Risk-prone expansion drives state intervention beyond mere apparatus preservation

Evidence

Underlying this threat that one “may” retaliate or precipitate war—the decision being somewhat beyond his control—is the notion that some of the most momentous decisions of government are taken by a process that is not entirely predictable, not fully “under control,” not altogether deliberate. It implies that a nation can get even into a major war somewhat inadvertently, by a decision process that might be called “imperfect” in the sense that the response to particular contingencies cannot exactly be foretold by any advance calculations, that the response to a particular contingency may depend on certain random or haphazard processes, or that there will be faulty information, faulty communication, misunderstanding, misuse of authority, panic, or human or mechanical failure. — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 453 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Within the various spheres of modern institutions, risks do not just exist as hazards resulting from the imperfect operation of disembedding mechanisms, but also as “closed,” institutionalised arenas of action. In such spheres, as was mentioned previously, risks are actually created by normatively sanctioned forms of activity—as in the case of gambling or sports. Investment markets represent easily the most prominent example in modern social life. — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 313 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Expansion—exporting money rather than people—differs fundamentally from conquest; Exported capital requires strong state power over new domains; Imperial expansion can proceed without deliberate intentions, powered by mere possibility (+7 more)

Broader Connections