As I mentioned before, the federal government is a self-serving and self-interested business just like any other business. But there is a fundamental and key difference between the federal government as a business and any other business, which is that the main revenue source of the federal government – namely, taxes – are drawn from the barrel of the gun and by holding people at gunpoint, as well as through the threat of jail. Meanwhile, other businesses have to earn their revenue through creativity, hard work, and risk-taking. Thus, if you subtract its ability to draw revenue at gunpoint and its threat of jail, the federal government would fail as a business, because its business model – namely, the imposition of chaos and war in order to sell weapons – goes against the basic design and inherent purpose of the international economy and international system, which is order and peace.
Thus, if the federal government was like any other business – in the sense that it had to earn its revenue through creativity, hard work, and risk-taking – the federal government would immediately fail. Moreover, the federal government has never really created or produced anything. It has always been individuals and regular people who have built businesses, corporations, and nations. Also, the world is in a transition phase between a 30-year epoch defined by chaos and war on one hand, and an indefinite period that will largely be defined by global business and commerce on the other hand. As mentioned on numerous occasions, war cannot coexist with global business and commerce, which is why the federal government as a business enterprise and business model fails, whereas other businesses and industries are rising.
And if the federal government is a business, then war is the product which it is offering to the global market. But war is a product that people do not want to buy voluntarily. Thus, as mentioned before, people around the world are bound to the United States through a situation which the 20th century Iranian philosopher and writer Jalal Al-e-Ahmad called “Compulsory Commerce.”
Now, the only way by which America’s federal government can stop or thwart the natural transition away from a 30-year period of chaos and war towards an indefinite period of international business and commerce is by “pulling the rug” from underneath the international system. Since the end of World War II, international commerce and international security has been underpinned by American military installations around the world. Biden tried pulling the rug from underneath Afghanistan in August as a test-run to see if this ploy would render the outcome he wished for. But Afghanistan proved that the “ace in the hole” or the “trick up the sleeve” or the final trick out of the bag for Washington – which is to pull the rug from underneath the international system – does not really work. Other countries have contingency plans in the event that Washington pulls the rug from under them.
Plus, if we look at things logistically, by the year 2039, Washington will not even have a single dollar to spend on a global security architecture, because the entire budget of the Pentagon will go to pensions and social benefits, according to one former defense official. In any other situation, an entity or a person would have to adjust or evolve in order to survive. The question is, why should a bureaucrat be an exception to the rule?