In Bertrand Russell’s article he states that, “the man who lends his money to a government is in the same position as the bad men in shakespeare who hire murderers” (3). Reading this statement brought about confusion and disapproval in me. I did not agree with the statement.
The argument being made was that if money is spent on things that bring no pleasure to anyone’s being, then the money has gone to waste. Russle says that the moeney would have been better off if spent gambling or drinking. He quantifies happiness as if it has a monetary value. His arguments suggest that only if the money we make is used to bring happiness to ourselves or others, it was an investment well made.
I disagree with the authors statement because I believe that a true investment takes time to develope and breed a true profit. If one was to invest in the militarty of his or her country they probably won’t see any instant benefits, but the long term benefits outweigh any instant gratification that a spending spree could bring. The military ensures that everything that we work for and attain through our wealth is protected. Making a statement that suggest the the military is a waste of an investment is absurd. It might be a different situation if the country had a corrupt government and military in power, but that specification was not made. In those cases it would be better to not make any money at all rather than funding a murderous society. In countries where the military’s main agenda is to serve and protect the people, I would not mind letting my wealth support their efforts.