3 ms·

Uh this is actually a really good argument. Put another way, do you let kids decide how much candy they get to eat? These things are analogous. The way organiza

Uh this is actually a really good argument. Put another way, do you let kids decide how much candy they get to eat? These things are analogous. The way organizations like the military are set up, they always will want more money, more expansion, more autonomy. Hell, give me one example of an organization that won't ask for more money every year given the opportunity. Usually you have to provide value for money, but the military gets away with handwaving about security. Another analogous situation is infosec. I used to work in that space, and a big problem companies have is trying to figure out how much money to sink into their infosec teams. Good orgs invest in infosec, but they also don't just give all their profits to those teams. The value proposition of security in general is just hard to measure; that said organizations have a tendency to either massively overinvest (because fear, and it's hard to measure) or underinvest (because you don't need it until something goes wrong). A lot of times they start out underinvested, something bad happens, and then suddenly they're overinvested because they are afraid of bad thing happening again. I think this last description is very apt for the US.

wait_a_minute 5y ago
Reasoning by analogy rather than by principles means someone has no argument. The analogy just restates the original premise without actually contending for the premise.
- kajecounterhack 5y ago
  That's not correct. Analogies are a good way to help someone you're talking to understand where you're coming from. The post that originally drew the analogy for you was succinctly explaining why unequivocal support for an organization's budget, particularly one like the US military, is not a good idea. It was quite successful at conveying that point, you're just calling it invalid. Doesn't make it so.
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  Let me break down the analogy for you then in terms of the direct argument I'm making: Military leaders, as the consumers of resources allocated to the military, are in a strong position to understand what resource allocation is necessary for a set of goals... ... however... Military leaders, being inherently and existentially dependent on resources allocated to the military, are fundamentally incentivized to advocate for increased resource allocation to the military, independently of whether those resources are more necessary for the goals of the military than for other public goods.

wait_a_minute 5y ago

Reasoning by analogy rather than by principles means someone has no argument. The analogy just restates the original premise without actually contending for the premise.

kajecounterhack 5y ago
That's not correct. Analogies are a good way to help someone you're talking to understand where you're coming from. The post that originally drew the analogy for you was succinctly explaining why unequivocal support for an organization's budget, particularly one like the US military, is not a good idea. It was quite successful at conveying that point, you're just calling it invalid. Doesn't make it so.
InitialLastName 5y ago
Let me break down the analogy for you then in terms of the direct argument I'm making: Military leaders, as the consumers of resources allocated to the military, are in a strong position to understand what resource allocation is necessary for a set of goals... ... however... Military leaders, being inherently and existentially dependent on resources allocated to the military, are fundamentally incentivized to advocate for increased resource allocation to the military, independently of whether those resources are more necessary for the goals of the military than for other public goods.