This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Tragedy Of NATO: "Beware Foreign Entanglements"
Submitted by Patrick Barron via Mises Canada,
The economic phenomenon known as the “Tragedy of the Commons” instructs us that commonly held resources that are insufficiently protected will be plundered to extinction. The phenomenon was recognized in the early nineteenth century to explain why the commons in England quickly came to be denuded by sheep. All sheepherders had an equal right to graze sheep on the commons. There often was no agreement as to how many sheep each could graze, so it was sheer rational self-interest for each to graze as many sheep on the common ground as possible. In short order the commons came to be overgrazed. What later came to be called “the tragedy of the commons” was a simple and imminently understandable explanation.
Is security an economic resource?
One can easily accept that grassland is an economic resource that must be protected, but what about security and, if security is held collectively, can collective security agreements also be vulnerable to the tragedy of the commons? Security is a service that usually requires economic resources. We secure our personal possessions when we take precautions such as padlocking our bicycles, locking our car doors and the house, buying monitored security systems, purchasing heavy safes, and the like. These are all economic goods to secure our personal property. But what about protecting our physical selves? It is on a somewhat different plane but the purpose is the same. We may carry concealed weapons, take personal self-defense courses, or hire personal body guards. All these things require the expenditure of time and money to acquire economic goods to make us more secure. On a more subtle level, we modify our behavior to avoid giving offense to complete strangers about whom we know nothing. We especially do not deliberately seek confrontations over minor things like the last parking spot in the lot. Similarly we avoid dangerous parts of town or parts of town that are dangerous at night or on special occasions. For example, my wife and I were in downtown Chicago in the late 1990’s when the Chicago Bulls professional basketball team was winning the NBA championship. We were not fans and gave little thought to the fact that there might be what we shall call “excessive celebrations” after the final victory. As we strolled downtown Chicago after dinner we were advised by a Chicago policeman to leave, because the “excessive celebrations” often became excuses for certain people to behave criminally. Rather than assert our right to window shop whenever and wherever we darned-well pleased and discretion being the better part of valor, we went home. This aspect of security–i.e., avoiding unnecessary confrontation– is often overlooked.
Collective security brings in economic problems
Ah, but would we have reacted the same way had we been in a group? Perhaps we would have felt more secure to window shop by assuming that others in the group would protect us. Our behavior would have changed to become a bit more willing to take risk due to an implicit assumption of collective security. This willingness to take more risk because others may bear some or even all of the cost is known as moral hazard.
So we see that providing our own personal security of our physical bodies and our possessions requires that we expend resources that perhaps we would rather employ elsewhere. We pay for these ourselves and we modify our behavior to avoid the necessity of employing them with uncertain result and to minimize the cost.
But all this changes under collective security agreements.
Moral hazard and socialism cause a tragedy of the commons in collective security
Under a collective security agreement, all who join are obligated to provide security to all others in the alliance. Each member must expend resources to provide such security, which naturally means sacrificing the satisfaction of other preferences.
However, since all contribute to the security pot, all know that their individual sacrifice may be claimed by others. Therefore, there will be a reluctance to spend resources on security that may be used by others, while encouraging, at least to some extent, claims upon security that one would not have made in the absence of the security agreement.
The latter phenomenon, the increased willingness to call upon alliance members, is moral hazard at work and the former phenomenon, the reluctance to expend resources that may be claimed by others, is a well-known consequence of socialism.
Mises explained that socialism discourages production while it increases demand. Why produce only to be forced to share with others when one can demand to share in the production of others without regard to having previously produced something of value to those same others? Eventually all altruism vanishes in a sea of cynicism and nothing is produced for anyone to share. The result is a tragedy of the commons fed by moral hazard and socialism.
The tragedy of NATO
Today we see the above destructive economic forces at work in NATO expansion. When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1990, the reason for NATO’s existence vanished. But rather than declare NATO to have been a success in deterring war in Europe, possibly disbanding the alliance and building a new Concert of Europe that would include Russia, NATO bureaucrats set about to expand the alliance to the east. Whereas the Concert of Europe after the Napoleonic Wars had quickly embraced France as an important member, NATO expanded to isolate Russia by absorbing its former satellite nations.
The last NATO expansion prior to the disintegration of the Soviet Union had occurred in 1982 when Spain joined the alliance. At that point in time NATO was composed of sixteen nations. Starting in 1999 twelve countries have joined NATO, ten of them former members of the Warsaw Pact. The other two, Slovenia and Croatia, were previously part of Yugoslavia, officially a non-aligned nation, but a communist dictatorship all the same. With the possible exception of Poland, none of these new members contribute much to the alliance’s military capability, meaning that the older members are shouldering their security burden. Naturally expanding NATO to the east has resulted in isolating and antagonizing Russia, who feels its security threatened. So, NATO has succumbed to the socialist phenomenon by adding new members who demand security without much of an obligation and to the moral hazard phenomenon by adding new members whose territories could be used to house American nuclear weapons, a situation that may yet provoke a major world crisis with Russia, which is precisely what NATO was formed to avoid.
Ukraine and Finland as examples of moral hazard and socialist demands
Both Ukraine and Finland are lobbying NATO for membership. President Poroshenko of Ukraine is lobbying for membership in both the European Union and NATO. The fact that Russia already has taken the Crimea following anti-Russian riots apparently means nothing as long as Ukraine believes that mighty NATO will intervene on its behalf. If NATO did admit Ukraine, one wonders if Ukraine would invoke the collective security clause and demand that NATO go to war with Russia. Finland is already a member of the EU and now is openly lobbying for NATO membership. In a recent interview with der Spiegel, Finnish president Alexander Stubb was dismissive of Russia’s stated concerns about Finland joining NATO. His interview has to be read to be believed. Both presidents’ behavior illustrate the moral hazard nature of collective security agreements. And neither country would contribute anything to the security of current NATO members. On the contrary, Ukrainian and/or Finnish membership would cause an escalation in tensions in Europe and take us right back to the Cold War…or worse! Neither country considers the possibility that NATO might not honor its military commitment. It is one thing for NATO bureaucrats to admit new members. It is another thing for current members to expend blood and treasure, especially when the possibility of nuclear war is wafting through the air. Does anyone remember the Cuban Missile Crisis?
In conclusion, due to the inherent problems with collective security alliances–tragedy of the commons fed by socialism and moral hazard–nations should enter into them with great caution. George Washington’s farewell address has never sounded more prescient: Beware foreign entanglements.
»
- 7105 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
and dont mess with the BEAR...
it will eat you...
Entanglement? More like takeover.
my neighbor's half-sister makes $63 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 10 months but last month her pay was $16551 just working on the internet for a few hours. More Info... www.job-reports.com
Your sister needs 63 d*ck in an hour. Go and f*ck your self troll
should some coalition of Americans actually take control of America and the federal Reserve, the EU is toast, their political exposure is every American, as an American I have no love for the EU or EU trade policies, "fuck the EU" (but not like Nuland, more like Putin)
The Home team always has an advantage.
You may win the War and still lose the Conquest. E.g. the M.E. Some people refuse to be conquered (Muslims). Others love to roll over (Poles).
A bit like Cuba, vietnam, afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya... ... ... I get you point.
Dancing with the Stars is on Tee Vee - - stop the comments.
NoVa
Poles didn't "roll over" they were rolled over (Twice. First by Nazis - with backstabbing help from Soviets, and then later in the war by Soviets). That is a big difference...
Yeah... In the past, all we had to do was throw in some American G.I!'s and we where done with it... Now we have to send our own...
I say... SEND THE FRENCH!!!
The idea that NATO consists of anyone other than the USA, England, Germany and maybe, maybe FUCKFRANCE, is a joke on its face. The fact that we are doing anything to defend ukraineNazis is disgusting, NATO has been used for decades as a tool to prop up fascist regimes, Koranimals and IslamoNazis.
I spent the last 6 month's of the Carter administration commmanding an infantry platoon in the Fulda Gap on continious 72 hour war warning. There was us, a fair number of British and some German armor and our job was to fight hard and die well. Nowadays it's just us and there ain't very many of us either. Fuck'em, it's all a Euro circus and none of them want to do the heavy lifting and we're tired and worn out.
look deep into natos patterns:
daniele ganser "natos secret armies"
and most of it is going on.
Unfortunately for the past 40 years the US government/MIC hasn't met a foreign entanglement they haven't liked.
yes indeed...
"There is emerging evidence that ISIS/ISIL is coordinating military activities tied to upcoming US elections.
Terrorist threats, downing of US planes and attempts to kidnap military personnel is being coordinated with political groups in the United States allied with pro-Israeli elements.
There is further evidence ISIS/ISIL shot down at least one American fighter bomber over Syria and damaged an American combat transport plane, an Osprey, that later crashed.
Recent events, shocking to Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, statements made against Turkey by Vice President Biden and broad criticism of Israel by President Obama, have made crushing the Obama administration vital to those groups behind ISIS/ISIL, traitors within the United States, America’s questionable “ally,” Israel, and those cited by Vice President Biden last week, particularly Turkey and Saudi Arabia.___________________
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/10/20/neo-isis-downs-two-us-warplanes-...
dey ca' walk on in to d'funt doe' to d'whitehouse, 'n' grab 'em any time dey want...wassup wid 'dat, suckahs...
Why would Finland want to join NATO? The minute Finland joins NATO they would be subjected to the trading policies of what's best for NATO and not what's best for Finland. Considering one of Finland's major trading partners is Russia... well it's easy to figure out that the heads of NATO wouldn't let that go on for much longer. Which would only hurt Finland's weak economy even more.
Yes NATO is now an arm of US aggressive policy to diminish Russia. Its stupid to join the USA in any group as the USA will just embroil you in its aggressive , expansionist foreign policy. Keep out of treaties with the USA war machine as it trys to impose its religious 'liberal democracy' credo on the world.
"Naturally expanding NATO to the east has resulted in...a situation that may yet provoke a major world crisis with Russia, which is precisely what NATO was formed to avoid."
Um, it appears that provoking the next World War was exactly the point of NATO after we lost the Soviet boogeyman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Stubb
His CV reads US asset
This is an uncommonly stupid post.
American unentanglement sounds great until you realize that there are darker forces in the world that will fill in the void we leave.
BTW-- Ukraine and Finland want to join NATO becasue they see Putin for who he is: a dictator that can only be checked by force or sanction.
Ya that is very easy to see, hence the 1000 military bases in over 700 countries, that Russia has, just waiting to take over the world.
The amerikan, dictatorship country is very afraid of being run over by Putin.
Oh How I wish Ron Was Pres.
Hey, guess what? The human race somehow managed to survive for thousands of years before America. We will survive long after its gone. That is, if we can survive the dictatorships that the US keeps propping up which end up "backfiring" (Ha!).
No, at this point, I'll gladly take my chances with a de-powered America. It's just a matter of time before its collapse anyway. Might as well start easing into it rather than leave the Euros/Japs/Koreans high and dry when it comes suddenly.
Ya that is very easy to see, hence the 1000 military bases in over 700 countries, that Russia has, just waiting to take over the world.
The amerikan, dictatorship country is very afraid of being run over by Putin.
Oh How I wish Ron Was Pres.
Ya because Russia has over 1000 military bases in over 700 countries, with a horrible foreign policy, trying to keep the Ruble as the world currency, so the fat Russian population can continue to reap the benefits of having the world reserve currency at other countries expense!
Bad USSA or R! now I am really confused!
...
There is not shortage of evils in the world.
The Department of Defense is like three wolves in a cage with one steak thrown in daily.
They will intentionally tear the other two apart to be the one who gets the biggest part of the steak.
And they will actively seek to do 'tricks' (be relevent...ergo, leap into an ill-considered fight on short notice) in return for 'treats' (budget supplements). You can expect more unnecessary death from them, sadly. It is the compulsive behavior of an abused pet.
...
But for all that there is no shortage of other equally egregious evils in the world.
Much of the world is run by gangsters, using extortion, threats, and sabotage to make their way in the world. They are not better. They differ from DoD primarily only in intentions - bad intentions.
Much of the world is run by thugs, whose answer to every problem is brutality and murder - the more the better - for the purpose of theft. They are cannibals, and morally superior to no one.
Much of the first world is run by con men, who tell themselves that their slight of hand and artifice for the purpose of theft is morally clear, and their just reward for superior cunning. They are not better.
...
It is an unhappy world with every man seeking to live at his brother's expense, and no shortage of evil men and demons to chase.
NATO's original mission was to prevent the spread of an oppresive form of socialism called communism into Western Europe. That threat vanished in 1992 with the disolution of the Soviet Union and thus with the end of the Cold War. Nothing more dangerous than an army without a purpose. The result was mission creep, with NATO taking on the job of global policeman from the UN, which clearly had abbrogated that responisiblility by degrading its activities and their results to the level of a school room shouting match.
The reality is that, given our differing needs, differing goals, differing histories, and differing cultures, any form of true globalism is impossible without a global government, and that is not possible without it degrading into a dictatorial tyranny (ask the EU how it's going for them). This is important to understand - globalism and democracy are incompatible as a matter of priniciple.
And here lies the dilemna that NATO has created for itself - you cannot be a global policeman and still be seen as the good guy, unless all you care about is the perspective of the core countries that first created you. The additional dilemna, is that these core (Western first world) countries are all operating on an untenable basis - that being consuming more than they produce, or in other words, stealing from their children (which is arguably one of the most henious crimes there is - after all, is not the true mark of a civilized society the manner in which it treats its children..) So how can NATO seek to be the good guy in the eyes of its founders, when the moral fibre of its founders is so devoid of rightousness.
In this sort of a quandary, there is no reasonable right answer other than disengaging from the activities that have put you into this quandary in the first place, as true ethics will eventually compel you to, 1 - if you are brave, to confront the injustices of the leadership of your founding countries, or 2, if you are less brave, to remain on the sidelines and become an organization without results.
Watching NATO, it is interesting to see these three groups interplay (the third group are those that wish to further first world agenda's, through NATO acting as a gloabal policeman, on the backs of the rest of the world, while wrapping themselves in a thinly veiled cloak of theoretical (theatrical) morality.
Most of the officers in NATO appear to have good intentions; the problem is in the scope of activites they have been given, the associated mission creep, and the warping in the first world of what the term "good"really means.
Watch the video at the bottom of the page to get the Russian perspective to Obama's "Declaration of war". It's a real eye opener. http://www.thesaker.net/page/3/
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entagling alliances with none." - Thomas Jefferson
Unfortunately, the central bank-enabled one-party system of elephant & jackass sock puppets now ruling the United State_ knows better than noble tyrant-hating statesmen like Washington and Jefferson.
Yup, the USSA never met a treaty they didn't break. DISBAND NATO!!
When I hear the names Ludwig von Mises or Ayn Rand, I reach for my Gun.
If you hated the Great Charter (Magna Carta) you will also hate the Charter of the Forest (Carta de Foresta).
•
My fear is NATO is going to be used against domestic populations. You can smell it because they got no where else to go and won't self-dismantle. It's a supranational military force.
A good point or two to think on.
Thanks,
Mikey
NATO exists for one reason and one reason only, at some point the US military will balk at waging war on the US civillian population.
Take a look at Poland. Way back, when you had Soviet troops in Poland, Polish politicians used to wax lyrical over the Treaty of Friendship with the USSR. Right now there are no Russian troops stationed in Poland, and Polish politicians say they hate the Russians' guts.
My prediction: the US will withdraw from Europe, the same way Russia has. And as soon as US troops are out of Europe, European politicians will say they're happy the occupyang army has gone, the same way they're happy the Russians have left.