> So i understand how you got into believing that thesis. Your fundamental departing point is, sorry to say it so bluntly, wrong. Not "different opinions on subjective stuff", but objectively wrong. Wars aren't only about resources

But you don't know how I got into that because you don't know me, and you also don't know that is "objectively wrong" or not. You can't know that, because you don't get to decide if that's an objectively wrong statement. You just have your own belief about it. That's it.

But does sound kind of dumb to say that "war is about resource competition" is "objectively wrong". Because it makes sense, and it is a major basis for conflict. You even seem to accept this ("there are probably some countries that ended up doing that"). How can it be "objectively wrong" if it's true?

Mostly you're arguing against what you imagined I said, not what I actually said (are you doing deliberately to define yourself against something, or just took what I said wrong?) Anyway, I never said all wars caused by states going toward bankruptcy. And I never said, "good taxes means no war". Both those are your inventions. It's a common "reverse the venn diagram" type situation that happens a lot online, but not what I said.

One region our beliefs do differ I think is you seem to think that "ideology" is a "real causative factor" for war. But I think that's mostly made up. Every age gets the ideas it needs (also from the Book), I'll extend that here now, with, "Every war gets the propaganda that justifies it, and unifies, and compels its combatants (or funders/taxpayers) to take part". I see it as: People (the mass population who will be the soldiers) need to be manipulated to go to war, and there will always be those required to craft the narratives that manufacture that motivation, pretext and consent for war. Recent tragic and sad examples: media drumbeat before Iraq war, fake narratives used by Islamic State, media hyperdrive demonization of certain countries over the last 12 months, one of which now has a war going on :(

> You're prescribing a simplistic logical rational basis ...
> So you start from a simplistic and wrong position, and go backwards from there - war is inherently for resources, and taxes are resources, so optimised taxes mean no war.

Actually, son, you're the one doing the logical gymnastics here: inventing a logical chain that doesn't exist in my words (good tax -> no war), simplifying the argument to fight against it (therefore all war caused by bad tax), being duped that ideology is a causative factor for war, rather than a necessary psyop for combatants.

I'm not sure why you want to believe that wars are not about (and primarily about) resources? It makes it seem like you want to believed in a "justified" war. A war that is about something more. I don't mean to attack your personal history and I understand you may have a deep vein of that in your background. My life doesn't have experience of that stuff. But even if my thesis is true, that war is caused by economics, it doesn't take away from the meaning that people derived through the narratives they adopted to fight it, does it? What did the war mean for you? Ultimately that's a personal thing, right, because ultimately everybody fights for their own reason, under their own choice. Whether the narratives were manipulated, people chose to make it mean something to them.

And even if the big picture causative factors were economic, as I'm saying, or a symptom of government mismanagement and insufficient taxation, it doesn't negate the significance of historical grievances or prides, and it doesn't (and it can't, I think) take away from the meaning that people make for themselves about what a war means for them. Just because some country's government fuffed things up, then had to go to war, that does not have to denigrate the pride of that country's people I think. The people can still be proud of who they are.

So for me, the personal and big picture are a separate thing, and I'm not trying to get in your way about that. I understand if what I said could be hurtful to your background, for me, I wasn't speaking to that (which to me is a separate side of it). I'm trying to understand the big picture, geopolitical stuff behind conflict. That's it, I think for me.

I'm actually not that interested in talking about it more. I hope you can respect that, too! :) ;p xx ;p

Let's not make a war out of this between us XD :) xx ;p