Are Conspiracies Always Implausible?
By David Henderson
Bryan, in posting on Arnold’s view of what Ben Bernanke is doing, wrote:
Arnold’s story fits the facts, but it just seems too conspiratorial.
Yet Arnold didn’t even hint at the idea of conspiracy. Instead, he was talking about Bernanke’s motives. The word “conspiracy” has a number of meanings, but all involve two or more people getting together to carry out an act.
We are all used to politicians lying about their motives. Their motive might be to help a particular group, to feather their own nest, or to screw an opponent. Politicians can lie about all these things and yet not conspire with anyone. Now what if two politicians get together to carry out an act and both lie about their motives. Has that ever happened? I guess you could call it a conspiracy. But if that’s all the word “conspiracy” means, then why do so many people look at you strange when you claim that two or more people are engaged in a conspiracy?
As the late British libertarian, Chris Tame, put it, “I’m not interested in conspiracy theories; I’m interested in conspiracy facts.”