Military Action and Linguistic Shortcuts

Human beings have an astonishing knack for following political leaders, even when such obedience does not align with their individual interests. A striking example of this phenomenon is nationalism, which has surged in response to recent geopolitical events. Following the U.S. government’s military actions against Iran’s nuclear facilities, it is almost inevitable that many Americans and Iranians will rally behind their respective leaders, often without questioning the rationale behind such allegiance.

In his insightful work, On Power (Du Pouvoir), Bertrand de Jouvenel astutely observes that “the essential reason for obedience is that it has become a habit of the species.” This raises intriguing questions about the evolutionary origins of our tendency to submit to authority. In the context of collective action problems—where individuals often find it beneficial to adopt a submissive role in the face of dominant authorities—the dynamics of the Hawk-Dove game come into play. Nationalist propaganda further fuels this compliance, often exacerbated by a general ignorance of fundamental economic principles.

Interestingly, classical liberals and libertarians are among the few who resonate with James Buchanan’s “faith” in a society where every individual can enjoy equal freedom. This belief is supported by theories of spontaneous order, which suggest that freedom can lead to organic and beneficial societal structures.

The events of June 21 should not merely be labeled as “a U.S. strike on Iran,” as is commonly phrased, but rather a targeted attack by the U.S. government on the assets of the Iranian state—potentially including human assets, a grim reality often glossed over. It is crucial to recognize that such linguistic shortcuts serve only to obscure the fact that political and social phenomena arise from individual actions and preferences. Regardless of one’s stance on military events, it is essential to resist the temptation to conflate individuals with the larger groups they are perceived to belong to, as this can lead to dangerous oversimplifications.

The use of political hyperbole often aims to enhance the obedience of the populace rather than to constrain the authority of rulers. The broader issue of government power limitations is a complex and multifaceted discussion, one I have explored extensively in this blog, particularly through the lenses of economic and philosophical theorists like Buchanan and Anthony de Jasay.

Nuclear weapons present a particularly harrowing challenge, as their victims are largely indiscriminate. This provides a horrifying leverage for those in possession of such arms: “Submit, or I will harm your population, even if it endangers my own.” In my perspective, the principle of preventing dangerous entities from acquiring nuclear capabilities is a defensible stance, one that requires careful consideration in the context of global security.