Profitting from war should be a capital crime.

I think those who profit from wars should be tried, and if found guilty, terminated.

This should be adopted as a world law, to serve as a deterrence.

Too bad it's just a thought experiment... 

Views: 226

Replies to This Discussion

Richard, do you have particular people in mind?  Where do you draw the line as to "profit"?  Soldiers are paid.  Arms manufacturers are paid.  People who sew uniforms, make military food, provide medicine to armies profit.  Does it matter whether it is an offensive or defensive war?  


Not disagreeing.  Just thinking about the details.  The devil (who doesn't exist) is always in the details.

" Where do you draw the line as to "profit"? "

I've brought this up in various circles, this is always the first question.

As it is primarily a thought experiment:

Everyone from the CEOs, the shareholders, down to the guy who tightens a bolt on an assembly line, and the boots on the ground.

"Does it matter whether it is an offensive or defensive war?"

Nope, if it's a defensive war, there should be no profit, period.

The idea is -> Deterence

After all, almost every conflict in the last 50 years has seen some folks profiting from the offensive and defensive sides both, often at the same time.

Even the guy (or Rosie the Riveter) on the assembly line...  This sounds like a bloodbath!  Millions!   You sure about that?  It sounds like war!

How about serial killers  - they're pretty heinous.  Kill the donut lady who profits from selling yummies to the factory workers at McDonnell Douglas, but not Ted Bundy?

"Even the guy (or Rosie the Riveter) on the assembly line...  This sounds like a bloodbath!  Millions!"

Absolutely sure...

"How about serial killers"

Not a systematic problem, capital punishment is not a deterrent here.

"Kill the donut lady who profits from selling yummies to the factory workers at McDonnell Douglas, but not Ted Bundy?"

Yup, if they knowingly participate and profit in crimes against humanity, deemed a capitol offense; …absolutely.

I just happen to think war is the most heinous crime against all humanity, fuck casus belli, I don't believe in it, …either

Ok .. Sounds like a good idea. Wars are big profit makers and encourage corruption.

Sentient Biped: Are you familiar with, The Seville Statement on Violence?

This is the basis of my li'l thought experiment, a species which can invent war can also invent peace.

The reason I'm against capital punishment in the first place is that it's a means to revenge and retribution without any evidence of being a deterrent, because it doesn't address a systematic problem, but rather; crimes committed by individuals.

The idea of capital deterrence here has to be all-encompassing, …or any loop-hole leaves room for wars.

The idea is "Knowingly" profiting from war, and that responsibility lies with all.

Peace is overrated... our obsession with the preciousness of life and peace is was has brought on human overpopulation. Humans are not precious... until we drop down to a few thousand... then we'd be precious. For now, we're just another plague on the earth, no different from viruses or bubonic rats.

I am not against capital punishment for moral reasons, as I don't believe in morality, it's all arbitrary to me. But I am against capital punishment dolled out by our dumb governments for fiscal reasons. With the justice system as it is today, it costs millions and millions of dollars to put someone through the ringer. It's just not worth it. It's cheaper to keep them in prison for life.

However, in situations of self defence, or while witnessing a serious crime, I have no issues with capital punishment delivered on the spot, it's the absolute most efficient way to put an end to repeat offending.

I am also in agreement with elimination of heads of state, and major money tycoons, as was done in Cuba, Russia, China, etc when it is to create a more egalitarian society. No society can truly achieve any significant change without eliminating the people who control the status quo. Your example would kind of fall into this category... except in my method, the regular system of determining who is guilty would no longer exist as we know it.

"Your example would kind of fall into this category…"

Nope, you forgot one important component to the thought experiment, …though I doubt it would change anything for you.

Well... it's in line with "those who profit from war", my definition of warfare is pretty wide.

No, actually …it misses the point entirely.

While you're advocating mass murder, I'm advocating the diametric opposite, that there is no valid casus belli, …and deterrence involves a choice.

See: "Knowingly"

Knowingly implies some of them are innocent... I think those who are guilty all know they are, but they know they will get away with it.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service