27 ms·

I totally agree with you but on two points: 1) Cost benefit analysis and discretionary security is not mutually exclusive. It's cost benefit analysis ergo disc

I totally agree with you but on two points: 1) Cost benefit analysis and discretionary security is not mutually exclusive. It's cost benefit analysis ergo discretionary security. 2) Crime pays. You just have to be sophisticated and powerful enough to not be indicted. (TARP?) The interesting thing about your comment is when you apply your logic towards combating terrorism. The cumulative harm of prevention of terrorism outweighs the damage and death caused by the terrorism itself. The 'cost-benefit analysis' must take into account the 'positive' externalities for those who advocate those policies.

rogerbinns 14y ago
On 1) that is what I meant. The level of security measures is proportional to the risks, and a realisation that every measure costs time and money. For 2) white collar crime certainly has shorter prison sentences in the US. It is a little harder to apportion blame as directly as with a bank robber. The general cause of problems has been the US government bailing out creditors. Because of that creditors have been laxer in their standards, had lower oversight and a greater tolerance for risk. This is virtually US government policy and has been going on since the 1984 rescue of the creditors of Continental Illinois. Ultimately fixing this involves fixing the US government and the corruption of Congress - see Lawrence Lessig's talk about they operate around money - and smaller things like regulatory capture. The response to 9/11 has been to massively amplify the original effects, giving a huge return on investment to Al-Qaeda. In the positive column has been some of the security theatre - the appearance of improved security will be reassuring to some people. But everything else has been negative - the government expenditures, making new enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, the loss of freedom for Americans, the massive invasive spying on Americans, the use of "terrorism" as an excuse for inexcusable things, the loss of American prestige (Guantanamo Bay isn't good PR), the additional friction on American life in both time and money (try taking a flight) and the list goes on. I don't want to belittle 9/11, but the same number of people die each and every single month on American roads. It happened that same month, and every month since. IMHO it would be a far better remembrance to the victims if we said "fuck you" to the perpetrators and lived free and open lives despite them, rather than the crippling effects that did happen.
- xenophanes 14y ago
  Some of the people dying on roads are suicides. Very few are murders. Murders and accidents are not the same thing and not equally bad. One difference: if you don't do anything about accidents, the rate stays the same. If you don't do anything about murder and just let it happen, the rate goes up as more people realize they can get away with it and serial killers or terrorists get more bold.

rogerbinns 14y ago

On 1) that is what I meant. The level of security measures is proportional to the risks, and a realisation that every measure costs time and money. For 2) white collar crime certainly has shorter prison sentences in the US. It is a little harder to apportion blame as directly as with a bank robber. The general cause of problems has been the US government bailing out creditors. Because of that creditors have been laxer in their standards, had lower oversight and a greater tolerance for risk. This is virtually US government policy and has been going on since the 1984 rescue of the creditors of Continental Illinois. Ultimately fixing this involves fixing the US government and the corruption of Congress - see Lawrence Lessig's talk about they operate around money - and smaller things like regulatory capture. The response to 9/11 has been to massively amplify the original effects, giving a huge return on investment to Al-Qaeda. In the positive column has been some of the security theatre - the appearance of improved security will be reassuring to some people. But everything else has been negative - the government expenditures, making new enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, the loss of freedom for Americans, the massive invasive spying on Americans, the use of "terrorism" as an excuse for inexcusable things, the loss of American prestige (Guantanamo Bay isn't good PR), the additional friction on American life in both time and money (try taking a flight) and the list goes on. I don't want to belittle 9/11, but the same number of people die each and every single month on American roads. It happened that same month, and every month since. IMHO it would be a far better remembrance to the victims if we said "fuck you" to the perpetrators and lived free and open lives despite them, rather than the crippling effects that did happen.

xenophanes 14y ago
Some of the people dying on roads are suicides. Very few are murders. Murders and accidents are not the same thing and not equally bad. One difference: if you don't do anything about accidents, the rate stays the same. If you don't do anything about murder and just let it happen, the rate goes up as more people realize they can get away with it and serial killers or terrorists get more bold.