Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
I'm not sure, as I've said, that I disagree with the premise that "most wars (or 'almost all' or 'all') have an economic genesis," but I wonder if we can define it properly to have meaning. Economist will argue that "all" human interaction has an economic (tit-for-tat) basis, and can be analyzed as such. (Anyone read Freakonomics?) They see this more as a means of analyzing motivations, though, than as a causus belli, per se. That, by the way, is how I would understand it. One could say that "we started the Iraq war to obtain oil" or one could say it was to "establish freedom" - and, of course, a society that is freer (economically-speaking) will make more of their resources available to the "world market." Either way it has an economic impact, good and ill. Is it economic freedom or exploitation?

Actually, Scout suggested something along those lines way back somewhere on this thread. I believe the case could be made that all human interaction has some economic underpinning (and one could certainly make the case that human society began with economic interests in mind).
I just thought that it would be more difficult (in the sense of more laborious) to make that case although, I don't disagree with it.
It seems to me that when such divergent and opposite poles of the political spectrum as Ludwig von Mises and a socialist agree on the same general principle, there is something to be said as far as looking into it goes.
That's all I stated and all I intended to discuss. It isn't a game of one-upsmanship or a test of stamina. Merely an attempt at discussion.

"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
Lenny Bruce

"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month."
Dostoevsky