Concerning Conflict

We live in a world of scarcity. We will never know a time when a single thing, like an apple, can be consumed by more than one person at a time (i.e. not shared, wholly consumed). As a result, humans have developed methods of avoiding conflict over scarce goods such as through the development of, and adherence to, property rights. When conflicts do arise, those involved are directly impacted by the outcome of the conflict. As a result, the vast majority of people avoid conflict whenever possible. This is not the case when conflicts arise between states.

The bellicose leaders of the governments of the United States and North Korea have recently seen fit to rattle their nuclear sabres over the north Pacific. One is an elected bully accustomed to getting his way and the other is a self anointed “supreme leader” of a nation oppressed by his communist regime. These distinctions aside, their common penchant for conflict is increasingly on display. Conflict is far more easily entered into when the combatants have no skin in the game.

Kim Jung-un rules with an iron fist over a nation of people shielded from 21st century advances. Donald Trump commands the most powerful military force in the history of earth. Each willingly proposes to send people under their command into the nuclear breach. Neither will shed blood should bombs begin to rain. Neither will see his son or daughter’s flag-draped coffin return from a distant battle zone. It is this absence of direct consequence which makes each of these fools far more willing to enter into war.

More of that which is Seen and that which is Unseen
We respect your privacy. Et Invisibilium will never sell or share your email address.

Misnomer Du Jour: Sacrifice

We are often told of the sacrifices made by those who the state presents as heroes. These include the military, first responders, emergency medical professionals, and anyone who tends for the infirm, be they old or young. The actions of these people, we are told, amount to sacrifice. However, the only way for the term to accurately be applied is by a third party judging the benefit gained by those engaged in “sacrifice.” No voluntary act can be termed a sacrifice.

As Ludwig von Mises made clear in Human Action, all voluntary actions of individuals are purposeful. This is because the lack of any perceived benefit precludes action; if a person has all that they desire, they have no incentive to act. Humans act to address their desires, achieve their goals, or alleviate their discomfort. Their choice of actions is based on their understanding of how the means available will attain the desired outcome. While subjective perception is not infallible, the choice of actions may not ultimately achieve the intended goal. However, this doesn’t change the fact that the action was perceived as the best means available at the time it was chosen by the individual choosing to act.

In the case of those in the military, for example, the choice to volunteer is made with some end in mind. This end might be the defense of freedom, fulfillment of a perceived obligation, opportunity for adventure, escape from poverty, or any other potential goal deemed worthy of entering into a profession where death or serious injury might ensue. Those who volunteer might be mistaken regarding their chosen path. For example, I would argue that the U.S. military does not defend freedom either here in the U.S. or abroad. However, my personal preferences and beliefs are not universally shared; many today do join the U.S. military because they believe it to be the best way to defend freedom.

When the unthinkable happens and a soldier is killed, those on the sidelines refer to this death as a sacrifice. However, that soldier chose the course she deemed best for reaching her ends. Her death, to others, might seem too great for the benefits they perceive, but her choice to enlist came with the understanding that this might be the result and, therefore, that the risk of death was not a sufficient reason to choose another action. She could not claim to have sacrificed regardless how others might describe her actions.

This is not to say that actions cannot seem selfless, only that they cannot be selfless. Our actions are always driven by our personal perceptions and goals. There can be nothing sacrificial in that.

Building Arguments

The Austrian school of economics is unique in the field largely due to its reliance on deductive reasoning over empiricism. This doesn’t mean that empirical evidence has no value, only that it is used to confirm rather than develop hypotheses. The use of deductive reasoning led the early leaders of the Austrian school to develop theories in marginal utility, time preference, and the business cycle.

The advantage to such an approach is consistent, logic based argumentation; it is difficult to counter a contention when it is built on soundly applied logic. With sound reasoning, policy decisions can be prescribed with confidence not in their predictive nature but in the certainty that they are pointed in the correct direction.

Since Ludwig von Mises, Austrian economic theory has been grounded in what he termed “praxeology,” the science of human action. With the individual as the starting point, the tendencies of individual action lead the Austrian economist to develop broader economic theory. The fact that an item possessed today is of greater value than the same item possessed tomorrow, for example, enabled Austrian economists to develop theories of interest as it relates to time. These theories could then further be extrapolated, logically, to show how interference with interest rates creates false signals regarding individual time preferences and ultimately leads to mistakes in investment. These mistakes cause the business cycle. The most complex theories put forth by economists of the Austrian school can all be traced back, logically, to the actions of individuals.