2 ms·

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.

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.