Back in June, I made a bet with Dr. Stephen Davies, Head of Education for the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) in London. We had got into a discussion on Facebook about whether there was much chance of a civil war in the United States. I pooh-poohed the idea and tried to formulate a bet with Steve. I first offered 10 to 1 odds and he estimated the probability of a civil war in the United States in the next 10 years to be under 10 percent and so turned down the bet. So I made a more-generous offer of 20 to 1 and he accepted. Because of co-blogger Bryan Caplan’s difficulty in getting someone he bet with to pay up, Steve and I agreed to come up with an arbiter. I suggested Bryan, Steve agreed, and Bryan has generously agreed to be the arbiter.
Here are the terms of our bet, with a clarification by Steve at the end:
1. If there is a any 365-day period between June 15, 2018 and June 15, 2028 in which 1,000 or more people are killed in what appears to be a civil war in the United States, you win the bet and I owe you $400.
2. If #1 does not obtain, you owe me $20.
3. If one of us dies or develops dementia before the time period is up, the bet is cancelled.
4. We agree that we will choose a mutually agreeable arbiter to make a judgement in the event that we don’t agree on the data. We will make this choice by July 14, 2018. [Note: we missed that deadline by about 6 weeks.]
Steve added:
I think the descriptive criterion is the one we already agreed on right? Good idea to cover the contingencies. The only clarification I would add is that ‘civil war’ in this context means “widespread and serious violence of a political nature” so breakdown in law enforcement or something like a major gang war would not count but the kind of confused political violence we have seen in places like Syria, Lebanon, and Somalia would. That ok with you?
It is ok with me and I appreciate Steve’s clarification because it not only is on point but also reduces the range of outcomes for which I would have to pay up. 🙂
READER COMMENTS
Thomas
Sep 5 2018 at 1:33pm
You have made a good bet. At some point, left-wing antics are bound to go too far and evoke an armed response from those who are offended by the antics. The initial encounter will spark copy-cat attacks on left-wing groups and retaliatory attacks by left-wing groups. The fatalities will exceed 1,000 in some 365-day period, mainly because one side or both will resort to explosives. But the “civil war” will remain at the feud level, and will not result in armed conflict between any of the States.
David Henderson
Sep 5 2018 at 5:53pm
Hmmm. I think if that happened, I would be inclined to say I lost. I would need to know more details.
Robert EV
Sep 5 2018 at 10:34pm
Does this include a Timothy McVeigh like situation?
“widespread and serious violence of a political nature” seems to indicate a one-off that kills 1,000 people plus some simultaneous alt-right protesting in another corner of the country wouldn’t count, but this should have been specified.
BC
Sep 6 2018 at 12:25am
I would be interested in how Bryan Caplan plans to differentiate between civil war and domestic terrorism. If the 9/11 attacks had been carried out by Americans as retaliation for some perceived government wrong, would Caplan consider that to be civil war? That would be “widespread” political violence, attacking three different locations.
However, a more restrictive definition of civil war might be fighting among two or more militaries or militia groups, each associated with governments with conflicting sovereignty claims. The governments need not have any international recognition; they just need to claim legitimacy themselves. So, if Antifa were to carry out (continue to carry out?) a series of attacks on various college campuses to stop speakers, that would not be civil war unless Antifa were to claim that it was the legitimate governing body of those campuses. Even this restrictive definition might leave some gray area, for example a cult or militia group that claims its compound as “sovereign territory”. If such a group were to engage in violence, that might technically meet this definition of civil war. However, the compound could be so small and/or the sovereignty claims so farcical that it might seem more accurate to classify the violence as domestic terrorism.
Whatever the definition of civil war, would Dr. Davies and Caplan agree that, when applied to US history to present, there has been only 1 civil war, the one fought between the Union and Confederacy in the 1860s? That would mean that any future violence would need to be differentiated from past violence in the US (apart from The Civil War) to be classified as civil war.
robc
Sep 6 2018 at 12:27pm
I would go with two civil wars: The one you suggested, plus the one fought from 1776-1783. It started in 1775, but “US history” didnt exist until July 1776.
Jim
Sep 23 2018 at 1:46pm
Per Robert EV and BC’s points, I would refine further. I would think a true civil war would be between two or more “governmental units.” For example, State A’s and State B’s National Guards attack each other at the order of one or both governors, and both side resist/thwart any efforts to federalize the units to bring them under control, up to and including attacking US Armed Forces (Army, Navy, etc.) directly in response to such an attempt.
Anything else would strike me more as an insurrection – until the insurrectionists control a large enough swath of urban territory or countryside to start levying taxes and providing police and social services.
Comments are closed.