One of the reasons for the existence of government that we are "taught" early on in life is that you can't declare war
and also not declare war against another country at the same time. How can such a decision be made if not by someone
with a higher power?
It takes a bit of reflection to realize that the market can handle even this decision much more elegantly than the democratic
sledge hammer that we use for a fly swatter. Let's look at Iraq for example. The hawks forced us ALL to pay for
knocking off Saddam (how?... you guessed it! The organized crime racket that we call a tax system.) The doves said that
you shouldn't even be able to volunteer to be part of a force to rid the world of this big turkey.
The best solution is to let people fund wars voluntarily. (Yes, I'm trotting out the old "vote with your dollars"
argument again sports fans!) Assuming we are insured by the property protection agency of our choice, there are experts
risking their own money determining whether or not someone is a threat to our property and prosperity. If
an attack makes economic sense, or if enough people line up to pay enough money to knock off a dictator, then the job can
be accomplished without taxation.
If we have learned anything by watching democratic and other governments over the years, we should know that they will
almost never get these decisions right. Our political institutions are just not designed to deliver justice, or even
On a positive note, we can predict the outcomes from a free market / judge-made law system, and apply
any power we can muster to agitate for these (just) outcomes. It's called having a vision, a vision for understanding.