6 ms·

It's a simple economic analysis. People tend (this word is important) to follow their incentives. If a person on welfare faces a high effective marginal tax whe

by glesica 13y ago

It's a simple economic analysis. People tend (this word is important) to follow their incentives. If a person on welfare faces a high effective marginal tax when they start working (due to paying taxes plus losing benefits) they will not start working. If a CEO is compensated exclusively based on short-term share price, they will ramp up the share price even if they have to hurt the company to do it. We have seen mountains of evidence that people follow their incentives even when those incentives lead to perverse, counter-productive behaviors. It's basically what the entire "Freakonomics" franchise is built on, for example. We also know that the incentives faced by the military establishment are pushing toward more war, more violence. This is obvious, just look at the early '90s when we thought the world was going to be more peaceful. We cut back on military spending, military contractors howled and screamed. So, while we have no direct evidence that anyone in the military establishment is willfully disregarding civilian casualties, we do have extremely strong inferential evidence that some people in the military establishment are likely to do so, now, in the past, and in the future.

cscurmudgeon 13y ago
Arguments like this are logically wrong. I am glad you are not a judge in real life (hint: why is racial profiling wrong?)
- cglee 13y ago
  Why is this logically wrong? I think it's a given that people/corporations follow economic incentives. We even have a legally binding phrase for that to protect shareholders. No one is making explicit accusations, just pointing out that privatizing certain industries (prisons, military, etc) can lead to perverse incentives.
- crpatino 13y ago
  Yes, the argument is logically wrong... but logic is not the only mental resource we have to make sense of the world. By example, if we agreed that the truth can only be called "truth" if it is derived by "logic", there would be no scientific method, and we would still be killing each other with swords because there is no logical way to figure out, let alone unmanned flying devices, but any sort of flying machine heavier than air. Instead, you would be arguing that it is "illogical" for a simple peasant to be able to kill a noble knight that has been training in the art of war for his whole life... so those damned crossbow mercenaries are cheating and ought not to exist. And for the example you offer, judges' very job description require them to narrow down on a case by case basis, and to make a decision based on the evidence available, beyond reasonable doubt. The ethical principle that requires this to be so is that the asymmetry of power between the individual and the State is so big that it is most fair for the whole process to start with a bias in favor of the individual. Other situations require a different kind of analysis. And the consequence to apply this level of precision to political analysis is that no analysis (and no criticism to the de-facto policies that are guarantied to emerge anyways in this vacum of knowledge) is ever possible.
- semiel 13y ago
  This is not a question of whether some specific person is a bad person. It's a question of whether the current incentive scheme leads to certain aggregate behavior.
- bluecalm 13y ago
  Care to point out which part of argument you find logically wrong ? I mean I find it correct and I find your hint actually hinting that you are not getting it.
- lolbertarian 13y ago
  Thank goodness we have the arbitrator of logic here, folks. Your inability to follow inductive reasoning has stunted you intellectually and has impeded discussion between those of us who are able converse without posting "DOES NOT COMPUTE" without a follow up.
- glesica 13y ago
  Please explain why it is logically wrong, and also explain why an economic analysis of a situation has anything to do with being a judge. Judges don't use pure logic, they apply logic, and a whole bunch of other tools, to the law. My comments had nothing, repeat NOTHING, to do with the law. I was merely commenting on the reasonableness of assuming that certain things are happening behind (intentionally) closed doors within the military community.

by glesica 13y ago

cscurmudgeon 13y ago

Arguments like this are logically wrong. I am glad you are not a judge in real life (hint: why is racial profiling wrong?)

cglee 13y ago
Why is this logically wrong? I think it's a given that people/corporations follow economic incentives. We even have a legally binding phrase for that to protect shareholders. No one is making explicit accusations, just pointing out that privatizing certain industries (prisons, military, etc) can lead to perverse incentives.
crpatino 13y ago
Yes, the argument is logically wrong... but logic is not the only mental resource we have to make sense of the world. By example, if we agreed that the truth can only be called "truth" if it is derived by "logic", there would be no scientific method, and we would still be killing each other with swords because there is no logical way to figure out, let alone unmanned flying devices, but any sort of flying machine heavier than air. Instead, you would be arguing that it is "illogical" for a simple peasant to be able to kill a noble knight that has been training in the art of war for his whole life... so those damned crossbow mercenaries are cheating and ought not to exist. And for the example you offer, judges' very job description require them to narrow down on a case by case basis, and to make a decision based on the evidence available, beyond reasonable doubt. The ethical principle that requires this to be so is that the asymmetry of power between the individual and the State is so big that it is most fair for the whole process to start with a bias in favor of the individual. Other situations require a different kind of analysis. And the consequence to apply this level of precision to political analysis is that no analysis (and no criticism to the de-facto policies that are guarantied to emerge anyways in this vacum of knowledge) is ever possible.
semiel 13y ago
This is not a question of whether some specific person is a bad person. It's a question of whether the current incentive scheme leads to certain aggregate behavior.
bluecalm 13y ago
Care to point out which part of argument you find logically wrong ? I mean I find it correct and I find your hint actually hinting that you are not getting it.
lolbertarian 13y ago
Thank goodness we have the arbitrator of logic here, folks. Your inability to follow inductive reasoning has stunted you intellectually and has impeded discussion between those of us who are able converse without posting "DOES NOT COMPUTE" without a follow up.
glesica 13y ago
Please explain why it is logically wrong, and also explain why an economic analysis of a situation has anything to do with being a judge. Judges don't use pure logic, they apply logic, and a whole bunch of other tools, to the law. My comments had nothing, repeat NOTHING, to do with the law. I was merely commenting on the reasonableness of assuming that certain things are happening behind (intentionally) closed doors within the military community.