Opportunity costs of war
It dawned on me the other day that as we've talked about the costs of war lately, one cost that never was mentioned was all the cuts that are being made in education, health care and so forth as a result of the financial cost of the war. It's hard to see where those were figured into any equations for justifying the war, since they tend to focus on what Iraq did wrong, rather than the opportunity costs of spending a gazillion dollars prosecuting the war. And then there's the budget deficit... Nick -- Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
Applying opportunity costs to something like government spending on war is a great way to use a bunch of unknowns to prove your side of the argument. Unfortunately it will not be of much use to someone who disagrees with the basic cost/benefit analysis of the war in the first place. Any benefit you claim for increased spending in some government agency could easily be countered by a claim that failure to have spend the money on war would have led to XYZ bad things. You will not believe that such bad things would have happened and they will not be convinced that they would not. Thus you will both just talk past one another. Plus you will get bogged down into the argument of "what if" spending. If we double research money the government spends on cancer research will we halve the time it takes to find a cure (assuming a cure is the goal, and it is achievable)? How about AIDS research ? What if we spent more on road safety to limit deaths? Clearly programs like education, defense, the Smithsonian, NASA, farm subsidies, and so on are not as important as saving just one more life! Right? There are no guarantees in life, and just because we might be able to do something with more funding does not mean it will happen. In fact we might cause more problems (just as someone in a big software project how helpful it is to suddenly have your team size double and deadlines get cut in half). Just spending more on something does not result in the benefit of that program going up. While at the same time the "pro-war" supporter can point to real world changes that have happened. If all you counter with is theoretical what ifs, you will have a weak and unpersuasive argument. Opportunity costs is part of economic theory that tries to help businesses decide how best to allocate available capital. It is not exact, it involves lots of guess work, and it only really cares about return on investment in pure financial terms. Trying to apply it to desired policy outcomes is not going to be a perfect fit. In the end I think that you will find few people who supported the war swayed by the opportunity costs argument. Just like I doubt anyone who supported the war could use the "opportunity costs" of NOT going to war to change your mind. John ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:48:29 -0700, John DeBudge wrote > Applying opportunity costs to something like government spending on > war is a great way to use a bunch of unknowns to prove your side of > the argument. Unfortunately it will not be of much use to someone who > disagrees with the basic cost/benefit analysis of the war in the > first place. I wasn't proposing that this be the only argument. Far from it. What is "unknown" about the reality that we are seeing all sorts of cuts in social spending as a direct result of the war? Even medical and educational benefits for the veterans of this war! > Any benefit you claim for increased spending in some government > agency could easily be countered by a claim that failure to have > spend the money on war would have led to XYZ bad things. That argument is already being made, not as a counter-point, but as a justification for the war. > There are no guarantees in life, and just because we might be able to > do something with more funding does not mean it will happen. I was talking about actual cuts in social spending. You seem to be talking about failing to increase spending. Perhaps "opportunity costs" is the wrong phrase, since it raises the idea of things we might have done. Trouble is, in this case, it refers to things that we have been doing. I don't think there's any question that the cost of this war is resulting in greater poverty, fewer people with a decent education, etc. There's little money left for those things. There's an old saying that if you want to know what your priorities are, look at your checkbook and your calendar. Our national budget shows that war has become a higher priority than feeding hungry children and other social programs, as money is moving from the one to the other. It's not an additional priority, it's a higher priority. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
At 02:51 PM 4/13/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: >It dawned on me the other day that as we've talked about the costs of war >lately, one cost that never was mentioned was all the cuts that are being made >in education, health care and so forth as a result of the financial cost of >the war. It's hard to see where those were figured into any equations for >justifying the war, since they tend to focus on what Iraq did wrong, rather >than the opportunity costs of spending a gazillion dollars prosecuting the >war. I am sure that one reason for that, is that Economic Theory suggests that that is not proper foundation for cost-benefit-analysis.According to generally accepted economics, a government project should simply be considered based on whether or not its benefits exceed its costs. Whether or not another project has benefits that exceed its costs by a greater amount, doesn't really factor into the analysis. So, the question is, do the benefits exeed the costs? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
On 4/14/05, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 02:51 PM 4/13/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: > >It dawned on me the other day that as we've talked about the costs of war > >lately, one cost that never was mentioned was all the cuts that are being > made > >in education, health care and so forth as a result of the financial cost of > >the war. It's hard to see where those were figured into any equations for > >justifying the war, since they tend to focus on what Iraq did wrong, rather > >than the opportunity costs of spending a gazillion dollars prosecuting the > >war. > > I am sure that one reason for that, is that Economic Theory suggests that > that is not proper foundation for cost-benefit-analysis.According to > generally accepted economics, a government project should simply be > considered based on whether or not its benefits exceed its costs. Whether > or not another project has benefits that exceed its costs by a greater > amount, doesn't really factor into the analysis. > > So, the question is, do the benefits exeed the costs? > > JDG JDG, I get the sense that Nick is trying to asses the Iraq war from a utilitarian perspective- seeking the greatest good for the greatest number- but is trying to articulate this question economically (where you are probably right about the economic part of it). Perhaps we can discuss it from that angle? ~Maru Nick, I could, of course be misinterpreting you; feel free to correct me, but it looks like you are thinking along the lines of www.costofwar.com . ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:20:57 -0400, JDG wrote > Whether or not another project has benefits that > exceed its costs by a greater amount, doesn't really factor into the > analysis. I'm not sure if you are saying that the impact on the U.S. economy and the poorest among us should not have been taken into consideration when making the decision to go to war. Are you? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
At 08:05 PM 4/13/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: >> Whether or not another project has benefits that >> exceed its costs by a greater amount, doesn't really factor into the >> analysis. > >I'm not sure if you are saying that the impact on the U.S. economy and the >poorest among us should not have been taken into consideration when making the >decision to go to war. Are you? I am saying that they are two different questions. If a given amount of government spending on the poor has greater benefits to the country than costs, then obviously that spending should be undertaken. On the other hand, if a given amount of government spending on the war has greater benefits to the country than costs, once again, by all means that spending should be undertaken. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 02:56:13 +, Maru Dubshinki wrote > JDG, I get the sense that Nick is trying to asses the Iraq war from a > utilitarian perspective- seeking the greatest good for the greatest > number- but is trying to articulate this question economically (where > you are probably right about the economic part of it). Perhaps we can > discuss it from that angle? I don't object to utilitarian arguments; I want to be clear, however, that I believe there is a moral dimension when the lives of those least able to care for themselves are significantly impacted by any decision. Anything that increases the number of people living in poverty deserves a presumption against it, in my book. > Nick, I could, of course be misinterpreting you; feel free to correct > me, but it looks like you are thinking along the lines of > www.costofwar.com Never seen it before, but I'm sure I know a lot of people who have! I certainly like the idea of the site... haven't looked deeply into it to see if it seems to be well executed. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 10:05 PM Subject: Re: Opportunity costs of war > On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:20:57 -0400, JDG wrote > > > Whether or not another project has benefits that > > exceed its costs by a greater amount, doesn't really factor into the > > analysis. > > I'm not sure if you are saying that the impact on the U.S. economy and the > poorest among us should not have been taken into consideration when making the > decision to go to war. Are you? His argument is that all one has to do is look to see if the cost/benefit ratio is less than 1. If it is, the overall impact is positiveand no further calculations are needed. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:09:30 -0400, JDG wrote > On the other hand, if a given amount of government spending on the > war has greater benefits to the country than costs, once again, by > all means that spending should be undertaken. As I think about this, I'm having a hard time applying cost-benefit analysis to war at all. The costs are not quantifiable and benefits aren't very predictable (which is to say, I suppose, that a risk assessment is needed, which I assume is non-controversial on the face of it). Certainly the money costs are, although there are plenty of ways to count. But the cost in terms of the impact of the war on people is incalculable, I suspect. At a personal level, I can report that the cost of losing a family member in the war turned out to be far, far higher than I ever imagined, in terms of the pain we're all feeling. Although I remain on guard against self- righteousness, I do believe, five months later, that those of us who have been directly touched by such a loss really do have a much better idea of the cost of war than those who haven't. And most of us can hardly bring ourselves to imagine multiplying what we're feeling by 100,000+. Parents having to bury children, in particular, feels so deeply wrong that doing any sort of math around it seems impossible. Parents watching their kids grow up without opportunities because of a lack of health care, education, etc., doesn't come far behind, in terms of immeasurable costs. And there are all the violence and other social problems that go with poverty and injustice (one of which is war itself, I'd argue). On the other hand, this could point us to utilitarian arguments about counting lives saved v. lives lost. As a true last resort, I'm sure war has to be evaluated that way. So I'm more concerned with truly making war a very, very last resort. It seems as though we could all agree that war, like abortion is something we want to seek to make rare, indeed, no matter how we might differ on strategy. I really don't mean to inflame things by asking, but would you apply cost- benefit analysis to abortion? Is war really so different? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 10:20 PM Subject: Re: Opportunity costs of war > On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:09:30 -0400, JDG wrote > > > On the other hand, if a given amount of government spending on the > > war has greater benefits to the country than costs, once again, by > > all means that spending should be undertaken. > > As I think about this, I'm having a hard time applying cost-benefit analysis > to war at all. The costs are not quantifiable and benefits aren't very > predictable (which is to say, I suppose, that a risk assessment is needed, > which I assume is non-controversial on the face of it). Certainly the money > costs are, although there are plenty of ways to count. But the cost in terms > of the impact of the war on people is incalculable, I suspect. > > At a personal level, I can report that the cost of losing a family member in > the war turned out to be far, far higher than I ever imagined, in terms of the > pain we're all feeling. Although I remain on guard against self- > righteousness, I do believe, five months later, that those of us who have been > directly touched by such a loss really do have a much better idea of the cost > of war than those who haven't. And most of us can hardly bring ourselves to > imagine multiplying what we're feeling by 100,000+. Parents having to bury > children, in particular, feels so deeply wrong that doing any sort of math > around it seems impossible. > > Parents watching their kids grow up without opportunities because of a lack of > health care, education, etc., doesn't come far behind, in terms of > immeasurable costs. And there are all the violence and other social problems > that go with poverty and injustice (one of which is war itself, I'd argue). > > On the other hand, this could point us to utilitarian arguments about counting > lives saved v. lives lost. As a true last resort, I'm sure war has to be > evaluated that way. So I'm more concerned with truly making war a very, very > last resort. It seems as though we could all agree that war, like abortion is > something we want to seek to make rare, indeed, no matter how we might differ > on strategy. > > I really don't mean to inflame things by asking, but would you apply cost- > benefit analysis to abortion? Well, if it were human life, then if it was the mother's life or the child that would be lost, then I really cannot see telling the mother she must die. From a human cost basis, all human deaths are equally tragic, so this would be equally bad either way. If the chance of the mother dying were small, this type of calculation would argue against abortion. Obviously this is predicated on considering dealing with two people, but I think that was the premise. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
On Apr 13, 2005, at 8:20 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:09:30 -0400, JDG wrote On the other hand, if a given amount of government spending on the war has greater benefits to the country than costs, once again, by all means that spending should be undertaken. As I think about this, I'm having a hard time applying cost-benefit analysis to war at all. The costs are not quantifiable and benefits aren't very predictable (which is to say, I suppose, that a risk assessment is needed, which I assume is non-controversial on the face of it). Certainly the money costs are, although there are plenty of ways to count. But the cost in terms of the impact of the war on people is incalculable, I suspect. That's the problem I have with applying economics as well. (Being an atheist doesn't mean I can't factor ethical, personal or human costs, after all.) I think that if we, as a nation, are concerned only with the *financial* costs of a war, we're so far off track that it's time for a thorough philosophical housecleaning. (The abortion question is telling. We have politicians braying about "erring on the side of life" when a hunk of formerly-human tissue is involved, but apparently willing to make whatever mistakes are politically expedient when discussing bombing nations that didn't attack us.) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
At 08:20 PM 4/13/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: >> On the other hand, if a given amount of government spending on the >> war has greater benefits to the country than costs, once again, by >> all means that spending should be undertaken. > >As I think about this, I'm having a hard time applying cost-benefit analysis >to war at all. The costs are not quantifiable and benefits aren't very >predictable (which is to say, I suppose, that a risk assessment is needed, >which I assume is non-controversial on the face of it). Certainly the money >costs are, although there are plenty of ways to count. But the cost in terms >of the impact of the war on people is incalculable, I suspect. Well Economists are known for assigning values to everything. Some things are harder to value than others, but there are always ways of coming up with reasonable approximates. >At a personal level, I can report that the cost of losing a family member in >the war turned out to be far, far higher than I ever imagined, in terms of the >pain we're all feeling. Although I remain on guard against self- >righteousness, I do believe, five months later, that those of us who have been >directly touched by such a loss really do have a much better idea of the cost >of war than those who haven't. And most of us can hardly bring ourselves to >imagine multiplying what we're feeling by 100,000+. Parents having to bury >children, in particular, feels so deeply wrong that doing any sort of math >around it seems impossible. That is true, the loss of a child is always very painful. On the other hand, over the weekend I wrote a very long and detailed message outlining the case for war. Central to several elements of my case was the fact that some people would die, others were likely to die, and still others could potentially die as a result of inaction in the situation in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was killing thousands of Iraqis every month. 5 Americans had already died in an untraced bioterrorism attack on our nation, and Saddam Hussein had large stockpiles that had not been accounted for as required by the UN. The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia in order to keep an eye on Saddam Hussein, and Hussein's starvation of his own people had inflamed many Arabs against us and turned them to terrorism. With impoverished North Korea now in possession of fully assembled nuclear weapons, there was now a new chance that Saddam Hussein's ample oil revenues would be a temptation the North Koreans could not resist. Thus, the choice for war must be balanced against the choice for inaction. To use another example, if the US had intervened in Rwanda in 1994, some American soliders would have died. Say somewhere between 10 and 2,000. That would have to be balanced against the numbers of lives that would be saved, would it not? Or is the fact that the choice for war in Rwanda would always have resulted in the deaths of US soldiers who would not otherwise have died always to be an incalculable cost ruling against any decision to go to war? >Parents watching their kids grow up without opportunities because of a lack of >health care, education, etc., doesn't come far behind, in terms of >immeasurable costs. And there are all the violence and other social problems >that go with poverty and injustice (one of which is war itself, I'd argue). This is not a cost of going to war. If you have a proposal for a health care or education program whose benefits outweight its costs, then you should propose it. It would be economically sensible for the US to adopt most policies where the benefits outweigh the costs. >I really don't mean to inflame things by asking, but would you apply cost- >benefit analysis to abortion? Is war really so different? No, as cost-benefit-analysis can never be used to justify an intrinsicly evil action. For example, if cost-benefit-analysis showed that our civilization would be better off by rounding up and euthanizing the homeless, I would be opposed to that policy. Since I don't consider war to be intrinsically evil - that is I believe that a "just war" exists, cost-benefit-analysis becomes an appropriate consideration in recommending for or against a war. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
At 05:48 PM Wednesday 4/13/2005, John DeBudge wrote: Applying opportunity costs to something like government spending on war is a great way to use a bunch of unknowns to prove your side of the argument. Unfortunately it will not be of much use to someone who disagrees with the basic cost/benefit analysis of the war in the first place. Any benefit you claim for increased spending in some government agency could easily be countered by a claim that failure to have spend the money on war would have led to XYZ bad things. You will not believe that such bad things would have happened and they will not be convinced that they would not. Thus you will both just talk past one another. Plus you will get bogged down into the argument of "what if" spending. If we double research money the government spends on cancer research will we halve the time it takes to find a cure (assuming a cure is the goal, and it is achievable)? How about AIDS research ? What if we spent more on road safety to limit deaths? Clearly programs like education, defense, the Smithsonian, NASA, farm subsidies, and so on are not as important as saving just one more life! Right? If the idea is that life is so valuable that saving lives is worth any financial cost, then the only logical thing is to ban all forms of transportation, since all have a finite, nonzero probability of death . . . as does just getting out of bed in the morning, as does staying in bed in the morning . . . There are no guarantees in life, and just because we might be able to do something with more funding does not mean it will happen. In fact we might cause more problems (just as someone in a big software project how helpful it is to suddenly have your team size double and deadlines get cut in half). Someone else has read "The Mythical Man-Month," I see . . . Just spending more on something does not result in the benefit of that program going up. Viz, public schools. While at the same time the "pro-war" supporter can point to real world changes that have happened. If all you counter with is theoretical what ifs, you will have a weak and unpersuasive argument. Opportunity costs is part of economic theory that tries to help businesses decide how best to allocate available capital. It is not exact, it involves lots of guess work, and it only really cares about return on investment in pure financial terms. Trying to apply it to desired policy outcomes is not going to be a perfect fit. In the end I think that you will find few people who supported the war swayed by the opportunity costs argument. Just like I doubt anyone who supported the war could use the "opportunity costs" of NOT going to war to change your mind. John ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:51:25 -0400, JDG wrote > Since I don't > consider war to be intrinsically evil - that is I believe that a > "just war" exists, cost-benefit-analysis becomes an appropriate > consideration in recommending for or against a war. You don't believe that "just war" doctrine argues that a lesser evil is sometimes necessary to overcome a greater evil? It seems to me that even when talking about a just war, most every theologian acknowledges that war is failure, that it arises not out of goodness, but out of evil -- that war is an evil to be resisted whenever possible. Turning to the positive side of these issues, I greatly appreciate the Catholic Church's statements on having a consistent ethic of life, which presumes heavily against any action that takes away life. Pope John Paul II: "Where life is involved, the service of charity must be profoundly consistent. It cannot tolerate bias and discrimination, for human life is sacred and inviolable at every stage and in every situation; it is an indivisible good." That sacredness and inviolability of life seems to me to make war intrinsically evil. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
At 09:05 AM Thursday 4/14/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:51:25 -0400, JDG wrote > Since I don't > consider war to be intrinsically evil - that is I believe that a > "just war" exists, cost-benefit-analysis becomes an appropriate > consideration in recommending for or against a war. You don't believe that "just war" doctrine argues that a lesser evil is sometimes necessary to overcome a greater evil? It seems to me that even when talking about a just war, most every theologian acknowledges that war is failure, that it arises not out of goodness, but out of evil -- that war is an evil to be resisted whenever possible. Turning to the positive side of these issues, I greatly appreciate the Catholic Church's statements on having a consistent ethic of life, which presumes heavily against any action that takes away life. Pope John Paul II: "Where life is involved, the service of charity must be profoundly consistent. It cannot tolerate bias and discrimination, for human life is sacred and inviolable at every stage and in every situation; it is an indivisible good." That sacredness and inviolability of life seems to me to make war intrinsically evil. What is the Catholic policy on self-defense? If one is a good Catholic man at home one night with his family when a home invader kicks in the door and threatens his wife and kids, does he or does he not grab his son's baseball bat from the closet¹ and whack the intruder over the head? _ ¹I'm presuming he wouldn't have a firearm in the house. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
On 4/14/05, Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Turning to the positive side of these issues, I greatly appreciate the > >Catholic Church's statements on having a consistent ethic of life, which > >presumes heavily against any action that takes away life. > > > >Pope John Paul II: "Where life is involved, the service of charity must be > >profoundly consistent. It cannot tolerate bias and discrimination, for > human > >life is sacred and inviolable at every stage and in every situation; it is > an > >indivisible good." > > > >That sacredness and inviolability of life seems to me to make war > >intrinsically evil. > > What is the Catholic policy on self-defense? Its called the Doctorine of Double Effect and it basically says yeah, go for it. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
At 09:57 AM Thursday 4/14/2005, Martin Lewis wrote: On 4/14/05, Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Turning to the positive side of these issues, I greatly appreciate the > >Catholic Church's statements on having a consistent ethic of life, which > >presumes heavily against any action that takes away life. > > > >Pope John Paul II: "Where life is involved, the service of charity must be > >profoundly consistent. It cannot tolerate bias and discrimination, for > human > >life is sacred and inviolable at every stage and in every situation; it is > an > >indivisible good." > > > >That sacredness and inviolability of life seems to me to make war > >intrinsically evil. > > What is the Catholic policy on self-defense? Its called the Doctorine of Double Effect and it basically says yeah, go for it. As in "make my day"? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
On 4/14/05, Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >That sacredness and inviolability of life seems to me to make war > > > >intrinsically evil. > > > > > > What is the Catholic policy on self-defense? > > > > Its called the Doctorine of Double Effect and it basically says yeah, > >go for it. > > As in "make my day"? No. In the punk's position you would be commiting suicide, frowned upon by the Catholic church I believe, and in Harry's position you would be intending harm and hence breaking Double Effect, that harm is only a side effect. Also its "go ahead", isn't it? Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
At 11:05 AM Thursday 4/14/2005, Martin Lewis wrote: On 4/14/05, Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >That sacredness and inviolability of life seems to me to make war > > > >intrinsically evil. > > > > > > What is the Catholic policy on self-defense? > > > > Its called the Doctorine of Double Effect and it basically says yeah, > >go for it. > > As in "make my day"? No. In the punk's position you would be commiting suicide, frowned upon by the Catholic church I believe, and in Harry's position you would be intending harm and hence breaking Double Effect, that harm is only a side effect. Also its "go ahead", isn't it? Okay, gotcha . . . FWIW, around these parts, entering the homes of many practicing religious persons with apparent ill intent would be tantamount to committing suicide, whether you are a human or a snake (thread convergence again) . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
On Apr 14, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:51:25 -0400, JDG wrote Since I don't consider war to be intrinsically evil - that is I believe that a "just war" exists, cost-benefit-analysis becomes an appropriate consideration in recommending for or against a war. You don't believe that "just war" doctrine argues that a lesser evil is sometimes necessary to overcome a greater evil? It seems to me that even when talking about a just war, most every theologian acknowledges that war is failure, that it arises not out of goodness, but out of evil -- that war is an evil to be resisted whenever possible. I fail to see why there would need to be a "just war" doctrine if war was not intrinsically evil. I mean, there's no "just lunch" doctrine justifying the consumption of a mid-day meal, nor is there such a doctrine for any of a nearly infinite number of not-intrinsically-evil human endeavors. It is because war is intrinsically evil that it needs a special-case doctrine. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
- Original Message - From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 5:08 PM Subject: Re: Opportunity costs of war > On Apr 14, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:51:25 -0400, JDG wrote >> >>> Since I don't consider war to be intrinsically evil - that is I >>> believe >>> that a "just war" exists, cost-benefit-analysis becomes an >>> appropriate >>> consideration in recommending for or against a war. >> >> You don't believe that "just war" doctrine argues that a lesser >> evil is >> sometimes necessary to overcome a greater evil? It seems to me >> that >> even when talking about a just war, most every theologian >> acknowledges >> that war is failure, that it arises not out of goodness, but out of >> evil >> -- that war is an evil to be resisted whenever possible. > > I fail to see why there would need to be a "just war" doctrine if > war > was not intrinsically evil. I mean, there's no "just lunch" doctrine > justifying the consumption of a mid-day meal, nor is there such a > doctrine for any of a nearly infinite number of > not-intrinsically-evil > human endeavors. It is because war is intrinsically evil that it > needs a > special-case doctrine. There is a Just Lunch doctrine. At least where I work there is. Just lunch..no nooner..just lunch. xponent No Beer Either Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Robert Seeberger wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 5:08 PM > Subject: Re: Opportunity costs of war > > > > On Apr 14, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:51:25 -0400, JDG wrote > >> > >>> Since I don't consider war to be intrinsically evil - that is I > >>> believe > >>> that a "just war" exists, cost-benefit-analysis becomes an > >>> appropriate > >>> consideration in recommending for or against a war. > >> > >> You don't believe that "just war" doctrine argues that a lesser > >> evil is > >> sometimes necessary to overcome a greater evil? It seems to me > >> that > >> even when talking about a just war, most every theologian > >> acknowledges > >> that war is failure, that it arises not out of goodness, but out of > >> evil > >> -- that war is an evil to be resisted whenever possible. > > > > I fail to see why there would need to be a "just war" doctrine if > > war > > was not intrinsically evil. I mean, there's no "just lunch" doctrine > > justifying the consumption of a mid-day meal, nor is there such a > > doctrine for any of a nearly infinite number of > > not-intrinsically-evil > > human endeavors. It is because war is intrinsically evil that it > > needs a > > special-case doctrine. > > There is a Just Lunch doctrine. > At least where I work there is. > Just lunch..no nooner..just lunch. > > > xponent > No Beer Either Maru > rob You don't telecommute, then. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
- Original Message - From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 6:32 PM Subject: Re: Opportunity costs of war > > > On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Robert Seeberger wrote: > >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" >> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 5:08 PM >> Subject: Re: Opportunity costs of war >> >> >> > On Apr 14, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:51:25 -0400, JDG wrote >> >> >> >>> Since I don't consider war to be intrinsically evil - that is I >> >>> believe >> >>> that a "just war" exists, cost-benefit-analysis becomes an >> >>> appropriate >> >>> consideration in recommending for or against a war. >> >> >> >> You don't believe that "just war" doctrine argues that a lesser >> >> evil is >> >> sometimes necessary to overcome a greater evil? It seems to me >> >> that >> >> even when talking about a just war, most every theologian >> >> acknowledges >> >> that war is failure, that it arises not out of goodness, but out >> >> of >> >> evil >> >> -- that war is an evil to be resisted whenever possible. >> > >> > I fail to see why there would need to be a "just war" doctrine if >> > war >> > was not intrinsically evil. I mean, there's no "just lunch" >> > doctrine >> > justifying the consumption of a mid-day meal, nor is there such a >> > doctrine for any of a nearly infinite number of >> > not-intrinsically-evil >> > human endeavors. It is because war is intrinsically evil that it >> > needs a >> > special-case doctrine. >> >> There is a Just Lunch doctrine. >> At least where I work there is. >> Just lunch..no nooner..just lunch. >> >> >> xponent >> No Beer Either Maru >> rob > > You don't telecommute, then. > Most of the world doesn't. xponent Dinner Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
* Robert Seeberger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > There is a Just Lunch doctrine. > At least where I work there is. > Just lunch..no nooner..just lunch. Better to just skip just lunch and go straight to the chocolate cake and fudge brownies...get your just desserts! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
On 4/14/05, Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If the idea is that life is so valuable that saving lives is worth any > financial cost, then the only logical thing is to ban all forms of > transportation, since all have a finite, nonzero probability of death . . . > as does just getting out of bed in the morning, as does staying in bed in > the morning . . . Exactly. I was trying to make the point that a pure assessment of "will fund allocation X result in more good than fund allocation Y" is tricky in many situations. There are many people involved in the national budget making decisions, and each of them has their own interests groups that they listen to and attempt to satisfy. Thus the large number of, and variety of programs that receive funding. Trying to tell one group that they did not take the "opportunity costs" of not allocating funds to some other project into account is not going to result in much success. This is why I am always skeptical when people try to use economic arguments and tools to comment on non-economic subjects. Yes you can try to assign a cost to anything, but as Nick points out, many people are going to (and should) assign "priceless" to many different things, and they will probably contradict each other. This makes a pure economic assessment using things like opportunity cost very difficult, if not impossible. Thus my comments on why I feel it is not a good tool (for each side) to use when trying to convince their counter parts. > > Someone else has read "The Mythical Man-Month," I see . . . > I really wish the only experience I had in that subject was from a book. John ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
Erik Reuter wrote: * Robert Seeberger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: There is a Just Lunch doctrine. At least where I work there is. Just lunch..no nooner..just lunch. Better to just skip just lunch and go straight to the chocolate cake and fudge brownies...get your just desserts! I was actually going to do that today, but they were out of brownies and I didn't want a cookie (they don't sell cake there), so I had to settle for a sub. It was a decent sub, with exactly the ingredient set I specified, but it just wasn't the same as a brownie. (I have no idea why they were so crowded at 1:15PM, either. Last week at the same time, it was pretty dead and someone was able to help me as soon as I was ready to be helped. This time I had to stand in line for over 5 minutes.) Julia who will provide the name and location of the sub shop if it's requested ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
Regarding opportunity costs, JDG said ... Economic Theory suggests that that is not proper foundation for cost-benefit-analysis. According to generally accepted economics, a government project should simply be considered based on whether or not its benefits exceed its costs. ... which I find strange. When I studied economics, opportunity costs were seen as one way of figuring out the value of benefits. For example, when many recruits turned out to have poor health because they did not eat well -- as the US army discovered in World War II -- it became evident that as a military measure, the country should provide funds and suggestions for school lunch programs. The opportunity cost of not providing such funds was evident to the US army; the poor recruits did not turn into as good soldiers as others. By the way, the situation was more dramatic in the British Army of WWI; those recruits gained 20 or so pounds (~10 kg) eating British Army food! In the 1960s, South Vietnamese army recruits weighed about the same initially, roughly 98 pounds (~45 kg) and gained about as much on their army food. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
Regarding opportunity costs, nowadays, the question in the US should not be whether school lunches use enable the US government to help the military, or subsidize small farmers, or subsidize large agribusinesses. It should be whether that same money would be better spent by hiring the farmers to become game keepers instead. Instead of farming, the land would be places where wild animals live. Aquafers need not be drained for irrigation west of the 100th meridian. Indeed, the game keepers, the one-time farmers, could organize hunting for some wild animals (hunting laws would have to be changed). Other animals could be protected ... as in `this year, we are not hunting any big elk, but only ill or elderly elk ... pretend you are a wolf ...' -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
At 08:41 PM 4/14/2005 -0400, you wrote: >Regarding opportunity costs, JDG said > >... Economic Theory suggests that that is not proper foundation >for cost-benefit-analysis. According to generally accepted >economics, a government project should simply be considered based >on whether or not its benefits exceed its costs. ... > >which I find strange. When I studied economics, opportunity costs >were seen as one way of figuring out the value of benefits. Think about it this way. A given project is calculated to cost $5 and provide $10 of benefits. Why wouldn't you engage in such a project? >For example, when many recruits turned out to have poor health because >they did not eat well -- as the US army discovered in World War II -- >it became evident that as a military measure, the country should >provide funds and suggestions for school lunch programs. This is not an opportunity cost.An opportunity cost is the value of the next-most-valuable expenditure for a limited resource.For example, the opportunity cost of me going to a dinner last night with a friend is the value of the enjoyment I would have received from going to a Nationals game. Your example is actually a reverse-measure of the benefits of a school lunch program. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
* Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Erik Reuter wrote: > >* Robert Seeberger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > >>There is a Just Lunch doctrine. > >>At least where I work there is. > >>Just lunch..no nooner..just lunch. > > > > > >Better to just skip just lunch and go straight to the chocolate cake and > >fudge brownies...get your just desserts! > > who will provide the name and location of the sub shop if it's requested Just the facts, ma'am. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
Erik Reuter wrote: * Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: * Robert Seeberger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: There is a Just Lunch doctrine. At least where I work there is. Just lunch..no nooner..just lunch. Better to just skip just lunch and go straight to the chocolate cake and fudge brownies...get your just desserts! who will provide the name and location of the sub shop if it's requested Just the facts, ma'am. Thunder Cloud Subs at IH-35 and Sam Bass Rd. in Round Rock. Northwest corner of the intersection. Thunder Cloud is in the strip at the south end of the complex. (If you park by the scrapbook shop, for example, you'll have a bit of a hike to get your subs and/or brownies.) 1110 N I H 35 # D, Round Rock, TX 78681 (512) 244-2468 http://tinyurl.com/csg9v for Yahoo map & driving directions. And if you're in the neighborhood and don't want a sub, you can go to a Mexican restaurant, a barbecue place or a Mr. Gatti's pizza place in the same shopping complex. (There's also a CVS if you just want to grab a cold bottled beverage, or if you need something for indigestion after eating at one of those places, plus a number of other businesses which I will not enumerate in this post.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
* Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Thunder Cloud Subs at IH-35 and Sam Bass Rd. in Round Rock. Northwest > corner of the intersection. Thunder Cloud is in the strip at the > south end of the complex. Ah, intelligence has provided us with the information we require. And this is the axis of evil that [gasp] RAN OUT OF BROWNIES? The horrors! They cannot be allowed to do that to their people, people have basic rights and needs! We must prepare the invasion...but wait, it may be difficult to mobilize hearts and minds with just humanitarian concernsmust justify invasion...aha, they have weapons of mass dest--er, biological weapons? Uhh, germ warfare, yeah, salmonella, that's the ticket! Send in the UN inspectors, er, I mean send in the health department inspectors! If the inspectors aren't shown the salmonella post-haste, we invade! Justice will be served! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 7:46 PM Subject: Re: Opportunity costs of war we invade! Justice will be served! With a side order of freedom fries. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
Erik Reuter wrote: * Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Thunder Cloud Subs at IH-35 and Sam Bass Rd. in Round Rock. Northwest corner of the intersection. Thunder Cloud is in the strip at the south end of the complex. Ah, intelligence has provided us with the information we require. And this is the axis of evil that [gasp] RAN OUT OF BROWNIES? The horrors! They cannot be allowed to do that to their people, people have basic rights and needs! We must prepare the invasion...but wait, it may be difficult to mobilize hearts and minds with just humanitarian concernsmust justify invasion...aha, they have weapons of mass dest--er, biological weapons? Uhh, germ warfare, yeah, salmonella, that's the ticket! Send in the UN inspectors, er, I mean send in the health department inspectors! If the inspectors aren't shown the salmonella post-haste, we invade! Justice will be served! I was willing to cut them some slack because one of the employees was still in the hospital after an auto accident. :) I'm hoping they have plenty of brownies next time. (And maybe when this promotional thing they're doing this month is over, there won't be such a rush on subs OR brownies right after 1PM.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 7:46 PM Subject: Re: Opportunity costs of war we invade! Justice will be served! With a side order of freedom fries. No fries. They sell an assortment of chips, though. Hm. "Chips" is the British word for "fries". Is there some conspiracy here in which Great Britain is a party? Julia they have potato salad, as well, but I haven't sampled it ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
At 08:20 PM Friday 4/15/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 7:46 PM Subject: Re: Opportunity costs of war we invade! Justice will be served! With a side order of freedom fries. No fries. They sell an assortment of chips, though. So do most electronic hobby stores, but I wouldn't want to eat there . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 08:20 PM Friday 4/15/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 7:46 PM Subject: Re: Opportunity costs of war we invade! Justice will be served! With a side order of freedom fries. No fries. They sell an assortment of chips, though. So do most electronic hobby stores, but I wouldn't want to eat there . . . There's some sort of witty retort involving Fry's Electronics, but I can't come up with it right now. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
At 11:38 PM Friday 4/15/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 08:20 PM Friday 4/15/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 7:46 PM Subject: Re: Opportunity costs of war we invade! Justice will be served! With a side order of freedom fries. No fries. They sell an assortment of chips, though. So do most electronic hobby stores, but I wouldn't want to eat there . . . There's some sort of witty retort involving Fry's Electronics, but I can't come up with it right now. Yeah. We don't have those locally, or like you I might still be trying to find that retort . . . Glass Retorts I Have Out In The Shed With My Other Chem Lab Stuff Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
At 07:08 PM Thursday 4/14/2005, John DeBudge wrote: On 4/14/05, Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Someone else has read "The Mythical Man-Month," I see . . . > I really wish the only experience I had in that subject was from a book. So do we all . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
On 15 Apr 2005, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote An opportunity cost is the value of the next-most-valuable expenditure for a limited resource. That is not what it was 40 years ago. At that time the definition that I learned was that an opportunity cost is the value of what you give up The `next-most-valuable expenditure' was `what you consider the second most valuable expenditure'. Thus, in the US, an opportunity cost for agricultural subsidies is funding for a different way to handle currently farmed land: In a science fiction nove, Alexander Jablokow talked of one opportunity this way: ... They wore the uniforms of Huntmasters, recognizable anywhere ... As they grew older and more experienced, they could become Wardens and develop a complete and intimate knowledge of the wildlife of several hundred square miles of forest, guiding hunting parties and making sure only animals slated for cull were hunted. Such men often lived in the forest and grew to look like earth gods, bearded and venerable. [These] two Huntmasters, however, were young men and, being Lunar dwellers, could only become Wardens of one of the underground Environments ... p. 166 `Carve the Sky' by Alexander Jablokow 1991, Willian Morrow and Co. ISBN 0-688-10324-3 In US politics, a `next-most-valuable expenditure' might be to reduce (urban) technological research to increase (rural) agricultural supports. The forgone technological research would be such an action's `opportunity cost'. (If foreigners undertook the research, the species might not forgo it; but America would.) In this example, the additional (rural) support for an administration in power, and diminished opportunities for its (urban) opposition would define the value of the expenditure for the administration. (For others, the `next-most-valuable expenditure' might be to abandon people and companies that depend on rual subsidies and favor urban research.) In this set of definitions, the concept of `opportunity cost' does not include the notion of preference. You may not like the alternative opportunity. On the other hand, the concept of `what you consider the second most valuable expenditure' does include the notions of preference; and that you made the preference second in an ordinal sequence. Perhaps definitions have changed since I learned the concepts two generations ago. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
On 15 Apr 2005, JDG wrote A given project is calculated to cost $5 and provide $10 of benefits. Why wouldn't you engage in such a project? Consider abortion. Many argue that over a sufficiently long time period, the world population would be better off lowered -- if only to reduce environmental impacts and to enable those humans who are left to use currently available and not-to-expensive energy sources, rather than fossil fuel sources or sources that require technological advances, such as hydrogen-boron fusion. Since some people, such as those who have sworn to abstain from sex before marriage, nontheless engage in sex before marriage and do so with fewer preventions than others, some kind of post-sex population control is economically valuable. (For the sex, I am remembering reports of some recent research that looks truthful to me based on my knowledge of humans. Over multi-generational time periods, you can slow rates of population growth by delaying marriage, using infanticide, and the like (more modern techniques are often nicer). (But only when a society stops thinking of its biological future, or when it is wiped out by illness or war, does its population growth halt entirely. Thus, to halt population growth, as will happen in any finite universe, if you do not want the halt controlled by war, famine, pestilence, or despair, some kind of post-sex population control is economically valuable.) But if you believe that abortion is intrinsically evil, then even though it provides an economic benefit, it should not be permitted. That is to say, with such a belief, the categorical concept of `intrinsic evil' trumps the ratio-based concept of a cost-benefit. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 07:08 PM Thursday 4/14/2005, John DeBudge wrote: On 4/14/05, Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Someone else has read "The Mythical Man-Month," I see . . . > I really wish the only experience I had in that subject was from a book. So do we all . . . Oh, I don't know about that. If the only experience is from that book plus Dilbert cartoons, it's not so bad. :D Of course, living with someone who's had RL experience with it gives you a different perspective than those (especially when it's happening), and I'm sure actually living it is even worse. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
Erik Reuter wrote: >>> >>> we invade! Justice will be served! >>> With a side order of freedom fries. >> >> Dan Minette wrote: >> >> No fries. They sell an assortment of >> chips, though. Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > > So do most electronic hobby stores, > but I wouldn't want to eat there > . . . Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There's some sort of witty retort > involving Fry's Electronics, but I > can't come up with it right now. Fry's *does* have a cafeteria, though I've never eaten there, as well as a cattle-chute aisle stocked with all kinds of munchies leading up to the cash registers. Given my luck with the computer chips I've bought at Fry's, I'd rather get the edible ones. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
At 05:40 PM Sunday 4/17/2005, Matt Grimaldi wrote: [...] Given my luck with the computer chips I've bought at Fry's, I'd rather get the edible ones. Just because it says "Fry" on the package doesn't mean that you are supposed to hook them up directly to the 440VAC line and actually _fry_ them . . . Have We Milked This Gag Enough? Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
Matt Grimaldi wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: we invade! Justice will be served! With a side order of freedom fries. Dan Minette wrote: No fries. They sell an assortment of chips, though. Ronn!Blankenship wrote: So do most electronic hobby stores, but I wouldn't want to eat there . . . Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There's some sort of witty retort involving Fry's Electronics, but I can't come up with it right now. Fry's *does* have a cafeteria, though I've never eaten there, as well as a cattle-chute aisle stocked with all kinds of munchies leading up to the cash registers. Given my luck with the computer chips I've bought at Fry's, I'd rather get the edible ones. I have drooled over the munchies. I have bought some of the munchies. If I'd bought it by the box, I could say I'd gotten a case of the munchies. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
On Apr 14, 2005, at 5:56 PM, Robert J. Chassell wrote: Regarding opportunity costs, nowadays, the question in the US should not be whether school lunches use enable the US government to help the military, or subsidize small farmers, or subsidize large agribusinesses. It should be whether that same money would be better spent by hiring the farmers to become game keepers instead. Instead of farming, the land would be places where wild animals live. Aquafers need not be drained for irrigation west of the 100th meridian. Part of the problems with aquifers way west is the damming of rivers. The Colorado delta used to flow. Now the river disappears well before it hits the sea. The regular flooding that *used to* happen refilled aquifers and let small pockets of greenery dot the American southwest. Now those areas are running dry. Ideally we'd see a return to more soil-friendly methods. Some farmers are using these now, letting acreage lie fallow and planting ground cover to keep soil erosion under control. ADM and other massive corporations are looking at GMOs, but there's an entire subculture of hysterical overreaction to them, one that will have to go away before we can really deal with worldwide food problems. As for game preserves -- you can feed more people with a pound of grain than a pound of meat, and meat preparation (not just feeding; slaughter and cleanup) uses more water than is employed in an entire growing season. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Intrinsic Evil Re: Opportunity costs of war
At 03:08 PM 4/14/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: >I fail to see why there would need to be a "just war" doctrine if war >was not intrinsically evil. I mean, there's no "just lunch" doctrine >justifying the consumption of a mid-day meal, nor is there such a >doctrine for any of a nearly infinite number of not-intrinsically-evil >human endeavors. It is because war is intrinsically evil that it needs a >special-case doctrine. I think that you are misunderstanding what it means for an action to be intrinsically evil. In Catholic teaching, an intrinsically evil action can *never* be justified. It is not permissible to do evil in the name of good. To use the example from the Catholic Catechism, it is not permissable to condemn an innocent man in order to save the nation. So, why need a "just war" doctrine? Well, because in Catholic theology the morality of an action is based upon three characteristics: 1) The inherent nature of the act 2) The intent of the act 3) The totality of circumstances surround the act Thus, even if a given act is not intrinsically evil, it is only morally justified if the intent and totality of circumstances are good as well. At 07:05 AM 4/14/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: >It seems to me that even when >talking about a just war, most every theologian acknowledges that war is >failure, that it arises not out of goodness, but out of evil -- that war is an >evil to be resisted whenever possible. While war may arise out of the fallen state of man, the existance of a "just war" would not be possible if war were "evil." What is "just" may not be "evil." Thus, mainstream Catholic theologians would disagree with the above. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Intrinsic Evil Re: Opportunity costs of war
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:37:35 -0400, JDG wrote > Thus, even if a given act is not intrinsically evil, it is only morally > justified if the intent and totality of circumstances are good as > well. I think I understand the position now. It is acting with good intentions, doing things that have foreseeable but unavoidable evil side effects, and with good effects that outweigh the evil side effects. I also see that war seems inevitable in this world and we cannot simply refuse to fight. At the same time, the majority of those who apply the logic above to *this* war, including the vast majority of religious leaders, have rejected the argument that it is just. To return to the distinction we were making, it seems that "just war" doctrine is not needed because all aspects of war are wrong, but because some are. And I have to say that the spirit of self-sacrifice and friendship that took Wes to Iraq are among the finest of human behavior. In this world, it seems that great sadness and joy are deeply enmeshed. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
