[anonymouskimmer]

The sunk cost fallacy applies to both interventionism and noninterventionism. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is an idiom for a reason.

What made interventions such as the Berlin Air Lift work is that they were stuck with until they were no longer needed. An unanticipatable effect of the Berlin Air Lift was the "Tear down this wall" speech and the end of the USSR.

[MadSudaca]

How do you know that was an unanticipated effect? Also, what about all other cases where interventionism didn't work, that is, made things worse? How can you tell a priori wether intervening will have good results? Moreover, if you're a decision-maker, will you bear any cost if your decision turns out wrong? If not, how is that supposed to be ethical?

[anonymouskimmer]

I'm just stating that lack of action is an action. I'm not arguing the points you're asking me questions about.

> How do you know that was an unanticipated effect?

Wanting to support Berlin so that the communist regime would eventually collapse might be a desired outcome, but the way it happened couldn't have been anticipated, it could at most be wished for. Wishfulness is the very thing the parent article is arguing against.

> How can you tell a priori wether intervening will have good results?

You try to learn history and figure out parameters for successful predictions?

> Moreover, if you're a decision-maker, will you bear any cost if your decision turns out wrong? If not, how is that supposed to be ethical?

I don't disagree? Ethics effects exist to encourage people to take precautions when it comes to the effects of their actions or inactions. There are obviously entrenched interests that push back against ethical consequences.