Comment: I agree (mostly)

(See in situ)

I agree (mostly)

Where I agree (with you):

1) Nothing like free-trade exists with strategic "energy source" commodities as oil, gas, coal - all major interventionist wars last two decades were fought for control of this resources

2) if there wouldn't be both domestic and international interventionism into nuclear energy market......we would have the 4th generation nuclear technologies commercionalized realistically at the end of 1980's

Here's where I disagree:

".....I object that this interventionism is usually concerted and has supranational character"

Here's RP's quote "Nothing promotes peace better than free trade. Countries that trade with each other generally do not make war on each other, as both countries gain economic benefits they do not want to jeopardize. ... Trade is much more profitable. Also, trade and friendship apply much more effective persuasion to encourage better behavior, as does leading by example."

Google "RP free trade" or "RP barrel of a gun"

Now -- I disagree with you when you say it's "more than" supranational character at play -- suggesting there's international collusion beyond the consumers control.

This is false -- The Consumer is at the very least 2/3rds of the "evil they" revenue stream -- We are 2/3rds the revenue stream of Banks and of Politicians. It's banks and politicians that make up the "other" 1/3rd of the "evil they" revenue stream. So, we are nearly 100% of the "evil they" revenue stream when you look at it that way.

If every country came to that understanding then we could chop their vice-grip over purchasing power (for good).

Now -- Voting is Perpetual War (this is obvious as neither sides ever gets "exactly" what they want -- Controlled Opposition.

If we look at Military, Monopoly Positions, and Voting as "War" then re-apply RP's logic "that free-trade and not war begets peace" we begin to see what needs to take place.

What needs to take place to arrive at Consumer-Sovereignty is "free-trade" and "not war"