Day: June 18, 2024

By Mark Thornton

With the world moving more and more in the direction of trade protectionism and war, it is worth remembering the origin of the fallacies upon which this movement is based.

Michel Montaigne, the sixteenth-century minor politician and writer, is credited with the illogical view that trade and exchange result in one person winning and the other losing. Today this view is called “zero-sum thinking.” The fallacy is the foundation of former President Donald Trump’s protectionist trade policies and President Joe Biden’s protectionist trade policies, as well as a whole host of irrational government policies, from “protecting jobs” to war.

Montaigne lived in the high times of King Louis XIV, the sinister economic French minister Jean Baptiste Colbert, and the heyday of mercantilism, a hodgepodge of protectionism, colonialism, slavery, and the rise of central state power. As a “philosopher,” Montaigne was a skeptic who did not believe in the power of human reason and logic, the possibility of truth, the goodness of nature, or the existence of any kind of God. Despite his “philosophy,” he did believe in the appearances of religion and the monopoly of the Catholic church, as well as the complete unrestricted power of the state.

Without access to human reason and without the hope of discovering the truth of the nature of man, how could one stand against anything in the existing order of things? Blind obedience was his rule. Apparently, the status quo was always perfect, and we could never know anything else.

Not surprisingly, he was also a thoroughgoing Machiavellian. While we can all see that lying and deceit are a normal and regrettable part of politics and government, Montaigne saw such vices in a positive light of “sewing our society together” and as “poisons for the preservation of our health.”

As such, he saw the day-to-day voluntary interactions of people as mortal and moral battles, and trading between nations were acts of warfare. His most famous writing, Essay Number 22, is provocatively titled, “The Plight of One Man Is the Benefit of Another.” Never mind that the earliest, most obvious, and most generalizable philosophical conclusion is the mutual advantages and benefits of exchange.

In Montaigne’s fallacy, the funeral director benefits at the expense of people who die, the farmer benefits from the hungry, physicians benefit from the sick, and clothiers benefits from the naked.

Montaigne and his fallacy take the great illogical leap over two facts: first, none of these businesspeople create problems such as hunger and death, and second, they actually help people address or solve these problems. It’s not a zero sum of winners and losers. Both parties, both sides of the exchanges and trades benefit, gain, profit, and are fulfilled from such trades.

Montaigne’s dog-eat-dog world is actually a world of widespread cooperation and mutual benefit.

The great Austrian-born economist Ludwig von Mises is often credited with labeling zero-sum thinking as the “Montaigne dogma or fallacy.” He;explains the fallacy;in “non-philosophical” terms everyone can easily grasp:

What produces a man’s profit in the course of affairs within an unhampered market society is not his fellow citizen’s plight and distress, but the fact that he alleviates or entirely removes what causes his fellow citizen’s feeling of uneasiness. What hurts the sick is the plague, not the physician who treats the disease. The doctor’s gain is not an outcome of the epidemics, but of the aid he gives to those affected. The ultimate source of profits is always the foresight of future conditions. Those who succeeded better than others in anticipating future events and in adjusting their activities to the future state of the market, reap profits because they are in a position to satisfy the most urgent needs of the public.

Because his logic is so convincing in terms of our own daily dealings, it is important to remember that Mises was more concerned about the Montaigne fallacy at the international level where illogical words can quickly mutate into wars.

Chastising Voltaire, Mises;wrote, “The statement that one man’s boon is the other man’s damage is valid with regard to robbery, war, and booty. The robber’s plunder is the damage of the despoiled victim. But war and commerce are two different things.”

The spirit of conquest applied to trade has been embraced by political leaders, and supporters have prevented a truly peaceful and prosperous world order. “It is monstrous that Emperor Napoleon III, should have written: ‘The quantity of merchandise which a country exports is always in direct proportion to the number of shells it can discharge upon its enemies whenever its honor and its dignity may require it.’” Arguments for protectionism of various sorts are often more alluring than when Mises provides the proper context. Indeed, deceit and obfuscation are easy to come by when the payoff for interest groups from such propaganda is so high. Insinuations to patriotism, good high-paying jobs, and double-crossing foreigners can be easy to shallow.

The solution begins with our own personal commitment to the liberal ideology of peace and an unfettered free market.

With both candidates for United States president firmly in the pocket of the Montaigne dogma, we need not delude ourselves as to the outcome, but rather we should steel ourselves to follow Mises’s advice to “disclose the sources of the popularity of this (fallacy) and other similar delusions and errors.”

• About the author: Mark Thornton is the Peterson-Luddy Chair in Austrian Economics and a Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute. He serves as the Book Review Editor of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. His publications include The Economics of Prohibition (1991), Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War (2004), The Quotable Mises (2005), The Bastiat Collection (2007), An Essay on Economic Theory (2010), The Bastiat Reader (2014), and The Skyscraper Curse and How Austrian Economists Predicted Every Major Crisis of the Last Century(2018).
• Source: This article was published by the Mises Institute

By Dr. Reza Parchizadeh

The sudden death of Ebrahim Raisi, the Iranian regime’s president, in a suspicious helicopter crash will;disrupt;the constructed succession plan for the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This disruption will not necessarily;favor;Khamenei’s son Mojtaba Khamenei, as many might assume, but will instead create opportunities for Khamenei’s adversaries, specifically the Reformists/Moderates and certain factions within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), to influence or steer the succession process.

How Khamenei rose to power in Iran

Succession has occurred only once in the history of the Islamic Republic. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1900–1989), the first Supreme Leader of Iran, did not settle the issue of his succession while still alive for several reasons. First, as the supreme spiritual leader, he deemed it beneath himself to engage in a matter that would appear as political;factionalism. Second, for a long time, nearly everyone;accepted;Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, a prominent cleric, as Khomeini’s;de facto;successor. Third, towards the end of his life, Khomeini suffered from rapidly worsening cancer, which likely cut short any last-minute plans.

A close-knit group of three — Ahmad Khomeini, the supreme leader’s son and confidant, Khamenei the president, and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the speaker of parliament — took charge of managing the succession issue. They plotted to rule together in a power-sharing arrangement, with Khamenei at the helm as leader, Rafsanjani as president and Ahmad carrying the torch of his father’s legacy. However, the trio eventually fractured, and in a real-life cloak-and-dagger drama filled with hidden agendas and maneuvering, Khamenei outsmarted and eliminated his rivals, solidifying his position as the supreme and unchallenged leader.;

Raisi’s rise and fall reflects Khamenei’s strategic planning

Khamenei has long tried to prevent his progeny and legacy from suffering the same fate that befell his predecessor’s. To achieve this, he purged potential disruptors and handpicked loyalists years in advance to ensure a smooth succession.

Raisi’s rise from obscurity wasn’t about him becoming Supreme Leader. The establishment positioned him, not to succeed Khamenei specifically, but to guarantee the continuation of Khamenei’s ideology, regardless of the next leader. Charisma wasn’t Raisi’s strong suit; in fact, he was utterly bland. But what he lacked in personality, he made up for tenfold in devotion to the regime and Khamenei. Therefore, if Mojtaba were to be groomed for leadership, Raisi would serve as his facilitator, not his competitor.

The death of Raisi disrupted Khamenei’s plan. Speculation abounds as to who benefits from this, but those subjected to rounds of purges and consigned to the regime’s margins are the most likely candidates, namely the so-called Reformists/Moderates and the disaffected parts of the IRGC.;

In the first decade after the 1979 revolution, the future Reformists were among Ayatollah Khomeini’s closest allies. They even called themselves the “Line of the Imam” in his honor. However, Ali Khamenei and his faction sidelined them starting in 1989. Their influence further diminished after the;suspicious death;of Hashemi Rafsanjani in 2017. Out of power, they pragmatically adopted the label “Reformist” and began to rebuild relations with the West.

Decades of exile haven’t dimmed the ambitions of Iranian Reformists/Moderates. Based in Europe and North America, they haven’t given up hope. They dream of replacing Khamenei with Western backing and transforming the Islamist regime into a “moderate” version of itself. These figures remain active and any hiccups in Khamenei’s succession plan could be their golden opportunity.

Within the Revolutionary Guards exists a shadowy contingent I call the Shadow Guards. Not all Guards are Khamenei loyalists. Some commanders have even;challenged;his authority or shown disapproval. These dissenters, if not eliminated, now operate on the regime’s fringes. Khamenei further disrupts potential power grabs by rotating commanders. This creates an amorphous entity within the IRGC. Their loyalty isn’t necessarily to Khamenei, but to the regime’s core ideology. However, they see an opportunity to gain power when the leadership changes, and have;reportedly;begun making connections with former adversaries overseas.

The Reformists/Moderates and the Shadow Guards are finding common ground as the Iranian regime weakens. Both sides aim to preserve Iran as an authoritarian oligarchy, albeit through different tactics. The Reformists/Moderates cloak themselves in a liberal/leftist mask, while the Shadow Guards;embrace;ultranationalism. They both wield extensive media influence and strong;lobbying power;in the West. Their strategy is to co-opt elements of the monarchist opposition and;establish;a new elite to secure their control.

Iran’s authoritarian grip endures

Post-Khamenei Iran will see Islam remain the foundation of the regime, with nationalism acting as a façade masking its Islamist core. Already, some monarchists advocate for Iran to revert from Alavid Shiism with revolutionary clerical rule to Safavid Shiism, where a Shah presides over a Shiite establishment. This regime will continue to exclude most people and parties from political participation. Followers of minority religions can expect continued poor treatment, if not outright persecution. The regime’s foreign policy and relationships with its neighbors and the West will remain a mystery in a box.

The democratic world must be on high alert. To derail Khamenei’s criminal plans is undeniably attractive, but we cannot lose sight of the regime’s systemic corruption. Simply removing the top leadership won’t halt the tide of radicalism overflowing from Iran. It’s a trap — just like replacing communists with nationalist remnants of the Soviet regime didn’t;solve;its problems. Only a;transition;to a liberal democracy can normalize Iran and prevent future threats to its own people, its neighbors, and the global community.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

• About the author: Dr. Reza Parchizadeh is a political theorist, security analyst and cultural expert. He holds a BA and an MA in English from University of Tehran and a PhD in English from Indiana University of Pennsylvania. He is focused on Security Studies, Foreign Policy and International Relations. Parchizadeh currently serves on the editorial board of the international news agency Al-Arabiya Farsi.
• Source: This article was published by Fair Observer

1. Key figure in first Trump impeachment wins Democratic primary for Spanberger’s seat  The Hill
2. Trump targets House Freedom Caucus chair in intra-party Republican primary feud  Fox News

Выбор посуды

Возьмите с собой красивую посуду из настоящей керамики или стекла вместо пластиковой или одноразовой. Это не только экологичный выбор, но и добавит шарма вашему пикнику.

Отказ от одноразовых предметов

Попробуйте заменить столовые приборы и ножи тканевыми салфетками, а стеклянную посуду обернуть полотенцем или тканью, которые потом можно использовать в качестве скатерти. Такой подход поможет сделать пикник стильным и экологичным.

Продумайте все детали

Составьте список необходимых вещей заранее, чтобы избежать лишних хлопот. При этом не нужно перегружать себя: многие предметы можно использовать для разных целей, делая пикник более функциональным.

Простота и удовольствие

Пикник — это не обязательно длительное мероприятие с изысканными блюдами. Несколько простых закусок и напитков могут стать залогом уютного ужина на природе.

Финальные штрихи

Помните, что еда также является частью сервировки. Добавьте фрукты и свежие зелень, но не спешите нарезать их заранее, чтобы сохранить свежесть и аппетитный вид. Следуя этим простым советам, вы сможете организовать красивый и запоминающийся пикник на природе, наслаждаясь атмосферой и прекрасной компанией.