The Threat Spectrum & Corresponding Solutions / I'm Pro-Assassination

Not sure how original the following is, considering how blatantly obvious it is, but here goes... Preface:  I see this as the safety/security corollary to "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs". Here I describe how human interactions evolve along a spectrum especially in response to threats. Consider this "Threat Spectrum & Corresponding Solutions": 1) "Every Man for Himself" - This is the smallest & most basic end of the spectrum, absent systems of laws & enforcement. In such a situation the strongest/most violent man is in charge. All but one person is in grave danger (and even the strongest can get "unlucky" and die anyway). EXISTENTIAL THREAT HORIZON: Imminent / Ultra Short-Term / 1 minute to 1 day IDENTIFIED DANGERS: Violent Individuals (especially the strongest) NEEDS MET BY: "resource cannibalization" (stealing from others) EXAMPLES: Prisons of strangers, most riots, first stage of "stranded on a deserted island" SOLUTIONS: Advance on "the spectrum" or "Be Stronger & Kill" or flee  2) "Gang Rule" - As soon as two or more people think to unify to defend against the strongest/most violent man you get the beginning of civilization. The two people have to reach some sort of consensus (even if it's only to kill their common enemy).  In this situation there doesn't necessarily have to be any sort of justice. The strongest man could conceivably be a "benevolent king" and the two people who sought to kill him could themselves be merciless criminals.  As soon as this sort of "teaming-up" happens the strongest/most violent man must realize that he needs to get people on his team. Some sort of system of resource distribution is thus enacted. One person doesn't get "everything".  Trust becomes crucially valuable because if you can't trust someone then it probably isn't worthwhile to team-up with him. Others' perception of credibility (reputation) becomes important. A "code" is created but it need not be regimented (otherwise it could be called a "system of laws"). Consequently, even the strongest/most violent individual has to "internalize restraint" and not do what his every whim demands. He must see the danger in attacking the member of a rival gang. Though he may still do it the prevalence is drastically reduced due to the consequences. EXISTENTIAL THREAT HORIZON: Less Imminent / Short-Term / 1 day to 1 week IDENTIFIED DANGERS: Violent Groups / Rival Gangs NEEDS MET BY: "resource cannibalization" (stealing from others) EXAMPLES: Ghengis Kahn, The Mafia, Modern American Prisons, Somalia, and the immediate aftermath of most wars/catastrophes SOLUTION: Advance on the spectrum or "join a gang & kill rivals" or flee 3) "Despotism" - Once one gang has established supremacy in a region then that gangleader is, for all intents and purposes, a despot/tyrant. The immediate security/safety of that ruler is more stable and thus his needs move along Maslow's hierarchy. His gang is now called an army. While he still fears losing control (from revolution/coup or rival armies) he must now also worry about generating resources. He can't simply rely on cannibalization of resources (theft) and survive for long because eventually the region will be depleted. In order to incentivize "the people" to generate resources there must be a "system of laws & enforcement". The attendant reduction in crime enables a "Division of Labor" which creates efficiencies/productivity (growing the pie). EXISTENTIAL THREAT HORIZON: Not Imminent / Medium-Term / 1 week to 1 Year IDENTIFIED DANGERS:  Revolution, Chaos (receding on spectrum), War NEEDS MET BY: "resource cannibalization", some local productivity  EXAMPLES: Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Adolf Hitler, Henry VIII, King Solomon, Baby Doc Duvalier SOLUTION: Advance on the spectrum or assassinate/coup/revolution or flee/emigrate 4) "National Competition" - Once the rival countries reach a reasonable degree of "non-war" (in the form of a "Cold War" or even "Detente") they are de-facto competing against each other in a "survival of the fittest". The countries that evolve & advance necessarily thrive whereas the least productive countries struggle. Previously decimated countries (e.g. Japan after World War II or South Korea after the Korean War) can advance into global economic powers if they are productive enough. Just as with biological evolution the biggest/strongest don't always survive the longest because other skills/traits become more useful. And just like individuals unifying to create gangs against the strongest/most violent person there are countries that create alliances/trade partnerships for varying degrees of mutual benefit. During a Cold War most countries that trade are compelled to take sides on those bilateral lines. Few major players are allowed to be completely neutral. The result is that this competition becomes a referendum on/judgement of the assorted systems of government/economics. The countries that are least productive and/or have the least happy people are deemed to be the "losers" and their constituents seek alternatives/different plans. Whereas the countries that prosper across worthy metrics are envied and thus emulated by other countries. The most effective/desirable policies proliferate and the others whither away. EXISTENTIAL THREAT HORIZON: Long-Term / 1 Year to 1 Decade IDENTIFIED DANGERS: Economic Depression, International War, Chaos (receding on spectrum) NEEDS MET BY: local productivity, some international trade/productivity EXAMPLES: Western Civilization vs. Everybody Else - The Fall of the Soviet Union, Modern China increasingly adopts most of capitalism, Most wealthy nations progressively provide some "social safety net" (unemployment insurance, food stamps etc.), America finally joins Europe in providing citizens with some sort of "universal healthcare", The 2011 "Arab Spring" SOLUTIONS: Advance on the spectrum, change your country's policies, emigrate 5) "International Cooperation" - Once the rival countries understand the inherent benefits to cooperation/trade they see the value in disarmament/peace. The mere existence of standing armies makes them more likely to be used in inappropriate circumstances.  You've heard the criticism that: "Generals Always Fight the Last War" The tragic modern example is America's fiasco in Iraq. Invading & occupying a country is terribly expensive (in blood & treasure) and, more importantly, it's regularly ineffective and often counter-productive to your aims. War begets war. Increasing one's military substantially beyond what is necessary is necessarily dangerous to oneself. I think it's pretty clear that America's military is vastly too big (perhaps by an order of magnitude). Read this controversial article (about the Pentagon seeing the need to cut its own budget) in Foreign Policy magazine: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/13/the_y_article Worldwide peace takes hold (relatively speaking by historical standards). And the evolution of effective policies proceeds. Due to the lack of an existential threat, what often (erroneously) becomes the number one issue is terrorism. (Note - See my previous blog post about the fact that there is no existential threat to America , written in January 2008: http://corpania.blogspot.com/2008/01/there-is-no-existential-threat-to.html )  I think Terrorism is mostly caused by "Crab Mentality" (summed as "if I can't have it nor should you"). My proof of this is that Bin Laden often spoke of 9/11's economic damage to America.  Evolutionarily, it makes sense to have a crab mentality if you're that much worse off than others. If the game is not giving you a good outcome then you can choose to not play the game (which is not necessarily smart or stupid or good or bad).  The people who benefit the most when the rules of the game are followed have to incentivize the other people to follow those rules. That can be done by punishing rule-breakers or encouraging rule-abiders. The cost of those actions to incentivize are crucial in the policy calculus. If it's more expensive to punish (e.g. cops & prisons) than to reward (e.g. public education) then the ROI comparison should make the decision easy.  (NOTE - If you have a problem with fairness and disregard the practicality then I suggest you read my previous blog post about "Principle vs. Proof vs. Practicality" http://corpania.blogspot.com/2011/04/whats-right-whats-productive-what-you.html ) The crab mentality (e.g. terrorism) simply makes it more expensive to not-reward. It's a bit similar to a cliched union employee (knowing he can't get paid more or less for his time) deciding to work less during the hour (thus psychologically giving himself a raise on a per-unit of productivity scale). In order for your policy calculus to work, you may decide to counter the crab mentality with an even greater punishment in an attempt to discourage that negative behavior. But there's a threshold where it not only won't help but it could actually exacerbate the situation for you (e.g. Alcohol Prohibition, Anti-drug laws, Anti-Porn correlates to increased sex crimes, Right wing Israeli administrations bulldozing Palestinian homes leads to Hamas winning elections, Blackwater's killing of unarmed civilians increases IEDs, Gitmo torture aids recruiting of terrorists etc.). OR... The increased costs could change your policy calculus leading you to modify your rules so as to better reward those with with the crab mentality (thus reducing their number or degree of disatisfaction which will result in less negative costs for you). Balance and efficacy are crucial. There are often "unintended consequences" and perverse incentives lead to undesirable outcomes (e.g. previous incarnations of welfare that especially led to vicious cycles). However, the net result is the need to encourage the greatest number of people to be the most productive (not necessarily work the longest) so that there is more "pie" to distribute. EXISTENTIAL THREAT HORIZON: Virtually None / 1 Decade to 1 Century IDENTIFIED DANGERS: Terrorism, Chaos (receding on spectrum), ??? NEEDS MET BY:  international productivity & trade for great mutual benefit EXAMPLES: 21st Century Western Europe, Japan, USA etc. SOLUTION: Some minimum threshold of prosperity/happiness for everyone and reasonably varying levels of success above that so as to encourage maximum productivity/happiness for the most people. CONCLUSION When you identify threats it is therefore useful to also view them along this spectrum. Terrorists are often at the "gang" stage. So you can deal with them with that stage's solutions. Tyrants are at the "despot" stage. But since both gangs & despots are often led by single rulers, "targeted assassination" becomes a vastly preferred strategy (over the woefully ineffective GWBush strategy of "invasion & occupation").  Compare killing Bin Laden in Pakistan to trying to create order/justice in Afghanistan. This is largely a cost/benefit issue. Assassinating evil rulers is way cheaper & easier (not to mention more just - Why punish the people for the actions of their unelected leaders?). I also think assassination discourages enemies' lines of succession & recruiting ("that leader is clearly not invincible so why join a losing team?"). Whereas invasion & occupation clearly embolden the enemy and encourage enemy recruitment. Also, consider how the new targets in Al Qaeda feel now. They know we want to kill them and have the means to do it. How much can they fortify their location to feel safe? The answer is - They Cant. No amount of money can buy the protection they would need to actually be safe. That feeling of insecurity can't disappear by spending money. However, by changing policy/behavior many of our enemies can get off our "people to kill" list. Their violent leaders gotta die, regardless (q.v. assassination). But the overwhelming majority of their supporters can change their minds and stop fighting which will save them from our list. Look at our new "allies" in the Afghanistan government who used to be (or still are) in the Taliban. Announcing the cessation of hostilities can save their lives. Now flip it around. Do you feel unsafe because of terrorists? Do you think there is an amount you can spend to alleviate that feeling and thus feel safe? What if that amount (in blood & treasure) was actually 10 times your estimate? 100 times? There must be a price that makes it not worth it. Some level of feeling of insecurity may be practically necessary. For example: the population of Israel is 7.4 million people. If terrorists kill 10,000 Israelis a year in the current path but a full-scale, all-out war would kill 1,000,000 Israelis then it's clear that full-scale, all-out war should be avoided. But here's the actual news: terrorists have killed, on average, around 100 Israelis per year since September 2000 (for perspective over six times as many Palestinians have been killed per year and the US Murder Rate is 4x higher than that per-capita. Let me explain it another way: The average American is 4 times more likely to be murdered in America than the average Israeli is likely do die from terrorism). I am certainly not saying the Palestinians are universally good & just and that the Israelis are universally bad. Nearly the opposite. Israel is judged by modern Western standards and the Palestinians are compared to undereducated people in quasi-medieval Arab monarchies. It's unfair. But that's not the real point I'm making. I'm arguing for more practical cost/benefit, risk/reward, ROI-based decision-making. *************************************** SIDE NOTE - Of course there is some overlap of stages in every region. But as you advance along the spectrum the distinctions become more prominent.  *************************************** (FINAL NOTE - I still intend to write a future blog post about how the wealthy should all become "limousine liberals" for their own self-interest.)