I find the prospect of betting on a war an ethically interesting – and difficult – one. I hope Lebanon doesn’t suffer another war. But hope should not be the basis of a bet. And I’m uncomfortable with betting for a war.

Once one has bet on something, a cool rational decision becomes a decision one has an emotional and/or financial investment in. The inklings here are granted rather than bought. But what if we were to say that the inkling were to follow the lead of the Second Life linden and have a real-world value? Then, if one bet on there being a war, and profited on trading on this assumption, one would in a strict sense be a war-profiteer.

While the investments are theoretical here rather than monetary, there’s still something – be it a desire to be seen as “correct” in one’s knowledge of current affairs, simple competitiveness or office rivalries – that makes one want to win, or else why play? So I think there’s a real risk of profiting (albeit virtually) from war.

Of course, one may not see this as ethically dubious – Harry Lime’s a pretty entertaining character, after all – but I think I’ll sit out on this market all the same.

Katherine,

You raise some tough issues.

If you predict war, and war comes about, this market rewards you for the information you have brought, not for the war that has come about. Bad things, I think, are usually made even worse by not being predicted, so rewarding correct predictions, even of unpleasant outcomes, seems to me to be a good thing.

Of course, if forecasting something makes you want it to occur, even if only because you like to be proved right, then I can see your psychological discomfort. But predicting and desiring, I think, are separable.

There is pride, potentially, tied up in being shown by events to be right; but maybe there is also a duty to clear-headedly share your information and perspective on events. This has echoes of Philip K Dick’s pre-cogs. If you have any degree of pre-cognition, should you sit back and keep your mind at rest? The premise of these prediction markets is that you do have precognition, to some degree. Do you have a duty to share your insight?

A more serious perversion of the mechanism is where the desire to be right makes you change the world in the direction of the prediction – insider trading. This “I told you so” attitude is a danger and a character flaw. Could this worry have led the CIA to pulling the predictive market it had on terrorist attacks?

The wave of hatred among the Lebanese sects, esp. shaii and sunna is increasing quickly. Thus a new civil war might occure beyween the Lebanese themselves.
On the other hand, the new situation hezbollah is facing southern Lebanon after the 1701, will play a part in any possible war or clashes with Israel. Since, hezbollah power souther Litani river is restricted now, and hezbollah fighters or militiants don’t have the freedom and the mobility like before.
Also, the rising tension between regional countries and Lebanese parties about the international tribunal will have its effect, esp. when it comes to the Syrian regime and Iran, that’s looking forward not only to share the new middle east, but even to apply the islamic shaii middle east. Thus, Lebanon might be considered as playground for the great powers to settle thier agends against each other.

Despite the current tension and anger between Lebanese sects there’s a tacit and general understanding that a war will not be beneficial to anyone. Hezbollah will find it difficult to engage Israel on their own terms due to the presence of the multi-national force. As for the prospect of a civil war, despite foreign hands vying for power in Lebanon, sect leaders are ultimately seeking to better their sect’s standing in the political structure of country, and all know a war will be detrimental to all sides. It is understood that the common good of peace far out-weighs the devastating effects of a war, and each know they can not emerge as winners.

The very fact that violence has not broke out already in Lebanon is heartening. The internal sects don’t want another war. It’s about grabbing the power (and potential prosperity) that Lebanon has now – rather than conducting a war that will destroy it. We have seen unprecedented cooperation to prevent violence (if not to find a solution) amongst leaders.

The real risk is an eruption with Hizbollah and Israel. The IDF has predicted a possible eruption in 2007 with Lebanon and Syria. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/811968.html) However, I think there are several factors mitigating this risk. First, the deputy leader of Hezbollah, Sheikh Naim Qassam, has publicly said that a prisoner swap is being arranged. It is very unusual for Hizbollah to come out and say this. Second, Hizbullah wants to become a regional political power. They are now basking in the glory of their “divine victory” and are highly unlikely to instigate another conflict which may seem them losing. Third, the presence of a strengthened UN will be prohibitive to Hizbollah and will prevent Israel from attacking without due cause. Finally, Syria has also indicated its willingness to enter the fray especially if this will advance their goals around Lebanese dominance and further negotiations around the Golan Heights.

Despite the fact that large scale violence has yet to erupt, reports from yesterday say that Hezbollah is expanding in North Lebanon, away from UN peacekeepers to build villages and military camps. This information does not bode well considering tensions in the country and the surrounding region are very high right now. I fear that rival christian militias reminiscent of the brutal civil war between 1975-1990 will emerge again to counter Hezbollah’s expanding presence. Unfortunately, war in Lebanon is looking highly likely.