4 ms·

terrorism is not anywhere near a big enough threat to justify the counter measures, loss of privacy , freedom and the threat of a scary totalitarian future To

by e40 12y ago

terrorism is not anywhere near a big enough threat to justify the counter measures, loss of privacy , freedom and the threat of a scary totalitarian future To put it into perspective, more people die walking across roads in the US every year than died from terrorism in 2001. Most years other than 2001, the difference between them is staggering. Yet, you would be hard pressed to find anyone that we should take drastic measures to curtail the freedom of car drivers because of the pedestrian deaths. How little people care about the deaths of 4000+ people a year: most drivers that kill a pedestrian are not punished at all. The Freakonomics guys even did a podcast on how to commit the perfect murder, where the method was killing the person with a car.

rayiner 12y ago
Comparing death tolls is a facetious argument. DC ground to a halt during the sniper's shootings even though he killed just a handful of people. The whole point of terrorism is the psychological impact. Also, cars kill twice as many people as murderers each year. If we ignore the difference between accidents and malicious acts, and the deterrent effect involved, you can probably make a case that its not worthwhile to enforce criminal laws at all.
- Joeri 12y ago
  The means of the state are not endless. States carry an obligation to make rational use of their means to macimize the benefit for their citizens. The argument is not that terrorist strikes do not deserve deterrence or punishment, it's that the war on terror is inappropriate in its scale, because the same means could have achieved much more good for the american people when put (mostly) to other uses.
  - 64598u3wieodsk 12y ago
    As a juxtaposition, compare this with an actual quote from a 2005 speech by Bush: “We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them.”
- netcan 12y ago
  I agree. But even if we agree that the focus of our attention isn't completely rational, that's no reason to expect it to be completely divorced from reality as it is with the anti terrorism.
- forgottenpass 12y ago
  The whole point of terrorism is the psychological impact. Which makes it all the more important that the state not feed into the psychological impact, no? One of the ways you keep a stiff upper lip is acknowledge that society is already accustomed to certain levels of murder and accidental death.
- rgrieselhuber 12y ago
  The reason death tools are worthwhile to mention is that putting things into perspective reduces the psychological impact. If more people were immune to the psychological impact, terrorism as a whole would have far less influence.
- mikeash 12y ago
  The point of comparing death tolls is not to ignore the psychological impact, but rather to argue that the psychological impact should be the target of the remedies. For a country like the United States, terrorism is an allergen, and the reaction to an attack is anaphylaxis. When a person is allergic to bee stings, the best solution is to convince the immune system that bee stings aren't really a big deal and should not have such a strong response. This is hard, but it's the best possible way to deal with the allergy if you can accomplish it. Imagine if somebody was stung by a bee, and then the subsequent allergic reaction nearly killed them. Imagine if you use their near death as a reason to to be hyper-vigilant against future bee stings. Imagine if your proposed hyper-vigilance involved numerous measures to boost the immune system response against bee stings. This is, essentially, current policy on terrorism. It's unsustainable and outright dangerous. The only long-term solution is to figure out how to get the immune system to stop reacting so strongly i.e. figure out how to get people to react to terrorism in a way that is proportionate to the direct damage it causes. I don't know how to accomplish that outright, but we could at least start by not having the government play along with it.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    Amen - you don't fix people's irrational fears by encouraging and indulging them. That is, of course, unless you own a business selling anti-boogeyman traps.
- WorldWideWayne 12y ago
  I think you meant to say "specious", not "facetious" but in either case - I disagree. Why should the psychological impact be valued higher than actual deaths?

by e40 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

Comparing death tolls is a facetious argument. DC ground to a halt during the sniper's shootings even though he killed just a handful of people. The whole point of terrorism is the psychological impact. Also, cars kill twice as many people as murderers each year. If we ignore the difference between accidents and malicious acts, and the deterrent effect involved, you can probably make a case that its not worthwhile to enforce criminal laws at all.

Joeri 12y ago
The means of the state are not endless. States carry an obligation to make rational use of their means to macimize the benefit for their citizens. The argument is not that terrorist strikes do not deserve deterrence or punishment, it's that the war on terror is inappropriate in its scale, because the same means could have achieved much more good for the american people when put (mostly) to other uses.
- 64598u3wieodsk 12y ago
  As a juxtaposition, compare this with an actual quote from a 2005 speech by Bush: “We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them.”
netcan 12y ago
I agree. But even if we agree that the focus of our attention isn't completely rational, that's no reason to expect it to be completely divorced from reality as it is with the anti terrorism.
forgottenpass 12y ago
The whole point of terrorism is the psychological impact. Which makes it all the more important that the state not feed into the psychological impact, no? One of the ways you keep a stiff upper lip is acknowledge that society is already accustomed to certain levels of murder and accidental death.
rgrieselhuber 12y ago
The reason death tools are worthwhile to mention is that putting things into perspective reduces the psychological impact. If more people were immune to the psychological impact, terrorism as a whole would have far less influence.
mikeash 12y ago
The point of comparing death tolls is not to ignore the psychological impact, but rather to argue that the psychological impact should be the target of the remedies. For a country like the United States, terrorism is an allergen, and the reaction to an attack is anaphylaxis. When a person is allergic to bee stings, the best solution is to convince the immune system that bee stings aren't really a big deal and should not have such a strong response. This is hard, but it's the best possible way to deal with the allergy if you can accomplish it. Imagine if somebody was stung by a bee, and then the subsequent allergic reaction nearly killed them. Imagine if you use their near death as a reason to to be hyper-vigilant against future bee stings. Imagine if your proposed hyper-vigilance involved numerous measures to boost the immune system response against bee stings. This is, essentially, current policy on terrorism. It's unsustainable and outright dangerous. The only long-term solution is to figure out how to get the immune system to stop reacting so strongly i.e. figure out how to get people to react to terrorism in a way that is proportionate to the direct damage it causes. I don't know how to accomplish that outright, but we could at least start by not having the government play along with it.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  Amen - you don't fix people's irrational fears by encouraging and indulging them. That is, of course, unless you own a business selling anti-boogeyman traps.
WorldWideWayne 12y ago
I think you meant to say "specious", not "facetious" but in either case - I disagree. Why should the psychological impact be valued higher than actual deaths?