To establish voluntary interactions in society, one person must somehow express their goodwill, and another must somehow perceive it. But people frequently speak different languages, have different cultural norms, and different sets of knowledge and skills—where is the guarantee that they will succeed in establishing mutually beneficial cooperation if they do not understand each other?

One is trained to state their goals directly and clearly, while another perceives such an approach as rude and undiplomatic—how on earth could a market interaction develop between them? One is accustomed to giving compliments, another is accustomed to fearing harassment, and suddenly they are no longer cooperating but waging a cold war, sincerely believing that the other party initiated unprovoked aggression. One speaks Finnish, another speaks Japanese—what successful communication can be spoken of here?

One could, of course, say that these are temporary difficulties, that any counterparty can be studied and successful communication can begin, but the time costs are irrecoverable. What complex global interaction with many partners can be discussed, what deep division of labor can be practiced, if one must slowly and carefully draw close to everyone until understanding is achieved?

If this is the case, it is reasonable to assume that people will always save effort, and therefore seek closeness with those they understand better, huddle together, wall themselves off from those who seem alien, spread stereotypical tales about the character of representatives of neighboring communities within their own circle, and then, step by step, from funny anecdotes, it can easily lead to military actions. Does not the entire history of wars prove the validity of this reasoning?

---