So, given the right culture and flows of information, the mechanisms of regulatory capture can also do the right things?
EDIT: Nice, HN. Someone asks an interesting question, so it's immediately read as a position then downvoted. How about taking this at face value as a question?
Honestly, I would rather have that than have the federal government do it with a giant NSA-for-banks program. But my inner libertarian finds this arrangement suboptimal. And the government is probably watching it anyway. They certainly have an enormous amount of subpoena power, to the extent that big finance companies have IT systems just for satisfying subpoenas and ever-increasing regulatory data requirements.
Edit: the answer to your question, supposing it's not rhetorical, is "yes". Elites and their subordinates have the same ethical incentives as everyone else, but are closer to the political source. This can be good or bad. I think a lot of history happens because of elites realigning their moral goals in response to incentives.
This is a root cause analysis.
The "war on terror" is also an improper "war" that has no victory/termination condition, ever.
So neither of those points are valid objections to my argument.
The alternative to the "war on terror," which also allows America to be safe, is to draw a bright red line: Any government that harbors terrorists will be deposed via a very swift war using the full brunt of the American military. (We would probably only have to wage such a war once; repeated examples would be unnecessary, presuming we don't elect weak presidents.)
I think that if a country harbors terrorists, the US should depose the government, and withdraw. The US should threated to come back and do it again, repeating as necessary, until the government stops harboring terrorists.
In fact, that it the only way to stop terrorism. And it would be incredibly effective, since the US would only have to do it once or twice in the whole world (or maybe even 0 times), to prove that they will do it.
I don't believe in the use of initiated force. But a government that harbors terrorists is initiating force against the US, and it's morally proper for the US to use retaliatory force to resolve the problem.
Force will be met with force. Don't use force, and you won't be subject to it.
In the 1 case in the world of a failed state---Somalia---I think a reasonable strategy would be to pick a winner and provide them with funding and weapons to establish a government over the territory.
You seem to be under some sort of delusion that most terrorist groups would see the toppling of the government of the country they are operating out of as a bad thing.
If that someone is more terrorists, rinse and repeat.
There is not an infinite supply of terrorists. And if more terrorists fill the power vacuum, you're likely to eventually get a groups that decides they'd rather keep being in power than be aggressively wiped out.
Moreover, this greatly incentivizes all non-terrorists to cooperate and work together to form a government that will not be subject to US attack and will not cause their country to stay in a permanent state of war.
I think these incentives are so strong, that only 1 country would ever need to be made an example of.
If it weren't for Obama destroying American credibility to act on its threats, it would likely take 0 actual examples. But since nobody believes America will enact its own foreign policy anymore, it would now probably take 1 example.
There are only two ways to deal with force: cower in fear forever, which is what the US is doing now, to the massive detriment of its citizens' safety (mainly due to overgrowth of government such as the NSA), or just eliminate the threat.
And there is nothing morally wrong with responding with force to someone who threatens you with force.
Foruntately, the US military is so overwhelmingly dominant that pretty much any "terrorist threat" is like a fly to a giant. Even eliminating Saddam, a professional warload with a whole country at his disposal, was a sure thing---it was just a question of how few lives the US could lose.
Unfortunately, the US leadership will not adopt this doctrine in the short term, and probably never. The current Republicans and Democrats are totally opposed to using the kind of rational, moral clarity that is necessary. They would prefer to waffle and "negotiate." It would take a sea-change in the structure of the Republican party for America to ever adopt this doctrine, and is even less likely for the Democrats.
Colour me impressed. I'm comforted to learn that the US and its various allied countries did not go to Iraq and Afghanistan to "win it", and did not prosecute a "proper war" in Iraq. Presumably, Saddam's military will emerge any time now. I look forward to the US invading various parts of South America, and escalating to the "proper" level of violence in Afghanistan.
Those wars were massive self-sacrifices for America, just like Vietnam. For instance, Saddam was defeated very easily, in the very beginning.
> I look forward to the US invading various parts of South America
That's not an argument against what I said. We have no reason to attack South America.
Self-sacrifice? These wars were strategic failures, in spite of the US' best efforts, simply because you can't defeat guerillas the same way you defeat regular armies. You sound like you haven't been paying attention to what has been going on since, well, WWII. How many asymmetrical conflicts have been won by large modern armies since? The various decolonization wars, Vietnam, Afghanistan (you can't really accuse Russia of playing soft, there) ended up the same way. The UK were successful in Malaya, and the French had effectively destroyed the operational capabilities of the FLN by the end of the war in Algeria, but even this was not enough to ensure victory. Hell, even in Northern Ireland, it took decades to turn the IRA away from terrorism (and that after it managed to kick the UK out of the rest of Ireland).
Asymmetrical warfare is hard. Moreover, suggesting that a "proper war" should be prosecuted, presumably with heightened levels of violence, after hundreds of thousands of people died or were maimed for life is insulting.
> That's not an argument against what I said. We have no reason to attack South America.
Your argument was that in order to defend "freedom" (because, really, these money-laundering rules are just too repressive), the US should attack the issue at the root. Guess what? Most of the money being laundered is drug money. It's an absolutely astounding amount of cash. Most of the world's cocaine comes from Colombia and Bolivia, while the opiates come from Afghanistan.
These wars were self-sacrificial because they had no valuable objective for the American people (i.e., to secure their safety). Trying to "democratize" them is a futile act, and is not worth spending trillions of dollars on, and killing thousands of American soldiers.
> Your argument was that in order to defend "freedom" (because, really, these money-laundering rules are just too repressive), the US should attack the issue at the root. Guess what? Most of the money being laundered is drug money. It's an absolutely astounding amount of cash. Most of the world's cocaine comes from Colombia and Bolivia, while the opiates come from Afghanistan.
Right, and the "war on drugs" is also self-sacrificial, because, again, it has no value for the American people. Again, it is a war that can't be won, that simply calls for sacrificing unlimited amounts of money and some lives, and turns northern Mexico into a war zone as part of a perverse side-effect.
So I'm saying: Let these countries produce as much coke and opium as they want; we will be happy to import them freely.