Humans have a tendency to obey political authorities even when it may not seem in each individual’s self-interest to do so. Nationalism is a modern manifestation of this phenomenon. After the US government’s strike on nuclear facilities of the Iranian government, there is little doubt that nationalism or tribalism will lead a large number of Americans and Iranians to rally behind their supreme leaders more blindly.
In his book On Power (Du Pouvoir), Bertrand de Jouvenel wrote that “the essential reason for obedience is that it has become a habit of the species” (“On obéit essentiellement parce que c’est une habitude de l’espèce”). There may be evolutionary roots to this submissiveness. Because of the problem of collective action (in the Olsonian sense of “coordinated group action,” not in the sense of decisions imposed by political authorities), an individual often has an interest to play dove before a ruler or ruling group committed to play hawk (see my short explanation of the Hawk-Dove game). Nationalist propaganda adds more motivation for citizens to obey, as does ignorance of basic economics.
Classical liberals and libertarians are the only ones to share James Buchanan’s “faith” in a society where all can be equally free. This hope finds rational foundations in theories of spontaneous order.
What happened on June 21 was not literally “a US strike on Iran” or “America’s strike on Iran,” as everybody repeats, but a strike of the US government on the assets of the Iranian government—including possibly on its claimed human assets, what is called collateral damage. Linguistic shortcuts and the need or habit of economizing on words (in newspaper headlines, for example) should not blind us to the reality that social and political phenomena result from the preferences and actions of individuals. Whatever one thinks of war events and developments, one must beware of synecdoche and other linguistic shortcuts that, reinforced by government propaganda, easily lead to confusing individuals with the groups they “belong” to and the latter’s rulers.
The function of political hyperbole is typically to promote the subjects’ obedience, not to limit the rulers’ power. The general issue of the limits of government power is, of course, a complex question. I have regularly discussed it on this blog, notably with reference to the economic and philosophical theories of James Buchanan and Anthony de Jasay.
The particular problem of nuclear weapons is that their victims are essentially indiscriminate. They give monstrous blackmail power to their possessors. “If you don’t submit, I’ll hurt your subjects (even if the fallout could hurt mine too).” In my view, the principle of preventing bad actors from having nuclear weapons is defendable.
READER COMMENTS
Craig
Jun 24 2025 at 10:34am
Derka, derka. Albert Speer, acting as a central planner, cane to the conclusion that German war ibdustries should ve dispersed/decentralized to make strategic bombing less effective. Iran seemingly chose to dig in and I suppose the focused attack with the bunker buster is a set back for their nuclear program. I wonder if they might learn from Speer’s example? Or perhaps that’s not practical. We’ll see how this plays out. Reoorts of cease fire between israek and Iran, also of violations. Praying for peace, may peace be with them.
David Seltzer
Jun 24 2025 at 7:15pm
Pierre: “In my view, the principle of preventing bad actors from having nuclear weapons is defendable.”
YES!
José Pablo
Jun 24 2025 at 8:39pm
In my view, the principle of preventing bad actors from having nuclear weapons is defendable.
And yet, of the eight officially recognized nuclear powers, three are ruled by thugs.
Two others—are governed by regimes (or individuals) uncomfortably close to that category. And perhaps soon, there will be three.
Eventually, all nuclear powers will be ruled by a thug. It’s just a matter of time. The very existence of an organic concept of society—even when temporarily governed under liberal democratic norms—inevitably leads to that outcome.
As long as the organic concept remains in place—serving as inspiration to the many people whose highest achievement in life is the gift of being part of that organism—the mix of nuclear weapons and nationalism will remain an unbearable threat.
Craig
Jun 24 2025 at 9:20pm
Don’t blame me, I voted for Colossus!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus:_The_Forbin_Project
Mactoul
Jun 24 2025 at 10:16pm
If organic concept of society leads inevitably to rulers being thugs then why aren’t all rulers thugs right now?
Why weren’t they thugs 100 years ago at the height of European nationalism?
And now in the age of mass immigration, when at the ascendency of liberal concepts, you fear they are going thugs?
Jose Pablo
Jun 25 2025 at 6:29pm
Well, life, no doubt, leads inevitably to death, and yet we are not all dead right now.
Even the most enduring democracies are not immune to decay — history reminds us of that. The Roman Republic lasted nearly 500 years, Athens for close to two centuries, and Venice over a millennium. Yet all eventually gave way to authoritarian rule, not through sudden coups, but through a slow erosion of individual liberty in favor of abstract ideals like “the glory of Rome” or “the will of the people.”
The real danger lies in embracing the fatal conceit that the state has a single will or interest, something greater than the sum of its citizens. Once that illusion takes hold, it becomes tempting — even inevitable — for some charismatic figure to claim they alone understand and represent that will. From there, democracy’s institutions may persist in form, but their content is hollowed out.
It’s a familiar pattern: a republic weakened by internal division, mobilized by appeals to national greatness, and gradually reshaped around one man’s voice. The lesson isn’t just ancient, it’s alarmingly current.
nobody.really
Jun 26 2025 at 12:36pm
If only some economist would tell us how this dynamic works out in the long run….
Can we also say that the most enduring dictatorships are likewise not immune to decay? Prior to 1776 the world had been pretty successful in suppressing democracies, yet that situation has “decayed” substantially since then. Maybe decay is just a sitgmatizing word for change.
Jose Pablo
Jun 26 2025 at 6:07pm
Maybe decay is just a sitgmatizing word for change.
Fair enough.
But I’m not the least bit worried about decaying dictatorships.Decaying republics — or liberal democracies, to use the modern term — are another matter entirely.
Jose Pablo
Jun 26 2025 at 6:14pm
If only some economist would tell us how this dynamic works out in the long run….
If humanity were finally capable of redirecting the ingenuity and steel we waste on weapons and wars toward something greater — like ending aging and conquering death itself — we might have a chance to rewrite that fate.
Squandering even that slim opportunity, just to pursue the illusion of some nationalist paradise, is not just short-sighted. It’s unforgivable.
José Pablo
Jun 24 2025 at 8:57pm
In my view, the principle of preventing bad actors from having nuclear weapons is defendable.
But does that mean it’s acceptable to bomb a country simply because Pierre Lemieux thinks so? I’m having something of an “Et tu, Brute?” moment.
What could be defended—and I prefer to think this is what you mean—is the idea that a rule-based, internationally accepted framework to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons is both desirable and necessary.
But I fail to see how decisions of this magnitude can—or should—be left to the arbitrariness of individual states.
It’s worth remembering that Iran was a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and had reached a multilateral agreement with the world’s major powers—an agreement that was unilaterally scrapped by Donald Trump, largely because it had been negotiated and signed by Barack Obama.
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 25 2025 at 9:56pm
Jose: You write:
Yes, but this cannot be an international state, which would be even more dangerous than most current states. Thus, like in anarchy, the enforcement of international law can only have a large part or “private,” that is, “non-(international)-state”, enforcement.
Jose Pablo
Jun 26 2025 at 12:02pm
“non-(international)-state”, enforcement … conducted by a “private” (state or otherwise) acting under the rule-based legal authority of a widely recognized international institution.
Mactoul
Jun 24 2025 at 10:21pm
The linguistic shotcuts you deplore are found in Adam Smith as well. The very title The Weath of Nations is deplorable.
Is it possible to read any book, history or economics even without encountering a great deal of deplorable terms. Even Jasay talks of the State as if it were an agent in its own right. Why is Jasay not deplorable?
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 25 2025 at 9:58pm
Mactoul: There is no bible and knowledge advances, at least in the minds of those who can follow this progress.
Mactoul
Jun 25 2025 at 12:02am
Wars occur because man is both social and territorial. This implies that men do not hold territories individually but collectively. Chimpanzees are the same and bands of chimpanzees raid each other to kill and expand their territories.
It is quite typical that the territory question is omitted and the story is made about submission to the rulers. Dominance hierarchies are not unknown among social animals but the very existence of rulers implies a collective. This conclusion is uncomfortable to a classical liberal who prefer to dream of an utopia of individual property holders existing in peaceable commerce without any thought of territories.
But human emotions and instincts are wound up too deeply with territories.
Jose Pablo
Jun 26 2025 at 7:51pm
Chimpanzees are the same
I used to hold human beings in higher regard — but I’m starting to think I may have been wrong.
steve
Jun 25 2025 at 9:52pm
“In my view, the principle of preventing bad actors from having nuclear weapons is defendable.”
Sure, but who gets to decide who is a bad actor? From the POV of Iran, Israel is taking land owned by Palestinians for hundreds of years and giving it to their settlers. Someone who thinks property rights are important might see that as being a bad actor.
Steve
Warren Platts
Jun 26 2025 at 3:33am
Or one could argue it’s none of Iran’s business..
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 26 2025 at 10:09am
Steve: “Bad actor” is, indeed, the wrong word. It is a cliché. What I mean is “thug,” which has more of a unanimous feel. Virtually everybody recognizes a thug, who is against thuggery but makes an exception for himself.
Mactoul
Jun 26 2025 at 8:34pm
There are no property rights in national territories.
Warren Platts
Jun 26 2025 at 3:29am
Yes. If, as you say, a government, who’s favorite motto is “Death to America,” desires nuclear bombs, then preemptive measures are justified..
José Pablo
Jun 26 2025 at 11:00am
I would consider the possibility that the more countries you bomb, the more countries wish you dead.
It’s kind of logical, isn’t it?
The good news is that America can’t be killed (individual. Americans can).
And if history is any guide, the figurative “killing” of America is far more likely to come at the hands of American individuals.
Drawing again from historical lessons, watch specifically those claiming to be defending it from imaginary enemies or making it greater than ever.
Remember Lincoln: “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher”, or Reagan: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”
None of them were talking about foreign enemies
nobody.really
Jun 26 2025 at 12:42pm
HEY–I have the excluse franchise for distributing obscure quotes on this blog! Get off my lawn!
Jose Pablo
Jun 26 2025 at 6:02pm
I’m truly sorry. But duly noted, Nobody has the exclusive franchise on distributing obscure quotes on this blog.