Are We OverReacting to Terrorism
Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:15:42 +0000
Regular thorn-in-our-side Invalid10 makes a good point in the comments: "You have a higher chance of being killed by your toaster than a terrorist." I'm sympathetic to this argument, as you can see from my rant about the Swine Flu. So why, in real life, are we willing to lose more lives fighting the terrorists than were lost in the terrorist attacks themselves? In a similar vein, why do other countries fight costly wars over meaningless little strips of land? Well, it's for the same reason that a Mafioso will hunt you to the ends of the earth if you steal from him and run. The amount of money involved may be small, but the message it sends is critical: Violations will not be tolerated. It's also the reason the IRS tries to recover a few hundred dollars at a time from individual taxpayers. Some of these "overreactions" are entirely rational, like the terrorism, Mafia, and IRS examples above. Some are laughably irrational - like companies trying to save money by buying fewer staplers. In some cases, the lack of even symbolic action encourages violations - like the routine influx of illegal immigrants. I support hunting terrorists to the ends of the earth because it sends an important message. Yes, losing brave lives in that cause is a rational decision. I support greater immigration enforcement, not because it will catch even the majority of illegal immigrants, but because it will send the right message to anyone who's thinking of making a long, expensive, and illegal journey in search of an American job. I don't support most silly corporate "cost cutting" measures. They send the right message, but at far too high a cost in lost morale and product quality. I don't support the Swine Flu vaccination craze because it's likely to kill more people than it saves. All clear now? Great!
Item Category: Uncategorized
Item comments: http://polipundit.com/?p=22373#comments | 
