Understand what your freedom is being sacrificed for.

[Guest darkskyabove]

https://mises.org/daily/4872/Why-This-Gigantic-Intelligence-Apparatus

"Even if the expected damage from acts of terrorism against the United
States were $10 billion per year, which seems much too high a guess, it
makes no sense to spend more than $75 billion every year to prevent it —
and it certainly makes no sense to spend any money only pretending to
prevent it."

If people can't understand the moral implications of their "elected" representatives, maybe the can understand what's missing from their wallet.

[STer]

 

https://mises.org/daily/4872/Why-This-Gigantic-Intelligence-Apparatus

"Even if the expected damage from acts of terrorism against the United
States were $10 billion per year, which seems much too high a guess, it
makes no sense to spend more than $75 billion every year to prevent it —
and it certainly makes no sense to spend any money only pretending to
prevent it."

If people can't understand the moral implications of their "elected" representatives, maybe the can understand what's missing from their wallet.

 

I don't get it. Who thinks of terrorism only in terms of economic damage? Isn't it the loss of life that's more the issue? I'm not saying this to justify or argue against the policies. I'm just not getting how focusing on it in purely economic terms makes any sense.

[ribuck]

I don't get it. Who thinks of terrorism only in terms of economic damage? Isn't it the loss of life that's more the issue?

For sure, loss of life is a bigger issue, but it's not the relevant one. It's already well-understood that many more lives can be saved, much more cheaply and easily, by (for example) building better roads.

[Magnus]

 

 

https://mises.org/daily/4872/Why-This-Gigantic-Intelligence-Apparatus

"Even if the expected damage from acts of terrorism against the United
States were $10 billion per year, which seems much too high a guess, it
makes no sense to spend more than $75 billion every year to prevent it —
and it certainly makes no sense to spend any money only pretending to
prevent it."

If people can't understand the moral implications of their "elected" representatives, maybe the can understand what's missing from their wallet.

 

I don't get it. Who thinks of terrorism only in terms of economic damage? Isn't it the loss of life that's more the issue? I'm not saying this to justify or argue against the policies. I'm just not getting how focusing on it in purely economic terms makes any sense.

 

As ribuck said, more than 32,000 people die in traffic collisions every year in the USA. It's the No. 1 cause of death for all age groups under age 45. That number could be reduced to about 32 if the government -- which designs, builds, and polices the roads where these deaths occur, and controls the design and installation of the safety features on all of the cars -- were to make some changes. We could ride around in golf carts. Or walk.

But there's an even more insidious level of governmental control that virtually guarantees that these traffic rules and designs won't be changed -- land use restrictions.  Government controls the location of every type of business and residence, and their density, which spreads everything out to the point that artery roads and cars become a necessity.  

Land use rules are the most fascistic restrictions that affect people on a daily basis, but most people don't even know they exist. They are written in secret and in back-room deals. They are written to favor developers and landowners and road-building companies. 

Making our daily transportation activities less of a bloodbath would have large, negative economic effects on politically-powerful people. 

[STer]

 

I don't get it. Who thinks of terrorism only in terms of economic damage? Isn't it the loss of life that's more the issue?

For sure, loss of life is a bigger issue, but it's not the relevant one. It's already well-understood that many more lives can be saved, much more cheaply and easily, by (for example) building better roads.

 

Yes and that would be a better point to make than focusing on the economic cost vs. gains. In fact, it's a point that should be made.

However, there is also a retort to that, which is that accidents on roads are not designed to spread fear in the population at large. When accidents happen, they don't typically serve to scare much of the population into changing their lives. Terrorist acts are specifically about that. So their repercussions are much larger than accidents at the cultural level.

[STer]

 

 

 

https://mises.org/daily/4872/Why-This-Gigantic-Intelligence-Apparatus

"Even if the expected damage from acts of terrorism against the United
States were $10 billion per year, which seems much too high a guess, it
makes no sense to spend more than $75 billion every year to prevent it —
and it certainly makes no sense to spend any money only pretending to
prevent it."

If people can't understand the moral implications of their "elected" representatives, maybe the can understand what's missing from their wallet.

 

I don't get it. Who thinks of terrorism only in terms of economic damage? Isn't it the loss of life that's more the issue? I'm not saying this to justify or argue against the policies. I'm just not getting how focusing on it in purely economic terms makes any sense.

 

As ribuck said, more than 32,000 people die in traffic collisions every year in the USA. It's the No. 1 cause of death for all age groups under age 45. That number could be reduced to about 32 if the government -- which designs, builds, and polices the roads where these deaths occur, and controls the design and installation of the safety features on all of the cars -- were to make some changes. We could ride around in golf carts. Or walk.

But there's an even more insidious level of governmental control that virtually guarantees that these traffic rules and designs won't be changed -- land use restrictions.  Government controls the location of every type of business and residence, and their density, which spreads everything out to the point that artery roads and cars become a necessity.  

Land use rules are the most fascistic restrictions that affect people on a daily basis, but most people don't even know they exist. They are written in secret and in back-room deals. They are written to favor developers and landowners and road-building companies. 

Making our daily transportation activities less of a bloodbath would have large, negative economic effects on politically-powerful people. 

 

See my answer above. You're correct and that should be addressed too. But other things that kill people are not designed to spread fear through the culture and have their main effect that way. Terrorism is not really about the people harmed directly. It's about the reaction that causes in everyone else who witnesses it.

[pretzelogik]

ter·ror·ism  

/ˈterəˌrizəm/

Noun The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

[STer]

 

ter·ror·ism  

/ˈterəˌrizəm/

Noun The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

 

Not sure what your point was. Were you backing up my point or trying to refute it. Either way that definition reinforces my point. Terrorism aims to intimidate people. Who does it aim to intimidate? Obviously not the small number of people hurt and even more obviously not the ones killed. It tries to intimidate the remaining population around them.

Car accidents have no intent to intimidate and rarely ever do intimidate others. So these are qualitatively different acts and not analogous.

[Magnus]

 

 

ter·ror·ism  

/ˈterəˌrizəm/

Noun The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

 

Not sure what your point was. Were you backing up my point or trying to refute it. Either way that definition reinforces my point. Terrorism aims to intimidate people. Who does it aim to intimidate? Obviously not the small number of people hurt and even more obviously not the ones killed. It tries to intimidate the remaining population around them.

Car accidents have no intent to intimidate and rarely ever do intimidate others. So these are qualitatively different acts and not analogous.

 

I believe the definition highlights the fact that terrorism is not merely intended to spread fear and intimidate people in general, but is specifically designed to interfere with the relationship between the "people" and the State. 

The reason that the State over-responds to terrorism (which it cannot prevent) and under-responds to the larger number of daily, predictable, perennial deaths-by-traffic (which it could prevent) is that the State cares more about itself, and maintaining its direct control, than it does about actual life-and-death. 

The State is jealous of its ability to terrorize the populace.  It resents the competition.  It will spend whatever amount of your money is necessary in order to maintain its monopoly on terror.  Maintaining control is its raison d'etre.  Otherwise, Statists might as well give up and find another line of work.

[STer]

 

 

 

ter·ror·ism  

/ˈterəˌrizəm/

Noun The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

 

Not sure what your point was. Were you backing up my point or trying to refute it. Either way that definition reinforces my point. Terrorism aims to intimidate people. Who does it aim to intimidate? Obviously not the small number of people hurt and even more obviously not the ones killed. It tries to intimidate the remaining population around them.

Car accidents have no intent to intimidate and rarely ever do intimidate others. So these are qualitatively different acts and not analogous.

 

I believe the definition highlights the fact that terrorism is not merely intended to spread fear and intimidate people in general, but is specifically designed to interfere with the relationship between the "people" and the State. 

The reason that the State over-responds to terrorism (which it cannot prevent) and under-responds to the larger number of daily, predictable, perennial deaths-by-traffic (which it could prevent) is that the State cares more about itself, and maintaining its direct control, than it does about actual life-and-death. 

The State is jealous of its ability to terrorize the populace.  It resents the competition.  It will spend whatever amount of your money is necessary in order to maintain its monopoly on terror.  Maintaining control is its raison d'etre.  Otherwise, Statists might as well give up and find another line of work.

 

I had a feeling you were going to try that route and I started to add to my repsonse, but then I figured I'd wait and see. Sure enough you went there. So now I can just point out that there are plenty of dictionaries that don't specify politics in their definitions (see m-w.com for one example). And rightly so. Many terrorists have religious aims, not political aims. And if a group decided to start blowing up people to scare the population into caving into any non-political concern, even something as petty as just them wanting money, would you not call it terrorism? I would, as would many dictionaries.

Beyond that, nobody expects to stop all terrorism. We try to minimize it. And you'd have to be clueless not to realize the government succeeds in stopping many plots. No matter how strong your bias against the government, you must admit they stop almost all plots, in fact so far. Opposing the State is not helped by refusing to be honest about what they do and don't do. They do succeed in stopping a lot of plots.

You can surely make a case that stopping them in that way isn't worth what we give up. But arguing it in economic terms is not a very effective one since you can't measure things like people's lives and the level of security in a society in pure money. Those things are priceless to many people. So the point is simply that you have to make the case in some other way. And trying to compare the situation to that of car accidents is not a convincing strategy.

[STer]

There is so much debate over the definition of terrorism that Wikipedia has a rather long page just on that.

But I would say the page leans toward the side of it not having to be political, so much so that, for example, the UK's 2000 definition specifies "political, religious or ideological cause." So they were explicit that it isn't just political.

Their definition also specifies "designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public" so it doesn't have to even involve the government. It can be meant to directly coerce some group of people in the public.

[Magnus]

 

 

 

 

ter·ror·ism  

/ˈterəˌrizəm/

Noun The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

 

Not sure what your point was. Were you backing up my point or trying to refute it. Either way that definition reinforces my point. Terrorism aims to intimidate people. Who does it aim to intimidate? Obviously not the small number of people hurt and even more obviously not the ones killed. It tries to intimidate the remaining population around them.

Car accidents have no intent to intimidate and rarely ever do intimidate others. So these are qualitatively different acts and not analogous.

 

I believe the definition highlights the fact that terrorism is not merely intended to spread fear and intimidate people in general, but is specifically designed to interfere with the relationship between the "people" and the State. 

The reason that the State over-responds to terrorism (which it cannot prevent) and under-responds to the larger number of daily, predictable, perennial deaths-by-traffic (which it could prevent) is that the State cares more about itself, and maintaining its direct control, than it does about actual life-and-death. 

The State is jealous of its ability to terrorize the populace.  It resents the competition.  It will spend whatever amount of your money is necessary in order to maintain its monopoly on terror.  Maintaining control is its raison d'etre.  Otherwise, Statists might as well give up and find another line of work.

 

I had a feeling you were going to try that route and I started to add to my repsonse, but then I figured I'd wait and see. Sure enough you went there. So now I can just point out that there are plenty of dictionaries that don't specify politics in their definitions (see m-w.com for one example). And rightly so. Many terrorists have religious aims, not political aims. And if a group decided to start blowing up people to scare the population into caving into any non-political concern, even something as petty as just them wanting money, would you not call it terrorism? I would, as would many dictionaries.

Beyond that, nobody expects to stop all terrorism. We try to minimize it. And you'd have to be clueless not to realize the government succeeds in stopping many plots. No matter how strong your bias against the government, you must admit they stop almost all plots, in fact so far. Opposing the State is not helped by refusing to be honest about what they do and don't do. They do succeed in stopping a lot of plots.

You can surely make a case that stopping them in that way isn't worth what we give up. But arguing it in economic terms is not a very effective one since you can't measure things like people's lives and the level of security in a society in pure money. Those things are priceless to many people. So the point is simply that you have to make the case in some other way. And trying to compare the situation to that of car accidents is not a convincing strategy.

 

None of what you are saying here addresses my points. 

First, the "religious" aims involved in terrorism are still political in nature.  The Islamist terrorism that is the main global terror issue for the last 100 years or so is not designed merely to promote their brand of Islam -- it so happens that this particular brand of Islam is State-enforced Islam.  It's things like Sharia Law.  It's the total merger and fusion of religion and statism.  You can call these goals "religious" but doing so completely (intentionally?) misses the fact that it is still just politics, but with some religious language glossed over the top. 

Second, who is this "we" that is trying to "minimize" terrorism?  I don't care about terrorism nearly as much as I care about traffic and toxins, because traffic and toxins are FAR more likely to cause harm to me and my family than is terrorism.  I care more about water safety.  I care more about pharmacy error.  Terrorism is about number 857 on my list of concerns.

The desire to live may be infinite (hence priceless), but the time, attention and resources one needs to expend in order to cope with existential threats is finite.  Hence, security is an economic good.  Of course the amount spent on it, and in what areas, matters.

People's lives are priceless TO THEMSELVES, but not priceless to the State that monopolizes the aggression in modern society.  If people's lives and safety were of paramount concern to the State, then the State's paramount attention and effort would be directed at the No. 1 cause of early, avoidable deaths, until it was no longer No. 1 on the list, and then work its way down. 

They don't.  They DO NOTHING about the deaths they CAN prevent, and spend billions pretending to "do something" about the attacks they can't predict or prevent.  Even with Total Domestic Surveillance, nothing will stop guys like the Tsarnaev brothers from packing up a pressure cooker with gunpowder and nails and taking it to another sporting event, or a movie theater.  It's ridiculous.

[STer]

 

 

 

 

 

ter·ror·ism  

/ˈterəˌrizəm/

Noun The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

 

Not sure what your point was. Were you backing up my point or trying to refute it. Either way that definition reinforces my point. Terrorism aims to intimidate people. Who does it aim to intimidate? Obviously not the small number of people hurt and even more obviously not the ones killed. It tries to intimidate the remaining population around them.

Car accidents have no intent to intimidate and rarely ever do intimidate others. So these are qualitatively different acts and not analogous.

 

I believe the definition highlights the fact that terrorism is not merely intended to spread fear and intimidate people in general, but is specifically designed to interfere with the relationship between the "people" and the State. 

The reason that the State over-responds to terrorism (which it cannot prevent) and under-responds to the larger number of daily, predictable, perennial deaths-by-traffic (which it could prevent) is that the State cares more about itself, and maintaining its direct control, than it does about actual life-and-death. 

The State is jealous of its ability to terrorize the populace.  It resents the competition.  It will spend whatever amount of your money is necessary in order to maintain its monopoly on terror.  Maintaining control is its raison d'etre.  Otherwise, Statists might as well give up and find another line of work.

 

I had a feeling you were going to try that route and I started to add to my repsonse, but then I figured I'd wait and see. Sure enough you went there. So now I can just point out that there are plenty of dictionaries that don't specify politics in their definitions (see m-w.com for one example). And rightly so. Many terrorists have religious aims, not political aims. And if a group decided to start blowing up people to scare the population into caving into any non-political concern, even something as petty as just them wanting money, would you not call it terrorism? I would, as would many dictionaries.

Beyond that, nobody expects to stop all terrorism. We try to minimize it. And you'd have to be clueless not to realize the government succeeds in stopping many plots. No matter how strong your bias against the government, you must admit they stop almost all plots, in fact so far. Opposing the State is not helped by refusing to be honest about what they do and don't do. They do succeed in stopping a lot of plots.

You can surely make a case that stopping them in that way isn't worth what we give up. But arguing it in economic terms is not a very effective one since you can't measure things like people's lives and the level of security in a society in pure money. Those things are priceless to many people. So the point is simply that you have to make the case in some other way. And trying to compare the situation to that of car accidents is not a convincing strategy.

 

None of what you are saying here addresses my points. 

First, the "religious" aims involved in terrorism are still political in nature.  The Islamist terrorism that is the main global terror issue for the last 100 years or so is not designed merely to promote their brand of Islam -- it so happens that this particular brand of Islam is State-enforced Islam.  It's things like Sharia Law.  It's the total merger and fusion of religion and statism.  You can call these goals "religious" but doing so completely (intentionally?) misses the fact that it is still just politics, but with some religious language glossed over the top. 

Second, who is this "we" that is trying to "minimize" terrorism?  I don't care about terrorism nearly as much as I care about traffic and toxins, because traffic and toxins are FAR more likely to cause harm to me and my family than is terrorism.  I care more about water safety.  I care more about pharmacy error.  Terrorism is about number 857 on my list of concerns. 

People's lives are priceless TO THEMSELVES, but not priceless to the State that monopolizes the aggression in modern society.  If people's lives and safety were of paramount concern to the State, then the State's paramount attention and effort would be directed at the No. 1 cause of early, avoidable deaths, until it was no longer No. 1 on the list, and then work its way down. 

They don't.  They DO NOTHING about the deaths they CAN prevent, and spend billions pretending to "do something" about the attacks they can't predict or prevent.  Even with Total Domestic Surveillance, nothing will stop guys like the Tsarnaev brothers from packing up a pressure cooker with gunpowder and nails and taking it to another sporting event, or a movie theater.  It's ridiculous.

 

Sorry but the Wikipedia page I put in my next post offers numerous definitions both from countries' laws and from scholars on terrorism that explicitly say it does not have to involve politics or even the government, so your first point is simply not debatable as a solid unquestioned statement at this point. I admit some definitions say it has to be political, but there are plenty that say it doesn't. So you can't insist that everyone agrees it's only terrorism if political in some way or involving the government. Some definitions make clear it can just be for economic gain and aimed at a group of the public, no government issue at all.

Your second point is a straw man. I never said terrorism was everyone's highest concern. I simply said we try to minimize it. That doesn't mean we don't also try to minimize other bad things, some of them with even greater effort.

Reading the rest of your statement I see I'm wasting my time. You are an angry anti-statist (nothing wrong with that in itself, especially on this board) hijacking a totally separate discussion to give another cliche anti-state rant (which would be fine if it was relevant to the thread but it isn't). We all know the arguments against the state here. This was a discussion about what is an effective vs. non-effective line of logic for claiming the current anti-terrorism policies are undesirable. It was not a referendum on whether the state is good or has our best intentions in mind. Where you got the idea that it was is hard for me to see since that was not discussed.

The question this thread was about is "Is opposing our policies on terrorism on economic grounds effective?" The second focus was "Are anti-terrorism policies and anti-car crash policies analogous?" There is nothing in there about whether the state cares about us or not. These questions would be just as valid if there was no state. They have to do with the nature of terrorism vs. other undesirable events, not the nature of the state.

[Magnus]

 

Sorry but the Wikipedia page I put in my next post offers numerous definitions both from countries' laws and from scholars on terrorism that explicitly say it does not have to involve politics or even the government, so your first point is simply not debatable as a solid unquestioned statement at this point. I admit some definitions say it has to be political, but there are plenty that say it doesn't. So you can't insist that everyone agrees it's only terrorism if political in some way or involving the government. Some definitions make clear it can just be for economic gain and aimed at a group of the public, no government issue at all.

 

Why would you focus on Wikipedia pages instead of real lives?  Why do you keep returning your attention to words instead of economic reality? 

Here's a question about economic reality -- How many people die annually from politically-motivated terrorism, as opposed to non-political terrorism?  More specifically, how much of the State's response to terrorism is
focused on and motivated by political terrorism, as opposed to non-political terrorism?  Those questions are far more important than the scope of a dictionary definition of a word. 

 

Your second point is a straw man. I never said terrorism was
everyone's highest concern. I simply said we try to minimize it. That
doesn't mean we don't also try to minimize other bad things, some of
them with even greater effort.

 

You didn't answer my question -- who is "we"? 

In a non-statist context, "we" all try to minimize the threats against us in an economical way, all the time.  Like all market processes, safety is a good, and people rank different forms of safety differently.  Value is subjective.  People evaluate risk differently.  The cost of minimizing some risks is higher than minimizing other risks.  All of those costs and benefits muct be calculated.

Only a market for secuity can discover the most economical price and form of that good.  What the State chooses to spend money on is always divorced from economic reality. It's ecoonomic decisions (a) are inevitably based on the State's priorities of value, not yours or mine, and (b) are a random guess that's completely divorced from actual costs and benefits. Why spend $75 billion?  Why not $72 billion?  Why not $78 billion?  Will the State's revenue go up or down based on those variations?

The State's inability to engage in economic calculation is unavoidably true whether the State is spending money on security or health care or education or anything else.  It can never know how to best spend money on any of these things because the State is inherently and unavoidably anti-market.  It destroys the market that is the only possible source of economic information.  It therefore cannot economically evaluate the costs and benefits of ANYTHING, including counter-terrorism efforts, because the State gets all of its revenue by force, and exludes all competition in that enterprise by force.

 

Reading the rest of your statement I see I'm wasting my time. You are
an angry anti-statist (nothing wrong with that in itself, especially on
this board) hijacking a totally separate discussion to give another
cliche anti-state rant (which would be fine if it was relevant to the
thread but it isn't). We all know the arguments against the state here.
This was a discussion about what is an effective vs. non-effective line
of logic for claiming the current anti-terrorism policies are
undesirable. It was not a referendum on whether the state is good or has
our best intentions in mind. Where you got the idea that it was is hard
for me to see since that was not discussed.

The question this thread was about is "Is opposing our policies on
terrorism on economic grounds effective?" The second focus was "Are
anti-terrorism policies and anti-car crash policies analogous?" There is
nothing in there about whether the state cares about us or not. These
questions would be just as valid if there was no state. They have to do
with the nature of terrorism vs. other undesirable events, not the
nature of the state.

 

I never expected the "you're an angry anti-statist" line to be trotted
out on an FDR board.  Bravo.  You have sunk to the level of the Fark
comments section. 

My comments have been directed entirely toward
the topic at hand -- the economics of security.  Traffic is a security
concern -- balancing the benefits of transportation against the threat
of death.  My point is that the State is no better at making economic
decisions about counter-terror spending than it is about any other
health-and-safety spending. 

I bring up traffic because (a) it's the
largest preventable threat to life, by far, and (b) for some reason,
that threat is almost invisible, and accepted, as if it's normal.  If
the drink dispensers at McDonald's exploded and killed 100 people daily,
with as much predictable regularity as cars, people would not blame
those deaths entirely on user error.  They'd eventually also say that
maybe McDonald's ought to change its drink dispensers. 

For some
reason, the State gets a pass.  It can waste huge sums of money, which
could be spent actually saving lives, but instead uses it on ineffectual expenditures that no one would incur on his own. 

Market anarchism is equally relevant, if not more so, to the economics of security as it is in any other context -- schools, corn prices or the use of woods in Gibson guitars, etc. The OP reminds us of that.

Why do you think the laws of economics do not apply to security?

[STer]

Magnus,

This discussion is not even about the state. Imagine there is no state and we have to set up defenses against terrorism (assuming you aren't going to claim that if you got rid of the state nobody would ever try to use that tactic, which would be pretty much a conversation-ender as I would see nowhere to really go from there and would find you as utopian as I would any state claiming they could stop all terrorism).

The same questions still remain even in an anarchist society:

1) Is analyzing policies on terrorism through a primarily economic lens effective? - (Notice I didn't ask if it's possible to do, just if it's effective, meaning will people find it convincing?)

2) Are anti-terrorism policies and anti-car crash policies analogous? - (This has absolutely nothing to do with whether there is a state or not since you could have these kinds of policies in any society of any kind. The question is simply whether they are of the same category.)

If you can't answer these without going back to anti-state ranting - since I specifically took the state out of the equation to avoid that - then we really have nothing more to say on this topic to each other. If you want to discuss how horrible the state is on these matters, that's a perfectly valid discussion, but really would make more sense in another thread.

And the fact that you'd call me out for saying you're an angry anti-statist on FDR, when I specifically said right after it "(nothing wrong with that in itself, especially on this board)" shows how disingenuous you really are being.

 

[Magnus]

 

Magnus,

This discussion is not even about the state. Imagine there is no state and we have to set up defenses against terrorism (assuming you aren't going to claim that if you got rid of the state nobody would ever try to use that tactic, which would be pretty much a conversation-ender as I would see nowhere to really go from there and would find you as utopian as I would any state claiming they could stop all terrorism).

The same questions still remain even in an anarchist society:

1) Is analyzing policies on terrorism through a primarily economic lens effective? - (Notice I didn't ask if it's possible to do, just if it's effective, meaning will people find it convincing?)

2) Are anti-terrorism policies and anti-car crash policies analogous? - (This has absolutely nothing to do with whether there is a state or not since you could have these kinds of policies in any society of any kind. The question is simply whether they are of the same category.)

If you can't answer these without going back to anti-state ranting - since I specifically took the state out of the equation to avoid that - then we really have nothing more to say on this topic to each other. If you want to discuss how horrible the state is on these matters, that's a perfectly valid discussion, but really would make more sense in another thread.

And the fact that you'd call me out for saying you're an angry anti-statist on FDR, when I specifically said right after it "(nothing wrong with that in itself, especially on this board)" shows how disingenuous you really are being.

 

I would not argue that terrorism only exists when there are States.  I would submit that, even in a highly advanced, anarchic society, defense against terrorism would still be a necessity.  I believe the primary defense against terrorist attacks would need to be focused on attacks that were designed to help bring about the formation of a State, in much the same way that most terrorism today is designed to bring about changes to existing States.  

1. Yes, I do believe it's convincing.  It's convincing for me, certainly.  It helped me tremendously to read anarchist economists who showed me that security is just another economic good.  It was (as usual) my last mental obstacle between being a minarchist and an anarchist. 

2. Counter-terror is analogous to car crashes in the sense that they are both subject to the laws of economics.  The majority of people have a HUGE blind spot when it comes to traffic deaths.  Terrorism gets grossly-disproportionate political attention, but traffic death is real.  I bring it up because I am trying to highlight the starkest contrast I can think of -- between the State's totally lackadaisical response to traffic, compared to its hysterical response to terrorism.  Both traffic and terrorism are a concern because they both pose an immediate threat of death or serious injury.  Armed robbery is another example.  All three of these topics can be addressed and discussed by reference to the State's economic decision-making process, and its lack of economic information. 

I found your comment about there being "nothing wrong" to be disingenuous, inasmuch as it followed immediately after saying I was wasting your time by being an "angry."

If you want to convince me that this discussion is "not about the state," then let's start by ensuring that it's not about me or my emotions.  It's not very convincing when you stray from the topic (e.g., to talk about me) when it suits you, then chastise me for failing to discuss things precisely the way you want them to be discussed.

[STer]

 

 

Magnus,

This discussion is not even about the state. Imagine there is no state and we have to set up defenses against terrorism (assuming you aren't going to claim that if you got rid of the state nobody would ever try to use that tactic, which would be pretty much a conversation-ender as I would see nowhere to really go from there and would find you as utopian as I would any state claiming they could stop all terrorism).

The same questions still remain even in an anarchist society:

1) Is analyzing policies on terrorism through a primarily economic lens effective? - (Notice I didn't ask if it's possible to do, just if it's effective, meaning will people find it convincing?)

2) Are anti-terrorism policies and anti-car crash policies analogous? - (This has absolutely nothing to do with whether there is a state or not since you could have these kinds of policies in any society of any kind. The question is simply whether they are of the same category.)

If you can't answer these without going back to anti-state ranting - since I specifically took the state out of the equation to avoid that - then we really have nothing more to say on this topic to each other. If you want to discuss how horrible the state is on these matters, that's a perfectly valid discussion, but really would make more sense in another thread.

And the fact that you'd call me out for saying you're an angry anti-statist on FDR, when I specifically said right after it "(nothing wrong with that in itself, especially on this board)" shows how disingenuous you really are being.

 

I would not argue that terrorism only exists when there are States.  I would submit that, even in a highly advanced, anarchic society, defense against terrorism would still be a necessity.  I believe the primary defense against terrorist attacks would need to be focused on attacks that were designed to help bring about the formation of a State, in much the same way that most terrorism today is designed to bring about changes to existing States.  

1. Yes, I do believe it's convincing.  It's convincing for me, certainly.  It helped me tremendously to read anarchist economists who showed me that security is just another economic good.  It was (as usual) my last mental obstacle between being a minarchist and an anarchist. 

2. Counter-terror is analogous to car crashes in the sense that they are both subject to the laws of economics.  The majority of people have a HUGE blind spot when it comes to traffic deaths.  Terrorism gets grossly-disproportionate political attention, but traffic death is real.  I bring it up because I am trying to highlight the starkest contrast I can think of -- between the State's totally lackadaisical response to traffic, compared to its hysterical response to terrorism.  Both traffic and terrorism are a concern because they both pose an immediate threat of death or serious injury.  Armed robbery is another example.  All three of these topics can be addressed and discussed by reference to the State's economic decision-making process, and its lack of economic information. 

I found your comment about there being "nothing wrong" to be disingenuous, inasmuch as it followed immediately after saying I was wasting your time by being an "angry."

If you want to convince me that this discussion is "not about the state," then let's start by ensuring that it's not about me or my emotions.  It's not very convincing when you stray from the topic (e.g., to talk about me) when it suits you, then chastise me for failing to discuss things precisely the way you want them to be discussed.

 

Ok well on #1 we just disagree then. I don't think most people consider security "just another" economic good because many people value their lives and those of their loved ones beyond any amount of money. There are people who, if they could get the money, would literally pay any amount to have a loved one back or to live longer. Many would even trade their own lives for the loved one's life. This is just not the case with many other things.

I agree with you that as a society the costs must be taken into account. That's why I didn't argue this logic is completely wrong. As a society we do have to put some cost limit on these things. But we can only do that in the abstract when it isn't ourselves or our loved one that we know for sure is going to be the person in question. What I argued is it isn't convincing to talk in these terms. The OP was about claiming that the economic argument would be more effective than arguing about the corruption of the people putting in place the policies. I disagree. I'm not saying the latter is very effective either. They probably are both ineffective with most people in practice. But I could be wrong, I guess that would have to be tested out to see what people actually respond to. This is just my best guess.

On #2, I guess I needed to be more specific. Of course you can find analogies between any two things on earth. You can name any two things and I can find some thing they have in common. That's what you're doing saying car accidents and terrorism are analogous since both can be looked at economically. Of course they can. My point was that people don't consider them mostly as economic issues so those links are not that relevant to them. You also said yourself that you see a blind spot involved when it comes to one of them. So even as you show why they are analogous you point out, in the process, how they are not in fact viewed in the same way. And that is exactly why I don't think making analogies between them is effective. Most people do not think of terrorism and car accidents using the same type of logic and most don't think of either of them as mainly an economic issue. You can argue that they should and that's another discussion. But they don't so trying to convince them using that logic is, I think, not likely to work.

I said you were wasting my time NOT because you were angry, which I pointed out was fine, but because you were pulling out that anger in a thread where it wasn't relevant. I also went on to say that all of that would be perfectly fine in another thread. So I think I made it clear that those feelings are relevant and welcome on the board, I just found them a sidetrack for this particular topic. I didn't "stray from the topic", I called you back into the topic. Those are not the same thing and that is disingenuous again to claim they are.

[Magnus]

 

I don't think most people consider security "just another" economic good because many people value their lives and those of their loved ones beyond any amount of money.

 

If your assertion were true -- that people value their lives and their family's lives beyond any amount of money -- then there would be near-unanimous support for abolishing modern cars (and the roads for which they are built). The risk of traffic is objectively far greater.  It could not be any greater than it is, actually.

The fact that they don't support such a change proves that there is a profound flaw in your assertion.

 

I agree with you that as a society the costs must be taken into account. ... As a society we do have to put some cost limit on these things.

 

Societies can't take costs into account.  Only individuals can.  Costs are incurred individually.  Benefits are accrued individually.  Only the individual can account for costs, because they are different for every person, they change over time.  Also, the benefits (for which costs are traded) are valued differently by every person, and that value constantly changes over time.

Since "society" can't account for the costs or the benefits, "society" can't calculate what the rational limit is. 

 

What I argued is it isn't convincing to talk in these terms. The OP was about claiming that the economic argument would be more effective than arguing about the corruption of the people putting in place the policies. I disagree. I'm not saying the latter is very effective either. They probably are both ineffective with most people in practice. But I could be wrong, I guess that would have to be tested out to see what people actually respond to. This is just my best guess.

 

We have two data points -- your opinion and my opinion.  Only the market for these ideas will reveal how effective the economic argument is, overall, compared to any other.

 

On #2, I guess I needed to be more specific. Of course you can find analogies between any two things on earth. You can name any two things and I can find some thing they have in common. That's what you're doing saying car accidents and terrorism are analogous since both can be looked at economically. Of course they can. My point was that people don't consider them mostly as economic issues so those links are not that relevant to them. You also said yourself that you see a blind spot involved when it comes to one of them. So even as you show why they are analogous you point out, in the process, how they are not in fact viewed in the same way. And that is exactly why I don't think making analogies between them is effective. Most people do not think of terrorism and car accidents using the same type of logic and most don't think of either of them as mainly an economic issue. You can argue that they should and that's another discussion. But they don't so trying to convince them using that logic is, I think, not likely to work.

 

The problem cannot be solved by the same thinking that caused the problem.  I happen to think it's very effective and illuminating to think in terms of economics, because economics is reality, whereas words are not. 

It's like the idea in my sig line -- the State engages in crime, and simply calls it something else.  The economic reality is the same.  Only the words change.  Words are easy to manipulate.  That's why States are so good at propaganda -- they want people to see the world through the lens of the State's language and the State's ideas.

So, no, the economic reality of security, and the market for security, is not "another discussion."  This is the core of the topic as I see it, and as I believe it should be seen.

 

I said you were wasting my time NOT because you were angry, which I pointed out was fine, but because you were pulling out that anger in a thread where it wasn't relevant. I also went on to say that all of that would be perfectly fine in another thread. So I think I made it clear that those feelings are relevant and welcome on the board, I just found them a sidetrack for this particular topic. I didn't "stray from the topic", I called you back into the topic. Those are not the same thing and that is disingenuous again to claim they are.

 

You're not in charge of what belongs in each thread, or what's relevant, or what's welcome. 

Again, sometimes arguing for a change in the status quo requires a rejection of the assumptions behind the status quo.  Those assumptions are embedded in the language -- the language guides people's opinions before they are fully formed.  It's why Statism is taught to children -- so they think in those terms from the beginning.  That's why Statist propaganda has always fought tooth and nail for control of the language. It's why Orwell wrote about Newspeak -- MiniTru wasn't just controlling the language, they were controlling thought.

Security is an economic good.  It has costs and benefits.  So do roads, schools and crime.  The economic calculation problem runs through all of them, and the reason I am an anarchist as to terrorism, roads, schools and crime is the same reason I am a free-market proponent as to the production of cheese, shoes and computers. 

That's what the linked article in the OP was about, so I don't see how that could be off-topic.

[STer]

 

 

I don't think most people consider security "just another" economic good because many people value their lives and those of their loved ones beyond any amount of money.

 

If your assertion were true -- that people value their lives and their family's lives beyond any amount of money -- then there would be near-unanimous support for abolishing modern cars (and the roads for which they are built). The risk of traffic is objectively far greater.  It could not be any greater than it is, actually.

The fact that they don't support such a change proves that there is a profound flaw in your assertion.

 

I agree with you that as a society the costs must be taken into account. ... As a society we do have to put some cost limit on these things.

 

Societies can't take costs into account.  Only individuals can.  Costs are incurred individually.  Benefits are accrued individually.  Only the individual can account for costs, because they are different for every person, they change over time.  Also, the benefits (for which costs are traded) are valued differently by every person, and that value constantly changes over time.

Since "society" can't account for the costs or the benefits, "society" can't calculate what the rational limit is. 

 

What I argued is it isn't convincing to talk in these terms. The OP was about claiming that the economic argument would be more effective than arguing about the corruption of the people putting in place the policies. I disagree. I'm not saying the latter is very effective either. They probably are both ineffective with most people in practice. But I could be wrong, I guess that would have to be tested out to see what people actually respond to. This is just my best guess.

 

We have two data points -- your opinion and my opinion.  Only the market for these ideas will reveal how effective the economic argument is, overall, compared to any other.

 

On #2, I guess I needed to be more specific. Of course you can find analogies between any two things on earth. You can name any two things and I can find some thing they have in common. That's what you're doing saying car accidents and terrorism are analogous since both can be looked at economically. Of course they can. My point was that people don't consider them mostly as economic issues so those links are not that relevant to them. You also said yourself that you see a blind spot involved when it comes to one of them. So even as you show why they are analogous you point out, in the process, how they are not in fact viewed in the same way. And that is exactly why I don't think making analogies between them is effective. Most people do not think of terrorism and car accidents using the same type of logic and most don't think of either of them as mainly an economic issue. You can argue that they should and that's another discussion. But they don't so trying to convince them using that logic is, I think, not likely to work.

 

The problem cannot be solved by the same thinking that caused the problem.  I happen to think it's very effective and illuminating to think in terms of economics, because economics is reality, whereas words are not. 

It's like the idea in my sig line -- the State engages in crime, and simply calls it something else.  The economic reality is the same.  Only the words change.  Words are easy to manipulate.  That's why States are so good at propaganda -- they want people to see the world through the lens of the State's language and the State's ideas.

So, no, the economic reality of security, and the market for security, is not "another discussion."  This is the core of the topic as I see it, and as I believe it should be seen.

 

I said you were wasting my time NOT because you were angry, which I pointed out was fine, but because you were pulling out that anger in a thread where it wasn't relevant. I also went on to say that all of that would be perfectly fine in another thread. So I think I made it clear that those feelings are relevant and welcome on the board, I just found them a sidetrack for this particular topic. I didn't "stray from the topic", I called you back into the topic. Those are not the same thing and that is disingenuous again to claim they are.

 

You're not in charge of what belongs in each thread, or what's relevant, or what's welcome. 

Again, sometimes arguing for a change in the status quo requires a rejection of the assumptions behind the status quo.  Those assumptions are embedded in the language -- the language guides people's opinions before they are fully formed.  It's why Statism is taught to children -- so they think in those terms from the beginning.  That's why Statist propaganda has always fought tooth and nail for control of the language. It's why Orwell wrote about Newspeak -- MiniTru wasn't just controlling the language, they were controlling thought.

Security is an economic good.  It has costs and benefits.  So do roads, schools and crime.  The economic calculation problem runs through all of them, and the reason I am an anarchist as to terrorism, roads, schools and crime is the same reason I am a free-market proponent as to the production of cheese, shoes and computers. 

That's what the linked article in the OP was about, so I don't see how that could be off-topic.

 

The issue with cars, as said from the beginning of the thread, is that car crashes do not intimidate people to fear it happening to them the way terrorist acts do (as is their intent). So no, people do not fear car crashes the way they fear terrorist acts and therefore do not want to see cars banned. Furthermore, cars serve positive purposes - some of them even lifesaving themselves - that balance in their minds with the dangers of them. Terrorism does not. Proving yet again the entire point that these things are not analogous in people's minds. If you think they are, you are welcome to keep believing that. I've done my best to change your mind and if I've failed, so be it.

Yes societies can account for costs. A group of people can get together and ask how much they as a group are willing to pay for something. It happens every day. The individuals in the group may disagree but discuss it and come to a consensus and then pool their money and go buy it. If you think that doesn't happen, we live in different worlds. So be it. You can throw whatever theoretical argument at it you want and it won't trump the fact that it happens every day and we all know it does and most of us participate in it quite often. Empiricism in action.

We would need systematic studies to determine the effects of these arguments in a way untainted by noise. But if you want to go by the apparent everyday consequences, I'd say the economic argument is a total failure. People don't even rise up over the government literally printing money out of thin air. You think they're going to rise up because more money is spent on protecting them from terrorism, which they actually do fear? I doubt it. But I'd be glad to see the studies.

You used complete sophistry when you said you think it's "effective" to consider these things economically because it's illuminating. I was very clear that is not what we are arguing. We are discussing whether it's effective as a persuasive argument to the public. Not whether it's effective in actually making sense of the matter. These are not even close to the same thing. If you think they are, then you have a lot of studying to do here about the irrationality of people and its roots. I don't know how you could be on FDR and not be aware of the massive gap between making sense of something logically and convincing a highly irrational public.

OP linked to the article only to show the source of a quote that was pulled from it with the specific stated intent of considering whether the public would be more moved to resist government anti-terrorism measures by showing them the monetary costs than they are by simply showing the corruption of the leaders. If you then follow the link and arbitrarily start pulling other parts of the article to justify going on an anti-state rant out of the blue, I find that off topic. If you don't, so be it. But if that is what you want to discuss and it obviously isn't happening here, I don't see why you wouldn't rather start another thread to discuss that with those who are interested.

[Magnus]

I submit that terrorism intimidates people more than car crashes because it serves the State's interest.  The State's propaganda apparatus is set up to constantly cheerlead for the State.  The media attention given to terrorist attacks, while extremely low on the scale of threats, is insanely exaggerated, thereby amplifying the importance of these events in people's minds.  The fact that people consider terrorism to be more of a threat than cars, medical errors or drowning accidents is plainly irrational.  I used to think that way.  As recently as 9/11, I was convinced that 3,000 dead was among the worst things that had happened to Americans.  However, I now know that it represents about 30 days' worth of car accidents.  

The accounting for costs in groups is also a market process, but only when people are able to freely join and quit the group.  People voluntarily choose to belong to the groups that meet their members' preferences.  States don't permit quitting, and compel you to contribute to all of its expenditures whether you want to or not.  As a result, as with everything statist, there is no market information about the extent to which a state meets it member's preferences.  All potential competitors are violently attacked.  That's not consensus.  That's coercion. It is not possible for a "society" to act.  

I agree that empirical studies about the relative effectiveness of various rhetorical approaches is a great idea.  I assume that an approach other than my preferred one would be highly effective.  Different consumers (in this case, of political opinion) desire different things.  I assume I am in the minority.  Fortunately, markets cater to everyone.  Less-popular products exist right alongside the mass-consumer market leaders.  

I prefer facts and reason.  If that were more popular, then anarchism would be more popular.  As to the likelihood of the largest mass appeal, I agree with you.  I have studied media, propaganda and rhetoric for my entire adult life. I have no doubt about the effectiveness of non-rational appeals.  But there is a certain segment of the population for whom a more rational, economic, fact-based argument is highly persuasive.  

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

OP linked to the article only to show the source of a quote that was pulled from it with the specific stated intent of considering whether the public would be more moved to resist government anti-terrorism measures by showing them the monetary costs than they are by simply showing the corruption of the leaders.

 

Actually, I posted the link to the article, and added the quote to provide a glimpse of what was in the article, though I do consider the quote as very relevant, hence the thread title.

Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.

I would assume by posting a quote, and citing the link afterwards, it indicates the primacy of the quote, with reference provided. By posting the link first, followed by a synopsis, it would indicate the primacy of the link in its entirety.

I tend to dislike blind links which give little indication of the material to be found. Don't know if there's any standard for this.

[STer]

 

I submit that terrorism intimidates people more than car crashes because it serves the State's interest.  The State's propaganda apparatus is set up to constantly cheerlead for the State.  The media attention given to terrorist attacks, while extremely low on the scale of threats, is insanely exaggerated, thereby amplifying the importance of these events in people's minds.  The fact that people consider terrorism to be more of a threat than cars, medical errors or drowning accidents is plainly irrational.  I used to think that way.  As recently as 9/11, I was convinced that 3,000 dead was among the worst things that had happened to Americans.  However, I now know that it represents about 30 days' worth of car accidents.  

The accounting for costs in groups is also a market process, but only when people are able to freely join and quit the group.  People voluntarily choose to belong to the groups that meet their members' preferences.  States don't permit quitting, and compel you to contribute to all of its expenditures whether you want to or not.  As a result, as with everything statist, there is no market information about the extent to which a state meets it member's preferences.  All potential competitors are violently attacked.  That's not consensus.  That's coercion. It is not possible for a "society" to act.  

I agree that empirical studies about the relative effectiveness of various rhetorical approaches is a great idea.  I assume that an approach other than my preferred one would be highly effective.  Different consumers (in this case, of political opinion) desire different things.  I assume I am in the minority.  Fortunately, markets cater to everyone.  Less-popular products exist right alongside the mass-consumer market leaders.  

I prefer facts and reason.  If that were more popular, then anarchism would be more popular.  As to the likelihood of the largest mass appeal, I agree with you.  I have studied media, propaganda and rhetoric for my entire adult life. I have no doubt about the effectiveness of non-rational appeals.  But there is a certain segment of the population for whom a more rational, economic, fact-based argument is highly persuasive.  

 

I disagree with you that the reason terrorism intidimidates people is because it is in the State's interest. In fact, the State has plenty of interest in keeping people feeling safe, secure and spending money too. The State has mixed incentives in these situations and I believe you are highly oversimplifying.

In fact, one of the reasons so many people think there has been a cover-up in Benghazi is that the Obama administration wanted to make sure people were not fearful and believed Al Qaeda is more solidly defeated than they really are. You paint it as the government scaring people up. It could just as easily be painted as the government lulling people back to sleep in many cases.

You really think the US government wants terrorist acts to occur which make the public lose faith in their leaders' abilities to protect them? I think that's incorrect. I won't deny there may be some mixed incentives here. But to claim our government benefits completely when people live in fear of terror is something we simply disagree on.

Then you bring up the media as if these entities are one and the same. In fact, they are often at odds. The media covers these stories and the administration tries to stifle those reports many times. Again, you seem to me to have too oversimplified a view of a very complex system.

In addition, I believe terrorism could still be very intimidating even without a state involved at all.

The fact that there is irrationality involved may well be the case, but I've already covered that that irrationality is precisely why I do not think it is effective making economic arguments, even if they did tell the whole story, which they don't.

I thought of another way to put why terrorism and car crashes cannot be compared easily. Terrorism's power is symbolic. Car crashes are almost never symbolic. Terrorism isn't about the number of people killed, but about what it represents about possibilities for the future and how peopel view our place in the world. 3000 people killed may not be many compared to even more killed in car crashes. But imagine if 3000 are killed by a new infection and nobody knows how far it will spread. People go into a panic in such a case. It isn't due to the number killed but what it represents about possibilities in the future. When people see something like 9/11, even if they don't think it consciously, many deep down understand what this means is possible if terrorists get a nuclear weapon and what it means about the new vulnerabilities the US faces that it never faced before. There is no analogous process going on with car crashes symbolically. The only example I could think of is if tomorrow a few hundred cars suddenly exploded spontaneously and nobody knew why. That would symbolize some new danger with unforeseeable growth possibilities.

I don't doubt there is a segment as you say for whom rational or economic arguments are persuasive. But I'd like to think I'm one of those people and yet, even for me, talking about terrorism in primarily economic terms seems misguided. Terrorism is not primarily economic. It is primarily symbolic and emotional. That's why terrorists almost always choose symbolic targets and often symbolic dates. Sometimes those targets are economic, but usually not. And they are wise because the human unconscious works in symbols. Symbols are more powerful than rationality and will continue to be as long as the human mind is structured as it is.

[STer]

 

 

OP linked to the article only to show the source of a quote that was pulled from it with the specific stated intent of considering whether the public would be more moved to resist government anti-terrorism measures by showing them the monetary costs than they are by simply showing the corruption of the leaders.

 

Actually, I posted the link to the article, and added the quote to provide a glimpse of what was in the article, though I do consider the quote as very relevant, hence the thread title.

Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.

I would assume by posting a quote, and citing the link afterwards, it indicates the primacy of the quote, with reference provided. By posting the link first, followed by a synopsis, it would indicate the primacy of the link in its entirety.

I tend to dislike blind links which give little indication of the material to be found. Don't know if there's any standard for this.

 

Well it wasn't just the quote, but the fact that your only comment on the article and the title of the thread all point to one thing: trying to move people toward considering economic arguments against anti-terrorism as more effective than other arguments. So it was the combination of selected quote, your only comment on it, and the thread title that all led in one direction as to the purpose of the thread. If there was any other statement being made, it wasn't made. But if you had more to add feel free, of course.

[Magnus]

 

I disagree with you that the reason terrorism intidimidates people is because it is in the State's interest. In fact, the State has plenty of interest in keeping people feeling safe, secure and spending money too. The State has mixed incentives in these situations and I believe you are highly oversimplifying.

In fact, one of the reasons so many people think there has been a cover-up in Benghazi is that the Obama administration wanted to make sure people were not fearful and believed Al Qaeda is more solidly defeated than they really are. You paint it as the government scaring people up. It could just as easily be painted as the government lulling people back to sleep in many cases.

You really think the US government wants terrorist acts to occur which make the public lose faith in their leaders' abilities to protect them? I think that's incorrect. I won't deny there may be some mixed incentives here. But to claim our government benefits completely when people live in fear of terror is something we simply disagree on.

Then you bring up the media as if these entities are one and the same. In fact, they are often at odds. The media covers these stories and the administration tries to stifle those reports many times. Again, you seem to me to have too oversimplified a view of a very complex system.

 

Well, yes.  The world is complex.  I have not explicated every thought I have on the subject, nor covered everything that everyone could say on the subject.  My time is finite, and valuable to me, so I don't unload everything I have to say all the time. 

But you bring up a good point -- sometimes Statists want us to be lulled into a sense of safety.  But notice exactly how and when they do that -- when they WANT something from us.  When they WANT our acquiescence and support, in the form of taxes or votes. When they want us to believe that THEY are the sole reason for those moments of safety.

That's the essence of the State -- keep people in a nearly-constant condition of fear, threats and intimidation, and then present THEMSELVES as the one and only means of addressing those fears and mitigating those threats and fears.  They create the problems, then offer themselves as the one and only solution.  That's the con.  That's the game.  That's the psychological means of maintaining control.  They don't want crime or terrorism or poverty to go away entirely.  They just want people to believe that these things exist, and will always exist, and any security we may ever have against these threats can only come FROM AND THROUGH THEM. 

This is one of the Statists' greatest skills -- taking credit for everything that's good in the world (which they had nothing to do with) and avoiding the blame for all the problems they actually do cause.

 

In addition, I believe terrorism could still be very intimidating even without a state involved at all.

 

I guess so.  But since terrorism is MOSTLY aimed at affecting States, we have to conclude that whatever form terrorism would take in a stateless society would be different.  As you said, terrorism's aim is not practical or strictly economic -- it kills very few people and destroys very little property.  It's intended effect is to affect the way people think, and not affect very many things in the real world.  If people thought differently, on such a broad scale as to reject statism, then terrorists would certainly need to take a different approach with such people than they do now. 

 

The fact that there is irrationality involved may well be the case, but I've already covered that that irrationality is precisely why I do not think it is effective making economic arguments, even if they did tell the whole story, which they don't.

 

I think irrationality is part of the root of the problem. 

Besides, the quoted link came from Mises Institute.  Mises contributed a few major ideas to the study of economics, and one of the biggest ones is that States can't make rational economic decisions.  States can't calculate. 

This is one of the greatest ideas in human history, by the way.  It's profound and true, and
extremely beneficial to mankind, on the order of ideas like Evolution
and the Germ Theory of Disease.

The blog post that the OP cited merely applied this insight to one of the more topical and timely social issues of the day -- terrorist tactics.  States can't calculate the appropriate amount to spend on counter-terrorism any more than they can properly calculate how much to spend on the mail service.

The whole purpose of the Mises Institute is to promote Misesian ideas.  I don't really see what your point is in quibbling about how the Mises Institute ought to take some other line of argumentation.  Pointing out examples of how Misesian thought applies to the real world is clearly an advancement of its mission and purpose. 

I don't get why you have such a problem with it.  If you think you have a better way of reaching people with truth and beneficial ideas, then rather spending your time arguing with the Mises Institute and me, maybe you ought to apply your superior knowledge of society and economics and public relations and create an Institute of your own.

Or are you satisfied with merely pointing out the deficiencies, as you see them, in what others are doing? 

Instead of pointing out ineffective arguments, as you see them, GO OUT AND MAKE BETTER ARGUMENTS.  Convince me of the merit of your position by DOING what you think ought to be done.  Lead by example.

 

I thought of another way to put why terrorism and car crashes cannot be compared easily. Terrorism's power is symbolic. Car crashes are almost never symbolic. Terrorism isn't about the number of people killed, but about what it represents about possibilities for the future and how peopel view our place in the world. 3000 people killed may not be many compared to even more killed in car crashes. But imagine if 3000 are killed by a new infection and nobody knows how far it will spread. People go into a panic in such a case. It isn't due to the number killed but what it represents about possibilities in the future. When people see something like 9/11, even if they don't think it consciously, many deep down understand what this means is possible if terrorists get a nuclear weapon and what it means about the new vulnerabilities the US faces that it never faced before. There is no analogous process going on with car crashes symbolically. The only example I could think of is if tomorrow a few hundred cars suddenly exploded spontaneously and nobody knew why. That would symbolize some new danger with unforeseeable growth possibilities.

I don't doubt there is a segment as you say for whom rational or economic arguments are persuasive. But I'd like to think I'm one of those people and yet, even for me, talking about terrorism in primarily economic terms seems misguided. Terrorism is not primarily economic. It is primarily symbolic and emotional. That's why terrorists almost always choose symbolic targets and often symbolic dates. Sometimes those targets are economic, but usually not. And they are wise because the human unconscious works in symbols. Symbols are more powerful than rationality and will continue to be as long as the human mind is structured as it is.

 

I agree with all of this. 

It's sort of like making it a crime to burn a flag.  A flag is a symbol.  As an economic object, it's trivial.  It's not worth much.  It's a bit of cloth, and cloth is cheap.  But there are people who genuinely want to attack, beat, incarcerate and otherwise punish anyone who dares to light such a scrap of cloth on fire. 

As an anarchist and an atheist, I find all of this attention and meaning being placed on symbols to be both amusing and absurd in the extreme.  I find the whole idea of sacredness to be bizarre.  It's all imaginary voodoo nonsense crap.  Sometimes it feels like I've been air dropped into the middle of crazy-town. 

Most people live in metaphor.  They live in a narrative reality, not an economic reality.  That, as I said, is part of the biggest problem with human society.  Being rational and anti-sacredness is (I imagine) like what it was like for the men who believed in science before science was cool.  It's like believing in bio-genesis when every other supposedly-learned person insists that rats grow spontaneously from bags of grain.  Or believing in evolution when most everyone else is convinced the earth is only 3,000 years old.  Or thinking that the whole bread-and-wine ceremony is pure symbolism, and rejecting transubstantiation as a lot of hooey. 

Here, saying that the State's response to terrorism is irrational to the
point of being silly is but one example of identifying bullshit.  I
applaud the Mises people for this good work.  Is it an uphill battle? 
Yes, obviously.  The initial reaction by the metaphor-bound irrational
public is going to be ... hostile. 

Describing how a State cannot rationally respond to terrorism is a great advancement in human thought.  Is it falling on deaf ears a lot of the time?  Sure.  The world is nuts, by and large. 

But still, if your goal is to help make the world a better place, I can think of nothing more important than dispelling bad ideas in particular, and advancing a more rational (and less symbolic) mode of thought in general.

[STer]

When I said the world is complex, it wasn't to say you have to go in detail on every aspect. It was to point out that you are only even mentioning one side. You could just as easily, in no more words, recognize it's an issue with conflicting forces, not unilateral forces. You say the government wants terrorism to happen so it can exploit it. But the government also doesn't want it to happen because it makes them look bad and ruins trust in them. I see that you now concede that there are, in fact, mixed incentives here even for states.

I get it. You don't like the State. I think we all got that a while ago

Yes terrorism is aimed at changing how people think so they will act in ways the terrorists want. If people thought differently, then changing how they think would require different tactics as you say. But this goes way beyond support for the state. It has to do with reason vs. emotion on a fundamental level. And as I've pointed out, people are simply not wired, nor would you expect them to be given our evolutionary history, to act purely on logic. If pure logic was the ultimate survival mechanism, we likely would have evolved that style over hundreds of thousands of years. For better or worse, we have an unconscious that works on symbolism and a lower brain that works on emotion and this has been true since long before the state. There are many situations where our reasoning minds would not be fast enough or accurate enough to save us and the other parts serve a crucial purpose. That's why they evolved and stuck around for so long. I'm not saying everything that exists was selected for. Some are just spandrels. But I think you wouldn't even challenge that the nature of our unconscious and our reflexes and so on was selected for.

Equating Mises' idea that states can't calculate with evolution and germ theory is extreme to me. That's like equating some high level understanding about buildings with the importance of basic physics. Evolution helps us understand all of life. The economics of states isn't even in the ballpark.

My point is that if this is the Misesian style, to try to turn everything into economics, then it is faulty because that is not accurate to human life and decision-making. Some things are not possible to accurately put a price on, even when we have to choose one. There is no sensible way to put a price on one's child's life. And yet, the facts of life are that resources are limited and we have to. So one way or another a price does get put on, but there is no logical way to do it where you can say "Oh yes, that certainly is the right way to do it." What are you going to use? Supply and demand?

I agree with Stefan that the way to really make change is going to have to come from serious changes in parenting as I've gone into in this thread here. And, as you'll see there, the possibility of another Institute or of those who support it finding an existing one that deserves our help is raised there.

http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/39141.aspx

At this point I think we are wasting most of our energy focusing on symptoms that are only going to be fundamentally altered by changes in childrearing (in the types of ways I mention in that thread).

Even if that wasn't the case though, your logic is faulty. Pointing out proposed solutions that are false is itself a service. Debunking falsehoods does not require one to know what the actual answer is or even propose one. Saying "No, we should not accept this proposition, we should accept this other one instead." is very valuable when possible. But saying "No, we should not accept this proposition, instead we must continue to reserve judgment and seek an accurate answer because we still don't have one." is also valuable.

I think you've hit on something very powerful that you should think about a lot when you said:

>As an anarchist and an atheist, I find all of this attention and meaning being placed on symbols to be both amusing and absurd in the extreme.

I wonder if you realize just what a deeply profound position that is for you to take. The human unconscious has evolved for hundreds of thousands of years to work on symbolism. For you to call that absurd is like calling breathing as we do absurd. These things evolved for a reason. They were strongly selected for because they offered huge benefits in our environments for a long time. Now we are in a different environment, quite suddenly, and it may no longer serve us as well (called maladaptation in evolutionary psychology). But these things can't be changed that quickly. They are deep biologically- and psychologically-based aspects of humanity. And if you are different and not wired this way (which I doubt highly anyway, you probably are not realizing just how much you yourself are moved by unconscious symbolism too) it puts a crucial gap between you and most other people at the very core of how you operate. If so, you really should take this into account when thinking about how others operate. Trying to change that is not trying to change their beliefs, but trying to change their very makeup. I don't think you can do it. You have to work with their makeup as it is and spread healthier ways of relating the parts to each other (kind of as Internal Family Systems does).

The power of symbolism is clearly very real and so those who worry about it have every reason to do so. And that power is just as important in causes you'd probably support as it is in those you'd oppose.

Being pro-reason to the point of being anti-symbolism is not the same as believing in evolution when others didn't. This is not a belief issue. This is a biological/psychological wiring issue, more akin to being against the way our bones are structured or the shapes of human hands. The metaphorical/symbolic nature of our unconscious is a profound part of human nature. And personally I don't think it is going away and I'm not even sure we should want it to. Even scientists are not immune to these things, the issue is that they hopefully harness them in a more healthy way.

If Mises simply pointed out that people deal with terrorism irrationally, that's fine. That wasn't the discussion here in this thread though. The discussion here was about OP's claim that going out and telling people this and showing them the economics of it would be effective. It was a question of messaging. I don't believe showing them the economics of it would be very effective for the reasons I've pointed out - most people don't respond to terrorism in those terms and the reasons why are very deep, not superficial. Just my educated guess though.

[Livemike]

Does the $75 billion include the value of time wasted at the airport, in school during "Lockdown' drills etc?  Because if it doesn't it's WAY underestimating things.

[Livemike]

 

 

https://mises.org/daily/4872/Why-This-Gigantic-Intelligence-Apparatus

"Even if the expected damage from acts of terrorism against the United
States were $10 billion per year, which seems much too high a guess, it
makes no sense to spend more than $75 billion every year to prevent it —
and it certainly makes no sense to spend any money only pretending to
prevent it."

If people can't understand the moral implications of their "elected" representatives, maybe the can understand what's missing from their wallet.

 

I don't get it. Who thinks of terrorism only in terms of economic damage? Isn't it the loss of life that's more the issue? I'm not saying this to justify or argue against the policies. I'm just not getting how focusing on it in purely economic terms makes any sense.

 

If analysed in terms of lose of life it's arguably even worse.  The number of people killed by terrorism is small compared to those killed by the War on Drugs (assuming even 10% of AIDS deaths are due to dirty needles, which would be practically unknown with the WOD).  But death is simply another unfortunate outcome that can be expressed as an ecomomic cost.  How much would people pay for these deaths not to happen?  Obviously not an infinite amount, nor zero, so it's economically quantifiable.  Just like you wouldn't pay 10 trillion dollars to have no road deaths this year and therefore said deaths are worth less than $10T so you wouldn't pay less than $X to prevent all the terrorism deaths.  It's just another cost.

[STer]

 

 

 

https://mises.org/daily/4872/Why-This-Gigantic-Intelligence-Apparatus

"Even if the expected damage from acts of terrorism against the United
States were $10 billion per year, which seems much too high a guess, it
makes no sense to spend more than $75 billion every year to prevent it —
and it certainly makes no sense to spend any money only pretending to
prevent it."

If people can't understand the moral implications of their "elected" representatives, maybe the can understand what's missing from their wallet.

 

I don't get it. Who thinks of terrorism only in terms of economic damage? Isn't it the loss of life that's more the issue? I'm not saying this to justify or argue against the policies. I'm just not getting how focusing on it in purely economic terms makes any sense.

 

If analysed in terms of lose of life it's arguably even worse.  The number of people killed by terrorism is small compared to those killed by the War on Drugs (assuming even 10% of AIDS deaths are due to dirty needles, which would be practically unknown with the WOD).  But death is simply another unfortunate outcome that can be expressed as an ecomomic cost.  How much would people pay for these deaths not to happen?  Obviously not an infinite amount, nor zero, so it's economically quantifiable.  Just like you wouldn't pay 10 trillion dollars to have no road deaths this year and therefore said deaths are worth less than $10T so you wouldn't pay less than $X to prevent all the terrorism deaths.  It's just another cost.

 

I get the feeling you didn't read any of the thread up to this point.