions.
I agree it's an improvement; however I think even with this fix the sentence would remain technically inaccurate. Profits, illicit or otherwise, are *not* the root cause of all wars. There are religious wars, wars of revenge, wars of pre-emptive defense (not that starting a war is necessarily a legitimate means of defense, but we're talking about motivations), wars of independence or liberation, etc.
Bear in mind also that many leftists see ordinary business profits as illicit, so Phil's recommended change in wording would not necessarily have the same meaning for them that it does for us.