That’s a fine sentiment. I think this is another issue that goes into purgatory because we have no proof either way. I understand that we have logic, but until we can empirically show that with no state there is no war, it’s impossible to falsify the claim either way. I’d like to see it tried though. It would be worth finding out.
War does not result from the ability to coerce, but the necessity to. If there are alternatives, they are always less costly than war.
Hmm interesting theory.
Not if making war is how you make a profit. The alternatives are competition for those who sell the weapons, propaganda and reconstruction services which surround war. This is most evident in the banking and manufacturing sectors.
I would also add that man is a hunter and he struggles against nature. War is really the default setting for human survival and only with alternatives comes peace.
I am not sure that this is always the case. For example, let’s say that I am a laborer and am interested in a diamond to make a ring for my wife. The diamond will cost me $3,000. The price of a gun and bullet can be cheaper. There are other consequences, such as having to answer to the law, but what if I judge that these costs are less expensive than the monetary cost I would otherwise incur? Or, what if I believe I can get away with it? My decision to kill was not based on any type of necessity, as I had other options. It came from my subjective belief that it was the cheaper route to take (I, of course, assume that I have no ethical morality): this is ability versus necessity.
Yes war is almost always fought for money and power, usually a combination of both. Not necessarily resources but of course that can be a factor. Even with no resources to gain there is a ton of money to be made for the companies that are making the weapons and then again for the companies that get contracted to rebuild. Iraq is a “gold mine” for private construction contractors right now. Unlike free market economics the profit in war is a zero sum game, many pay the cost with their lives and destruction of their property while others (usually on the other side of the world) reap the benefit from their loss.
You should read “War is a Racket” for starters, it’s a good read, short, and I think it is available free online.
Of course they do but they could never escalate into the state vs. state or state vs. people warfare that we see today.
Modern war requires a government with command over people it doesn’t care about, destroying regions of land and property it doesn’t care about to reach the level it is at today. It is government that gives that control over men and resources when it isn’t earned, when it isn’t earned it isn’t valued, and when it isn’t valued it is squandered in reckless warfare.
I don’t think so.Tribes are not collectivistic. They are simply an extended family and a form of division of labour.
Tribal warfare was caused by completely different factors than modern warfare. Whereas modern wars are the result of competition between states, tribal wars were fought to reduce population (preferably that of other tribes) to bring about an optimal population density and as a consequence, increase living standards.
Modern war is more about economies of scale and intense use of capital than about control over large populations and land.
Yes but they are still fought on populated areas of land destroying much of it in the process. In short you have to blow stuff to get that intense use of capital and that is best done in populated areas, on top of needing to do it in populated areas for the sake of propaganda. The government would have a hard time convincing people they are spending billions a year because they are fighting in Antarctica. There has to be an interest in a population, a terrorist that needs to be stopped, a dictator that needs to be overthrown, weapons that have to be found, etc. to sell the war to the public.
You’re not factoring all the costs, such as the likelihood of getting killed or that the item you are attempting to steal will be destroyed.
People value their life more than a diamond.
Of course, if you can’t buy a diamond because a market for diamonds is banned, then war is your only way of getting diamonds.
Which modern wars specifically?
These are irrelevant to what my point was. Obviously, the costs are subjective, and will depend on each individual situation. Your life is not always on the line, or you may subjectively believe that your life is not on the line.
There’s no point in adding further externalities. Even if in some situations the costs of war are greater than the benefits, it does not follow that this remains true in all cases.
So what are they individualistic?
Show me a tribe where wealth is considered to be the product of the individual and recognizes that individual’s right to own that wealth.
Tribes are primitive forms of collectivism without the nice ancient Greek style buildings and the supreme chief escorted by a bunch of tribal warriors with an ear peace in their ear. So what if everybody is related.
Indeed. And this also applies to the tribes that Stephen is referring to in the Hoppean sense. The difference is with Hoppe, the collectivism is an uncoerced natural form of organization.
A tribe is just an extended family.
Right. A primitive form of collectivism.
I think we need a clarification of definitions, just so we are all on the same page. What is collectivism and individualism?
Also, I think that no matter what your definition of collectivism is, it still fails as an explaination of inter-tribal warfare.
By and large, inter-tribal warfare was the result of overpopulation. When there is a fixed level of land, capital, and technological knowledge, there is an optimal level of population which maximizes living standards. To keep living standards high, population control had to be exercised: long breast feeding, infanticide, inter-tribal warfare, ect.
I don’t see how war just follows from collectivism (whatever you mean by it).