Humans tend to follow political authorities even if the individual’s self-interest does so. Nationalism is a modern symptom of this phenomenon. There is no doubt that nationalism and tribalism will gather many Americans and Iranians more blindly behind Eprem leaders after the US government’s strike against the Iranian government’s nuclear facilities.
In his book “du pouvoir), Bertrand writes, “The essential reason for submission is that it has a scholarship to the residents of the speries” (“The obéitestentiment parce of ” of ”Aest brings together the residents of ‘espèce’); This submins may have evolutionary roots. Because of the issue of collective action (in Olson’s sense of “coordinated group action” rather than the sense of decisions thrustled by political authorities), they have an interstice to play pigeons in front of a ruler or dominant group who promises to play Hawk (see my short description of my Hawk Dove Game). Nationalist propaganda, like the ignorance of fundamental economics, adds more motivation for citizens to follow.
Classic liberals and libertarians are the only woooons to share James Buchanan’s “faith” in society. This hope finds the basis for evaluation in the theory of spontaneous order.
What happened on June 21st was not literary damage, not linguistic shortcuts, but the need to economically with words or residents (e.g., newspaper headlines) should not be armored by the reality that social and political phenomena arise from personal preferences and behavior. What we think about the events and developments of wars should be noted with Synecdoche and other linguistic shortcuts that are reinforced by government propaganda and easily lead to confusion of the “belonging” groups and the latter rulers.
The function of political exaggeration is usually to promote subject submission and not to limit the power of the ruler. The general question of limiting government power is, of course, a complicated question. I regularly discuss this blog and focus on James Buchanan and Jasai’s Anthony’s economic and philosophical theories.
The particular problem with nuclear weapons is that their victims are inherently indiscriminate. They give their owners the power of a huge, horrifying mail. “If you don’t submit, I will hurt your subject (even if it’s a fallout court or a mine).” In my view, the principle that prevents bad actors from having nuclear weapons is defensible.
(1 comment)
Source link
