IN A NUTSHELL
Author's Note 
As a follow up to my reflections on the Munich security conference, find an article here assessing the opportunity cost in human life/health inequity of the growing military spending. The article examines the moral implications of allocating a substantial share of global economic capacity to systems of violence while massive deficits in life‑assuring goods persist.

“Not in my name” becomes not only a moral protest against direct violence, but also a demand for fiscal priorities that safeguard life. Ethical selective tax objection emerges as a civic mechanism to articulate this demand

By Juan Garay

Co-Chair of the Sustainable Health Equity Movement (SHEM)

Professor/Researcher of Health Equity, Ethics and Metrics (Spain, Mexico, Cuba, Brazil)

Founder of Valyter Ecovillage (valyter.es)

By the same Author on PEAH: see HERE

Not in My Name

Military Spending as Toxic GDP, Health Inequity, and the Case for Ethical Selective Tax Objection

 

Introduction

Global military expenditure in 2024 reached approximately USD 2.7 trillion, marking the largest annual allocation to organized capacity for violence in history.¹ Against a backdrop of persistent and profound structural deprivation, international security fora such as the Munich Security Conference 2026 have become platforms where Western powers articulate a worldview of escalating geopolitical tension and Western self-claimed supremacy and privilege. Recent analyses note that leading delegates at the Munich Security Conference framed the global order as undergoing “wrecking‑ball politics,” urging investment in hard power and asserting Western strategic supremacy amid rising multipolar tensions.⁶

This rhetoric of urgency, deterrence, and confrontation buttresses arguments for ever‑increasing military expenditure, even as fundamental questions about global justice and the allocation of scarce resources remain unresolved.

While direct conflict fatalities in 2024 are estimated at approximately 239,000 deaths,¹ a much larger and more persistent hazard to human life arises from structural inequity. In 2023, the net burden of health inequity (nBHiE) in deficit countries was estimated at 12.6 million avoidable deaths, out of 15.6 million globally.² These deaths occur in settings where basic conditions of health and dignity are chronically unmet due to resource distribution failures.

At the same time, the global deficit required to ensure a universal minimum dignity threshold is estimated at USD 7.563 trillion annually.² The present article examines the moral implications of allocating a substantial share of global economic capacity to systems of violence while massive deficits in life‑assuring goods persist.

Toxic GDP and Opportunity Cost

The concept of toxic GDP — portions of economic output that are used in ways that degrade human well‑being — provides an analytical lens for interpreting large‑scale military spending. As recent commentary on restoring the broken human deal argues, certain sectors of economic activity transform human work and wealth into social toxins when they sustain capacities for destruction rather than life support.³ Military expenditure exemplifies such toxic allocation.

When military spending of USD 2.7 trillion is compared to the USD 7.563 trillion required to close the global dignity deficit, the share of toxic GDP devoted to militarization is approximately:

2.7/7.563≈35.7%2.7 / 7.563 ≈ 35.7\%2.7/7.563≈35.7%

Applying this proportion to the 12.6 million excess deaths in deficit countries yields:

0.357×12,600,000≈4,498,2000.357 × 12,600,000 ≈ 4,498,2000.357×12,600,000≈4,498,200

Thus, ≈ 4.5 million preventable deaths annually can be ethically attributed to the opportunity cost of military expenditure. This estimate is not an epidemiological causation claim, but a proportional ethical attribution that highlights the moral significance of resource allocation choices.

Reframing Security as Health Justice

Security rhetoric at forums like Munich 2026, where Western leaders not only emphasize military readiness but also implicitly appeal to cultural and civilizational privilege to justify augmentation of defense budgets, necessitates reframing. The pursuit of deterrence and geopolitical advantage must be juxtaposed with the persistent neglect of structural deprivation that kills millions each year.

Public health and global justice frameworks argue that the prevention of avoidable death from inequity should be at least as central to national and global security policy as militarization.

Ethical Selective Tax Objection

From an ethical standpoint, citizens confronted with the moral asymmetry between militarization and life‑preserving investment may consider the legitimacy of ethical selective tax objection — a claim that taxpayers should not be compelled to finance expenditures that perpetuate structural harm when alternatives exist that directly save lives.

This idea is built upon traditions of conscientious objection to war taxation advocated by international civil society organizations such as Conscience and Peace Tax International and the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee.⁵,⁶ An ethically informed model would allow taxpayers to redirect the proportion of their taxes corresponding to military expenditure toward funds dedicated to health equity, social protection, and basic dignity provision.

Such frameworks strengthen democratic accountability and foreground the moral agency of citizens in shaping public goods. They also align with broader movements in tax justice and human rights that seek to democratize fiscal policy and enhance transparency in how public revenues are deployed.

Conclusion

In 2024–2025, global military rhetoric—including that articulated at conferences such as Munich Security Conference 2026—is increasingly framed around Western strategic primacy, escalating geopolitical competition, and the necessity of higher defense spending.⁶ Despite this, proportional ethical analysis reveals that a large fraction of preventable mortality correlates with the opportunity cost of existing military expenditure relative to unmet basic human needs.

The projection that ≈ 4.5 million avoidable deaths per year can be proportionately attributed to these toxic allocations should give pause to policymakers and public health scholars alike. In an ethical world, defense (in US terms boldly called war) spending should shift to the protection of life through health equity and economic justice.

“Not in my name” becomes not only a moral protest against direct violence, but also a demand for fiscal priorities that safeguard life. Ethical selective tax objection emerges as a civic mechanism to articulate this demand.

References

1. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). SIPRI Yearbook 2025: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security. Stockholm: SIPRI; 2025.
2. Garay J. Enough is Enough, and More is Too Much: Between Basic Dignity and Excess/Hoarding Thresholds. Policies for Equitable Access to Health (PEAH); 2024.
3. Garay J. Restoring the Broken Human Deal: Reframing Toxic GDP and Harmful Economic Allocation. Policies for Equitable Access to Health (PEAH); 2024 Apr 13.
4. Sustainable Health Equity Movement (SHEM). Webinar Series: Ethics and Metrics; Tax Justice as Step Toward Health Equity. Geneva: SHEM; 2023–2025.
5. Conscience and Peace Tax International. Advocacy for Peace Tax Funds and Conscientious Taxpayer Rights. International Civil Society Organization.
6. From Potsdam 1945 to Munich 2026: Technological Leap and Backward Trends in Global Governance, Inequality, and Planetary Health. Policies for Equitable Access to Health (PEAH); 2026 Feb.