The more time I’ve spent with Bryan Caplan (both virtually and in real life), the more he has persuaded me of a great many things. One is that people with very strong beliefs should be willing to bet* on those beliefs. Last week, I accidentally gave William Easterly credit for a fantastic post by Adam Martin. Bryan pointed out that anyone with superior knowledge who is confident that the Libyan intervention will “work” should be able to define what that would mean and offer odds on a bet. I’m with Bryan and Adam on this one, and if they’re willing, I’d like to join them on the “yes” side of the following bet for a small sum:
The US will be engaged in military operations against the rebels we’re currently aiding within 20 years.
I’ll reiterate Bryan’s point regarding Adam’s post: we’re saying we don’t know. The people to whom I’m offering the bet are, presumably, confident that intervening in Libya is a good idea. Therefore, they should be willing to offer us odds.
*-For my friends and fellow Christians who oppose gambling, note that the bets we’re talking about are not games of chance. They have much more in common with the instruments people have developed in the market (insurance, financial instruments, etc) to cope with risk and uncertainty.
{ 12 comments }
Art, that’s exactly a game of chance. You’re not gaining ownership of anything while waiting on the outcome of the event.
You’re attempting to define all decision making as a gamble. This is reverse reasoning. All gambles are risks, but not all risks are gambles.
However, if he is already invested in the outcome (aren’t we all) he can lower his exposure to the event by betting it will happen. Then if the event occurs then he will not be as worse off as he might be. The people betting with him may simply disagree with him on the odds and are willing to accommodate him for (in there eyes) a premium.
Art is reducing (by a small amount) his exposure to a Libya. The person he is betting against is taking more risk. Art probably pays the person he is betting against a small premium for them to assume the risk. Conversely, (say they are a part of the MIC) may be interested in a long war in Libya. They may be lowering there risk that the war does not occur and lowering there variance of outcome.
Entirely different than betting on a flip of a coin or a flip of a card.
I wouldn’t take the bet. In a few years the US won’t be able to afford military operations anywhere.
In a few years, the U.S. will be decentralized. That is because people will finally be forced to face the fact that central planning doesn’t work, not in national security, not in monetary matters, it just doesn’t work.
The U.S. will have to get rid of the flawed federal government, because it is not “reformable.” Free the states to retain their independence and sovereignty.
As Rothbard noted, “repudiate the National Debt”:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard190.html
Without the central planning monopoly in “national security,” there no longer will be anyone with enough power to actually provoke people in other territories, as the two Bush presidents have done since 1990. And other territories will have to deal with their own internal problems.
It is futile to bet anything on the Libyan situation.
You are way too optimistic, man.
I automatically am suspicious of anyone who starts off by saying that “the people will finally be forced to face the fact that …” because, well, that never happens. Ever.
Sure, the US will crumble. But it will be slow and agonizingly painful. Crumble isn’t even the right word, really. Erode is a far better term.
Or “devolve.” As in, devolve into its constituent nations.
How would the US be able to succeed in Libya when there is no clear goal?
By defining “succeed” appropriately.
I wouldn’t take this particular bet.
It seems likely to me that at least a few of the militiamen we are training in Libya will return to Afghanistan or Iraq, where many fought previously, within months. This seems especially likely if Islamists are prevented from coming to power in the new Cyrenaician government.
He said the US military would fighting the rebels, not necessarily that it’d be in Libya, so if you’re right, then so is Dr. Carden.
The bet is pointless if it’s made in dollars
Art: “The more time I’ve spent with Bryan Caplan (both virtually and in real life), the more he has persuaded me of a great many things. One is that people with very strong beliefs should be willing to bet* on those beliefs. ”
To make a narrow reply to this one point: I think a better way to formulate the valid aspects of this insight would be: that things you really believe in are things you really value, and value is always that which is demonstrated in action. Or, as Rand said, a value is that which you act to gain and/or keep. So yes, if you say you value something but do nothing to attain it or demonstrate it in action, it’s not truly a value in the Austrian sense. But does the action that demonstrates that you value a given end have to be gambling, or financial investing of some sort? Seems to me many types of action can demonstrates or manifest a value.
Comments on this entry are closed.